From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #30 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, January 31 2007 Volume 16 : Number 030 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: RH-related content >= 0% ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Fwd: Hysterical Reenactment ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: RH-related content >= 0% [Sebastian Hagedorn = 0% [ken ostrander ] Re: RH-related content >= 0% [2fs ] Re: Judy Henske compilation [hssmrg@bath.ac.uk] RE: Fwd: Hysterical Reenactment ["Michael Wells" ] Re: RH-related content >= 0% [Rex ] Re: Judy Henske compilation [Rex ] I AM 1/1024th of an inch away from QUITTING THIS LIST [blatzman@aol.com] Re: Hysterical Reenactment [Rex ] RE: RH-related content >= 0% ["Bachman, Michael" ] RE: I AM 1/1024th of an inch away from QUITTING THIS LIST [Marcy Tanter <] Re: RH-related content >= 0% [2fs ] Re: RH-related content >= 0% [kevin ] Re: Hysterical Reenactment [Rex ] Re: RH-related content >= 0% [kevin ] Re: I AM 1/1024th of an inch away from QUITTING THIS LIST [Rex = 0% ["Lauren Elizabeth (gmail)" ] Re: Hysterical Reenactment [Rex ] Re: Hysterical Reenactment [Sebastian Hagedorn ] This is 77 [Rex ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:52:29 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: RH-related content >= 0% Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > I would say ENTP. I would have guessed INTP because I find them > tenacious, open-minded in many ways, and slightly heartless. Definitely I, not E. > Any other thoughts? > > xo > Lauren, not a trained therapist Best be careful. Myers-Briggs will whup your ass (in a gentle Quakerly way) if you misuse their service mark. Stewart (INTJ or INTP, I forget which) > P.S. Is Myers-Briggs popular places other than U.S.? Yeah; it was misused as a staff selection tool in the UK. I see it here in Canada (my employer is addicted to its Lite counterpart, True Colo[u]rs, which is so simplistic it's barfy). It's also insanely popular amongst Quakers. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:54:50 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Fwd: Hysterical Reenactment kevin wrote: > Jezziz barking Christ, don't you dillholes have ANYTHING ELSE TO DO? Can I just say that my enjoyment of the list has increased immensely since I set up a couple of mail filters? I'm sure you can guess what they do. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:18:02 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: RH-related content >= 0% - --On 31. Januar 2007 07:52:29 -0500 "Stewart C. Russell" wrote: >> P.S. Is Myers-Briggs popular places other than U.S.? > > Yeah; it was misused as a staff selection tool in the UK. I see it here > in Canada (my employer is addicted to its Lite counterpart, True > Colo[u]rs, which is so simplistic it's barfy). It's also insanely popular > amongst Quakers. FWIW: it's basically unheard of in Germany. However, the German Wikipedia tells me that it *is* being used in coaching seminars in companies. - -- b. Sebastian Hagedorn b Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de b' http://www.uni-koeln.de/~a0620/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:55:04 -0800 (PST) From: ken ostrander Subject: Re: RH-related content >= 0% i'd say uncle bobby is pretty balanced on the introversion-extroversion and the thinking-feeling scales. certainly N and P though. i've been a big fan of the myers-briggs/kersey temperment model for years; but only yesterday did my wife inform me that the types were developed by none other than carl jung. she is teaching jung this week in her psychology of personality class and i convinced her to use 'synchronicity i & ii' to make it a little more interesting. coincidence? i particularly like the idea that neurosis in the modern world is caused by our attention being directed solely to the objective, scientific, and rational; a focus that cuts us off from access to symbols and the unconscious and renders us blind to a reality that is close at hand with dreams and creativity. jung stated that "humanity rests on accepting accountability for its actions". in order to do that we need to develop self knowledge. lack of self awareness is a tragic destructive problem for society. science is leading us toward spiritual stupidity with a "cruel form of censorship"  science is misleading us profoundly with its rejection of the inexplicable yet meaningful coincidences in our lives. they've confiscated all our dreams, man. ken "feeling so good natured i could drool" the kenster ENFP ps. my brother was born on 7/7/77. Lauren Elizabeth wrote: Hi FegList, It seems like a good time for useless conjecturing about our hero. Have you all already played Guess Robyn's Myers-Briggs Type? If not... I would say