From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #181 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, May 19 2003 Volume 12 : Number 181 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: in my role as the most hated poster in the fegmaniax listserv scene... [Eb ] Marcy Tanter - the new Keith Flett [crowbar.joe@btopenworld.com] Re: ooops [Michael R Godwin ] Re: ooops [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: ooops [Aaron Mandel ] RE: Glass Flesh ["Iosso, Ken" ] RE: Glass Flesh ["Iosso, Ken" ] Re: ooops [Michael R Godwin ] It says right there in the movie, don't talk about Fight Club ["Rex.Broom] RE: It says right there in the movie, don't talk about Fight Club [Cather] Making plans for Nigel, Trevor, Mira and the gang... ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: ooops [Eb ] Re: ooops ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Spark up a Glass Flesh [brian@lazerlove5.com] Re: ooops [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 15:07:09 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: in my role as the most hated poster in the fegmaniax listserv scene... >Why exactly are girls who fight cooler than men who fight? Because when girls fight, their boobs jiggle up and down. Everyone knows that. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 18:55:38 -0400 From: "Mark A. Truslow" Subject: Robyn Trades............. Hi all...............I'm looking for the 50th birthday gig and also the Largo shows in the early spring I think.......let me know if anyone is interested in trading................Best, Mark T. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 18:07:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Swedene Subject: Re: in my role as the most hated poster in the fegmaniax listserv scene... word. herbie - --- Eb wrote: > >Why exactly are girls who fight cooler than men who > fight? > > Because when girls fight, their boobs jiggle up and > down. Everyone knows that. > > Eb ===== - --------------------------------------------- Rebuilding my websight: http://www34.brinkster.com/bflomidy/ _____________________________________________ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 22:16:50 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: in my role as the most hated poster in the fegmaniax listserv scene... Quoting Eb : > >Why exactly are girls who fight cooler than men who fight? > > Because when girls fight, their boobs jiggle up and down. Everyone knows > that. Yes - but that's also true of (male) pro wrestlers. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: we make everything you need, and you need everything we make ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:00:32 -0700 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Re: ooops >I don't mean to be picking on you - really! said Jeff > Hi there Grumpy Jeff. Feeling a little grumpy myself today, due to some kind of draggy illness that seems to be creeping up on me. I had a few hours trying to sleep today while a bagpipe orchestra played in the neighbourhood. Both touching and annoying. No doubt practising for the big Victoria Day parade tomorrow - yes, we still celebrate Queen Victoria's birthday here. Here's a thought I had today, you might find it annoying, I don't know. I never know for sure what reaction I'm going to get. This has to do with the sexual misadventures of Democratic politicians. Let's say that there is less financial corruption among Democrats than Republicans. Then, if that is true, *some* of them feel justified in taking advantage of occasional sexual favours granted to them because of their position. They might be tempted to take advantage of some perks of the office. As long as sex is defined as "a physical act that may result in a baby" then they can also claim that they did not engage in sex. Voila! soutarifically, Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbai ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 09:32:20 +0100 (BST) From: crowbar.joe@btopenworld.com Subject: Marcy Tanter - the new Keith Flett Hey! Marcy's got a letter in this morning's Guardian, no less, suggesting that us Brits may have chosen our favourite books for this recent poll-thingy on the basis that handy film versions also exist ;-) Wonder what a similar poll would turn up in the US. Yeah, yeah, 'knee-jerk anti-Americanism, blah, blah ;-) Crowbar Joe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:47:51 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: ooops > On Saturday, May 17, 2003, at 08:06 PM, (Grumpy) Jeffrey with 2 Fs > Jeffrey wrote: > > I don't mean to be picking on you - really! - but, uh, are there enough > > politicians of either party dying in small-plane crashes to make this > > statement meaningful? OK, you