From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #206 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, July 15 2004 Volume 13 : Number 206 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Can't somebody DO something? ["Eb" ] RE: Can't somebody DO something? [Capuchin ] Re: Can't somebody DO something? [Jason Brown ] Re: Can't somebody DO something? [Capuchin ] Re: Can't somebody DO something? ["Eb" ] RE: So a druid walks into hardware store with his ceremonial sword... ["M] Re: Can't somebody DO something? ["Matt Sewell" ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #205 [Michael R Godwin ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #205 [Michael R Godwin ] Swans, OT [Marcy Tanter ] Re: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) ["For] Re: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) ["Mat] RE: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) ["Ba] Re: So a druid walks into hardware store with his ceremonial sword... [Jo] Re: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) [FS] Re: Can't somebody DO something? [Jason Brown ] Coincidence? ["Rex Broome" ] Big Elliott news ["Eb" ] Re: Can't somebody DO something? [Jason Brown ] RE: Coincidence? ["Maximilian Lang" ] Word! [Eb ] Orange Juice [Tom Clark ] Re: Orange Juice ["Brian" ] Bush VS an actual reporter [helmut poe ] Re: Bond [James Dignan ] Re: Word! ["Fortissimo" ] Re: Orange Juice ["Fortissimo" ] Red? Blue? Purple? [steve ] Re: Can't somebody DO something? [steve ] Re: Coincidence? [Aaron Mandel ] druidic coincidences ["Michael Wells" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:50:49 -0700 From: "Eb" Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? From: "FS Thomas" > I'm curious, Jeme: do you think that Bush has the lock on the upcoming > election, or do you just equate Kerry as being Bush Lite? I assume you joined the list, er, yesterday? Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:43:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Can't somebody DO something? On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, FS Thomas wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Matt Sewell wrote: > > > Americans: please please please find someone else to run your > > > country asap! > > > > I'm afraid the situation is already locked for the next five years or > > so. > > > > Nothing can possibly change in these regards until at least 2009. > > I'm curious, Jeme: do you think that Bush has the lock on the upcoming > election, or do you just equate Kerry as being Bush Lite? I think it's pretty clear that Bush can not win a fair election in this country at this point. But I don't think any of the concerns expressed in the article would be much alleviated by any reconsideration within a Kerry administration. In fact, things could get worse. I find that most Kerry supporters actively oppose most of his positions, but support him out of fear. These people will take it in the ass as a "necessary and lesser evil" because they are too chickenshit to support a candidate in which they believe. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:36:47 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? Capuchin: > I find that most Kerry supporters actively oppose most of his positions, > but support him out of fear. These people will take it in the ass as a > "necessary and lesser evil" because they are too chickenshit to support a > candidate in which they believe. Jeme, you really need to get out of the People's Republic of Portland. I know a hell of a lot of people that agree with most of Kerry's positions, especially at work in the burbs. And even my super lefty friends that voted for Nader in 2000 are happily voting for Kerry if only on the basic issue of mental competence. These people voted for a candidate they believe in and got it in the ass with four years of Bush. That said, is it not better to vote for a candidate you oppose on most issues rather than a candidate you oppose on all issues? Especially, when those are the only two candidates that have any chance at being elected? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:30:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Jason Brown wrote: > Capuchin: > > I find that most Kerry supporters actively oppose most of his > > positions, but support him out of fear. These people will take it in > > the ass as a "necessary and lesser evil" because they are too > > chickenshit to support a candidate in which they believe. > > Jeme, you really need to get out of the People's Republic of Portland. You don't exactly paint a pleasant picture of anyplace else. > I know a hell of a lot of people that agree with most of Kerry's > positions, especially at work in the burbs. I'm not doubting the existence of moderate Republicans, Jason. > And even my super lefty friends that voted for Nader in 2000 are happily > voting for Kerry if only on the basic issue of mental competence. Those are exactly the people I was writing about in my post. They're voting for somebody out of fear. > These people voted for a candidate they believe in and got it in the ass > with four years of Bush. That's because the majority still voted out of fear. We've gone from mere negative campaign ads to wholesale negative campaigns. "Vote for me, the other guy is so much worse!" > That said, is it not better to vote for a candidate you oppose on most > issues rather than a candidate you oppose on all issues? The point is whether or not it's GOOD to vote for somebody you oppose on most issues. And honestly, the differences are so subtle as to be inconsequential. > Especially, when those are the only two candidates that have any chance > at being elected? They're the only two that have a chance because people like you are out fear-mongering. Rightly, the Democratic party should have completely collapsed by now. How long are we going to have to put up with the "lesser evil" argument? When are we going to demand candidates that are just plain not evil? I'm going to do it right now. When you guys catch up, we'll be in a better place. