From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #401 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, October 19 2001 Volume 10 : Number 401 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Hey, what about a David Lynching [steve ] Re: Stirring the pot... [gSs ] Re: Setlist Help [Christopher Gross ] Re: Sam & Frodo [Michael R Godwin ] Bad idea ["Redtailed Hawk" ] Re: Setlist Help ["Mike Wells" ] Re: Setlist Help [Christopher Gross ] Re: Ring [JH3 ] David Gilmour recording with RH? [Alisa Lowden ] Re: Illinois Banter ["Mike Wells" ] Re: Ring ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: Uh.....Oops! I pulled a Hal! [gSs ] Re: Uh.....Oops! I pulled a Hal! [Christopher Gross ] Re:the ghost in you ["ross taylor" ] acting/art ["Walker, Charles" ] Re: Ring [Michael R Godwin ] The Owsley Plan [Tom Clark ] pantywaist nerds ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: Hey, what about a David Lynching [Capuchin ] Overlooked fact ["Redtailed Hawk" ] Re: Overlooked fact ["Mike Wells" ] Re: Stirring the pot... [Capuchin ] Re: Overlooked fact [Christopher Gross ] Re: pantywaist nerds [Viv Lyon ] Re: Overlooked fact [Capuchin ] Re: Hey, what about a David Lynching [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:50:50 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Hey, what about a David Lynching On Friday, October 19, 2001, at 02:00 AM, bayard wrote: > As a side note - some are referring to LOtR as a 'trilogy' - strictly > speaking, it was intended as one book, it's only in three volumes so the > publisher could maximise their profit (please do correct me if i'm > wrong.) The first publication in the US was an unauthorized single volume edition by Ace Books. There has been a big single volume collector's edition for years, complete with fake gem in the spine. And a new single volume movie tie-in edition was just published a few months ago. It's not that much bigger than the latest huge novels like Cryptonomicon. On Friday, October 19, 2001, at 05:38 AM, Michael R Godwin wrote: > b) I have a recollection that Sir Stanley Unwin negotiated an unusual > contract under which JRRT got little in the way of an advance, but > started > to mop up royalties once costs had been covered. This contract was > negotiated because Unwin saw the project as high risk. The story is that it was no go until Unwin's young son insisted that children would like it. But maybe that's still not enough for a big advance. - - Steve __________ A U.S. anti-missile weapon was able to destroy a test warhead in space on July 14 partly because a beacon on the target signaled its location during much of the flight, defense officials said on Friday. - Reuters, 07/27/01 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:55:01 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: Stirring the pot... On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Capuchin wrote: > On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, gSs wrote: > > I wonder then if we regarded the hourly or salaried activists as hired > > soldiers, then wouldn't we then have to reclassify the crime and > > therefore the punishment? > > You seem to be under the impression that there are lots of these. And you are clearly countering that there is not. So is your claim that paid activists are very few in number or taht you just don't know very many? > Ah, but the USA Act (which is an afront to freedom and a shame to > humanity) says that "intimidation" is the real crime. So blocking a > doorway peacefully is terrorism. Ghandi was a terrorist organizer. There is nothing peaceful about refusing me or anyone else entrance to anything, and there is often nothing peaceful in regard to the reply. But that doesn't make the poof a terrorist, thou it could result in bruising. For every action there is an opposite but equal reaction, somewhere, sometime. Ok, so why don't we make a bet, say 20 bucks. I say that no peaceful protester or even a hooligan will be arrested, charged and convicted as a terrorist in this country based on any new law which resulted from recent events. If someone gets in my way in any regard in a purposeful attempt to impede my mobility, my way of life and general well being, I better be out-numbered. If I have a business or job and someone tries to block access directly and therefore disrupt or destroy my well being and therefore my family's, I better be out-numbered, at least for their sake. Standing around and chanting or just loitering and causing slow downs is one thing but blocking my way and refusing to move aside so I can pass is something completely different and should be dealt with accordingly. Should someone who blocks an entrance to an abortion clinic be arrested and charged as a terrorist? Absolutely not. But they should be arrested and charged with disorderly conduct or something similar. Should someone who shoots or bombs a clinic or it's employees be arrested and charged as a terrorist? Absolutely. But that isn't any different now than before. > > We have to be careful about labeling people or organizations as > > terrorists. Hooligans and terrorists are not the same. > A "terrorist", in the eyes of our government, is anyone who takes action > against what our government does or plans. The mask is coming off (and so > are the gloves). The government has enough power now AGAINST the people > that it can officially declare the people the enemy and move on with > whatever plan benefits the rich and powerful. Man, so you mean all the registered Dems and Reps. will be forced to continue voting straight party tickets. What is so weird about that? Don't worry dude. Just vote,,,, well don't just vote, but don't step in my toes. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:55:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Setlist Help On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Mike Wells wrote: > Re: Grant Lee Hitchcock 10-15-01, Iota Club in Arlington, VA... 10-15-00, surely? - --Chris, who was at the second night's show, and couldn't name any GLP songs anyway ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:00:32 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Sam & Frodo On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, The Great Quail wrote: > I certainly see what you are saying regarding Sam, but you are > dismissing Frodo all to easily. Frodo *is* a hero. Frodo makes the > decision to go, accepts the responsibility, and and provides a > grounding for Sam's good but befuddled nature. They are a pair, both > needing something from the other. Sam draws strength from Frodo, or > at least the image of Frodo in his mind. I mean, you really don't > think that Sam could have done it all by himself? He would probably > have gotten lost somewhere chasing elves. He needed Frodo as a mirror > for what he wanted to be, and perhaps was all along. Yes. Although JRRT specifically warns against allegorical readings, some points lend themselves to interpretation in terms of the first world war. JRRT was an officer who fought in the trenches and saw how courageous and tough the poor bloody infantry were, even when hope was gone. It is pretty clear that he also saw them as uneducated, not particularly bright and longing to go home to grow some veg. The officers were better informed about things like duty and sense of mission, but were simply _not as tough_ (physically and mentally) as the working class soldiers. I would see Sam and Frodo as epitomising these types. This then opens up a line of thought on whether the other characters can be interpreted as part of the world of 1910. Gandalf is obviously a widely read prof with a special interest in hobbit ethnography (=Beowulf, I think) who reluctantly takes up the leadership in war. Maybe Gandalf is the war leader that Tolkien would have liked to be if he hadn't been invalided out (I wonder if his conscience suggested to him that he was a coward?). Radagast lets the war go by and just continues with his avian studies. Saruman is a Hegelian / Nietzchean philosopher who worships power. Elrond is a slightly doddery old Prime Minister who is always harking back to the good old days. And so on. - - Mike Godwin PS The character who doesn't work for me is Aragorn: interesting that he started life as a hobbit with a wooden leg. I just don't believe the transition from the wild ranger to the kingly ruler. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:03:01 +0000 From: "Redtailed Hawk" Subject: Bad idea On the Frodo/Sam debacle. Like Quehote and Sancho or Tamio and Pappagano(in the Magic Flute, one of the few operas I actually know) its easy to see Frodo and Sam as two aspects of the same being. They need each other. Its hard to think of them as truely seperate(thou Frodo starts out with the illusion he can do without Sam. Silly ego.) Auden wrote an essay dealing with the first two examples as different views of the same person, seen as spirit or mind and as flesh, or as the "I" and as the "me" or how we percieve our subjective existance and how we perceive our objective existance. Auden really liked convoluted ideas like that;-). Works for me. But then Im usually pretty comfortable interpreting "non-realistic" lit as, among many, many other things, the playing out of inter-personal dynamics. (Auden/Tolkein trivia--which LOTRs character's name did Auden wear printed on a sweatshirt(given to him by Tolkein) for a photoshoot?) Anyway--isnt LOTR -really- just about poor Catholic Tolkein's attempts to stop wanking off;-). Kay, Mistress of really bad ideas _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:07:45 -0500 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: Re: Setlist Help > > Re: Grant Lee Hitchcock 10-15-01, Iota Club in Arlington, VA... > > 10-15-00, surely? Surely, you are correct. That's the second time I've misdated that show in public. Maybe it's a sign. > --Chris, > who was at the second night's show, and couldn't name any GLP songs anyway I must admit to being a lot more exposed to Grant Lee Buffalo material because of these shows - I absolutely love the pairing of these two, very complimentary in vocal style and musical sensibilities methinks. Try "Lone Star Song," "It's the Life," and "Honey Don't Think" really appeal to me on several levels. Take them out for a test drive! Michael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:16:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Setlist Help On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Mike Wells wrote: > I must admit to being a lot more exposed to Grant Lee Buffalo material > because of these shows - I absolutely love the pairing of these two, very > complimentary in vocal style and musical sensibilities methinks. Try "Lone > Star Song," "It's the Life," and "Honey Don't Think" really appeal to me on > several levels. Take them out for a test drive! Haven't heard any of his recordings, but I liked him at the show. The depressing thing about discussing the dates of the Grant Lee Hitchcock shows is realizing that I've been meaning to check out GLB for a full year now without getting around to it.... - --Chris np: Hanzel und Gretyl, "9D Galactic Center" ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:12:55 -0500 From: JH3 Subject: Re: Ring Jeff