From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #159 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, April 18 2007 Volume 16 : Number 159 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [FSThomas ] Re: reap at virginia tech [2fs ] RE: reap at virginia tech ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: Machismo Festapalooza [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Machismo Festapalooza ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: Machismo Festapalooza [kevin ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [The Great Quail ] Reap [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [2fs ] Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... [The Great Quail Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... Bachman, Michael wrote: > Wasn't the guy an absolute nut case by all counts before the shooting? > If true, it sure backs up your point of the ease of buying a gun in > Virginia, and it's failure to check into the mental state of potential > gun buyers. Shame on Virginia. From what I've gathered about law enforcement and collegiate interaction with him prior to the event, he had been accused of stalking at least one girl on campus, to which he was questioned and no charges were brought. His professors and/or tutors also found his writings disturbing (see The Smoking Gun [http://tinyurl.com/2weycf] for at least one transcript), but other than referring him to counseling, were powerless to do anything. From an interview on GMA this morning his tutor said neither she nor the school could have contacted his parents if they had wanted to without the his express consent due to confidentiality policies at the school. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:34:20 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: reap at virginia tech 2fs wrote: > They're certainly *primarily* for guns. Knives/shivs are a lot easier to get your hands on than a gun I would wager. Simply in light of the ease of acquisition the threat they pose should be higher, no? > As for the "shitty, shitty parenting": that may be part of it, but why are > those folks such shitty parents? Perhaps education that warehouses and > doesn't educate students (for a good insight, see Jonathan Kozol's "Still > Separate, Still Unequal": ), > jobs that pay less than people need to afford decent housing, lack of decent > housing, poisonous police/citizen relations, etc. Shame the article's only available to subscribers. > Of course that isn't all - or these shootings would take place only in > poorer, urban schools: Columbine's a good counterexample. > > But I doubt "shitty parenting" is really relevant to extreme examples like > Columbine and VA Tech. At any rate, parents are not the primary influence on > people after early childhood: peers are, followed by schools and the media > (see Judith Rich Harris's _The Nurture Assumption_). More relevantly: by far > most parents are aware of, and teach that, shooting people is a bad idea. They may not be the primary influence but they have the primary responsibility until the age of 18, like it or not. > Finally: assuming "shitty parenting" *is* the problem, what's to be done > about it? Have them bear responsibility for their children and the child's actions. Entering into parenting isn't something you should trip into lightly. The responsibility of parenthood lasts a bit longer than a hot and heavy session in the back seat of a car. > Except the minor matter of their need to be re-elected. Or do you genuinely > believe that most elected officials, were it not for the "threat" of an > armed citizenry, would take "absolute power" in a heartbeat? Can you name any altruistic politicians? They start seeking re-election almost immediately upon taking office (possibly before actually getting elected). If at the same time they could strip the population of any ability to take action against them why wouldn't they? Especially under the shiny happy guise of "safety." Always take a politician's "it's for your own good" protestations with a grain of salt. > If you do: why haven't they done so most everywhere else in the world, where > there *are* stricter gun laws? If their likelihood of doing so is higher, > what is it about this country that makes that the case? The scope of other governments shouldn't enter the debate. Their foundations (not to mention their structure) are different, so aren't necessarily applicable. Look at the English Bill of Rights, for example. Oh, that's right. You can't. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:59:39 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: reap at virginia tech On 4/18/07, FSThomas wrote: > > 2fs wrote: > > > They're certainly *primarily* for guns. > > Knives/shivs are a lot easier to get your hands on than a gun I would > wager. Simply in light of the ease of acquisition the threat they pose > should be higher, no? No. To kill someone with a knife you have to get in quite close and hit just right. WIth a gun, you can be a large distance away, it's a lot easier to kill, and you can lather rinse repeat easily. You think 33 people would have died at VATech if the guy'd had a knife? > As for the "shitty, shitty parenting": that may be part of it, but why are > > those folks such shitty parents? Perhaps education that warehouses and > > doesn't educate students (for a good insight, see Jonathan Kozol's > "Still > > Separate, Still Unequal": < > http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/09/0080727>), > > jobs that pay less than people need to afford decent housing, lack of > decent > > housing, poisonous police/citizen relations, etc. > > Shame the article's only available to subscribers. Try < http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/American-Apartheid-Education1sep05.htm> They may not be the primary influence but they have the primary > responsibility until the age of 18, like it or not. > > > Finally: assuming "shitty parenting" *is* the problem, what's to be done > > about it? > > Have them bear responsibility for their children and the child's > actions. Entering into parenting isn't something you should trip into > lightly. The responsibility of parenthood lasts a bit longer than a hot > and heavy session in the back seat of a car. Agreed, mostly. What "responsibility" (legally), in addition, do you want? (And of course, the VA shooter was 20...so, doesn't matter.) Plus which: parents cannot *control* their children, ultimately. If a teen is determined to do something, he will find a way to do it. There is no total safety or security outside a police state - which I know you're not in favor of. > Except the minor matter of their need to be re-elected. Or do you genuinely > > believe that most elected officials, were it not for the "threat" of an > > armed citizenry, would take "absolute power" in a heartbeat? > > Can you name any altruistic politicians? Russ Feingold. But anyway: lacking "altruism" is a long way from seizing absolute power. They start seeking re-election > almost immediately upon taking office (possibly before actually getting > elected). If at the same time they could strip the population of any > ability to take action against them why wouldn't they? Especially under > the shiny happy guise of "safety." Always take a politician's "it's for > your own good" protestations with a grain of salt. Of course. Always take "it's for your own good" from *anyone* with power with a grain of salt. For some reason, for many libertarians and many right-wingers, business leaders don't count here. But as for "strip[ping] the population of any ability to take action against them": you seriously believe that most politicians would do this, given the chance? I'm sorry - that's just paranoid. They will take advantage - typically to enrich themselves, sure - I'm not that naive - but I simply do not believe most politicians harbor desires to be Adlof Hilter. (Near miss on Godwin's law there...) > If you do: why haven't they done so most everywhere else in the world, > where > > there *are* stricter gun laws? If their likelihood of doing so is > higher, > > what is it about this country that makes that the case? > > The scope of other governments shouldn't enter the debate. Their > foundations (not to mention their structure) are different, so aren't > necessarily applicable. I don't buy it. Your argument amounts to: politicians (in the US) would seize absolute power and strip away everyone's rights if they could. I"m asking what's different about this country, and its citizens (or at least, those citizens who become politicians) that would make that the case - when in other countries without such easy access to guns, even those with relatively strong social freedom (I know Britain has more restrictive rights than we do, such as concerning free speech - but it's hardly a dictatorship), that doesn't happen. If it's entirely a matter of "different social structure and foundation," that would seem to argue *against* the US social structure and foundation...since, apparently, it compels its political class toward seizing power and eliminating liberty. - - ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:10:25 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: reap at virginia tech - -----Original Message----- >> Can you name any altruistic politicians? Jeff came back with: >Russ Feingold. He's a keeper for sure. Maybe the best Democratic US Senator since Michigan's Phil Hart, who was know as "The Conscious of the Senate" and even has a US Senate building named after him. He was a contemporary of JFK's and after being re-elected numerous times, he chose not to run in 1976 due to declining health problems (cancer). MJ Bachman ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:36:43 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... >Wait... I know a lot of gay people, and I have never heard any of them call >a bisexual a homosexual at heart. Or do you mean a heterosexual at heart? Or >do you mean that gay people actually think that bisexuals are Republicans >trapped in closets? What? It's been a common theme with some of the guys I've known, is all I'm sayin'. (Not the republican thing, the bi one.) >But rigorous >background checks, mandatory training courses that require instructor >approval, and limitations based on psychiatric records are not a bad start. And in the real world that's as good as it's likely to get. I could certainly settle for that. >As far as the concealed weapon law...well, if you are going to murder >people, you are going to conceal your weapon regardless of a permit. But that's my other rant - if we didn't let anyone possess anything but a rifle or a shotgun (which do have legitimate functions in the real world) they'd have a harder time concealing it. Not that you can't cut one down, but it requires a lot more effort than popping Daddy's Magnum in your backpack before school. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:38:43 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Machismo Festapalooza >And then I would declare that all fans of "Rent" and "Crash" would have to >battle to the death in a giant steel cage match suspended above an active >volcano. Which Crash we talking here - the recent one, or Cronenberg's? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:01:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Machismo Festapalooza > And then I would declare that all fans of "Rent" and "Crash" would > have to battle to the death in a giant steel cage match suspended > above an active volcano. There are fans of "Rent"? "Children have always enjoyed my movies. They are just not allowed to watch many of them." -- John Waters . Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:29:48 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: Machismo Festapalooza kevin says: > >And then I would declare that all fans of "Rent" and "Crash" would have to > >battle to the death in a giant steel cage match suspended above an active > >volcano. > > Which Crash we talking here - the recent one, or Cronenberg's? the recent one. i'll even put $20.00 on that one if someone is silly enough to take the cronenberg movie. xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:05:31 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Machismo Festapalooza >There are fans of "Rent"? Um, you can't make a musical that there won't be fans of. I'll take Crash, myself. The Cronenberg one. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:33:34 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... Kevin writes, >Which Crash we talking here - the recent one, or Cronenberg's? The recent one. I *loved* Cronenberg's film. > It's been a common theme with some of the guys I've known, is all I'm sayin'. > (Not the republican thing, the bi one.) But what? Seriously, I still don't know. Most bisexual guys I know are "mostly" straight. Meaning, they'll be with guys sexually, but only fall for women and wind up married to one. Most gay guys I know have slept with the occasional chick, but do not call themselves "bi." (This is discounting being in the closet or initial realizations.) I am not picking a fight, or even (maybe) disagreeing with you. I just don't understand the statement. > But that's my other rant - if we didn't let anyone possess anything but a > rifle or a shotgun (which do have legitimate functions in the real world) > they'd have a harder time concealing it. You are right, but what's "legitimate" mean? You don't think that my love of target shooting is as "legitimate" as hunting or skeet shooting? > it requires a lot more effort than popping Daddy's Magnum in your backpack > before school. Heh... Magnum is actually a type of ammunition, just for the record. - --Hunter S. Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:35:41 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: Machismo Festapalooza kevin says: > I'll take Crash, myself. The Cronenberg one. you're on. xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:06:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Reap Kitty Carlisle Hart http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8OJ6OL01.html "Children have always enjoyed my movies. They are just not allowed to watch many of them." -- John Waters . Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:12:39 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On 4/18/07, The Great Quail wrote: > > K > > > But that's my other rant - if we didn't let anyone possess anything but > a > > rifle or a shotgun (which do have legitimate functions in the real > world) > > they'd have a harder time concealing it. > > You are right, but what's "legitimate" mean? You don't think that my love > of > target shooting is as "legitimate" as hunting or skeet shooting? I'm not Kevin (I'm not Lisa, my name is Julie...no, wait: it's Prince), but...no, it's not. You can shoot at targets with rifles or shotguns - or grenade launchers or automatic machine guns, but the reason some weapons are prohibited is that they're primarily used to kill people; i.e., they're too dangerous to allow people to use them merely for target shooting. I mean, anything you can aim, you can aim at a target. Granted, your target's going to vary depending on what you're shooting at it with...but let's put it this way: are you willing to let your desire to target-shoot with a handgun be more important than the number of lives that would be saved (likely, based on stats comparing gun deaths here with elsewhere) by having you shoot at targets instead using less easily concealed weapons that are used for hunting, etc.? Kinda reminds me (and I'm not saying you're guilty of this one, or necessarily the first one: maybe you just didn't think of it) of the blind spot of certain anti-"gentrification" activists here in town. Preamble: in a capitalist economy, if you improve a neighborhood by reducing crime, improving the existing housing, adding new housing, etc., the property values are going to rise. There is simply no way around that (barring rent control and other government actions that I'm sure a fundamentalist capitalist would declare incorrect). Note also that locally, our current condo boom primarily occupies land that was formerly either vacant or derelict factory space; i.e., except insofar as the presence of a new condo drives property value of neighboring properties upward, people are not being directly displaced - unlike in some cities. Anyway: our local alternative weekly did an article on "gentrification" in a neighborhood sorta nearish the UWM campus, one of the few racially mixed neighborhoods in the city, home to some students (particularly older ones), artists and musicians, and sundry 'regular' people, mostly lower- to middle-income (the rents and housing costs have been cheap relative to elsewhere in the city). One reason those housing costs are relatively low is that parts of the neighborhood have (or are perceived to have: where housing values are concerned, same dif) fairly high crime rates. So, some person interviewed in the article says something like, well, I like the neighborhood the way it is, a little