From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V15 #289 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, November 29 2006 Volume 15 : Number 289 Today's Subjects: ----------------- NEW on DIME: Robyn Hitchcock & The Venus Three 2006-11-25 Seattle [wojbea] Re: A to Z [kevin ] Re: A to Z [2fs ] Re: A to Z [Eb ] Re: more Robyn on the radio [Ms Janice M Hermann ] Re: Reap [Jeff Dwarf ] A = Suprise; B = Not Surprise ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] Re: A to Z [kevin ] Re: A to Z [kevin ] Die, Pitchfork, Die! [FSThomas ] Re: A to Z [kevin ] RE: A to Z [kevin ] Re: A to Z [kevin ] Re: A to Z [2fs ] Re: A to Z ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] Re: Burns, Ups and Downs, Zevon [grutness@slingshot.co.nz] Re: Newb needs lift to Croc show ["randalljr" ] Re: Lallans [hssmrg@bath.ac.uk] Reap ["Michael Godwin" ] Re: Reap [kevin ] Re: E-mail sign offs [great white shark ] Re: E-mail sign offs [2fs ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:08:32 -0500 From: wojbearpig Subject: NEW on DIME: Robyn Hitchcock & The Venus Three 2006-11-25 Seattle http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=123224&hit=1 - ----- Forwarded message from DIME ----- A new torrent has been uploaded to DIME. Torrent: 123224 Title: Robyn Hitchcock & The Venus Three 2006-11-25 Seattle Size: 826.29 MB Category: Alternate Uploaded by: gilde Description - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robyn Hitchcock & The Venus 3 2006-11-25 Seattle, WA Easy Street Records (3pm Show) 01 announcements 02 talk 03 Adventure Rocket Ship 04 talk 05 Sally Was A Legend 06 talk 07 Ole! Tarantula 08 Viva Sea-Tac 09 Queen Of Eyes 10 What Goes On 11 When I Was A Kid 12 Beautiful Queen The Crocodile (11pm Show) 13 talk 14 Adventure Rocket Ship 15 In The Afterlife 16 Sally Was A Legend 17 Ole! Tarantula 18 Propeller Time 19 Queen Of Eyes 20 Ballad Of A Thin Man 21 Jewels For Sophia 01 Queen Elvis 02 Sometimes A Blonde 03 tuning 04 We Evolve 05 Vibrating 06 Flesh Number One (Beatle Dennis) 07 talk 08 What Do You Think About 09 If You Were A Priest 10 The Authority Box 11 tuning 12 Underground Sun 13 Madonna Of The Wasps 14 talk 15 (A Man's Gotta Know His Limitations) Briggs * First Encore: 16 talk 17 Eight Miles High *% 18 I Wanna Destroy You *% Second Encore: 19 talk 20 Give It To The Soft Boys % "What Goes On" is a VU song by Lou Reed d2t04, d2t18: guessed song titles The Venus 3: Peter Buck - guitar Scott McCaughey - bass Bill Rieflin - drums Guests: Sean Nelson - backing vocals on many songs during late show * Chris Ballew (from Presidents of the United States of America) - backing vocals and antics % John Ramberg (from Minus Five and Model Rockets) - lead guitar Schoeps MK-4 capsules > Active collette cables > Custom pre-amp / power supply > Sony SBM-1 A/D converter (with Oade line stage mod) > Sony TCD-D8 DAT at 44.1kHz Processed with Waves L1+ Ultramaximizer (limiter, dither, noise shaping) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:38:25 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: A to Z Iggy and >Ozzy, dey no count. The Ig counts for plenty with me, sorry. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:42:50 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: A to Z On 11/28/06, Eb wrote: > > > > the whole section of records with artists whose names start with > > "John" obviously DOES get separated into last name groupings... > > that's what happens when names match up to a certain point in an > > alphabetized system. John Brown goes after John Adams. No problem > > there. > > Right. So you're alphabetizing by last name anyway. Uh, so when normal, right-minded people such as yourself have records by Patti Smith and records by Jimmy Smith, who goes first? Jimmy Smith...because given the same surname, you then go to the first name. So if I wanted to, I could say "right - so you're alphabetizing by first name anyway." I don't suppose that occurred to you. > > > He clearly chose the name "Elvis" for the cultural context carried > > by the name and all things associated with the name. He picked it > > as much for its description of the artist from Tupelo as its > > association with all dross and dreck done in association with the > > name and the image. Filing Costello next to Hitler enriches that > > context and deepens the meaning. > > Few people besides you are "filing" Elvis Hitler at all anymore, so > the point is trivial. The whole issue is trivial. So? Do you have to make a war out of everything? Yeesh - Time's "Most Sensitive Spleen of the Year" award is yours, in a walk. > > But really, you should probably credit Arrested Development for the > > clever (and incessant) use of flashbacks before crap like Lost > > Yeah, because everyone wants to imitate shows which were a step from > being cancelled throughout their entire run. As if popularity = influence. You've probably heard of a little band called the Velvet Underground. Didn't sell much - nowadays, if they were on a major (even a mini-major like Verve was at the time), they'd've been dropped after the first album - but, uh, they seem to have had a minor bit of success in the influencing-other-bands department. Oh, never mind: you're right, and everyone else is wrong, and it's just not at all clear why those people think the way they do. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:46:39 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: A to Z 2fs wrote: >>> the whole section of records with artists whose names start with >>> "John" obviously DOES get separated into last name groupings... >>> that's what happens when names match up to a certain point in an >>> alphabetized system. John Brown goes after John Adams. No problem >>> there. >> >> Right. So you're alphabetizing by last name anyway. > > Uh, so when normal, right-minded people such as yourself have > records by > Patti Smith and records by Jimmy Smith, who goes first? Jimmy > Smith...because given the same surname, you then go to the first name. > > So if I wanted to, I could say "right - so you're alphabetizing by > first > name anyway." > > I don't suppose that occurred to you. Presumably you're arguing here just for the sake of arguing with me, rather than because you'd actually like to stick up for filing by first name. > So? Do you have to make a war out of everything? Yeesh - Time's "Most > Sensitive Spleen of the Year" award is yours, in a walk. Further evidence. > Oh, never mind: you're right, and everyone else is wrong, and it's > just not > at all clear why those people think the way they do. Further. Thanks for your thoughts, Wingman. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:45:39 -0500 (EST) From: Ms Janice M Hermann Subject: Re: more Robyn on the radio This was not a big deal. It seems "Jim" was not that informed about Robyn and was not a great choice to interview him. Sad. But, there were some humorous moments! wojbearpig wrote: >------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - >This message is from fegmaniax-announce -- a moderated "news and reviews" >list culled from fegmaniax -- the Robyn Hitchcock discussion list. Please >don't report this as spam since you signed up for it. To unsubscribe, >send a note to majordomo@smoe.org that says "unsubscribe fegmaniax-announce" >in the message body and you will be automagically removed. >------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - > >one time at band camp, Brenda Sledge (robcow909@earthlink.net) said: > >>This evening, between 8 and 11 EST, on Y-Rock/XPN--it says it is an >>interview so there may not be any live music. > >turned out to be a short interview segment with one live acoustic song >("nietzche's way") and two album tracks ("adventure rocket ship" and >"balloon man"). i grabbed the high-bitrate mp3 stream and will have the >interview segments and live song uploaded shortly.... > >woj > NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended only for the use of the Individual(s) or Entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use, dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender by replying to this message and delete the e-mail from your system. When responding to this communication, remember that it could be lost in transit and viewed by a party other than the addressee. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:36:52 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Reap Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > > those two *things* crawling above her nose, where > > normal people have eyes? > > I'm not sure Anderson is, nor has ever been, by any > reasonable measure, homo sapien. I remember seeing a picture of her taken pre-surgery. She was actually pretty cute. She really shouldn't have started picking plastic surgeons based on which coupons she had picked out from the Sunday LA, erm (what's the LA equivolent of the NY Post?). "I believe in the marketplace of ideas even if the other guy doesn't have any." -- Keith Olbermann . Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:57:02 -0800 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: A = Suprise; B = Not Surprise A) Another timely dispatch from the forgotten '80's: Surprisingly, Wah! Heat seems to have at least some musical merits beyond being a footnote in the Bunnymen/Teardrops saga. Is there any way to actually confirm this, by, say, hearing recordings of them which are less than 75% surface noise from an old 7"? B) Robert Hilburn's sporadic return to the LA Times, writing a column on reissues, is yielding Big Laff Dividends. Best feature is how he tries to 'splain teh internets to... hippies. I guess... as if he's just brought the Commandments down from the mountain, but he also scored big today by using his scant column-inches on the Jesus & Mary Chain to compare them to one artist and one artist only... hint: rhymes with Schmoose Lingscreen. Also cool how he felt the need to introduce the Clash to the mainstream, today, by recommending their new singles box set as an excellent starting point. Awesome. Happies, - -SER ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:46:06 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Not one for passing links, but.... ...has to be seen to be believed.... http://youtube.com/watch?v=u9dhO0iCLww - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:49:00 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: A to Z I'll see yer Iggy and raise ya an Agnostic Front... dammit, I say "Iggy" counts as second-letter-g unless a better artist can be found. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:04:53 -0500 (EST) From: kevin Subject: Re: A to Z Surprised nobody's suggested filing Elvis Costello under M (or D) for Declan McManus... - -----Original Message----- >From: Capuchin >Sent: Nov 28, 2006 1:59 AM >To: fgz >Subject: Re: A to Z > >On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Eb wrote: >>> Eb wrote: >>>> Iggy and Ozzy, dey no count. >>> Raw Power _was_ credited to Iggy & The Stooges, not to >>> just the The Stooges.... >> >> Who do you know who filed it under "I"? > >Me. > >I also keep Tanya Donnelly and The Decemberists under "T", so I know I'm >bucking convention. > >But really, it's hard to argue for a surname organization scheme unless >you're very concerned with understanding the actual parentage of the >participants so as not to do too much inbreeding (or you're extremely >patriarchal). And I can't understand any reasoning that puts Elvis >Costello under "C" rather than where the conscious choice of name intended >him to be placed: right next to Elvises Presley and Hitler. Iggy Pop also >wasn't chosen so that the man could be referenced as "Mr. Pop" or "Pop, >Iggy". You lose the spirit of the thing when you do that. > >So, anybody got some non-stupid reasoning for filing people by their last >names? Sure, you get lucky with someone like Morrissey, but end up fucked >when someone like Madonna or Cher (or maybe someone of lesser stature) >chooses to use their full name. > >J. >-- >_______________________________________________ > >Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin >_______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:07:28 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Die, Pitchfork, Die! http://www.slate.com/id/2154469 Die, Pitchfork, Die! The indie music site that everyone loves to hate. By Matthew Shaer Posted Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006, at 7:26 AM ET In July of this year, Bill Baird, a musician for an Austin outfit called Sound Team, drove out to a park near his home, slapped a sign with his band's name onto the chest of a life-size dummy, and stabbed the thing with a giant pitchfork. Then, as a friend filmed the action, Baird threw the dummy off a giant cliff. Later, he set it on fire. The next day, he posted the 51-second clip on YouTube. The impetus for the whole stunt was a 3.7 out of 10 review from online music magazine Pitchfork Media, which had described Sound Team's major-label debut as having "a shortage of, like, actual songs." Pitchfork is often compared to Rolling Stone in its prime: a music journal that is single-handedly revolutionizing music journalism. That's a stretch, but Pitchfork does resemble its glossy ancestor in one particular way: attracting haters in astonishing numbers. Some people despise Pitchfork because it's too verbose, or too brutal, or they just don't like how the site dismisses established artists because it can. The Web contains large-scale Pitchfork parodies, statistical studies of Pitchfork's review history, and an eloquent, oft-quoted post from writer Daniel Taylor titled "Pitchfork Media Can Suck My Cock." Even venerable indie record label Sub Pop took their shot. The Pitchfork haters, of course, only help their enemy. Pitchfork's founder, Ryan Schreiber, and his fellow editors can post album and track reviews earlier than most publications and at a greater velocity. They accumulate an incredible amount of wordage each week. But non-Pitchfork bloggers are the real engines of the site's influence. Pitchfork's traffic is modestbaround 1.5 million unique visitors a monthband it needs help to spread its gospel. Grand critical gestures, therefore, become essential. So does eliciting responses from people like the members of Sound Team. If a review is provocative enough, music geeks will pick up on it. By the time, say, a record-store owner gets around to weighing in on a band, a summary judgment has already been passed online. The