From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #111 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, March 20 2007 Volume 16 : Number 111 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: My name is "Brittany Spears", and my spasticism is becoming rather becoming (if I may say so) ["Miles Goosens] RE: Like you're dying to know what I just got... [Carrie Galbraith ] Re: beatles ["Miles Goosens" ] Re: beatles ["Michael Sweeney" ] RE: European dates for Lou's Berlin tour ["Michael Sweeney" ] Re: Like you're dying to know what I just got... ["Michael Sweeney" ] Re: Totally unnecessary [craigie* ] Re: Beatles, Crowded House ect [2fs ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #107 [djini@voicenet.com] Re: My name is "Brittany Spears", and my spasticism is becoming rather becoming (if I may say so) [Rex <] Re: Sasquatch Gigolo Service (est. 1982) [Rex ] Re: Like you're dying to know what I just got... [Rex ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:42:06 -0500 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: Re: My name is "Brittany Spears", and my spasticism is becoming rather becoming (if I may say so) On 3/19/07, Stacked Crooked wrote: > band returns for...)> > > with robyn on vocals? that's pretty neat, if so. Oh, sorry - I thought the "co-lead" asterisk for Gil indicated that Robyn also sang lead vocals on those songs. Robyn sang lead on everything, with Gil doing some of the verses on the Welch/Rawlings stuff. And Robyn sings this one magnificently, with that great lower register thing goin' on. He sounds very knowing and sinister singing "I wanna be right but not right now" - I like him singing it better than I like Gil singing it! From Rex' earlier post: > Crazy, man.> Like the Doors, there was no bass. But there wasn't even Ray Manzanerek's left hand at last night's show - though Robyn did do a story riff about using a severed hand as a visor. Another omission - in "Balloon Man," Robyn sang "I wished that I had ate your horse." later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:55:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Carrie Galbraith Subject: RE: Like you're dying to know what I just got... - -----Original Message----- >From: Marc Alberts > >I don't get it. It should be relatively easy to make a lens that can at >least do f1.8 if not f1.4 on a digital body--you just need to be willing to >sacrifice zoom (another feature that seems useful but makes learning how to >make photos more difficult). So the only cameras that can shoot with a >fairly open aperture are those with removable lenses like SLRs and the Leica >(a digital rangefinder that is way too big to be a solid candids camera even >though it probably has the best lenses for the job ever made). It really >sucks--I want a rangefinder for a few things rangefinders do really well, >like candids, but you can't do that digitally with a camera the size of a >brick or a lens that slow. A whole school of photography is going to die >unless Voigtlander or Konica or Leica get off their butts and finally make a >decent digital rangefinder. Well, I bought my digital slr in the fall of 2004 and am still thrilled. But I did learn to make pictures on my old Minolta SRT101 and Nikon F2 analog beauties. And I still put a roll or two of film through them here and there. In 2005, I actually left the analogs at home and only shot with my Nikon D70 and a Holga on a 3 week trip to Turkey. Didn't take my computer either - just made cd's every couple of days at internet cafes. Worked just fine. I have had great success shooting from the hip with my digital slr. It's not been a problem to capture candid images, it's not so loud as to take notice. I've not had anyone comment or question when I shot candid shots at a market or street fair or wherever. And it weighs slightly less than the Minolta, which I carted all over Eastern Europe on several occasions. So that hasn't been much of a bother. But I've never been of the school of hiding my cameras. Well, ok, the Rollei 35s that I took with me the first time I went to Eastern Europe fit in the palm of my hand and added that dimension of feeling a bit like a spy to the whole trip, which was strange enough since it was a 4 month study/travel solo journey commenced a little less than 6 months after the Berlin Wall fell. My biggest complaint about digital v/s analog is the incredibly high cost of getting slides made from digital files. But then again, who projects slides anymore?? - - c np: Cul De Sac: Death of the Sun ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:17:33 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: Like you're dying to know what I just got... RE: on the topic of females at Rush shows... I once went my friend Ty and his brother