From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #70 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, March 7 2004 Volume 13 : Number 070 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: The Arrogance Continues (now, with new Monkey content!) [Aaron Mandel] RE: The Arrogance Continues (now, with new Monkey content!) ["FS Thomas" ] Re: the arrogance continueth... [grutness@surf4nix.com] Beelzebud (was Re: the arrogance continueth...) [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: The Arrogance Continues ["Jonathan Fetter" ] Robyn in the news ["Marc Holden" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 06:40:44 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: The Arrogance Continues (now, with new Monkey content!) On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > Or just have a dummy e-mail address to always use so you don't have to > bother wading through any spam they'll try to send you. Or, if it's something where you have to get one email initially to activate it, use a service like jetable.com (temporary disposable email forwarding). a ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 08:04:49 -0500 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: The Arrogance Continues (now, with new Monkey content!) > Also, for some reason, many websites allow you to > sign in as bselig(@mlb.com or @bselig.com) with the > password bselig. The reason for this is undetermined. Or > something. Or just have a dummy e-mail address to always use > so you don't have to bother wading through any spam they'll > try to send you. Bud Selig is the commissioner of Major League Baseball. Get it? MLB.com? Major League Baseball? Work with me, people. - -ferris. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 02:10:01 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com Subject: Re: the arrogance continueth... > > REGISTER NOW. IT'S FREE AND IT'S REQUIRED. >> >> Do they really think they can just command people to do things? >> >> Fuck that. > >Whoa. > >Children, step away. The monkey is angry right now - please put on the >transparent plastic capes we gave you at the entrance. > >Anyway - what I always do is take the opportunity to lie gleefully and >fuck up their inane marketing exercise. I figure, the more people who do >that, the more they realize the data they gather is worthless, the less >likely such obnoxiousness will be in the future. > >I only wish they'd allowed me to fill in my own job title ("Amateur >Deity") and job field ("Aeronautical Aromatherapy"). > >I make $457,000,000,000,000,032.02 annually as a 103-year-old Albanian >employee of The Semi-Assiduous ParaDynamiq LektroBlo Group! > >What I really can't imagine are the dutiful souls carefully checking off >actual information well, I did for some of them, simply because all the categories that can be checked as "other" fit me down to the ground. Fat lot of good knowing that I'm an "other" does them. Admittedly, they also think I'm an 8 year old from Bhutan, but that's a minor problem for them. >Tom Clark posted: >> Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt said the campaign will >> not withdraw the ads. "There is no bigger issue in this >> country than who is better prepared to deal with the >> realities that 9/11 created for this country." > >Which is why they are working so hard to fight such >terrorism related activities like gay marriage, Janet >Jackson's nipples, and the underreported Ashcroft crusade >against porn. There is something rather necrophiliac about >using 9/11 footage in your campaign ad. But they aren't the >perverts, no sirrrrrreeeebawb.' but, surely - 9/11 caused Janet's nipple to appear* and the gays to start marrying. Didn't it? Actually, I'm surprised the religios got upset about the nipple. After all, God was happy with us humans being naked - He only got angry when we started hiding our bodies and covering ourselves up. Ergo, clothes are an abomination to the sight of the Lord. Or something like that. >\> Also, for some reason, many websites allow you to sign in as >> bselig(@mlb.com or @bselig.com) with the password bselig. The reason for >> this is undetermined. > >Now THAT is useful information. I wonder if that particular piece of software was written by someone called Giles B. Something-or-other... James * - I'd actually give it an 8/10. - -- 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: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 06:15:17 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Beelzebud (was Re: the arrogance continueth...) grutness@surf4nix.com wrote: > > Also, for some reason, many websites allow you to > > sign in as bselig(@mlb.com or @bselig.com) with the > > password bselig. The reason for this is undetermined. > > > >Now THAT is useful information. > > I wonder if that particular piece of software was written > by someone called Giles B. Something-or-other... It's not a piece of software, just a series of individuals who have registered on several websites with that info (many of which have, alas, caught on and deleted that "account"), and letting people know about it. In honor of the commissioner of baseball, Allan H. "Bud" Selig, a former used car salesman from Milwaukee and the owner of the Milwaukee Brewers, and the leader of Major League Baseball's antimarketing campaign of the past several years. When I said it was undetermined, I was stabbing a hole in my cheek with my tongue. Sorry that wasn't clear. ===== "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 11:03:52 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: The Arrogance Continues (The Libertarian Perspecive) Here's a take on the Council on Bioethics packing from Reason Magazine. - - Steve, the half-libertarian __________ I know from first-hand experience that a president acting secretly usually does not have the best interests of Americans in mind. Rather, it is his own personal interests that are at stake. - John Dean, on George W. Bush ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 13:55:17 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: The Amazing Mr. Kilgore (no, not an alias for Nader) On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 10:31:38 +0100, "Sebastian Hagedorn" said: > -- Capuchin is rumored to have mumbled on Freitag, > 5. Mdrz 2004 21:03 Uhr -0800 regarding Re: The Amazing Mr. Kilgore: > > > But increasing benefits for the unworking poor is just not a topic