From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #12 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, January 15 2003 Volume 12 : Number 012 Today's Subjects: ----------------- rhymes with "corn" [Christopher Gross ] Feels Like 1990: Echo & the Bogusmen ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: S&V Top Ten [steve ] Re: frequent top ten typo, plus top twenty [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: frequent top ten typo, plus top twenty [Eb ] Re: frequent top ten typo, plus top twenty ["Miles Goosens"] Re: frequent top ten typo, plus top twenty [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re[2]: porny issue [noe shalev ] Re: *orny issue [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Yes Reissues [brian@lazerlove5.com] Re: Yes Reissues [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] New Order order [Miles Goosens ] Re: New Order order [Ken Weingold ] RE: New Order order ["Timothy Reed" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:17:22 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: rhymes with "corn" I'd just like to point out that any email I get with the string "porn" in the subject line is automatically sent to my junkmail folder. If I hadn't noticed the sudden burst of "junkmail" and looked in the folder, I never would have seen this discussion. I wonder if many other Fegs are missing it for similar reasons? - --teenage farmyard animal Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:48:25 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Feels Like 1990: Echo & the Bogusmen Marcy: >>Not only that, but I keep getting emails sent to my hotmail account where >>the subject line reads, "hot teens and farm animals" and the like I read somewhere about an anti-spam crusader who's taking the unusual action of suing such sites for false advertising. Which would seem to indicate that few if any of them actually feature such barnyard material, for which I imagine you would indeed also be prosecuted. Funny idea, although I don't remember where I heard it. __________ So having spent so much very enjoyable time recently with their box set, I went on a mini-completist spree for Echo & the Bunnymen and finally picked up the MacCulloch-less "Reverberation" album, and guess what... it's not only "good for what it is", it's really damned good. Maybe since I'm hearing for the first time after having heard Ian and Will try so hard not to sound like the Bunnymen, and then try perhaps too hard to sound *like* the Bunnymen, I'm ina position not to feel the sting of the dubious nature of the project; dunno. The singer sounds maybe halfway between Eno and Weller, and writes quite good melodies. Otherwise you've got a great psych-pop guitar record hat happens to benefit from having Will Sergeant (fusing McGuinn and Verlaine as ever) and Les Pattison all over it, sounding pretty terrific. And hearing "real" harmonies over Will's guitar is a nice treat and a good fit. Anyway, it kicks the ass out of Bunnymen's 5th record and Electafixion, a pair of fashion-victim records nonpareil. Fact is, as I browse my collection, 1990 was a pretty subpar year for guitar pop, with half the crowd attempting to "modernize" their sounds to keep up with the Stone Roses (Extricate), okayish but "off" records by some of the rest (Bossanova/Gold Afternoon Fix/Black Sheets of Rain/Goo/All Shook Down/Manscape) and lots of other artists kind of MIA (Robyn off doing Eye, which is great but not guitar-pop). You had Galaxie 500's last, more or less posthumous release, a good Chills record, the classic (to me anyway) debut by Ride, and, hey, Ragged Glory, which I recall thinking was pretty much "the last rock and roll record ever". But the fake Bunnymen record sounds a lot better 13 years later than any number of Inspiral Carpets albums... _______ I am THIS CLOSE to finally naming my latest musical project/band-like thing. Please select from the following: ( ) Rainland ( ) Challenging Stage ( ) They both blow ( ) The music will probably blow, too, so it doesn't matter We sound exactly like you'd expect my band to sound, if that helps. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:48:16 -0800 (PST) From: drew Subject: townshend I don't really want to get too deeply involved in this discussion. I just have a question: has Townshend made clear (or can anyone speculate) just how paying for child porn could have helped him do "research" on the phenomenon? What do you think he was hoping to discover in such a fashion? Particularly given what he claims in that PDF, that he believes merely clicking on sites that so much as claim they have child porn supports the "industry"? What was he hoping to find in the images he could download that were worth not only risking "misunderstanding" and arrest, but also directly and materially supporting the people he was hoping to bust? It's probably obvious but I believe