From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #52 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, February 16 2007 Volume 16 : Number 052 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: conspiratorial number theory [Benjamin Lukoff ] the left-hand path ["natalie jacobs" ] Re: conspiratorial number theory [Capuchin ] Re: the left-hand path [Capuchin ] Re: conspiratorial number theory [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: conspiratorial number theory [Christopher Gross ] Re: the left-hand path [2fs ] Re: the left-hand path ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: the left-hand path [Christopher Gross ] Re: the left-hand path [2fs ] Re: the left-hand path [2fs ] Re: the left-hand path [Christopher Gross ] Re: the left-hand path [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream [Tom Clark ] Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] allmusic.com mention ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:38:00 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Capuchin wrote: > I'm still trying to figure out WHICH five these teachers think are the > only irrationals. That is so depressing. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:43:17 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: conspiratorial number theory On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, ken ostrander wrote: > >I have a small obsession with conjoined twins and twins....... > >It brings up really interesting issues of identity.< > > if we are all connected, then identity is a fantasy. turn on, tune in, and drop out. your number is one. reach out and touch someone. it's all about the relationships. How closely related do you have to be to someone to count as a degree of separation away (or zero degrees, or whatever)? > in the united states, we can look at the continuing struggles of > african and indigent peoples over the past five hundred years. these > examples of racial oppression are only a part of a larger class > oppression, man. we have our own refusniks. indigenous? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:28:57 -0600 From: "natalie jacobs" Subject: the left-hand path > Wow, I had no idea there were more male left-handed than female. Again according to Wikipedia (yes, I know, not a reliable source, but it's 3:00 am and I'm too lazy to look up anything else right now): "Approximately 8 to 15% of the adult population is left-handed. Studies indicate that left-handedness is more common in males than females. Left-handedness, in comparison to the general population, also appears to occur more frequently in identical twins and several groups of neurologically disordered individuals (people suffering from epilepsy, Down's Syndrome, autism, mental retardation, dyslexia, etc.). Statistically, the identical twin of a left-handed person has a 76% chance of being left-handed, identifying the cause(s) as partly genetic and partly environmental. Also people of South Asian, Eastern European, Southeast Asian descent are more left-handed than any other ethnic groups in the world, while people of Western European, Northern European, and African descent are less left-handed." I am of Eastern European descent. The only other left-hander in my immediate family is my cousin Mark, who is also of Southeast Asian descent (his mother is Thai). He also has cerebral palsy, but I don't know if that's correlated or not. BTW, n. - I believe I crossed paths with you a bit back on Sweet Addy > boards? I exchanged some messages with someone on there who was also > on FegList who caught me gushing about Robyn... Yeah, I went by Natalie Jane on there, so it was probably me - I haven't posted there in a couple of years, though. The explosion of emo after Elliott died got to be a bit much for me, and I didn't like his last (posthumous) album very much either, alas. > P.S. Emoticon employed only for Sweet Addy board nostalgia, where one > is not permitted to use words, only emoticons. Fortunately they have > very complicated emoticons over there...some are actually short films. My favorite was the dancing can of Spam. Primary and middle-school teachers (all of whom teach mathematics to > children) were asked how many irrational numbers there are. I would assume the amount of irrational numbers would be, if not infinite, then pretty darn close, no? (I realize mathematicians probably don't accept "pretty darn close" as a form of measurement.) n., who just called the cops on her noisy upstairs neighbor and is hoping they arrive soon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:53:45 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: conspiratorial number theory On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, ken ostrander wrote: >> in the united states, we can look at the continuing struggles of >> african and indigent peoples over the past five hundred years. these >> examples of racial oppression are only a part of a larger class >> oppression, man. we have our own refusniks. > > indigenous? I think that, since the context was "the costs of growth under capitalism", Ken meant the word he used. We don't treat our poor very well at all. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:01:02 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the left-hand path On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, natalie jacobs wrote: > I would assume the amount of irrational numbers would be, if not > infinite, then pretty darn close, no? I maybe didn't make that clear in the other message. There are more irrationals than rationals and there exactly as many rationals as there are counting numbers ({1,2,3,...