to go see this Genesis cover band called The Musical Box (I imagine they advertised an entire cover of "The Lamb Lies Down" for me to be interested.) The guys had tickets and I was last minute without a ticket; when we got there, it was sold out so I went and hung out at The Book Trader while they were at the show. Well, when I went to meet them, the crowd was just getting out, and I suddenly suspected I had been lied to: it was actually no girls allowed. I never saw anything like it: guys, guys, guys everywhere! Not that that's a bad thing... xo - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:30:48 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #107 >Hey - who you callin' a strange loop? Speaking of which, anybody familiar with expat Limey novelist Amanda Prantera? Her first novel was titled Strange Loop and it's fascinating stuff...brittle Austrian philosopher named Ludwig caught up in mysterious events in a convent that may or may not be haunted...followed by the second one, Conversations With Lord Byron On Perversion, 163 Years After His Lordship's Death...which is actually an epistolary tale of a woman falling in love with a computer program designed to simulate Byron's writing style - sort of the ultimate Turing machine story, if I'm recalling it accurately at all... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:33:18 -0500 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: Re: beatles On 3/19/07, 2fs wrote: > Uh-well, R.E.M. stole it from a Peter Sellers line (forget which movie), in > which it was probably punctuated per standard usage (and the "it's all a > part of" - although I'm not sure about that "a" - is from that line), so I > plead...uh, nerdy obscurity. > > Yes. I plead nerdy obscurity. It's one of the Pink Panther movies... Clouseau utters "Eet eez all part of life's rich pageant" after a series of humiliations that I remember as being particularly cruel even by Clouseau standards. My Graduate School Channel idea included an "Inspector Foucault" series. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:22:28 +0000 From: "Michael Sweeney" Subject: Re: beatles Jeff proferred: >I almost feel a bit sorry for George. I think in some ways his critical >profile as a songwriter would actually be higher if he hadn't been a >Beatle. >His work from about 1968 through 1974 or so is just top-flight stuff - and >a >lot of it too. >A good argument could be made, though, that he learned on the job - and >that >therefore if he hadn't have been a Beatle, he might not have pushed his >skills to as high a peak as he did. I was always a John guy (my recent Macca semi-defending notwithstanding), but also closely followed George...and, in the days after 9/11 (and, also sadly, shortly before GH's death), I found solace in the breadth and depth of the reissued "All Things Must Pass." (Of course, the "Apple Jam" tracks remain as dismissable now as then, but...that don't bother me at all.) ...And I think both of Jeff's points are spot-on (1. top-notch work from White Album through about the title track of "Dark Horse" (but not the "Dark Hoarse" vocal on it (he had a tour already announced and couldn't delay the album any longer to wait for his throat to get any better - or so goes what I've always heard) or much of the rest of the album); and 2. competition from the Big Two spurring on his songwriting). I also remember George somewhat agreeing that his writing lagged behind a bit in the beginning because he was concentrating more on the guitar in the early days...hence, he was the best musician early on, and, well, you would have had to be Mozart or Jobim or something to not be the third-best composer in that conglomerate, anyway... My name is Michael, and, yes, I have a parentheses problem... (Hi, Michael!) _________________________________________________________________ Interest Rates near 39yr lows! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new payment http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-18466&moid=7581 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:42:27 +0000 From: "Michael Sweeney" Subject: RE: European dates for Lou's Berlin tour Bachman, from the nearly infinite continuum of Feg Michaels wrote: >This should not be missed for those that have a chance to see any of >those shows. I read a couple of very positive reviews about his >performance in Sydney two months ago. >Here's one of them from The Go-Betweens message board: >"I went on Saturday and have to say it might just be the best concert >I've ever seen. I went in with fairly low expectations - expecting a >somber show to match the mood of the album. How wrong I was. The whole >presentation was superb - and uplifting. A very theatrical performance, >featuring a string and woodwind section, a