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:53:40 -0700 From: "Eb" Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? "Capuchin" > When are we going to demand candidates that are just plain not evil? > I'm going to do it right now. When you guys catch up, we'll be in a > better place. Your most amazing quality remains your inability to figure out why people think you're such a pompous dickhead. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:21:31 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: RE: So a druid walks into hardware store with his ceremonial sword... Well I thought there was already a precedent set from the below mentioned Arthur and his court case where it was decided he was allowed to carry his sword (called Excalibur, amazingly enough). I have to say having seen the druids (at dawn on Glastonbury Tor at Beltane years ago) that, though thoroughly decorative when blowing their longhorns at the mists of Avalon, I can't believe that even they think they're in any way credible... And King Arthur, though amiable, is mainly drunk with acid-fried edges... Cheers Matt >From: Jon Lewis > >My source for this points out that, at least in AD&D, druids can't >carry swords... but, nonetheless... >>Druid charged for carrying sword >>From correspondents in London >>July 14, 2004 >> >>A BRITISH druid was in court today charged with carrying a >>ceremonial sword, used for casting spells, while on a shopping trip >>to a local hardware store. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Faster than e-mail, more discreet than a phone call and best of all it's free - download MSN Messenger today! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:03:16 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? I just wouldn't let it lie... the Kyoto agreement - so: the treaty is based on bad science with a widespread anti-West bias to it? I think you'd have to search around for people outside the US administration or its pay to agree with you there. Most - nearly all - climatologists agree that the climate is changing due to human activity. Now, how come virtually the whole of Europe (who voted for the Kyoto agreement) is anti-West despite being in the West while Russia (which was among the few that vetoed it) is pro-West despite being in the East? Limiting the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses we pump into the atmosphere may slow the climate change but face it: it's already happening. The effects of climate change? I would say that it's there that the climatology arguments lie. Energy consumption in the developed world is unsustainable. As simple as that. Cheers Matt >From: FSThomas >Matt Sewell wrote: >>Americans: please please please find someone else to run your >>country >>asap! >> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1260837,00.html > > > >There's more than a few issues brought up in the article that are >gray issues at best, and some that are spot-on. > >Regarding the Kyoto Treaty: The US Administration was spot-on in >rejecting it wholeheartedly. The Treaty is based on bad science >with a wide-spread anti-west bent to it. > >-f. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:13:01 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #205 > Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:16:09 -0400 > From: FSThomas > Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? > Regarding the Kyoto Treaty: The US Administration was spot-on in > rejecting it wholeheartedly. The Treaty is based on bad science with a > wide-spread anti-west bent to it. Here's the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Which sections do you think are bad science? - - Mike "no point asking me, I'm not a scientist" Godwin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:13:01 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V13 #205 > Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:16:09 -0400 > From: FSThomas > Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? > Regarding the Kyoto Treaty: The US Administration was spot-on in > rejecting it wholeheartedly. The Treaty is based on bad science with a > wide-spread anti-west bent to it. Here's the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Which sections do you think are bad science? - - Mike "no point asking me, I'm not a scientist" Godwin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:12:03 -0500 From: Marcy Tanter Subject: Swans, OT Only in Massachusetts....one of the freest places to live! http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/07/15/no_cygnet_and_watchers_ask_wherefore_art_thou_romeo/ Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:37:34 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:30:57 -0700 (PDT), "Capuchin" said: > > These people voted for a candidate they believe in and got it in the ass > > with four years of Bush. > > That's because the majority still voted out of fear. > > > That said, is it not better to vote for a candidate you oppose on most > > issues rather than a candidate you oppose on all issues? > > The point is whether or not it's GOOD to vote for somebody you oppose on > most issues. > > And honestly, the differences are so subtle as to be inconsequential. > How long are we going to have to put up with the "lesser evil" argument? > > When are we going to demand candidates that are just