From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #214 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, June 13 2003 Volume 12 : Number 214 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: where? there! there goes Jeannie with her new boyfriend [gshell@metro] Joyce squid [Barbara Soutar ] I fell right into the arms of... ["Natalie Jane" ] RE: we need more moderators! ["Matt Sewell" ] RE: we need more moderators! [gshell@metronet.com] Censure [The Great Quail ] RE: we need more moderators! ["Brian Huddell" ] Re: Sick of the moralizing [Aaron Mandel ] RE: Censure ["Brian Huddell" ] Re: Censure [Tom Clark ] Re: Importing Safari [Ken Weingold ] Re: Sick of the moralizing ["ross taylor" ] Re: Way over yonder in the paw paw patch [Tom Clark ] Way over yonder in the Cumberland Gap ["Rex.Broome" >http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/05/countrys.best.list.ap/ where the hell did they go to get this list, Prague? Fender, Wills and Autrey are on the list but not until the very end. i almost had to write a letter. and where the hell is Emmy-Lou Harris, Roy Orbison, Chet Atkins and Townes Van Zandt? damn, i could list 100 songs, better than any on the cmt list and they would all be from these artists. gSs np cowboy junkies lament-tvz ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:27:34 -0700 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Joyce squid Jeme said: "I had a similar conversation with a neighbor about things like lawn mowers and hedge trimmers and so on. It's ridiculous that everyone is expectedto OWN this stuff when almost nobody on the block uses them at the same time. The neighbor discussed rental as a good option. (He actually thought it would be a good business idea.) But I disagreed because of my idea that using money to make money (rather than doing new and useful work) is immoral. I suggested, instead, a neighborhood garden shed where these things could be kept and the cost of purchase and upkeep could be disseminated over a larger group of people." It's because I believed the above that we moved into a housing co-op. It turned out that there were many problems implementing a fair system. It mainly had to do with the clash between idealistic co-operators and slackers of every type. Of course it is possible. If you want to see socialized medicine in action, check out Canada. Plus other items on your agenda. As for art, patrons have always been useful people to have. If you want to look into the life of James Joyce (who Jeme mentioned) he was heavily supported financially by a couple of adoring rich women. Otherwise his books would never have come to light. And I'm glad they did come to light, though very few people actually read them. They are oddities along the line of giant squid, interesting that they exist but.... Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:59:33 -0700 From: "Natalie Jane" Subject: I fell right into the arms of... >You don't want A television, you want Television. Me too! Tom Verlaine kicks ass! Hey, could y'all make the digests spit out a little slower? I'm going down to Cali tonight to visit my sister and do homework, and I won't have much time to check e-mail. (Sorry, Bay area fegs, I don't think I'll have time to do any visiting... I'm going home Sunday night. Unless you want to join me in my bi-yearly pilgrimage to Amoeba...?) Uh, anyway, to return to an earlier subject, I've been reading this new-ish magazine called Harp. I think it's singer-songwriter oriented, with a bit of an alt-country slant. Any magazine that has articles about Andy Partridge *and* Jay Farrar is fine by me. I think I might even subscribe. There's a longer article about Farrar in this month's issue, and like many Farrar interviews I've read, there's an almost apologetic paragraph explaining that he's really not such a bad guy, and hey, he even has a sense of humor! I reckon asshole-ish tendencies fade with age, maybe... or maybe he was just an asshole a few times and got a reputation, like Jeffrey with two F's says. Anyway, I learned from the article that Farrar unwittingly sold a Wurlitzer jukebox to Vanilla Ice's dad. That's pretty funny. n. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:59:33 -0400 From: "Timothy Reed" Subject: RE: we need more moderators! Just what this list needs - a self-appointed moderator. Who cares if Nora's new here? Since when does length of membership determine what you're allowed to say? For all the dancing everyone else does in 10 page replies, she quickly and accurately called a spade a spade. And it's the only post that's made any sense. Maybe she should have used a more neutral term - 'sociopath' at least offers the hope of medical treatment. There is no cure for asshole. Anyway - and this is my last (and only) contribution to this stupid-ass thread - she spoke eloquently enough for me. As you were, Tim > Can I add to Jeffrey's censure on Nora. Nice bit of tanking > in for a newbie, girl...I don't expect any better from > Quail...Jeme shouldn't have made that jibe about Steve's job > - and occasionally writes like a robot - but he has my vote > on many of the things he's trying to express. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:26:38 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: RE: we need more moderators! Oooh... it's all handbags at forty paces on the list at the moment, isn't it? Just thought I'd weigh in and say you're all a bunch of ass holes (whatever that is? I know donkeys tend to have several. Holes, that is...), and any more moralising out of any of you and I'm taking my (cyber) ball and going home! You're all a little tetchy for a Friday, no? Cheers Matt >From: "Timothy Reed" >Just what this list needs - a self-appointed moderator. Who cares if >Nora's new here? Since when does length of membership determine what >you're allowed to say? For all the dancing everyone else does in 10 >page replies, she quickly and accurately called a spade a spade. And >it's the only post that's made any sense. > >Maybe she should have used a more neutral term - 'sociopath' at least >offers the hope of medical treatment. There is no cure for asshole. > >Anyway - and this is my last (and only) contribution to this stupid-ass >thread - she spoke eloquently enough for me. > >As you were, >Tim > > > Can I add to Jeffrey's censure on Nora. Nice bit of tanking > > in for a newbie, girl...I don't expect any better from > > Quail...Jeme shouldn't have made that jibe about Steve's job > > - and occasionally writes like a robot - but he has my vote > > on many of the things he's trying to express. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Looking for cheaper internet access? Find loads of great offers here! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:36:35 -0500 (CDT) From: gshell@metronet.com Subject: RE: we need more moderators! On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Timothy Reed wrote: > Just what this list needs - a self-appointed moderator. Who cares if > Nora's new here? i vote for Nora as the new moderator. > Since when does length of membership determine what you're allowed to > say? only when what you say offends someone who thinks the right to offend should be based on some sorta point system. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:55:33 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Censure Crowbar Joe writes, > Can I add to Jeffrey's censure on Nora. Nice bit of tanking in for a newbie, > girl... What, that she had the honesty to just come right out and *say* what so many of us think? Oh, and the word "censure" really raises my hackles. "Censure" implies an "official" rebuke. It implies a whole system that I would rather not be a part of. I've been longer on this List than you, Jeff and Nora combined, and the last thing I want is one newbie telling another newbie what they should and should not say. Dammit, am I the only one around here who thinks this list has gotten less and less fun? More and more politicized? I'm afraid to post my opinions on anything anymore, lest they be greeted by a humorless, pedantic screed. Enjoy a Hollywood movie? Poor fool you. Own a DVD or car? My God, how horrible! Have an alternate political opinion? Good luck -- here, muddle-pated neo-Marxist utopianism rules the day. Does anyone remember fun? Does anyone remember when you could discuss pop-culture and politics without being cast as a corporate shill? Does anyone remember animated conversation between open minds? Or have the Taste Squad and Thought Police bullied it out of us, run the Surreal Posse into the ground and tied them down with the chains of political correctitude. Honestly, I don't know *any* List old-timer who thinks things have improved since 9-11. The ones that stuck around, anyway. Where's Eddie? Bayard? Ross? Russ? Tracy? Mark Gloster? Mike Runion? LJ Lindhurst? Woj? Susan? Nick? Chris F? I mean, sure some drifted off for their own reasons, yet I can't help but wonder if some of them are just tired of this constant evangelism. (Scratch that, I *know* some grew tired of it.) >I don't expect any better from Quail... Well, you will be happy to know that I rarely think about how you'll receive my posts. So no need to expect anything, mate. >Jeme shouldn't have made that > jibe about Steve's job - and occasionally writes like a robot - but he has my > vote on many of the things he's trying to express. There is something to be said about the *way* someone expresses something -- especially if unprovoked. Jeme is *rude* and there's no two ways about it. If he wants to be a crank, that's fine -- but at least he can be a polite crank; or save his ire for those who purposely draw it. And, no, I do not want to "censure" him. I just want to bitch at him for acting like such an asshole sometimes. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:09:04 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: we need more moderators! > Since when does length of membership determine what > you're allowed to say? For all the dancing everyone else does in 10 > page replies, she quickly and accurately called a spade a spade. And > it's the only post that's made any sense. Would you feel any differently if you happened to disagree with Nora? There's a party. A long-standing argument is taking place between well-known adversaries. A guy nobody has ever seen before walks in the room, hears one of the positions of one of the speakers and says, "you're an asshole". I can't find anything good to say about that either, except that I guess he's free to do it. How is Jeffrey's and C-Joe's criticism of Nora any more an attempt to moderate the list than your criticism of them, or Nora's criticism of Jeme? And why the hell does everyone assume Nora's a she? Do we also assume she's ugly? peace, - -Lovely Rita ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:27:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: Sick of the moralizing Yeah, this is a long post in That Thread, but I'm not particularly angry at anyone, so hopefully it'll be worthwhile. On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, The Great Quail wrote: > Ken and Jeme, and to a lesser extent Jeffrey: I am extremely wary of > your utopian socialism. While it has the benefit of elevating your own > views to the moral center of the universe, it does so through the > alienation of basic human drives -- to earn recognition and compensation > through one's work. Can't you get recognition for something that you don't charge money for? It's conceivable that a Jeme-pleasing economic system might result in less recognition and compensation to artists than our current one (though not a foregone conclusion) but I don't see any reason that it requires people to separate themselves from those drives. To use one example, the South Park guys created that original short (that was passed around for free from hand to hand on the net) to get recognition, and they did -- lots of it. It's true that giving something away for free that you could conceivably charge for goes against the basic human drive to acquire compensation, but acquiring compensation goes against the basic human drive to give stuff away for free. I don't get where you're coming from on this one, Quail. Your argument actually seems to have much the same structure as Jeme's: "system X may sound good in summary, but it encourages a particular bad behavior way too much." And I suppose each of you is ignoring the good in what the other says. But you don't even credit the ways in which various free-information models can already be injected -- heck, ARE already injected -- into the contemporary socioeconomic system we've got going right now. I'm trying hard not to misread you just to make my own point, since that's the death of any thread, but you really seem to imagine that money is the only way to show appreciation for creative work. I *know* you don't think that; I *know* that you've kvelled to read fegs' praise for your writing about modern literature in the past even when no money changed hands. So... I don't get it. And hell, consider TV! Unless I'm mistaken, pay is negotiated in advance for work on TV. If a show becomes popular -- if the creators gain recognition despite their audience getting the product for free -- then the actors and writers can go ahead and try to get more money for the next batch of episodes. That's an awful lot like the kind of system I'm talking about. Now, a lot of TV sucks, making it an iffy piece of evidence to support anything. However, TV's worst suckage, I suspect, comes from having space to fill. The system itself isn't *bad*. And it's definitely not the total destruction of capitalism that you're worried about. It's just a system where people create stuff for money but give it away to the audience. [Actually, there's a more serious problem with this example -- TV shows aren't quite reproducible the way music is, though I guess with TiVo we may be getting closer. So TV shows are not published utterly free the way Jeme suggests things should be after they're completed. However, it doesn't seem to me that the heart of the TV industry depends on enforcing copyright beyond the fact that they get to air things *first*. Yeah, yeah, reruns exist, but like I said, there's space to fill. The current deal is that people get to see things as soon as possible if they sit through the ads that fund production; if they want to skip the ads, they can tape the show and watch it later. And yet people still watch ads! From an abstract point of view, this is a great model! It relies on a basic, somewhat irrational human desire (the desire to see things first, even if it brings the hassle of watching ads) to fund a system where mass culture is distributed more or less for free.] [And moreover, I realize that the TV industry is working hard to keep their products from being easily or freely redistributed, as copyright laws encourage people to do. You think that's good, Quail, and Jeme thinks it's bad, but what interests ME is that I just don't think it's necessary. Everyone I've ever lived with has had a decent-sized stack of videotapes