youth choir etc. Should have >been a train wreck - but somehow it all worked. First time I think I've >seen the whole audience stand as one at the end of a rock gig - giving a >sustained 5 minute ovation. Lou himself in fine form - he was blown away >by the reception and seemed quite emotional at the end. >The band were beyond excellent. Included Fernando Saunders on bass and >the legendary Steve Hunter on guitar - who even reprised the Rock'n'Roll >Animal version of Sweet Jane during the encore. Great googly-moogly! The concert I was born for!! (Indeed, it was my Lou love (not that there's anything wrong with that) - especially for "Berlin" - that lured me from longtime lurker to full participant in this list (so now some of you know who to blame).) Short of actually resurrecting Quine (or convincing Cale that the new cello parts for "Berlin" outweigh his Lou antipathy), I cannot imagine anything better. (Well, of course I could...but since Mimi Rogers and Helen Hunt aren't coming over for cake and back rubs anytime in the foreseeable future, this will have to suffice...) I will run this through the Google to find out what I can (please let me not have missed the US dates!) (or: please let there actually BE US dates), but any other info would be greatly appreciated. Michael "'Berlin' makes even Nick Cave, Billy Corgan, and Leonard Cohen look cheerful" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:51:54 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: Sasquatch Gigolo Service (est. 1982) Marc Alberts says: > Dave was iconic during those years. Stupid Pet Tricks was great, but for me > the key to greatness was the dropping of things off the fire tower. Once he > stopped doing that, the show went downhill. i correlate his show going downhill with the ongoing top 10 list. i don't know if it's a cause/effect thing, but that's when i stopped watching it as much. one thing i loved about dave was his sort of rotating obsessions. he would become preoccupied with something for awhile, and then get interested in something else - kind of like a kid. he did have his ongoing bits that remained funny ("if they weren't from actual viewers, could i do *this* with them?") but he didn't try to get a laugh out of them every night year after year. so the top 10 list struck me as an attempt to appeal to a broader, less-dave-ish audience. > The funniest moment had to be the catchphrase competition where the three > finalists were: "Them bats is smart.... They use radar!"; "I'm a sweet > little cupcake...baked by the devil!"; and the twins (who I happened to know > at the time) whinging "They pelted us with rocks and garbage." I still use > all of those from time to time, twenty years later. like jeff, i remember the "pelted us with rocks and garbage" but i must have missed the competition itself. i like the cupcake one, but i think the rocks and garbage one is better for general use. do any of you old folks remember the phil donahue countdown calendar? BTW, i confess i would get a weird little thrill whenever dave would get embarrassed by something. i like the side of him that reminded me of carson. xo - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 04:21:23 +0000 From: "Michael Sweeney" Subject: RE: Random note Michael Bachman wrote: (re: Aimee Mann's love life) >I believe so. She made the rounds, Jules Sheer, Jon Brion and Dave >Gregory before finding and marrying Michael Penn. >Peter Wolf was also rumored to be in there at some point. My girlfriend and I often (OK: occasionally) (OK, OK: once or twice) debate our selections for overall "Weirdest Celebrity Couples" (her picks: Warren Beatty and Madonna; Cher and a young Tom Cruise)...but I have always considered the trophy retired with the late-70s marriage of Peter Wolf and Faye Dunaway. Wha? How did that happen? And can you imagine that pillow talk? PW: Jamma wamma slamma (unintelligible)!! FD: Sister, daughter; sister. daughter; she's my sister...AND my daughter! PW: Where's my Magic Dick? Whoooooooo!! FD: NO MORE WIRE HANGERS!!!! Michael Sweeney (And, yes, I was aware of Flavor Flav / Brigitte Nielsen, Julia Roberts / Lyle Lovett, and Michael Jackson or Nick Cage / Lisa Marie Presley...) _________________________________________________________________ i'm making a difference. Make every IM count for the cause of your choice. Join Now. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0080000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtagline ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 05:19:32 +0000 From: "Michael Sweeney" Subject: Re: Like you're dying to know what I just got... Tom Clark (fy!) wrote: >On Mar 19, 2007, at 2:04 PM, 2fs wrote: >>That would be an absolutely killing Jeopardy category: Bass Players Who >>Dress Like Nine-Year-Old Girls. >The guy from Weezer? Flea? Or: Sting while holding a lute? Macca circa 1972? Tina Weymouth when she was 9? >>Sing like Sean Connery? I wasn't aware of Mr. Connery's vocal stylings. >Well Trebek, after last night your mother is!!! "I swear, Trebek, if you could bottle that 'Penis Mightier,' you'd have a goldmine!" Michael "Yay! I'm back in the soon-to-be-record-breaking thread" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Watch free concerts with Pink, Rod Stewart, Oasis and more. Visit MSN Presents today. http://music.msn.com/presents?icid=ncmsnpresentstagline&ocid=T002MSN03A07001 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:47:20 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: Like you're dying to know what I just got... Stewart wrote: > Marc Alberts wrote: > > > > I bought this same camera (the silver one, not the black one--kind of > wish I > > had that choice to do over again) > > I have the black one. It's quite pretty. The silver one is pretty as well, but not as discreet. > > > ... it has that annoying delay before shooting that you don't get > shooting > > with a film rangefinder. > > are you forgetting about the wind-on and focus delay, not to mention > the > bloody irritating film-rewind-and-change bit every 20-36 frames? I'm not forgetting them at all--they're just non-issues. When you shoot candids or people, you pre-focus so not only is there no delay but there is no annoying "whirrrr" sound of the lens focusing. With a half-way decent manual lens you simply take into account what you want your images to look like and frame them appropriately with your feet (or re-calibrate, which takes virtually no time at all if you know how to read a lens barrel). With autofocus and autoexposure, you end up with what the camera wants you to shoot. I prefer the former, which is why I bought a digital camera that was capable of doing a focus lock and fully manual exposure so I could control it, but it's not easier because the camera *wants* to be more controlling. As far as changing out film, if you want to learn you need to see your mistakes and actually take the time to think about what you could have done to make the photo better. Hitting a "delete" key instantly doesn't provide that sort of learning experience for most. So in order to mimic what you could do with a 36 exposure roll of film (with my favorite camera I shoot sheet film, which is at best 2 exposures per film holder), you end up using up a gig of memory and save yourself the two minutes (max) it takes to change three rolls of film, but at the expense of 2 seconds of delay to expose a frame which may only have a lifespan of a tenth of a second. Changing film can be an issue if you're shooting sports where you don't have control of time, but for shooting the things most people care about it is pretty meaningless; shutter delay, however, is huge. > > I used to shoot rangefinders (Bessa-R, with Nokton and Super-Wide > Heliar > - fun!), but I can currently see no advantage to film. The cameras are faster, the range of exposures better, the exposure latitudes (particularly in low light) are much better, and the equipment is smaller for doing street photography. If they could make the Lumix so that it would take Leica M-mounts and could fire up with a delay of less than a tenth of a second, I'd agree with you. > > > why the > > hell has the industry assumed that a maximum aperture of f2.8 is > acceptable > > for a camera that has the rest of the specs? > > 'cos with smaller sensors you get the same DOF with a slower lens? > Since > the number of people who want these features is vanishingly small, and > since a sub f/2 lens is pretty big (and rather hard to make well), the > cost would be high. That's the problem--you don't want the depth of field for these kinds of shots, but with an f2.8 lens at 9mm, it I almost impossible to blur the foreground or background. That is a severe limitation for those who want to use the camera with even a little bit of artistic control. As for the quality and size, the smallest lens I own is a Leica M-mount 35m f1.4. It was built for an M3, judging by the age, so it would seem that the size and quality issues were solved by at least 1962. It is also probably the sharpest lens I own outside of my large format normal lens. Of course, LF lenses have to have greater resolving powers, but still. Heck, you can get a better lens for a Nikon D series camera for less than $100 new that will be physically the same size as the one on the Lumix but a full stop faster, and you can get a used f1.4 for about the same price in pristine condition. No, the lenses aren't the limiting factor. The limiting factor is that other than Leica, no one is willing to put a sensor physically large enough