From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #37 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, January 31 2003 Volume 12 : Number 037 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: ps [steve ] 7-winged bat ["da9ve stovall" ] double double tax tax [BLATZMAN@aol.com] RE: Oxford, Iggy Rumours... [hamish_simpson@agilent.com] Someone's been watching too much Star Trek [BLATZMAN@aol.com] RE: ps [Capuchin ] There's one for you, nineteen for me [Michael R Godwin ] Your fegs and neighbors ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Your fegs and neighbors [Ken Weingold ] Re: Your fegs and neighbors [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Batmento: even more depressing than the newly re-soured list atmosphere [] Re: Batmento: even more depressing than the newly re-soured list atmosphere [Tom Clark ] Re: Batmento: even more depressing than the newly re-soured list atmosphere [steve ] I just saw the world's greatest rock 'n' roll band... ["Marc Holden" Subject: Re: ps On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 05:21 AM, FS Thomas wrote: > Jimminy Christmas! What *is* the Utopian ideal you're shooting for? A > Fritz Lang inspired universe where everyone lives in tower blocks? An > entirely urban population? Metropolis? Arcosanti, I would hope. - - Steve __________ Break the cursing seal of love, new devil. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 2003 07:55:52 -0800 From: "da9ve stovall" Subject: 7-winged bat >Subject: catfish bats > >Brian: >> My ears got it as seven, I was pondering whether >> it would have 3 on one side and 4 on the other or 3 pairs and another going >> straight up off the spine. > >I'd kind of always envisioned it as 3 & 4, an evolutionary anomoly when bats >were coming in all different wing configurations...(motioning with hands) kind >of on the top of the upper side where it curves onto the back, above the three >but sticking up at a jaunty angle and flapping rather pathetically and out of >rhythm. I SO see an Edward Gorey drawing of this, with an artfully obtuse rhyme and all. The bat might be named Fegbash. d9 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:03:34 EST From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: double double tax tax In a message dated 1/29/03 7:26:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes: << it is not double taxation. just because the same money is being taxed again doesn't count. it's the people that are being taxed. income is income. keno >> What a point of view!!! It's double taxation alright, and if my grandmother gets more satisfaction knowing that she's going to pay for her great-grandchildren's college rather than spending the money on herself, then it's her right, and those kids shouldn't be made to pay a penny. If people want to will their belongings rather than spend them themselves, it's their right, and it should be given without double-taxation. That type of view just disgusts me to no end... << I'm much more annoyed by the accumulation of huge, unearned (by the recipient) hereditary fortunes. >> I'm not one of these people, but I wouldn't want to take their parents money away from them so that the government can spend it the way they think it should be spent. And why does this annoy you anyway? Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:13:07 -0700 From: hamish_simpson@agilent.com Subject: RE: Oxford, Iggy Rumours... > Anyone heard anything about the rumours that Iggy and the Ashetons have got back together? > Eb? "01.07.03: As of this afternoon, according to Iggy's management, Ron and Scott Asheton will be joining Iggy in Miami next week to record 2 tracks for the new and final album for Virgin. James Williamson is not part of the project. Reunion concerts have not been discussed yet, but the purpose of this get together was to record the album and nothing more. The material is to be handed in to Virgin March 31st, for release May-June or even after the summer." from http://www.iggypop.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:30:39 EST From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: Someone's been watching too much Star Trek Cappucino writes: << When people care about their neighborhoods and communities, they care about other people and that concern translates into more respect for those alive and those to come. >> And when you start your emails with words like "bullshit", and make yourself look like a total jerk, am I supposed to want to live in one of your dream communities, where I'll actually care about and for someone like you? Give me back my car cause I don't want human contact with some people!!! << However, I do hope that the state doesn't collapse and private property rights are not removed until a cultural adjustment has been made that brings the values of life, liberty, equality, and fraternity to the fore. >> I hope I'm reading this wrong. Cause if it says what I think it says, well, I'm restraining myself. "I hope that the state doesn't collapse... until" Hmmm... whatever. I'll stop myself... But if you're going to get preachy, let me just say that you don't strike me as they type of person who practices at least "equality" and especially fraternity. How can you talk about loving communities when you act like such a jerk to people on this list? You don't foster a loving community yourself. On the contrary, I'd hate to be stuck in a room with you. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:35:26 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: ps On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, FS Thomas wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org On Behalf Of steve > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:30 AM > >> What "kind of society" do you think is "implied by the above"? > > > > One with fewer autos and detached single-family homes in the suburbs. > > Jimminy Christmas! What *is* the Utopian ideal you're shooting for? > A Fritz Lang inspired universe where everyone lives in tower blocks? > An entirely urban population? Metropolis? Note that you're quoting Steve's (mis)interpretation of what he thinks is implied by my statements, not what I think is implied. Do try to keep up. It gets a little wiggy. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:17:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: There's one for you, nineteen for me On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Jeffrey Norman wrote: > I haven't had the chance to look at this link yet, but it's almost a logical > necessity that a flat tax would primarily benefit the rich, since our > current system is moderately progressive (i.e., higher-income taxpayers pay > more), any flat tax would necessarily lower the tax burden of those wealthy > taxpayers, since it would be impractical and impossible to raise it for the > poorest taxpayers. Speaking as your local tax expert, I would say there are two key texts on this: 1) Adam Smith's 'Canons of Taxation': Equity, Economy, Certainty and Convenience. Basically this recommends that similarly-placed taxpayers should have to pay similar amounts of tax; that the system should not waste too much money in tax collection; that the tax liability should be clear and unambiguous; and that it should be straightforward to pay the tax (so, for example, people in Nazareth should not be required to journey to Bethlehem to be taxed). If I read this correctly, it probably favours a proportional income tax. 2) Nicholas Kaldor's discussion of the gold hoarder and the beggar. Two people have zero income, but one has a big hoard of gold and the other has no wealth. Under a proportional income tax, both pay nothing. But Kaldor argues that the gold hoarder has more taxable capacity than the beggar. So he claims that wealth gives ability to pay tax over and above a straightforward income tax. If you concede Kaldor's point, there are a number of ways you can go to try to capture the extra taxable capacity of the person with assets. He favoured a tax on expenditure rather than income, because the person with a heap of gold is in a position to spend more than the person with no wealth. And Kay and King, in their classic 'The British Tax System' favour this approach. But in general, governments have chosen a rather haphazard mixture of taxes on wealth and on purchases: partly in order to tax this additional capacity, partly in order to raise revenue by any plausible means. And the effects of these taxes often conflict and overlap, leading to distortionary results and taxpayer disaffection. A further reason for having a multiplicity of taxes rather than just a single income tax is that if you just have one tax, people will put a lot of effort into avoiding it. The more different taxes there are, the more likely it is that taxpayers will have to pay at least some of the taxes. I won't go into the barmy theories of the optimal tax crew, who claim that you should tax skis, table tennis bats and other sports goods more than 'ordinary' goods. Mail me separately if you really want to know about this. - - Mike Godwin Research Officer Centre for Public Economics University of Bath n.p. 'Great Central Revisited' Kimberley Rew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:11:18 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Someone's been watching too much Star Trek On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 BLATZMAN@aol.com wrote: > Cappucino writes: > << However, I do hope that the state doesn't collapse and private > property rights are not removed until a cultural adjustment has been > made that brings the values of life, liberty, equality, and fraternity > to the fore. >> > > I hope I'm reading this wrong. Cause if it says what I think it says, > well, I'm restraining myself. "I hope that the state doesn't > collapse... until" Hmmm... whatever. I'll stop myself... Stop yourself from what? What do you fear reading in my statement? Is it my belief