From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #454 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, December 7 2001 Volume 10 : Number 454 Today's Subjects: ----------------- wind ["Walker, Charles" ] Re: catching up with feg digests ["Eugene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Catching up with a Queen ["Mike Wells" ] Re: instruments [Michael R Godwin ] RE: instruments ["Poole, R. Edward" ] Re: instruments ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: instruments ["Jason R. Thornton" ] RE: Plot ["Bachman, Michael" ] RE: Plot ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: Question about DAT files and convertig to .wav/mp3 [JH3 ] RE: Plot ["Poole, R. Edward" ] Re: the other side [Capuchin ] Re: catching up with feg digests [Capuchin ] lotr media hitting hot and heavy [steve ] Re: lotr media hitting hot and heavy [Tom Clark ] Re: instruments [Glen Uber ] Re: the other side ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: catching up with feg digests ["Jason R. Thornton" ] All the Worlds a Staal ["Redtailed Hawk" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:17:42 -0800 From: "Walker, Charles" Subject: wind I had this grand idea that all of the Natives out in Eastern Oregon should take that shitty land they were stuck holding after all the treaties were broken and the Great Bussing was finished and turn it into massive wind farms. Imagine the future the Natives holding all the keys to the power for America in the future. chas in LA replies: The future my friend is blowin' in the wind. Not 100% sure of that. I'm startin' to dig to the earth's core... http://www.theweeklywalker.com --> issue #59 is up. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:29:34 -0800 (PST) From: "Eugene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: catching up with feg digests > From: gSs > > I hope we turn into quasars and reel in our own excretement. Well, heck, I've done one of those. Guess I'll give the other a try sometime. > From: "Jason R. Thornton" > > At 06:00 PM 12/6/2001 -0800, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > > >Also I always heard "you and I are higher than the law," which was pretty > >interesting. > > That's exactly what I hear, and I ain't changing. I used to think the same thing too. But two nights ago I played my copy of the Mossy Liquor LP and read the lyrics, which say "You and I are higher than the loft." I did hear the crisp "fft" at the end of the line, too. But the version of that song is different than the one on the Moss Elixir CD (right?), so maybe it's harder to hear "loft" on the CD version. Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 09:40:43 -0800 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: he's dead > From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey [what I wrote:] >> I don't understand why anyone would be curious as to how celebrities >> react to the deaths of other celebrities. Surely the interesting part, >> if any of it is interesting (and I personally don't think it is), is >> how celebrities react to other celebrities, which surely doesn't change >> much because of a shift in status from living to deceased. > [...] > I'm not quite sure I get the bit about "surely the interesting part...is > how celebrities react to other celebrities": huh? Well, that was the key part, unfortunately. I was wondering why you expected Clapton's (or anyone's) reaction to Harrison's (or anyone's) death to be "interesting." Surely the reactions to Harrison's life are the interesting part. Death, on the other hand, is inevitable. Do you expect Clapton to be thrilled that Harrison's died? Saddened? Some mixture of the two? How interesting could that possibly be? > If we're fans of Harrison's music, wouldn't > the opinion of a Clapton on that music be of more value than the opinion > of, I dunno, Queen Elizabeth? Sure, but what does that have to do with opinions on their deaths? > From: gSs > What makes any "when you are dead" theory more plausible than any other? Pure subjective opinion. > From: "Jason R. Thornton" > > At 06:00 PM 12/6/2001 -0800, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > >> Also I always heard "you and I are higher than the law," which was pretty >> interesting. > > That's exactly what I hear, and I ain't changing. "Lot" was my other alternative, which is less interesting but also plausible. "Loft" rhymes, I guess, but is dull. Drew - -- http://www.stormgreen.com/~drew/ "You're living in a global shopping mall, and you're the only person who still thinks there's a bloody exit." - Edina Monsoon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:52:38 -0600 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: Catching up with a Queen I agree there's a strong "t" - though to my ears it always sounded like " higher than the lot" (as in lot = others, rest of them). Could well be an "ft"...I do recall having a live show (10/31/99 maybe?) where it's pretty clear, I'll put it in shortly and give a listen. Given RH's prediliction for changing live lyrics, though... Gotta finish burning some Hawkwind first...I borrowed "Space Ritual" and "Doremi Fasol Latido" from a coworker this morning (an accountant too, who would have suspected?). I've always found Lemmy PERFECT for the Holidays season. So Norman Rockwell. Michael "haikus in native Terran, anyone?" Wells > > >Also I always heard "you and I are higher than the law," which was pretty > > >interesting. > > > > That's exactly what I hear, and I ain't changing. > > I used to think the same thing too. But two nights ago I played my copy of the > Mossy Liquor LP and read the lyrics, which say "You and I are higher than the > loft." I did hear the crisp "fft" at the end of the line, too. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 18:04:02 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: instruments > > >Which musical instrument is really new anymore? Sigh. > On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > > The Chapman Stick is still relatively "new." On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, gSs wrote: > The theremin and the stick are newest I can think of. But you'll have a > hard time finding a theremin to play. I guess it could be considered the > first synthesizer. OK, let's start from the year 1901 and work out which instruments didn't exist 100 years ago. All those Futurist noise machines (some nice pics at http://www.unknown.nu/futurism/noises.html) Electrically amplified versions of existing instruments: guitar, banjo, sax, double bass, violin, mandolin etc (various dates from 1930ish). Arguably the solid-body instrument with pole pickups is a completely new instrument, as opposed to an instrument which just has a microphone amplifying the original acoustic sound The mighty Wurlitzer (1920s?) Hammond organ (1940s? doesn't it work on a different principle from other electric organs, or did I make that up?) Fender Rhodes piano Prepared piano Harry Partch instruments (thanks, Terry!) Clavioline (nice! as heard on 'Telstar') Stylophone Mellotron (1960s) (if it is a new instrument) Theremin (1960s?) VCS3 and its derivatives / Moog analog synthesizer Digital sythesizer Sampler (if a sampler is a new instrument) I'm not sure whether sound processors count as musical instruments. I don't see how a spring reverb unit can be classed as an instrument, but it makes a huge difference to the sound; ditto Leslie cabinets, octividers, distorters, tape echo and what have you. I would have thought that those drum machines, beat boxes and digital FX processors were just special applications of the digital synth. And of course there are a huge range of ethnic instruments which were more or less unknown outside their countries of origin until world music caught on: bullroarers, didgeridoos, gamelan kit, ethnic drums of all nations, Indian classical instruments, balalaikas, oudhs, syrinxes, etc etc. They aren't new, but they're new to me. - - MRG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:10:27 -0500 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: instruments >Harry Partch instruments (thanks, Terry!) For some reason, the mention of Harry Partch made me remember Elliot Sharp (near rhyme or the fact that the same person introduced me to both artists, I dunno). E# is well-known (well, in certain circles, that is) for his instrument-building craft (and his deployment of other peoples' created instruments). Many are variations on known instruments, but some are quite novel. Check: http://www.algonet.se/~repple/esharp/Instr.html for pics and further details. ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 10:23:07 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: instruments At 06:04 PM 12/7/2001 +0000, Michael R Godwin wrote: >Electrically amplified versions of existing instruments: guitar, banjo, >sax, double bass, violin, mandolin etc (various dates from 1930ish). I believe the "bass guitar," acoustic or electric, is unique to the 20th century. Although, one could argue that it is simply a permutation of either the upright bass or the guitar. I'd say that it has some unique characteristics, above and beyond amplification, that set it apart. >Theremin (1960s?) The invention Theremin dates back a bit further, to the early '20's. It was used on a lot of 1950 sci-fi film soundtracks, which really introduced its *sound* to much of the public, and paved the way for the acceptance of a lot of synthy and feedbacking-guitar type noises in popular music. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 10:29:08 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: instruments At 10:23 AM 12/7/2001 -0800, Jason R. Thornton wrote: >I believe the "bass guitar," acoustic or electric, is unique to the 20th >century. Actually, even if it was invented in the 20th century, it would no longer be "unique" to it. I keep forgetting we're in the 21st... heh heh. Sorry. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:48:18 -0500 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Plot How about the flugelhorn? Michael - -----Original Message----- From: gSs [mailto:gshell@metronet.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 10:57 AM To: car pot Subject: Re: Plot On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > >Which musical instrument is really new anymore? Sigh. > > The Chapman Stick is still relatively "new." The theremin and the stick are newest I can think of. But you'll have a hard time finding a theremin to play. I guess it could be considered the first synthesizer. Someone always seems to have some new sorta percussion instrument. After that you could say computer/midi as an instrument and the synthesizers with multi-track audio and midi sequencers built right in. And just previous to those things came the piano and six string guitar as we know them today. Also there are those dj/jam mix boxes with canned rythyms, progressions and tonal variations and its beam, dial, whirly wizzy effects or emotion control knobs and buttons. They are like low end sequencer synths without a keyboard, though you could always run into it an external midi controller. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 10:58:09 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: RE: Plot At 01:48 PM 12/7/2001 -0500, you wrote: > How about the flugelhorn? The dictionary dates it at 1854. For some reason that reminded me of the vibraphone (Miles Davis, jazz, vibraphone, I guess), which was invented early in the 20th Century, if I'm not mistaken. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 13:05:30 -0600 From: JH3 Subject: Re: Question about DAT files and convertig to .wav/mp3 > ... i'm interested in the PC tool that is used to break up > one continuous sound file as downloaded from DAT, say, > from a live show. It's been mentioned before, but there's nothing wrong with CDWAV - free (sort of), easy-to-use, and perfectly reliable, in my own experience, anyway. Just go to www.cdwave.com... >...Perhaps even add simple effects and EQ. Actually, I don't think Goldwave is all that bad, personally. Not as good as SoundForge or Diamond Cut, but certainly cheaper! But hey, if all you want is something easy to use, that's what Roxio EZ-CD Creator Deluxe is for. (IMO) John "the pre-digitized version" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:18:17 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Plot On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Bachman, Michael wrote: > How about the flugelhorn? While it's certainly older than 1901 (which was Godwin's criterion), I don't even know if you need to call it a separate instrument. It's just an Eb trumpet. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:14:25 -0500 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: Plot On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Bachman, Michael wrote: >> How about the flugelhorn? Jeme: >While it's certainly older than 1901 (which was Godwin's criterion), I >don't even know if you need to call it a separate instrument. It's just >an Eb trumpet. Actually, its construction (and tone) are more similar to the cornet than the trumpet. ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:23:10 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the other side On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > If I find anything about these interactions and reactions at all > interesting (and the George-Patti-Eric triangle has only interested me > in passing), it is not *because* the parties involved are or were > celebrities, but merely because they're my fellow human beings. I > don't think there is all that much unique about inter-celebrity > relationships, nor do I see a reason to invent arbitrary distinctions, > positive or negative, between celebrities and "regular joes." > Celebrities are simply people about whom I acquire information through > certain media. I wouldn't suggest that there is anything more, or > less, special about them or their relationships that would make them > better or worse to learn from or relate to. Except for the remove. They're MUCH WORSE to use as models for relationships or other personal study because you can't know them personally (and, hopefully, when you DO know someone personally, they cease being a celebrity to you). You know only what they want you to know. And what they don't want you to know could just as well be libel or gossip. If I said, "My cousin Murray died. His friend Jim is really upset because they both slept with the same woman back in the sixties." Would you be curious to know more? I doubt it. I mean, you might ask me because it was MY cousin and it seems important to ME and you might be interested to hear my take because you know me personally, but that's hardly the same thing. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:25:38 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: catching up with feg digests On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > At 06:00 PM 12/6/2001 -0800, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > >Also I always heard "you and I are higher than the law," which was pretty > >interesting. > > That's exactly what I hear, and I ain't changing. That's a good line, but I don't think it's Robyn's. There's clearly a consonant sound (the ff is audible on the CD and the ft very clear on the LP and many live recordings) at the end, if you listen. And recall that Mossy Liquor came with lyrics in the liner notes. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:33:30 -0600 From: steve Subject: lotr media hitting hot and heavy > My cynical attitude about the wheels of melting brie in the hospitality > suite and the roving bands of interchangeable young female publicists > in tight skirts faded somewhere into the middle distance when I saw > Jackson's film. It strikes me as that rarest of Hollywood phenomena: a > megabudget action-adventure spectacle that is also a labor of love and > a visionary cinematic experience. You can read Andrew O'Hehir's story at salon.com (for free). - - Steve __________ The Bush/Nixon bond is a most peculiar union, given the immense class gap between the Man from Whittier and the would-be dynasty in Kennebunkport. And yet there's an important similarity between them after all. Despite the Bush clan's vast advantage, that crew is, oddly, just as thin-skinned and resentful as the Trickster. Like him, they never forget a slight, and always feel themselves impaired; and so-like Nixon-they tend to favor The Attack. - Mark Crispin Miller ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 11:51:47 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: lotr media hitting hot and heavy on 12/7/01 11:33 AM, steve at steveschiavo@mac.com wrote: >> My cynical attitude about the wheels of melting brie in the hospitality >> suite and the roving bands of interchangeable young female publicists >> in tight skirts faded somewhere into the middle distance when I saw >> Jackson's film. It strikes me as that rarest of Hollywood phenomena: a >> megabudget action-adventure spectacle that is also a labor of love and >> a visionary cinematic experience. > > You can read Andrew O'Hehir's story at salon.com (for free). Fuck that. As soon as I saw the first Burger King / LOTR cross-promotion I knew that this was yet another film I wasn't going to see. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 11:52:45 -0800 From: Glen Uber Subject: Re: instruments On 12/7/01 10:23 AM, "Jason R. Thornton" wrote: > I believe the "bass guitar," acoustic or electric, is unique to the 20th > century. What about that big acoustic bass "guitar" --bajo sexto?-- that is used in mariachi bands in Mexican restaurants? Surely it predates the 20th century, right? Or is it calssified as something other than a guitar? - -- Cheers! - -g- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 12:06:49 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: the other side At 11:23 AM 12/7/2001 -0800, Capuchin wrote: >On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > > If I find anything about these interactions and reactions at all > > interesting (and the George-Patti-Eric triangle has only interested me > > in passing), it is not *because* the parties involved are or were > > celebrities, but merely because they're my fellow human beings. I > > don't think there is all that much unique about inter-celebrity > > relationships, nor do I see a reason to invent arbitrary distinctions, > > positive or negative, between celebrities and "regular joes." > > Celebrities are simply people about whom I acquire information through > > certain media. I wouldn't suggest that there is anything more, or > > less, special about them or their relationships that would make them > > better or worse to learn from or relate to. > >Except for the remove. There will be always be some degree of "remove" if you're examining any relationship other than one your own, whether or not you know the people personally or have had some sort of direct contact or experience with some facet of their relationship. >They're MUCH WORSE to use as models for relationships or other personal >study because you can't know them personally (and, hopefully, when you DO >know someone personally, they cease being a celebrity to you). Celebrity status is really granted by a larger community and exists regardless of whether or not you or I might know someone personally. Famous people would not cease to be "celebrities" in my eyes, just because I'm relatively familiar with them. Someone could be a celebrity AND a friend. >You know only what they want you to know. This statement pertains to everybody, not just celebrities. >And what they don't want you to >know could just as well be libel or gossip. You may choose to label it so, but that's not necessarily true. Because the information may come from another party does not automatically mean it is tainted. But, even if invented and totally false, even if the public mask of the relationship is completely fictional, the information may still provide insight into the human condition, much in the same way a novel about "unreal" people can teach and inspire. True, literature is a lot more artful, but the motivation to learn vicariously is the same. >If I said, "My cousin Murray died. His friend Jim is really upset because >they both slept with the same woman back in the sixties." Would you be >curious to know more? I doubt it. I mean, you might ask me because it >was MY cousin and it seems important to ME and you might be interested to >hear my take because you know me personally, but that's hardly the same >thing. I disagree. There may be another interest (e.g., me in you, Kay in the Beatles music) that might motivate me to learn more about a tangential situation, that will not lessen the potential impact (good, bad or useless) of the knowledge I obtain from hearing details about it. Heck, in either case, one might be in the mood for a good yarn, and in turn open to personal growth via conscious and/or subconscious examination of the tale. And, even if I don't want to hear about it, I might still - if, for example, I cannot shut up a source for some hypothetical reason. If I hear the same amount of stuff about both love triangles, one involving famous people, one not, and I'm equally removed from both groups, then my point still stands: There is nothing more, or less, special about celebrities or their relationships that would make them better or worse to learn from or relate to. You could possibly learn more from a relationship involving people you know intimately, but the opposite could also be true. In some cases, one might be too "close," too emotionally wrapped up in a situation, to be able to sit back and contemplate the implications more rationally and open-mindedly. Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 12:11:39 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: catching up with feg digests At 11:25 AM 12/7/2001 -0800, Capuchin wrote: >And recall that Mossy Liquor came with lyrics in the liner notes. Oh, I don't recall that all... Mainly because I plopped that sucker onto an MD awhile back, I haven't pulled the LP out of it's jacket for a long, long time. ;) Of course, the "Mossy Liquor" lyrics wouldn't necessarily have to correspond completely with the "Moss Elixir" ones, especially given Hitchcock's habit of altering words over time. But, in this case, it sounds as if the consensus is that they do. Dang it. I hate learning the "real" lyrics when they are so less satisfying than my misinterpreted ones. I'm going to have to listen to both versions again closely when I get home tonight - I'm working from memory right now, anyhow. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 20:35:18 -0000 From: "Rob" Subject: Re: The True North strong and free! [0% RH] On 7 Dec 2001 at 15:50, Michael R Godwin wrote: > > You'll have to have a UK feg gathering before you go! > > I'm in! > > - Mike Godwin Me too. I'd like to actually meet Stewart before he departs these shores. - -- Rob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:38:03 -0500 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: The True North strong and free! [0% RH] Stewart, You are going to have to learn the intricacies of hockey, such as head manning the puck up the ice, a B.C. two-hander, and learn who Stompin' Tom is. In Canada, they even have reversing falls! CBC Radio is quite good, jazz with Ross Porter, David Wisdom late at night on the weekends playing Alternative, and lots of Clasical music. Michael - -----Original Message----- From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:stewart@ref.collins.co.uk] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 9:42 AM To: matt sewell Cc: The Gelatine Prince from the 2364th Dimension Subject: Re: The True North strong and free! [0% RH] matt sewell wrote: > > Admit it Stewart, you're just fleeing the malty flavour of Scotland! no, the dark, and the rain, really. > Also, do they not have the dark winters over there? It's all fairly > Northerly, isn't it, apart from the bit that's South of Detroit? Don't forget that I'm almost on 56 degrees north here. There are bits of Alaska further south than here. > Any idea of where, exactly? Toronto. It's quite far south, as far as Scotland is concerned. > It all sounds veh exciting - I must say > Canada is pretty high on my list of places to visit... we can all eat Weetabix and sing!! Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:44:28 -0800 From: Eb Subject: RE: Plot >It's just an Eb trumpet. The Eb trumpet can be controversial, though. Some people really develop an affection for its sound, others think it's just loud and grating. It tends to get plugged with mucus, too. Eb, currently downloading the Audion player to check out ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 20:47:14 +0000 From: "Redtailed Hawk" Subject: All the Worlds a Staal Drew: >I don't understand why anyone would be curious as to how celebrities >react to the deaths of other celebrities. Surely the interesting part, >if any of it is interesting (and I personally don't think it is), is >how celebrities react to other celebrities, which surely doesn't change >much because of a shift in status from living to deceased. I think, as a very early incarnation of the good Dr said --death concentrates the mind wonderfully. All minds, I should think. - --------------------------------------------- Jeffrey: >we can take from those >relationships whatever resonates with us, with our lives. That's why >people read books, watch films, etc. - or at least one reason Thank you Jeffrey, that was the point I was trying to make but obviously could have made better. Humans love story; we -are- story. We experience story in different ways, as our own story, as that of people we know, as that of people we dont know. What is a great deal of our culture about? Story. And whatever we are ignorant of(usually quite alot) we fill in with our own predjudices. Theres a Shakespeare monument outside of the libes that says "all the world's a stage." And until we're sans sense, as I am learning, so it is. - ----------------------------------------------------- Stewart,welcome (soon) to this side of the Styx. - ------------------------------------------------- Ross: >In Kay's "we'd have to not be human to not be >curious," I think I hear the romantic style of >Belles Lettres Damn Ross, thats hilarious, you have got me -nailed- on that one. Yes, the ghost of Madame de Staal does occaisonally take over;-). I certially didn't mean to be judgemental. It wa more a rewording of a Robyn lyric. If we're alive, we -tend- to want to know what happens next. - --------------------------- Jason: >it is not *because* the parties involved are or were celebrities, >but merely because they're my fellow human beings Jason, thanks, I think you've said it best of all. - ------------------------------ Kay _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #454 ********************************