From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V15 #148 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, June 26 2006 Volume 15 : Number 148 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Invisible Hitchcock and Fallen Angel ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Prides and clowders [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: Prides and clowders [Capuchin ] Re: Prides and clowders [Sebastian Hagedorn ] RE: Prides and clowders [Aaron Mandel ] RE: Invisible Hitchcock and Fallen Angel ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: Prides and clowders [2fs ] RE: Prides and clowders ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: You ain't going nowhere; terms of venery; etc [hssmrg@bath.ac.uk] Re: Prides and clowders [Benjamin Lukoff ] FW: You ain't going nowhere; terms of venery; etc ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: Prides and clowders [Eb ] RE: FW: You ain't going nowhere; terms of venery; etc ["Sarah Jones" ] Re: Prides and clowders [Jeff Dwarf ] Robyn Hitchcock / Leicester-Birmingham video ["Matthijs van Geldere" Subject: Re: Invisible Hitchcock and Fallen Angel Bachman, Michael wrote: > > I jut picked up the DVD BBC documentary: Gram Parsons....Fallen Angel. Is this the one based on the research done by Sid Griffin? Sid's talks about Gram are fascinating. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:52:28 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Invisible Hitchcock and Fallen Angel On 6/25/06, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > > > eccentric Scottish musician and writer > > Ivor Cutler? Good guess...but nope: Momus a/k/a Nick Currie. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:59:59 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Prides and clowders Hi, I wasn't aware of this phenomenon and now I'm curious. I found "pride of lions" in the dictionary, but others I didn't. - --On 24. Juni 2006 23:15:20 -0500 2fs wrote: > On 6/24/06, grutness@slingshot.co.nz wrote: >> >> > Possibly more to the point, why the hell do different bird species >> warrant >> > so many differing and esoteric collective names, whereas most other >> animals >> > are just "bunches" or "groups" or "herds"? I mean, sure, you have your >> pods >> > of whales, your prides of lions, etc., I didn't know these two, but they are in the OED. > but that's not nearly so roccoco >> (for >> > example, most fish groups are schools, which, although a little odd, >> doesn't >> > vary by species). Where'd this whole convention come from? >> >> quiver of cobras, crash of rhinos, dazzles of zebra, shrewdness of >> apes, band of gorillas, skulk of fozes, span of mules, army of frogs, >> business of ferrets, float of crocodiles, sleuth of bears, clowder of >> cats... I didn't check all of them, but the OED doesn't know "quiver", "dazzle", "sleuth" or "clowder" ... as terms for groups of animals, that is. Where did you get this list? > Some of these are in common usage (gorillas), some are well known (rhinos, > shrewdness, skulk, clowder), Really? Even though they're not in the dictionary?? - -- Sebastian Hagedorn http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:06:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Prides and clowders On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > I didn't check all of them, but the OED doesn't know "quiver", "dazzle", > "sleuth" or "clowder" ... as terms for groups of animals, that is. Where > did you get this list? Sleuth, crash, and clowder are in pretty common usage, I think. There are some other things besides animals that have funny plural nouns. You call it a "stand of trees", for instance. (We didn't mention a gaggle of geese, did we?) (Oh, and if you go to www.google.com and type "define:clowder" you get the answer you might expect.) >> Some of these are in common usage (gorillas), some are well known >> (rhinos, shrewdness, skulk, clowder), > > Really? Even though they're not in the dictionary?? Oh, absolutely. Dictionaries are only useful for looking things up if you already know what they are. For words like this, context is always enough. If I say I have a testament of Bibles on my bookshelf or that I saw on the street corner a canker of prostitutes, you wouldn't run to the dictionary to figure out what I mean. These are used all the time and some are standard and others not so much. There was a nice book of these a decade or two ago entitled, I think, "An Exhaltation Of Larks"... if you're interested. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:50:51 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Prides and clowders - --On 26. Juni 2006 03:06:54 -0700 Capuchin wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: >> I didn't check all of them, but the OED doesn't know "quiver", "dazzle", >> "sleuth" or "clowder" ... as terms for groups of animals, that is. Where >> did you get this list? > > Sleuth, crash, and clowder are in pretty common usage, I think. I have to take your word for it ;-) > (Oh, and if you go to www.google.com and type "define:clowder" you get > the answer you might expect.) True. I found this rather comprehensive list: >>> Some of these are in common usage (gorillas), some are well known >>> (rhinos, shrewdness, skulk, clowder), >> >> Really? Even though they're not in the dictionary?? > > Oh, absolutely. Dictionaries are only useful for looking things up if > you already know what they are. Huh? > For words like this, context is always > enough. Sure, if all you're looking for is the meaning in that particular context. > If I say I have a testament of Bibles on my bookshelf or that I saw on > the street corner a canker of prostitutes, you wouldn't run to the > dictionary to figure out what I mean. No, I wouldn't. You're right that I'd be able to gather the meaning, but that doesn't mean that the terms aren't or shouldn't be in a dictionary, especially one like the OED! > There was a nice book of these a decade or two ago entitled, I think, "An > Exhaltation Of Larks"... if you're interested. Thanks. The site I mentioned lists that and a few more ... - -- Sebastian Hagedorn http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 04:26:42 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: Prides and clowders Sebastian wrote: > --On 26. Juni 2006 03:06:54 -0700 Capuchin wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > >> I didn't check all of them, but the OED doesn't know "quiver", > "dazzle", > >> "sleuth" or "clowder" ... as terms for groups of animals, that is. > Where > >> did you get this list? > > > > Sleuth, crash, and clowder are in pretty common usage, I think. > > I have to take your word for it ;-) Well, I don't know if they're exactly in common use, but they are generally excepted terms. Most people don't have chances to describe sleuths of bears, crashes of rhinos or clowders of cats, but at least in the 1800s knowing that those were the correct terms was a sign of being an educated gentleman. > > > (Oh, and if you go to www.google.com and type "define:clowder" you get > > the answer you might expect.) > > True. I found this rather comprehensive list: > > > > >>> Some of these are in common usage (gorillas), some are well known > >>> (rhinos, shrewdness, skulk, clowder), > >> > >> Really? Even though they're not in the dictionary?? > > > > Oh, absolutely. Dictionaries are only useful for looking things up if > > you already know what they are. > > Huh? > > > For words like this, context is always > > enough. > > Sure, if all you're looking for is the meaning in that particular context. > > > If I say I have a testament of Bibles on my bookshelf or that I saw on > > the street corner a canker of prostitutes, you wouldn't run to the > > dictionary to figure out what I mean. > > No, I wouldn't. You're right that I'd be able to gather the meaning, but > that doesn't mean that the terms aren't or shouldn't be in a dictionary, > especially one like the OED! > > > There was a nice book of these a decade or two ago entitled, I think, > "An > > Exhaltation Of Larks"... if you're interested. > > Thanks. The site I mentioned lists that and a few more ... Exaltation of Larks is generally considered one of those "must haves" for this sort of thing. The problem with dictionaries like the OED is that they won't put anything in unless it is absolutely authoratitive, but in the case of these sorts of terms sometimes they aren't authoritative in the sense of having specific citations at hand. That's why books like Lipton's are so valuable--they cover the areas where dictionaries often fall down. For example, Dictionary.com has clowder, sloth (not sleuth, but that's one of the ones that's somewhat in dispute), skulk and shrewdness. But The American Heritage Dictionary that they use doesn't have the same vetting process as the OED has, so in this case it's actually a better tool. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:29:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: RE: Prides and clowders On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Marc Alberts wrote: > Most people don't have chances to describe sleuths of bears, crashes of > rhinos or clowders of cats, but at least in the 1800s knowing that those > were the correct terms was a sign of being an educated gentleman. This, I think, is the crux of it. If poor folks come up with new word usages they think are clever, it's "slang". If a bunch of bored rich people do it, it's "accepted usage". Even after a hundred years of the latter going mostly unused except as the answers to trivia questions. a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:41:10 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Invisible Hitchcock and Fallen Angel Bachman, Michael wrote: >> >> I jut picked up the DVD BBC documentary: Gram Parsons....Fallen Angel. Stewart Came back with: >Is this the one based on the research done by Sid Griffin? Sid's talks >about Gram are fascinating. It's the 2004 BBC backed documentary filmed by a German. I believe he had some of Sid's research. The DVD include bits that weren't in the BBC documentary, such as what became of Gram's sister Avis. Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:40:10 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: Prides and clowders Aaron Mandel wrote: > > Most people don't have chances to describe sleuths of bears, crashes of > > rhinos or clowders of cats, but at least in the 1800s knowing that those > > were the correct terms was a sign of being an educated gentleman. > > This, I think, is the crux of it. If poor folks come up with new word > usages they think are clever, it's "slang". If a bunch of bored rich > people do it, it's "accepted usage". Even after a hundred years of the > latter going mostly unused except as the answers to trivia questions. I don't think it's exactly divided like that. It a way, both slang and "accepted usage venereal terms" (yup, that's the word for it) are elitist, meant to define a given class and understanding the terms were/are a sign of belonging to that class. The difference instead is that educated English gentry conquered the world, not poor folks, and as such having a comprehension of "refined" literature during the Victorian era meant having these sorts of terms drilled into your head. If you wanted to be with the "in" crowd, you needed to know these terms because in the end, it's not who comes up with the term but who accepts the term that matters. So I'd amend your statement to say if poor folks accept a term, it's slang; if rich folks do and codify it, it's accepted usage. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:05:22 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Prides and clowders On 6/26/06, Aaron Mandel wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Marc Alberts wrote: > > > Most people don't have chances to describe sleuths of bears, crashes of > > rhinos or clowders of cats, but at least in the 1800s knowing that those > > were the correct terms was a sign of being an educated gentleman. > > This, I think, is the crux of it. If poor folks come up with new word > usages they think are clever, it's "slang". How about "a stickering of stock-cars"? And I do think it would have to be "a pride of rednecks." Actually I'm not sure that all of those terms are archaic gentlemanly terms: some, I suspect, are hunting terms...and may well be in use among, say, poor Southern hunters. Certainly they have their specialized lingo. But your point is, of course, correct: "Accepted usage" means the usage accepted among the literate, and typically wealthy, classes. And that gets to Cap's point about dictionaries: they are best regarded as repositories of the way words are used among a certain group of people, not as the last word on what words might mean or the way (some other group of) people actually use them. Have dictionaries and usage guides finally figured out that "alright" means something completely different from "all right" and ought not, therefore, to be regarded as a misspelling? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:28:19 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: Prides and clowders Jeff wrote: > How about "a stickering of stock-cars"? And I do think it would have to be > "a pride of rednecks." "A stickering of stock-cars" definitely works for me, but I think "a plug of rednecks" would be better, referring to the plug of chewing tobbacky that the hillbillies always had in Bugs Bunny cartoons. Granted, hillbillies and rednecks are not necessarily the same groups, but I for one don't want to be the one to hide behind the stand of bamboo observing the differences.... > > Actually I'm not sure that all of those terms are archaic gentlemanly > terms: > some, I suspect, are hunting terms...and may well be in use among, say, > poor > Southern hunters. Certainly they have their specialized lingo. Most all of the terms are indeed hunting terms, but originating from the English country hunts--hounds, red coats, horses, etc. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:57:44 +0100 From: hssmrg@bath.ac.uk Subject: Re: You ain't going nowhere; terms of venery; etc Quoting fegmaniax-digest : > fegmaniax-digest Saturday, June 24 2006 Volume 15 : Number 146 * All you fegs who are waiting for my report of the Leeds gig might as well give up. I was relying on my stepdaughter to get me a ticket. Not only did she get me a ticket, she sold it to someone else at the last minute, leaving me no time to make alternative arrangements. Bah! > Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:01:51 -0700 > Subject: Re: more than one raven > On 6/22/06, Carrie Galbraith wrote: >> It's a Bevy of Quail, an Unkindness of Ravens and a Parliament of >> Owls (and yes, a Murder of Crows).>> - c From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" > Possibly more to the point, why the hell do different bird species warrant > so many differing and esoteric collective names, whereas most other animals > are just "bunches" or "groups" or "herds"? I mean, sure, you have your pods > of whales, your prides of lions, etc., but that's not nearly so roccoco (for > example, most fish groups are schools, which, although a little odd, doesn't > vary by species). Where'd this whole convention come from? - -Rx * These are "terms of venery" which should be available on google. T H White's "The once and future king" has a fascinating section where the Wart becomes a falcon (or a hawk) and most of these terms originate in the "sport" of falconry. > On 6/23/06, wojbearpig wrote: >> 29. You Ain't Goin' Nowhere (w/Robyn Hitchcock and Billy Bragg)> >> Yeee haw!