phenomenon has a name: the Pitchfork Effect. Pitchfork needs to provoke to surviveba strategy that arguably extends to publishing verbose and unreadable writing. Schreiber has admitted that he trusts writers to "their own style and presentation," but there's not much that can excuse the writing in this 2004 review: "The epic 'Visiting Friends' gathers in faceless, mutated ghosts (i.e., oddly manipulated vocalizations from the duo) to hover over their dying fire in visage of nothing better than the tops of trees." Or this 2003 take on a TV on the Radio disc: "Bands have played up singers in the past, but here, the single-minded focus of every musical element seems designed purely to elevate the vocal melodies out of the realm of the merely 'real' and into the hyper-real. b& Without hyperbole, the effect is electrifyingly direct, nearly mesmerizing, and nothing quite like anything else I can recall." Clearly, this is prose that hasn't been, like, edited. It's dense without being insightful, personal without being interesting. In the realm of Pitchfork, though, a writer being obtuse and personal has a similar effect to that of a writer being deliberately confrontational: It's good for business. As the popularity of political blogs has proven, informal, intimate writing can often trump serious, "public" writing. Schrieber's big wager is that music journalism should be an even more intimate affair than politicsbthat musical taste is deeply idiosyncratic and that writing about music requires writers who are closely in touch with what makes a band or a song matter to them. Pitchfork's lucid reviewsbthe ones that go first-person without getting sentimentalbback this wager up. The best are cagey, fierce, witty, and graceful. Sure, if you read Pitchfork often, sooner or later you're going to end up gagging on a review in the form of a screenplay involving a tortoise and Achilles. But even if a review is poorly executed, the house still wins: You're more likely to remember the tortoise than that bland three-star blurb from Spin. Does this mean that everything Schreiber does with the site is couched in terms of reader reaction? Some suspect a larger agenda. Consider the case of the Cold War Kids. For a year, the California-based indie-rock quartet has been a blog favorite. This summer, even Rolling Stone had given the band a ringing endorsement. But Pitchfork, conspicuously, remained silent. When the site finally waded into the furor over the band in October, it was to deliver a withering 5.0 takedown of the Kids' debut full-length, which reviewer Marc Hogan* called derivative and superficial. Hogan's review was seen by many in the blogosphere as evidence of Pitchfork's agenda not only to dominate the critical consensus over a record but to control the fate of the band itself. As an editor at the Music Slut wrote to me in an e-mail, "[Pitchfork] purposely wait[s] to review an album to see how the bloggers respond before they form their opinion." In the case of the Cold War Kids, the editor explained, Pitchfork avoided competing with the blog buzz and managed to chime in just as the inevitable backlash had begun. Although the idea that a bunch of shaggy-haired dudes in Chicago would attempt to steer the fate of indie rock seems unlikely, these conspiracy theories have traction on the Web. This is partly because Pitchfork writers are predictable: Typicallybbut not alwaysbthe big temples are defiled, the blog favorites are knocked down a couple of notches, and bands that Pitchfork has "discovered" are praised unto high heaven. In interviews, Schreiber has said his objective has always been to support the kinds of music that need to be supported and to make music fans question their allegiances. These are noble if vague goals, and to a certain extent, Pitchfork fulfills them. Altruism, though, doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of a political agendaba provocation aimed not at readers, but at the music scene at large. What else is a 3.3 review of an otherwise-lauded Dandy Warhols album than an attempt to poke holes in an established critical consensus? In this case, it's the numbers that speak volumes and not the writing. A recent post on the blog Crooked Timber opined thusly: "[Pitchfork's writers] want to preserve their own role as b& arbiters of taste." Therefore, Schreiber must continually "inject certain amounts of aesthetic uncertainty into the marketplace, by deliberately writing reviews which suggest that bad artists are good, or that good artists are bad." In that case, there's only way to cancel out the Pitchfork Effect: Read a different Web site. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:07:46 -0500 (EST) From: kevin Subject: Re: A to Z File under P. Or W for Billy. I still don't know how I should refer to >(The) Smashing Pumpkins.