plain not evil? > > I'm going to do it right now. When you guys catch up, we'll be in a > better place. I can see, in principle, most of your arguments...but these are where, for me, you disconnect from reality. Are you asserting that there's a "majority" of voters or potential voters who would have voted for Nader except that they feared doing so would help elect Bush? Even on the left, Nader's behavior over the last several years, and his relative cluelessness on women's issues, gay rights, and a few other things I can't immediately call to mind, have weakened the strength of his appeal even among the left. Jim Hightower suggests (in his book _Thieves in High Places_) that polls repeatedly demonstrate the appeal of progressive positions to many Americans. But the majorities are, typically, slim - and he doesn't cite polls on wedge issues such as abortion, etc. I really don't think the left has a majority in this country. Certainly, it has a stronger base than the media and most politicians give it credit for. But a majority? I don't think so. "The differences are so subtle as to be inconsequential"?!? Do you really think Kerry would be as outright arrogant as Bush, as toadying to the far right on social issues, as disrespectful of anyone else's opinions but those of the ruling class, as bellicose and clueless in his actions? Perhaps you do - but I have a hard time, looking at his record, finding much support to paint him that darkly. (Not that I like him all that much either.) Or perhaps we have a very different idea of what "inconsequential" is. "When you guys catch up, we'll be in a better place": I think what you mean is, *if* you guys catch up. But in the meantime...given what I've said above, I don't think four more years of Bush would put us in a better place (except if you're, oh, Beelzebub or somebody). I think that the place to demand "not evil" candidates is not the presidential slate, at least not right away. If only for practical reasons: how effective would President Nader be in getting anything done, given the lack of support structure he has? He's already alienated most Democrats (in part by getting into bed with Republicans to raise funds - so much for "principles"), Republicans are opposed to most of his agenda, and he's burned all his bridges with the Greens. He's far more effective as a crusader than as a leader working in a structure of delegation. (Note: as long as I've been suckered into addressing this issue ;) - no, I don't "blame Nader" for Bush's election. I blame Bush and his team for jimmying the system (that's "jimmying" as in "inserting a shank into a doorway and cracking the lock open"). But did Nader - or any other fringe candidate - help prevent Bush's ascension? No, I don't think so.) Trying to increase democracy and reform elections by running for President is like trying to learn to drive by entering yourself in the Indy 500. All this assumes that the Bush team actually *allows* the November elections: that they won't rule out canceling them in the event of a terrorist attack (which *they* keep bringing up) is rather disturbing. - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Solipsism is its own reward :: :: --Crow T. Robot ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:55:32 +0100 From: "Matt Sewell" Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) I heard somewhere that even Noam Chomsky is saying "Kerry not Nader" this time around... it's like when Thatcher was in power, one would happily have voted for a tub of margarine if one thought it had a chance against the evil old bag... As for the US elections, I think this sums it up nicely: http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1255787,00.html Cheers Matt >From: "Fortissimo" > >I can see, in principle, most of your arguments...but these are where, >for me, you disconnect from reality. > >Are you asserting that there's a "majority" of voters or potential >voters who would have voted for Nader except that they feared doing so >would help elect Bush? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Faster than e-mail, more discreet than a phone call and best of all it's free - download MSN Messenger today! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:30:35 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) I read an interesting article in my local paper this morning. It's seems like a large group that supported Bush 4 years ago, The Sportsmen for Bush, i.e. the folks that hunt and fish, are disappointed is Bush's poor stewardship of our lands. They feel he is too much a sellout to the loggers and land developers, polluters, etc. This has been a mainline support group for both Bush's and conservatives in the past. If a significant number of Sportsmen refuse to vote for Bush or vote for Kerry instead, then Bush won't be back for 4 more years. Kerry will be a big improvement over Bush in regards to the environment. Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:02:15 -0400 From: Jon Lewis Subject: Re: So a druid walks into hardware store with his ceremonial sword... On Thursday, July 15, 2004, at 05:21 AM, Matt Sewell wrote: > > And King Arthur, though amiable, is mainly drunk with acid-fried > edges... > When I lived in Seattle, there was a "Conan" (his preferred name) who could be seen on Capitol Hill a lot, riding his mountain bike with a humongous sword strapped to his back. Carrying such a weapon is illegal there; he told a friend of mine, though, that he'd been at it since before the drafting of that law, and had been "grandfathered" in. Since there's the semi-famous "Thor" who dwells somewhere in the South, an eccentric about whom I should probably know more. Jon Lewis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:06:30 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) For your combined amusement: Osama Bin Lotto http://www.ericblumrich.com/lotto.html (Flash and a relatively good net connect req'd) - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:05:27 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? Capuchin wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Jason Brown wrote: > > I know a hell of a lot of people that agree with most of Kerry's > > positions, especially at work in the burbs. > > I'm not doubting the existence of moderate Republicans, Jason. I'm talking about moderate Republicans. I'm talking about moderate Democrats. Hell, I'm one! I was an Edwards delegate at my county convention. My > We've gone from mere negative campaign ads to wholesale negative > campaigns. "Vote for me, the other guy is so much worse!" I agree that that generally isn't a good thing, but is there not a point where the other guy is so much worse that such a strategy will work. I know you don't think the differences between Kerry and Bush are sufficient but you must agree that at times that > > That said, is it not better to vote for a candidate you oppose on most > > issues rather than a candidate you oppose on all issues? > > The point is whether or not it's GOOD to vote for somebody you oppose on > most issues. Nice dodging of my question, Jeme. I agree its not good to vote for someone you oppose on most issues, but that isn't what i was asking. > > Especially, when those are the only two candidates that have any chance > > at being elected? > > They're the only two that have a chance because people like you are out > fear-mongering. No, that is bullshit. Under our current constitution, even if every voter only voted their conscience and voted for the candidate they truly like best no third party candidate would garner enough support to win the electoral college in 2004 and in the outside chance that some one like Nader won Vermont or something and Bush or Kerry didn't have enough electoral votes to win outright. Then Congress would select either Kerry or Bush. I don't necessarily wish things were that way but that is the political reality. > When are we going to demand candidates that are just plain not evil? How is Kerry evil? Seriously, how? > I'm going to do it right now. When you guys catch up, we'll be in a > better place. This is a perfect example of why people think you are big asshole: smug, holier-than-thou, uncompromising, and elitist. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:10:48 -0800 From: "Rex Broome" Subject: Coincidence? Now, what are the odds that the first fegmaniax digest in quite some time to contain the name "Nader" also featured the words "asshole" and "dickhead"? Lordy. Anyone got some links to some interesting porn or anything? Hey, my car just blew up. That fuckin' blows. Especially given that this was already, and I mean it, no holds barred "The Worst Week of My Adult Life Ever". Silver lining: my bass player is a really great guy. Love on ya, - -Rex - -- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:17:49 -0700 From: "Eb" Subject: Big Elliott news http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1489420/20040714/smith_elliott.jhtml?he ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:08:37 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? Jason Brown wrote: > I agree that that generally isn't a good thing, but is there not a > point where the other guy is so much worse that such a strategy will > work. I know you don't think the differences between Kerry and Bush > are sufficient but you must agree that at times that Oops for got to finish that thought: ...such logic can make sense. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:36:51 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: RE: Coincidence? >From: "Rex Broome" >Subject: Coincidence? >Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:10:48 -0800 >Now, what are the odds that the first fegmaniax digest in quite some time >to contain the name "Nader" also featured the words "asshole" and >"dickhead"? Lordy. Anyone got some links to some interesting porn or >anything? >Hey, my car just blew up. Unsafe at any speed? Sooner or later... Max _________________________________________________________________ MSN Life Events gives you the tips and tools to handle the turning points in your life. http://lifeevents.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:28:12 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Word! http://slate.msn.com//id/2103887/ "Um, hello...." Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:43:20 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Orange Juice I have yet to hear any OJ records - they're so hard to find! - but I have to again recommend former member James Kirk's album "You Can Make It If You Boogie". It's fabulously funky, poppy, and witty! http://www.marina.com/ma57.htm - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:44:20 -0400 From: "Brian" Subject: Re: Orange Juice Thanks for the tip tc. Now I remember who Orange Juice remind me of: Aztec Camera! Rex, I hope your week of hell has a brighter side. Anyone know a link to hear the recently found Beatles song (found in a suitcase)? - -Nuppy On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:43:20 -0700, "Tom Clark" said: > I have yet to hear any OJ records - they're so hard to find! - but I > have to again recommend former member James Kirk's album "You Can Make > It If You Boogie". It's fabulously funky, poppy, and witty! > > http://www.marina.com/ma57.htm > > -tc - -- Brian nightshadecat@mailbolt.