From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #192 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, May 27 2003 Volume 12 : Number 192 Today's Subjects: ----------------- What the Bleep? [David Witzany ] Re: Comedians ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: Comedians et Hot Club [Michael R Godwin ] More f*BEEP*ing Liz Phair (RH content 0.3%) [grutness@surf4nix.com (James] Re: More f*BEEP*ing Liz Phair (RH content 0.3%) [FSThomas ] Re: More f*BEEP*ing Liz Phair (RH content 0.3%) [Jeff Dwarf ] America's Crown Jewels ["Eddie Tews" ] Re: Six Feet Down Under [Tom Clark ] Re: Six Feet Down Under [tanter@tarleton.edu] Re: Six Feet Down Under [John Barrington Jones ] Re: SPOILERS (Six Feet Down Under) [Tom Clark ] Re: More f*BEEP*ing Liz Phair (RH content 0.3%) [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffre] Re: SPOILERS (Six Feet Down Under) [John Barrington Jones ] Re: More f*BEEP*ing Liz Phair (RH content 0.3%) ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Matrix (2% Corey Hart content) [Eb ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 23:26:22 -0500 (CDT) From: David Witzany Subject: What the Bleep? On Monday, May 26, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey said: >>Also...maybe anyone who's ever worked at a college radio station can help me >>out on this: every once in a while, they'll play a track with a "dirty" word >>in it and bleep it out, using an annoying "beep" sound which, I suppose, is >>generated by some button someone has to push. I've always thought it'd be >>far more interesting to, say, cue up _Metal Machine Music_ on the other >>player and, at the appropriate moment, switch over to that machine, so it'd >>be more like "That way we can [towering squall of multiple-tracked feedback] >>and watch TV..." Or one of those obnoxious, especially-chosen-to-be-pleasant >>sounds, like newer cars make when you've left their doors open? Or perhaps a >>snippet of Pat Robertson saying "Satan!"? Is community radio good enough? When we get radio-friendly versions of albums, they're pre-bleeped. Most CDs don't have that pitch anymore; a lot have silence, instead; the rap albums have gunshots and the like. A lot of labels don't even bother to bleep the material anymore, leaving it to us to work around the swears as we choose. I've always just turned the channel off, myself; there's nothing to stop me from using something more interesting, I suppose... Dave. David Witzany witzany@uiuc.edu ....one of Nature's bounds checkers - ------------ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 11:16:08 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: Comedians Definitely agree that Black Books is genius - just watched a couple of episodes at the weekend - the first one where Manny (Bill Bailey) swallows the Little Book Of Calm and one from the second series where Manny finds he can spontaneously play the piano, even from inside it with a set of spoons... One classic comedy that no-one's mentioned is the Spike Milligan Q series... very funny, though surreal to the point of psychosis, and I think a big influence on Vic Reeves and his ilk (actually I reckon Vic & Bob = funny, Harry Hill = not). Also, Charlotte, nice to see you've weathered the bombardment of off-topic posts are are still here! Cheers Matt >From: "Charlotte Tupman" >I'm another big fan of Black Books: Bill Bailey, who plays the >long-haired bookshop assistant, is one of the funniest actors I've >ever come across. He does a great stand-up routine too, which >includes some very funny musical interludes. I think there's a >video available called 'Bewilderness'. > >Charlotte - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get the gossip faster - it's FREE with MSN Messenger! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 12:18:50 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Comedians et Hot Club On Tue, 27 May 2003, Matt Sewell wrote: > One classic comedy that no-one's mentioned is the Spike Milligan Q > series... very funny, though surreal to the point of psychosis, and I > think a big influence on Vic Reeves and his ilk (actually I reckon Vic & > Bob = funny, Harry Hill = not). I think you might find Q on my last list, Matt. Needless to say I'm anti-Vic and pro-Harry, if only for the badgers. And on the Hill front, my favourite _Benny_ creation is "Pepys' Diary": Desperate attempt to include some Egyptians content: I went to see Bireli Lagrene's Gipsy Project last night and they did something which I haven't seen since the Egyptians, namely switching instruments during the encore. Bireli went over to fiddle and fab guest Martin Taylor went over to "contrabass", as it is apparently called in Fr. They were sensational if you are at all into Le Hot Club, and fiddle-player Florian Niculescu is the best I've seen since the golden days of Bobby Valentino with the Poodles. - - Mike Godwin PS Before that, the last flash fiddler I saw at Bath Pav was David LaFlamme of It's A Beautiful Day. When the dickens was