From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #118 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, May 8 2005 Volume 14 : Number 118 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: The Forgotten Arm [Jeff ] Tako! Tako! [The Great Quail ] Re: Tar Shrek [James Dignan ] Re: Tar Shrek [Jeff ] Re: Tar Shrek [Jeff ] Re: Tar Shrek [Eb ] Re: Tar Shrek [Capuchin ] Re: Tar Shrek [Eb ] Re: Tar Shrek [Capuchin ] Re: Tako! Tako! [Tom Clark ] Re: Tar Shrek [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Tako! Tako! [Benjamin Lukoff ] reap [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: [oldschoolfegs] re: canadian tour ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: The Who Sell Out and Whoa, that woj [wojizzle forizzle ] Re: RH and archive.org [wojizzle forizzle ] elixirs & rememdies dvd [wojizzle forizzle ] Re: Tar Shrek [Carrie Galbraith ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 10:36:58 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: The Forgotten Arm On 5/7/05, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > I agree. It always takes me a little time to get sued to her CDs. Whoa. I don't want to listen to a CD if I'm gonna get sued for doing so. Best typo ever! > For instance, what does the title "The Forgotten Arm" mean? Some friends of > mine thought "arm" was used in the meaning of weapon, but I don't believe > that. I can't even figure out from whose perpective some of the songs are > sung. > > > Word has it she's taken up boxing. As explained on her website (www.aimeemann.com, I believe), "the forgotten arm" is a boxing term. I think it was something like, you keep pummeling your opponent with one arm, and then after a while the opponent "forgets" about your other arm and doesn't expect its punch. I listened to the album as streamed from the website (you have to wait for the flash entry to finish, then click on it). I agree that it takes a while to get into her reocrds - this one's no exception, although there are a few more uptempo tracks (one problem with _Lost in Space_ was, as our own Miles calls it, midtempo-itis). - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 13:48:42 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Tako! Tako! > My friend Mark says his Greek grandmother once put an octopus in a pot of > boiling water with a lid on it, the octopus burst out using all 8 legs at > once to hoist itself out of the pot. She beat it sensless over the head and > threw it back in...he hasn't eaten octopus in 20+ years. I once say a TV show about traveling, and somewhere in Korea (I think) they were eating *living* octopi. They'd just grab them from a bowl, swipe them through a pan of sauce, and shove them in their mouth. And yeah, the octopi fought, and fought hard -- tentacles squirming out of the people's mouths and trying to grab at noses, throats, ears; anything to pull themselves out of their predator's mouths...! But in the end, to no avail... It was one of the coolest things I've ever seen, I think, in a sick kind of way. I've read in many places that octopi are very smart -- almost cat-level smart. Makes you wonder what they are thinking... - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 07:31:40 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: Tar Shrek >I never liked Star Trek much. Whenever I saw the show, I'd just grumble >to myself about how all those officers wouldn't have achieved their >success without advanced education. Distasteful portrayal of >class-strata norms. yes and no. You're right, of course as far as the education side goes, but the original series was pushing all sorts of boundaries for 1966 or whenever. Chekhov? Uhura? Sulu? For mid-sixties TV, these were daring roles to cast! 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") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 14:40:01 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Tar Shrek On 5/7/05, James Dignan wrote: > >I never liked Star Trek much. Whenever I saw the show, I'd just grumble > >to myself about how all those officers wouldn't have achieved their > >success without advanced education. Distasteful portrayal of > >class-strata norms. > > yes and no. You're right, of course as far as the education side > goes, but the original series was pushing all sorts of boundaries for > 1966 or whenever. Chekhov? Uhura? Sulu? For mid-sixties TV, these > were daring roles to cast! > As long as we're taking Eb's comments seriously (I am, because my sarcasm detector is broken today), the problem isn't that positions require advance education. It's that access to that advanced education is limited, to a degree, by social class. Here, now - I don't know about in the world of Star Trek. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 14:40:01 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Tar Shrek On 5/7/05, James Dignan wrote: > >I never liked Star Trek much. Whenever I saw the show, I'd just grumble > >to myself about how all those officers wouldn't have achieved their > >success without advanced education. Distasteful portrayal of > >class-strata norms. > > yes and no. You're right, of course as far as the education side > goes, but the original series was pushing all sorts of boundaries for > 1966 or whenever. Chekhov? Uhura? Sulu? For mid-sixties TV, these > were daring roles to cast! > As long as we're taking Eb's comments seriously (I am, because my sarcasm detector is broken today), the problem isn't that positions require advance education. It's that access to that advanced education is limited, to a degree, by social class. Here, now - I don't know about in the world of Star Trek. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 13:08:20 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Tar Shrek > As long as we're taking Eb's comments seriously (I am, because my > sarcasm detector is broken today), the problem isn't that positions > require advance education. It's that access to that advanced education > is limited, to a degree, by social class. Which is why this "argument thread" went so astray. It began with Jeme taking cheap potshots at "old money," and transitioned into the far milder topic of simply whether success requires an *education* or not. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 14:36:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Tar Shrek On Sat, 7 May 2005, Eb wrote: > Which is why this "argument thread" went so astray. It began with Jeme > taking cheap potshots at "old money," and transitioned into the far > milder topic of simply whether success requires an *education* or not. Wow. I think you missed every single point. I wasn't taking any shot at old money, I was pointing out the link between privilege (as is required to attend an ivy league institution and is conferred upon you by attending an ivy league institution with other privileged folks) and opportunities... which, if you think about it, is almost circular. And second, we never discussed whether or not success requires an education, but whether or not privilege is required to attain an education. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 14:57:48 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Tar Shrek >> Which is why this "argument thread" went so astray. It began with >> Jeme taking cheap potshots at "old money," and transitioned into the >> far milder topic of simply whether success requires an *education* or >> not. > > Wow. I think you missed every single point. Well, naturally, I must have failed to understand *something*. Because it's well-established that ignorance or lack of comprehension are the only reasons why anyone could dissent from your views. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 15:33:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Tar Shrek On Sat, 7 May 2005, Eb wrote: > Well, naturally, I must have failed to understand *something*. Because > it's well-established that ignorance or lack of comprehension are the > only reasons why anyone could dissent from your views. And you wonder why I suspect you of willful misreading. Ignorance and lack of comprehension are the only reasons people disagree. We could BOTH be ignorant and/or misunderstanding, however. The more we attempt honest comunication, the closer we come to agreement. J. _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 18:32:00 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Tako! Tako! On May 7, 2005, at 10:48 AM, The Great Quail wrote: > I once say a TV show about traveling, and somewhere in Korea (I think) > they > were eating *living* octopi. They'd just grab them from a bowl, swipe > them > through a pan of sauce, and shove them in their mouth. And yeah, the > octopi > fought, and fought hard -- tentacles squirming out of the people's > mouths > and trying to grab at noses, throats, ears; anything to pull > themselves out > of their predator's mouths...! But in the end, to no avail... It was > one of > the coolest things I've ever seen, I think, in a sick kind of way. I think that might have been "Travel Sick". My favorite episode of that was when the host (Grub something?) had to castrate a calf, and then fry up the "oysters" and eat them. Quality TV. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 21:01:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Tar Shrek On Sat, 7 May 2005, Eb wrote: > > As long as we're taking Eb's comments seriously (I am, because my > > sarcasm detector is broken today), the problem isn't that positions > > require advance education. It's that access to that advanced education > > is limited, to a degree, by social class. > > Which is why this "argument thread" went so astray. It began with Jeme > taking cheap potshots at "old money," and transitioned into the far > milder topic of simply whether success requires an *education* or not. There is also the question of whether success requires an *education* or if just requires a *degree*. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 21:03:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Tako! Tako! On Sat, 7 May 2005, The Great Quail wrote: > I once say a TV show about traveling, and somewhere in Korea (I think) they > were eating *living* octopi. They'd just grab them from a bowl, swipe them > through a pan of sauce, and shove them in their mouth. And yeah, the octopi > fought, and fought hard -- tentacles squirming out of the people's mouths > and trying to grab at noses, throats, ears; anything to pull themselves out > of their predator's mouths...! But in the end, to no avail... It was one of > the coolest things I've ever seen, I think, in a sick kind of way. Not squid? I'm half Korean, and I've eaten squid many a time, but never octopus--not Korean-style anyway. > I've read in many places that octopi are very smart -- almost cat-level > smart. Makes you wonder what they are thinking... "Oh shit, these people want to eat me!" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 23:45:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: reap Col. David H. Hackworth http://hackworth.com/ "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 08:07:55 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: [oldschoolfegs] re: canadian tour randi lynn wrote: > Well I'm behind on digests and *just* read about Robyn > cancelling the tour with The Sadies. I got a call from TicketMaster -- they are going to reschedule the Canada dates. They don't know when, though. Still, I guess dates in Montreal (for Ross), Toronto, Hamilton (~1hr from Buffalo) and Kitchener-Waterloo can't be bad ... cheers, Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 09:55:32 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth (gmail)" Subject: Re: Lucky I'm a family guy.... Hi Fegs, I have been out of it with sinus problems for a few days (well more than usual that is...) so it would take some concerted effort (well, more than usual) to get caught up on this thread. But I must say that the lack of mention of Jarvis Cocker leaves this thread a bit suspect. I mean, the guy's mother dressed him in *lederhosen*. Talk about a fucking handicap. xo Lauren P.S. ...assuming that gmail actually searches in the " -Show quoted text- " sections regardless of whether the user has elected to show the " -Show quoted text- " - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 11:04:58 -0400 From: wojizzle forizzle Subject: Re: RH and archive.org one time at band camp, john halewood said: >On 5/2/05, wojizzle forizzle wrote: > > obviously, if it's your tape that you're uploading, go for it! but if you > > have a umpteenth generation copy of a show or a cd that you don't know the > > details about, please ask since chances are good that a lot of us already > > know their history. > >Good point. As most of my stuff has come to me electronically, rather than >physically I can't always be sure of the lineage. i think it's probably easier to confirm ancestry in the digital domain rather than in the physical one. almost always, one can track down md5s or fingerprints of an original recording if it has been released by the taper or someone with access to the master. in most other cases, shns/flacs are just going to be pretty much the same as >Perhaps if before we upload we post the details here first and wait for >someone to scream that they've got a better version? that sounds good to me. also, i think it's time to start maintaining a list of shows with known lineage and such. provided people can find said list, i think that will help folks know what is out there and whether or not what they have is the best possible version. that might also help in the torrent world as well. >Another thing - I've noticed that for many bands archive.org has multiple >encodings available for each gig - usually shn, wav and mp3 (sometimes two >different mp3 levels). Should we just stick to non-lossy formats, or do >archive.org do this automatically? i agree with stewart: mp3s aren't necessarily a bad thing. especially since archive.org has both readily available in one location. those who want lossless have that option and will know their download won't have compressed ancestry. those who want lossy can go that route and know their mp3s are made from the source. it's a win-win. woj n.p. elixirs & remedies dvd -- woo! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 11:10:12 -0400 From: wojizzle forizzle Subject: Re: The Who Sell Out and Whoa, that woj one time at band camp, Jill Brand said: >Woj asked why no one had mentioned Petra Haden's recent "I can do >everything better than you" recording of the Who Sell Out. i came across its existance a while ago when irwin chusid played a track from it before its release on his show on wfmu (i guess he's got an in with petra). i finally tracked down a copy yesterday -- didn't want to order it from amazon and my local music shoppe took a bit to get it in -- but haven't had a chance to listen to it yet. >What rocked my world today is that woj posted about 8 times within a >24-hour period. Unheard of. I'm still gathering my wits. yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip! >Yesterday was my 26th wedding anniversary. Good for me. congrats! is anyone else mysteriously attracted to a daily listen to the shipping forecast on the bbc? . woj ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 11:29:01 -0400 From: wojizzle forizzle Subject: Re: RH and archive.org one time at band camp, Lauren Elizabeth (gmail) said: >Allen Rendel says: > > > XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO > >Kind of overkill on the XOs, but, hey, to each his own ;) you have to admit, it's a little faggy. +w ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 11:33:02 -0400 From: wojizzle forizzle Subject: elixirs & rememdies dvd so far, the only complaint is that the bonus tracks ("heavenly", "trams of old london", "mockingbirds", and "viva! seatac") are tacked on as a separate feature rather than just editted into the overall film -- though i understand why they probably did that. it would be nice to have a play all selection for the bonus track instead of having to play each one separately as well. otherwise, it's excellent to have this on dvd at last -- even if it is a dvd-r. making a backup copy should probably be taken care of shortly. woj ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:39:06 +0300 From: Carrie Galbraith Subject: Re: Tar Shrek On 08.05.2005, at 00:36, Capuchin wrote: > Wow. I think you missed every single point. I wasn't taking any shot > at old money, I was pointing out the link between privilege (as is > required to attend an ivy league institution and is conferred upon you > by attending an ivy league institution with other privileged folks) > and opportunities... which, if you think about it, is almost circular. > > And second, we never discussed whether or not success requires an > education, but whether or not privilege is required to attain an > education. I lived with a Yalie for several years. His father was an out-of-work butcher and the family is definitely NOT one of privilege. He got in simply based on merit. I also know a kid who was homeschooled in Northern California by hippies who were off the grid. He got in to Harvard. So the idea of "required" privilege to get in to ivy league schools (or to attain an education) is not absolute IMHO. Back to my silence. - - c ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #118 ********************************