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:31:47 -0700 (PDT) From: helmut poe Subject: Bush VS an actual reporter BabyBush meets a reporter and is flummoxed: http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/rte-carol-coleman-bush.mp3 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:41:47 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: Bond >Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:35:56 -0500 >From: tonerbomb@warpmail.net >Subject: Re: I Was A Teenage Bond > >On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:34:08 -0800, "yet another rex broome e-mail >address" > said: >> Mike G: >> > Charlie Higson, who is now a UK TV star, has just been commissioned to >> > write a series about James Bond as a teenager: >> >> Hmmm. Teenage Bond. I guess that would be a period piece, but what >> period? I mean, in what decade was a guy who's been in his early forties >> from the mid-sixties until the early twenty-first century a *teenager*? >> Or is the current Bond just meant to be a really well-preserved 80-year >> old? > >It'll be the mid-thirties, and he'll be pushing against the Powers That >Be warning them that he needs to fight the Nazis. > >Even though no one's quite sure what makes them. I bet they don't add in the information from various books on The Avengers - that when Steed was at Eton, Bond was two years his senior and regarded as the school bully :) Dignan... James Dignan - -- 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: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:03:39 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: Word! On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:28:12 -0700, "Eb" said: > http://slate.msn.com//id/2103887/ While I agree that the evolution of Tweedy's music results largely from his series of collaborators, to me that's a strength, not a weakness. (Much the same, btw, could be said for David Bowie: Visconti, Ronson, Eno, etc....) As for the "fragmented market" bit: surely that's not Wilco's fault? Actually I think the article would have been a lot better if the writer had merely mentioned that he doesn't much care for Wilco's music, and then stuck to the analysis of how it's evolved and been marketed. The repeated digs at Tweedy strike me as needlessly snarky, and they detract from what's otherwise a reasonable analysis. But rock critics...: "the Snark is strong in this one..." - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: crumple zones:: :: harmful or fatal if swallowed :: :: small-craft warning :: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:07:03 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: Orange Juice On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:43:20 -0700, "Tom Clark" said: > I have yet to hear any OJ records - they're so hard to find! OJ records? Man, between running through airports and his endless, grueling search for The Real Killer (which primarily involved the removal of all mirrors from his mansion), when did OJ find time to record music? > have to again recommend former member James Kirk's album But is it better than his versions of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" or "Rocketman"? - --muddled in Milwaukee - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:24:30 -0500 From: steve Subject: Red? Blue? Purple? Another time-waster . - - Steve __________ Maybe in the Scalia household they make you pee into a cup just for being alive. - Dahlia Lithwick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:35:25 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? On Jul 14, 2004, at 10:16 AM, FSThomas wrote: > The development of the so-called "battlefield nukes" puzzles me; > though artillery-based small-yield nukes have been around for years. Perhaps this refers to the nuclear bunker buster that's in the works. The one that deep penetrates before going off. Bring up the atomics! - - Steve __________ Ultimately, the path Bush has led the United States down is not about weapons of mass destruction, Security Council Resolution 1441, weapons inspections, or disarmament. It has always been about regime change and using America's military power to enforce a world order deemed favorable to U.S. interests. - Charles V. Pena, Cato Institute ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:41:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: Coincidence? On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Rex Broome wrote: > Hey, my car just blew up. Watch out for the nihilist with the enormous sword. a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:23:40 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: druidic coincidences Matt: > My source for this points out that, at least in AD&D, druids can't carry swords... but, nonetheless... IIRC druids were a subdivision of Clerics, so you had to carry a mace or some such non-pointy weapon. Er...so I've been told. > However, little is known about their activities and modern druids are > sometimes dismissed as fantasists with a fondness for dressing up and > no genuine link with the activities of the past. No...can't be. CAN'T be! Rex: > Hey, my car just blew up. That fuckin' blows. Especially given that this was already, and I mean it, no holds barred "The Worst Week of My Adult Life Ever". There's something going on, that's for sure...it's been Hell and high water here too. A nightmare-hued week. Must be the solar flares. On the bright side, it looks like a small feg-event is coming together for the John Wesley Harding show here on Sunday night. Choice. > Silver lining: my bass player is a really great guy. Does he fix cars? Michael "using his +5 Wallet of Concert-Going" Wells ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #206 ********************************