with old TV programs on them, and yet they've all been much more likely to watch a rerun on TV than to pull out a tape and watch that. I don't have any excellent psychological explanation for why; I just think that the TV model would be stable even in the presence of all previously-aired shows being available for free on SuperNapster. As long as TV has a constant supply of new stuff that people get in the habit of turning on their set to watch the first airing of, they'll also be inclined to surf for reruns.] > And, the more brilliant the work, the more compensation one should earn. I refer you back to the example of my job, and the jobs of most people. I don't earn extra compensation immediately for brilliant work. Maybe if I do something outrageously excellent, I'll have an easier time asking for a raise later. The openculture model I mentioned in my last post puts *more* emphasis on people earning a living from their art, not less -- that is, it works better for people who, having done something brilliant and acquired fame and glory, will be writing another book/song/etc *sooner* and therefore can ask for a higher price with it. I agree with you on the principle that better artists should be rewarded more, lest we be flooded with crap even more than we are now. I just don't agree that the *only* way to do this is to tie remuneration for one particular work to its distribution. I don't know, is this all about your fondness for big hits? When you think of art that needs to be rewarded, are you *only* thinking about Miyazaki and Radiohead? You focus on them, and contrariwise on totally mediocre artists who are currently justly ignored, but those are the only folks for whom the royalty system is optimized. (If them -- I realize even a band of Radiohead's stature can get screwed, but whatever.) > I *love* my new iPod. It probably cost only a few dollars to manufacture, > but it costs $300. Good -- Apple should be a successful company. Your tastes, your principles, yada yada yada. Let's not reduce this to "But that's only an OPINION!" > Jeme wants to reward mediocrity -- thought he would never admit that! How's that? > Now, I know that's not what they think they are saying, and I am sure > they will rush in to point out how I have misunderstood. That's ok, I > won't reply, I am done with this, I don't think this is the first time you've done that -- posted a long response to Jeme and then declared yourself to be above responding further. It is, perhaps by coincidence, almost exactly as wince-inducing as the thing where he comes back to the list and immediately starts a flamewar. And yet you both have something to say. a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:29:08 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Censure Quail: > There is something to be said about the *way* someone > expresses something -- especially if unprovoked. > Jeme is *rude* and there's no two ways about it. > If he wants to be a crank, that's fine -- but at least he can > be a polite crank; or save his ire for those who purposely draw it. FWIW I think this perfectly sums the "Jeme problem". For years I've wished that his ideas could be approached purely on their merits (or lack thereof) without always having to clear away the debris of outrage and hurt feelings that his choice of words invariably generates. And I'll add my endorsement to Quail's list of Fegs I'd Like To Hear More From. +brian in New Orleans ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:44:56 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Censure on 6/13/03 9:55 AM, The Great Quail at quail@libyrinth.com wrote: > > Dammit, am I the only one around here who thinks this list has gotten less > and less fun? More and more politicized? I'm afraid to post my opinions on > anything anymore, lest they be greeted by a humorless, pedantic screed. > Enjoy a Hollywood movie? Poor fool you. Own a DVD or car? My God, how > horrible! Have an alternate political opinion? Good luck -- here, > muddle-pated neo-Marxist utopianism rules the day. > > Does anyone remember fun? Does anyone remember when you could discuss > pop-culture and politics without being cast as a corporate shill? Does > anyone remember animated conversation between open minds? Or have the Taste > Squad and Thought Police bullied it out of us, run the Surreal Posse into > the ground and tied them down with the chains of political correctitude. > > Honestly, I don't know *any* List old-timer who thinks things have improved > since 9-11. The ones that stuck around, anyway. > > Where's Eddie? Bayard? Ross? Russ? Tracy? Mark Gloster? Mike Runion? LJ > Lindhurst? Woj? Susan? Nick? Chris F? > While I think TGQ may be exaggerating a little, it is true that the heavy-handedness has become a bit more heavy-handed. It seems the general mood of the world is definitely reflected here in our little community. War, tyranny, and sagging economies tend to make people somewhat grumpy. Add to that the fact that Robyn hasn't had a major release in some two years and I