in a small body to give that depth of field without silhouetting because they are too busy pushing zoom lenses. Yet another "tool" that makes learning how to make photographs harder for a beginner, who simply zooms everything but then wonders why their photos never look like what they thought they should look like. They're bigger, lower quality, and slower, but that is what people have been conditioned to want. Now I'll be the first to admit that I'm not in the fattest part of the bell curve when it comes to cameras, but I would have figured that someone would have addressed the needs for this type of photography at some point in the last decade. Leica did with the M8, but decided to make it big enough that it actually is a rangefinder that compares to my Nikon F100. That's simply too big to be useful for candids. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:52:20 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: Like you're dying to know what I just got... Stewart wrote: > Marc Alberts wrote: > > > > No idea as to the whys, but until you get to the top of the line > > professional digital SLRs this is true. > > Not really. My three year old D70 is pretty bloody instantaneous. The SLRs were always faster. > The > Lumix has a slight delay, fractionally more than my older Sony P100. My > ancient Fujifilm (1.3 megapixel! w00t!) is a couple of seconds. I just timed my Lumix--1.3 seconds in medium light conditions. That's not acceptable. > > The hip photoblogger kids these days use prefocus (just like old > rangefinder fogeys) to grab quick shots. With prefocus it is faster, but there is still a one frame per two seconds delay between exposures that is not acceptable either. Plus, doing any sort of manual focus or prefocus on the Lumix means turning off the anti-shake mechanisms, which is ugly without a tripod. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:12:56 +0000 From: craigie* Subject: Re: Beatles, Crowded House ect On 19/03/07, hssmrg@bath.ac.uk wrote: > > > > * You've been watching that 'Let it be' film again, haven't you? > > umm, yes, actually... I found a *really* good DVD boot (with outtakes!) and as it as the only Beatles film I hadn't seen properly (or owned) I just had to have one. It's a compulsion. Incidentally, I went home last night, (as I do most nights, actually) and checked the single of It Don't Come Easy. It says Starr. which still leaves the questions, why, if it was a Ringo Song a) did George do a 'demo' including the Krsna mantra? b) did they then USE THAT DEMO (albeit with heavy horn overdubs to mask the mantra? and c) do the lyrics fit exactly with George's other songs of the period about how hard it is to love everything? It's just George being humble again. This also explains why, years later, Ringo 'forgets the words to the song he wrote' when attempting it live. I rest my case. (and George's version sounds pretty finished for a demo - even the drumming is better than on Ringo's single...) phew! rock n roll! Now, back to your scheduled programs... c* - -- first things first, but not necessarily in that order... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:16:13 +0000 From: craigie* Subject: Re: Totally unnecessary relax, Lauren - he wouldn't like you - you're too smart. c* On 19/03/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > Tom Clark says: > > http://www.searchwithkevin.com/ > > I am a little too fascinated with this. I like how we get to see the > three sides very different sides of K-Fed. You know that it's not > easy to portray a complex man. > > Great tagline: play with fire. Especially because it has nothing to > do with anything else on the page. Well, not counting Mr. Federline's > *smoldering* good looks. > > I would already have the Firefox search plugin if I wasn't afraid of > actually winning. > > xo > > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." > > - The Buddha > - -- first things first, but not necessarily in that order... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:14:25 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Beatles, Crowded House ect On 3/20/07, craigie* wrote: > > > > Incidentally, I went home last night, (as I do most nights, actually) and > checked the single of It Don't Come Easy. It says Starr. which still > leaves the questions, why, if it was a Ringo Song a) did George do a > 'demo' > including the Krsna mantra? b) did they then USE THAT DEMO (albeit with > heavy horn overdubs to mask the mantra? and c) do the lyrics fit exactly > with George's other songs of the period about how hard it is to love > everything? > > It's just George being humble again. This also explains why, years later, > Ringo 'forgets the words to the song he wrote' when attempting it live. Ha. All this time