From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #412 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, October 31 2001 Volume 10 : Number 412 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Oh, hell, not Israel again. (was Re: infidels) ["noe shalev" ] nano nano ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] I glued a mushroom to my hobbit's rucksack. ["Redtailed Hawk" ] Re: I glued a mushroom to my hobbit's rucksack. ["Mike Wells" ] the Oils! [bayard ] Re: 100% RH Content (0% elves) [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: superglued a hobbit to a vampire's nutsack ["ross taylor" ] Re: superglued a hobbit to a vampire's nutsack ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Dick Guttman: 'Hackman said he had "no recollection" of being kicked in the groin."' [bayard ] Re: NanoNano, --Art MaryLew in poppyshoes? ["Stewart C. Russell" ] [0% RH, 1000% Elephant 6] Major Organ ["Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Oh, hell, not Israel again. (was Re: infidels) > Ack! You caught me! ;) I was leaving out the whole "right of return" > question. (And no one else seems to have noticed.) But was that really a > *serious* issue? I kinda assumed it was something Arafat knew he had > absolutely no chance of getting, but pushed anyway to a.) look good to his > people and b.) have another lever to get more territorial concessions, or > maybe financial restitution. But I'm no expert, just an Internet > blowhard. there's a wall to wall coalition in Israel not to disscuss this issue. I oppose this. I think that as Israelis most of us are blind when it come to a certain issues. the right of return could be granted. and it is a basic part of the palestinian ethos. people who are third and fourth generations to the 48 war going around with keys in their pockets, keys to those houses which long ago have gone. Israel don't have to grant all palestinians the right to return. But we must at least acknowledge the wrong those people went through and take at least partial responsebility to that wrong. zionists, as myself, find it hard to accept the fact that tragedys are not nececirely based on a all good and all bad parties. We were refugees ourselves fighting here for our own lives it doesn't minimize the palestinian tragedy. the right of return can be acknowledged as a principal some people must be granted the right to come back to their homes some must accept the fact that within the palestiian state to be established there are jewish homes as wewll, and some should get money as restitution. yet I agree that I'm very passimist about the chances that it will happan. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:41:52 -0800 (PST) From: bayard Subject: for Eb this is a great site, do you guys know about it? http://dpsinfo.com/dps.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:56:29 -0800 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: nano nano >From: "victorian squid" > >On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 18:04:35 the only other person >in the world who doesn't like Stereolab wrote: Ha! > >verboten but also dangerous. I'd be happy to share > >once I've done. > >Done as in "met the deadline" or done as in "done writing it"? Good point...I think mainly "met the deadline," but yeah, mine is going to be pretty raw as well. We'll see how it turns out. I don't do a lot of revising ordinarily (and it shows!). Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 19:11:49 +0000 From: "Redtailed Hawk" Subject: I glued a mushroom to my hobbit's rucksack. Drew: >I mean, I think this tug-of-war between the characters we admire and the characters _>they_ >admire is part of the book, not just a conscientious complaint against >that rotten old toff Tolkien. Insightful. Yes, I think that cuts to the core of the books. The nonheroic somehow find a way to do a necissary heroic deed. Which gives the reader something to emphathize with. Its hard to emphathize with an elf, admire yes, empathize with-- theres a distance there. But we're all part hobbit. Isnt there some comment by Tolkein that one of the reasons a hobbit could do the deed was that the Dark Lord wasnt able to recognize a hobbit as a serious threat. Because the hobbits were not power-driven their actions didnt compute. - --------------- I much like Jason's comment on how we have to learn to show respect for each other better when discussing politics. Im very aware Ive got quite aways to go in that direction. Perhaps, with all of our help, I'll, and, we'll, even get there.:-) Kay _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:16:15 -0800 (PST) From: Natalie Jane Jacobs Subject: too many dead trees > How do you feel about books concerning ordinary people with ordinary > problems? A subject that has been done to death for certain, if the > ones you name have. Yet trees are still being