that? n.p. Bireli Lagrene, "Belleville" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 00:39:38 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: More f*BEEP*ing Liz Phair (RH content 0.3%) >Also...maybe anyone who's ever worked at a college radio station can help me >out on this: every once in a while, they'll play a track with a "dirty" word >in it and bleep it out, using an annoying "beep" sound which, I suppose, is >generated by some button someone has to push. I've always thought it'd be >far more interesting to, say, cue up _Metal Machine Music_ on the other >player and, at the appropriate moment, switch over to that machine... we used to use the sound of geese honking on the 3-second delay with talkback callers. It became so popular that the honking goose became a running gag on some station promos. But they weren't used on songs with "rude words" - they go out as nature intended. I've noticed that there are blank spaces on music videos on TV, but TV has different rules to radio. Who would bleep out the rude words on songs on student radio? And why? Aren't students (and those inclined to listen to such stations) used to rude words? The songs are generally discouraged during certain times of day, but that's all. Of course, the rules in the US are different to here probably, and the ones here are weirdly quixotic, too (f'rinstance, you can play the song "Fuck and run" uncut, but you can't announce its name live-to-air). Things are changing with both TV and radio, though. Talking of which, YAY! YAY! YAY! the second series of "Six feet under" is finally starting here next week. Apparently it was the most popular US drama on NZ TV last year, which caused a few problems. It deserves prime-time, but for some reason needs to be significantly past the watershed. Still, it won't be banished to the 11.30pm slot this year anyway, which is something. Am I right in thinking that in the US it would only on cable (rather than on a nationwide state broadcaster like here) because of its frank use of the vernacular, shall we say? And shouldn't some of Robyn's music be on the soundtrack? 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: Tue, 27 May 2003 08:56:57 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: More f*BEEP*ing Liz Phair (RH content 0.3%) At 12:39 AM 5/28/2003 +1200, James Dignan wrote: >Am I right in thinking that in the US it would >only on cable (rather than on a nationwide state broadcaster like here) >because of its frank use of the vernacular, shall we say? Well, it aired on HBO here, which is a pay channel on cable. The series they develop (when they choose to) tend to be either very good, or very--shall we say--edgy? Sex and the City, The Sopranos, The Wire, Band of Brothers, and Oz come off the top of my head. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 10:43:58 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: More f*BEEP*ing Liz Phair (RH content 0.3%) Quoting James Dignan : > Who would bleep out the rude words on songs on student radio? And why? > Aren't students (and those inclined to listen to such stations) used to > rude words? The songs are generally discouraged during certain times of > day, but that's all. > > Of course, the rules in the US are different to here probably, This is definitely the case... I'm no expert, but the rules do seem rather arbitrary and capricious. I think the actual situation is that there aren't rules per se but vague regulations re "decency" and "community standards" - which amount to, if your station gets loads of complaints, you can be fined, so most stations simply say, "okay, we'll bleep out 'fuck' and 'shit.'" Please do not get me started on the absurdity of censoring such words for a primarily college-age audience - or on the fact that in a lot of cases (particularly in hardcore punk or metal), no one would notice the words at all until they're drawn attention to by a (bleep). Television is weird...I remember two examples: the _South Park_ episode which intentionally included something like 500(!) instances of the word "shit," and MTV's self-proclaimed big deal of broadcasting the Prodigy's stupid video whose obnoxious title I forget ("ooh! visible nipples!") because it was "art"... But I'm the last person to be able to fathom the minds of censors, so it all seems pretty inconsistent to me. I mean, even assuming any harm to children from bad language or nudity (a dubious assumption), why should networks or producers of shows be responsible for the nitwit adult who thinks _South Park_ is for six-year-olds, or who hang out watching late night TV with same? And it irks me no end, the assumption that everything has to be "family"-oriented - let *families* control which media they consume, and let the rest of us adults make our own decisions there as well. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: Empire is incompatible with democracy. Democracy is founded on the :: rule of law, empire on the rule of force. Democracy is a system of :: self-determination, empire a system of military conquest. :: --Jonathan Schell ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 10:54:36 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Alas more squid than boobs, but bonus profanity! Natalie: >>A woman bitched me out because I had the temerity to step in front of her >>friend. >>Being short really sucks Wow, how short was her friend? >>I spotted a guy in a Wilco shirt and, later, a guy in a Son Volt >>shirt. But they didn't throw down, alas. Forgive my ignorance, but does the emnity still hold amongst the hardcore fan base? What I've noticed recently is that most people either like both or have never heard of Son Volt (or Uncle Tupelo, although some seem to be aware of UT without any clue that there was "another guy" much less what he went on to do). But I'm the most alt-country guy I know "in real life", so there you go. Personally I kinda feel like I'd marginally prefer a world where Tweedy was solo and Farrar still had his band, but as long as the records stay good, 'scool. _____ Eb: >>it seems like everybody's saying the new Liz Phair album is a >>horrifying sell-out. Haven't heard it yet, myself. Maybe we should >>have seen this coming, after she sang on a Sheryl Crow track. What's weird is I haven't seen a single bit of comment on the songs themselves (other that Gnat's and Aaron's), but I guess that's what you get with your typical "Hollywood image makeover/comeback trail" article. Either that or the songs are totally unworthy of comment. Ah, well. This seems pretty bad. My problem? I have an unrecorded song which mentions Liz and I wonder if I have to take her out of there now. The song can probably live without her, although the line with her in it was kind of the starting point for they lyric, and the next line rhymes with her name. Decisions, decisions. >>Is anyone really that fixated on her *body*? I figure it's mostly a >>case of a gal with pretty hair/face and a turn-on personality. She's >>not exactly "curvy".... Not everyone finds the same body types worthy of fixation. I think she's pretty hot m'self, although I hesitate to hold forth on her charms since a disproportionate amount of her press has always been about her sexuality. Not that she's ever discouraged that. She's always had a bit of that Courtney Love press-hound thing about her, but at least she used to be the one who could write. The whole thing would make more sense and be less off-putting if the touchstone constantly referred to was less Avril Lavigne (who will be unremembered five years hence) and more someone like, say, Prince, who was popular and trendy sounding, and yet had some artistic heft. (This would also tally with her needing our hot white cum and stuff.) The Avril-ambition is just a real question mark that won't make any sense to read about if her career survives this whole thing. It'd be like reading a biography on Elvis Costello and stumbling across a period where he tried to remake himself in the mold of Rick Astley. ______ Mike G: >>In pursuit of my 1953 campaign, I've just seen "20,000 leagues under >>the sea" on TV. Best fight between a giant squid and Kirk Douglas ever >>caught on film... Hey, I just got this on DVD... did the TV version look good or did they use the old, horrific transfer? Man, I love that film. Even the cheesy bits. James Mason rules. The bonus stuff on the DVD is incredible... every underwater-filming accident recorded from 3 angles. ______ JeFFrey: >>Also...maybe anyone who's ever worked at a college radio station can help >>me out on this: every once in a while, they'll play a track with a "dirty" word >>in it and bleep it out, using an annoying "beep" sound which, I suppose, is >>generated by some button someone has to push. {Amusing Metal Machine >>Music suggestion snipped} Well, I'm just kind of increasingly confused by the whole FCC thing on Radio language anyhow. I really hear mostly NPR and I think that the FCC regs are a little looser on public stations anyhow (right?) but, to stick to the example at hand, I remember a few such bleeps during a live session with Liz Phair a few years back... and yet the same station routinely played the Yeah Yeah Yeahs tune where the chorus goes, ahem "As a fuck son you sucked, as a fuck son you sucked, as a fuck son you sucked, as a fuck son you sucked, as a fuck son you sucked, as a fuck son you sucked, as a fuck son you sucked, as a fuck son you sucked." So I assume it has a lot to do with "expected profanity", which is almost a form of playing it up: "Ooooh, Liz/Snoop Dogg/Liam Gallagher is coming by, they're gonna say something dirrrrrty. Turn up the volume on the bleep machine!" - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 14:49:12 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Rare copy of "Leg Mania" on eBay Better place your bid real quick. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 15:18:08 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Rare copy of "Leg Mania" on eBay Thus making us a bunch of "legs". Cool. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:33:44 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Rare copy of "Leg Mania" on eBay On Tue, May 27, 2003, Brian Huddell wrote: > Thus making us a bunch of "legs". Cool. Which reminds me. What has 49 legs and 12 teeth? The front row of a Garth Brooks show. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 13:34:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: More f*BEEP*ing Liz Phair (RH content 0.3%) Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Quoting James Dignan : > > Who would bleep out the rude words on songs on student > > radio? And why? Aren't students (and those inclined to > > listen to such stations) used to rude words? The songs > > are generally discouraged during certain times of > > day, but that's all. > > > > Of course, the rules in the US are different to here > > probably, > > This is definitely the case... I'm no expert, but the > rules do seem rather arbitrary and capricious. I think > the actual situation is that there aren't > rules per se but vague regulations re "decency" and > "community standards" - which amount to, if your station > gets loads of complaints, you can be fined, > so most stations simply say, "okay, we'll bleep out > 'fuck' and 'shit.'" And conversely, if you don't you can go on for ages. Back when Live 105 in SF started playing Radiohead's "Creep" -- before everyone else pretty much -- they happily played the "fucking" version, even after they "very" version was shipped out, for several years. I can also remember hearing the album version of "What's the Frequency, Kenneth" and Soft Cell's "It's a Mugs Game" going out unbalderized. None of this would happen how since it's a Viacom station now. Also, the complaints are arbitrary. I have heard certain talk show hosts -- Don Imus, Tom Leykis, and Michael Savage come to mind -- call people pussies on the air, presumably without much complaint. Yet I'd bet there are plenty of people in Savage's audience especially who if they heard say, a Snoop Dogg song using the word pussies would screech until the cows come home about it. > Please do not get me started on the absurdity of > censoring such words for a primarily college-age > audience - or on the fact that in a lot of cases > (particularly in hardcore punk or metal), no one would > notice the words at all until they're drawn attention to > by a (bleep). > > Television is weird...I remember two examples: the _South > Park_ episode which intentionally included something like > 500(!) instances of the word "shit," and MTV's self- > proclaimed big deal of broadcasting the Prodigy's > stupid video whose obnoxious title I forget ("ooh! > visible nipples!") "Smack My Bitch Up." I think it was the amount of violence in that video that had it's airing limited more than the nipples though, since nipples can always be blurred pretty easily. > because it was "art"... But I'm the last person to be > able to fathom the minds of censors, so it all seems > pretty inconsistent to me. I mean, even assuming any > harm to children from bad language or nudity > (a dubious assumption), why should networks or producers > of shows be responsible for the nitwit adult who thinks > _South Park_ is for six-year-olds, or who hang out > watching late night TV with same? And it irks me no > end, the assumption that everything has to be "family"- > oriented - let *families* control which media they > consume, and let the rest of us adults make > our own decisions there as well. Isn't it funny how the most strident demanders of more stringent controls on tv and radio are the same people who are (a) always decrying the lack of personal responsiblity in the US and (b) were the loudest critics of Hillary Clinton for calling that book _It takes a Village?_ ===== "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 13:39:40 -0700 From: Eb Subject: . Due to social circumstances beyond my control, it looks like I may be seeing the Matrix film later today. I only slept about four hours last night, due to various chunks of emotional turmoil. I'd say there's about a 50% chance that I'll fall asleep during the film. Eb, still passing the open windows ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 13:40:30 -0700 From: "Eddie Tews" Subject: America's Crown Jewels . ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 14:19:43 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Six Feet Down Under on 5/27/03 5:39 AM, James Dignan at grutness@surf4nix.com wrote: > Talking of which, YAY! YAY! YAY! the second series of "Six feet under" is > finally starting here next week. Apparently it was the most popular US > drama on NZ TV last year, which caused a few problems. It deserves > prime-time, but for some reason needs to be significantly past the > watershed. Still, it won't be banished to the 11.30pm slot this year > anyway, which is something. Am I right in thinking that in the US it would > only on cable (rather than on a nationwide state broadcaster like here) > because of its frank use of the vernacular, shall we say? > > And shouldn't some of Robyn's music be on the soundtrack? So is it broadcast on NZ TV unedited? I love the show, but even I think its use of the word "fuck" is sometimes gratuitous. Plus, I think the networks would have a problem with the gay sex content. I'm really looking forward to this year's season finale, which I hope is better than "24"'s. - -tc, back from a week of lounging around in Scottsdale. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:27:44 -0500 (CDT) From: tanter@tarleton.edu Subject: Re: Six Feet Down Under My biggest gripe with this season is the obsession with sex. It's getting very creepy and almost disgusting at times. I'm not sure what the point of it is but if the season finale isn't something special, I'm not sure that I'll watch it next season. Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 15:55:15 -0700 (PDT) From: John Barrington Jones Subject: Re: Six Feet Down Under On Tue, 27 May 2003 tanter@tarleton.edu wrote: > My biggest gripe with this season is the obsession with sex. It's getting > very creepy and almost disgusting at times. I'm not sure what the point > of it is but if the season finale isn't something special, I'm not sure > that I'll watch it next season. How do you figure? If you were talking about season two, I'd agree with you The entire last season centered around Rachel Griffith's character's (can't remember her name) escalating sexual addiction - befriending the hooker, "finishing off" one of her massage clients, and inviting two high school boys in to her apartment for more sex (and that's just to name SOME of the exploits). This season, the only real sex I can recall is with David and Keith, and that was used to highlight their differences - a prelude to them falling apart. The real creepfest was the mother (can't remember her name either) trying to get it on with the intern - but that didn't lead to anything sexual, did it? Well, it didn't matter - any time they touched _at all_ I had to yell "ICK! ICK! OOOH! NO!" and leave the room until my wife told me it was safe to come back in and watch. =jbj= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:01:50 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: SPOILERS (Six Feet Down Under) Let's remember that James, and other non-North Americans, have yet to see season two. Preface spoilers!! - -tc on 5/27/03 3:55 PM, John Barrington Jones at jbjones@pdx.edu wrote: > On Tue, 27 May 2003 tanter@tarleton.edu wrote: > >> My biggest gripe with this season is the obsession with sex. It's getting >> very creepy and almost disgusting at times. I'm not sure what the point >> of it is but if the season finale isn't something special, I'm not sure >> that I'll watch it next season. > > How do you figure? If you were talking about season two, I'd agree with > you The entire last season centered around Rachel Griffith's > character's (can't remember her name) escalating sexual addiction - > befriending the hooker, "finishing off" one of her massage clients, and > inviting two high school boys in to her apartment for more sex (and that's > just to name SOME of the exploits). > > This season, the only real sex I can recall is with David and Keith, and > that was used to highlight their differences - a prelude to them falling > apart. > > The real creepfest was the mother (can't remember her name either) trying > to get it on with the intern - but that didn't lead to anything sexual, > did it? Well, it didn't matter - any time they touched _at all_ I had to > yell "ICK! ICK! OOOH! NO!" and leave the room until my wife told me it was > safe to come back in and watch. > > =jbj= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 18:19:57 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: More f*BEEP*ing Liz Phair (RH content 0.3%) Quoting Jeff Dwarf : > Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > pretty inconsistent to me. I mean, even assuming any > > harm to children from bad language or nudity > > (a dubious assumption), why should networks or producers > > of shows be responsible for the nitwit adult who thinks > > _South Park_ is for six-year-olds, or who hang out > > watching late night TV with same? And it irks me no > > end, the assumption that everything has to be "family"- > > oriented - let *families* control which media they > > consume, and let the rest of us adults make > > our own decisions there as well. > > Isn't it funny how the most strident demanders of more > stringent controls on tv and radio are the same people who > are (a) always decrying the lack of personal responsiblity > in the US and (b) were the loudest critics of Hillary > Clinton for calling that book _It takes a Village?