I've just *assumed* it was a George song and so-credited. Yep: George reverting to the ol' "let's write one for Ringo to sing" model...and giving him credit (although Ritchie might have co-written I suppose). - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:24:22 -0400 (EDT) From: djini@voicenet.com Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #107 Kevin wrote: >>> the cookie, indeed. it is black on one side and white on the other. >>> >>> although if you rotate it, it is white on one side and black on the other. > > Not unlike that horrible Star Trek episode with, I think it was, Frank Gorshin. Is it me, or has this discussion started eating its own tail? Here's a worthy date for that alien: http://gofugyourself.typepad.com/go_fug_yourself/2007/03/random_fug.html Warning: the GFY website is a time-suck par excellence, if you happen to be amused by fashion trainwrecks. Jeanne ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:26:34 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: My name is "Brittany Spears", and my spasticism is becoming rather becoming (if I may say so) On 3/19/07, Miles Goosens wrote: > > Like the Doors, there was no bass. But there wasn't even Ray > Manzanerek's left hand at last night's show - Band name alert. Could be used as is, or as the LeGuinnish "The Left Hand of Manzanarek"... - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:58:56 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Sasquatch Gigolo Service (est. 1982) On 3/19/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > Marc Alberts says: > > Dave was iconic during those years. Stupid Pet Tricks was great, but for > me > > the key to greatness was the dropping of things off the fire > tower. Once he > > stopped doing that, the show went downhill. > > i correlate his show going downhill with the ongoing top 10 list. i > don't know if it's a cause/effect thing, but that's when i stopped > watching it as much. By the time of the switch to CBS, I wasn't watching as obsessively, and while I rooted for Dave in the Talk Show Wars, I only occasionally watched the CBS show when it started. I never thought it was bad or anything, it just seemed so much less secret, less of an in-joke... I saw it for the first time in years a while ago and I was kinda shocked at how old Dave looked, but once I got over that, it was still pretty funny. But the "new" (ha) set still seems temporary to me, like the old Late Night desk is still waiting for him somewhere at the end of the line. Weird. I think the guy's humor was massively influential, not just in professional comedy but in the way even casual humor has developed, especially on teh internets... and I kinda think it's hard to see that right now because he's still going. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:08:58 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Like you're dying to know what I just got... On 3/19/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > Rex says: > > As a semi-avid manual luddite myself, and also being pretty damned poor, > I > > just don't like digital cameras. > > Buy much film lately? Fair enough. I don't do much serious photography anymore. To what should be my infinite shame, I actually buy disposible cameras for snapshots of the kids at activities and such, but that's because my manual camera needs to go into the shop, and I find the snapshots from the disposibles roughly equivalent to the guy beside me's digital shots from the same event. I'll fix the whole thing eventually. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:43:35 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #107 Hi Fegs, Jeanne says: > Kevin wrote: > > >>> the cookie, indeed. it is black on one side and white on the other. > >>> > >>> although if you rotate it, it is white on one side and black on the other. > > > > Not unlike that horrible Star Trek episode with, I think it was, Frank Gorshin. > > Is it me, or has this discussion started eating its own tail? Yes, indeed. Kevin closed it out perfectly (I love anything that is like a snake eating its own tail.) > Here's a worthy date for that alien: > http://gofugyourself.typepad.com/go_fug_yourself/2007/03/random_fug.html > Warning: the GFY website is a time-suck par excellence, if you happen to be amused by > fashion trainwrecks. ...So I can't exactly thank you for that, Jeanne. I have a little Scarlett Johansson preoccupation. I already am getting myself in trouble: http://gofugyourself.typepad.com/go_fug_yourself/2006/11/the_fugstige.html Oh, jeez, I love this line, only because it's true: "but doesn't the cut of the dress make the ladies look, unbelievably, both droopy and perky?" xo - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #111 ********************************