need to set these into a 2x2 table: N Democrat small plane flights: N CRASHED N DIDN'T CRASH N Republican small plane flights N CRASHED N DIDN'T CRASH Total up the numbers in all cells, then calculate what the Expected numbers would have been if all you had known were the totals. Then for each cell, calculated (Observed mimus Expected)squared, divided by Expected. Add the calculations for the four cells to obtain the Chi-Squared statistic, which will have (2-1)*(2-1) = 1 degree of freedom. Check out the critical value in a Chi-Squared table. If your stat is greater than the critical value, then the results probably did not occur by chance. But you must have a minimum of 5 Expected values in any cell for the results to be reliable. See for more details. - - Mike Godwin PS And while we're on the subject of ferrets: ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 09:03:18 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: ooops On Mon, 19 May 2003, Michael R Godwin wrote: > > > politicians of either party dying in small-plane crashes to make this > > > statement meaningful? > > OK, you need to set these into a 2x2 table: > > N Democrat small plane flights: N CRASHED N DIDN'T CRASH > N Republican small plane flights N CRASHED N DIDN'T CRASH > > Total up the numbers in all cells, then calculate what the Expected > numbers would have been if all you had known were the totals. Then for > each cell, calculated (Observed mimus Expected)squared, divided by > Expected. Add the calculations for the four cells to obtain the > Chi-Squared statistic, which will have (2-1)*(2-1) = 1 degree of freedom. > Check out the critical value in a Chi-Squared table. If your stat is > greater than the critical value, then the results probably did not occur > by chance. > > But you must have a minimum of 5 Expected values in any cell for the > results to be reliable. > > See for more details. The server seems to be down - but even though I know next to nothing about statistics, what does "expected" have to do with it? What I recall Barbara saying was that Democratic politicians are twice as likely as Republican politicians to die in small-plane crashes...a statement which *could* be true whether politicians generally die more frequently in small-plane crashes than expected or less frequently. The issue is (a) which kind of politician has died more often, and (b) if there are enough of these to make a reasonable conclusion. I'm guessing that "expected" is in there because of that last requirement? But I would have thought the bit about "minimum of 5" would account for it... The problem would seem to be that the problem can't be solved unless we know what's expected...yet Barbara's question doesn't seem, on its face, to require such knowledge. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey, failing Statistics 101 J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Never drive a car when you're dead:: __Tom Waits__ ps: re: Clinton's legalistic attempts to parse "is" and "sex": I wonder how different things would have turned out had he had his lawyer make such points...rather than doing it himself? Probably not much - the Right was out to get him, and what he actually did was irrelevant to them...given the number of right-wing politicians with affairs in their closets. But hey - we're so much better off now that the president isn't staining anyone's dresses...at least not with any of his own bodily fluids. *Their* own, in mass quantities...well that's nowhere near as *sinful*... The economy's booming, states and cities have all the money they need, there's no more poverty or unemployment, there's no trade imbalance or federal deficit, Iraq is a thriving democracy, unicorns sport with smiling happy ponies, monkeys are flying out of my ass, and it doesn't even hurt! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:24:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: ooops On Mon, 19 May 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > The problem would seem to be that the problem can't be solved unless we > know what's expected...yet Barbara's question doesn't seem, on its face, > to require such knowledge. No. I believe what Mike talked about was a way to test theories for reasonableness. So you *decide* what you expect (like Barbara did) plug in the numbers, and the formula tells you if you're off your rocker. At least, that's my understanding of it. The reason for this is that even if politicians fly an equal amount regardless of their party and twice as many Democrats as Republicans crash, it doesn't prove that Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to die in a plane crash; the real number could be 1.8 or 2.111117, with the observed numbers just a fluctuation. aaron ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:21:22 -0500 From: "Iosso, Ken" Subject: RE: Glass Flesh Well, this is my first posting. I've been listening to Robyn and before that Syd for the last 25 years. I live in Minnesota and I was told of this list as I was searching for a particular show that I saw in 1988. One of the greatest shows by any artist I've ever seen - Robyn was on and he finished with a splendid version of "Eight Days a Week." So firstly, any of you know where I could find such a thing? Second I don't know what the Glass Flesh project is. Could someone enlighten me? Ken Iosso Aide to Commissioner Ortega phone 651-266-8367 fax 651-266-8370 -----Original Message----- From: The Great Quail [mailto:quail@libyrinth.com] Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:28 AM To: Fegmaniax! Subject: Glass Flesh Woj remarks: >> Bayard has put a lot of effort into the Glass Flesh project, hoping >> only to break even. As most of you know, any profit from the project >> are to be donated to the charity of Robyn's choice. And it is an *excellent* CD. Bayard has given me a bunch for New Yorker-types who may wish one, so if you are in the neighborhood, I can get you a CD and send the money along to Bayardo. I can also mail them as well, so Bayard, feel free to make me your Glass Flesh mailing wing-man! - --Q ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:24:31 -0500 From: "Iosso, Ken" Subject: RE: Glass Flesh Typical of me to leave a very important thing out - 4/11/88 Mpls is the show I'm looking for. Thank you. Ken Iosso Aide to Commissioner Ortega phone 651-266-8367 fax 651-266-8370 -----Original Message----- From: Iosso, Ken [mailto:Ken.Iosso@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 11:21 AM To: Fegmaniax! Subject: RE: Glass Flesh Well, this is my first posting. I've been listening to Robyn and before that Syd for the last 25 years. I live in Minnesota and I was told of this list as I was searching for a particular show that I saw in 1988. One of the greatest shows by any artist I've ever seen - Robyn was on and he finished with a splendid version of "Eight Days a Week." So firstly, any of you know where I could find such a thing? Second I don't know what the Glass Flesh project is. Could someone enlighten me? Ken Iosso Aide to Commissioner Ortega phone 651-266-8367 fax 651-266-8370 -----Original Message----- From: The Great Quail [mailto:quail@libyrinth.com] Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:28 AM To: Fegmaniax! Subject: Glass Flesh Woj remarks: >> Bayard has put a lot of effort into the Glass Flesh project, hoping >> only to break even. As most of you know, any profit from the project >> are to be donated to the charity of Robyn's choice. And it is an *excellent* CD. Bayard has given me a bunch for New Yorker-types who may wish one, so if you are in the neighborhood, I can get you a CD and send the money along to Bayardo. I can also mail them as well, so Bayard, feel free to make me your Glass Flesh mailing wing-man! - --Q ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 18:19:26 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: ooops > On Mon, 19 May 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > The problem would seem to be that the problem can't be solved unless we > > know what's expected...yet Barbara's question doesn't seem, on its face, > > to require such knowledge. > On Mon, 19 May 2003, Aaron Mandel wrote: > No. I believe what Mike talked about was a way to test theories for > reasonableness. So you *decide* what you expect (like Barbara did) plug in > the numbers, and the formula tells you if you're off your rocker. At > least, that's my understanding of it. > > The reason for this is that even if politicians fly an equal amount > regardless of their party and twice as many Democrats as Republicans > crash, it doesn't prove that Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans > to die in a plane crash; the real number could be 1.8 or 2.111117, with > the observed numbers just a fluctuation. OK. Suppose that the Observed figures are: Crash No Crash Democrat 19 200 Republican 11 270 Calculate all the totals: Total Democrat: 219 Total Republican: 281 Total Crash: 30 Total No Crash: 470 Grand Total: 500 The Expected values are calculated thus: If you didn't know the values in the table, but only the totals, you would expect those totals to be randomly distributed. Thus you would expect Cell 1 (Crashed Democrats) to contain 219*30/500 = 13.14 Calculate the other cells in the same manner, and you get your Expected table 13.14 205.86 16.86 264.14 Subtract these from the Observed values, square the answer, then divide that by the Expected value: (O-E)sq/E 2.61 0.17 2.04 0.13 Add these up = 4.95 Now, check this against the 