_ What's always *really* amused me is that many of these folks are *also* strident defenders of "the free market"...not recognizing, apparently, that that same market is what makes billions of dollars annually for pornography, say. (My favorite - possibly apocryphal - story along these lines involves the proprietor of a pornographic video outlet in, I think, Provo, Utah, busted for violating "community standards" re "obscenity." The story goes that he got the charges thrown out when he demonstrated, using online sales figures, that residents of Provo consumed porn twice as voraciously as the average community...) Not that right-wingers have a monopoly on ideological consistency...or even that *ideological* consistency is necessarily a virtue. ..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: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:21:19 -0700 (PDT) From: John Barrington Jones Subject: Re: SPOILERS (Six Feet Down Under) Spoilers ahead: (I'm sorry, James, and others, for forgetting about the spoilers.) =jbj= On Tue, 27 May 2003, Tom Clark wrote: > Let's remember that James, and other non-North Americans, have yet to see > season two. Preface spoilers!! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 17:12:45 -0700 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Books and music Miles explained: >Oh, I haven't seen Neil Young with Crazy Horse *yet* -- we're making the trek to St. Louis in August to see him. > You really like this guy. He is funny all right, despite looking damn serious most of the time. Mike Godwin recommended a book: >I suspect that you would like the Lyttelton - Hart-Davis Letters. > > Thanks Mike. I think I'll check that one out and then said: >Recently read Martin Seymour-Smith's bio of Kipling, and while it was >impressive, I got slightly bored with the incessant "and this _too_ may be >explained by Kipling's repressed homosexuality" every four or five pages. > >I will definitely try Holroyd. I'm getting up the energy to read "White >teeth" this week, but I doubt if it will be my kind of thing. > Yes, that old repressed homosexuality. Endless amateur psychology can be annoying. Such a simplistic way of explaining away things and so shaky most of the time. I prefer if the author avoids all that and just tells me the facts. This seems to be the modern trend anyway. Holroyd did a multi-volume biography of Shaw, but I believe he put together a condensed version and recommends it. I see that Michael Holroyd is married to Margaret Drabble. I got White Teeth for Christmas but still haven't read it. My mother keeps at me though! Apparently it's the greatest. Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 20:19:43 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: More f*BEEP*ing Liz Phair (RH content 0.3%) Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > What's always *really* amused me is that many of these folks are *also* > strident defenders of "the free market"... you've just read Eric Schlosser's new book too, eh? Stewart (with 501 tracks of Robyn on shuffle play) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 20:21:10 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: . Eb wrote: > > I'd say there's about a 50% chance that I'll fall > asleep during the film. Go and see "Down With Love". You'd enjoy it more. Don't let anyone tell you the ending. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 19:49:12 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Matrix (2% Corey Hart content) So, I saw the new Matrix film. Well, that was a real clockwatcher. A half-hour over, 40 minutes over, 50 minutes over, a hour over.... The first film started off interesting, and then turned into lame action. This one was lame action, throughout. Generally, it's not much beyond karate-fighting, car chases, karate-fighting, guns and lots and lots and LOTS of sunglasses. No kidding -- this may be the greatest film for sunglasses fans since "The Blues Brothers 2000." Really. Hey, pull *that* quote for the film's print ads. Frustratingly, the film's two most interesting characters (The Oracle and The Keymaker) were given scarcely a decent scene between them. This also may be the first time I've ever seen Laurence Fishburne in a film, and had the urge to catcall him. Most of his lines were real howlers. However, the size of his facial craters was most impressive on the big screen. With about 20 minutes left, there was a pivotal scene between Neo and "The Architect." I felt like this was the first time in the whole film where the plot was significantly advanced, and I needed to pay close attention. Unfortunately, I was already so battered by the film's rock-em-sock-em noise and thunder that my mind was already halfway out the exit door by then. I don't go out to see many movies, and I couldn't even estimate the last time I saw in a film this weak in a theater. I saw The Phantom Menace in a theater, but I'd even rank *that* over Reloaded. But a friend wanted to see it, so.... Tapewise, I'm making my way through "The Big Parade," right now...a silent WWI film from 1925 which allegedly was the highest-grossing film for years, until it was finally usurped by "Gone with the Wind"? Interesting, if that's really true. Eb ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #192 ********************************