From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #285 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, September 12 2002 Volume 11 : Number 285 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: back to 'tics [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: back to 'tics [Stewart Russell ] Re: Back to politics [Tom Clark ] Re: Back to politics [Ken Weingold ] Oil and lucifer ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Oil and lucifer [Stewart Russell ] Side 3 and Great Central Revisited and, oh yes, war... [crowbar.joe@btop] Re: back to 'tics [rosso@videotron.ca] Re: back to 'tics [Christopher Gross ] Re: back to 'tics [Stewart Russell ] Re:back to 'tics ["ross taylor" ] Side 3 availability? ["John B. Jones" ] fireflies & rainbows & eating slime ["ross taylor" ] Re: back to 'tics [Stewart Russell ] Re: back to 'tics [The Great Quail ] Re: back to 'tics [Stewart Russell ] RE: back to 'tics ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: back to 'tics [Christopher Gross ] Re: help me identify this band? (OT) [HSatterfld@aol.com] Iraq [The Great Quail ] The junk inside? ["Golden Hind" ] back to 'tics ["Golden Hind" ] RE: beneath, between, behind [gSs ] Re: Iraq [Stewart Russell ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:40:34 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: back to 'tics - -- Christopher Gross is rumored to have mumbled on Donnerstag, 12. September 2002 13:08 Uhr -0400 regarding back to 'tics: > First of all, life for Afghan women has > improved a LOT more than you think. They can now show their faces in > public, they can go to school, they can work (a big consideration in such > a poor country, where families need every possible source of income and > society needs everyone who can contribute), and they can not only vote, > they're guaranteed representation in government. German newspapers have been reporting differently. According to some of them conditions are now basically back to what they were. I've read that women in Kabul can't go to school anymore. The school has apparently been closed after threats and attacks. I don't know about the other issues. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156, 50823 Kvln, Germany http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:43:33 -0400 From: Stewart Russell Subject: Re: back to 'tics Christopher Gross wrote: > > But the government could still > encourage conservation by ... funding research into > solar energy, fuel cells and fusion, etc. but there are lots of cool and proven renewable energy technologies out there already. It would maybe be better to deploy what we can now, and learn from the experience for future improvements. I'm constantly amazed by the "will this thing work?" attitude to wind turbines here in Canada. People think they're some kinda wacky technology, but they've been pretty solid in Europe for getting on for 20 years. Government research into renewables often fails to please. In the late 70s and early 80s, the US, Germany and the UK competed for technical excellence in wind energy.There were some spectacularly unsuccessful machines from NASA, but they all pale into insignificance against the German monster Growian (http://www.ifb.uni-stuttgart.de/~doerner/eGROWIAN.html) which was bigger and more expensive than any other wind turbine -- yet ran for just a few weeks before being taken apart. It's basically taken Danish and Dutch agricultral engineering to build successively larger and better turbines through deployment and continuous improvement. It's the only way to go. Stewart (did I say I was standing for the board of WindShare http://www.windshare.ca/ ?) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:00:02 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Back to politics on 9/12/02 9:20 AM, The Great Quail at quail@libyrinth.com wrote: > I think that it's 100% our fault. If no one bought SUVs, there'd be less of > a problem. The majority of Americans enjoy a gas-guzzling, high-wattage, > high-environmental-impact lifestyle, and so we have the government that we > deserve. And while I agree that it has become a "national security issue," > it has nowhere reached the point where the average American is willing to > make sacrifices. Hell, the average American isn't even willing to simply > read up on the Middle East. As a whole, we remain happily oblivious, > insulated by our might and secure under a protective shield of willful > ignorance.... I'd be more than happy to drive an 'alternative fuel' vehicle if they were more readily available. Think it's just a coincidence that there are few to choose from? I'd also like to re-roof my house with solar tiles, but for some reason the high cost is prohibitive... - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:05:21 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Back to politics On Thu, Sep 12, 2002, Tom Clark wrote: > I'd be more than happy to drive an 'alternative fuel' vehicle if they were > more readily available. Think it's just a coincidence that there are few to > choose from? I'd also like to re-roof my house with solar tiles, but for > some reason the high cost is prohibitive... But, you could drive a much more fuel-efficient car than the typical SUV. Cars with little 4 cyls. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:20:58 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Oil and lucifer Quail: >>we support numerous egregious regimes for the sake of our own oil >>consumption (which we, the American citizens, are ultimately responsible for, >>not our government) Point taken vis a vis the American love affair with big gas-guzzling cars, etc. However, it should be noted that funding for alternative fuels sources, development incentives for electric/fuel cell cars (etc.) takes a serious nose-dive when the powers that be have a vested interest in big oil, as they do now. As just one example, the canard that Americans don't want electric cars is supposedly borne out by the market, but it's a spurious arguement because there just aren't affordable electric cars on the market. Getting that to happen, and establishing the infrastructure to support them, is an ideal job for our (or any) government. Various state governments, like ours here in California, have tried to push such legislation through, but it keeps getting squashed by business lobbies and such, who are therefore contradicting their stated "let the market decide" attitude. The markets aren't even going to get a chance to decide with Big Oil in the Oval office. I can't wait to be able to afford an electric car (I know a lot of people who feel the same way), and I bemoan the preponderance of gas-guzzling SUV's on the road. But I don't make a mint as a salary and I have a kid, so what does the wife drive her to day care in other than a used Ford Explorer? She used to drive a really fuel-efficient light pickup, but it turns out that pickups don't have the back seat that you need to strap a child-safety seat into. Sigh. _____________ Eugene: >>One of my favorite words. "Luciferase." Has a lovely ring to it. It is cool. I recently was talking to a someone who had named their child "Lucas", and they mentioned that they had just come across a meaning for the name that involved "giving light". I said, "Hey, that makes sense... it would be the same root as "Lucifer", which means "light-bringer". That didn't go over too well. Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:16:05 -0400 From: Stewart Russell Subject: Re: Oil and lucifer Rex.Broome wrote: > > "Lucas" ... a meaning for the name that involved "giving light" quite the opposite if you've ever owned a car with Lucas electrics; Lucas, Prince of Darkness. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:26:50 +0100 (BST) From: crowbar.joe@btopenworld.com Subject: Side 3 and Great Central Revisited and, oh yes, war... Brian H asked >What's the playing time of S3? Could NDL >S3 be burnt onto a single cdr? NDL is 41.17 and Side 3 21.41. BTW. I'm not overly keen on Purple Orange Stripes but think the rest of the album more than makes up for that small blip. joe.mbc Remembering with amusement how plucky little Kuwait was bolstered as a bastion of western values at the beginning of the Gulf War. Like fuck it is. Read Scott Ritter everyone. The man is a dyed in the wool, Republican military man and yet he's tanking into the establishment. He was there, he knows Bush is a hypocritical bullshitter. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:33:51 -0400 From: rosso@videotron.ca Subject: Re: back to 'tics On 12 Sep 2002 at 13:43, Stewart Russell wrote: > I'm constantly amazed by the "will this thing work?" attitude to wind > turbines here in Canada. People think they're some kinda wacky > technology, but they've been pretty solid in Europe for getting on for > 20 years. There's a proposal for wind power in Southern Ontario. One group is contesting it on the basis of aesthetics, because it's cottage country. They're also saying that it may endanger birds. I hear they have disguised communications towers as trees in NJ. I think it was on the veteran's highway. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:38:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: back to 'tics Mike Godwin wrote: > Everyone could see that when Saddam invaded Kuwait, he was breaking > international law, same as when Galtieri invaded the Falklands. But he > hasn't broken international law since 1991 (the massacre of the Kurds was > in 1988). I think that's why none of the extensive coalition of Arab > states who supported the Gulf War are in favour of further anti-Saddam > measures at present (with the possible exception of Kuwait). All the Arab > leaders that Powell has talked to have said that sorting out the > Israel-Palestine mess is a much higher priority than removing Saddam. Eh.... The legal part may be an element, perhaps, but I don't think it's the main reason why these Arab states are against war with Iraq. I would look more at the practical power politics of the thing: these states are afraid of regional instability, and they're afraid of their own Islamists, who may well side with Muslim against non-Muslim, no matter how loathsome (and secular!) a Muslim Saddam Hussein is. But who knows what these kings and emirs are really thinking.... > Bush and [probably] Blair support regime change in Iraq. Remember when the > regime changed in Iran? A pro-Western Shah was replaced by the barmy > ayatollahs. At least Saddam runs a secular state. If he is toppled, > the most likely winners will be the Shia Arabs in the south who will push > for closer ties with Iran, and the Kurds in the north who will destabilise > the Turkish border. I'd love to believe that there is a Garibaldi-style > patriotic front ready to take over Iraq and turn it into a liberal > democracy, but that isn't going to happen. I agree. This is in fact one of the biggest reasons why I lean against war: the danger that Iraq will descend into chaos and possibly destabilize the whole region. I think the hawks are brushing off this danger far too lightly. Mind you, I only think it's a potential danger, not a certainty. If we DO go to war, we're going to have to do everything possible to convince the Kurds and Shiites to settle for federalization and local autonomy within Iraq, give up on independence, and leave the Kurds in other countries to their own devices. Given the history of nationalist and religious movements in most countries, I'm not confident they'll go for it.... Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > German newspapers have been reporting differently. According to some of > them conditions are now basically back to what they were. I've read that > women in Kabul can't go to school anymore. The school has apparently been > closed after threats and attacks. Really? According to the stories I've read, ex-Taliban and those who think like them have *tried* to close down girls' schools, but have generally been beaten back by the government and other anti-Taliban Afghans. Perhaps you read about a school that was *temporarily* closed after a bomb threat? I certainly HOPE the papers I've read are more accurate than the ones you've read.... - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:40:26 -0400 From: Stewart Russell Subject: Re: back to 'tics rosso@videotron.ca wrote: > > There's a proposal for wind power in Southern Ontario. One group is > contesting it on the basis of aesthetics, because it's cottage country. > They're also saying that it may endanger birds. sounds like they've been got to by Countryside Guardians, the astroturf anti-wind group supported by British Nuclear Fuels. As regards aesthetics, what you see is all you get, pollution-wise. And that birdkill thing is such an old chestnut. Estimated turbine bird kill is 2 per year; less than one house cat. High-rise buildings kill thousands of birds a year. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:46:03 -0400 From: "ross taylor" Subject: Re:back to 'tics Chris-- >Invading Iraq to just steal their oil would be wrong, of course; but on >the other hand, if Saddam Hussein threatens our oil supply, fighting him >could be defended as legitimate self defense, and I don't think I'd disagree. But it's their oil. Unless I misread that, it sounds exactly like the Manifest Destiny argument for taking land away from Native Americans. Again, it's a minor point in the context of your post (much of which I agree w/ particularly re. abandoning Afghanistan), but I think it's a huge, but only semi-consciously held, part of the US populace's attitude about the Middle East: we have such incredible *need* for the oil, it is in effect ours already. Never mind that over decades we have chosen to need it. Ross Taylor "Shah-Shah a go-go" --The Stranglers Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:10:31 -0700 From: "John B. Jones" Subject: Side 3 availability? Is Side 3 available now for us laypeople? Or are people just getting advance copies ala Nextdoorland?? I'm hoping that the Boys will make it available via mail order or something, since I don't think I will be able to make it to any shows on their upcoming tour (they skipped Portland OR altogether, you know). =jbj= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:21:36 -0400 From: "ross taylor" Subject: fireflies & rainbows & eating slime Mike G-- >I won't bore you with how good that Clapton Rainbow I almost joked about you being there, but thought "he's probably tired of being ribbed about that sort of thing." - --- I moved around a lot growing up, but I think that in Tennessee, NC & Virginia it was generally "fireflies." But I guess Rufus T. Firefly was from up North. I heard "lightning