'critical value' in your Chi-sq table, with one degree of freedom. Degrees of freedom P=0.05 P=0.01 1 3.84 6.64 Our figure of 4.95 is greater than the P=0.05 critical value, which means that we are 95% sure that there is a significant difference between the crash rates for the two parties. However, 4.95 is not greater than 6.64, so we are not 99% certain there is a significant difference. However, as all these figures were made up off the top of my head, they probably don't mean much... - - Mike Godwin n.p. Bukka White "Special Stream Line" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:07:31 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: It says right there in the movie, don't talk about Fight Club Dude, all of y'all who are parents seem to be pretty damned awesome at it. I can picture it in the future: boy meets girl at aquarium; they hit it off; small talk ensues along the lines of: "So how did you get so interested in marine invertebrates?" "Well, my parents were big fans of this obscure British songwriter..." "Oh my god, my folks were into Robyn, too!" ____________ Eb on the films of Neil "Istic" LaBute: >>Don't forget "unrelated to comic books or sci-fi." Except that the characters might as well be ripping each other to shreds with 11-inch claws. >>And, almost as bad, "not nudge-nudge hip and counterculture." Maybe not "in-jokey", if that's what you mean, but LaBute's adherents certainly fancy themselves a clued-in-beyond-the-norm subculture, so I'd call that, if not "hip", then certainly smug. I'm not sure how I got pegged as a "comic book movie guy" other than that I've commented on some of them mentioned here. But few of my favorite films fit into that category; in fact many of them would probably fall into that character-and-relationship-with-dark-undertones category that LaBute is going for. But the ones I like were mostly made in the '70's, and by talented filmmakers. >>I was running earlier this evening, over three miles from home, and >>an unseen car drove by and EGGED me! That's just profoundly lame. Something has seemed kind of... "off" in the local population recently. I'm just noticing surlier, more out-of-sorts dickish behavior on the road than usual... lack of a war or an NBA team to root for? I dunno. _____ "A Mighty Wind" was great. I may be in the minority in ranking it higher than "Best in Show", but that probably has to do with my close connection via my upbringing to the weird commercial strain of the folk revival that's being satirized. As usual, I can't wait for the DVD and all of the extra scenes. I could go on about the performances and characters, but won't, except to say that I loves me some Catherine O'Hara. Question: why exactly is this Guest film outperforming all the others? Is it because his cult audience has reached critical mass since everyone's rented his other films, or is it the chance to see, sort of, Spinal Tap perform again? Or simply the fact that it's music-based to begin with? Or the sudden popularity of Eugene Levy via "Bringing Down tha Hizowse" and "American Pie"? Nah. _______ Barbara: >>And on the theme of Democrats, I just read an interesting statistic that >>they are twice as likely as Republicans to die in small plane >>crashes.... a scary thought. The odds get worse if they happen to be Democratic Guitarists, worse still if they are especially associated with playing a Stratocaster. _______ Eleanore: >>the bottom line is that the fighting feels good. I think it is the same >>with Neo and his band of brothers. Fighting feels good. Not to me, for what it's worth. I really dislike conflict of any kind, and I can't see my way to wanting to "fight" anyone unless they've done something that really, really pisses me off. Well-choreographed fighting can *look* good-- I enjoy cool examples of the human body in motion-- and it seems that, story-wise, you usually aren't going to get to the fight scene without some motivation being provided for the characters to fight each other. But fighting just to fight sounds kind of like, I dunno, actively trying to get a speeding ticket or something: I can't see the motivation. - -Rex "but then I can't understand why anyone would drive around in a car for the hell of it and find that pleasurable, either, so what the hell do I know" Broome ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:17:25 -0700 From: Catherine Simpson Subject: RE: It says right there in the movie, don't talk about Fight Club Rex said: >Dude, all of y'all who are parents seem to be pretty damned awesome at it. >I can picture it in the future: boy meets girl at aquarium; they hit it >off; small talk ensues along the lines of: >"So how did you get so interested in marine invertebrates?" >"Well, my parents were big fans of this obscure