From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #288 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, September 13 2002 Volume 11 : Number 288 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Deliciously chitinous! ["Jason R. Thornton" ] RE: Iraq and Afghanistan and stuff ["Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc)" ] I'm Afraid of Ugly Americans ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: I'm Afraid of Ugly Americans ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: "less priviledged peoples" ["*FS Thomas*" ] Unprotected Love [Brian ] Re: Oh boy [steve ] Re: I'm Afraid of Ugly Americans [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: I'm Afraid of Ugly Americans ["*FS Thomas*" ] less priviledged peoples ["Golden Hind" ] Re: Who's side are you on? World War 3 of course. [gSs ] Re: Oh boy [rosso@videotron.ca] Scotland, Iraq, Japan, Wind, and dancing on the head of a pin [grutness@s] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:02:06 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Deliciously chitinous! First off, for those that have had and enjoyed sea urchin (uni) at a sushi place, you were actually eating sea urchin "roe," which in this case is the creature's sexual organs. Admittedly, it's very good. As far as insects go, both times I visited Bangkok, I noticed these food vendors who would pedal around on bicycles with a basket attached to the handlebars that was full of a variety of cooked bugs which were sold as snacks. I refrained from this particular delicacy, but I did try one dish which has some sort of beetle wings as an ingredient. And I ate a few other things you don't want to know about. I've also had jellyfish salad in Chinese and Japanese restaurants. It's actually quite tasty, and not that much different in texture than noodles, although a bit chewier. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:13:09 -0700 From: "Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc)" Subject: RE: Iraq and Afghanistan and stuff Christopher Gross wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc) wrote: > > The High King 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. > > > > If they were also still selling to us what would be the problem? What > > about neutrality? Iraq should be able to do whatever it wants with its > > natural resources provided it doesn't harm the environment in some > > catastrophic way. If they want to not sell to anyone fine if they want > > to limit who they sell too then fine. > > Well, you can debate the morality of it, but it's standard procedure for > countries at war to blockade their enemies if they have the capacity. > This involves not only destroying enemy ships/trains/pack mules, but also > stopping neutral ships or whatever from delivering anything useful to the > enemy. This is accepted practice, as long as the neutrals are given fair > warning at the start of the blockade. I don't think we'd have the right > to forcibly stop Iraqi oil from going to, say, North Korea, just because > we don't like the latter. But if we were actually *at war* with North > Korea, then we'd have legitimate grounds to stop any Iraqi tankers heading > for NK. I don't object to blockades and cutting off enemy supplies but I took Quail's comments to mean something more sinister like bombing the supplier or something like that. Which would be really unjustified. But what the hell do I know I still get pissy when the US goes to war with Afghanistan and Congress doesn't actually declare war. I guess I'm just a 19th century man :-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:13:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jonathan Fetter" Subject: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan and stuff > (Just out of curiosity, does anyone consider Pakistani or Indian reporters > inherently more reliable than Americans in this regard; and if so, why?) Only if they have a British accent. I don't know--a well modulated voice? I have noticed recently that the only time there seems to be any real news (not stuff like coal miner rescues/shark attacks/Elian Gonzalez follow-ups) on CNN, the reporter has a British accent. But then again, i've mostly given up on TV news for anything newsworthy, so this may be due to a sampling error. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:16:15 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: your mail On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Golden Hind wrote: > Question Feg can probobly answer: > > Im fascinated by wind farms. Havent farms often used windmills to pump > water? But being no engineer Im having a hard time figuring out the > mechanics of a wind farm. Does anyone know a site on about 8th grade level > that explains how they work? My secondary world cries out for them, but I > dont want to botch -all- the details. think of them as hand powered generators like on flashlites and emergency radios or the older military radios but bigger and instead of being turned by a hand or foot crank, they are turned by the wind. i switched to green mountain energy about a year ago. they generate all of their electricity in Texas through wind turbines in West Texas. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:42:04 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: I'm Afraid of Ugly Americans Chris G.: >>I don't know if I ever said so in so many words, but the thing that most upset me >>about leftist reactions to Sept. 11 was that they seemed to reserve all their anger >>for the American response. See, I'm not at all sure that's true. That's what the right expected them to do and they were quick to paint any skeptical comments from the left that way. But by the same token, there were many on the left who were very quick to denounce every announcement by the administration as a prelude to martial law or some kind of police state. Some great togetherness and spiritual unity came out of this whole thing, huh? I remain on the lefty side of most of the issues here, but never have I been so frustrated with the strident rhetoric from both sides of the political spectrum. I have a lot of opinions on this stuff but I don't feel much is to be served by stating them... and maybe that's the worst thing about the current climate. Hey, how about a riddle? What's ten inches long and slimy, tastes awful, can turn itself inside out, and has to gnaw off its own penis after mating? - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:36:01 -0400 From: "*FS Thomas*" Subject: Re: I'm Afraid of Ugly Americans - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rex.Broome" > > What's ten inches long and slimy, tastes awful, can turn itself inside out, > and has to gnaw off its own penis after mating? John Ashcroft? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:40:08 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: I'm Afraid of Ugly Americans At 10:42 AM 9/13/2002 -0700, Rex.Broome wrote: >What's ten inches long and slimy, tastes awful, can turn itself inside out, >and has to gnaw off its own penis after mating? Dick Cheney! - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:45:01 -0400 From: "ross taylor" Subject: "less priviledged peoples" Quail-- >I think that such a powerful substance in many very real >ways "belongs" to the entire world. Yeah, One World!! You're not right-of-list, you're a Commie! Seriously, I'm shocked at how positive I feel about "nation building." I mean it's highly interventionist, telling people how to run their countries at least in part, but I think we live in a small enuf world that if some part of it is devastated and miserable it is a danger to us all. The problem is how to properly fix the misery. ALSO, my gut feeling is, based in part on having majored in cultural anthropology in the 70s & having paid closer attention to politics years ago & then forgotten most of it-- Large populations of humans are all basically the same. None of them are poor because they are intrinsically dumb, lazy or mean. They are poor because of historical/ecological factors. Here is a big theory I don't have worked out fully, & may be over my head in, but I believe the United States is so rich largely for historical & *ECOLOGICAL* factors. From my perspective I think we have a good-to-great system of government & even culture, but I think this is more a result than a cause of our riches, which largely derive from the North American continent. For various complex reasons the Native Americans didn't use resources the way Europeans did. So Europeans "inherited" a very rich phyiscal plant which, due to their having been forced to develop higher technology, was easy to conquer (tho much of the conquest was done by smallpox and other diseases). [Insert mention of southern US slavery here.] [And see * at bottom] Yes, we were fortunate the folks who had the most success colonizing this big, sweet petri dish already had some acquaintance w/ ideas of democracy. But once we pushed the injuns back, the fact that all comers could have *land* gave *everyone* (white) more stake in gov't, etc. Well, there'd be more to the argument, but in short it goes back to the idea that we give ourselves too much credit as a population. (I know I got most of these ideas from others.) At any rate, I relate this to the Middle East because I think there is US feeling that 9/11 demonstrated the civilization of the West over the barbaric rest. No. I think resources are key and we've got/had a lot of them. Talking about One World & resources reminds me of the so-so flick "The Shoes of the Fisherman." In a near future (near to the 1970s), China's economy collapses & they have mass starvation. They broadcast a message like "We're starving. Either you all help us, or we'll make nuclear war on everybody & take you with us." The world braces for war, but the Pope (!?), as a way of urging everyone in the right direction, starts selling off everything in Vatican City to feed the Chinese. Lots of iffy generalizations involved ~ but it's an interesting thought experiment. Ross Taylor "war could boost the economy & the mailing list" * [(So, a big given is that I don't think higher technology is absolutely a good thing. We invented penicillin and the atom bomb at about the same time. You win some, you lose some.) (Is having the magic of Shakespear better than believing in real magic? I dunno. I don't want to stop the clock or turn back the clock & I think it's unhealthy to try, but I think there are other ways of life just as good as ours.)] Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:35:32 -0400 From: "*FS Thomas*" Subject: Re: "less priviledged peoples" - ----- Original Message ----- From: "ross taylor" > > Quail-- > >I think that such a powerful substance in many very real > >ways "belongs" to the entire world. > > Yeah, One World!! You're not right-of-list, > you're a Commie! Well, if he's not red, then he's at the least a little pink. [RE: Large Populations] > ...None of them are poor because they > are intrinsically dumb, lazy or mean. They are > poor because of historical/ecological factors. > ...but I believe > the United States is so rich largely for > historical & *ECOLOGICAL* factors. I think that's a very big probability. The proverbial Fruited Plain did very well by us. It was underutilized by the indigenous population. Take that statement as you will, but they had neither the technology nor the population density to make it otherwise. Day-to-day life for the hunter-gatherer was too chock full of hunting and gathering to advance technologically. It's only with a high population density that you have enough Worker Bees to allow the intelligencia the time to experiment. I digress. Taking a side-long Econo-Darwinian (if there's such a thing) look at the world's populations, it seems that there's an economic food chain on the societal level. You've got your rich (1st world) countries (US, Canada, Western Europe), your so-so (2nd world) countries (USSR, China, Greece, Turkey), your bad-off (3rd world) countries (Mexico to an extent, Latin America), and the detritus (4th world) (Sub-Saharan Africa). Each of these has their reasons for being where they are: geography/ecology, politics, recent warfare, blight, etc, but perhaps each belongs where they fall. Not saying that each deserves its placement. All too often seemingly unrelated events can spiral into a civil catastrophe. Famine can strike an already weakened population. Governments can fall. Etc. I am also not implying that these countries can't have an impact on their situation and change the conditions under which they exist. In the Socio-Economic Circle Of Life, however, it might seem that there's always going to be a sort of class system. Perhaps rightly so. Example: 1st world business (let's play the stereotype: a clothing manufacturer) provides low-wage shop jobs to 2nd and 3rd world citizens. Said citizens collect a scant wage that would, if Mr. 1st World pulled up the tent stakes and went home, be utterly unavailable. As a side effect of being so affluent, the 1st world citizenry has more spare time. It's the nature of being technologically and economically advanced: life gets easier. Perhaps a fraction of these idle workers then volunteer for charitable organizations to help those in the 3rd world. Ten times as many as those who volunteer make donations. Perhaps the affluent couple go to an orphan's organization and adopt children out of the country. Maybe, too, in their college years, they take the time to petition their representatives for aide to the 3rd world countries. These poorer countries receive food relief, housing aide, and IMF loans (that they are free to squander and then ask for a God(s)-granted bailout, that's their business...) It's a cycle. A cycle that if you boost to far up, begins to falter. If the cost/quality of living rises too far in the country where the factory is located, then the cost of manufacturing rises too much. If those costs rise too much then the manufacturer has to hike his prices back home. If he hikes his prices he won't sell products, and without selling products the company runs the risk of closing. Closing companies don't make the affluent with monies invested in said companies very happy. What is the clothing maker then forced to do? Pull up stakes and go to the next impoverished nation down the road and start all over again. Where does that leave the previous country? Completely and utterly fucked. It's a cycle. Right or wrong, if you meddle with it too much it WILL bite those in the ass who can least afford it. Probably a very simplistic model and (more than likely) full of unforeseen holes. *Remember*, this was written by a multimedia programmer with a degree in theatre, after all. - -ferris. np: Nextdoorland (and Japanese Captain's growing on me) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:50:27 -0400 From: Brian Subject: Unprotected Love Is this song about sex without a condom? (You are so hard...) - -Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:56:51 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Oh boy On Friday, September 13, 2002, at 08:55 AM, The Great Quail wrote: > I knew I would get flamed for my Iraq post! Heh. Even from fellow > Democrat > Steve Schiavo! Hey, that wasn't a flame, just a gentle nudge. And while I almost always vote Democratic, it's almost by default. I could, in theory, vote for a reasonable Republican. An oxymoron, I know, but McCain vs. Leiberman would be a tough call. But of course, a reasonable Republican could never get by the Christian Crazies that control that party. And I thought the left coast fegs were the utopians. I don't want everybody to ride a bike, I just want to have CAFE standards applied to SUVs, etc. >> You're not going to get too many people, right, left, or center, to >> agree with the above. In any case, the need to sell the oil will get >> it onto the market. > > I think you misunderstand me. I would argue that most people do > believe that > precious resources belong, to some extent, to the entire world. How > the are > distributed and to what extent they are used and misused, however, > opens up > a zillion cans of political and ideological worms.... This seems to me to be a utopian position. I think most people would say that natural resources go with the geographical area of a nation state. That's not to say that the people with the resources shouldn't be reasonable. > PS: Steve, please, never, ever, ever compare me again to Bush. Revile > my > opinions if you must, call me whatever you need to, but please, I beg > you! OK everybody, I hereby acknowledge that Quail is second only to me in his disgust at the mere existence of George W. Bush. - - Steve __________ Break the cursing seal of love, new devil. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:58:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: I'm Afraid of Ugly Americans *FS Thomas* wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rex.Broome" > > > > What's ten inches long and slimy, tastes awful, can turn itself > > inside out, and has to gnaw off its own penis after mating? > > John Ashcroft? he said 10 inches, not 3. ===== "If we don't allow journalists, politicians, and every two-bit Joe Schmo with a cause to grandstand by using 9-11 as a lame rhetorical device, then the terrorists have already won." -- "Shredder" "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt . Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:01:32 -0400 From: "*FS Thomas*" Subject: Re: I'm Afraid of Ugly Americans > > John Ashcroft? > > he said 10 inches, not 3. Ouch. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 19:05:04 +0000 From: "Golden Hind" Subject: less priviledged peoples Ross: >For various complex reasons the Native Americans didn't use resources the way Europeans did. So Europeans "inherited" a very rich phyiscal plant which, due to their having been forced to develop higher technology, was easy to conquer (tho much of the conquest was done by smallpox and other diseases). [Insert mention of southern US slavery here.] [And see * at bottom] Way to go Ross. The fact is that around NYC, Long Island and the Delaware Valley(the only areas I know about) the enviroment was amazing. The Native American used two methods which really enriched the plenty of the enviroment. First of all, they would be somewhat nomadic, depending on seasonal food sources. Then, what land they cultivated they cultivated towards abundance. This included things like planting the 3 sisters(corn, beans and squach) together, each crop protecting, supporting and fertalizing the other, making use of waste in ingenious ways (such as fishheads as fertilizer), rotating farming fields so that the soil didnt deplete, and periodically burning off fields and woods to ultimetly enhance the flora and fauna. Early Europeans ofen felt like they'd stumbled in to Eden. Around LI the huge amout of shellfish in the bays(even when I was a little kid you could still go down to a creek and fish/crab/clam dinner in very little time)migrating ducks(there are lots of old tall stories bout hunters for whom it was a point of pride to always bring home more ducks than shots fired. Yeah its a tall tale -- but it wouldnt have been if the sky hadnt been thick with birds)fish and whales in the sea(whom the Native Americans taught us to hunt), let alone small game. The Europeans marveloued that the Native Americans could live so well only "working" the equivalent of about 4 days a week(hence the lazy indian thing.) Needless to say late winter was harsh, etc -- but there really was a bounty to the land that we quickly took to exploiting without considering the consequesnces. And if somewhere between 1/2 to 9/10th of the native population hadnt been felled by the diseases we brought, I sometimes wonder how history might have turned out. Yeah, Im romancing slightly, but Im basically backing up Ross and also questioning Ferris's assesment of Native Americans use of the land. Afghanistan isnt exactly the most fertile place in the world. Instead of temperate coastal climates you get extrodinarily harsh extremes. Being able to create excess wealth in such an enviroment must be very difficult. More Ross, >but I think we live in a small enuf world that if some part of it is devastated and miserable it is a danger to us all. Agreed --Id rather see us boost our economy by making peace than war. For lots of reasons, some of them even practical. At least in Kabul where there is a middle-class, some good could be done. There are no miracles but there are slow, difficult, incrimental gains which can ultimetly make a difference. An open school here, a debate there, before you know it people will begin to think such things are not only permissable, but perhaps desirable. Kay _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:32:43 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: Who's side are you on? World War 3 of course. On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 crowbar.joe@btopenworld.com wrote: > Awaiting the United Islamic Kingdom, that is as or more oxymoronic than a united christian kingdom. why don't we let the scientologists control at least one branch of government and then we could get the hassidic jews to run the judicial branch. the sunni's could control education and then maybe the catholics will just go away and eat the jw's. jeez, why don't call the kiss army and have them bomb the bridges? why don't we make religion illegal? that was a serious question. god is just the angel with the biggest mojo, today. can angels die? gSs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:58:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jonathan Fetter" Subject: Re: Oil and lucifer rant If I were a rich man (da da da da...), I would buy a car that would be as low-environmental impact as technology can make it while still offering what one expects from a normal car. I think a car like that is a much more meaningful status symbol than a Sherman tank/SUV hybrid, yacht-sized Benz, caddie, etc. But then again I'm weird. The recent amendment to the CAFE standards were shot down by Bush with the given reason that they were a threat to safety because they meant lighter cars (even though the tech exists to improve mileage without sacrificing strength--industry lacks incentive to use it). So we'll continue flooding the streets ("Keep America Rolling" ) with gas-guzzling heavy vehicles that have made the streets unsafe for lighter more fuel efficient cars. Whatever happened to car commercials that stated the mileage cars get? Is the average consumer so stupid that they like to pay high petroleum bills? Isopods, pill bugs: Jon > 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. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 18:45:14 -0400 From: rosso@videotron.ca Subject: Re: Oh boy On 13 Sep 2002 at 9:55, The Great Quail wrote: > I knew I would get flamed for my Iraq post! [snip] > So drawing comparisons to Canadian fresh water and so on is just knee-jerk > hyperbole. Maybe, but it's not my knee-jerk hyperbole. It's an idea that's been kicked around here by politicians for at least a decade. Pro: One former Quebec leader was planning to dam off James Bay and redirect rivers into it, forming a huge freshwater resevoir. A pipeline was to have been built to transport this water to the States. Con: Other Canadian politicians have warned that we may find ourselves committed to supply the US with water because of NAFTA, IIRC. Remember Chauteaguay! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 12:05:13 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Scotland, Iraq, Japan, Wind, and dancing on the head of a pin >James wrote: >> >> they're slaters here too. > >cool; Scottish World Domination ... this place ain't called Dunedin for nothing. Translate it from Gaelic into Old Northumbrian and you get Edinburgh. (oddly though it's pronounced with the same E sound as in seed). The main streets have the same names as those in Edinburgh, too. >From: "*FS Thomas*" >By refusing the inspectors they're signing their own declaration of war. >This is *exactly* the response those UN seeking to avoid US military action >do not want to hear. If the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians, Sudanese [insert >your favorite M-E country here] want to avoid us steam rolling Iraq again, >they had best get on the horn and talk them down of this diplomatic window >ledge they've crept out onto. It's a thin, crumbling ledge, slick with >rain, and the wind's starting to pick up. > >-f. I suspect the Iraqi government feels that GWB is likely to want to go to war even if the UN inspectors are allowed back in. If that's the case, then their best plan would be to (a) have the US look like the aggressor, and (b) have the entire Moslem world on their side. They're going the right way about doing both those things. And considering how badly damaged Iraq's infrastructure is after the last ten years or more, which country has most to lose by a war, Iraq or the US? > Very interesting what you say, though, about the H-bombs dropped on Japan > - much as it was utterly sickening - I do wonder what would have been the > case had they not been dropped, and I can't help concurring that it would > have led to an horrific land campaign in Japan, resulting in enormous > (and largely civilian) casualties... I guess nothing is simple, eh? ISTR the US military were planning for a land campaign and estimating half a million casualties. Can't recall whether that was total or US military alone. >Question Feg can probobly answer: > >Im fascinated by wind farms. Havent farms often used windmills to pump >water? But being no engineer Im having a hard time figuring out the >mechanics of a wind farm. Does anyone know a site on about 8th grade level >that explains how they work? My secondary world cries out for them, but I >dont want to botch -all- the details. try: you gotta love a web-page which has "A brief history of wind" as one of its headings! for (an immense amount) more detail, there's >James wrote: >>Oh, and a standing joke in my family: three of my dad's siblings wwre named >>Gabrielle, Raphael - and Lu'. No, it's short for Louis, but... >(to >>complete the set, his son is my cousin Michael) > >Gabriel, Raphael and Michael, Gabe, Ralph and Mike --its always, always >those 3. But arent there supposed to be -4- archangels? Uriel would be too weird a name to lumber any kid with, unless you're in some odd religious group, I suppose. The 4th, when you >finially track him down, is usally called Uriel, thou Ive also seen Fanueil >and Phaniel. Poor thing, nobody names their kids that. S/He dodnt get >mentioned in the Bible. If Lucifer becomes Satan does Satan become Uriel? Or >does Uriel have some hidden function? Is s/he shy? What gives? Uriel "is the keeper of the mysteries which are deep within the planet, underground and in the hidden depths of the living world." That according to a website dedicated to him/her, as for Phaniel, the site says: "Phanuel, Uriel, Raguel, Fanuel, Ramiel, Phamael - 'face of God' The archangel of penance and one of the four angels of the presence. In Enoch I he 'fends off the Satans' and forbids them 'to come before the Lord of spirits to accuse them who dwell on earth.' Phanuel is also identified as the Shepherd in the Shepherd of Hermes. In Enoch I he is equated with Uriel. In IV Ezrs, he is equated with Ramiel (Jeremiel) or Hieremihel, or Eremiel (the last named in the Apocalypse of Sophonias). In the Sibylline Oracles he is 'one of the 5 angels who know all the evils that men have wrought.' As Phaniel, our angel is invoked, in an early Hebrew amulet, against evil spirits. In M|ller, History of Jewish Mysticism, he is identified with Uriel. Ethiopians celebrate a holy day of the 'archangel Fanuel' on the 3rd day of Taxsas." 3rd day of Taxsas? Doesn't Greg live in Taxsas? >And why am I asking Feg a question bout Christianity? (Blame James, -he- >started it;-p) [sound of raspberry being blown] James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #288 ********************************