ENTP. I would have guessed INTP because I find them tenacious, open-minded in many ways, and slightly heartless. Mostly, I respect the way they think. However, Robyn is a performer and as fascinated as he seems with his own mind, I couldn't justify an "introvert" label. Any other thoughts? xo Lauren, not a trained therapist P.S. Is Myers-Briggs popular places other than U.S.? - --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:29:06 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: RH-related content >= 0% On 1/31/07, ken ostrander wrote: i particularly like the idea that neurosis in the modern world is caused by > our attention being directed solely to the objective, scientific, and > rational; a focus that cuts us off from access to symbols and the > unconscious and renders us blind to a reality that is close at hand with > dreams and creativity. jung stated that "humanity rests on accepting > accountability for its actions". in order to do that we need to develop > self knowledge. lack of self awareness is a tragic destructive problem for > society. Ironically, a true focus on "the objective, scientific, and rational" would lead us to recognize that people often do rely on subjective and emotional criteria: I think the real problems arise when "rationality" causes people to overlook that fact. It's also irrational in the long run to analyze everything solely in the "objective, scientific, and rational" mode - if only because doing so fails to recognize that science, properly considered, knows that it does not know (knows, that is, that its knowledge is provisional, contingent upon reliability and the current state of knowledge, and subject to change should it prove less reliable in light of newer knowledge). I'm not sure it would ever be possible (or desirable) to data-crunch such things as musical taste: I suspect it's a complexity problem, in that each person has so many unique variables that it's far quicker (and more accurate) to attempt to get at that taste intuitively or associationally than by crunching data. science is leading us toward spiritual stupidity with a "cruel form of > censorship"  science is misleading us profoundly with its rejection of the > inexplicable yet meaningful coincidences in our lives. they've confiscated > all our dreams, man. Does "science" "reject...the inexplicable yet meaningful coincidences in our lives" - or does it merely reject facile attempts to explain them? I mean, you yourself just described them as "inexplicable" - but just because something's (currently) inexplicable doesn't mean it doesn't exist - only that if no viable scientific theory exists to explain it, science remains (or should remain) mute about explaining it (or indeed, being certain that it exists, objectively: the two are more or less equivalent, I'm thinking...) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:33:37 +0000 From: hssmrg@bath.ac.uk Subject: Re: Judy Henske compilation Just had this from Rhino Handmade: Big Judy: How Far This Music Goes (1962-2004) is available for $39.98 as an individually numbered limited edition of 5,000 copies. Get it now at: I haven't yet seen any comments here on her appearance on that very unsatisfactory yet compulsive documentary 'Hotel California: from the Byrds to the Eagles'. First time I had seen her since I got out the cover of 'Farewell Aldebaran' the last time it was discussed here. Any views? - - Mike Godwin n.p. Rather spirited (and cymbal-heavy) live recording of 'Maybe Baby' by Buddy Holly and the Crickets on an otherwise unlistenable 'Very Best of Buddy Holly' collection with 'The Picks' posthumous backing vocals unscrupulously added by Norman Petty... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:59:41 -0600 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: RE: Fwd: Hysterical Reenactment Stewart: > Can I just say that my enjoyment of the list has increased immensely since I set up a couple of mail filters? Me too. I even added a sound effect when each person's mail got sent to the recycle bin: one was the scream from "Psycho" and the other a toilet flushing. Had to remove them though, after the back-and-forth got too heavy...it sounded like Janet Leigh was getting repeatedly stabbed in an extremely busy washroom. Jeffrey re: KENSTER > Does "science" "reject...the inexplicable yet meaningful coincidences in our lives" - or does it merely reject facile attempts to explain them? My read is that he meant that chasing down scientific explanations for these things inhibits our ability to understand them in the first place. The value in appreciating them - opportunities for personal development arising from understanding a bubbling sub-conscious, often done through symbols and metaphor - is not a scientific process. Like the Oracle at Delphi, at some point we all