From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #186 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, August 4 2005 Volume 14 : Number 186 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: what is the meaning of is? pet peeves, fegstuff ["rubrshrk" ] It makes you wonder, who the producers hate more: gays/lesbians or Jews? [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: perhaps the new soft boys? [James Dignan ] Re: what is the meaning of is? pet peeves, fegstuff [Capuchin ] RE: perhaps the new soft boys? ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: perhaps the new soft boys? [Capuchin ] RE: perhaps the new soft boys? ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: perhaps the new soft boys? [Jeff ] ITMS query [Jeff ] Re: ITMS query [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:44:22 +0000 From: "rubrshrk" Subject: Re: what is the meaning of is? pet peeves, fegstuff Hmmmm, a long time since I have chimed in on one of these threads. I'm fascinated by this language (and those other ones I can't even massacre.) My view here is about interpersonal communication, rather than literate or scholarly. Consider the following: Maybe before a long time, our language will completely disintegrate under the weight of poor grammar and the usage of internet messenger "literary" shortcuts. I certainly see ten corporate memos per week that are hideously worded, spelled and/or thought out. In a way, I can't understand how poorly some "educated professionals" communicate. Sometimes, I can't even figure out what they are trying to say. I witnessed Robert Fripp being interviewed at a university wherein he tried to achieve precision among those questioning him. What happened was that he tried to edit grammar/usage/thoughts of his guests and he managed to nourish a strange kind form of agressive disconnect. He used his intellectual brilliance mostly as a form of martial art to throw his friendly questioners onto their own heads. He also managed to sucessfully avoid communication, despite receiving reasonably good questions. I really like RF, but why do you hold a question and answer session if you are just going to brutalize the participants? So, here is/are the crux: communication should be considered the primary goal when we try to write or speak, whether we are "Cletus The Slackjawed President" or "Grammar Man, Superhero." This means that there is some responsibility upon both parties. The speaker or writer should use enough thought/clarity/grammar/usage to truly convey what he/she intends to say. Meanwhile, the recipient of the language needs to at least attempt to understand the point of the communication without losing focus on the intent by denigrating it for minor lapses. One thing that annoys me is how people who may even be mostly in agreement on, uh, er, um, "some lists" will just hammer each other about how they expressed themselves, despite providing a clear enough illustration of what they were trying to say. That all said, I'm going to list a few language pet peeves that drive me nuts from their ubiquitous usage (but I try to avoid gutting people like trout when they commit them): 1. "Irregardless"- I don't care if it has made it into the dictionary. I always want to say, "you mean, without no regard?" 2. Using "infer" when meaning "imply" 3. Using "mistrust" when meaning "distrust" 4. "Excellant"- I had never seen anybody misspell this this way until ebay, and now it seems like this is how it is spelled half of the time on the internet. There are more, but luckily that is all the nails-on-chalkboard stuff I can stand to think about at the moment. Last thing, I had dinner with Big Bayard, Little Bayard (our Bayard), Tom Clark, Russ Reynolds, and Nick Winkworth last night. It was fantastically great to see them. Aside from Nick and I receiving more grey up on top- on, not in the head- the rest of the gang didn't look like they were aging at all-Bayard looked exactly like he did 8 years ago. And they're still a blast to be around. We had a blast, but still could have used more of the gang present. I get to see a subset of them probably around the end of the week. Hope y'all are doing well. And I hope I didn't commit too many language errors. Happies, - -Markg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:01:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > And there's enough of a difference between biweekly and bimonthly to > make a difference to my mortgage payments. I was on one, now I'm on the > other. Which one of which one is up to you. Hope your servicing company didn't charge you $300 for the privilege! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:53:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: It makes you wonder, who the producers hate more: gays/lesbians or Jews? "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 20:07:35 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: what is the meaning of is? pet peeves, fegstuff On 8/3/05, rubrshrk wrote: > Maybe before a long time, our language will completely disintegrate under the > weight of poor grammar and the usage of internet messenger "literary" > shortcuts. I can understand why you'd think that...but consider that it's only in the last, say, fifty years in "Western" nations - and not yet in much of the rest of the world - that education has even *tried* to create universal literacy. If literacy survived 95% of the planet being illiterate, I'm sure it can servive some dum kid'z FRTz 2 B k3w1 and spell everything wrong. > So, here is/are the crux: communication should be considered the primary goal > when we try to write or speak, whether we are "Cletus The Slackjawed > President" or "Grammar Man, Superhero." This means that there is some > responsibility upon both parties. The speaker or writer should use enough > thought/clarity/grammar/usage to truly convey what he/she intends to say. > Meanwhile, the recipient of the language needs to at least attempt to > understand the point of the communication without losing focus on the intent > by denigrating it for minor lapses. One thing that annoys me is how people > who may even be mostly in agreement on, uh, er, um, "some lists" will just > hammer each other about how they expressed themselves, despite providing a > clear enough illustration of what they were trying to say. Seems eminently reasonable to me. > 1. "Irregardless"- I don't care if it has made it into the dictionary. I > always want to say, "you mean, without no regard?" Agreed...except that a lot of the folks to whom you'd say "you mean, without no regard?" would probably reply "yeah - exactly." > 2. Using "infer" when meaning "imply" > 3. Using "mistrust" when meaning "distrust" Can I throw in "disinterested/uninterested"? These sorts of linked pairs always cause confusion, though... > 4. "Excellant"- I had never seen anybody misspell this this way until ebay, > and now it seems like this is how it is spelled half of the time on the > internet. You're definately right. ;-) It seems to be the predominate spelling in today's fast-paced society... But hey - Shak(e)spear(e) spelled his own name several different ways... - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:23:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: perhaps the new soft boys? On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Marc Alberts wrote: > Jeme wrote: >> Yeah, it is. To me, "complicated" is a past tense verb and "complex" >> is an adjective. > > com.pli.cat.ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmpl-ktd) > adj. > 1. Containing intricately combined or involved parts. > 2. Not easy to understand or analyze. See Synonyms at complex. See Synonyms > at complex. See Synonyms at elaborate. > > So what's wrong with using it as an adjective again? Hold that thought. > Homogeneous is an adjective, homogenized is a past tense form of a verb > meaning "to make homogeneous." Exactly! So "complicated" is a past tense form of a verb meaning "to make complex or increase complexity". We can say we have "homogenized milk" and when we do that implies that, at some point, it underwent a process of homogenization and, therefore, was acted upon. Something homogenized it. We can say that we have a "complicated situation" and when we do that implies that, at some point, it underwent a process of complication and, therefore, was acted upon. Something complicated it. But if we say that we have a "homogeneous mixture", the mixture was not necessarily homogenized. Nothing needed to act on it to make it that way. It is inherently homogeneous. And if we say that we have a "complex device", the device was not necessarily complicated. Nothing needed to act on it to make it that way. It is inherently complex. >> Interestingly, the best example I can write of the distinction is as >> follows: Pure mathematics is complex. Applied mathematics is >> complicated. > > In what sense are you referring to pure mathematics as complex here? I > don't think this example is illuminating much here. Maybe add some > parenthetical comments after each word or something. I guess I don't > know the differences between pure and applied mathematics well enough to > be able to see the fine distinction you are making. Yeah, I kind of threw away that comment without explanation. The comment is relevant and, I think, provides some insight into the distinction, but only if you are familiar with the fields (no pun intended). > I always thought that pure mathematics were equations where you were > solving for a value just for kicks and grins (y=mx+b kind of stuff) > where applied mathematics involved actually trying to take a problem and > extract the algebraic means to a solution and then solving it. Yeah, not quite. [If any mathematicians ever read this, please forgive both my broad, selective descriptions below and my seeming arrogance for attempting to assign definitions to things of which I am not a master.] Pure mathematics isn't particularly interested in finding solutions or exact values. Pure mathematics involves showing that solutions can be found or deriving/constructing methods by which one can show that solutions can be found. In my opinion, pure mathematics is an exercise in complexity. The goal seems to be to construct finer and finer distinctions and broader and broader classifications and then studying the relationships between them. A Chinese astronomy text from the second century BCE writes this of "scholarship" (and mathematics is nothing but scholarship in its most refined form): If one asks about one category and applies to a myriad affairs, one is said to know the Way.... Therefore one studies similar methods in comparison with each other, and one examines similar affairs in comparison with each other. This is what makes the difference between stupid and intelligent scholars, between the worhty and the unworthy. Therefore, it is the ability to distinguish categories in order to unite categories which is the substance of how the worthy one's scholarly patrimony is pure, and how he applies himself to the practice of understanding. So we see that "pure" scholarship concerns itself with the understanding of relationships between categories and divisions and since all categories and divisions are human constructions, essentially pure scholarship is