From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #209 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, July 16 2004 Volume 13 : Number 209 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: the solution to Americaaaaaaargh [Capuchin ] Re: spooked! ["Brian" ] RE: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) [Capu] Re: spooked! [Capuchin ] RE: FW: Coincidence? ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: spooked! [Tom Clark ] Before Sunset ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) [C] Re: Coincidence? [Eb ] Re: spooked! [Capuchin ] Re: Before Sunset [Tom Clark ] Re: Before Sunset ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: druidic coincidences [The Great Quail ] Re: druidic coincidences [Eb ] RE: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) [Jame] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:52:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the solution to Americaaaaaaargh On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Eb wrote: > Weird...this is the second time a mailing-post has pointed me at that > "Zlad" video, but the first time, it was on a totally different site > (presumably, a *real* site rather than this mockup). Well, the whole song is obviously a mock-up. > Actually, I believe the guy is Israeli, not "Molvanian." Then why would he say "Long live Molvania!" at the end of the song? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:53:36 -0400 From: "Brian" Subject: Re: spooked! On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:25:50 -0400, "fingerpuppets" said: >> SPOOKED is the edited highlights from this lake of sound. The world may > be a sick place, but music is the doctor, and they don't come any more > qualified than Gillian and David. > > - Robyn Hitchcock, London, 2004 > DATA > . Produced by David Rawlings. > . Recorded in Nashville 2004. > . Robyn Hitchcock plays guitar, keyboard, harmonica, electric sitar and > sings lead vocals. > . Gillian Welch plays guitar, bass, drums and sings harmony. > . David Rawlings plays lead guitar, dobro, wurlitzer and sings harmony. > . Joey Spampinato from NRBQ plays bass on 2 tracks. This is really great news. Thanks woj! Good to know Gillian and David were Egyptian fans. Looking very forward to hear If You Know Time and the rest of this new album. - -Nuppy - -- Brian nightshadecat@mailbolt.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:55:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Bachman, Michael wrote: > I wonder if he has ever met with that gay Republican group, what are > they called The Log Cabin something or other? I doubt it. He chooses to > ignore those that don't fall within his moral or political beliefs. He > rather be back on the ol' ranch in Crawford. There was a gay Republican on the radio a few months back who described visiting the Crawford ranch with his partner. He said the President and his wife were very friendly and good to them. It was his interpretation that the President, himself, doesn't really have a personal problem with homosexuality, but takes a certain line because of pressures from a vocal minority to which the President himself does not belong. I'm just paraphrasing as I recall it. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:57:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: spooked! On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, fingerpuppets wrote: > > > A month later, someone sent a photo in to David Greenberger, who runs my > web-site. It showed a beauty contest, where the new Miss Ohio was being > crowned: her name was Robyn Hitchcock. Michle suggested I call Gillian > and David to tell them this. I spoke to Gillian, who duly introduced > "Miss Ohio" onstage in New York with this story. Golly, I hate the spread of misinformation. In 1996, the Miss Ohio Scholarship went to a woman named Robyn Hancock. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:57:20 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: FW: Coincidence? [demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:16 , Bachman, Michael sent: >> Some can go 100,000 without replacing timing belt. >Some even longer. We had a 1979 Ford F100 with a 300ci straight six that finally gave out after >310,000 miles. The first timing chain lasted >170K, the second lasted another 140k and was only disgarded because the rebuilt long-block came >with a new one. The was the finest >production engine ever made for consumer use. Why do you think they stopped making it? Today I >drive a Chevy C1500 with a 5.0 MPI engine >and it is a piece of shit comparatively. Recently I spun the front main and had to have the engine rebuilt. That was at 186K. The timing chain >was original, along with the starter, power steerin>g pump, water pump and transmission etc... >The only things I had to replace besides >tires,fluids filters and such, before the main bearing problem, was the alternator and the >>master cylinder and a damn intake manifold plenum gasket, twice. That is a pain in the ass. Metal timing "chains" normally last much longer than >rubber timing belts. But everything normally lasts >much longer when you change the oil regularly and remember you ain't driving the LeMans. And spend the extra money and get synthetic oil! It does not break down like regular mineral based oil. I have a 2001 Taurus with 39K and it has only seen synthetic oil after I drained the factory installed oil after 2 months. It doesn't burn a drop of oil and runs like a charm, and it has the 24 valve V6. I will be checking into that timing belt thing though in about 4 years! Michael B. - ---- Msg sent via WebMail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:11:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Coincidence? On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Eb wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Rex Broome wrote: > > > Hey, my car just blew up. That fuckin' blows. > > > > Make lemonade, man. Consider this an opportunity to be rid of the > > burden and costs (personal, social, financial, environmental, and > > humanitarian). > > > > I can probably hook you up with local car-free groups and lots of > > literature and instructions. > > And if those don't grab you, I'm sure Jeme could hook you up with a > local branch of the Flat Earth Society. What's the implication here, Eb? Is it that living car-free isn't realistic? Millions of Americans could show you otherwise. ...that automobiles do not have enormous maintenance costs? One in six dollars in this country is spent on the auto and ancilliary industries. The CDC's lung cancer report offers that automobile emissions are the number one cause of that disease in non-smokers. In some areas, as much as 1/5 of urban real estate is devoted to storage of private automobiles. And we're running low on precious energy reserves, so whatever we can do to make sure those are used to develop new energy resources instead of carrying on mundane activity seems like a good thing to me. So what's your problem, exactly? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:05:04 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: spooked! On Jul 16, 2004, at 12:32 PM, fingerpuppets wrote: > one other thing, there is a clip of "if you know time" from the album > at . > > check out the publicity photos. All three are pretty great shots. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:10:22 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Before Sunset At 04:17 PM 7/16/2004 -0400, Bachman, Michael wrote: >What is Dubya's official excuse for not meeting with the NAACP? He's more into professional baseball than college basketball. >Has anyone seen BEFORE SUNSET yet? Yeah, I caught a sneak preview before it opened. It's a nice little film that really captures a sense of place. It's intriguing in that you're watching a real-time conversation over an hour and a half, and the dialogue is just interesting enough to keep you engaged for the entire time. But in such a limited time frame, the characters are left simply discussing the past 9 years of their lives, and it in parts feels like you're watching a movie about people talking about another movie rather than viewing something that's, I dunno, showing you something rather than just telling you about it. That's not all bad, especially as the conversation isn't completely focused simply on events that precede the movie, and it is a different way of unraveling a story - rather than serving up a series of scenes from a broader time frame to give you an impression of the whole, they condense it into a single slice of life - kind of like a hypothetical season of 24 where they focused on Jack Bauer's day off rather than him saving the world. And they move around Paris while they're talking, so the setting isn't completely static at least. It does work on an emotional level in that the actors do a wonderful job conveying the characters reactions to the conversation, to what is revealed and to one another. It didn't blow me away, but it is a refreshing change of pace from more hyper-exaggerated mainstream romantic films. I've never seen BEFORE SUNRISE, but that did not hinder my understanding or enjoyment of the movie at all. I saw a sneak preview of GARDEN STATE last night, followed up by a Q&A session with Writer/Director/Star of the film, Zach Braff (JD on Scrubs). It's a rather clever, dark comedy - well worth seeing. Plus, there's even a brief discussion about the Shins during the movie. And a dog that masturbates with its paw! - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:33:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Fortissimo wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 04:59:41 -0700 (PDT), "Capuchin" > said: > > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Fortissimo wrote: > > > - and he doesn't cite polls on wedge issues such as abortion, etc. > > > > I know people have all kinds of interesting opinions about the impact > > of these personal decisions on others (real or imagined impact, real > > or imagined others), but the simple fact that we all must accept is > > that these things are going to happen whether they're legal or > > illegal; gay people will continue to partner, unwanted pregnancies > > will be terminated, etc. [snipped] > > All of this is true, except...see, the election is only five months > away. And more education, community, and media coverage are unlikely all > to come into play by then. I think maybe you didn't understand everything I wrote. It DOESN'T MATTER what the law says about those issues. And they are SO divisive that they will not be addressed from the bully pulpit. A candidate's position on those ultimately personal issues has nothing whatsoever to do with their ability to make change in this country... unless they talk about them all the time (in which case it will likely be detrimental regardless of which position they hold -- See Clinton's forcing the resignatin of Jocelyn Elders for giving an opinion on a totally personal issue). > And whether you like it or not, someone is going to be elected in > November. Sure, but differences in opinion over those "wedge issues" won't make a bit of difference. > > If Kerry lost and a sizable number of voters turned out for more > > progressive candidates, the message would be that Bush is in office > > because the opposition was not progressive enough. > > "The message" for whom? Arguably, that's "the message" of the 2000 > election: every time Gore tacked left (which wasn't very left, granted), > his numbers went up. But is that "the message" most people think of, or > that the media purveys, etc.? > > Again: I think, really, you want to wish into place the kind of society > that would get such a message - but right now, I don't think we're that > society. Well, let's keep adding data points, then, until the trend is unmistakable. > > If Kerry wins on an "Anyone But Bush" campaign, the message will be > > that you can get an arbitrarily far right candidate in office just so > > long as your major competitor is further right (and preferably an > > imbecile). > > That might be one message - and in the long term, probably the correct > one to take away. But the more immediate message would be: we're sick of > Bushshit. What good is that immediate message if not coupled with a message about what we actually want? You can give the "Anyone but Bush" message just by voting for (surprise!) ANYONE but Bush! But you can't give a progressive message by voting for John Kerry. > > I think that the place to demand "not evil" candidates is across the > > board all the time. > > And if there are none? It won't mean the election isn't going to happen: > what then? Then we get stuck with a bad President, no matter how you vote. > I suppose you could write in the name of whichever non-evil person you'd > like - but I can't see how that's effective in any way. It's effective because it shows that there are people who don't want evil. Remember that it's impossible to tell votes of support from votes-in-protest, so every vote for Kerry is a vote FOR militarism, war on the poor, and corporate rule. > > I think Nader got lots of press by running for President and that was > > the real goal, however, the press failed to focus on policies and > > platforms (as usual) and so the effect was kind of null. > > And wasn't that utterly predictable? That is: we *know* the press will > cover a presidential race as if there are two horses (not three, four, > etc.) and will not focus on issues. I think the Nader campaign underscored, for many, the failure of the press to address the issues. Change in that arena is going to be very slow, but everything helps. > > You don't get the nation talking about universal healthcare by > > mentioning it at the county council meeting. > > The irony here is now I'm being more optimistic than you are: "people" > are likelier to be truly paying attention at a county meeting than in > the national political discourse. Does your county commission talk about universal healthcare? Because I know that mine doesn't generally discuss things outside of its control. They're pretty low on time and money and have to stick to things they can do something about. And in those kinds of fora, you're either preaching to the choir or beating your head against a brick wall. > And more local elections are about people and ideas than about ideology > - I think it's a lot likelier that such issues will percolate upwards > than by installed from above by fiat. I'm not expecting any great change to come from above. I just want to see discourse openned to a wider array of ideas. When you look at the greater political spectrum, it doesn't get much further right than the Democrats and Republicans. I mean, there are ideals that are MORE fascist and theocratic, but a free people will likely reject those out of hand without too much bother. But the spectrum goes MUCH further to the left and it's not even a matter of public consideration. > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 05:41:51 -0700 (PDT), "Capuchin" > said: > > > If you'd read my first post in this thread carefully, you'd've found > > that I've already discounted this November's election. No good can > > come of it. > > Probably so. But it'll still happen. And there can be, again, greater or > lesser evil that comes of it. So - given that those are, realistically, > your only alternatives, which is better? Again, "better" doesn't mean anything when the two are so close together and so far from "good". Most of the difference I see between Kerry and Bush are stylistic, rather than idealistic. Kerry is more diplomatic while Bush is more arrogant, that doesn't make Kerry more fair or just. Kerry is more articulate than Bush, but that doesn't make him more wise. In fact, both of those things make Kerry more dangerous than Bush because he is better able to lull the opposition and inspires less outrage. > > Expedience is, more often than not, the enemy of progress. > > So is driving in reverse. I think we just disagree that Bush is a far > more aggressive throwing-the-gears-into-reverse than Kerry is. Well, I think people are more likely to stand up and notice if the gears are thrown hard into reverse than if we just sort of gently backed up. > > We need to work harder to develop a nation in which a third party > > candidate CAN get a majority of electoral votes because the two major > > parties are seriously holding us back. > > Yeah - but pulling a lever in November - or not pulling it - will affect > that not a whit. If it doesn't matter, then why vote for someone you wouldn't actively support under any circumstances? If you vote for anyone but Bush, you're voting for "Anyone but Bush". But if you vote for Kerry, you're voting for continued dominance by the right, corporate control, and media consolidation (AND "Anyone but Bush"). It's sort of like your A+B argument for fighting global warming: Action A: Vote for John Kerry Action B: Vote for a truly progressive candidate Result A: Bush wins. Result B: Kerry wins. A+A More war. More prisons. Thousands suffer from inadequate health care. Further attacks on civil liberties at home. The