From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #86 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, March 6 2003 Volume 12 : Number 086 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Attn. Jason Thornton: gnome alert! ["Natalie Jane" ] Re: 24 ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Alas, poor Mason ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Attn. Jason Thornton: gnome alert! ["Jason R. Thornton" ] 24-23 Amendment [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] 24-23 Amendment [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] RE: 24-23 Amendment ["FS Thomas" ] Grant Lee Phillips tour ["Maximilian Lang" ] RE: 24-23 Amendment [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: 24-23 Amendment [Eleanore Adams ] RE: 24-23 Amendment ["FS Thomas" ] RE: 24-23 Amendment [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: XTC covers [steve ] John Doe Tour ["Michael Wells" ] Hitchcock & Snail ["Marc Holden" ] RE: 24-23 Amendment ["FS Thomas" ] Re: 24-23 Amendment ["Stewart C. Russell" ] RE: 24-23 Amendment [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: XTC covers [rosso@videotron.ca] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:35:28 -0800 From: "Natalie Jane" Subject: Attn. Jason Thornton: gnome alert! My god, look at Scott Spillane now! http://www.orangetwin.com/label/lakes.html Scroll down - he's the guy with the beard and... the hair. The hair. Is he auditioning to be an extra in Lord of the Rings or what?? Me: Why does Scott Spillane have that beard? My friend Ross: Because he's a fucking freak! gnat "Elephant 6 is dead, long live Elephant 6!" the gnatster _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:42:06 -0500 From: "Timothy Reed" Subject: RE: 24 In this case, the T-shirt wearer was a lawyer, so yes I expect that this place will get sued. Tim > > Ever hear of a place getting sued for refusing service to someone? > > In regards to the bar business (where I draw my experiences > from), no. Not at least at the ones I have worked in. We > never refused service to anyone based on skin color to my > knowledge. I wouldn't have worked there if they had. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:42:38 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: 24 At 05:12 PM 3/5/2003 -0500, you wrote: >A shirt that says "Fuck Bush's Stance on Iraq" isn't offensive? It seems a >promient personal opinion and is an example of political free speech. From the articles I've read, the shirts in question merely said "Peace on Earth" and "Give Peace a Chance." It's only the "fuck" part that you see as offensive in the above, right? Not the political part? In any case, while the word "fuck" could be seen as offensive, using it in a political slogan, such as "Fuck the Draft," has been determined by the supreme court to be protected speech under the constitution. Pictures of aborted fetuses are highly offensive, but their display in a political context by pro-life groups is protected. >One thing that caused a lot of trouble was when, probably five years ago, >the place I was working at banned the 'colors' of two biker gangs in the >area. Could you say that was suppression of free speech? Maybe. Did it >stick? Yes. With full backing by the local PD. Well, the police aren't the absolute authority to determining the constitutionality of a given restriction. That said, I'm not suggesting that dress codes are a violation of civil liberties at all. The "colors" issue is more complicated, because their display is directly tied to illegal activities. Political statements are not. It is only when the rules are applied inequitably, or at the very least patrons are not adequately made aware of the establishment's rules before entering and then paying for services, when businesses run the risk of violating someone's rights. If the mall had a large sign out front that said "NO T-SHIRTS WITH WORDS ON THEM" and proceeded to refuse admittance to EVERYONE with such a shirt, whether it said "Fuck Bush," "Bomb Iraq" "Jesus is Lord" or "Porn Star" on it, I don't think I'd have a problem with that (other than to say that's probably bad for business). A patron who is kicked out of a place or banned from it because he or she is an "asshole" is removed because of his or her behavior, regardless of what he wears or his ethnicity or what have you. - --Jason ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:56:33 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Alas, poor Mason Ferris: >>Yes! I too was pleased they couldn't disarm it. I don't know how far old >>Jack was when it went off (c. 4 mins? If the plane was travelling at 120mph >>that's, what, 6 miles?), but I sure as hell would have wanted to be further. What I was wondering, having spent some time in the Mojave, is if there's really any unpopulated area large enough to be as legitimate of a dumping