should huff ethylene gas and get in touch with our personal Apollo. Eddie: > otherwise, it's throbbing cocks from here on in. Hmm, I was rather hoping for another "Wanderlust" episode instead. Kind of sad the Patriots aren't in the Super Bowl for another 46-10 drubbing, Michael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:23:14 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: Incidentally.... On 1/31/07, Stacked Crooked wrote: > > even though you *had never even heard* said > record (and for all i know, still haven't); then i'll nip the "my name > is..." subject-lines in the bud. otherwise, it's throbbing cocks from > here > on in. Aye-- there's the explantation for why the subject lines are tolerated: Eddie is funnier than me and Eb combined. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:28:47 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: RH-related content >= 0% On 1/31/07, 2fs wrote: > > > I'm not sure it would ever be possible (or desirable) to data-crunch such > things as musical taste: This will come as a shocking revelation to some. I have, however, wonder what some lind of supercomputer would spit out if it absorbed and analyzed all my record and was asked to produce the perfect single recorded song for me. I suspect it would sound like a track off of "Loveless" with some really nice pedal steel added to it. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:30:28 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: Judy Henske compilation On 1/31/07, hssmrg@bath.ac.uk wrote: > > I haven't yet seen any comments here on her appearance on that very > unsatisfactory yet compulsive documentary 'Hotel California: from the > Byrds to the Eagles'. First time I had seen her since I got out the > cover of 'Farewell Aldebaran' the last time it was discussed here. Any > views? "Farewell" is still AWOL on CD, right? The Rosebud record did come out eventually, though. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:37:20 -0500 From: blatzman@aol.com Subject: I AM 1/1024th of an inch away from QUITTING THIS LIST THAT IS IT!!!! I am now officially 1/1024th of an inch away from quitting this list! I mean it!!!! I want to see some fresh kitty litter in the cat box!!!!! If you two can't come up with new material I am going to write it for you! You are both creative enough to figure out new ways of keeping this saga exciting and engrossing! I for one, absolutely ADORE the Broom on Broom catfight! It provides me loads more entertainment than all the political crap that gets tossed around. The list for me has never been more entertaining, which goes to prove that sometimes we all just have to sit back and bask in the God Aweful off-topicness that is Fegmaniax. Finally... a Fegmanix that even I can enjoy!!!! ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:40:20 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: Hysterical Reenactment On 1/30/07, Eb wrote: > > http://masonc.home.netcom.com/rumen/kamikaze.jpg > > "Captain! Captain! We've sustained a douchebag-sized hit on the upper > starboard deck!" Hadn't heard "douchebag" for a while. Does this mean "flailing" is out to pasture, too? Do I have to just make fun of your stuck-needle insults one by one until you retire them? Let's start with... jeez... too many to choose from. "Squalling". or maybe "tantrum?" Nonetheless, if this is your way of tacitly answering my question "why are you one the list" accurately ("to be a complete ass"), I applaud your candor. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:41:55 -0500 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: RH-related content >= 0% On 1/31/07, 2fs wrote: >> >> >> I'm not sure it would ever be possible (or desirable) to data-crunch >> such things as musical taste: Rex came prancing back with: >This will come as a shocking revelation to some. >I have, however, wonder what some lind of supercomputer would spit out if it absorbed and analyzed all my record and was >asked to produce the perfect single recorded song for me. I suspect it would sound like a track off of "Loveless" with some really nice pedal steel added to it. My would sound somewhat like Rex's, but add a soprano sax and some piano block chords, no doubt coming from John Coltrane and McCoy Tyner respectively. Michael B. NP Yes - Drama (rapidly becoming my favorite Yes album) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:42:16 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Incidentally.... Stacked Crooked wrote: > otherwise, it's throbbing cocks from here > on in. As it should be. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:43:51 -0600 From: Marcy Tanter Subject: RE: I AM 1/1024th of an inch away from QUITTING THIS LIST Anybody see my university on the news this week? That topic is awesome litter box fodder. (Ignorant students commit racist act and pretend they didn't know what they were doing) Marcy (Tarleton State University, by the way) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:46:49 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: RH-related content >= 0% On 1/31/07, Bachman, Michael wrote: > > > On 1/31/07, 2fs wrote: > >> > >> > >> I'm not sure it would ever be possible (or desirable) to data-crunch > >> such things as musical taste: > > Rex came prancing back with: > > >I have, however, wonder what some lind of supercomputer would spit out > if it absorbed and analyzed all my record and was >asked to produce the > perfect single recorded song for me. I suspect it would sound like a > track off of "Loveless" with some really nice pedal steel added to it. > > My would sound somewhat like Rex's, but add a soprano sax and some piano > block chords, no doubt coming from John Coltrane and McCoy Tyner > respectively. I think mine would have banjo, bagpipes, bassoon, and spoons. Well it would if it were malfunctioning. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:48:59 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: RH-related content >= 0% >I have, however, wonder what some lind of supercomputer would spit out if it >absorbed and analyzed all my record and was asked to produce the perfect >single recorded song for me. I suspect it would sound like a track off of >"Loveless" with some really nice pedal steel added to it. > >-Rex "Walk Away Renee" performed by Patti Smith w/Mick Ronson on guitar. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:57:28 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: Hysterical Reenactment On 1/30/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > Hi FegList, > But IMO it's not like it's not standard-issue behavior, especially for > music geeks. Just mention Talking Heads in polite company and it > still won't be long before someone can't resist telling you in what > year they bought "Talking Heads 77". Yeah, but it's still pretty perplexing behavior, given that I don't think it really impresses anyone. (Now, saying you saw Talking Heads at CB's in 1974 at least gives one something to ask the boaster about, like the performance itself, as opposed to "So, like, did you buy it at GC Murphy's or where?"). "I've been a fan from the first EP" doesn't mean you actually like or understand the music more than anyone who discovered it a month ago... nobody has ever been impressed by that kind of stuff, and many have been mocked for it, so... In half of the musical conversations I have, particularly with people a little older than me, I find I have to qualify at some point that I didn't even listen to pop music until 1987 or so, just to give some kind of context for my viewpoint (I usually mention being from a small town as well, both factors that came up when Sebastian and I chatted about the police recently). By the same token, I've had great talks about older music with people younger than me who obviously didn't buy "New Day Rising" on its release date, but know their stuff... so this compulsion for johnson-measurement-via-I-knew-them-when remains a complete mystery to me. - -Rex PS TH 77 is a brilliant example, though, what with its year of release being rather obvious, thus making for easy, easy math... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:58:39 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: RH-related content >= 0% >Does "science" "reject...the inexplicable yet meaningful coincidences in our >lives" - or does it merely reject facile attempts to explain them? > >...Jeff Norman > >The Architectural Dance Society >http://spanghew.blogspot.com One source of the problem is that "science" has become cultural shorthand for a mode of consciousness that begins by positing that only the quantifiable is "real," i.e. a legitimate topic of discussion/investigation. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:00:46 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: I AM 1/1024th of an inch away from QUITTING THIS LIST On 1/31/07, blatzman@aol.com wrote: > > THAT IS IT!!!! > > I am now officially 1/1024th of an inch away from quitting this list! I > mean it!!!! I want to see some fresh kitty litter in the cat box!!!!! If > you two can't come up with new material I am going to write it for > you! You are both creative enough to figure out new ways of keeping this > saga exciting and engrossing! That could be cool. I'll give you my gmail password and you can go for it... - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:03:52 -0500 From: "Lauren Elizabeth (gmail)" Subject: Re: RH-related content >= 0% Hi FegList, 2fs says: > Does "science" "reject...the inexplicable yet meaningful coincidences in our > lives" - or does it merely reject facile attempts