for > > public discourse. Nope. It's gotta be sending 'em out to work (to drive > > down wages) or cutting off their support... especially if they go and have > > kids (we wouldn't want those kids to grow up with food and clothing, now, > > would we?). > > I'm with you to some degree, but I think you neglect the psychological > ramifications. Like it or not, people draw self-esteem from their ability > to work. One of the huge hypocrisies among many American supporters of "welfare reform" (i.e., pretty much getting rid of any welfare at all) is that among their wealthier members, it's amazingly common for wives not to work. For the rich, it's still 1955. And yet, no one ever argues that this is a "disincentive" for such women, or that it contributes to their laziness or otherwise harms them. Furthermore, the same disincentives to work and psychological well-being are said to follow "government handouts" - but inherited wealth apparently is immune to such negative effects. There must be something different about government money, apparently. > So: I'm all for increasing benefits for people who can't work, but on the > other hand I'd like to see more job training programs and motivational > programs for those who could but don't. Add to that reasonable minimum > wages, of course. And this is certainly true - particularly the last bit, since in most larger US cities, the price of the cheapest available housing exceeds the income available to a full-time worker getting minimum wage. The other irony is that traditional economics argues that economies function best with an optimal, non-zero level of unemployment, essentially providing the system with some "play" in terms of worker turnover. Of course, what this really means is the threat of replaceability is held over workers' heads - but another implication is that the unemployed, in fact, do have an essential function in the economy - a "job," that is - and therefore should be compensated for that essential economic functioning. I make this argument only since some people are oblivious to the ethical argument that it's simply wrong to gorge oneself on yachts while other people starve in the streets. (And before someone argues, "yeah, but that's their own fault," reread the bit about inherited wealth - and inherited poverty.) And I would agree w/Jeme's comment about "that's not the way things are": that's the whole point - to change the way things are. One of the true triumphs of the prevailing order is the way it's drawn a veil of inevitability over current reality and persuaded people that things are the way they are by fate, by human nature, and not (largely) because they're engineered to be that way. My students love that one - "but that's not realistic!" they cry, as if *any* proposed change is "realistic," if by "realistic" we mean "aligning with the way things are now." Yet, of course, the one thing that doesn't change in history is that things change. The direction or effect of those changes is surely not wholly predictable, but that doesn't mean it can't be influenced by those working to change it. - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb :: --Batman ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 16:48:56 -0500 From: Subject: Re: the incompetance started when? [demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 02:10 , grutness@surf4nix.com sent: >Actually, I'm surprised the religios got upset about the nipple. >After all, God was happy with us humans being naked - He only got >angry when we started hiding our bodies and covering ourselves up. >Ergo, clothes are an abomination to the sight of the Lord. Or >something like that. Actually, god got upset when adam admitted he had eaten fruit from that one tree after his old lady handed it to him. The first excuse. We should celebrate that. His old lady then made an excuse too. God must have been really thick back then. I mean, he had to walk through the garden looking for the two shits and calling out to them. He didn't even know what they had done. In addition he had no idea even where they were until adam said something and revealed himself. God must have all kinds of new plugins that greatly improve his ability to be him. Aah? gSs - ---- Msg sent via WebMail ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 20:18:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Jonathan Fetter" Subject: Re: The Arrogance Continues Oops...since the article loaded without a login prompt, I thought the Post had finally grown up and gotten over the registration--forgot I was still logged in on this computer from long ago. Thank you Jeff for posting the text. Jon > On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Jonathan Fetter wrote: > > ...and the idiocy. > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13606-2004Feb27.html > > Why would anyone WANT to read a newspaper whose web page says (with no > other comment or disclaimer, mind you): > > REGISTER NOW. IT'S FREE AND IT'S REQUIRED. > > Do they really think they can just command people to do things? > > Fuck that. > J. > -- > _______________________________________________ > > Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 05:46:31 -0700 From: "Marc Holden" Subject: Robyn in the news Sorry if this one has already been posted. It's one of the hazards of being a digest member. Marc http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=4&u=/nm/20040306/music_nm/music_sxsw_dc BMI Has Its 'Way' at SXSW By Jim Bessman NEW YORK (Billboard) - BMI, which is an original sponsor of the South by Southwest Music Conference, will present a "Songwriters Way With Words" panel March 18 at the Austin extravaganza. The panel will be moderated by writer/publisher relations Nashville VP Paul Corbin. It will feature such songwriters as Robyn Hitchcock (news), Ron Sexsmith (news) and Charlotte Martin. (Martin will also perform during an invitation-only BMI songwriter brunch at SXSW.) In other BMI news, the BMI Foundation -- which funds the creation, performance and study of music through awards, scholarships, commissions and grants -- has established the Peermusic Latin Scholarship for young songwriters and composers. The $5,000 scholarship will be funded by the Peermusic companies and awarded annually through a competition for original Latin songs and instrumental compositions. Reuters/Billboard ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #70 *******************************