British songwriter..." >"Oh my god, my folks were into Robyn, too!" I can certainly see that happening, too. On the very first night of my son's life, while we were still in the hospital together, we listened to "Eye" on repeat all night long on my boombox... Hey! You think we could pull off an arranged marriage between OUR kids? The first time I met Robyn, in about 1993/1994, I told him that when I'd had life-saving emergency surgery the previous year, I'd listened to "Eye" on my headphones all night the first night I woke from surgery (it's my standard "life-affirming" music, I guess). He said he'd hate to think that his voice might have been the last thing I heard :) - - Catherine (who wishes she was as cool and witty as Rex!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:13:13 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Making plans for Nigel, Trevor, Mira and the gang... >>Hey! You think we could pull off an arranged marriage between OUR kids? It would make a certain amount of sense, although since you have one boy and I have the two girls, there might be a creepily biblical moment: "All of my daughters are lovely and skilled... which of them pleases you best?" And then they'd probably have to dance and show off their talents and all that, in some kind of big pavillion with all the other sheiks standing around... I kind of remember an unspoken assumption that either my brother or myself would end up with one of the two daughters of my parents' best friends. Eventually this kind of centered on my brother and the daughter who was his age. In recent years my parents have both joked about what a disaster this would've been, but I think the girls' mother was still a bit crestfallen when first one and then the other of the Broome boys got married off, although that may have had more to do with her displeasure with the guys her daughter was dating than anything else. Wifey and I do have one relationship set in stone for Miranda... a friend of ours had an incredibly premature baby about six months before M. was born. He's actually quite healthy but still trailing Miranda (who's huge) in size, so we've decided that she's going to be lil' Ben's schoolyard protector and kick some ass whenever he gets picked on. - -Rex "well, there goes my nonfighting pacifist cred right there" Broome ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 18:19:26 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: ooops > On Mon, 19 May 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > The problem would seem to be that the problem can't be solved unless we > > know what's expected...yet Barbara's question doesn't seem, on its face, > > to require such knowledge. > On Mon, 19 May 2003, Aaron Mandel wrote: > No. I believe what Mike talked about was a way to test theories for > reasonableness. So you *decide* what you expect (like Barbara did) plug in > the numbers, and the formula tells you if you're off your rocker. At > least, that's my understanding of it. > > The reason for this is that even if politicians fly an equal amount > regardless of their party and twice as many Democrats as Republicans > crash, it doesn't prove that Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans > to die in a plane crash; the real number could be 1.8 or 2.111117, with > the observed numbers just a fluctuation. OK. Suppose that the Observed figures are: Crash No Crash Democrat 19 200 Republican 11 270 Calculate all the totals: Total Democrat: 219 Total Republican: 281 Total Crash: 30 Total No Crash: 470 Grand Total: 500 The Expected values are calculated thus: If you didn't know the values in the table, but only the totals, you would expect those totals to be randomly distributed. Thus you would expect Cell 1 (Crashed Democrats) to contain 219*30/500 = 13.14 Calculate the other cells in the same manner, and you get your Expected table 13.14 205.86 16.86 264.14 Subtract these from the Observed values, square the answer, then divide that by the Expected value: (O-E)sq/E 2.61 0.17 2.04 0.13 Add these up = 4.95 Now, check this against the 'critical value' in your Chi-sq table, with one degree of freedom. Degrees of freedom P=0.05 P=0.01 1 3.84 6.64 Our figure of 4.95 is greater than the P=0.05 critical value, which means that we are 95% sure that there is a significant difference between the crash rates for the two parties. However, 4.95 is not greater than 6.64, so we are not 99% certain there is a significant difference. However, as all these figures were made up off the top of my head, they probably don't mean much... - - Mike Godwin n.p. Bukka White "Special Stream Line" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:16:06 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: ooops >OK. Suppose that the Observed