bugs" too. "The difference between the right word and the almost-right-word is the the difference between lightning and the lightening bug." -- Mark Twain There's a nice poem by Norman Dubie called "In the Dead of the Night," where his cat's been catching & eating fireflies, but they don't agree w/ it, & in his dark bedroom it vomits a glowing pool. (True story). - --- I once ordered a sea-cucumber in a Chinese restaurant (some kind of creature, don't know phylum or family). Cooked, but still major slime factor & aftertast. Left much on my plate. I shall not order another. Ross Taylor Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:25:20 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: back to 'tics Wind turbines were a up and coming industry in the states 10 years ago. The industry took a big dive in 1995 because of a couple of problems with broken blades, the condor endangerment in California and bad management from some of the manufacturers of the turbines. Many of the wind turbine companies went belly up, and numerous manufacturers of gears, bearings and machined components that made parts for the turbine companies never got paid millions of dollars owed to them by the turbine companies. I know because I buy similar parts from some of the same suppliers for the industrial robotics company that I work at. They are starting to make a mild comeback, but the cost to make power from the wind turbines is still more than hydro electric. Plus you need a wide open area that is exposed to wind to make them viable. California probably has the most of them. I have only spotted one in Michigan, just outside Traverse City. Michael - -----Original Message----- From: rosso@videotron.ca [mailto:rosso@videotron.ca] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 2:34 PM To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Subject: Re: back to 'tics On 12 Sep 2002 at 13:43, Stewart Russell wrote: > I'm constantly amazed by the "will this thing work?" attitude to wind > turbines here in Canada. People think they're some kinda wacky > technology, but they've been pretty solid in Europe for getting on for > 20 years. There's a proposal for wind power in Southern Ontario. One group is contesting it on the basis of aesthetics, because it's cottage country. They're also saying that it may endanger birds. I hear they have disguised communications towers as trees in NJ. I think it was on the veteran's highway. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:37:41 -0400 From: Stewart Russell Subject: Re: back to 'tics Bachman, Michael wrote: > > The industry took a big dive in 1995 the US industry, yes; but that was the time that the Danish companies were taking over the world with cheaper, quieter and more efficient machines. In 1995, I was busy building as many wind turbines as it was possible for one company to build. > California probably has the most of them. yes, but many are old and small. The one huge turbine near here in Pickering, ON, could replace 10 or so of the older machines. Less visual clutter, too. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:43:50 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: back to 'tics > Chris-- >> Invading Iraq to just steal their oil would be wrong, of course; but on >> the other hand, if Saddam Hussein threatens our oil supply, fighting him >> could be defended as legitimate self defense, and I don't think I'd > disagree. Ross: > But it's their oil. Knowing Chris as I do, and having argued away many quarts of midnight oil, I believe Chris was referring to the invasion of Kuwait, where Hussein threatened our oil supply in a clearly immoral way. Having said that, I really can't agree with Ross 100% that it's *their* oil. Without the industrial power and ingenuity of the West, it would just be a profitless black liquid buried under the sand. While I don't argue that the Iraqi people have a right to profit from the happy fact they sit upon a modern goldmine, I think that such a powerful substance in many very real ways "belongs" to the entire world. For instance, if Hussein decided to dump all Iraq's oil into the sea, I think we'd have a right to stop him. - --Imperial Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:55:49 -0400 From: Stewart Russell Subject: Re: back to 'tics The Great Quail wrote: > > For instance, if Hussein decided to dump > all Iraq's oil into the sea, I think we'd have a right to stop him. only on environmental grounds, surely? We can't say we have a right to intervene in another country's resource usage if it doesn't affect anyone else. Otherwise (to bend the analogy a bit for pseudohumorous effect) the developing world could commandeer n.America's SUVs ... Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:00:57 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: back to 'tics The Quail spoke: >Having said that, I really can't agree with Ross 100% that it's *their* oil. >Without the industrial power and ingenuity of the West, it would just be a >profitless black liquid buried under the sand. While I don't argue that the >Iraqi people have a right to profit from the happy fact they sit upon a >modern goldmine, I think that such a powerful substance in many very real >ways "belongs" to the entire world. For instance, if Hussein decided to dump >all Iraq's oil into the sea, I think we'd have a right to stop him. I hope I never see the Great Lakes drained of it's water because people in other states or countries think it's their water. There has been occasional talk of it. Fortunately, the surrounding states and Canada won't let it happen. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:19:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: back to 'tics On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, The Great Quail wrote: > > Chris-- > >> Invading Iraq to just steal their oil would be wrong, of course; but on > >> the other hand, if Saddam Hussein threatens our oil supply, fighting him > >> could be defended as legitimate self defense, and I don't think I'd > > disagree. > > Ross: > > But it's their oil. > > Knowing Chris as I do, and having argued away many quarts of midnight oil, I > believe Chris was referring to the invasion of Kuwait, where Hussein > threatened our oil supply in a clearly immoral way. Well, almost -- I was thinking of the possibility that in the future Iraq would conquer or threaten Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region that voluntarily sell us their oil. The 1990 invasion of Kuwait would be a good *historical* example of this. (Especially since it would have given Iraq leverage over Saudi Arabia as well, if the US hadn't said we would defend them. If this had happened, Iraq would have had direct or indirect control over way too much of the world's oil.) But of course I was NOT saying we'd have the right to invade Iraq if they just decided not to sell us their own oil -- we could still buy it from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. > ways "belongs" to the entire world. For instance, if Hussein decided to dump > all Iraq's oil into the sea, I think we'd have a right to stop him. I'd agree, but more because of the effect it would have on the sea than because the world needs oil! - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:21:06 -0400 From: HSatterfld@aol.com Subject: Re: help me identify this band? (OT) Thanks very much to Stewart and Bradley for the quick answers! I knew a feg would be able to help me find it. I have ordered the CD...I already own both of Patti Rothberg's CDs, I just didn't recognize her on this song. I guess it was written by someone else and the music was played by someone else also. (Perhaps I should drop a note to Engine Records to let them know that they aren't very searchable from all my favrite search engines, and the film _Anywhere_ isn't even listed at imdb.) thanks again, Hollie ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:30:02 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Iraq Stewart wonders, > only on environmental grounds, surely? We can't say we have a right to > intervene in another country's resource usage if it doesn't affect > anyone else. But that's just what I am saying -- it would affect others. Iraq has a lot of oil, great. So they sell it, make tons of money, great. But if they decided to destroy these resources, I think the world would have a clear reason to intervene. I will go so far as to say that if Iraq decided to sell their oil to a country we were currently at war with, we would also have a reason to intervene. In short, the modern world needs oil. You can debate how good or bad that is until the cows come home. But as long as that remains a fact, it will be a major factor that governs global politics. The powerful protect themselves to remain powerful. If all the Arab states suddenly decided that they would only sell their oil to China, do you really think the US would allow that to happen? (Yes, I know that could never happen for many reasons -- multinational oil corporations, entrenched wealthy Arab families, and so on. It's just a thought-experiment.) I know that on the Feg political spectrum, I occupy a position more "right" than most Fegs. I am not a hawk, and for the same reasons Chris enumerated, I do not support a war against Iraq *at this time.