} -- which are obviously infinite). So, yeah, there are a really large number of irrationals. One of the big infinities. And as I also wrote before, there are more transcendental irrationals (like pi and e and phi) than there are algebraic irrationals (like the square root of two or the cubed root of seventeen). And we only have names for a handful of them while we have very specific names for all of the others (at least, we have an easy way of generating the names). I was going to write a really interesting thing about being able to describe infinite things in finite time and space, but I think nobody's probably reading this. > (I realize mathematicians probably don't accept "pretty darn close" as a > form of measurement.) You'd be surprised. In the branch of mathematics called analysis, "pretty darn close" is the name of the game. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:59:13 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: conspiratorial number theory On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Capuchin wrote: > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, ken ostrander wrote: > >> in the united states, we can look at the continuing struggles of > >> african and indigent peoples over the past five hundred years. these > >> examples of racial oppression are only a part of a larger class > >> oppression, man. we have our own refusniks. > > > > indigenous? > > I think that, since the context was "the costs of growth under > capitalism", Ken meant the word he used. I think not, since the poor don't constitute a race in the sense of "racial oppression" > We don't treat our poor very well at all. No argument there (well, there probably are some, but I don't care to make them) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:39:25 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream Capuchin wrote: > >> Yeah, e's got it - e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0 > > Err, I think you meant: > e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 That's what I meant, and what I said - in TeX! (am I the only one who still uses it?) Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:43:09 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: conspiratorial number theory > for all of its many mistakes (among them an ironic despotic > socialism, the great terror, the sacrifice of laika, and letting clint > get away with firefox), the soviet union was so much more than the > politburo. there was a diverse population of individuals who > struggled to find their way during that time. hungary and prague are > vivid illustrations of this. True; but of course you could say that about *any* country. (Including the one that would bring up Godwin's Law.) Also, I wouldn't be the nerd I am if I didn't point out that Hungary and Prague were not actually part of the Soviet Union, just under its power. > >imagine an analogous discussion of whether or not any good music > >was recorded during the 1970s, and if so whether it was all punk, or does > >that just reflect critics' biases, and so on -- carried on without ever > >actually mentioning any specific band or album. > > certainly there are plenty of folks who will dismiss "the seventies" > or "the eighties" or anything other than the music that they enjoy > (be it indie or motown or whatever). We all do the equivalent sometimes. (At least, I know I do, and I don't want to think that I'm the only one.) What gets me is when someone goes beyond just saying, for example, "seventies music sucks" to a full discussion of the music of the decade, yet still mentions no specifics. You start to suspect that the person is operating entirely on vague impressions and sheer baseless assumption, and doesn't really know what they're talking about. Ice-storm-wise, I spent a good part of Wednesday helping to push Bayard's car. We eventually got it as far as the parking space next to his. - --Chris "sweeping statements are always wrong" the Christer ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:24:33 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: the left-hand path On 2/16/07, natalie jacobs wrote: > > > Again according to Wikipedia (yes, I know, not a reliable source, but it's > 3:00 am and I'm too lazy to look up anything else right now): I'm inclined to think that the structure of Wikipedia makes it far more reliable than most people would think - with the exception of articles on current issues of controversy (which are prone to vandalism). One problem with conventional sources of authority and their reliance on one-way testimony from experts is that once an error sees print, it's extremely hard to get rid of. (Well-known popular culture example: Negativland's "axe murderer" hoax.) Newspapers may gatekeep before printing - but their only gatekeeping mechanism after printing is a correction notice - which most people probably don't see, and which does not eliminate the presence of the original error (allowing it to propagate further). Wikipedia's structure means that errors can be corrected and disappeared from the main source - which is to say, they don't persist (except in the history - but that's not what people cite). My feeling is that on most subjects, people who know something about