President continues his crusades in his arrogant, ham-fisted fashion. A minority are outraged at home, but "The people have spoken" because everybody either voted Bush or Kerry and Bush won. The rest of the world continues to rail against the USA. Public debate stays narrowed to the platforms of the two major parties and the Democrats have no indication that they are not progressive enough. Democrats focus on "swing states" to win over borderline Republican voters. Nothing becomes more progressive. A+B More war. More prisons. Thousands suffer from inadequate health care. Further attacks on civil liberties at home. The horrors are presented to the people in terms of compromise and sacrifice in the face of troubling realities. The Democrats are forced into defending the President's decisions and public debate becomes "Pro-President v. Further Right Opposition". The rest of the world breathes a sigh of relief that we don't have Bush anymore and so takes it easy on Kerry, failing to put him to close scrutiny. Democrats think they're on the right track with this "Demonizing the Republicans" thing and, of course, focus on re-electing the incumbent in four years with an eye to running the VP in eight. Nothing becomes more progressive. B+A More war. More prisons. Thousands suffer from inadequate health care. Further attacks on civil liberties at home. The President continues his crusades in his arrogant, ham-fisted fashion. The people are outraged and it may not even be a demonstrable minority because votes for Kerry + Progressives could very well be the majority of the electorate. The President once again holds office with the verifiable support of a minority of the voters. Close scrutiny continues at home and abroad. Every mis-step yields a cry out from the people. Public debate becomes "Pro-President v. Any Other Options". The Democrats see that they failed to attract progressive voters. They try harder to do that in the future -- probably at first by trying harder to show how much MORE evil the Republicans are, but, eventually, after we fail to take the bait again and again, they have no choice but to become more progressive or die out completely. There is reason to believe progressive ideas will be more openly discussed in the future. B+B More war. More prisons. Thousands suffer from inadequate health care. Further attacks on civil liberties at home. These horrors are presented to the people in terms of compromise and sacrifice in the face of troubling realities. The progressives call "bullshit" and can continue to say "not my President, not my war". Since the election results show that these people really do put their ballot where their mouth is, there is some pressure to listen (especially since the margin of victory would necessarily be very narrow in this circumstance). Public debate is possibly kept in the current narrow spectrum of Democrat (as defined by the President) and Republican, but there is reasonable doubt as to whether this is really how the people divide. The Democrats may or may not run the incumbent, depending on the approval ratings at the end of the term. If they are at all unfavorable, the obvious choice will be to attempt to pick up those voters that chose a more progressive course in 2004. Since nothing actually got better during their watch, they won't be able to play the fear card. They must actually take a more progressive rhetorical stance in order to get more voters into their camp. Public discourse is broadened to include progressive ideas. Hence, the best bet for a progressive future is action B. > Because the fact is, it's Democrats and Republicans who will have to > change our election system - simply because they're the ones in office > who can do so, and they'll only do so if they think the public is so > pissed at their rigging the system that they'll vote for Greens in such > numbers as to throw them out even w/in the 2-party system. (Again, such > leftward pressure - which is really just awareness that there are more > progressives out there than generally credited - will apply to > Democrats, maybe even Republicans, as well.) I think the conservative effects of big media (changes have to happen everywhere at once to happen at all because values expressed nationally are averaged nationally rather than respecting local variation) have allowed the two parties to continue converging far longer than they would have survived in the past. "Lesser evil" voting has become the norm, rather than the exception. Even here in Portland, we have a big-moneyed insider with overtly anti-Portland values running against a big-moneyed insider with ambiguous and perhaps non-existent values in our mayoral race because the latter was deemed "an electable alternative" to the former in the run-off election, even though there was a totally progressive, pro-Portland candidate on the ballot. The GOOD candidate didn't win the run-off election because he didn't have television commercials and was often dissed in the mainstream papers because he is the editor of a rival newspaper. Literally everybody with whom I've spoken that actually saw or heard a debate or read the good candidate's platform either voted for the good candidate or voted for the lesser-evil for the reason of his being a lesser evil and "more likely to actually win". Political strategy has taken a turn for the worst. > > What you're doing is telling people that they MUST perpetuate this > > system or else things will get worse. That's fear-mongering. > > For "must," substitute "have no choice because the election's going to > happen whether you want it to or not, and either Kerry or Bush is going > to win," and for "fear-mongering" substitute "reality-acknowledgement." > Or more like: yeah, fear is there - but if it's real, it's not being > "mongered," only acknowledged. Am I fearful of a second Bush presidency? > Damned right. Am I fearful that a Kerry presidency would also be harmful > (though, IMO, not as much)? Damned right. Do I think that wishing we had > a real alternative will make a difference in November? No. Do you think voting for Kerry will make a difference in November? What difference? What long-term effect that will bring about a more progressive political arena? > It's fucking depressing is what it is. > > But I'm still going to be singing "Ding-Dong, The Witch Is Dead" if Bush > loses. But will you be ready to cast stones when Bush-like policies continue under the Kerry Administration? Won't your vote for the man inspire you to defend his decisions? I'm not going to take sides in a false dichotomy. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:28:55 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Coincidence? >> And if those don't grab you, I'm sure Jeme could hook you up with a >> local branch of the Flat Earth Society. > > What's the implication here, Eb? > > So what's your problem, exactly? Ah, swell. The disingenuous "Why do people think I'm so horrible?" question, yet again. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:35:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: spooked! On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Tom Clark wrote: > On Jul 16, 2004, at 12:32 PM, fingerpuppets wrote: > > one other thing, there is a clip of "if you know time" from the album > > at . > > check out the publicity photos. All three are pretty great shots. Gah! Why doesn't this site have real hyperlinks?!? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:39:18 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Before Sunset On Jul 16, 2004, at 3:10 PM, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > > >> Has anyone seen BEFORE SUNSET yet? > > Yeah, I caught a sneak preview before it opened. It's a nice little > film that really captures a sense of place. It's intriguing in that > you're watching a real-time conversation over an hour and a half, and > the dialogue is just interesting enough to keep you engaged for the > entire time. But in such a limited time frame, the characters are > left simply discussing the past 9 years of their lives, and it in > parts feels like you're watching a movie about people talking about > another movie rather than viewing something that's, I dunno, showing > you something rather than just telling you about it. That's not all > bad, especially as the conversation isn't completely focused simply on > events that precede the movie, and it is a different way of unraveling > a story - rather than serving up a series of scenes from a broader > time frame to give you an impression of the whole, they condense it > into a single slice of life - kind of like a hypothetical season of 24 > where they focused on Jack Bauer's day off rather than him saving the > world. And they move around Paris while they're talking, so the > setting isn't completely static at least. It does work on an > emotional level in that the actors do a wonderful job conveying the > characters reactions to the conversation, to what is revealed and to > one another. It didn't blow me away, but it is a refreshing change of > pace from more hyper-exaggerated mainstream romantic films. > > I've never seen BEFORE SUNRISE, but that did not hinder my > understanding or enjoyment of the movie at all. > Before Sunrise is a nice film for the same reasons you just gave for the new one. Except, of course, that it occurs over an 18 hour period. Julie Delpy just looks like a goddess the way she's photographed sometimes, plus that accent! I probably never would have seen it if it weren't for my fascination with Linklater's other films, "Slacker" and "Dazed And Confused", the latter of which hit a very familiar nerve with me! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:00:39 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Before Sunset At 03:39 PM 7/16/2004 -0700, Tom Clark wrote: >Julie Delpy just looks like a goddess the way she's photographed >sometimes, plus that accent! She is pretty adorable in Before Sunset when she sings a song with that cute little French accent of hers. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:56:51 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: druidic coincidences > 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. Ok, I just have to say it. Druids were allowed -- for some inexplicable reason -- to possess scimitars. - --Quail PS: "Maybe not so inexplicable -- I am sure some bright boy at TSR thought, "Hmmm...scimitar...scythe...? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:25:11 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: druidic coincidences > GQ: > Ok, I just have to say it. Druids were allowed -- for some inexplicable > reason -- to possess scimitars. Can someone check to see if this is the first time the word "scimitar" has been posted to the list? Thanks much. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:42:44 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: RE: Can't somebody DO something? (yes, it's *that* debate again...) > >All of this is true, except...see, the election is only five months > >away. And more education, community, and media coverage are unlikely all > >to come into play by then. > > Hey Jeff, take a look at your calendar. It's more like 3 1/2 months >away in a couple of days. Time is fleeting! and then, as the song says, madness takes its toll... 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") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #209 ********************************