> - -Rx * On 30th April 2006 David Lewis, Richard Malandrone and I added yet another version of this song to the canon ... > Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:08:22 -0400 > From: "Bachman, Michael" > Subject: RE: Invisible Hitchcock and Fallen Angel > I jut picked up the DVD BBC documentary: Gram Parsons....Fallen > Angel. I had no idea the amount of footage that was available of the > Burritos > and Gram. It was an extremely well done documentary with > interviews from > Keith Richards, Emmylou Harris, Chris Hillman, > Peter Buck, Steve Earle, > Dwight Yoakum and Parsons family > members and friends. A must buy for even the > casual Gram fan. Michael B. * Is the bloke still turning out those sensational suits? I want one just like the one that Chris Ethridge was wearing... - - Mike "nearly saw RH-3 again" Godwin n.p. The Kinks "Autumn Almanac" PS "Sparrowhawks, Ma'am" - Arthur Wellesley, D of W ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:03:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Prides and clowders On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, 2fs wrote: > But your point is, of course, correct: "Accepted usage" means the usage > accepted among the literate, and typically wealthy, classes. Absolutely. Too bad people don't understand that and think either that it's the only acceptable usage, on the one hand, or that it is somehow WRONG to recognize that there *is* a "standard" form of the language, on the other. (I guess some think "standard" means "only correct" or "better" when really it should just be a descriptive. This must be why the Seattle School District recently tried to say the whole concept of "standard English" is racist...) > And that gets to Cap's point about dictionaries: they are best regarded as > repositories of the way words are used among a certain group of people, not > as the last word on what words might mean or the way (some other group of) > people actually use them. Yep, although they've been getting better. > Have dictionaries and usage guides finally figured out that "alright" means > something completely different from "all right" and ought not, therefore, to > be regarded as a misspelling? AHD4 has, to a degree. Look up "alright" and it will send you to the usage note at "all right," which says "Despite the appearance of the form alright in works of such well-known writers as Langston Hughes and James Joyce, the single word spelling has never been accepted as standard. This is peculiar, since similar fusions such as already and altogether have never raised any objections. The difference may lie in the fact that already and altogether became single words back in the Middle Ages, whereas alright has only been around for a little more than a century and was called out by language critics as a misspelling. Consequently, one who uses alright, especially in formal writing, runs the risk that readers may view it as an error or as the willful breaking of convention." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:18:02 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: FW: You ain't going nowhere; terms of venery; etc >> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:08:22 -0400 >> From: "Bachman, Michael" >> Subject: RE: Invisible Hitchcock and Fallen Angel >> I jut picked up the DVD BBC documentary: Gram Parsons....Fallen >> Angel. I had no idea the amount of footage that was available of the >> Burritos and Gram. It was an extremely well done documentary with >>interviews from > Keith Richards, Emmylou Harris, Chris Hillman, >> Peter Buck, Steve Earle, > Dwight Yoakum and Parsons family >> members and friends. A must buy for even the >> casual Gram fan. Michael B. MG : >* Is the bloke still turning out those sensational suits? I want one >just like the one that Chris Ethridge was wearing... The Nudie suits? Yeah, the Hispanic guy that worked for Nudie and designed the Nudie suits for Gram, both Chris's and Sneaky Pete has his own shop now. He was interviewed for the documentary. He went into detail on the design of Gram's suit. Chris Ethridge pops up a lot throughout the documentary with insightful comments. Michael B. NP X - More Fun In The New World ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:28:16 -0700 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: Prides and clowders On 6/26/06, Marc Alberts wrote: > > > "A stickering of stock-cars" definitely works for me, but I think "a plug > of > rednecks" would be better, referring to the plug of chewing tobbacky that > the hillbillies always had in Bugs Bunny cartoons. Not JUST in Bugs Bunny cartoons. > Granted, hillbillies and > rednecks are not necessarily the same groups, No, but you can be a hillbilly without the Skoal. A redneck, maybe not. Maybe it's different these days, though. I haven't had to visit a high school restroom in my old home town for the past 17 years or so, but back then the stuff was smeared all over every available surface, or abandoned in Coke cans right beside the toilet. Easier to get away with than actually smoking in the boys' room, I suppose. - -SER ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:00:44 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Prides and clowders Marc Alberts wrote: > Exaltation of Larks is generally considered one of those "must > haves" for > this sort of thing. The problem with dictionaries like the OED is > that they > won't put anything in unless it is absolutely authoratitive I've been told that they're still rejecting "a crank of Eb's." Two weekend disappointments: the new Built to Spill album (this band was never more than "borderline" with me but, boy, the new album is DULL...sounds more like a bad Feelies record) and Terry Gilliam's "The Brothers Grimm." Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:06:36 -0400 From: "Sarah Jones" Subject: RE: FW: You ain't going nowhere; terms of venery; etc >From: "Bachman, Michael" >Reply-To: "Bachman, Michael" >To: "Vanished Like The Trilobite (E-mail)" >Subject: FW: You ain't going nowhere; terms of venery; etc >Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:18:02 -0400 > > >> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:08:22 -0400 > >> From: "Bachman, Michael" > >> Subject: RE: Invisible Hitchcock and Fallen Angel > >> I jut picked up the DVD BBC documentary: Gram Parsons....Fallen > >> Angel. I had no idea the amount of footage that was available of the > >> Burritos and Gram. It was an extremely well done documentary with > >>interviews from > Keith Richards, Emmylou Harris, Chris Hillman, > >> Peter Buck, Steve Earle, > Dwight Yoakum and Parsons family > >> members and friends. A must buy for even the > >> casual Gram fan. Michael B. > >MG : > >* Is the bloke still turning out those sensational suits? I want one > >just like the one that Chris Ethridge was wearing... > >The Nudie suits? Yeah, the Hispanic guy that worked for Nudie and designed >the >Nudie suits for Gram, both Chris's and Sneaky Pete has his own shop now. He >was >interviewed for the documentary. He went into detail on the design of >Gram's >suit. Chris Ethridge pops up a lot throughout the documentary with >insightful >comments. > >Michael B. The shop ia in Memphis and the taylors name is Manuel, he is a hoot, I have a friend who has five or six of his suits Sar xx > >NP Nice Cheekbones and a PHD - The Posies _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:51:46 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Prides and clowders On 6/26/06, Eb wrote: > > Marc Alberts wrote: > > Exaltation of Larks is generally considered one of those "must > > haves" for > > this sort of thing. The problem with dictionaries like the OED is > > that they > > won't put anything in unless it is absolutely authoratitive > > I've been told that they're still rejecting "a crank of Eb's." The problem there isn't with the Plurality of Collective-Noun Recognizers' Board, it's with the Vigilante League Against Needless Apostrophes. - --one of a verbosity of Jeffs... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:40:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Prides and clowders 2fs wrote: > --one of a verbosity of Jeffs... not to be confused with a folly of Geoffs. "A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer." -- Mitch Hedberg "For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk. And we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together. To build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking. And it's greatest failures by NOT talking. It doesn't have to be like this! Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking. -- Stephen W. Hawking . Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:44:36 +0100 From: "Matthijs van Geldere" Subject: Robyn Hitchcock / Leicester-Birmingham video http://www.murmurs.com/torrents/torrents-details.php?id=163 Let's start with the bad news: unfortunately I was stupid enough to leave my minidisc recorder at home, so unfortunately I haven't taped the Leicester and Birmingham shows... However, I have used my Minolta photo camera to tape 35 minutes of the shows which includes a new Robyn Hitchcock song (New York Doll) and a (as far as I know) the first good quality video (since it was outdoors!) of Peter Buck playing drums on Listening To The Higsons. Sounds quality is quite bad (or average for the more quiet songs) as the microphone in the photocamera isn't particulary good quality. Enjoy! Cheers Matthijs 2006-06-23 - Robyn Hitchcock & Minus 3 - Leicester - Charlotte 01. Ole Tarantula 02. Creeped Out 03. In A Lonely Coffin 2006-06-24 - Robyn Hitchcock & Minus 3 - Birmingham - MAC Theatre 04. Sally Was Legend 05. Birds Head 06. Jewels For Sophia 07. Madonna Of The Wasps 08. Aw Shit Man 09. It's Not Dark Yet 10. Queen Of Eyes 11. New York Doll Part 1 12. New York Doll Part 2 13. Listening To The Higsons ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:33:02 -0700 From: Eb Subject: File under: Bands you didn't expect to see promoted on CNN http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/music.residents.reut/ index.html ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V15 #148 ********************************