that the state is necessarily destructive to social values and restrictive of freedom? Is it my belief that any consolidation of power and authority eventually comes to work only to perpetuate its own power and authority? In my ideal world, there is no state. I don't think I'll ever see such a world and I'm not naive enough to believe that merely removing power from the state will solve any problems given our current cultural and social climate. > But if you're going to get preachy, let me just say that you don't > strike me as they type of person who practices at least "equality" and > especially fraternity. How can you talk about loving communities when > you act like such a jerk to people on this list? You don't foster a > loving community yourself. > > On the contrary, I'd hate to be stuck in a room with you. Well, I have two separate responses to that statement. First, I'm not about to claim to be the paragon of ideal humanity. I make mistakes and fail in my endeavors and fuck up as much as anyone else. But my personal failings do not make my ideals any less ideal. If you are to fault me for a lack of, say, respect and love for my fellow man, does that not mean that you agree that love and respect are the ideals to which we, as human beings, should aspire? I think the single greatest failing of Christianity is the belief that Christ was a divine being. The idea that wisdom can only come from a perfect soul prevents progress full stop. In order to "practice what we preach" all the time, we have to give up idealism and become relativists. Instead, I say that we embrace hypocrisy as a necessary part of the disconnect between reality and the ideal. The fact that I don't seem to display the traits that I value most merely shows that my behavior is flawed but reflects nothing on my values themselves. Second, I don't think we have the same idea of what a "loving community" is all about. I think there's certainly room for heated intellectual discussion and expletives. I know that many people interpret the things I write as rude or offensive. I've tried to make concessions to those people when I can, but the truth is that most of the time I don't even see what they're trying to show me. I don't see the offense and, given reversed roles, I wouldn't take offense from those things. (We can go ahead and take the "Bullshit." statement as an exception here. That was just an outburst without consideration and I apologize for the obvious offense there. But I wouldn't and I hope you don't use that as an excuse to ignore the reason and rhetoric of that which followed.) Usually discussions about my style and the way I "come off" break down to some ineffable quality of tone or something that I just can't read the way others do. I will state, however, and there are probably many people on this list that will attest to this (in fact, Mark Gloster once claimed this was one of his strongest reasons for liking me so much and we're close friends), I never let my disagreements with a person's opinions and beliefs taint my love for them as a person, my enjoyment of their company, or my respect for their life and well-being. There are people that I don't like and don't like to be around, but it has nothing to do with their ideology. I guess this is just the other side of my first response above: Don't hate the ideas because of the person who has them; don't hate the person because of the ideas they have. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:13:46 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Someone's been watching too much Star Trek Oh yeah, and if I'd been watching too much Star Trek, I'd be advocating a rigid, pseudo-militaristic hierarchy. I wouldn't wish that on anybody. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:00:50 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: There's one for you, nineteen for me On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Michael R Godwin wrote: > But in general, governments have chosen a rather haphazard mixture of > taxes on wealth and on purchases: partly in order to tax this additional > capacity, partly in order to raise revenue by any plausible means. And > the effects of these taxes often conflict and overlap, leading to > distortionary results and taxpayer disaffection. that is more reason why a simplified earned/unearned income tax based solely on average bracket ranges or a sliding percent scale from 0 to about 20 or possibly 25%, would not only increase revenue but it could drastically reduce fraud. there would be no deductions except possibly childen and they would be a rate percentage reduction that could increase as income decreased. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:29:31 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Your fegs and neighbors Me writing something nonsensical, then James: >>And I think the fact that it makes Americans look defiant (or >>something) on the world stage is supposed to be defiant. >>oh - is that how they're meant to look? To describe how they look from >>here, I'd have to appropriate a phrase from Kay... I myself said "retarded". But what I meant to say instead of "is supposed to be defiant" was "is just a side benefit", meaning in the eyes of the "nucularians" who could give a bat's ass about the rest of the world. Dunno how it turned out the way it did. >>But I think my favourite number title is probably Grant Hart's "2541". James, are you really going to let that lie there without mentioning Robert Forster's cover of the same song? ________ Marcy: >>Violence doesn't guarantee anything--anyone ever hear of the French >>Revolution? Yeah, they were Nikki Sudden's backing band for a while, right? _________ Jeffrey FF: >>the righter and more paranoid one's politics, the more one wants to live in the >>middle of nowhere. (Generally. Of course there are exceptions.) I'm not sure I agree with that. It seems to me more like the right-winginess is more endemic to those *born* in the middle of nowhere. Raised amongst tradition, churchiness, and li'l' insular communities, and kinda taught not to hold with city-folk or those different from themselves. Now, people who *move* to the middle of nowhere do so for a variety reasons. Some for paranoia, but others out of concern for their kids (lots of lousy urban school systems, unsafe neighborhoods), to say nothing of all the artists, writers, retirees and general lovers of privacy who seek out relative solitude when they can afford it. And once again, this left-winger has to ask what the hell's so intrinsically great about tight-knit communities anyway? If you put a premium on that kind of thing, doesn't that mean you're stuck with the community into which you're born? Or you're allowed to move once to a community that suits you, but you better well choose the right one? Every community I've ever been in has its share of assholes... why should I have to engage people I don't like just because of their geographical proximity to me? If one's immediate community, and one's involvement therein, was really supposed to be satisfactory, why would one even be on an internationally distributed internet mailing list discussing it? I know that's not what anyone's saying, but while I vote and keep up on local politics and everything, I'm gonna move someday to a community that better suits my family's needs, and not feel too bad about it. I'll move using the least grossly polluting method I can afford, but I will move. That's one cool thing about the modern world: we are connected to, and can in fact move to, anywhere we want. Hell, other countries, even, if it suits us. I've seen "tight-knit communities" and they're full of backstabbing, rumor-mongering, enforced conformity and all manner of other soul-stifling stuff. I think the "community involvement as magic bullet" bugaboo fails to address how modern humans really act. Not how they *should* act, mind you, but how they *do* act. I'm totally guilty. I like a bunch of y'all fegs better'n I like most of my neighbors and I don't really see what's wrong with that. - -Rex PS-- the 7th wing is a "wing" in name only; it's a straight-up dorsal fin-like projection from the bat-spine. Used as a sort of rudder for additional control. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:33:23 -0500 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Your fegs and neighbors On Thu, Jan 30, 2003, Rex.Broome wrote: > Me writing something nonsensical, then James: > >>But I think my favourite number title is probably Grant Hart's "2541". > > James, are you really going to let that lie there without mentioning Robert > Forster's cover of the same song? I'm going to see Grant tonight in Brooklyn. I've seen Bob a million and one times, but never Grant. I hope it's good. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:38:29 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Your fegs and neighbors Quoting "Rex.Broome" : > And once again, this left-winger has to ask what the hell's so > intrinsically > great about tight-knit communities anyway? Well, I at least never said anything about "tight-knit" communities. I'm thinking more of cities, where you have to learn to deal with others because you have to live with them. Not necessarily "tight-knit" (my wife is from a small farming town, so you're preachin' to the choir about the shortfalls of that sort of insularity) but diverse and in relatively close physical proximity. If you put a premium on that > kind of thing, doesn't that mean you're stuck with the community into > which > you're born? No. And it isn't even about being all buddy-buddy, or "sharing" your feelings, blah-blah-blah - it's about realizing that (cliche alert) we're all in this together, and that *no one* makes it solely under their own efforts. It's against the arrogant selfishness of too much public life today, of which the Republicans are only an egregious example. (they may blather about "community," but what they really mean is best expressed in the last line of the chorus to Randy Newman's "Rednecks." "Community" if you're a white, middle-class Christian.) ..