Dwarf writes: > ...dragons, space aliens, gnomes, whatever > -- neither's gonna show up in my living room without the > help of drugs. There are drugs that will help mythical creatures find your living room? (Forgive me if that one was too obvious...) And from el Bayardo: > I should have known when you emailed me that you > thought Middle Earth was a "shitty place" - it sounds just > like where you live (but without the mega-hog-farms.) > And you wouldn't choose to live in a shitty plave - > whould you? Sure I whould! If you'll recall, my actual words were "if I were living in a shithole like Middle Earth, I'd be pretty much dead-drunk, *all* the time." So that would actually be a pretty major upgrade from where I live now... And hey, don't knock mega-hog farms until you've tried 'em! Since I've had mine put in, I've managed to reduce in-law visits by over 60 percent! John "what would a mega-hobbit farm smell like?" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:33:40 -0700 From: Alisa Lowden Subject: David Gilmour recording with RH? A lurker comes out of the shadows to say... Hello. And also that the November issue of Mojo magazine features, in addition to a nifty 3D cover, an interview with David Gilmour in which he mentions he has been recording in the studio with Robyn. (I *think* this is what he says... haven't seen the magazine myself yet, but read an excerpt somewhere online. He definitely talks about playing with RH, and I can only imagine it's in the studio.) Anyone know anything about this? I may have missed a discussion of it on the list earlier...? - -A ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:41:33 -0500 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: Re: Illinois Banter > And hey, don't knock mega-hog farms until you've tried > 'em! Since I've had mine put in, I've managed to reduce > in-law visits by over 60 percent! One of the few advantages to living downstate. That and the hot chicks ("man, those Pekin girls SMOKE"). > John "what would a mega-hobbit farm smell like?" Hedges Like farmer Maggot's mushroom empire, I hope. If not, I'm pretty sure I don't want to know what you're thinking. Michael "rolling home (dead drunk) rolling home (dead drunk) by the light of the silvery moon..." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:41:13 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Ring At 10:12 AM 10/19/2001 -0500, JH3 wrote: >what would a mega-hobbit farm smell like? Just like feet. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:47:51 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: Uh.....Oops! I pulled a Hal! On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, The Great Quail wrote: > I swear to GOD that I did not "accidentally on purpose" post this to > the Fegs to start a discussion, or to slam Nader. I am quit > embarrassed.... Slamming Nader,,, on this list? We know you won't do that. Besides, he is the only thing that kept the Israeli sympathizer out of office. But wouldn't that have made things even more interesting then they are now? gSs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:47:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Uh.....Oops! I pulled a Hal! On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, gSs wrote: > Slamming Nader,,, on this list? We know you won't do that. > Besides, he is the only thing that kept the Israeli sympathizer out of > office. But wouldn't that have made things even more interesting then they > are now? Hey, you forgot to mention abortion, gun control, and MacOS vs. Windows! - --Chris (who NEVER argues on the feg list) ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:58:15 -0400 From: "ross taylor" Subject: Kinks, Hitchcock & Travis I like email because it isn't delivered to me by people wearing latex gloves. I mentioned here & elsewhere that I thought NPR's opening story on "the guy in FLA who contracted Anthrax" was overdone. Elswhere I've been eating my words many ways: words flambe', words tartar, words in creme sauce, words upsidedown cake, Pad Thai with words, sushi words roll. I just thought I'd say that here. Jill's trivia-- I like thinking I can triangulate from Kinks & Robyn, never having heard Travis: Marylin Monroe? Ross Taylor "she should have been made of iron or steel but she was only made of flesh and blood ... na na na na, na na na na na na na na na na" Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:10:31 -0400 From: "ross taylor" Subject: Re:the ghost in you > P. Furs/2 Live Crew -- The Ghost in You in the furs case, isn't that a bit too much of a love song? and please tell me the 2 live crew song just has the same name, that it's a completely different song (the banshees "ghost in you" is about tiananmen, so it's completely wrong). Sorry, I was just being silly about 2 Live Crew, I meant Robyn Hitchcock's acoustic version. But who says Halloween isn't about romance? Ross Taylor Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:50:01 -0700 From: "Walker, Charles" Subject: acting/art >I think I might be the only practising thespian on the list, so just a >quick word as to whether it's an art form or not... chas in LA replies: must apologize for my 'acting isn't art' comment awhile back. just out here in LA i get frustrated overhearing cats in bars and coffeeshops discussing the artistic imporatnce/relevence of their latest role in a Sprite commercial. and to think i drink the stuff at work, gee maybe they ARE important/effective..... http://www.theweeklywalker.com - don't forget to check out the archives!! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:23:03 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Ring On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, JH3 wrote: > There are drugs that will help mythical creatures find your > living room? [and] > Sure I whould! If you'll recall, my actual words were "if I > were living in a shithole like Middle Earth, I'd be pretty > much dead-drunk, *all* the time." Mythical creatures? Dead drunk? Yes, I even know which pub you'd be in: "There's only one dragon in Bywater, and that's green!" - - MRG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:37:33 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: The Owsley Plan Heard Johnny Depp interviewed on Howard Stern this morning. I loved Johnny's plan for dealing with the Taliban: Basically, we drop 300,000 gallons of liquid LSD on Afghanistan, thus "spinning them out" for about three weeks. Then, during the height of the country's collective trip, we send in Special Forces troops dressed as Teletubbies to just completely incapacitate their leadership. Brilliant! And what great television it would make... - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:59:05 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: pantywaist nerds >From: Eb > >And >speculative sci-fi-geek threads based on advance trailers make me crawl >under the table and convulse. Not that it really takes much! :) >I suppose I'll see those Lord of the Rings films someday, but I sure don't >"anticipate" them. The best you can expect from the films is that they'll >be a faithful (but inevitably, inferior) adaptation of the books. Big deal. >Not the most stirring ambitions for a film. Hmmm...I'm not sure I'd say that's the best I can expect. But then I can't say that I thought the books were the literary work of the millennium, either. Hugely influential, often enjoyable, elegant, meticulously thought-out, sure, but also dull in large portions and sometimes confusing. Or at least that's how I remember them; we'll see what happens if I can get past the Tom Bombadil bit. Oh, and the songs -- a boon to filk musicians everywhere, I guess, but just filler as far as I'm concerned. So my best hope for the films is that they cut out a lot of the crap, render the landscapes Tolkein had in his head in lovely living color, and dramatize a basically non-dramatic story. It can't be a straight adaptation of the book, and you wouldn't want it to be, but that doesn't make it inferior. My opinion on this matter is influenced by the film of Ghost World -- a totally different animal, of course, but a good example of a film that departed radically from the source material but retained its spirit and complemented the source instead of slavishly adapting it. Instead of one story for the price of two, you get two for two. >From: Jeff Dwarf > >at least one other. my taste in sci-fi is almost vulgarly shallow (star >wars, star trek, then can't be bothered; and can barely be bothered >with that). No wonder, if that's all you've bothered with! I still love the introduction Harlan Ellison wrote for that American run of ten Dr. Who novelizations, wherein he slams Star Wars and Star Trek mercilessly. I can't get the term "pantywaist nerds" out of my head. So what do you read, then? Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:19:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Hey, what about a David Lynching On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > Capuchin wrote: > > I really love the edition I own. It's seven volumes, each the size of a > > paperback but bound hardback with that laminated board cover and > > binding. > > did it come in the nice box that with a Cd that doesn't quite fit? I didn't get a CD! It did have box. I don't know if it's a "nice box". It's made of the same stuff as the bindings, it appears. Can you lift me a CD? I've still got your cue cat. :) > > I guess it's a good thing his name wasn't Featherstonehaugh. (After all, > > how would you know which order to place them in the decorative slip > > cover? Plus, that's an awful lot of reading.) > > That would be a suitable case for phonetic transcription, then. It'd fit > right nice. Well, it'd fit, but how would you know whether you were putting away book two or six? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:26:39 +0000 From: "Redtailed Hawk" Subject: Overlooked fact In answer to Jill's query of a celebrety mentioned by Robyn, the Kinks and Travis... maybe MM? Kay _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:35:35 -0500 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: Re: Overlooked fact > In answer to Jill's query of a celebrety mentioned by Robyn, the Kinks and > Travis... maybe MM? Margaret Mead? Michael "man, these Samoans are a surly bunch" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:42:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Stirring the pot... On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, gSs wrote: > So is your claim that paid activists are very few in number or taht > you just don't know very many? My claim is the second, but I also believe the first. > There is nothing peaceful about refusing me or anyone else entrance to > anything, and there is often nothing peaceful in regard to the reply. So blockading is not peaceful protest, in your eyes. The way the game has been set up, there's no way to send a message to either those in power or the general public without disruption. > But that doesn't make the poof a terrorist, thou it could result in > bruising. Well, if you're committing a crime in an attempt to intimidate or coerce a population (say, into not entering a building for a particular purpose), then you're a terrorist