* However, I also recognize that I am firmly ensconced as a Western modern man, complete with a CD player, a CD/DVD collection, a job, a car, and a computer -- and all the energy and oil consumption all this signifies. While that does not make my government completely blameless, I accept that my lifestyle adds to the complexities of the modern political state. So consequently, while I can add a small amount of pressure to make the Machine steer towards a course I find less horrible than the norm, I also realize that maintaining an empire requires costs, most of which are paid by other, less privileged people. So I think that for myself, it would be rank hypocrisy to believe the United States has no business how the Iraqis use or misuse "their" national resources. As it is, I just hope that a "regime change" would bring about a more even distribution of their national wealth. But until we can ascribe to a more coherent, less internally-conflicted and less hypocritical position on the Middle East, I feel that our best strategy with Iraq is containment. (Which is not to say that I wouldn't just love the US to wade in there and end this bastard's reign -- but without a clear answer to issues such as Palestine, Saudi Arabian Wahhabism, and Iraqi nation-building, I think we'll just create a huge mess.) - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:42:42 +0000 From: "Golden Hind" Subject: The junk inside? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/2251386.stm _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:40:47 +0000 From: "Golden Hind" Subject: back to 'tics Chris wrote: As for comparisons with other nuclear-armed countries, there are two >differences in Iraq's case. First, he seems more likely than, say, India >to use his nukes to threaten the rest of the world -- probably by conquering his oil-exporting neighbors once his nukes made it much more >costly to stop him. India and Pakistan, by contrast, just want to threaten each other. Secondly, since Iraq is just on the verge of getting >nukes, it's still possible to stop him! It's too late in other cases. The India/Pakistan threat seems pretty scary to me, since it looks the most likely to occur. Is the fallout going to stay within the borders of the two countries? No, its going to effect the world. And thats just what the world dosn't seem to have properly worked out yet. I wrote/Chris wrote: >>Hey -- he was the good guy during the war with Iran. As Im sure you know, it > can be argued we made Hussein. >How so? I know we aided him in his war against Iran, but we didn't actually create him or his regime. You're right. What I should have said is that if Iran had won that war Hussein would have been unmade, but we felt(and probobly correctly) that the threat from Iran was greater than the threat from Hussein and therefore we are -partially-, though not wholey, responsible for Hussein's present power. What I was reacting to is the need for most American to see things very black and white. Id feel better if as a people we realized that its not - -just- that our virtues have been affronted(and they have,) but also that our vices (such as our endless thirst for oil or our willingness to back tyrents for expedience's sake) have been implicated. We are certianly not the villians, some of us have even been heros, but most of us are far from the white knights popular political rhetoric now would hail us as. - ---------------------- Godwin, thanks for that "lowdown" on WIG vechiles. If I ever create a fantasy-world religion, you will definatly be one of its major godlets. Would you prefer your sacrifices in lice or jellyfish? Kay _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:55:42 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: RE: beneath, between, behind that's pretty neat since i tried to spell it like it's pronounced around these parts. that song is accurate, still today. i'm fallin' intu yesturday. i wuz thinkun' bout mi mar en par en thinkun bout the lar. en ie memburd en oel furiend u emyn en mi wurhtchin dem dar bahugs. dey uz glo'in duark en dey uz fulien kindu sulowe en den aull et wonce wit auwul dare mite de uz glo'in gureene en burite. On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Michael R Godwin wrote: > gSs: here we call em' "litenun bahugs". > > * Ah, as in: > "The farmer saeed to the boll weevil > I see yu ahn the squayuh > The boll weevil saeed to the litenun bahug ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:20:22 From: Stewart Russell Subject: Re: Iraq The Great Quail wrote: > > I will go so far as to say that if Iraq decided to sell their oil to a > country we were currently at war with, we would also have a reason to > intervene. does the US mainatin a list, or is it defined as "whoever Iraq sells oil to"? > If all the Arab states suddenly decided that they would > only sell their oil to China, do you really think the US > would allow that to happen? Doesn't China have Most Favoured Nation status? Doen't that mean that the US has to stand aside, applaud gently while murmurring, "Bravo!"? Stewart (this could well be the beer and koththu roti* talking; don't take me too seriously.) *: If you've never had this, hie thee to thy local Sri Lankan takeaway, and remedy the sitch forthwith. I suspect it's Tamil for "leftovers with extra chillies". ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #285 ********************************