From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #7 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, January 11 2007 Volume 16 : Number 007 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: why 2007 may be the best year ever ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] Re: Dolls [Eb ] Re: The Big Problem Does Not Equal the Solution. The Solution = Let It Be. ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] Re: Dolls ["Spotted Eagle Ray" ] Re: The Big Problem Does Not Equal the Solution. The Solution = Let It Be. [Eb ] Re: The Big Problem Does Not Equal the Solution. The Solution = Let It Be. [FSThomas ] Re: Dolls [Tom Clark ] Re: Dolls ["Maximilian Lang" ] Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame Induction Speech Predictions [HwyCDRrev@aol.com] Re: Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame Induction Speech Predictions [Jeff Dwarf ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:51:41 -0800 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: why 2007 may be the best year ever On 1/10/07, Bri N wrote: > > > It's been said before: Rex, you are ruining your rep as a nice guy. Yeah, I've heard that before, but... why do I get penalized for having started out "nice"? Is it better for someone who starts off as a jerk to stay that way? This really puzzles me. It doesn't seem that a rep as a nice guy is much good to begin with. - -SER ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:45:50 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: why 2007 may be the best year ever Eb writes, > Awhile back, I brainstormed a list of eligible acts from my own > collection who seem most "ready" to be in the HoF, > Genesis > Peter Gabriel > Yes > The Moody Blues > Todd Rundgren > Jethro Tull > Captain Beefheart Hmmm... And of course, I would add Rush. It's ridiculous not to add Rush, even if you loathe them. Jesus, Eb. For fuck's sake. But -- something in common with this list? Jann Wenner, you suck! - --Disappointed Prog Fan in Brooklyn ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:55:19 -0600 From: "Gene Hopstetter Jr." Subject: Re: why 2007 may be the best year ever On Jan 10, 2007, at 3:46 PM, fegmaniax-digest wrote: > Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:22:34 -0600 > From: "Michael Wells" > Subject: RE: why 2007 may be the best year ever > > I'm most happy there's someone around them with a really good ear - > VAPOR TRAILS had stunning material, but the audio quality was for > shit (Gene, want to back me up on this?). Yep, Vapor Trails sounds like poo. On both CD and LP. I believe it was mastered way too hot (see ). I keep hearing rumors of a remaster (see ), but then, I used to hear rumors of reissues on SACD, too. I recently got a lossless copy of the MFSL Moving Pictures, and holy shit does it sound good. Another holy shit! Lerxst is gonna guest on the next Porcupine Tree album! With Robert Fripp! Holy shit! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:28:38 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: why 2007 may be the best year ever The Great Quail wrote: >> Awhile back, I brainstormed a list of eligible acts from my own >> collection who seem most "ready" to be in the HoF, > >> Genesis >> Peter Gabriel >> Yes >> The Moody Blues >> Todd Rundgren >> Jethro Tull >> Captain Beefheart > > Hmmm... And of course, I would add Rush. It's ridiculous not to add > Rush, > even if you loathe them. Jesus, Eb. For fuck's sake. Like I said, I only listed artists from my own collection. I don't own any Rush albums. If I was making an "overall omitted" list, I would rank a lot of other acts above the ones I named. I'm surprised Chicago hasn't been admitted, for instance. Not that I feel strongly enough about their music myself to even *dislike* them. Or...has KISS even been *nominated* yet? I never feel confident about making "overall" suggestions, because I simply don't have enough feel for those three-hit doo-wop acts the Hall loves to induct "on principle." I do think the Hall is way overdue to give a solid endorsement to "prog" beyond the "Well, they're SORTA prog" inclusions of Pink Floyd and Zappa. So, sure, Rush, the Moody Blues, Yes, Tull, Genesis...grab one of those..... But King Crimson or ELP doesn't seem realistic, at this point. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:37:52 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Dolls Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > Okay, once and for all-- and I don't know why you want to keep > forcing this > front and center-- I do not have any firsthand information that you > have > ever had a restraining order filed against you. Can we move on? That's a little better. Though you're still hedging your bet with the implication you have "secondhand information," when you don't even have that much. At best, you have someone or other feeding you malicious lies which you're all too eager to swallow. >> I honestly think that the reason that you're the one fuming and >>> exploding this time around, >> >> Uh, YEAH. Again, check the responses to Brian. > > I don't know what responses you mean there. I responded with something like "I don't think the solution could ever be that easy, but I'll give you five points for a good subject line." End of post. YOU responded with another long, shrill defense. >> Yes, I'm sure we can all tell from your posts (and expunged MySpace >> page) how happy you are. > > Second, the alleged "myspace" debacle is really just evidence of you > freakishly stalking *me*, so I'd drop that on fast, buddy. At the > time that > content was put up, the only way for anyone to find it would've > been if > they'd bookmarked it months earlier and were obsessively visiting > it for > some unfathomable reason. That is SUCH a retarded, hysterical reply. Your MySpace page had a very obvious URL, and I believe you've posted the URL before. Or if you haven't, you at least had posted your "Skates & Rays" URL, which readily linked to your personal page. No "stalking" or "obsession" was required -- you were fuming like a lunatic on the list, so I checked your MySpace page for the first time in ages, curious to see if your page reflected your deteriorated stability at all. It did...far more than I would have dreamed. > Bottom line: nobody, and I mean nobody at all, not even your pal > Quail, > buys the argument that I am unstable Wishful thinking, I suspect. And I can't imagine how you rule out Quail. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:54:36 -0800 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: The Big Problem Does Not Equal the Solution. The Solution = Let It Be. Oh, missed this one. Fun! Check the two responses to Brian. The difference between "succinct, > even-keel and good-humored" and "rambling, shrill and sniveling" is > illustrated once again. As well as the unlikelihood of Rex/Cathy > being able to ever close his emotional floodgates and stop bawling > about me. More like you're saving the savagery for the thread with the heading "Dolls" (which is kind of funny, actually). > The funny thing is that for all Rex's whining about me not inserting > enough "Hitch content," I have in recent days... 1) posted my > thoughts on Ole! Tarantula (which went totally unanswered), Sorry, didn't see that. 2) posted > a link to a large 2006 critics poll, noting Hitchcock's rank (which > went totally unanswered) So? More lists vomited by Eb during a year in which such lists are likely to include Robyn? You are truly Mr. On-Topic. and 3) inquired about recent Hitchcock songs > showcasing piano. A discussion to which I non-hysterically contributed, thanks. During the same period, Rex was mostly preoccupied > with flailing at me, my penis and the Dresden Dolls (the latter with > self-conscious intensity, in the hopes of upsetting me and/or my > penis). You sure do think a lot of yourself, and your penis. If I recall, most of my comments about the Dresden Dolls were in response to Woj, Sebastian, and a few others. And had to do with the band. I somehow manage to not confuse a band with its fans. > > I still wonder: How long does he have to go on irrationally squalling > before people start acknowledging just how badly "broken" he is? For that question, I'd have to be really doing so. By the same token, I tend to wonder how long you can go on railing at me without someone telling you to chill out. Oh, wait, people are doing that left and right. Never mind. Again you call for the masses to storm my castle with torches. I wonder why it isn't happening. Perhaps your exploding hysterical head is distracting them. (But > whatever you do, be sure not to call him immature, because to that's > the same as threatening to stalk his children.) Jeez. Do you really think I would have that reaction if that were said by someone other than a person bent on kicking me around? My discomfort with that comment of yours came not from its content, but the fact that it was you making it. Is anyone really > buying his intermittent pose about me being the one with the > "exploding head" who's escalating all the fights? You're sure not stopping them. And that's a dumb question to ask in a post where you use the same insults towards me again and again and again. For my money, "you no longer deserve to be on this list" and "it is unacceptable that his behavior is tolerated by the list" are THE most hyperbolic and histrionic things written in this exchange, if not the history of the list. Let's just remember > that this is the same twit who even tried to pick a fight simply > because I observed that people were agreeing with my points about the > last Sonic Youth album. Perfect example. I wasn't picking a fight. I was making fun of a stupid egocentric comment of yours. Your response of course was to trot out the "nutcase" insults. No escalation there, nosirree. Anyone who saw the death throes of Rex's shredded MySpace