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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:33:45 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Batmento: even more depressing than the newly re-soured list atmosphere Have folks heard that *Christopher Nolan* is supposedly directing the new Batman movie? OUCH. Maybe they can cast Owen Wilson in the title role, and remove what's left of his integrity too. Eb np: Cheap Trick/"Taxman, Mr. Thief" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:15:16 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Batmento: even more depressing than the newly re-soured list atmosphere on 1/30/03 12:33 PM, Eb at ElBroome@earthlink.net wrote: > Have folks heard that *Christopher Nolan* is supposedly directing the > new Batman movie? > Who is he? > > Maybe they can cast Owen Wilson in the title role, and remove what's > left of his integrity too. Poor Owen. To paraphrase one Mr. Otto Maddog, "I can't believe I used to like that guy." I'm glad to see Luke is holding his integrity though. Oh wait: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0302886 - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:16:25 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Batmento: even more depressing than the newly re-soured list atmosphere At 12:33 PM 1/30/2003 -0800, Eb wrote: >Have folks heard that *Christopher Nolan* is supposedly directing the new >Batman movie? No, but I have heard that Ang Lee is directing the Incredible Hulk movie. Yikes. Maybe Scorsese will do a Shazam! film next... - --Jason ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:43:29 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: Batmento: even more depressing than the newly re-soured list atmosphere On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Eb wrote: > Have folks heard that *Christopher Nolan* is supposedly directing the > new Batman movie? > > OUCH. Is this going to be worse for his credibility than having the follow-up to Memento get very little attention? It seems like there's more room for an arty director to do money films these days than there is to just sort of suck. Soderbergh's not the best example, but I've heard more indictment of his integrity from people who didn't like Solaris than from people who don't think he should have even *made* Oceans 11. a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:00:37 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: weird weather Maan what a weird day. Those of you who have read overseas news may have heard that there were massive bushfires across much of south-east Australia (even destroyed some of the outer suburban areas of the capital Canberra). We now have strong northwesterly winds here, bringing hot, dry weather across the Tasman Sea from Australia, some 2000 miles away. That combination nmeans that it is hot, stuffy, and the sky is *bright orange*. It's eleven o'clock in the morning, 30 degrees celsius, 25% humidity, and I've got the lights on. This is very weird. 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") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:05:53 -0600 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: Re: weird weather James: > That combination nmeans that it is hot, stuffy, and the sky is *bright > orange*. It's eleven o'clock in the morning, 30 degrees celsius, 25% > humidity, and I've got the lights on. Wow, sounds like Hell. Is there a Celine Dion record playing? Michael "my heartburn will go on" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:01:58 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: Batmento: even more depressing than the newly re-soured list atmosphere On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 02:33 PM, Eb wrote: > Have folks heard that *Christopher Nolan* is supposedly directing the > new Batman movie? > > OUCH. The idea is to get back to the Noir-ish components of the character. I think that Frank Miller might be working on the script, but there's more than one Batman film in the works. - - Steve __________ "When we were getting ready to announce for the 1992 campaign, the Bush people said to us, 'Don't run this time -- wait four years and you'll have a free pass. If you do run, we'll destroy you.' And I said to Bill, 'What are they talking about -- how could they do that?' And now we're finding out." - Hillary Clinton to David Talbot, March 1998 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:21:33 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Batmento >>Have folks heard that *Christopher Nolan* is supposedly directing >>the new Batman movie? >> >>OUCH. > >The idea is to get back to the Noir-ish components of the character. >I think that Frank Miller might be working on the script, but >there's more than one Batman film in the works. That series should have been