From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #316 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, November 4 2004 Volume 13 : Number 316 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: ...Unbelievable [FSThomas ] Re: ...Unbelievable [Benjamin Lukoff ] RE: Disaster ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: various brief political replies [Rex Broome ] some small consolation ["rubrshrk@harborside.com" ] Re: ...Unbelievable [FSThomas ] Re: ...Unbelievable [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: ...Unbelievable [FSThomas ] Re: Hello from Haiti! [Tom Clark ] Re: Hello from Haiti! [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Hello from Haiti! [FSThomas ] Re: various brief political replies ["Stewart C. Russell" ] RE: Cat's Cradle election eve BiTorrent [Eb ] hilarious (well, kinda sad too...) [Eb ] Re: Hello from Haiti! [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: hilarious (well, kinda sad too...) [FSThomas ] RE: Cat's Cradle election eve BiTorrent ["Bachman, Michael" ] RE: Cat's Cradle election eve BiTorrent [Eb ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:57:53 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: ...Unbelievable Benjamin Lukoff wrote: >>Gaah! Those bloody Libertarians, always wanting you to do what *you* >>want ... > > > If only some of 'em would chill out maybe they'd be a viable third party. As much as it would please me, I doubt the Libertarian party will ever be seen as a viable option for disillusioned Democrats. Libertarians by definition shift far, far too much responsibility from the government back onto the people. Hardcore liberals couldn't stomach that. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:03:11 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: ...Unbelievable On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, FSThomas wrote: > Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > >>Gaah! Those bloody Libertarians, always wanting you to do what *you* > >>want ... > > > > If only some of 'em would chill out maybe they'd be a viable third party. > > As much as it would please me, I doubt the Libertarian party will ever > be seen as a viable option for disillusioned Democrats. > > Libertarians by definition shift far, far too much responsibility from > the government back onto the people. Hardcore liberals couldn't stomach > that. It's not the hardcore liberals I'd like to see join forces with the reasonable Libertarians. It's former self-identifying Democrats like myself who have gotten fed up with hardcore liberals and like a lot of what reasonable Libertarians have to say that I'd like to see join forces with 'em! (God, that last sentence was awful.) I don't know if there's any salvation for hardcore liberals in this country and frankly, I'm fine with that. Radicalism isn't what anybody needs right now, on any side. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:09:33 -0500 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Disaster Michael B: >> The seeds are already being planted. I have been seeing a commercial lately >> with a talking eagle who is thanking the coal power industry for cleaning up >> the skies. The eagle is shown in 1970 choking on polluted air. Then in modern >> times he is breathing clean air. Expect even more relaxed mercury standards for >> the coal fired power plants. Rex wrote: >I guess a talking swordfish will have to take point in spinning that >as a good thing, huh? He would never make it on the air these days. More than likely it would be a talking salmon from the Great Lakes thanking some industry for the clearer water. Never mind the fact that it was the zebra mussel infestation that cleared the water up, or that mercury levels are still high and will get higher under Dubya. Michael B. "Believe the lie" Fox Mulder ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:12:32 -0800 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: various brief political replies Chris Gross: > I accidentally deleted it, but I think Rex said that the Democrats should > just disband right now after failing to stop W. And of course a lot of > Republicans are crowing as if they won a huge landslide, though some of > that may be sheer bluster. But while they lost, I really don't think the > Democrats did too badly this year. Despite having an relatively > uninspiring candidate running against an entrenched inumbent, a wartime > president who shamelessly exploited post-9/11 trauma and ran an amazingly > vicious campaign of character assassination abetted by a disgustingly > complaisant media environment, they only lost the popular vote by 51% to > 48%. That's a pretty close result in my book. My reasoning isn't based on them losing, although I read that the opposite way: if they can't defeat even as offensive a fuck as Bush just on the basis of what an offensive fuck he is, that is NOT a good showing; what does it take to make the average Joe say enough is enough?-- but it's *why" Kerry lost... "moral values". Apparently Bush had 'em and Kerry didn't. I know, don't even fucking ask me how ya figure, but that's the majority perception. Karl Rove motivated churches as the Republican base and politically neutral church-goers to vote for Bush because Kerry kills babies and wants to make their children gay. AND IT WORKED... doesn't matter how small a margin, really, because if there aren't enough folks on the left motivated to get Bush out to constitute even a simple majority, seriously, let's kiss it goodbye. My new theory is that Americans are just flat out devolving and/or suck donkey balls. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:23:09 -0500 From: "rubrshrk@harborside.com" Subject: some small consolation This is reprinted without permission from author, Chris Moore's, blog. In some ways this is how I have felt about all this. I guess those of us who voted the other way can cop Dubyuh's smirk for the next four years, assuming we all survive this ordeal. I have my own positive views for how the country will eventually come out of this, but I'll trouble you all with that at some future date. Happies, - -Markg Why this Election is a win-win Situation for us All! Let me tell you a story that came to mind today, while I was thinking about the election, and reading the depressed, anxious, disappointed, e-mails from many of you guys. See if this doesnt make you feel, as it did me, a little bit better. My Uncle Johnny was a mechanical genius. He could completely disassemble an automobile down to the smallest part and put it back together and it would work. In fact, he did that once, a black Lincoln, during his vacation. Socially he was a little rough, a Georgia boy with an eighth grade education and a bit of a mean streak, but he could make anything mechanical sing. A tall, skinny Southerner with a cigarette dangling perpetually from his lip while he worked, one eye squinting and watering under the smoke, the irritated look on his face something between a scowl and the evil eye, a shock of blue-black hair falling in his other eye  Uncle Johnny frightened some people, but machines smiled when he passed. Machines loved him. Early on, shortly after he married my Aunt Geneva, my mothers sister, Uncle Johnny took his family North to work on the giant steel freighters that prowl the Great Lakes, hauling steel from Ohio and Pennsylvania up to Detroit, where it is pounded into Fords. Before long he was made chief engineer on one of the ships, spending the bulk of his time below among the giant pistons of the diesel generators that ran the giant electric motors that turned the screws that pushed hundreds of thousands of tons of steel across the water. Uncle Johnny, lived most of his life in the company of his gargantuan machines (and a couple of machinists's mates he liked to yell at.) I dont remember seeing Uncle Johnny smile, but Ill bet he did when he was down there in his engine room. So, one cold October day, Uncle Johnny's ship was making the run from Toledo to Detroit with a full load and a new captain at the helm, and as they were approaching the dock, at full speed, but still a mile or so out, the machinistss mate called to Uncle Johnny. "Sir, we are coming in way too fast. We need to reverse the props." Nope, replied Uncle Johnny. "Wait for the order." And the great ship plowed on. But Sir, we have to reverse the props or well hit the dock. Yep, said Uncle Johnny. We sure as hell will. Wait for the order. Wait? Sir, theres no way we can slow the ship down in time. Goddamn right, son, and if I reverse her now, itll be my fault when we hit, but if I wait for the order, and then reverse em, and go full throttle, and we still hit, then it was the Captains fault. I was just waiting for the order. So Im waiting for the Goddamn order. But well hit either way? Yep. You be ready to reverse when the order comes down, and then you best grab your ass and brace for impact. Aye, aye, sir. They smashed the shit out of the dock in Detroit, did about 1.5 million dollars of damage, and that was in 1970 dollars. Nearly sank the ship. Uncle Johnny had a long career, and retired with a clean record. The captain, he went on to pilot a Yellow Cab. Well, imagine, if you will, that the United States is a big ship. A really big ship. Like one of the great steel haulers, it takes miles and miles to slow her down once shes moving. And whoever gives the order to reverse the props is going to take the blame for the damage that is done. Isnt it right that the captain who put that ship up to full throttle without looking at the charts to see how far from the dock he was, should take responsibility for the damage? There you go. Could John Kerry have changed the direction of the war, reconnected with our allies, repaired the environmental policies, bolstered the economy, and fixed the health care system in four years? Probably not. I was hopeful, but things really are a huge mess. I dont think anyone can turn this leviathan ship of doom around. Too much momentum. So, looking on the bright side, grab your ass and brace for impact. At least its not our guy at the helm. We did, after all, yell lookout, the 48% of us. We did our duty and we can sleep safe in the wreckage, our consciences clear, our hands clean, our souls light. And if, by some bizarre stroke of irony, things actually do get better, the killing stops, our friends respect us, our rights are protected, we can all afford heath care, well what a joy it will be to have been wrong. What a narrow escape we will have made from disaster. And in our little ship metaphor, the dock, which is the rest of the world, will be happy and safe and we will all smile like Uncle Johnnys great machines. It could happen. Churchill once said, There is no thrill so great as being shot at, and missed. What a thrill we will have had! But just in case, even as you enjoy the sense of speeding toward a bright and hopeful future, grab your ass and brace for impact. Just know that it ain't your fault. - -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:27:26 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello from Haiti! On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Brian wrote: > Well, ok, Im not in Haiti, yetbut I might as well be! I could not have > imagined a more miserable outcome. Here is what we have to look forward > to: Lame as this outcome is, this is *so* not Haiti. For all its ills, the U.S. is still the best place to live in the world, as far as I'm concerned. > 1- Count on a lot of death and destruction on the > agenda for the next 4 years (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Palestine, etc, anyone > Israel wants on the list will be on the list.) That's not a fair way to characterize Israel. > 8- Peace in the Middle East? Yeah right! Dont you ever > forget it too, Sharon is a man of peace What exactly *would* you have 'em do? > 12- If you think its just 4 more years and Hillary will > win, well, dont hold your breath, people hate her and Juliani is on the > way. Hillary has no chance. But McCain could beat Giuliani, I bet, and honestly, a McCain administration wouldn't be a disaster. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:27:35 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: ...Unbelievable Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Radicalism isn't what anybody needs right now, on any side. Arguably the best statement on the current political climate of the US to have emerged on this list in quite a while. > It's not the hardcore liberals I'd like to see join forces with the > reasonable Libertarians. It's former self-identifying Democrats like > myself who have gotten fed up with hardcore liberals and like a lot of > what reasonable Libertarians have to say that I'd like to see join > forces with 'em! On election night we went to a bar called Manuel's in Virginia-Highlands with some friends. While I doubt anyone outside of Atlanta would have heard of it, the place is always jumping whenever there's anything vaguely political going on in the city/state/country. It was a mob scene of young and old alike, drinking, eating, and watching the results pour in on massive televisions. I imagine as the night dragged on there was quite a bit more drinking, but that's not the point. What surprised me (and I'm not sure why) was that the Libertarians turned out in force there that night. Typically Manual's is a Democratic stronghold--they've got a painting of JFK over the bar, for God's sake--yet the Libertarians must have controlled a quarter of the main room. It was good to see. Of course I was circling the parking lot in the pouring rain looking for a a space while the GA Libertarian candidate Allen Buckley (who lost to Republican Johnny Isakson, replacing retiring Democrat-cum-Republican Zell Miller) addressed the crowd inside. Buckley only took 2% of the vote in the state. I'll admit I voted for Isakson, and that was based on the fact that his opponent (Denise Majette) is a bald-faced liar when it comes to Isakson's support for the Fair Tax initiative. When Bush recently mentioned "over-hauling our out-dated tax code," I hope he meant it. A flat national sales tax would go a long, long way to revenue generation. - -f. http://fairtax.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:36:43 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: ...Unbelievable On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, FSThomas wrote: > Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > Radicalism isn't what anybody needs right now, on any side. > > Arguably the best statement on the current political climate of the US > to have emerged on this list in quite a while. Perhaps that's 'cause I'm new to the list ;) [Atlanta] > What surprised me (and I'm not sure why) was that the Libertarians > turned out in force there that night. Typically Manual's is a > Democratic stronghold--they've got a painting of JFK over the bar, for > God's sake--yet the Libertarians must have controlled a quarter of the > main room. It was good to see. Wasn't the Libertarian National Convention in Atlanta this year? > When Bush recently mentioned "over-hauling our out-dated tax code," I > hope he meant it. A flat national sales tax would go a long, long way > to revenue generation. Well, sales tax is said to be regressive. A flat national income tax would be fairer, and a progressive national income tax with most of the complexity stripped would be great. But it'll never happen. The accountants' lobby. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:42:53 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: ...Unbelievable Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Wasn't the Libertarian National Convention in Atlanta this year? It was. The one really good shot they got at national TV coverage was, of course, squandered by interviewing someone discussing the wholesale legalization of drugs. A complete waste of time that almost uniformly gets the party dismissed as a group of whacked hedonists. (Not that there's much wrong with whacked hedonism, btw.) > Well, sales tax is said to be regressive. A flat national income tax would > be fairer, and a progressive national income tax with most of the > complexity stripped would be great. But it'll never happen. The > accountants' lobby. I don't see it as regressive in the slightest. Taxation based on consumption seems pretty fair to me. If you've got a taste for Mazeratis, yachts, and Gucci, you pay for it. The plan that's been developed seems well thought-out and probably the fairest way of equally distributing the tax burden. "Progressive" taxes are repressive. Talk flat tax and you might have me. Might. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:50:00 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Hello from Haiti! On Nov 4, 2004, at 11:27 AM, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > >> 8- Peace in the Middle East? Yeah right! Dont you >> ever >> forget it too, Sharon is a man of peace > > What exactly *would* you have 'em do? How about giving up the notion that their belief in a certain bit of science fiction entitles them to a land grab. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:05:37 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Hello from Haiti! On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Tom Clark wrote: > On Nov 4, 2004, at 11:27 AM, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > > >> 8- Peace in the Middle East? Yeah right! Dont you > >> ever > >> forget it too, Sharon is a man of peace > > > > What exactly *would* you have 'em do? > > How about giving up the notion that their belief in a certain bit of > science fiction entitles them to a land grab. I am totally for withdrawal from the occupied territories, but not for their being "pushed into the sea." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:16:19 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Hello from Haiti! Tom Clark wrote: > On Nov 4, 2004, at 11:27 AM, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > >> >>> 8- Peace in the Middle East? Yeah right! Dont you ever >>> forget it too, Sharon is a man of peace >> >> >> What exactly *would* you have 'em do? > > > How about giving up the notion that their belief in a certain bit of > science fiction entitles them to a land grab. What about the Palestinians giving up on the fiction that they're entitled to a state? "Palestine" hasn't *ever* been a country, but rather was a territory under the control of the Ottoman Turks until WWI. They (the PLO) only laid claim to territory in 1988 (see below). It could be said that the bulk of the problems there were caused by the Brits in 1917: All but one of these [Ottoman] Mandated Territories became fully independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, instead of being limited to "the rendering of administrative assistance and advice" the Mandate had as a primary objective the implementation of the "Balfour Declaration" issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II. (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html) The State of Palestine was unilaterally proclaimed on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the PLO, in Tunis. At the time, the PLO did not have control over any part of Palestine (or any other territory), and therefore the State of Palestine did not fulfill one of the typical roles of a state - namely, occupying a territory. However, it laid claim to the whole of Palestine, as defined by the British Mandate of Palestine, rejecting the idea of partition. The State of Palestine was recognized immediately by the Arab League and many other countries; currently, about 2/3 of the world's countries recognize it. It maintains embassies in these countries (which are generally Palestine Liberation Organization delegations.) The State of Palestine is not recognized by the United Nations or by any Western country. However, some European Union countries (including the United Kingdom) maintain diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority, established under the auspices of the Oslo Accords. The 2003 Road map for peace calls for a series of steps, each contingent on the previous steps, leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Included among these steps is dismantling of Palestintian terrorist groups by the Palestinian Authority. Additional steps are required of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine) And after all is said and done Arafat's *still* Egyptian, for crap's sake. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:35:09 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: various brief political replies Christopher Gross wrote: > > That's how I interpret it too. It's because the singer suspected the word > democracy was being used as a cover for something nefarious, not because > he was opposed to democracy itself, right? Yep, that's exactly how I think of it. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:36:00 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Hello from Haiti! On Nov 4, 2004, at 12:05 PM, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Tom Clark wrote: > >> On Nov 4, 2004, at 11:27 AM, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: >> >>> >>>> 8- Peace in the Middle East? Yeah right! Dont you >>>> ever >>>> forget it too, Sharon is a man of peace >>> >>> What exactly *would* you have 'em do? >> >> How about giving up the notion that their belief in a certain bit of >> science fiction entitles them to a land grab. > > I am totally for withdrawal from the occupied territories, but not for > their being "pushed into the sea." I'll just say this and shut up, considering the sensitivity of the issue and the fact that the list has been extremely political lately. I believe the entire country of Israel is illegitimate, as is any nation carved out solely as a homeland for a single religious group. On Nov 4, 2004, at 12:16 PM, FSThomas wrote: > It could be said that the bulk of the problems there were caused by > the Brits in 1917: > Absolutely agree. > > All but one of these [Ottoman] Mandated Territories became fully > independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, > instead of being limited to "the rendering of administrative > assistance and advice" the Mandate had as a primary objective the > implementation of the "Balfour Declaration" issued by the British > Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in > Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". Good idea. Now let's take part of North Dakota and give it to the Scientologists. Flame at will; I've got some music to listen to... - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:09:58 -0800 From: Eb Subject: RE: Cat's Cradle election eve BiTorrent Got it. Basically, it's every song they could think of which revolves around a generic I-IV-I-IV chord pattern. I found this list on the Web: "James at 16 Medley: The Cross-For What It's Worth-I'm Waiting For My Man-Birth, School, Work, Death- Damaged Goods-Play That Funky Music-Free For All-I Don't Believe You Want To Get Up And Dance-Body Slam-Staying Alive-Wishing Well-Get Down Tonight-Peaceful Easy Feeling." It's sad, how badly Soul Asylum ruined their legacy with their late-era unhip suckiness. If they had split up after leaving A&M -- or even after Grave Dancer's Union -- they would have been remembered far, far more fondly. Eb - -----Original Message----- There's a Soul Asylum 12" whose b-side is an astonishing live medley of... good god... everything. I remember specifically that it had "Waiting for the Man", "Birth School Work Death", and a Gang of Four song, but a lot of the rest of it was more standard issue classic rawk. Still pretty dizzying. At least 12 or so distinct tunes. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:29:23 -0800 From: Eb Subject: hilarious (well, kinda sad too...) http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/m/p/mpm265/election.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:05:23 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Hello from Haiti! On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Tom Clark wrote: > >> How about giving up the notion that their belief in a certain bit of > >> science fiction entitles them to a land grab. > > > > I am totally for withdrawal from the occupied territories, but not for > > their being "pushed into the sea." > > I'll just say this and shut up, considering the sensitivity of the > issue and the fact that the list has been extremely political lately. > I believe the entire country of Israel is illegitimate, as is any > nation carved out solely as a homeland for a single religious group. Saying it's illegitimate is one thing. Doing something about it is another. There is the small matter of the population. Something would have to be done with them. If you were saying this while the Jewish immigration was taking place, that'd be one thing. But now? Oh--and speaking of homelands for single religious groups, I don't see much tolerance of faiths other than Islam in a number of countries in the region. Are they illegitimate too? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:05:59 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: hilarious (well, kinda sad too...) Eb wrote: > http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/m/p/mpm265/election.htm Ech. Two sources: http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQstates.htm and (more reliably) http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/gop.asp Every election cycle brings its share of subtle (and not-so-subtle) humor pieces proclaiming that measurements have determined one candidate's intelligence to be much higher than another's, or George W. Bush that studies have found supporters of a particular candidate or party are, in general, significantly smarter as a group than supporters of the opposite party. It seems no satirical article that makes reference to a "study" (usually conducted by a fictitious academic or political group), no matter how broadly written, won't be mistaken by some readers for a valid news report. (A similar item from 2001 fooled many a news publication and is still occasionally cited as a genuine by gullible reporters.) The item excerpted above [http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=17627] provides plenty of clues that it is satirical in nature (and about whom it's satirizing): Besides its general premise regarding a supposedly inverse relationship between intelligence and support for President Bush, it also notes that persons with IQs in the 60-80 range are more likely to support Dale Earnhardt, Jr. (a NASCAR driver) than Senator John Kerry in the presidential election, that there is a "direct correlation between the number of preset Country Western stations on car radios and Bush's approval rating," and that "Bush supporters argue against [polls predicting an Electoral College tie] because the word College angers them." This article is in fact the work of politic satirist Will Durst, a 9 September 2004 example of one of the columns he publishes on a semi-weekly basis. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 16:08:13 -0500 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Cat's Cradle election eve BiTorrent Eb wrote: >It's sad, how badly Soul Asylum ruined their legacy with their late-era >unhip suckiness. If they had split up after leaving A&M -- or even after >Grave Dancer's Union -- they would have been remembered far, far more >fondly. Never got "...And The Horse You Rode In On" by SA. Any good? All I end up getting was GDU. Michael B. PS Surprised we haven't seen anything from Jeme post-election. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:30:07 -0800 From: Rex Broome Subject: Re: Cat's Cradle election eve BiTorrent Michael B: > Never got "...And The Horse You Rode In On" by SA. Any good? All I end up > getting was GDU. It's mehhh. I had it on cassette when it came out. SA was still good live supporting the Pixies that year, but the suck commenced immediately thereafter and thus before I started buying CD's, and it was one of maybe four records I owned on cassette that I couldn't bring myself to want to replace on CD, mostly because of the taint of their subsequent albums. Eventually I picked it up on CD for $1.99 and listened to it once. Apparently the band really dislikes Hang Time, which I rate rather highly. - -Rex - -- "Maybe baby election twelve who I really am!" - -Miranda Mellbye Broome ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:12:32 -0800 From: Eb Subject: RE: Cat's Cradle election eve BiTorrent You'd be much better off with And the Horse You Rode In On, Hang Time or Made to Be Broken than GDU. And don't Beetlejuice Jeme back into the spotlight, please. ;) Eb - -----Original Message----- >It's sad, how badly Soul Asylum ruined their legacy with their late-era >unhip suckiness. If they had split up after leaving A&M -- or even after >Grave Dancer's Union -- they would have been remembered far, far more >fondly. Never got "...And The Horse You Rode In On" by SA. Any good? All I end up getting was GDU. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #316 ********************************