the subject are more inclined to contribute than people who don't know anything, and that therefore errors are likely to be quickly corrected (because the knowledgeable people are also likeliest to be the ones reading the articles - - and therefore are likelier to read an erroneous article than is a non-expert). The fact that people *can* input bad information doesn't give them motivation to do so, and that bad information is unlikely to persist if it is input. The likeliest source of bad info, then, is people who *think* they know something, but do not actually know it. But generally such bad info can't be sourced (remember that ideally everything in Wikipedia is sourced - there's not supposed to be unsourced statements or original research) and so, again, good, sourced info will drive it out - especially over time. So even if a particular Wikipedia article is erroneous today, the odds are that if you check it next week it'll be correct. And I seem to recall that it was adjudged to be about as accurate as Encyclopaedia Britannica by an outside evaluator. So it would seem my ideas are verified. (There's probably a name for the phenomenon I'm trying to describe above - it's similar, I think, to a neural net concept, in which multiple sources collaborate to create power greater than a mere sum - but I'm not sure what it is. (Incidentally, in my day job teaching students to write, my colleagues are sometimes comically incensed by Wikipedia - I think they think it's basically the equivalent of a restroom wall.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:28:50 -0500 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: the left-hand path Hi Fegs, 2fs says: > I'm inclined to think that the structure of Wikipedia makes it far more > reliable than most people would think - (and so on.) The New Yorker had a good article this past summer about Wikipedia and talked about many of the issues which Jeff brought up: http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060731fa_fact Of course Jeff can't get to it. (secret message to Jeff: www.newyorker.com and search for "Wikipedia" or somesuch - the article is called "Know It All" by Stacy Schiff.) > (Incidentally, in my day job teaching students to write, my colleagues are > sometimes comically incensed by Wikipedia - I think they think it's > basically the equivalent of a restroom wall.) Oh, I want to hear all about this. Do they pull out their encyclopedias to defend themselves? Do they use computers? Do you have a myspace account? That would really get them going so best keep it hush. xo Lauren - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:49:08 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: the left-hand path For what it's worth, a couple of months ago I had occasion to visit Wikipedia's page on the Russian Revolution of 1905, and it absolutely BLEW. Badly organized, horribly incomplete (it read like someone had started to write a long article, got bored after writing the first section, and rounded out the rest in a few sentences), and sporting some glaring factual errors, it was real D- work. But I checked it again today, and all of that had been fixed. It's actually pretty good now. I think this proves that *both* sides of the Wikipedia debate are right. It has a great capacity to fix and improve itself; but if you happen to check an entry that currently needs fixing and improving, you're out of luck. (Whereas traditional encyclopedias have very little capacity to fix themselves, but at least most of their entries have been written completely and edited before they're published!) I also noticed a couple of years ago that the entry on Desiderius Erasmus referred to the possibility that he was "an alumni" of Cambridge. That seems to have been fixed too. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:04:08 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: the left-hand path On 2/16/07, Christopher Gross wrote: > > For what it's worth, a couple of months ago I had occasion to visit > Wikipedia's page on the Russian Revolution of 1905, and it absolutely > BLEW. Badly organized, horribly incomplete (it read like someone had > started to write a long article, got bored after writing the first > section, and rounded out the rest in a few sentences), and sporting some > glaring factual errors, it was real D- work. But I checked it again > today, and all of that had been fixed. It's actually pretty good now. I > think this proves that *both* sides of the Wikipedia debate are right. > It has a great capacity to fix and improve itself; but if you happen to > check an entry that currently needs fixing and improving, you're out of > luck. (Whereas traditional encyclopedias have very little capacity to fix > themselves, but at least most of their entries have been written > completely and edited before they're published!) Right - I wouldn't argue that it's the ideal resource, only that it has very strong potential. It's unlikely, for example, that having been improved, the article would fall back to the lame-o standards you saw the first time. And, of course, if you knew more about the subject and had time to do so, you yourself could have improved the article the first time you saw that it was a problem. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:05:16 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: the left-hand path On 2/16/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > > The New Yorker had a good article this past summer about Wikipedia and > talked about many of the issues which Jeff brought up: > http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060731fa_fact > > Of course Jeff can't get to it. Oh I can get to a direct link - what I can't find is something that would seem obvious: an index of all the articles listed in that "printables" folder. There are lists of older articles - but it's not that list. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:26:22 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: the left-hand path On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, 2fs wrote: > And, of course, if you knew more about the subject and had time to do so, > you yourself could have improved the article the first time you saw that it > was a problem. Technically it's incorrect to say I "could" have improved the article myself, as my ongoing laziness issues rendered this impossible. I *did* consider posting a comment pointing out the factual errors I noticed and recommending that someone (else) rewrite the article. But then I started wondering if I needed to register with Wikipedia to post comments ... which reminded me of something I wanted to look at on another site ... which reminded me of something else ... er, what was I looking at again? So I never got around to it. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:03:20 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: the left-hand path 2fs wrote: > And I seem to recall that it was adjudged to be about as accurate > as Encyclopaedia Britannica by an outside evaluator. So it would > seem my ideas are verified. I think it was something like as 4% error rate instead of 2.5; pretty damn close.... "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: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:05:17 -0500 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream Hi Fegs, Okay, it's been determined that the number of irrational numbers is infinite, not even countable but the more important question to me is whether the number of Michaels on FegList is countable. And okay avatars are out I assume (personally, I love them) but perhaps the Michaels could all pick an individual mascot, a rap name or maybe a Monopoly piece...best yet, a Clue character. And I know you will all want to be Miss Scarlet, but there will be only Miss Scarlet so stop fighting. xo Lauren, who always picked "Professor Plum" - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:15:25 -0500 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: TeX Hi Fegs, > That's what I meant, and what I said - in TeX! > (am I the only one who still uses it?) I very much admire TeX although I've never used it. I mean, I have come across many people who use TeX and I always admire them so it translates into admiration of TeX. We used something called Scribe when I was an undergraduate but I didn't use it for writing out proofs (I used a pencil instead) just for prose-type text so I don't know whether it was good for equations. I was pleased as punch** to find that my Java teacher uses emacs which is what I used in undergraduate. At her job even. I was all thrilled and downloaded a copy and was getting so up to speed but then every time I was online it was a big fucking mess because I would hit ^p to go to the previous line and the browser print command would be issued instead. Or hit ^b and get my bookmarks, etc. etc. I guess I could re-map the commands somewhere, but really thought it would get to a problem because I don't think I want to re-map everything I come across, so just decided to give up my beloved emacs for now. I've been using jEdit to edit java programs and I approve of it. xo Lauren ** a lie, I have never actually been "pleased as punch" - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:17:38 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream On Feb 15, 2007, at 9:20 PM, 2fs wrote: > As far as I can tell, saying "Fuck you Tom Clark!" is like having a > party - > you don't actually need a reason for it, you just do it. It also serves a similar role as Aloha. As a matter of fact, when I arrive home each evening my wife and daughter exclaim Fuck You {Tom | Daddy} !!!!! Ah, cherished moments indeed. > > Except, of course, for the sinister Peter Buck... PB and I have come to an agreement. He'll smile at me from the stage if I stop telling people that he hates me. Also I get free veggie burgers at the Crocodile. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:19:24 -0500 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream Hi Fegs, errata...scratch: > but there will be only Miss Scarlet so stop fighting. > but there will be only *one* Miss Scarlet so stop fighting. I would gladly take my crappy spelling over my tendency to completely skip words but sadly my spell-checker doesn't give me that option. xo - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:37:32 -0500 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream Hi Fegs, Tom Clark says: > It also serves a similar role as Aloha. I tried it out on my father. He asked me who the fuck Tom Clark is. xo Lauren P.S. At my last job, it was kind of an honour when I would give the finger to my boss or a co-worker. It was more of a special occasion, so not like an "aloha". - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:38:42 -0500 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream Lauren wrote: >Hi Fegs, >Okay, it's