Townshend's version of events only slightly more firmly than I believed OJ's. I can't say I condemn him -- I do believe he was abused and confused, and while I agree that clicking on porn of any kind supports the pornographers, I think paying taxes is probably a greater evil when you get right down to it. But I do think his intentions were probably at best ambivalent. How could he be vocally against child porn and yet drawn to it? How can some of the biggest homophobes turn out to be gay? Self-loathing plus desire can have strange and confusing effects. - -- drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/~drew/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:28:07 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: S&V Top Ten On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, at 01:26 PM, John Barrington Jones wrote: > Has Christgau's annual Pazz & Jop thing come out in Village voice > already? > I googled it but it didn't return anything useful. Just like every year, no? - - Steve __________ One of the president's close acquaintances outside the White House said Mr. Bush clearly feels he has encountered his reason for being, a conviction informed and shaped by the president's own strain of Christianity. "I think, in his frame, this is what God has asked him to do," the acquaintance said. - Frank Bruni, NYT, on Bush's new war ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:28:39 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: frequent top ten typo, plus top twenty Quoting Miles Goosens : > At 11:29 AM 1/14/2003 -0500, The Great Quail wrote: > >10. "Yankee Foxtrot Hotel" -- Wilco > > This has to be the most frequently twisted-out-of-order title ... > "Hotel" must have the most compelling case of those three words for > being a > noun instead of an adjective -- it always ends up last in the series > when > people flip the words around. I imagine there's some relation here to a phenomenon I've observed, whereby three-word groupings get their emphasis shifted from what they properly are. That was quite vague; the illustration should make it clear: Madison Square Garden: pronounced as if it's a square garden at Madison rather than a "garden" at Madison Square Empire State Building: pronounced as if it's a state building called "Empire" rather than a building named after the Empire State and, of course...Electric Light Orchestra: pronounced as if it's an electrified version of a "light orchestra" (whatever that is) rather than an orchestra named after an electric light. (That their first few albums featured electric lights prominently on cover art ought to have clued us in...) Why is that, I wonder? My top X of 2002, with not much commentary and already outdated by subsequent purchase of several titles listed in the "haven't heard yet" section: http://www.uwm.edu/~jenor/02top.html ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: sex, drugs, revolt, Eskimos, atheism lp: Yes _Time and a Word_ reissue ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:29:46 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: townshend I wonder, man. I do think the "research" excuse sounds a bit spurious; perhaps it was a panicked, off-the-cuff statement, I wasn't there. But he has claimed to be working on another high-concept album involving a child and the internet (which from the creator of "The Iron man" and "Psychoderelict" sounds plausible.) I think saying he was "drawn" to it or had "desire" might be jumping to a conclusion. Also, he immediately asked the police to search his computer, home and office. Sounds like someone who's got nothing to hide. He also claims to have reported the child porn he viewed to the police at the time. I suppose this will be substantiated or disproven soon. I once stumbled on child porn in a newsgroup, and once saw honest-to-god photographs of a gruesome murder on a website. (Not crime-scene photographs... grisly, inhuman photos taken by the murderers as part of the crime. Practically a snuff film. I'll spare you the details.) I have to confess to being drawn to both in a revolted, "morbid curiosity" type way, enough to have a long stare at them (although not drawn to them in a way that would make me try to seek them out again.) So I can almost see him doing it once. As an ostensibly smart person who's done some amazingly stupid shit myself on occasion, I could see that being the case here. I think his explanation ultimately sounds more plausible than the thought of him actually being a pedophile... although that's just my own judgement. I just think his past writings don't have that morally superior ring that you hear from closet-cases in denial. And, he does have an intelligent, questioning mind... I could see him rationalizing doing it *once* out of curiosity. Obviously he's given the issue plenty of thought before; you could *almost* call that hypocritical if he didn't even once see firsthand