point for the bomb as they made it out to be. My totally unscientific conclusion: maybe, but not one close enough to LA that you could see the mushroom cloud from the "Road to Santa Clara". Xander Berkeley deserves, like, two Emmys for his portrayal of Mason this year, predictable death aside. He was kind of just a blank plot device last year, but man, did he bring it home this season. The kid who played his son was great, too. What I liked about the bomb explosion was, who the hell sets more than 36 hours of narrative in someplace that's more or less the "real world" (alternate president aside) and THEN changes the ground rules that radically? (At this rate, next season could well play out as "24: Beyond Thunderdome".) In that sense it was less like, say, "Red Dawn" and more like the nightmares that have dogged me for my entire life about warfare breaking out within the US. Not knowing it's a dream, I inevitably have a moment where the sheer impact of "nothing's ever going to to be the same, life as I know it is over" overwhelms me. It's really impressive that a work of fiction can even come close to evoking that. Oh, it's good stuff, innit? - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:52:34 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Attn. Jason Thornton: gnome alert! At 02:35 PM 3/5/2003 -0800, Natalie Jane wrote: >My god, look at Scott Spillane now! >http://www.orangetwin.com/label/lakes.html I keep getting a "The page cannot be displayed" message, but then I do have that anti-gnome filter in place. Works good for elves and anime, too. >Me: Why does Scott Spillane have that beard? >My friend Ross: Because he's a fucking freak! I use that response to a lot of questions... - --Jason "happiness is a warm elephant 6" Thornton "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:06:57 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: And just what is his stance, anyway? Ferris: >>A shirt that says "Fuck Bush's Stance on Iraq" isn't offensive? It's just an incomplete thought. I forget, is Fuck older or younger than Jeb? He's the one with the tanked S&L, right? Or am I thinking of Hieronymous? - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:27:47 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: 24-23 Amendment Quoting FS Thomas : > > Political speech is protected. It's not considered "offensive" under > the > law. > > A shirt that says "Fuck Bush's Stance on Iraq" isn't offensive? Neither of the links I read included this phrase. If this is offensive, it's probably offensive because of "Fuck" and would have been equally so if it had said "Fuck Saddam." Then again, I see shirts and hats with "fuck" on them all the time at malls. > One thing that caused a lot of trouble was when, probably five years > ago, > the place I was working at banned the 'colors' of two biker gangs in the > area. Could you say that was suppression of free speech? Maybe. Did > it > stick? Yes. With full backing by the local PD. Because as everyone knows, police have been in the forefront of upholding First Amendment rights... ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: This album is dedicated to anyone who started out as an animal and :: winds up as a processing unit. :: --Soft Boys, note, _Can of Bees_ np: a friend's best-of-2002 comp - right now, "Now That You're a Ghost" - Lovers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:27:59 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: 24-23 Amendment Quoting FS Thomas : > > Political speech is protected. It's not considered "offensive" under > the > law. > > A shirt that says "Fuck Bush's Stance on Iraq" isn't offensive? Neither of the links I read included this phrase. If this is offensive, it's probably offensive because of "Fuck" and would have been equally so if it had said "Fuck Saddam." Then again, I see shirts and hats with "fuck" on them all the time at malls. > One thing that caused a lot of trouble was when, probably five years > ago, > the place I was working at banned the 'colors' of two biker gangs in the > area. Could you say that was suppression of free speech? Maybe. Did > it > stick? Yes. With full backing by the local PD. Because as everyone knows, police have been in the forefront of upholding First Amendment rights... ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: This album is dedicated to anyone who started out as an animal and :: winds up as a processing unit. :: --Soft Boys, note, _Can of Bees_ np: a friend's best-of-2002 comp - right now, "Now That You're a Ghost" - Lovers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:29:36 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: 24-23 Amendment Quoting FS Thomas : > > Political speech is protected. It's not considered "offensive" under > the > law. > > A shirt that says "Fuck Bush's Stance on Iraq" isn't offensive? Neither of the links I read included this phrase. If this is offensive, it's probably offensive because of "Fuck" and would have been equally so if it had said "Fuck Saddam." Then again, I see shirts and hats with "fuck" on them all the time at malls. > One thing that caused a lot of trouble was when, probably five years > ago, > the place I was working at banned the 'colors' of two biker gangs in the > area. Could you say that was suppression of free speech? Maybe. Did > it > stick? Yes. With full backing by the local PD. Because as everyone knows, police have been in the forefront of upholding First Amendment rights... ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: This album is dedicated to anyone who started out as an animal and :: winds up as a processing unit. :: --Soft Boys, note, _Can of Bees_ np: a friend's best-of-2002 comp - right now, "Now That You're a Ghost" - Lovers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:07:22 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: 24-23 Amendment - -----Original Message----- From Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey > Neither of the links I read included this phrase. From what I gather it was nothing more than 'give peace a chance.' Fact is, neither you, nor I, nor does anyone else know how either of the two carried themselves when confronted. They could have been offensive; they could have been rude; they could have been pleasant. >> One thing that caused a lot of trouble was when, probably five years >> ago, >> the place I was working at banned the 'colors' of two biker gangs in the >> area. Could you say that was suppression of free speech? Maybe. Did >> it >> stick? Yes. With full backing by the local PD. > Because as everyone knows, police have been in the forefront of upholding > First Amendment rights... I don't know if it's naiveti or something more base, but whether you (or anyone) agrees with it or not, but the amount of violence that occurred on a nightly basis dropped off almost entirely when the 'rule' was put into place. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:19:14 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Grant Lee Phillips tour Grant Lee Phillips is touring, primarily on the east coast. http://www.grantleephillips.com/australiatour.html Max _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:31:18 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: 24-23 Amendment Quoting FS Thomas : > Fact is, neither you, nor I, nor does anyone else know how either of the > two carried themselves when confronted. They could have been offensive; > they could have been rude; they could have been pleasant. You're confusing the issue: if they were rude, that rudeness is the issue (and cause to expel them from the mall). The issue is that they were singled out in the first place. How they react to that singling out is utterly and completely separate from *why* they were singled out - since any such reaction only occurred *because* they were so singled out. The whole incident, regardless of anyone's stance on the speech/property issues, illustrates why it's important not to cede every last once-public space to private property. The US Constitution guarantees the right of peaceable assembly - first, it's unclear why property laws should trump the Constitution (and privately owned public spaces are quite different from privately owned private spaces; by analogy, tenants do have rights over their apartments, even though they're owned by another party), and second, if it does, it's important that genuinely public spaces continue to exist. > I don't know if it's naiveti or something more base, but whether you (or > anyone) agrees with it or not, but the amount of violence that occurred > on a nightly basis dropped off almost entirely when the 'rule' was put > into place. (Uh, why is "rule" in quotation marks?) This may well be because fewer gang members inclined to troublemaking were there - because they refused to *not* wear gang colors. As a general principle, I'm suspicious of police-based programs that attempt to ban or otherwise stigmatize so-called gang-related behavior or clothing. (Often, it's nothing but a power play: I was in traffic court a few years ago, and a very non-gang looking individual happened to have a baseball-style cap on - promoting a brokerage for all I remember - and some cop asked him to take the cap off. Sheer power play - no question of disturbance or "gang" or anything. Not a formality issue either: plenty of folks in ratty jeans and t-shirts in that courtroom, unhassled.) Something tells me that some white-guy banker in a red silk tie is not going to be asked to remove it because it's Blood colors - while a teenager, particularly certain *profiles* thereof, would be asked to leave if he was wearing red...even if that color had nothing to do with gangs, and even if no actual gang member would confuse