killed for what must > absolutely be exhausted cliches by this time... "Ordinary people" comprises a much, much wider subset than "people who suck blood." I don't think the subject of ordinary people can be exhausted simply because there are too many types of ordinary people. You and I are both ordinary people with ordinary problems, but we are very, very different, and two extremely different novels could be written about either of us. That said, there are a lot of ordinary subjects which have been done to death and beyond the grave. Love stories, to start with... in fact, I'd like to put a moratorium on love stories, too! > I mean, to my mind it's pretty significant that > hobbits save Middle-Earth, and the humans and the elves and the wizards > and the mighty warrior-kings are only helping out. It just occurred to me that a major theme in LOTR is the death of aristocracy. The elves and wizards are consistently depicted as perfect, even godlike. Yet they are losing their power, and are on the wane. Men and hobbits - lesser, mortal beings - are taking over. This is considered to be a tragic, sad thing... the aristocracy passing away into the West, leaving the world to mere common folk. Garsh, maybe I should write a book about this! On second thought, maybe not. > It's fun to take books too seriously. But I'd ask why you're so focused > on the delicious Maurice/Scudder relationship between Frodo and Sam, and > not complaining about all those hereditary monarchies floating around. Oh, don't get me started... :P n., who had the hots for Aragorn as a young 'un p.s. I'm *really* thinking about doing that novel thing - but it's almost too late! I'd better decide soon. I think I'd write one of my ridiculous time-travel epics. Robyn could be one of the time travellers. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:41:19 -0600 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: Re: I glued a mushroom to my hobbit's rucksack. Drew: > >I mean, I think > this tug-of-war between the characters we admire and the characters _>they_ > >admire is part of the book, not just a conscientious complaint against > >that rotten old toff Tolkien. Kay > Insightful. Yes, I think that cuts to the core of the books. The nonheroic > somehow find a way to do a necissary heroic deed. And Frodo saw the personification of that most clearly in Faramir, if my memory is right. The struggle to persevere, to succeed without glory from that effort is what I thought JRRT meant by heroism....and that he meant for Frodo's character to be defined this way, being a "hero" for seeing the likely dark end and forging on (as thus joining the likes of Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond, etc). By contrast Sam's heroic quality is loyalty to his master, or cause. I think a bit of the 'stupid servant' argument arises out from this, and it wasn't completely intentional but that he (JRRT) wanted that character/idea to be drawn this way. Or I may be talking complete nonsense. Fifty days and counting! Michael "well, it could be a firehose or it could be a flan" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:44:44 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Finally... on 10/30/01 8:40 AM, Jason R. Thornton at jthornton@ucsd.edu wrote: >> With Paul Carrack's "Suburban Voodoo", I finally finished ripping my entire >> CD collection this morning! I've got a total of 7103 songs totalling 19 days >> and 4 hours of music, taking up 38.8 Gigabytes. > > Out of curiosity, about how long would a project like this take someone? > Took me about two months, off and on. I'd just keep a stack of CD's next to the iMac in the kitchen and throw one in whenever I felt like it. Same thing with the G4 in the office. iTunes, like it's predecessor SoundJam, has an auto-rip option. As soon as you put a CD in, it looks up the track list, rips it, and ejects it. The big headaches occur when the CDDB info is wrong, which is frequent (I suspect FreeDB has similar problems): I'm kind of anal about punctuation and spelling. Oh, and people who enter "Various Artists" as the artist attribute. What I need now is software to re-encode my 192kbps files into something like 56kbps on the fly so I can webcast. Will CDParanoia do this? - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:06:20 -0800 (PST) From: bayard Subject: the Oils! hey dc fegs, melissa and i are going to see Midnight Oil on monday - anyone else wanna come along? write her at leppo@pobox.com and she may even be nice enough to get a ticket for you if you promise to pay her back! and coming quite soon - Glass Flesh news! =b "'nightclub 9:30' my butt" - -- http://glasshotel.