page knows > the REAL reason why he's locked in perpetual PMS. Christ. You know nothing about my actual life, however much energy you may have put into cyber-stalking me. 2719 Tesla in Silverlake, come on by and meet the wife and kids. I'll be home around 6 and we're having pork chops, I think. The most pivotal > exchange of this whole fight was him saying "Dude, you are not one of > my problems" and me answering "Perhaps not, but clearly I am the one > whom you take your problems OUT on." How is that pivotal? Because you thought you said something that you thought was clever and are now repeating it, leaving out my response? So you cut and paste your own innaccurate assertion from a previous e-mail into a new one, and that makes it more true? Mad debating skillz you got there. I know nobody else wants to be involved or even read any more of this, but can someone please tell this guy to knock it off with his bizarre assumptions that he knows what the hell is going on with my life, much less in my head? - -SER PS I actually think I glued the Neko Case CD somewhere around > 10:15pm. Is that early enough to avoid scorn from the Elmer's purists? Way to go, loser-- everyone knows it loses all collector's value without the original paper paste. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:56:41 -0800 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Go-Betweens lyrics Anyone know of a comprehensive lyrics site for the GB's? I'm (somewhat ironically) looking for "You Won't Find It Again"... - -SER ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:10:26 -0800 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: Dolls On 1/10/07, Eb wrote: > > Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > > That's a little better. Though you're still hedging your bet with the > implication you have "secondhand information," when you don't even > have that much. At best, you have someone or other feeding you > malicious lies which you're all too eager to swallow. Well, you'd have to frame your response that way, so that's about as far as either of us can take it. > > I responded with something like "I don't think the solution could > ever be that easy, but I'll give you five points for a good subject > line." End of post. YOU responded with another long, shrill defense. "Shrill" is unquantifiable. You've come to read everything I post as having that tone, regardless of my intention. Hell, you thought my responding to someone else, not you, about the Dresden Dolls, who are also not you, was about you. Alas, I have other interests. > That is SUCH a retarded, hysterical reply. Your MySpace page had a > very obvious URL, Who the HELL searches for mspace pages by *guessing the URL*? I got more than one response offlist from intelligent folk trying and failing to find what you were blathering about. and I believe you've posted the URL before. Bullshit. Never did. You know you did your own work to find it. Why? Or if > you haven't, you at least had posted your "Skates & Rays" URL, which > readily linked to your personal page. No, it wasn't, at the time you stalked over to it. You would have had to have bookmarked it before that. And really, why the hell would you go looking for the myspace page of people you alledgedly either hate or don't care about? No "stalking" or "obsession" > was required -- you were fuming like a lunatic on the list, so I > checked your MySpace page for the first time in ages, Right. curious to see > if your page reflected your deteriorated stability at all. It > did...far more than I would have dreamed. You put a LOT of effort into imagining my life. Gawd. Never thought that anyone else would see that page. Half doubted even the person it was intended for would find it. And for those who missed it, it consisted of about five lines of text saying essentially "if you're looking at this, get a life". > Bottom line: nobody, and I mean nobody at all, not even your pal > > Quail, > > buys the argument that I am unstable > > Wishful thinking, I suspect. And I can't imagine how you rule out Quail. Based on off-list communications. Quail's big enough to drop the extreme poses when push comes to shove. I am, too. Let's see you try it. - -SER ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:55:36 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: The Big Problem Does Not Equal the Solution. The Solution = Let It Be. Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > 2) posted >> a link to a large 2006 critics poll, noting Hitchcock's rank (which >> went totally unanswered) > > So? More lists vomited by Eb during a year in which such lists are > likely > to include Robyn? You are truly Mr. On-Topic. What a totally feeble dismissal. > During the same period, Rex was mostly preoccupied >> with flailing at me, my penis and the Dresden Dolls (the latter with >> self-conscious intensity, in the hopes of upsetting me and/or my >> penis). > > You sure do think a lot of yourself, and your penis. Again, just amazingly feeble. And if you want give yourself pause, total up how many references to my "johnson" you've recently made. You're in danger of turning even more homoerotic than Eddie, at this point. > If I recall, most of > my comments about the Dresden Dolls were in response to Woj, > Sebastian, and > a few others. And had to do with the band. Yes, but I doubt you would have hyperbolized with the ridiculous Weird Al comparisons, if not for your fervent hopes of irritating me. > By the same token, I > tend to wonder how long you can go on railing at me without someone > telling > you to chill out. Oh, wait, people are doing that left and right. Who's telling me to chill out who didn't phrase the objection in a "both of you" sense? >> whatever you do, be sure not to call him immature, because to that's >> the same as threatening to stalk his children.) > > Jeez. Do you really think I would have that reaction if that were > said by > someone other than a person bent on kicking me around? My > discomfort with > that comment of yours came not from its content, but the fact that > it was > you making it. Psychotic. "Eb picks on my mailing-list posts so, sure, he obviously could be a threat to my children." Nutjob logic. > For my > money, "you no longer deserve to be on this list" and "it is > unacceptable > that his behavior is tolerated by the list" are THE most hyperbolic > and > histrionic things written in this exchange, if not the history of > the list. Off-list, someone told me that I could take legal action against you for that restraining-order smear. > Let's just remember >> that this is the same twit who even tried to pick a fight simply >> because I observed that people were agreeing with my points about the >> last Sonic Youth album. > > Perfect example. I wasn't picking a fight. I was making fun of a > stupid > egocentric comment of yours. Oh, so "making fun of someone" isn't "picking a fight." I guess that just about absolves any post I've ever made against you. Thanks so much for that! And of course, the comment wasn't egocentric at all. If anything, I was poking fun at myself for having generic, status-quo opinions. And you're the squalling retard who decided that simply noting others had agreed with my Rather Ripped points meant that I was claiming to have "invented" liking the album/band. Nutjob logic. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:57:02 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Dolls Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: >> That's a little better. Though you're still hedging your bet with the >> implication you have "secondhand information," when you don't even >> have that much. At best, you have someone or other feeding you >> malicious lies which you're all too eager to swallow. > > Well, you'd have to frame your response that way Now what does THAT mean? > I got more > than one response offlist from intelligent folk trying and failing > to find > what you were blathering about. Only because I had the decency not to post the URL on-list, and directly point out what an utter trainwreck your page had become. > and I believe you've posted the URL before. > > Bullshit. Never did. You know you did your own work to find it. I don't recall if you posted it or not. It may just be that I was looking at the profile of some other Feg, and saw your page linked from his. In any case, no "work" of any measurable effort was required. And of course, the later return visit was a no-brainer because your URL was basically identical to your Feglist posting handle. > And for those who missed it, it consisted of > about five lines of text saying essentially "if you're looking at > this, get > a life". Oh, how you kid yourself. You looked like an irrational, distraught child, throwing a tantrum. You deleted all your friend links and any "functional" use of the profile, and instead reduced it to screaming at your ex-wife for "stalking" you. Both in your blog entry and your basic-info boxes. And then once I posted about this, then you added yet MORE childish shots at Quail and I. Completely retarded. I gave the URL to a (non-Feg) girl I know whom I'd told about this "saga," and her reply to the page was simply "He's a tiny, tiny man." And that was even before you added the swipes at Quail and me. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:15:10 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: The Big Problem Does Not Equal the Solution. The Solution = Let It Be. Same ... person. A disturbingly revealing internal conversation. - -f. PS: In all sincerity, as someone who's stirred the pot here more than once, what gives? Are you both John Holmesian bickering titans? Doesn't one of you ever tire? One of you ought to walk away. Or in the case of Eb, go for a run. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:38:35 +0000 From: "Shane Apple" Subject: Re: Dolls I'm about 1/2 an inch from leaving the list. I know that would really have an impact. Rex, shut the hell up for a month and then reread all of your posts in the last week. You're acting like a total jackass, you provoked Eb this time, and you would be the one I'd like to vote off the island. I don't really get that Neko Case album. I thought it was OK when I heard it. Do I need to listen to it more and wait for it to grow on me? - --Shane _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:56:47 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Dolls Seriously, TWO threads of this now??? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:01:14 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: Dolls >From: Tom Clark >Subject: Re: Dolls >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:56:47 -0800 >Seriously, TWO threads of this now??? It's only two? Seems like 1001. Max _________________________________________________________________ Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:10:12 EST From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame Induction Speech Predictions Jeff Dwarf wrote : Patti Smith: Bono, of course i think it will be stipe i think patti was insulted by bono once (unintentionally) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:14:35 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame Induction Speech Predictions HwyCDRrev@aol.com wrote: > Jeff Dwarf wrote : > > Patti Smith: Bono, of course > > i think it will be stipe > i think patti was insulted by bono once > (unintentionally) Except Stipe is being inducted that night his own arse. "I believe in the marketplace of ideas even if the other guy doesn't have any." -- Keith Olbermann . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:11:51 +1300 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #6 >Subject: REAP > >Carlo Ponti, 94 >Subject: reap > >Yvonne de Carlo, 84 mmm. do I spot a trend? Perhaps Carlo Cudicini had better watch olut. (Is Gian Carlo Menotti still alive?) >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:35:04 -0000 (GMT) >From: "Gary Sedgwick" >Subject: Back on the list welcome back! You'll probably find that the list is extremely quiet at the moment if you avoid the you-know-what. Since I've been direct-caning some of the post the list traffic seems very light. 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, 10 Jan 2007 21:37:12 -0800 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: The Big Problem Does Not Equal the Solution. The Solution = Let It Be. On 1/10/07, Eb wrote: > > Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > > 2) posted > >> a link to a large 2006 critics poll, noting Hitchcock's rank (which > >> went totally unanswered) > > > > So? More lists vomited by Eb during a year in which such lists are > > likely > > to include Robyn? You are truly Mr. On-Topic. > > What a totally feeble dismissal. The initial point was feebler. You're taking pride in having posted something about a three-month old album to a list of ardent fans. Go, Eb, Robyn fan deluxe. > Again, just amazingly feeble. And if you want give yourself pause, > total up how many references to my "johnson" you've recently made. > You're in danger of turning even more homoerotic than Eddie, at this > point. Oh, god. See, that's the problem. I can't say *anything*, no matter how ludicrous, for fear that you might *somehow* take it seriously. Wait, do you actually believe Eddie wants your dick, too? Holy hell, you're into you. . > > Yes, but I doubt you would have hyperbolized with the ridiculous > Weird Al comparisons, if not for your fervent hopes of irritating me. Well, you are wrong. That band irritates me completely apart from your liking them. One of your singularly lamest, childish tics is attempting to "mock" people (e.g. Jeffrey, Jeme) by pointing out that they like artists (Scott Miller, They Might Be Giants) whom they *fully, openly profess to like*! How this is supposed to humiliate them is beyond me, and most people with an above-third-grade mentality, and that's why I dissed your lame-o attempted troll of Jeme. Tellingly, you thought he was trolling you by disliking a band. Eb. Sorry, but... you are not the Dresden Dolls. You can add them to your Must-Stalk list, though. > By the same token, I > > tend to wonder how long you can go on railing at me without someone > > telling > > you to chill out. Oh, wait, people are doing that left and right. > > Who's telling me to chill out who didn't phrase the objection in a > "both of you" sense? True enough. By the same token, not a soul is lining up between either of our reasons for despising each other... most of them seem to somehow like both of us indivdually. No accounting for taste. I admit it, I'm never gonna convince anyone you're as big of an asshole as I think you are, so continuing to present evidence is a lots. Too bad for me. Again, try leaving it alone yourself and see how that goes. >> whatever you do, be sure not to call him immature, because