to explain them? I mean, > you yourself just described them as "inexplicable" - but just because > something's (currently) inexplicable doesn't mean it doesn't exist - only > that if no viable scientific theory exists to explain it, science remains > (or should remain) mute about explaining it (or indeed, being certain that > it exists, objectively: the two are more or less equivalent, I'm > thinking...) I really like this point. It's well articulated. I think there is an affliction in modern culture that results from people believing that everything can be explained. But it's not because of science (per se, a sort of misunderstanding of what science is about may be partly to blame.) I studied well, not science, but mathematics at school precisely because of the sense of mystery I found within it. It's not that different than the feeling I get from looking at a great painting. I went with science only because I felt more competent in that world; I never felt it less inspiring than art or music. xo Lauren - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:09:18 -0500 From: blatzman@aol.com Subject: Fan Fiction I've decided to take matters into my own hands. I am now writing a fictional account of Brex and Beric Gloom, two unrelated frenemies who meet on a famous yodeller's internet mailing list. Let's peek in on their conversation: Brex "you're candor is unnerving" Beric "yes dear Brex, but I am torn..." Brex "But Beric, surely you must be aware of the legality of your proclivities..." Beric "I am beyond caring" Brex "yes, but is your cat aware of what you are about to do?" What are Beric's said "proclivities"? What doesn't the cat know? And why is it illegal??? Stay tuned for the next thrilling episode of Gloomaniax! ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:13:43 -0500 From: "Lauren Elizabeth (gmail)" Subject: Re: Hysterical Reenactment Hi FegList, > Yeah, but it's still pretty perplexing behavior, given that I don't think it > really impresses anyone. Well, I might not have articulated it very well...I didn't mean to imply that it impresses anyone. I guess I put it in the category of things people do despite knowing that it impresses no one. I occasionally do it with someone like RH (not using him as an example because of the list but because he a good example for me) because I've been listening for so long. I know no one gives a shit when I started listening to RH, but on occasion, I feel compelled to mention it. On occasion, even I (and perhaps everyone) secretly suspect myself of being cool. xo Lauren - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:31:11 -0800 From: "vivien lyon" Subject: Re: Fan Fiction This is the best post ever. I had to read it aloud, and it made me, um, lol. On 1/31/07, blatzman@aol.com wrote: > > I've decided to take matters into my own hands. I am now writing a > fictional account of Brex and Beric Gloom, two unrelated frenemies who meet > on a famous yodeller's internet mailing list. Let's peek in on their > conversation: > > Brex "you're candor is unnerving" > Beric "yes dear Brex, but I am torn..." > Brex "But Beric, surely you must be aware of the legality of your > proclivities..." > Beric "I am beyond caring" > Brex "yes, but is your cat aware of what you are about to do?" > > What are Beric's said "proclivities"? > What doesn't the cat know? > And why is it illegal??? > > Stay tuned for the next thrilling episode of Gloomaniax! > ________________________________________________________________________ > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security > tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, > free AOL Mail and more. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:46:05 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: Hysterical Reenactment On 1/31/07, Lauren Elizabeth (gmail) wrote: > > Hi FegList, > > > Yeah, but it's still pretty perplexing behavior, given that I don't > think it > > really impresses anyone. > > Well, I might not have articulated it very well...I didn't mean to > imply that it impresses anyone. I guess I put it in the category of > things people do despite knowing that it impresses no one. Oh, that's what I got from it. I was just adding that it's almost as inexplicable as it is common. Another thing like that is how people feel compelled to talk about where they're from all the time, especially if it's somewhere off the beaten path, as if they-- well, we, because I totally do this-- deserve a cookie for making it in the real world despite such humble beginnings. Humans are odd. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:48:02 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Hysterical Reenactment - -- Rex is rumored to have mumbled on 31. Januar 2007 08:57:28 -0800 regarding Re: Hysterical Reenactment: > Yeah, but it's still pretty perplexing behavior, given that I don't think > it really impresses anyone. This may not win me any points, but I'd have to say that it would impress *me*. And by the same token I *do* feel "superior" in some way because (as an example) I've been a fan of R.E.M. since 1985. That might've been rather late in the US, but believe me when I say it was early in Germany. Anyway, rationally I know that it's nothing to be proud of, as it really wasn't any achievement of my own rather than pure chance, but there you have it. > "I've been a fan from the first EP" doesn't mean > you actually like or understand the music more than anyone who discovered > it a month ago... Well, I don't know. I think it does make some difference whether you have followed a band over a long period of time or not. That's not to say that it gives you a *better* appreciation of it, but it's a different one. > nobody has ever been impressed by that kind of stuff, Not true ... > By the same token, I've had great talks about older > music with people younger than me who obviously didn't buy "New Day > Rising" on its release date, but know their stuff... Of course. I don't think anybody would deny that. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156, 50823 Kvln, Germany http://darkstar.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:51:06 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Hysterical Reenactment - -- "Lauren Elizabeth (gmail)" is rumored to have mumbled on 31. Januar 2007 12:13:43 -0500 regarding Re: Hysterical Reenactment: >> Yeah, but it's still pretty perplexing behavior, given that I don't >> think it really impresses anyone. > > Well, I might not have articulated it very well...I didn't mean to > imply that it impresses anyone. I guess I put it in the category of > things people do despite knowing that it impresses no one. That's a good point. I know (or assume) that my R.E.M. story doesn't really impress those of my friends who are huge fans now, but only got to know them after Losing My Religion - but I can't help mentioning it. Another point I wanted to make in reply to Rex is that I even now don't know "Talking Heads 77" - how lame is that? ;-) - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156, 50823 Kvln, Germany http://darkstar.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:18:19 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: I smell a new Julian Cope album! http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/31/news/dig.php - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:39:40 -0800 From: Rex Subject: This is 77 On 1/31/07, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > > -- "Lauren Elizabeth (gmail)" is rumored to have > mumbled on 31. Januar 2007 12:13:43 -0500 regarding Re: Hysterical > Reenactment: > > >> Yeah, but it's still pretty perplexing behavior, given that I don't > >> think it really impresses anyone. > > > > Well, I might not have articulated it very well...I didn't mean to > > imply that it impresses anyone. I guess I put it in the category of > > things people do despite knowing that it impresses no one. > > That's a good point. I know (or assume) that my R.E.M. story doesn't > really > impress those of my friends who are huge fans now, but only got to know > them after Losing My Religion - but I can't help mentioning it. Oh, that's all I'm saying, and Lauren basically said it already and more succinctly: this falls into the category of odd human compulsions, and almost all of us do it-- lord knows I do-- without knowing why. Extreme versions of it can be pretty pitiful, though... hence satirical t-shirts. Another point I wanted to make in reply to Rex is that I even now don't > know "Talking Heads 77" - how lame is that? ;-) That's not lame at all, as long as you have no interest in hearing it or becoming familiar with it... just means you're following your own tastes, and good on ya for it. However, if it's one of those records you've always wanted to hear, then the worst you can be accused of is being slightly lazy in looking it up. You could fix that any time, and since I rather like that record, I recommend you do... but your not having done so in no way makes you lame. I actually bought my first Zeppelin record last year, but I challenge anyone to unravel the pretzel of whether my having done so, and now having mentioned it, makes me lamer than I was a year ago, cooler than I was a year ago, quietly cooler until I mentioned it and thus became ultra-lame, or minorly cool for having abanoned an ultra-lame, probably trying-to-look-cool-motivated prior avoidance of Zeppelin. All I know is that it's true: I didn't have any before then, and now I have a couple. - -Rex ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #30 *******************************