figures are: > > Crash No Crash >Democrat 19 200 >Republican 11 270 > > >Calculate all the totals: > >Total Democrat: 219 >Total Republican: 281 > >Total Crash: 30 >Total No Crash: 470 > >Grand Total: 500 > >The Expected values are calculated thus: >If you didn't know the values in the table, but only the totals, you would >expect those totals to be randomly distributed. Thus you would expect Cell >1 (Crashed Democrats) to contain 219*30/500 = 13.14 > >Calculate the other cells in the same manner, and you get your Expected >table > > 13.14 205.86 > 16.86 264.14 > >Subtract these from the Observed values, square the answer, then divide >that by the Expected value: (O-E)sq/E > > 2.61 0.17 > 2.04 0.13 > >Add these up = 4.95 > >Now, check this against the 'critical value' in your Chi-sq table, with >one degree of freedom. > >Degrees of freedom P=0.05 P=0.01 > 1 3.84 6.64 > >Our figure of 4.95 is greater than the P=0.05 critical value, which means >that we are 95% sure that there is a significant difference between the >crash rates for the two parties. However, 4.95 is not greater than 6.64, >so we are not 99% certain there is a significant difference. > >However, as all these figures were made up off the top of my head, they >probably don't mean much... Has this list reached rock-bottom? ;) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 17:32:31 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: ooops Eb wrote: > > Has this list reached rock-bottom? ;) only if we managed to correlate these figures with Robyn's word usage frequencies ... and Heidi Klum's whereabouts. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 18:03:23 +0000 (GMT) From: brian@lazerlove5.com Subject: Spark up a Glass Flesh I know someone turn us on to this cover a few years ago, but this is by far the greatest cover of a Robyn tune I've heard. Such a great Rolling Stonesy feel, I never would've expected for When I Was Dead. Scroll down a bit: http://www.50centhaircut.com/archive2.shtml Seriously kids, if you like this tune, you should pick up 2 copies of Glass Flesh II. Hell I did. One for me and one for my dead grandmother. She loves it! Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 18:30:01 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: ooops Quoting Aaron Mandel : > No. I believe what Mike talked about was a way to test theories for > reasonableness. So you *decide* what you expect (like Barbara did) plug > in > the numbers, and the formula tells you if you're off your rocker. At > least, that's my understanding of it. > > The reason for this is that even if politicians fly an equal amount > regardless of their party and twice as many Democrats as Republicans > crash, it doesn't prove that Democrats are twice as likely as > Republicans > to die in a plane crash; the real number could be 1.8 or 2.111117, with > the observed numbers just a fluctuation. I'm posting this just to annoy Eb, actually. Anyway, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, Aaron...but isn't what people mean when they say "X is twice as likely to happen as Y" more along the lines of "given enough trials, X will happen *approximately* twice as many times as Y" - i.e., for most people, 1.8 or 2.111117 would be close enough to "twice as likely" to count as correct? I'd read it even less specifically - as "significantly more likely to" - which of course leaves open the question of what constitutes significance. (A question answerable by statistical methods, I'm guessing - having to do w/how many incidents, right?) And my original point was: I'm guessing there aren't really enough fatal SPCs involving politicians to make *any* statement with any predictive value about relevance to political affiliation. I'm further guessing that in order to tally up enough SPCs, you'd need to reach far enough back in time that the planes in question may have much higher riskiness inherent in flying them...which again reduces the predictive value of including them in a statistic. On the other hand, I may just be part of the VRWC (see Hillary) trying to cover up our nefarious acts, such as assassinating left-wing politicians by sabotaging their leetle planes. A certain short-skirt -wearing right-wing columnist actually suggested flying liberals' planes into public buildings, allowing the VRWC to simultaneously knock off such traitors *and* cement their nefariousness in the public mind. Her motion was defeated (with only Rummy enthusiastically agreeing) after we realized the restraints were cutting off oxygen to her brain and rendering her not quite sane at the time. Relatively speaking. ..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 lp: Fugu _Fugu 1_ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #181 ********************************