by the letter and spirit of the law. > Ok, so why don't we make a bet, say 20 bucks. I say that no peaceful > protester or even a hooligan will be arrested, charged and convicted > as a terrorist in this country based on any new law which resulted > from recent events. Hell, let's make it a hundred dollars. See, the way the bet is laid out, I pay when time ends and nobody's been convicted and you pay as soon as someone's convicted. Anyway, I don't think it's going to be used to CONVICT protestors. They're just going to use it as another charge (like conspiracy, etc.) to increase the bail on protestors wrongfully arrested and keep them off the streets a few hours or days longer. Surely, the cases will be thrown out by a judge nearly all the time. But the purpose has already been served. It's like when Ashcroft said the other day that the FBI is going to do MORE to gather evidence that "might prevent further terrorism", even though they know it won't be admissable in court and a conviction cannot be made. Basically, he said that it's cool to stomp on civil liberties if you might prevent a terrorist attack. This was in a statement about how the FBI isn't going to seek new powers or exemptions from Constitutional restrictions. No, they're just going to violate your rights and never actually try and convict you of a crime. Throw 'em in jail now, figure out if you've got a case against them later. This is just the most egregious exploit to date of a flawed system wherein a person is arrested held before arraignment. > If someone gets in my way in any regard in a purposeful attempt to > impede my mobility, my way of life and general well being, I better be > out-numbered. Usually that's how the intimidation factor of a sit-in works: large numbers. > Should someone who blocks an entrance to an abortion clinic be > arrested and charged as a terrorist? Absolutely not. But they should > be arrested and charged with disorderly conduct or something similar. And yet, criminal act plus intimidation of a population equals terrorism, according to the USA Act. I'm saying it's a BAD LAW because it's overbroad and vague. > Should someone who shoots or bombs a clinic or it's employees be > arrested and charged as a terrorist? Absolutely. But that isn't any > different now than before. Except that now we have a law that considers all criminal acts that could be construed as intimidating or coercing the same as throwing bombs. And I disagree that throwing bombs at an abortion clinic is a terrorist act. It depends on who does it. If the bombing of an abortion clinic is done by people trying to stop the WTO, then it's a terrorist act. If the bombing of an abortion clinic is done by Operation Rescue, it's simply an attack on the enemy of an army. In exactly this way, the supposed attacks on logging outposts and ski resorts by the so-called Earth Liberation Front are not terrorist attacks. That is to say, if you're not interested in those issues, you have no reason to fear those groups, therefore they're not terrorists. Terrorism involves striking fear into the hearts of the GENERAL PUBLIC, usually in an attempt to coerce toward a particular choice or action. Terrorists strike out at targets not directly related to their cause. That is the chief signifier of terrorism. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:41:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Overlooked fact On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Mike Wells wrote: > > In answer to Jill's query of a celebrety mentioned by Robyn, the Kinks and > > Travis... maybe MM? > > Margaret Mead? Michael Moorcock! - --Chris np: Covenant, "Dead Stars" ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:47:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: pantywaist nerds On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > >From: Eb > >And > >speculative sci-fi-geek threads based on advance trailers make me crawl > >under the table and convulse. > > Not that it really takes much! :) Yeah, throw in a couple mentions of corporate hegemony a reference to big boobs, and he might swallow his tongue. re: LOTR > Oh, and the songs -- a boon to filk musicians everywhere, I > guess, but just filler as far as I'm concerned. Oh man! This morning I thought of the most _awful_ filk song for LOTR. At the very end, when Sam is elected Mayor of the Shire, they could play "Mayor of Hobbiton" to the tune of XTC's "Mayor of Simpleton." I'm ashamed that this crosssed my mind. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:53:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Overlooked fact On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Mike Wells wrote: > > In answer to Jill's query of a celebrety mentioned by Robyn, the Kinks and > > Travis... maybe MM? > Margaret Mead? Marshall Mathers? Mandy Moore? Mickey Mouse? Mickey Mantle? Marilyn Manson? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:56:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Hey, what about a David Lynching On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, bayard wrote: > As a side note - some are referring to LOtR as a 'trilogy' - strictly > speaking, it was intended as one book, it's only in three volumes so > the publisher could maximise their profit (please do correct me if i'm > wrong.) I totally forgot to mention. I was browsing the Rare Book Room at Powell's City of Books a couple of weeks ago and ran across a first UK edition of The Hobbit. It's down there right now, for sale, if you want it. Only US$35,000. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #401 ********************************