funky, a little gritty, and I don't want my rent to go up just because a bunch of yuppies want to build a condo here. I doubt it's occurred to that person that the "grit" he speaks of is, essentially, a byproduct and aura of the crime rate - which is to say, his rent is kept low by the fact that his neighbors are likelier to be (and some *have been*) victims of crime. So, glory hallelujah, someone down the block got shot in a driveby; guess his rent'll stay low. What's that Sex Pistols line? "A cheap holiday in other people's misery"? (To me this whole scenario is why subjecting housing - a basic need - to the vicissitudes of the market is a bad thing: you can generally reduce your rent by increasing your risk of being a victim of crime. Perhaps that could be simplified by introducing a lottery function into leases: once a year, the landlord draws a name and tosses some dice; whoever's name comes up becomes a crime victim, with the dice roll determining the crime, ranging from being robbed non-violently on the low end to being plugged in the skull with a bullet on the high end. I don't doubt that some folks would go for both ends of this deal.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:21:36 +0100 From: hssmrg@bath.ac.uk Subject: heavily anapestic Sebastian Hagedorn quoth: > That's neat. Ah, you shortened the title, it's "How They Brought the Good > News from Ghent to Aix". So now I also get why it was an approprate quote. I didn't mean to shorten the title, but fortunately the link gave it regardless. - - Mike 'moderately anapestic' Godwin PS I have just been reading the autobiography of barmy G K Chesterton, whose first book was about Browning, and who met everybody who was anybody in London during the period from the Boer War to the mid-30s: H G Wells, Winston Churchill, E Clerihew Bentley (of clerihew fame), George Bernard Shaw, Alice Meynell (who?), Hilaire Belloc, A P Herbert, Swinburne, Thomas Hardy, Bertrand Russell etc etc. He raved about Browning and Swinburne [does anyone read Swinburne nowadays?], but later in life he converted to Catholicism and started making disturbing noises about how wonderful Mussolini was, though he was less impressed by Hitler. has some interesting anecdotes and a discussion of whether GKC was antisemitic or not... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:46:55 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: heavily anapestic >Swinburne [does anyone read Swinburne nowadays?] Love that Swinburne. Occasinally I get into a particularly Goth-y mood and nothing gratifies it like a big hit of A.C., particularly on those dark and drizzly days we're inclined to get from, say, September to April. It's intense stuff, inclining to the hysterical. Swinburne was known to be a devotee of the S&M, which was one of the reasons he was such a scandal to the Victorians, and you can definitely get a whiff of it in the poems. Faves: "Dolores," "The Triumph Of Time," a few other things I don't recall at the moment. The curious can check this out: http://people.virginia.edu/~bpn2f/Swinburne/1866.html has some >interesting anecdotes and a discussion of whether GKC was antisemitic >or not... Not a big fan of wiki, but it would be hard to find anyone of note from back in the old days who never made an antisemitic noise. I think it was something in the air. Fortunately most of us are immune to it these days, for the moment at least. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:00:16 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... >no, it's not. The last time I checked, it was perfectly legal to discharge a licensed handgun at a target in certain areas. Which makes it entirely as a "legitimate" concept as firing a shotgun at a fleeing pheasant. (Or quail.) What is *not* a legitimate use for these guns is killing innocent people. - --Q ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:11:40 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... Jeezis, can't catch a break for nothin' today. >But what? Seriously, I still don't know. Most bisexual guys I know are >"mostly" straight. Meaning, they'll be with guys sexually, but only fall for >women and wind up married to one. Most gay guys I know have slept with the >occasional chick, but do not call themselves "bi." (This is discounting >being in the closet or initial realizations.) I am not picking a fight, or >even (maybe) disagreeing with you. I just don't understand the statement. > Simply put, and it wasn't anything but a casual remark to begin with, some gay guys of my acquaintance have been known to voice the opinion that bisexuals are all "really" gay but don't want to admit it, whether to themselves or anybody else. This has generally been in the context of casual gossip shading into outright bitchery, and it's not anything I intended to present as an absolute. I don't believe it myself - I was just making a snotty remark at the expense of those pesky libertarians, is all. >> But that's my other rant - if we didn't let anyone possess anything but a >> rifle or a shotgun (which do have legitimate functions in the real world) >> they'd have a harder time concealing it. > >You are right, but what's "legitimate" mean? You don't think that my love of >target shooting is as "legitimate" as hunting or skeet shooting? I don't have any quarrel with hunting or varmint-shooting or target shooting (isn't that what skeet shooting is?). Depending on where and how you live they're all useful activities and fun too. My quarrel is with handguns, and for the purpose of this discussion let's except target pistols from that category. But a Glock or a Walther PPK, or for that matter the 2" 38-caliber Colt my mom keeps stashed under her bed, is a tool for killing people, and I'm convinced we'd all be better off without 'em. >> it requires a lot more effort than popping Daddy's Magnum in your backpack >> before school. > >Heh... Magnum is actually a type of ammunition, just for the record. > Yeah yeah, but it's also a generic term for a big-ass handgun, kinda like what they used to call a hawg-leg. >--Hunter S. Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:39:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Bachman, Michael wrote: > Wasn't the guy an absolute nut case by all counts before the shooting? No kind of gun licensing was going to prevent this kid from being a "nut case"... at least nothing like directly. The thing that sickens me the most about this is that schoolmates have pretty uniformly said that he was scary and they were just waiting for him to do something hurtful. So where the fuck were they? Some of you like to go on about the responsibility of citizens to gun down one another when it looks like there's a threat. What about the responsibility of citizens to hug one another when it looks like there's a miserable piece of shit among us? You can't wait for some authority figure to intervene. Telling your teacher or counselor when a kid is fucked up is the FIRST step because those people need to be prepared to be used as a LAST resort. After you talk to your teacher, you need to take it upon yourself to talk to the guy you think is crazy. Take him to lunch. If you can't stand his company, well, get a dozen other folks to take him to lunch, too... that way you only have to do it fortnightly. I'm also kind of sickened that people are using the fact that this kid sought mental healthcare as a reason to track people who have sought mental healthcare. That is, of course, only going to drive people away from seeking what they may desperately need. We wonder why all these kids feel alienated and what someone else can do to help. Am I the only one that sees the irony there? > If true, it sure backs up your point of the ease of buying a gun in > Virginia, and it's failure to check into the mental state of potential > gun buyers. Shame on Virginia. Gah. Controlling the legal sale of guns isn't going to do a damned thing to prevent gun violence. So long as guns are sold at all, they will be used by miserable people to make other people miserable. That's why guns exist. Jeffrey mentioned that rifles and shotguns have "legitimate uses", but then went on to say that target shooting was not legitmate because you can target shoot with all kinds of different things. Newsflash: You can hunt with all kinds of different things, too. And given the high availability of grains, nuts, and dairy in this country, the legitimacy of hunting with the efficiency afforded by firearms is highly questionable. A sportsman or a hungry person could, given the modern benefits of warm camouflage and attractants, do just as well with a bow or even a high-powered tazer. While I am certainly advocating the ceased wholesale production of firearms, I am not saying that there should be any kind of legal ban. (Hell, enforcing that sort of thing just requires more firearms to fight the arms manufacturers, right?) Instead, I think we have to attack this social problem with our social tools. People who own or want to own guns (including police and military) should be socially reprimanded and ridiculed. They want to be able to do serious damage with little effort on their part and that's not OK. We don't have a gun control problem, we have a gun problem. The same goes for violent video games, movies, television shows, flip-books, song lyrics, poetry slams, etc. No, we should not ban such speech. Goodness, no. But we shouldn't tolerate obsessive indulgence in it, either. It's one thing to go see Grindhouse with your girl in a Friday night and quite another to repeatedly run videos of simulated murder day after day. Unfortunately, there are almost no interesting counterpoints to these images in the public culture. Nobody is out there showing these fantasy events in realistic context. I absolutely loved the scene in Austin Powers: International Man Of Mystery after the unnamed henchman is killed by the steamroller and they show the henchman's son coming home from school and asking the henchman's wife if he and daddy can play catch and the wife says like, "After he gets home from work, you let him rest and eat this dinner I'm making and then you guys can have a good time." Then she gets the call that he's been killed and their lives are shattered. That scene was cut from the film. It was funny because it showed how absurd these action fantasies are. As a rule, the absurdity and horror is not acknowledged while the excitement and rewards are glamorized. All of these things are systemic, though, so nobody will ever even attempt to address them. Instead, we'll hear people talk about what can be done to wipe out this symptom or that emergent manifestation of the larger problem. Somehow people understand that they can contribute to a problem, but not its resolution. I was talking to a guy yesterday about his driving habits and he agreed completely that his driving contributed to environmental decay and decreased public health (automobile exhaust is the second largest cause of lung disease in the USA). But he insisted that if he STOPPED driving all the time, that wouldn't do anything to slow the decay or improve public health. He's "just one guy", after all. So somehow a bunch of "one guys" can make it worse, but they can't make it better. Just like the crazy murderousness, nearly every person is making it worse nearly every day. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #159 ********************************