for one am having trouble seeing the bright side of life. My only solace right now is my family, for which I'm eternally grateful. And to a certain extent I consider this list and extended family. I've known a lot of you for many years now, and have even drank, smoked and laughed with a few. I'd hate to see that all go for naught. We have the right to go off topic, to argue, and even dislike each other. But, call me shallow, it would be a sad day for this feg if this list self destructed because of a vitriolic minority. Is it obvious I'll be turning 40 this Sunday? - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:48:13 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Importing Safari On Thu, Jun 12, 2003, Mike Swedene wrote: > Safari looks cool. I like it thus far (a few days). > is there any wya to import bookmarks from > Netscape/Mozilla to Safari? I have been dragging each > one individually over but I am unable to keep them > grouped as they are now.... Try Safari Bookmark Exchanger: . I would think that Camino's bookmarks are in the same form as Mozilla and such. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:49:53 -0400 From: "ross taylor" Subject: Re: Sick of the moralizing I'm a digest person & this topic is moving quickly, so I should probably just stand back, but here's my two cents on part of it -- Quail, then JeFF -- >> Are you telling me that in your heart you think Robyn, an artist you >> admire and respect, should not earn more than he does? >..clearly the market disagrees. In fact, the arts are one of the clearest >realms in which the failure of the implicit "cream will rise" philosophy of >free market ideology is grossly self-evident. I don't think anybody really understands yet how money and the arts work or don't work together. 1) Artists need to do what they are doing, particularly the best artists. They will keep producing even if not paid well, or even if you hit them with nightsticks to make them stop. Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time was first performed in a prison camp. Some bad artists are like this too. Go to a poetry "open reading" (or spare yourself and take my word for it). Not paying these people is not a way to make them shut up. (But there will be good people there too -- particularly in Latin America, Russia, lots of other countries.) 2) At least in the US, a great many artists bit the bullet about having to have a day job long ago. Hell, Mark Twain & R.W. Emerson felt they had to do the lecture circuit, & did it big time, more strenuously than lots of rock bands tour now. Most "literary" writers teach. I know serious painters & serious (but small scale -- documentaries & short, hand-painted animations) filmmakers who are also in universities. Is this a good thing? I dunno, I often think the agglomeration of artists in heavily networked university departments is stultifying. I often wish it was more common to work throughout the economy, like Charles Bernstein working for a pharmaceutical company. And artists surely shouldn't just hang out w/ other artists, if they want their work to reflect life. But also -- 3) Some, perhaps most of America's best poets have done other work. W.C. Williams, a (apparently very good) doctor, Wallace Stevens an insurance exec. James Merrill didn't need the spare change. Emily Dickenson got by on her own, & Whitman's best work IMO was done while he was doing odd jobs. There are of course plenty of people who also did some very good work starving -- John Clare & Ledbelly for example. Not that this is a good thing, but where is the law of supply & demand? Some of the above may be weakened by being about literature, which may or may not be a dying art form, but as technology advances, there's lots of other stuff you can do in your garret about as easily. An old (conservative) economist I used to know would say "Saint Paul was also a tent maker by trade. Intellectuals need to have something else they can do in case their ideas go out of fashion." All this side steps the socialism v. capitalism v. some combo argument (Robyn connection: "you could vote for labour then, but you can't anymore"). It makes sense to me that with this many unknowns you shouldn't put all your eggs in one economic theory basket. Ross Taylor oh, I think I mentioned "work" in there somewhere ... Need a new email address that people can remember Check out the new EudoraMail at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:02:43 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Way over yonder in the paw paw patch on 6/12/03 5:42 PM, Rex.Broome at Rex.Broome@preferredmedia.com wrote: > Tom: >>> Not all DVD's can be viewed in widescreen. Some come with both versions > on >>> the same disc, others sell two different versions. Unfortunately, a lot > of >>> your less popular titles are only available in pan & scan. > > I'd modify that... "less popular" in this case doesn't necessarily mean > "cultish" or "obscure" as you might think; those kinds of films in fact > often get pretty lavish treatment, so