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:08:27 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: 100% RH Content (0% elves) "Jason R. Thornton" wrote: > Walker, Charles wrote: > >I was talking with a bartender friend last night and > >happened to mention seeing The Soft Boys at the Knitting Factory in > >conversation. In talking my friend said that RH had played on a > >Cocteau Twins album. ...Does anyone know if this is true or my > >friend was mistaken? Are the CTwins still together? I enjoyed the > >little music of theirs that I have heard, though it all seemed like > >the same song, which is fine if it is a good song!! Anyway, some > >help on this would be nice, thanks... > > I don't think Hitchcock appeared on any Cocteau Twins material. The > is credited with some mixing work on the Tim Keegan & the Departure > Lounge album "Out of Here," which of course featured Robyn Hitchcock > on guitar. i reckon it's a much more mundane mental mix-up, namely he mixed Robyn Hitchcock and Robin Guthrie in his mind. also, i don't think the CTs listed any musicians on their albums specifically, other _Garlands_, Victorialand, and Four-Calender Cafe (and RH isn't listed on those) ; maybe on Milk & Kisses, but i don't have it anymore. > And, no, the Cocteau Twins are no longer together as a unit. > > There is a Cocteau Twins "greatest hits" compilation album out called > "Stars and Topsoil" if you're interested a thorough overview as a > starting point. though that doesn't have anything off of either M&K or FCC, though that's not really that big of a deal. now reading: The Damned & The Beautiful by Paula Fass, about the youth culture changes of the 1920's in the US. obelfcontent: np: Bjork: Vespertine Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:43:31 -0500 From: "ross taylor" Subject: Re: superglued a hobbit to a vampire's nutsack This is mostly a big me-too regarding Jason's "superglued" post. As a relative newcomer I've assumed that there was a context of personal familiarity to most of the flaming, plus, well, there is the punk element. A few points from my perspective: On the one hand, living in Washington DC, I get sick of the arts getting plowed under by politics all the time. Now, it's one of the (many) things I hate about war -- suddenly politics *is* all-important, it's a field day for not just Majors and Generals but politicos too. This is not to trivialize suffering or the hope of a better world, or to sidestep the issues of causation, but war gives real meaning to lots of ego-centric political folk. On the other hand, and maybe this shows what a dropout I am, if I've got to hear about it (and now I've got to hear about it) I like hearing in the context of folks who are brought together by the arts (i.e. Hitchcock). There *are* good political discussions here & a lot of very well-spoken, well-educated, well-intentioned people. A complicating factor that may not have been directly addressed recently is Robyn: my guess, from things he's said, including "Killing more won't bring the dead back," is that he's a dove. At the same time, he may be cynical about politics ["when I hear the words democracy/ I reach for my headphones"], but he keeps a wary eye on it ["you could vote for labor then but you can't any more"]. As the war goes on, I assume RH's position will become more pertinant as we hear more from him. Some of the ugliness here Jason refered to, at least some of the implied ad hominem or ad misericorde arguments, has to do w/ how close this war is to some of us. There's gonna be an adjustment period, or many. Being of the Vietnam era, I endured endless shouting matches in my youth, people still yelling final arguments as they were being hauled off etc. I remember a more pleasant one where I stayed up all night for a 12-hour session of my two best friends, one Jewish, one recently re-converted Christian, arguing the relative merits of Judaism and Chrisianity. Supposedly you can't argue faith, but these two were well read & inquisitive. I was an atheist then & am now, but I got at least a good sense of what it means to believe. Many people here are, or have been teachers. One of the things I used to bring up in Freshman Composition was some consideration of when anyone is actually changed by an argument. When I asked for anecdotes, very few were positive. I tend to disdain "debater's points" & prefer to read background material on my own, but then I never cared much for sport either. ;) I like links & I like book recommendations. Godwin mentioned "the definitive word" on Israel. I haven't read Exodus. Is it possible to make a very short list of such books? Recently I found myself chewing on something in the Eqbal Ahmad/David Barsamian interview linked in Eddie's post. I was fascinated that he spoke well of Rudyard Kipling, "a colonial writer, but a good writer." Perhaps I can only see through art. Ross Taylor still depending on "UNIX Unbounded: A Beginning Approach" by Amir Afzal, 2nd ed. Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:00:19 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: superglued a hobbit to a vampire's nutsack (as if the list alias isn't enough to show the biases here...) On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > No offense, Eddie, but wouldn't you essentially be further > de-politicizing this list by failing to contribute when you deem it > appropriate? My initial thought was in agreement, but then I realized that posting politics when people are actively hostile to the idea (as they were here a few short weeks ago) just makes ALL of your posts less likely to be read. You become shunned and ostracized and that does absolutely nothing for your cause. (Or worse and possibly more likely, people will dismiss your view simply because you've stated it so often and never treat it rationally.) > And if one finds one's opinions unwelcome, or challenged, perhaps then > that person might find it prudent to re-evaluate one's stance, or at > least the delivery. I don't buy this for a second. Political views are not democratic. We don't state our view and then re-evaluate it when people don't respond favorably. I know my views, for example, are based on a complex series of logical steps from a single ethical framework. It would take a challenge to that ethical framework to change the higher-level views (which has happened). > Well, Quail, I guess I do think you're right, in part - a difference > in core ethics is at the heart of the matter. But the beauty of ethics is their logical base. I think everyone could do well by writing down their base assumptions and ethical postulates (preferably weighted against one another) that lead to the particular view they hold that is the topic of discussion. Rather than just stating one's opinion and laying out the historical situation, we would all benefit by seeing something more along the lines of "this is what I think of the situation because of these basic ethics." And then we can bring up other ethical considerations not addressed in the high-level view or challenge the logic that leads from that set of postulates to the professed view. > It's not the content to which I object. Substantive political > discussion can occur... Is that permission? Well, thanks. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:07:36 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: for Eb On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, bayard wrote: > this is a great site, do you guys know about it? Ian Dury's dead? Well, fuck. Anyone else heard the new Peter Jefferies (or give two sneezes about him)? I think it's his best in a while; as always, it seems like some of his songs would be a quick hit with fans of I Often Dream Of Trains-type Robyn. a ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:42:13 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: superglued a hobbit to a vampire's nutsack At 01:00 PM 10/30/2001 -0800, Capuchin wrote: >(as if the list alias isn't enough to show the biases here...) I would suggest that any bias you perceive in a smidgen of humor could very likely be irrelevant, and I'm betting quite possibly way off base. >On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > > No offense, Eddie, but wouldn't you essentially be further > > de-politicizing this list by failing to contribute when you deem it > > appropriate? > >My initial thought was in agreement, but then I realized that posting >politics when people are actively hostile to the idea (as they were here a >few short weeks ago) just makes ALL of your posts less likely to be >read. Well, such decisions will be made on a person-by-person basis, and are dependant upon what exactly each individual is "actively hostile" to. I think some, or at least I, have never been hostile to the idea of "posting politics," but only to the tone of the political discussions that did occur. But, I think it's pretty obvious, and maybe I'm agreeing with you, that posting (especially a great deal) in a certain manner, or on a specific subject, may get one "ignored" by others, depending on their tolerance for certain things - be it a particular view, or the way in which it is presented. I could go on and on, quite harmlessly, about my guitar, over and over again, in post after post - and while not insulting anyone, become "ostracized" or unread by the vast majority of friendly folk here, simply because I'm boring. I can't speak for anyone else, but I tend to at least skim everything in this list. Just because I may, for instance, delete mostly unread large emails regarding copyright issues that you might have written, that does not necessarily mean I'll delete something you compose about They Might Be Giants or Cake. However, if someone repeatedly calls someone a "jackass," even in the process of promoting a view I would find admirable and "correct," then I'm all the more likely to ignore everything he or she posts. Although, I personally do tend to give