self-examination. If one has a means for examining one's self, one knows the Way. Applied mathematics, by contrast, concerns itself largely with using the tools invented for showing the existence of solutions, assigning values, and approximating. Mathematical models describe ideal situations and must constantly be modified to closer reflect the phenomenon being modelled. So applied mathematics is complicated by observation and comparison to observable phenomenon. Pure mathematics is internally consistent and closed and thoroughly synthesized from wholly arbitrary axioms. Since it has nothing to do with anything but pure mathematics, nothing can complicate it. It is complex, but only due to its internal inherent complexity. "Complexity/complication" (as singular nouns) have an analogous interpretation to the "complex/complicated" distinction. > In either case they, couldn't you say that they both were complex and > complicated (if you want to make a distinction between the synonyms)? I don't think you could make the case that pure mathematics is complicated. The axioms either imply something or they don't and we can only concern ourselves with the things the axioms imply and that system is, Goedel notwithstanding, complete and closed. Consider, for instance, absolute geometry versus Euclidean plane geometry. We have a set of axioms in absolute geometry that imply a whole bunch of theorems that describe the relationships between figures and parts of figures. In Euclidean plane geometry, we have an additional axiom about parallel lines (i.e., that given a line and a point not on that line there is exactly one line parallel to the given line through the given point). When we add the Euclidean parallel postulate to absolute geometry, we are no longer dealing with absolute geometry so it doesn't make any sense to say that the Euclidean parallel postulate complicates absolute geometry. In the same way, mathematics as a whole cannot be complicated by things outside mathematics because things outside cannot influence things inside. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:24:11 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? > > The cited website is flat out wrong about biweekly/bimonthly. It means > > both "twice a" and "once every two". Seems like an attempt to simplify > > language for the writer's own ends. > >Who uses "biweekly" to mean eight times a month instead of twice? (raises hand - along with, I would imagine, many many other people). Biweekly means twice a week. As with our biweekly community newspaper, which comes out on Wednesdays and Saturdays. If it's every two weeks its fortnightly. 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: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:31:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: what is the meaning of is? pet peeves, fegstuff On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, rubrshrk wrote: > 1. "Irregardless"- I don't care if it has made it into the dictionary. I > always want to say, "you mean, without no regard?" Cute. I just might use that one... but only if the person can take it. > 4. "Excellant"- I had never seen anybody misspell this this way until > ebay, and now it seems like this is how it is spelled half of the time > on the internet. Oooh! Yeah. Misspellings in general bother me quite a bit. I usually consider any single letter inserted or substituted or any single pair of letters transposed to be a typographical error and, while I usually notice, I don't consider it a sign of ignorance or, depending on context, laziness. But when it's a vowel that's out of place, I have a hard time applying that rationale. The greatest offender to me, though, is "definately". It drives me up the wall. Having written that, I suspect I might see it on the list much more in the future. > There are more, but luckily that is all the nails-on-chalkboard stuff I > can stand to think about at the moment. eddie didn't pipe up with his hatred of the use of the word "devolved" to mean some kind of backward evolution or the opposite of "evolved". Since he mentioned it, I've been noticing it as well and it really is frustrating. > Last thing, I had dinner with Big Bayard, Little Bayard (our Bayard), > Tom Clark, Russ Reynolds, and Nick Winkworth last night. [snip] > We had a blast, but still could have used more of the gang present. I so wanted to be there. I've got stories. > I get to see a subset of them probably around the end of the week. Hope > y'all are doing well. And I hope I didn't commit too many language > errors. Fuck you, Mark Gloster. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:42:31 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: perhaps the new soft boys? Jeme wrote: > On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Marc Alberts wrote: > > Jeme wrote: > >> Yeah, it is. To me, "complicated" is a past tense verb and "complex" > >> is an adjective. > > > > com.pli.cat.ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmpl-ktd) > > adj. > > 1. Containing intricately combined or involved parts. > > 2. Not easy to understand or analyze. See Synonyms at complex. See > Synonyms > > at complex. See Synonyms at elaborate. > > > > So what's wrong with using it as an adjective again? > > Hold that thought. > > > Homogeneous is an adjective, homogenized is a past tense form of a verb > > meaning "to make homogeneous." > > Exactly! So "complicated" is a past tense form of a verb meaning "to make > complex or increase complexity". > > We can say we have "homogenized milk" and when we do that implies that, at > some point, it underwent a process of homogenization and, therefore, was > acted upon. Something homogenized it. > > We can say that we have a "complicated situation" and when we do that > implies that, at some point, it underwent a process of complication and, > therefore, was acted upon. Something complicated it. Reading the definition, this clearly does not have to be the case. Something can be, according to the second definition, "complicated" simply by being hard to understand or analyze without any action having been performed on it. It is the same, in this sense as complex. Not kind of the same, but exactly the same. Now it may make perfect sense to say some usage instances of "complicated" don't pass the test, and that's fine, but to suggest that "complicated" always requires some sort of process or action involved is incorrect. > > But if we say that we have a "homogeneous mixture", the mixture was not > necessarily homogenized. Nothing needed to act on it to make it that way. > It is inherently homogeneous. I actually agree with you on homogenous and homogenized, but I haven't heard people using them incorrectly much so I haven't worried about it. > > And if we say that we have a "complex device", the device was not > necessarily complicated. Nothing needed to act on it to make it that way. > It is inherently complex. The word "complex" means having many parts, something which is composite. It is almost certainly the case where you could use "complex" to describe almost any device, and you are right that a device may not be "complicated" simply by being "complex." But a human brain, for example, can be both complex (many interconnected parts) and complicated (difficult to analyze or understand) with the terms non-synonymous and yet both equally applicable to the subject. This is why I think your definition is striking too fine a line (or maybe just an incorrect one). > > In either case they, couldn't you say that they both were complex and > > complicated (if you want to make a distinction between the synonyms)? > > I don't think you could make the case that pure mathematics is > complicated. The axioms either imply something or they don't and we can > only concern ourselves with the things the axioms imply and that system > is, Goedel notwithstanding, complete and closed. Pure mathematics, to the beginner, could indeed fit either definition, couldn't it? I mean, clearly there are many involved parts, right? And to me, it is certainly a difficult field to analyze. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:47:42 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: perhaps the new soft boys? James Dignan wrote: > > > The cited website is flat out wrong about biweekly/bimonthly. It > means > > > both "twice a" and "once every two". Seems like an attempt to > simplify > > > language for the writer's own ends. > > > >Who uses "biweekly" to mean eight times a month instead of twice? > > (raises hand - along with, I would imagine, many many other people). > Biweekly means twice a week. As with our biweekly community > newspaper, which comes out on Wednesdays and Saturdays. If it's every > two weeks its fortnightly. What's funny is that at work, we have to do "bi-monthly" reports. We actually argued quite a bit on whether they should be "bi-monthly" since we were only doing them twice a month, or whether "semimonthly" wouldn't be a better term. I wish I had thought to use "fortnightly" just to tweak that manager a bit more. In the end, the few of us who objected to the implication that we would have to do eight reports instead of two lost out with the understanding that we actually would do them semimonthly. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:50:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Jeff wrote: > Weird, but there it is. There's this thing called a dictionary: you may > consult it and discover that what I say is true. This is probably a whole 'nother thread, but I've been really annoyed with dictionaries lately. While it sounds terribly paranoid to say it out loud (I did it the other day and I had to quickly justify myself before the other person had time to react -- thankfully, they agreed), but I am beginning to see that dictionaries support a political agenda. Granted, it's all part of the whole complex system of cultural trend and obviously not the work of some cigar-chomping syndicate around a giant oak table somewhere, but it's disturbing nonetheless. Consider M-W's definition of "fascism": 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control Contrast this with, say, Mussolini's words: "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism for it is the merger of state and corporate power." By M-W's definition, Stalin was a fascist because he held dictatorial control and his regime exalted the nation and used strict economic and social regimentation. There's nothing in the M-W definition that describes the essential requirement that Fascism be anti-communist and anti-liberal, for example. By watering down this term and applying it broadly (and only) to totalitarian dictators, we lose the ability to accurately draw parallels between modern political movements and the movement fronted by Mussolini in the last century. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 19:41:56 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: perhaps the new soft boys? Jeme wrote: > This is probably a whole 'nother thread, but I've been really annoyed with > dictionaries lately. While it sounds terribly paranoid to say it out loud > (I did it the other day and I had to quickly justify myself before the > other person had time to react -- thankfully, they agreed), but I am > beginning to see that dictionaries support a political agenda. Granted, > it's all part of the whole complex system of cultural trend and obviously > not the work of some cigar-chomping syndicate around a giant oak table > somewhere, but it's disturbing nonetheless. > > Consider M-W's definition of "fascism": > > 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that > of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual > and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a > dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible > suppression of opposition > 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or > dictatorial control > > Contrast this with, say, Mussolini's words: > > "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism for it is the merger of > state and corporate power." > > By M-W's definition, Stalin was a fascist because he held dictatorial > control and his regime exalted the nation and used strict economic and > social regimentation. > > There's nothing in the M-W definition that describes the essential > requirement that Fascism be anti-communist and anti-liberal, for example. Fascism was definitely anti-liberal, but anti-communist? That's like saying the Democrats are anti-Green. Sure, the Democrats don't appreciate that Nader took just enough of the vote in 2000 to keep Gore from a clear victory, but on many issues there is strong agreement. I would describe the Fascism/Communism struggle as an internecine one instead. The differences between Hitler and Stalin in most terms amounted to the differences between Stalin and Trotsky or Hitler and Strasser, not those between Stalin and (say) Thomas Jefferson. I would also say that Mussolini's words are not so different from Marx's contention that the all economic power was hosted in the workers, and that they should translate that power into political power, resulting in a merger of the state and economic power. The major difference between Fascism and Communism, as Ludwig von Mises noted at the time, was that it was better for those in capitalist countries to cede their control to a government that would turn them from capitalists to mere shop stewards than to turn them from capitalists into unmarked graves. > By watering down this term and applying it broadly (and only) to > totalitarian dictators, we lose the ability to accurately draw parallels > between modern political movements and the movement fronted by Mussolini > in the last century. That is only true if you are looking for an easy way to draw unthinking parallels between politicians and political parties you don't like and Hitler. Sweeping generalizations that would be prevented by this (accurate) definition are the antithesis of the accuracy you profess to desire in drawing parallels. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 23:21:14 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: perhaps the new soft boys? On 8/3/05, Capuchin wrote: > This is probably a whole 'nother thread, but I've been really annoyed with > dictionaries lately. While it sounds terribly paranoid to say it out loud > (I did it the other day and I had to quickly justify myself before the > other person had time to react -- thankfully, they agreed), but I am > beginning to see that dictionaries support a political agenda. I'm shocked - shocked! - to hear that you think such a thing. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 00:16:29 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: ITMS query It may have been on this list - I can't remember, and my archive searches have come up empty-handed - but a while back, we were having a discussion about sound files, and the protected format used by the iTunes Music Store came up. I noted that if one wanted a regular ol' mp3 of such tracks, it was possible to burn the AAC file to CD, then rip a regular mp3 from that CD. Someone then said, yeah, but it's also possible to alter the AAC file so you can convert it to mp3 directly. I can't find that message, and at the time I didn't ask how one might do that. But I'd like to know. (If anyone thinks I'm planning on ripping of poor benighted recording industry, no - I'm just trying to alter some live tracks so they don't cut off abruptly in the midst of applause. I think I have the option for crossfades in burning...but I don't want that with the rest of the tracks. So editing the sound files seems the best way to handle this.) - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 01:22:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: ITMS query On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Jeff wrote: > It may have been on this list - I can't remember, and my archive > searches have come up empty-handed - but a while back, we were having a > discussion about sound files, and the protected format used by the > iTunes Music Store came up. I noted that if one wanted a regular ol' mp3 > of such tracks, it was possible to burn the AAC file to CD, then rip a > regular mp3 from that CD. Someone then said, yeah, but it's also > possible to alter the AAC file so you can convert it to mp3 directly. > > I can't find that message, and at the time I didn't ask how one might do > that. But I'd like to know. (If anyone thinks I'm planning on ripping of > poor benighted recording industry, no - I'm just trying to alter some > live tracks so they don't cut off abruptly in the midst of applause. I > think I have the option for crossfades in burning...but I don't want > that with the rest of the tracks. So editing the sound files seems the > best way to handle this.) J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #186 ********************************