abandoned when Tim Burton left. And really, *none* of the films were all that great. Like with almost all Burton films, he exhausts his energy on the exposition and character introductions, and the ensuing plot itself comes as a mere footnote. Actually, I think the first Superman flick was better made than any of the Batmans. Speaking of animated stuff, I tried again to watch some of Akira last night and once more couldn't stick with it. Heaven knows why this silly film is so well-known. Meanwhile, I'm pondering the possibility of a Batman film which opens with the archvillain being sent to jail, and ends with his first juvenile offense. ;) Anyone have something interesting to say about Adaptation, Secretary or About Schmidt? Those would be at the top of my list right now, if I was to go a-theaterin'. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:23:14 -0700 From: "Marc Holden" Subject: I just saw the world's greatest rock 'n' roll band... I just came back from the Rolling Stones, the greatest band I've ever seen in concert, ever. Except maybe: the Who, the Soft Boys, Elvis Costello and the Attractions, Santana, X, Eric Clapton, Blue Oyster Cult, the Cramps, the Blasters, the Residents, the Damned, Iggy Pop, Alice Cooper, Kraftwerk, the Sisters of Mercy, the Butthole Surfers, the Ramones, Genesis, Paul McCartney, Utopia, the Cars, Cheap Trick, the Clash, the Kinks, Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, Rush, Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band, Black Sabbath, Laurie Anderson, Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band, Screaming Trees, the Buzzcocks, Robyn Hitchcock & the Egyptians, the Police, Violent Femmes, Dan Bern, Kansas, Neil Young, R.E.M., Pylon, Big Star, Pete Townshend, John Wesley Harding, Shonen Knife, Gwar, the Slickee Boys, King Crimson, Rancid, They Might Be Giants, Lou Reed, Soundgarden, the Captain and Tennille, U2, Elton John, the Boomtown Rats, Dire Straits, Steve Hackett, Crack the Sky, Alex Chilton, David Bowie, the Pixies, Pere Ubu, Frank Zappa, Peter Gabriel, Spinal Tap, Aerosmith, the J. Geils Band, Jeff Beck, DEVO, Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble, Pearl Jam, Robert Cray, Roger Waters, Status Quo, John Entwistle, Fresh Young Fellows, Jethro Tull, the Minders, Pink Floyd, Sex Pistols, Paul Simon, the Scorpions, Nick Cave, Victor Borge, Guadalcanal Diary, the B-52's, Let's Active, Nick Lowe, Reverend Horton Heat, Social Distortion, Bad Religion, Grant Lee Phillips, Lords of Altamont, the Genitorturers, Stanley Jordan, the Dead Milkmen, Oingo Boingo, Alvin Lee, John Doe, Jonathan Richman, Steve Wynn, Sugar, Stereolab, Green Day, Johnny Clegg and Savuka, Sleater-Kinney, Julian Lennon, the Feelies, Robert Plant/Jimmy Page, the Elvis Brothers... Okay, they were better than Journey, Billy Squier, the Doobie Brothers, Yoko Ono (maybe) and the Grateful Dead. Later, Marc I think the mistake a lot of us make is thinking the state-appointed psychiatrist is our "friend." Jack Handey ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:57:10 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Replying to an old post about old bands Your lucky blighter mate who saw ISB and Love - me too! I'd say, though, for reference that the String Band aren't really worth seeing, unless you're a real muso-archaologist - dry bones for the most part, I have to say. I saw them in Oxford last year. The thing that struck me the most was how there was little or no chemistry between Mike Heron and Robin Williamson, and how songs belonging to each were segregated - They would sit down, arms folded, while the other played. Also Bina Williamson, Robin's new wife - not what you'd call a *cough* natural singer - not one bit! That said, the gig did have one or two moments - The Eyes Of Fate just had just enough about it to conjure some of the old magic, but overall, I felt we'd arrived at the gig a little too late. By about 35 years! Love on the other hand - blimey. A gig I'll remember forever, exquisite, beautiful, amazing. And so emotional to have a tear streaking down my cheek on the cycle ride home... I can't recommend them enough - I won't go into detail as the post would just be too long. I'm a couple of days behind with posts and I missed the bloody Soft Boys in my home town on Monday. I've had my appendix out and I'm not going anywhere for a while... still I can now say I believe in surgery and that's a fact - I believe in taking it easy! easy easy easy! Matt >From: "Brian Hoare" >>PS Tony, Brian: I saw you in the pub, but missed you at the gig! >>Where >>were you? I was leaning on the bar... > >Rear left, catching up with news from a guy I haven't seen since the >last SB show there. Lucky blighter got to see ISB and Love. > >Brian - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It's fast, it's easy and it's free! Click here to download MSN Messenger ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #37 *******************************