authors a lot of second, third and four hundredth chances. >You become shunned and ostracized and that does absolutely nothing >for your cause. But not necessarily by EVERYONE. Even if a lot of people are "shunning" someone, and that person feels it important to express an opinion here, in hopes of reaching somebody, you're far more likely to do something for your "cause" by at least posting, by at least making the attempt, than by just giving up. On the other hand, you cannot force people to be interested in what you have to say. And I know Eddie is bemoaning the fact that some - maybe most - - aren't interested, but still I'd like to motivate him to participate however he sees fit. My only request, to everybody, is that they treat each other nicely. >(Or worse and possibly more likely, people will dismiss >your view simply because you've stated it so often and never treat it >rationally.) Agreed. One is always faced with such dangers when throwing out their opinions to a larger community. But, with a group of ever-changing membership, and perhaps a forgetful one at that, it is always best to treat each statement as if it is being presented for the first time. > > And if one finds one's opinions unwelcome, or challenged, perhaps then > > that person might find it prudent to re-evaluate one's stance, or at > > least the delivery. > >I don't buy this for a second. Political views are not democratic. I don't recall using the word "democratic." All I meant is that constructive criticism of our views gives each of us the opportunity to further examine our stances and the processes through which we reach them. And I would note that well-meaning individuals can and do welcome the expressing of opinions with which they do not necessarily agree wholeheartedly. Nor must re-evaluation lead to an altering of ones views. In fact, the opposite may occur, one's views may be strengthened through such introspection. >We >don't state our view and then re-evaluate it when people don't respond >favorably. Just out of curiosity, then, why do you expect anyone to pay attention to anything you say? I mean only that if when confronted with some disagreement and conflicting rationale, you don't at least logically weigh your own views against this alternate mode of thinking, why would you expect anyone else to re-evaluate their own political views when you do not respond favorably to their opinions? If what you say is the case, why bother even stating your views for others, if you don't think they might be re-evaluating themselves? >I know my views, for example, are based on a complex series of logical >steps from a single ethical framework. This is, of course, a matter of opinion. It's quite easy to judge and label one's own thought processes as "logical" and "complex." And I'm not saying yours are or are not. I'm merely stating that the making of such a grandiose assumption, and clearly stating it, will not win you any converts, and perhaps can show a lack of understanding of other complex series of logical steps taken from differing ethnical frameworks by which people other than yourself may come to completely different conclusions from yours. Do you simply assume that everyone else's views are not so based because their views are not the same as yours? >It would take a challenge to that >ethical framework to change the higher-level views (which has happened). So, you're saying that you believe the manner in which your views are derived is so air-tight that you think the views themselves cannot be adequately challenged? Well, whatever you choose to label part of the "ethical framework" and whichever you choose to call your "views," again, are you expecting everyone but yourself to be open to changing their higher-level views, or merely their own ethical frameworks? What, specifically, is your motivation for expressing your views? > > Well, Quail, I guess I do think you're right, in part - a difference > > in core ethics is at the heart of the matter. > >But the beauty of ethics is their logical base. > >I think everyone could do well by writing down their base assumptions and >ethical postulates (preferably weighted against one another) that lead to >the particular view they hold that is the topic of discussion. > >Rather than just stating one's opinion and laying out the historical >situation, we would all benefit by seeing something more along the lines >of "this is what I think of the situation because of these basic >ethics." And then we can bring up other ethical considerations not >addressed in the high-level view or challenge the logic that leads from >that set of postulates to the professed view. Again, speaking just for myself, I would have absolutely no problem with such a discussion, either participating in it or reading it. If people agree with you, and wish to engage in such an exercise, so be it. I do see how it, like