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:20:57 -0500 (EST) From: kevin Subject: RE: A to Z Squirrel Nut Zippers count as a Z? - -----Original Message----- >From: matt sewell >Sent: Nov 28, 2006 12:54 PM >To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: RE: A to Z > >Must say I'm surprised not to see any Warren Zevon in the Zs - it's not all >Zappa y'know... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:40:16 -0500 (EST) From: kevin Subject: Re: A to Z Seem to recall that Verve's clout came from being a division of MGM, still a Major Motion Picture Studio at that time, and mostly devoted to original soundtrack albums...with their big attempts to get into the hip market being VU and the Mothers Of Invention. Am I near the mark? nowadays, if they were on a major (even a mini-major like Verve >was at the time) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:52:33 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: A to Z On 11/28/06, kevin wrote: > > Seem to recall that Verve's clout came from being a division of MGM, still > a Major Motion Picture Studio at that time, and mostly devoted to original > soundtrack albums...with their big attempts to get into the hip market being > VU and the Mothers Of Invention. Am I near the mark? > > nowadays, if they were on a major (even a mini-major like Verve > >was at the time) Verve was primarily a jazz label up to the early '60s or so. It's rather odd that both VU and Zappa debuted on Verve...given their fearlessness in the face of "decency," and given that MGM/Verve was later notorious, under boss Mike Curb, for trying to singlehandedly make rock safe for the suburban homestead. The point, though, was that Verve was a relatively powerful entity - even though it's hard to compare then to now, because the industry is so different, if in nothing else but sheer numbers. The quaint idea that everything is "product," and that someone who had successfully sold lots of toasters was thereby qualified to sell lots of records, had not yet taken hold, labels (particularly smaller ones like Verve) being run by musicians, arrangers, producers, etc. Labels themselves tended to be independent in the sense of not being in the business of selling things other than music, or were affiliated with other cultural products (such as movies, in the case of MGM). The notion that a beverage company or munitions manufacturer would want to own a record company would have to wait for our enlightened age. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:59:20 -0800 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: A to Z On 11/28/06, kevin wrote: > > Seem to recall that Verve's clout came from being a division of MGM, still > a Major Motion Picture Studio at that time, and mostly devoted to original > soundtrack albums... ...and hells of jazz, yeah? Stuff that's turned into a mini-empire of hipster-targeted remix records over the past five years or so? Not my strong suit, but hey. Happies, SER ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:20:03 +1300 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: Re: Burns, Ups and Downs, Zevon >The words of Robbie Burns are always welcome 'round these parts... one of the founders of the city where I live was his nephew, Thomas Burns. Because of that, we get inundated with Burns-related stuff, especially every January 25 (Burns Night) > > >Ups And Downs, The >> >> I thought I was the only person on the planet to have heard of these >> guys! Any idea whether the "Sleepless" EP has ever been released on > > CD? > >Ha. Yeah, that's one that SEVERELY fell through the gap, eh? One of >my all timers, that one. Ups & Downs.[...] > >Back to Big Heavy Stuff. You know that band I'd reckon as well, eh, >James? They were spotty up to their Size Of The Ocean release about >five years ago but that one, man! Size Of The Ocean slots in nicely >w/Sleepless. Heavier stuff, yeah, gone the *abject* jangle and chime >once Ups & Downs, gone too the dink once Big Heavy Stuff ...but... >those atmospherics as SO there. BHS fully realised thier full >potential w/that release! Us and Ds as well kind of jettisoned said >abject jangle and chime after their Sleepless phase. Their Underneath >The Watchful Eye was a huge departure from all that. Began sounding a >little too Midnight Oil for my ears. But man, what a run -for me >anyway- that band had in their heyday. > >There's songs o'er that Myspace thing. > >http://www.myspace.com/upsanddownsau > thanks for all that info - I only know them from Sleepless and under the Watchful Eye. I discoverd them when i was going through my heavy Church phase and they slotted right in with that. Didn't know they were still together that recently. I shall have to investigate further. >On 11/28/06, matt sewell wrote: >> >> Must say I'm surprised not to see any Warren Zevon in the Zs - it's not >> all >> Zappa y'know... Since at the beginning everyone was listing by first name (and I followed suit) he got narrowly beaten out by the Who on my list. Zevon's considerably ahead of Zappa for me. 