widescreen versions are common. No, > in this case, "less popular" actually means "nobody, not even the marketing > department, really cares about them as anything more than a way to waste two > hours". DVD is turning out to be, if not the Great Equalizer, at least a > pretty fair one. That's exactly what I meant. As an example, one of my favorite holiday movies is "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation". Yet, the studio must have decided that the lunkheads who would like that kind of film would never buy a widescreen version. Yet, try to find "Eraserhead" in pan & scan... - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:20:46 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Way over yonder in the Cumberland Gap Jeme: >>Actually, Bowie sold shares in his future earnings on royalties for his >>existing catalog. I saw that, at the time, as a sign that Bowie knew the >>handwriting was on the wall for royalties from music sales Yes, I seem to have gotten that wrong. I initially thought that he was selling shared in his back catalog royalties, but I thought I'd been corrected on that point and that it was in fact future songs. I have now been re-corrected. It was an odd thing, anyhow. >>See, I think the whole problem with the current system is that nobody >>believes they have any duty at all to the society that gave them >>everything they have from the language and ability to read it to their >>loved ones and the food on their table. Such obligations DO exist and you >>really ought to live up to them. Ah, but that's not a problem with the system. It's a problem with the people. Human nature or just the current state of it. The system is more or less just *there*, but people can still believe whatever they want about their duties and obligations, right? ________ Michael: >>No Townes van Zandt or Steven Fromholz. The entire list is rendered >>meaningless by the omission of either one. Throw in the missing Guy Clark, >>and there clearly occurs to be a bit of anti-Texas bias going on. Ah, that's a better tag for the bias than just "Outlaw" which I used. Also at least somewhat accounts for the Lovett snub. Clark and Van Zandt and those guys, I wouldn't have expected to see them on this type of list; if it's really all about the quality of the songs, that's totally wrong, but that's not what it's about. It was kind of about "what's been hot in country through the years". I was thinking about the Cash tunes, too, and the problem is that most of the really great ones are so close together in time that it gets ridiculous. "Cocaine Blues" is a good dodge on that count. The Hank stuff is kinda similar, too, although he doesn't have later material to account for like Cash does. Still, there are at least four or five Williams tunes that are real standards and should be on any such list. Bill Monroe did get screwed but at least his one tune was ranked highly... I'll say this: I actually sort of learned something from this list as opposed to the numerous other such "100 Best Whatever" lists of recent years... it seems like there are probably even more diverse ideas of what "country music" is than there are of what "rock music" is. Rock has more subgenres, but country has more, I dunno, definitions. Weird. ______ Quail: >>It would be great if doing what you loved got you rich, wouldn't it? Well, not >>to some folks around here, that would just be unfair, or selling out, or >>something else worthy of flaming or preaching. I wouldn't say it's immoral, necessarily. But no, I don't want to be rich. Being rich means "having lots of money", right? I don't want to have lots of money. I would like to live comfortably, pursue my interestes, and be able to provide for my family. So I want some of the commodities you can purchase with money, yeah. But money's just paper, or theoretical numbers on a spreadsheet or a hard drive or something. I don't know why everyone has such a boner for the stuff. I know I'm a minority on this one, but there you go. Jeffrey: >>In fact, the arts are one of the clearest >>realms in which the failure of the implicit "cream will rise" philosophy of >>free market ideology is grossly self-evident. Thank you. This cannot be said frequently enough. We all, and I mean all of us, have that talented friend/neighbor/uncle who never hit the big time. And we all, and I mean all of us, think that at least one or two famous artists or entertainers are untalented, overrated, or just plain sucky. So I just don't know how that idea that "the talented always succeed" remains so entrenched. It's all the marketing money. I'm constantly hearing now that artists have to become self-marketers and, essentially, businesspeople, and that bugs me big time. People say it like it's a great thing, that everyone should be such a self-promoter, networker, schemer, shark... Dammit, I don't wanna be a marketer. I don't wanna, I don't wanna. - -Rex, glad it's Friday, still deaf in one ear. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #214 ********************************