many discussions, could be beneficial - although I think you'll probably find that everything isn't going to be as clear-cut as you might hope it to be. But, as long as it doesn't lead to another string of mean-spirited personal attacks, I have no complaints. > > It's not the content to which I object. Substantive political > > discussion can occur... > >Is that permission? Well, thanks. Whereas I intentionally refrained from any finger-pointing, this is exactly what I was talking about. Strawman. Dismissive. Hostile. If you want to misread my use of the word "can," quite obvious in the context, go right ahead. See if this makes me more or less open to read anything else you write. My own ethical framework, however, leads me to the view that I should treat you with a lot more respect than you've just shown me. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:57:37 -0800 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: no RH, just MJ Tonight I am pretty excited! New NBA season, with MJ, and after that, LA!!! E (love those capital letters!) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 19:24:18 -0800 (PST) From: bayard Subject: Dick Guttman: 'Hackman said he had "no recollection" of being kicked in the groin."' oh no.. he's talking about him again... http://abc.go.com/entertainment/news/2001/10/hackman103001.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 22:43:00 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: I glued a mushroom to my hobbit's rucksack. On Tuesday, October 30, 2001, at 01:41 PM, Mike Wells wrote: > Fifty days and counting! Good thing, too. Harry Potter is opening on 4000+ screens in the U.S. and also in 130 other countries at the same time. One month ought to take the edge off Pottermania. I have a new HK film to recommend - The Legend Of Zu. This is Tsui Hark remaking his 1983 classic, Zu: Warriors Of The Magic Mountain. The new film is essentially 104 minutes of special effects - flying, transformations, magic weapons, a blood monster, etc. Needless to say, the good guys are defending the magic mountain from the bad guys. I bought the VCD last week, only to discover this week that the DVD comes out next week. - - Steve __________ Which wild child daughter of a politico was smoking pot at an L.A. party? The hard-partying lass puffed right under the nose of the minders who try to keep her out of trouble. Answer: Jenna Bush - New York Post, 7/25/01 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 09:57:26 +0100 (added by postmaster@mail.tiscalinet.it) From: "Gianni S." Subject: This is not the answer The consequent emissions will exceed by far any possible reduction achieved by OECD countries. The expected increase in the utilisation of coal at global level calls therefore for a worldwide adoption of clean coal technologies for power production, able to compete effectively in a deregulated energy market but able to achieve the world environmental objectives agreed in the Kyoto and Buenos Aires conferences. [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of developing.exe] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:35:07 +0000 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: NanoNano, --Art MaryLew in poppyshoes? Redtailed Hawk wrote: > > I wish Lewis could be more fashionable. you'll be please to know that HarperCollins has got the go-ahead to adapt the Narnia stories, taking out the unfashionable bits. I suspect a film tie-in. If we slipped up on Harry Potter, we sure ain't gonna on the Tolkien and Lewis products. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:42:30 +0000 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Finally... "Jason R. Thornton" wrote: > > Out of curiosity, about how long would a project like this take someone? well, as a guide, my aged PIII-450 (with 26x CD-ROM) can rip and encode at 2x playing speed using cparanoia and lame (running as a background job). I can get this to 3x if I use lame's fast mode. Reliable reading of CD-DA data seems to be the limiting factor, as even on my bitty-box encoding is faster than ripping. Stewart - -- Stewart C. Russell Senior Analyst Programmer stewart@ref.collins.co.uk Collins Dictionaries use Disclaimer; my $opinion; Bishopbriggs, Scotland ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:47:59 +0000 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: [0% RH, 1000% Elephant 6] Major Organ I know it's been out since March, but it's taken almost that long to get it through the usual channels. Major Organ & The Adding Machine is the perfect E6 album. Hints of Neutral Milk Hotel, Olivia Tremor Control, and yes, even The Music Tapes -- but in a good way. I'm having difficulty listening to anything else. Sorry, I just had to. E6 fans understand; non-E6 fans never will. Stewart ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #412 ********************************