this guy's wearing red with gang affiliation. Such vague rules are almost invariably used as a smokescreen to enforce profiles - and do you really think that bars and restaurants that use the ol' "right to refuse service to anyone" don't use that as a cover for individual personnel's particular discriminations? That *would* be naive. The fact is, a person has a right to wear any damned thing he or she wants - and rules that limit such are a problem to me, no matter what positive effects nominally flow from them. I mean, hey, we could require everyone to carry large balls and chains everywhere - that'd cut down on crime, right? But it's an imposition on basic freedoms - as are regulations re clothing, etc. (Let's not turn this into a nitpicking fest re "why can't I wear my years-old Motorhead t-shirt to my job at the bank?"...I'm talking about unrelated parties, not employees.) ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: it's not your meat :: --Mr. Toad ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:50:24 -0800 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: 24-23 Amendment > Someone said: > > As a general principle, I'm suspicious of police-based programs that > attempt > to ban or otherwise stigmatize so-called gang-related behavior or > clothing. > (Often, it's nothing but a power play: I was in traffic court a few > years > ago, and a very non-gang looking individual happened to have a > baseball-style cap on - promoting a brokerage for all I remember - and > some > cop asked him to take the cap off. Sheer power play - no question of > disturbance or "gang" or anything. Not a formality issue either: > plenty of > folks in ratty jeans and t-shirts in that courtroom, unhassled.) > I don't want to get into this discussion, but every court house I have ever worked in, you are required to take your hat off if there is a judge present - just protocol. eleanore ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:50:13 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: 24-23 Amendment > -----Original Message----- > (Uh, why is "rule" in quotation marks?) This may well be because fewer > gang > members inclined to troublemaking were there - because they refused to > *not* > wear gang colors. You (or anyone else, for that matter) isn't going to change my slant on this on. I worked in that place for over seven years. When the gangs (predominantly white rough-and-tumble types with a smaller branch of Latinos vying for position) were removed from the location via the no-colors rule, business stabilized and--eventually--increased. > As a general principle, I'm suspicious of police-based programs that > attempt > to ban or otherwise stigmatize so-called gang-related behavior or > clothing. Police-backed. Staff created. > (Often, it's nothing but a power play: I was in traffic court a few years > ago, and a very non-gang looking individual happened to have a > baseball-style cap on - promoting a brokerage for all I remember - and > some > cop asked him to take the cap off. That's a matter of propriety and--all too often lost--respect. It's akin to taking off your hat during the Pledge or the Anthem. This idea might be lost on a younger generation. > Such vague rules are almost invariably used as a smokescreen to enforce > profiles - and do you really think that bars and restaurants that use the > ol' "right to refuse service to anyone" don't use that as a cover for > individual personnel's particular discriminations? That *would* be naive. As a former member of the personnel, I can tell you with a hundred percent certainty that I have refused to serve customers who did nothing apparently wrong. I did it because I knew them (or with close to a dozen years' experience) could make an educated guess as to their intent/bent. I can also say that in those twelve years I never made a mistake. I can claim this because in the two times I was called out by management for having refused service, those same customers wound up either getting arrested or ejected. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:56:03 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: 24-23 Amendment Quoting FS Thomas : > > > (Often, it's nothing but a power play: I was in traffic court a few > years > > ago, and a very non-gang looking individual happened to have a > > baseball-style cap on - promoting a brokerage for all I remember - and > > some > > cop asked him to take the cap off. > > That's a matter of propriety and--all too often lost--respect. It's > akin to taking off your hat during the Pledge or the Anthem. And I'm sure the court officer's rude manner of ordering the guy to remove his cap both exemplified the idea of respect and reinforced its value to the hat guy. Respect goes both ways...or should. And I would give this idea more credence if (as some judges still insist upon) people in that courtroom generally dressed nicely, etc., in the old-fashioned way. But they didn't - and it was only the hat guy who got called on his wardrobe. If they *really* wanted the hat off - and not to reinforce their sense of power - they could have quietly, privately asked him to remove it. Instead, they had to do it in a public, potentially humiliating fashion. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: it's not your meat :: --Mr. Toad ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:25:31 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: XTC covers On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 12:45 PM, Miles Goosens wrote: > On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 11:05 PM, Sabina Carlson wrote: > >> my dad was curious if any XTC covers exist, since we have none >> in our collection-thingy. my question is do any really good XTC covers >> exist? > > I suggest getting the Sugarplastic's BANG, THE EARTH IS ROUND (1996), > which features a bunch of super-catchy songs that strongly resemble > early-to-BLACK SEA XTC. They're even better than XTC covers -- > they're delightful new songs that will remind you of all the things > you liked about XTC. Plan B might be Onward Quirky Soldiers, the second album by Dallas band Chomsky. It sounds like they listened to Drums & Wires every day for a year. Not quite Daisy Cutters, but they ought to look good on TV - - - Steve __________ Bushlexia - A combination of dyslexia, attention deficit disorder, apraxia, illiteracy, ignorance, laziness, passive-aggressiveness, inappropriate humor, and an arrogant attitude of privilege. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:28:58 -0600 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: John Doe Tour John is touring as a trio with Dave Carpenter and Nick Luca - I saw the Chicago stop last Sunday and would *strongly* recommend it. Short review follows, dates at the bottom. This was the third time John's been through in the last year (Exile Follies, then later with Neko Case which I missed, arrrrrgh) and it's by far the best show I've ever seen him do. Sunday he played at the Old Town School of Folk Music, an operating music school/perfomance hall which he noted "is the type of room that makes a performer feel like he hasn't wasted his entire life, but it is also nervous making." (pix at http://www.oldtownschool.org/concerts/concert_hall.html ) We had front row balcony stage right, and settled into watch M. Ward open. He got a full 50min, and I was glad for it - what a revelation, I had never heard of him (!) and found his playing strong and assured, voice cracking and moody as he sang songs from all parts of the small stage. He kind of sulked and let his voice drop, hanging his head down over very low microphones. It was the perfect music for that room, mostly quiet with nice guitar technique. I bought his 2001 release "End of Amnesia" in the lobby afterwards (new album out next month), and it's one of the best buys I've made in months. Fantastic. John opened his set with a couple acoustic numbers before calling the Dave and Nick onstage. His voice was clear and strong, guitar set high on a strap and standing right on top of the mic he really went for it. The material covered most of the bases; X ("White Girl," "Burning House of Love"), The John Doe Thing ("Kissing" and a couple others I can't remember the titles too) and a lot of Dim Stars Bright Sky, his excellent album of last year. For my money his more recent work is quite a bit better, and the numbers "7 Holes," "Faraway (from the North Country)" and the title track were definitely highlights of the evening. There were a couple numbers which sounded like new material, so maybe there's another album coming? Forgot to ask him afterwards. The accompaniment by was always excellent, understated bass by Dave and Nick's keyboard work filling in the sound nicely. While both provided occasional harmonies, i was clearly John's night and the audience - with one notable exception - was welcoming and appreciative (though it was really, REALLY weird to not see John in a bar...it's like he has to be in one). He played 80 minutes, including two encores - which for a guy who seems to average about 3min per song makes for a lot of tracks during the night :) but nobody was complaining. I think the 'library' feel of the room really helped to focus attention on the music, and fortunatetly John's material and performance were up to the tak. Afterwards he stayed around to chat and sign anything people were bringing to him; I know he sold a lot of CD's that night. I instead took the chance to chat up M. Ward for a couple minutes, long enough to find out he'll be back next month at Martyr's. Can't recommend it too highly - if he's coming go and enjoy. It's good. Michael "really, who is this M. Ward cat anyway?" Wells Tour dates courtesy of http://www.thejohndoe.com/ Mar-06 | New York, NY - Knitting Factory Mar-07 | Philadelphia, PA - Tin Angel Mar-08 | Cambridge, MA - T.T. The Bear's Mar-09 | Fall River, MA - Narrow's Center for the Arts Mar-10 | Arlington, VA - Iota Cafi Mar-12 | Nashville, TN - Exit Inn Mar-14 | Austin TX - Cactus Cafe (SXSW) Mar-15 | Houston, TX - Continental Club Mar-16 | San Antonio TX - Casbeer's Mar-19 | Tucson AZ - Club Congress Mar-23 | San Juan Capistrano CA - The Coach House (co-bill with Peter Case) May-14 | London - Club 100 (w/ Lisa Germano) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:37:46 -0700 From: "Marc Holden" Subject: Hitchcock & Snail Hey there-- I just got back in town a couple of hours ago, and I'm still taking care of a lot of loose ends--laundry, taking care of the pets, going through my mail and e-mail, etc., etc. I'll send some info about Robyn's birthday show and the Snail (Matthew Seligman's band) show, after I see what has been posted already--it could take a day or two. I did want to say that it was great to meet some of you over there: Rik and Janet, Charlotte and Mike, the other Marc, Jim D.& friends, Matthew S., and Mike Godwin. If you get a chance to hang out with Mike G. some time, by all means, put it on your agenda. He's a pleasant and very humorous guy. Chatter at length later, Marc I think a good scene in a movie would be where one scientist tells another scientist, "You know what will save the world? You're holding it in your hand." And the other scientist looks, and in his hand are peanuts. Then when he looks up, the first scientist is being taken away to the insane asylum.--- Jack Handey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:50:41 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: 24-23 Amendment > And I would give this idea more credence if (as some judges still insist > upon) people in that courtroom generally dressed nicely, etc. You're in *court* for fuck's sake! Showing up in less than your Sunday's best shows effin' comtempt! If you show contempt on your court date based on te way you choose to dress, then whatever sentence you get is your own fault. > If they *really* wanted the hat off - and not to > reinforce their sense of power - they could have quietly, privately asked > him to remove it. And who is to say that whatever person of the court (or the mall, for that matter) didn't) then what's the point?) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 23:28:50 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: 24-23 Amendment FS Thomas wrote: > > You're in *court* for fuck's sake! Showing up in less than your > Sunday's best shows effin' comtempt! well, they didn't complain about us scruffy jurors in the 11-day High Court trial I was in on. Mind you, those wigs look really nasty-ass close to. Q: What do you call a Glaswegian in a suit? A: The accused. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:23:58 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: 24-23 Amendment Quoting FS Thomas : > > > And I would give this idea more credence if (as some judges still > insist > > upon) people in that courtroom generally dressed nicely, etc. > > You're in *court* for fuck's sake! Showing up in less than your > Sunday's best shows effin' comtempt! If you show contempt on your court > date based on te way you choose to dress, then whatever sentence you get > is your own fault. I have already stated - several times - that most courtrooms (at least in Milwaukee) have no such requirement. You might read what I wrote before commenting on it. Different areas, and different courtrooms, have different standards. But now you're saying that there really *is* a fashion police, and that fashion violators *are* committing a crime? Yikes! A judge who sentences a person based on their dress should be summarily dismissed. This is getting ridiculous - I suppose those in the courtroom should kiss the judge's ring, too? ..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: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:32:36 -0500 From: rosso@videotron.ca Subject: Re: XTC covers On 4 Mar 2003 at 22:15, Eb wrote: > >3. All YouPretty Girls - Crash Test Dummies > I used to have that album...I think I taped "Dear God" and "25 > O'Clock," and was content to toss the rest back. A friend of mine liked the Dummies' version of "Peter Pumpkinhead". For a while it was getting significant airplay here in Montreal. I played the original XTC version for him and he just said "... but it's almost exactly the same!" as if that were XTC's problem. My point flew gracefully over his head and for all I know will someday rendezvous with the Pioneer probe to form some new form of prog semi-life. Sugarplastic: I own and have enjoyed "Bang, The Earth Is Round", which I bought only because of their Eb connection. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #86 *******************************