been determined that the number of irrational numbers is infinite, not even countable but the >more important question to me is whether the number of Michaels on FegList is countable. >And okay avatars are out I assume (personally, I love them) but perhaps the Michaels could all pick an individual mascot, a rap name or maybe a Monopoly piece...best yet, a Clue character. And I know you will all want to be Miss Scarlet, but there will be only Miss Scarlet so stop fighting. I have been using MJ Bachman the past week, I could also use MJB, which was a popular brand of coffee when I lived in California eons ago. In the three part X-Files episodes which featured the Navajo code talker, The Blessing Way, Anazazi, and I forgot the other one, the stolen MJ files in the opening episode kick started the subsequent events. MJ Bachman, a.k.a MJB, a.k.a the MJ files ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:11:29 -0500 From: wojbearpig Subject: NEW on DIME: Robyn Hitchcock - Thursday 2nd December 2004 - Fleece and Firkin Bristol, England, UK. http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=134653&hit=1 - ----- Forwarded message from DIME ----- A new torrent has been uploaded to DIME. Torrent: 134653 Title: Robyn Hitchcock - Thursday 2nd December 2004 - Fleece and Firkin Bristol, England, UK. Size: 529.15 MB Category: Rock Uploaded by: ocelot Description - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robyn Hitchcock - Thursday 2nd December 2004 - Fleece and Firkin, Bristol, England, UK. Robyn Hitchcock Morris Windsor Kimberly Rew Paul Noble Terry Edwards Lineage MD Master(Aud)>Wavelab>Flac8) Set list: 01 She Belongs To Me (Bob Dylan) 02 Chinese Bones 03 Television 04 Full Moon In My Soul 05 Queen Elvis 06 Do The Chisel 07 Kingdom Of Love 08 The Pigworker 09 Swirling 10 My Wife And My Dead Wife 11 The Underneath 12 Nightride To Trinidad 13 Savoy Truffle (The Beatles) 14 Where Are The Prawns? 15 City of Women 16 Leppo And The Jooves 17 Stayin' Alive (Bee Gees)/Listening To The Higsons 18 Brenda's Iron Sledge/Funky Town (Lipps Inc.) 19 Jewels For Sophia 20 Up On Cripple Creek (The Band) Splits neatly between 10 and 11 for a 2 disc burn. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:22:21 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: John Cale's Caribbean Sunset There's a pleasingly live >feel to the performances ("Experiment Number 1" notoriously features Cale >calling out the chords before they change - the impression is that this is >not only a live performance but the first, only performance) He's been quoted numerous times about how impressed he was with Lou Reed's ability to improvise lyrics, and entire songs, on the spot - one of the few areas where he's able to mention Lou without spewing vitriol - and has been known to try it himself. A lot of the mid-70s band with Chris Spedding's live work was improvised, and evidently significant chunks of Helen Of Troy were done that way. God knows "Cable Hogue" sounds like it's being made up in the studio. I've always like the way "Experiment No. 1" came out; it's about the only thing I can take seriously on Caribbean Sunset aside from the charming title track. Most of it strikes me as flat and uninspired - for Cale, anyway. Bless his heart, he's really just a country boy with the soul of a biker and a good education, and a voice I can listen to for hours... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:31:11 -0500 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: allmusic.com mention Hi Fegs, I was looking for the release date of "Globe of Frogs" and came across this allmusic.com "genre" article in which Robyn gets a mention as well as a position in the "16 (?-ed) Essential Records of British Alternative Rock". http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=19:T579 The 16 albums are: The Smiths, Singles The Smiths, The Queen Is Dead The Cure, Staring at the Sea The Jesus and Mary Chain, Psychocandy New Order, Substance XTC, Skylarking Robyn Hitchcock, Globe of Frogs The Housemartins, London 0 Hull 4 The Stone Roses, The Stone Roses The La's, The La's Happy Mondays, Pills 'n' Thrills & Bellyaches My Bloody Valentine, Loveless Primal Scream, Screamadelica Suede, Suede Blur, Parklife Oasis, Definitely Maybe Two Smiths albums is just dumb. New Order - okay, they might be important but on principle kick them off the list. The Happy Mondays are an irritant so they're off as well. And I never heard Primal Scream, off with them as well. It's good I don't make the lists because it would be just RH and Suede albums. But I am glad to see that La's album listed because it deserves all the mention it can get. The backstory of the search is that someone posted this on the RH yahoo group: http://www.archive.org/details/gd88-09-24.sbd.rich.425.sbeok.shnf Which is Suzanne Vega singing for the Grateful Dead doing a cover of "Chinese Bones". And I was surprised that someone was covering "Chinese Bones" in the fall of 1988. I couldn't find a more specific date than "1988" for "Globe of Frogs" (I didn't try very hard.) I know that the record was fairly popular on college radio, but thought perhaps Miss Vega is a fan because the song certainly hadn't been around long at the time of the Dead performance. Or maybe Jerry used to stay home and rock out doing jams to "Vibrating." xo Lauren, just about to start that problem set - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #52 *******************************