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: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:34:47 -0800 From: "randalljr" Subject: Re: Newb needs lift to Croc show Eb, don't leave the list. We need all the Rush fans that are left. Vince ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:56:46 +0000 From: hssmrg@bath.ac.uk Subject: Re: Lallans O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us It wad frae monie a blunder free us An' foolish notion What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us An' ev'n Devotion "This last verse contains the often quoted lines and shows Burns depth of understanding of human nature. Note the capital P in Pow'r denoting God". Did you ever have a copy of that Bible translated into Lallans, Stewart? - - Mike "sleekit cow'ring beastie" Godwin n.p. The Great Banana Hoax - Electric Prunes PS I see another cheese-eating surrender monkey country has just joined the international community with the recognition of Quebec as a nation. Any comments from above the 49th Parallel? PPS Will check the Record Collector website for that list, Eb. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:19:59 -0000 From: "Michael Godwin" Subject: Reap Alan Freeman, traditional BBC disc jockey http://news.bbc.co.uk/. The only time I saw Fluff on stage was in a charity show featuring Donovan and the excitingly named Middle of the Road, who performed their hits 'Tweedledee and Tweedledum' and 'Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep'. Donovan was promoting 'Cosmic Wheels' and regrettably sang 'The Intergalactic Laxative' as well as the title track. Alan Freeman was dressed in idiotic flared purple two-tone strides. What year must it have been? Mid-70s anyway. - - Mike Godwin n.p. Donovan 'Sailing Homeward' PS Note my new broadband e-mail address... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 01:48:10 -0500 (EST) From: kevin Subject: Re: Reap Pretty sure "Cosmic Wheels" was 1972. - -----Original Message----- >From: Michael Godwin >Sent: Nov 28, 2006 6:19 AM >To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: Reap > >Alan Freeman, traditional BBC disc jockey http://news.bbc.co.uk/. The only >time I saw Fluff on stage was in a charity show featuring Donovan and the >excitingly named Middle of the Road, who performed their hits 'Tweedledee >and Tweedledum' and 'Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep'. Donovan was promoting >'Cosmic Wheels' and regrettably sang 'The Intergalactic Laxative' as well as >the title track. Alan Freeman was dressed in idiotic flared purple two-tone >strides. What year must it have been? Mid-70s anyway. > >- Mike Godwin > >n.p. Donovan 'Sailing Homeward' > >PS Note my new broadband e-mail address... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:17:04 +1030 From: great white shark Subject: Re: E-mail sign offs Oh yeah, heres my sign offs I usually sign off with " get fucked you bastard " or possibly the more polite form " get fucked you dickhead " if I feel well disposed towards the addressee. of course they consider me a bit posh over here , being a pom and all ! der kommander down under > E-Mail sign-offs > > Hi, > > the other day I read this NYT article: > > > > It's about the way people end e-mails, mostly in business settings. > I was > surprised that among the many exampes given, both good and bad, > there were > none that I commonly use. Now I wonder if it's really me being out > of touch > or whether all these people are just over the top. > > I've never used "Best", "Warmly" or "xoxo"! I use "Cheers" or > "Greetings" > in casual mails and "Kind regards" when it's supposed to be more > formal. > > So, what do you all use? I don't think I have seen many sign-off on- > list > but I suppose that's only natural. > > Your humble servant, Sebastian > - -- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:22:26 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: E-mail sign offs On 11/29/06, great white shark wrote: I usually sign off with " get fucked you bastard " or possibly the > more polite form " get fucked you dickhead " if I feel well disposed > towards the addressee. Has anyone ever thanked you for the good advice? "Yep - I took your advice, got fucked - and man do I feel better for it!" Anyway: the whole "sign-off" thing's a bit of a mystery for me. In both my work and social e-mails, my "sign-off" is a short line of hyphens, followed by my signature block. I've never felt the need for a perfunctory closing. Maybe I should work on something. Perfunctorily, - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V15 #289 ********************************