to that's > >> the same as threatening to stalk his children.) > > > > Jeez. Do you really think I would have that reaction if that were > > said by > > someone other than a person bent on kicking me around? My > > discomfort with > > that comment of yours came not from its content, but the fact that > > it was > > you making it. > > Psychotic. "Eb picks on my mailing-list posts so, sure, he obviously > could be a threat to my children." Nutjob logic. Okay, let's put this one to bed FOR EVER. I never used the words "threat to my children". However, if you insist on bringing it up over and over again, the thing that disturbed me on a very visceral level about you mentioning my kids is that I know you're an obsessive creep with some fucked-up issues you haven't worked out. And you know that I know that, so for god's sake leave that alone, too. > For my > > money, "you no longer deserve to be on this list" and "it is > > unacceptable > > that his behavior is tolerated by the list" are THE most hyperbolic > > and > > histrionic things written in this exchange, if not the history of > > the list. > > Off-list, someone told me that I could take legal action against you > for that restraining-order smear. Try it. That's hilarious. Hope you're made of money that you don't mind losing. Oh, so "making fun of someone" isn't "picking a fight." I guess that > just about absolves any post I've ever made against you. Thanks so > much for that! And you believe that peoples' pretentions "need to be needled", so that excuses any post I've ever made against you. Everybody wins. Yay. And of course, the comment wasn't egocentric at all. If anything, I > was poking fun at myself for having generic, status-quo opinions. Then it was poorly written. And > you're the squalling retard who decided that simply noting others had > agreed with my Rather Ripped points meant that I was claiming to have > "invented" liking the album/band. Nutjob logic. IT WAS A JOKE, NOT A MANIFESTO OFMY LIFE BELIEFS, YOU GLIB, LIFELESS FUCKTARD. Are you simply incapable of conceiving that anything I write might be less than literal, or, indeed, intentionally, absurdly satirical? Joke, joke, joke. Not an ounce of earnest content in it. Joke. Now you're overusing the word "squalling"; best hit the thesaurus again. - -SER ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:53:15 -0800 From: "Spotted Eagle Ray" Subject: Re: Dolls On 1/10/07, Eb wrote: > > Spotted Eagle Ray wrote: > >> That's a little better. Though you're still hedging your bet with the > >> implication you have "secondhand information," when you don't even > >> have that much. At best, you have someone or other feeding you > >> malicious lies which you're all too eager to swallow. > > > > Well, you'd have to frame your response that way > > Now what does THAT mean? What it says? > I got more > > than one response offlist from intelligent folk trying and failing > > to find > > what you were blathering about. > > Only because I had the decency not to post the URL on-list, and > directly point out what an utter trainwreck your page had become. Decency. Right. Nobody who went looking for it, which nobody could have done without you pointing it out, could find it. Again, five lines, meant privately for one person, who was not you. > and I believe you've posted the URL before. > > > > Bullshit. Never did. You know you did your own work to find it. > > I don't recall if you posted it or not. It may just be that I was > looking at the profile of some other Feg, and saw your page linked > from his. In any case, no "work" of any measurable effort was > required. And of course, the later return visit was a no-brainer > because your URL was basically identical to your Feglist posting handle. Again, who the hell looks for myspace pages by plugging in URL's? Nobody. The point is moot, because you only knew where it was because you'd already bookmarked it. Again, why? > Oh, how you kid yourself. You looked like an irrational, distraught > child, throwing a tantrum. You deleted all your friend links and any > "functional" use of the profile, Because it was of no use to me, and clearly no longer meant for public consumption. Obviously. I hadn't used it for a year and hadn't thought about it until my ex called me up in hysterics because she thought that somehow the children could be abducted through cyberspace or something. It was the second time I'd become aware of her stalky behavior, and I called her on it. It was actually pretty effective. You'd like her. Anyways, it was about five irritated minutes of my time. You've inflated it into some emblem of insanity. Par for the course. I gave the URL to a (non-Feg) girl I know whom I'd told about this > "saga," and her reply to the page was simply "He's a tiny, tiny man." I know all about you and your girl e-mail pals, Eb, and I am not impressed. - -SER ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #7 ******************************