the things he's railing against (although he has claimed to have seen it once before, by accident.) Maybe he just wanted to know? Doesn't excuse the stupidity; an adult should have better judgement than that. But it does present an alternative to assuming he's a perv. MK (w/a PH) At 5:48 PM -0800 1/14/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "drew" and whispered: >I don't really want to get too deeply involved in >this discussion. I just have a question: has Townshend >made clear (or can anyone speculate) just how paying >for child porn could have helped him do "research" on >the phenomenon? What do you think he was hoping to >discover in such a fashion? Particularly given what >he claims in that PDF, that he believes merely clicking >on sites that so much as claim they have child porn >supports the "industry"? What was he hoping to find >in the images he could download that were worth not >only risking "misunderstanding" and arrest, but also >directly and materially supporting the people he was >hoping to bust? > >It's probably obvious but I believe Townshend's version >of events only slightly more firmly than I believed >OJ's. I can't say I condemn him -- I do believe he >was abused and confused, and while I agree that clicking >on porn of any kind supports the pornographers, I think >paying taxes is probably a greater evil when you get >right down to it. But I do think his intentions were >probably at best ambivalent. > >How could he be vocally against child porn and yet >drawn to it? How can some of the biggest homophobes >turn out to be gay? Self-loathing plus desire can have >strange and confusing effects. > >-- >drew at stormgreen dot com >http://www.stormgreen.com/~drew/ - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") "Moderation in all things, except Wild Turkey." - Evel Knievel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:35:08 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Three replies on the porn issue Quoting Marcy Tanter : > but maybe they are 18, which still makes them teens. If they are > younger, > then it is child porn if they are indeed engaging in sexual acts, It may be technically so - but along the same lines as Quail's relevant distinction between creepy but not illegal behavior and illegal and harmful behavior, there's clearly a difference between porn showing a 17-year-old and porn showing an 8-year-old. Age of consent is a notoriously tricky issue, with legal and cultural differences all over the map, esp. when history is thrown into the mix. (And that makes a huge difference, btw: if 12-year-old boys having sex with men *is* culturally accepted, as in ancient Greece, then it's far less likely that that practice would harm the boys. In our culture, such an act necessarily is wrapped around with furtiveness, guilt, false trust, etc., and is therefore far more likely to be harmful.) Clearly 17-year-olds can be sexual agents - although the question of "consent" is notoriously tricky...and obviously, a model's turning 18 does not magically put her or him on equal status with an older, powerful adult. Our culture has a *very* difficult time with young persons' sexuality... ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: sex, drugs, revolt, Eskimos, atheism ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:35:48 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Reap Dalnet. http://www.ircnews.com/ _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:41:20 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: frequent top ten typo, plus top twenty >My top X of 2002, with not much commentary and already outdated by >subsequent purchase of several titles listed in the "haven't heard yet" >section: http://www.uwm.edu/~jenor/02top.html Seaworthy? Really? Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:50:43 -0500 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: Re: frequent top ten typo, plus top twenty On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:28:39 -0600 Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Quoting Miles Goosens : > > > At 11:29 AM 1/14/2003 -0500, The Great Quail > wrote: > > >10. "Yankee Foxtrot Hotel" -- Wilco > > > > This has to be the most frequently > twisted-out-of-order title ... > > "Hotel" must have the most compelling case of > those three words for > > being a > > noun instead of an adjective -- it always > ends up last in the series > > when > > people flip the words around. > > I imagine there's some relation here to a > phenomenon I've observed, whereby > three-word groupings get their emphasis shifted > from what they properly > are. > My top X of 2002, with not much commentary and > already outdated by > subsequent purchase of several titles listed in > the "haven't heard yet" > section: http://www.uwm.edu/~jenor/02top.html which features that famous 2002 masterpiece, YANKEE FOXTROT HOTEL. :-) Really. I'm starting to think that Wilco ought to release the demo versions on an album and call it that. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:55:21 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: frequent top ten typo, plus top twenty Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > and, of course...Electric Light Orchestra: pronounced as if it's an > electrified version of a "light orchestra" (whatever that is) rather than > an orchestra named after an electric light. (That their first few albums > featured electric lights prominently on cover art ought to have clued us in...) think Mantovani -- he was the king of Light Orchestra. The sort of thing you might have heard on the BBC Light Program. We have a word for this sort of thing. It's very subtle, especially the bit about lightbulbs, so literalists beware. It's called a "pun". Stewart (worried that his current favourite CD set came out more than 50 years ago: Harry Smith's "American Music Anthology".) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:45:34 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: S&V Top Ten - The lists As promised: Sound & Vision Magazine's Top Ten CD's of 2002 1. Sleater-Kinney "One Beat" If their last one was London Calling, this one is The Clash. Rock is saved, again. 2. Peter Gabriel "Up" Ten years after growing Us, he returns to the danger of his youth. 3. Bryan Ferry "Frantic" We haven't heard music this "Roxy" since Siren. Most unexpected comeback of the year. 4. Wilco "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" Such a Tweedy place, with plenty of room in its moody corridors. 5. The Soft Boys "Nextdoorland" A Hitchcock thriller. Robyn and his old New Wavers are back with guitars and wits intact. 6. Steve Earle "Jerusalem" Country, rocked. And the country, reckoned. As topical and timeless as ever. 7. Bruce Springsteen "The Rising" That's Bruce and the E Street Band. And that's a revival meeting. 8. Norah Jones "Come Away with Me" Jazz? Pop? It's _music_, pure and simple. No wonder so many have gone away with her. 9. Guided by Voices "Universal Truths and Cycles" Will they ever run out of songs? Discuss. Enjoy. 10. (TIE) The Hives "Veni Vidi Vicious", The Vines "Highly Evolved" The punks! Garage rock lives. - -------------------- Sound & Vision Magazine's Top Ten DVD's of 2002 (Comments omitted) 1. Amelie 2. Moulin Rouge 3. The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 4. (TIE) Unforgiven, Mulholland Dr. 5. Children of Paradise 6. Memento 7. Monsters, Inc. 8. Brotherhood of the Wolf 9. Singin' in the Rain 10. 8 1/2 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:01:25 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: frequent top ten typo, plus top twenty Quoting Miles Goosens : > > My top X of 2002, with not much commentary and > > already outdated by > > subsequent purchase of several titles listed in > > the "haven't heard yet" > > section: http://www.uwm.edu/~jenor/02top.html > > which features that famous 2002 masterpiece, YANKEE FOXTROT HOTEL. :-) Kee-rist. Not any more it doesn't! The lower down on that list anything is, the less sure I am of its long-term merits. Eb asked about Seaworthy...it's nowhere near as good as Macha, and it does share Macha's occasional dull stretches, but it's a grower for me, so there it is. Of the albums from 2002 I bought since I made the list, Spoon and Low would most likely make the list somewhere. I like the Negro Problem CD a lot also. Still haven't picked up the Beck or the Mekons. Luckily, I don't put much stock in this ranking thing...I could probably do a pretty accurate "Best of 1995" or something, but anything more recent just takes lots of time to sort out - if only to answer "which of these things will I consistently enjoy over long stretches of time?" - --Jeff, whose favorite concert venue is Madison Cube Garden... (_Futurama_ reference...) J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: PLEASE! You are sending cheese information to me. I don't want it. :: I have no goats or cows or any other milk producing animal! :: --"raus" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:58:12 +1030 From: minister of misinformation Subject: Re: porny issue Fegs, I was really pissed off when I read about about Townshend this morning , as having just read a large part of a book on The Who recently , this involvement in paedophilia just just seemed out of character to the Townshend that I have become familiar with over the years . However on reading Pete T's statement on his web site re his attitude to paedophilia I am convinced that his explanation makes his visits to the underage site explicable to some degree , stupid yes, but I don't think prurient , or prosecutable , he may have been acting as a snoop or vigilante , which as he says on his web site , has its risks. I hope I can believe his words on the matter , I would like to , as his disgust of this evil , both those who consume the revolting product and of those who create it, really seems genuine to me . Pete also raises the question of readily how most of us are going to come across the invitation to sample these odious wares. As my e-mail address is featured on about a thousand pages over my festival site The Archive , I get a lot of shit mail , all sorts of spam, and a lot of it sickening , this week I received an unsolicited invitation to visit a site featuring "lolitas ranging from 8 -14." I trashed it without reading it, but I've had others equally as sickening such as the rape site , bestiality and other horrors. I've set up a series of filters to take out the most obvious but a lot have very cryptic subject matter and the temptation is there to open them in case they are of some relevance to my web site . Of course some seem to be coded as well, whatever , I just trash them all and if I miss out a few that might have genuinely been for me about legitimate subjects than that's just too bad.. However , what did really worry me was a message that was bounced back to me as being unable to be delivered . It was one I had never actually sent , I hadn't written on that subject at all to anyone , so I thought I would see who it had been sent to. On opening the reject message from daemon I found out that my browser had apparently automatically sent a message to an underage internet porn site. ! Fortunately it had not got though, but I have also found a few more of these over the past few months, most seem not to have been sent to porn sites, usually businesses , is this a small applet or program that comes with the message that generates another message which is automatically sent off without my knowing it, ? I've never seen it before July last year . Has anyone else had this experience? Feg X ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:36:22 -0800 From: noe shalev Subject: Re[2]: porny issue minister of misinformation> businesses , is this a small applet or program that comes with the minister of misinformation> message that generates another message which is automatically sent off minister of misinformation> without my knowing it, ? I've never seen it before July last year . Has minister of misinformation> anyone else had this experience? minister of misinformation> Feg X it could be a virus or a warm that emails itself to people on your address book. yet it also could be that a warm using your address as a sender. I happaned to get such a reply stating that a message I sent couldn't be delivered. but checking that message, my computer and my mail server showed that it never came out of my computer nor had it been sent through my mail server. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:02:26 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: *orny issue Quoting minister of misinformation : > However , what did really worry me was a message that was bounced back > to me as being unable to be delivered . It was one I had never actually > sent , I hadn't written on that subject at all to anyone , so I thought > I would see who it had been sent to. On opening the reject message from > daemon I found out that my browser had apparently automatically sent a > message to an underage internet porn site. ! Fortunately it had not got > though, but I have also found a few more of these over the past few > months, most seem not to have been sent to porn sites, usually > businesses , is this a small applet or program that comes with the > message that generates another message which is automatically sent off > without my knowing it, ? I've never seen it before July last year . Has > anyone else had this experience? As Noe suggests, this could either be a virus of some sort, whether on your computer or someone else's who has your address, or someone could be actively spoofing your address. Here's what I'm wondering. Let's say that some police organization was monitoring traffic to a porn site. Someone receives junk e-mail that jumps his brower to a porn site with popup windows that take him to a site that claims to (or does) offer child porn. At this point, those images are stored in his browser's cache. (Incidentally, in Townshend's diary entry mentioned earlier - the PDF file - he naively says that he "wouldn't download" these images after having seen them on his computer...but they're already there, of course.) So here's the police, monitoring traffic to this site, and up pops this guy's address (I'm assuming in this case that the guy has his own domain, granted...but that's possible). Can th technology that allows police etc. to recover even deleted files distinguish between sites this guy actually visited intentionally and such unwanted visits generated by pop-ups? It would be true that this guy's computer would have child-porn images in its cache - but the guy had no intention of putting them there. I'd like to think I'm completely nuts on this scenario...but I"m not sure I am. (I did once make the mistake of opening, in a web-based e-mail app, a piece of junk mail that not only took me to a porn site but changed my browser's homepage to itself and disabled my ability to readily modify the homepage.) ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: When the only tool you have is an interociter, you tend to treat :: everything as if it were a fourth-order nanodimensional sub-quantum :: temporo-spatial anomaly. :: --Crow T. Maslow np: Uncut magazine 2002 best-of CD ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:10:26 +0000 (GMT) From: brian@lazerlove5.com Subject: Yes Reissues Someone (Jeff?) mentioned they were listening to the Yes reissue of Time and a Word. How are these reissues? Bonus tracks any good? Sound? Notes? Have you the other reissues (Fragile, Yes Album, Yes)? Thanks! Nuppified Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:22:34 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Yes Reissues Quoting brian@lazerlove5.com: > Someone (Jeff?) mentioned they were listening to the Yes reissue of Time > and a > Word. How are these reissues? Bonus tracks any good? Sound? Notes? Have > you the > other reissues (Fragile, Yes Album, Yes)? Well, I bought the first two albums yesterday, so I've listened to them only once each. The bonus tracks are interesting - if, as I do, you rather like the song "Dear Father," there are two earlier versions on the first album (along with the single release on _Time_) that show its evolution. There are also two earlier versions of "Everydays" (the Buffalo Springfield cover) and two versions of "Something's Coming" (yes, from _West Side Story_ - originally a b-side). That's on the first album: the _Time_ bonus tracks, aside from "Dear Father" itself, are less interesting: alternate mixes and edits of songs on the album. Sound seems pretty good, but I'm not an audiophile. I haven't yet bought _The Yes Album_ or _Fragile_ yet. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: I feel that all movies should have things that happen in them :: --TV's Frank ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:31:05 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: New Order order So on Monday, I got a small, light package from Rhino. As the only outstanding order I had with them was the New Order box set, bought direct from Rhino for the sole purpose of getting the bonus disc with the leventy-leven minute version of "Elegia," I was puzzled. Unless the CDs and packaging were made using some sort of cutting-edge rice paper technology (using handmade digital coding; sweatshop workers in Shanghai painting 1's and 0's at microscopic level -- the ultimate in copy prevention!), this package couldn't possibly contain the New Order set. Heck, it didn't feel like it could contain ONE CD. Turns out the package had the bonus disc only (I had no idea it'd be in separate packaging!), with a note saying that the box itself had been backordered. Bonus disc is in a sleeve rather than a jewel box or digipak, which helps explain the feathery weight of the package it came in. Since I have almost everything in the regular box, I'm about halfway tempted to cancel my order now. :-) Anyway, did this happen to anyone else? later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:29:04 -0500 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: New Order order On Wed, Jan 15, 2003, Miles Goosens wrote: > Since I have almost everything in the regular box, I'm about halfway > tempted to cancel my order now. :-) > > Anyway, did this happen to anyone else? I love NO, but never bothered with the box set. Where the Joy Division one is awesome, there was nothing on the box set to really make it worth it to me. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:55:27 -0500 From: "Timothy Reed" Subject: RE: New Order order I prefer the New Order offshoot band The Other Two. Features Gillian Gilbert and Stephen Morris. They've released two albums in the 90s that are pretty poppy and a bit lighter than NO - they more reminiscent of that other New Order offshoot, Electronic, except that their second album is also good. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org > [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Ken Weingold > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:29 PM > To: it's only us > Subject: Re: New Order order > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2003, Miles Goosens wrote: > > Since I have almost everything in the regular box, I'm about halfway > > tempted to cancel my order now. :-) > > > > Anyway, did this happen to anyone else? > > I love NO, but never bothered with the box set. Where the > Joy Division one is awesome, there was nothing on the box set > to really make it worth it to me. > > > -Ken ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #12 *******************************