From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #167 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, April 19 2007 Volume 16 : Number 167 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: like you're dying to know what i just got... ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: Can somebody please change the subject? [Tom Clark ] Re: Can somebody please change the subject? [Tom Clark ] Re: Can somebody please change the subject? [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: like you're dying to know what i just got... [kevin ] Re: virginia tech reap [2fs ] RE: Can somebody please change the subject? ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: virginia tech reap [Benjamin Lukoff ] Approximately Joe Boyd [kevin ] RE: like you're dying to know what i just got... ["Bachman, Michael" Subject: Re: like you're dying to know what i just got... Sweeney says: of "the squid and the whale": > Great film, great characters (although the younger brother may have been > sketched a little broader than the rest of the family, but...no matter), > great performances...Then, as the ending scene ramps up, the familiar > strings start up and I am forced to exclaim out loud, "Holy shit -- 'Street > Hassle'"...and this after already being amazed at the music clearance budget > being no doubt blown on getting "Hey You." i ended up renting this and watched it last night. it's only like an hour and 20 minutes - kind of a movie novella (movilla?) rewatching the movie reminded me of my fondness for portrayals of semi-failed intellectuals. i think the movie was just slightly cartoonish, but it still rang true. there was some really funny parts to it - i love e.g. how the father makes fun of people without ph.d's and when the older kid calls "the metamorphosis" kafkaesque, and how he parrots his father's e.g. "it's minor fitzgerald" phrases. and anna paquin - sheesh, what a babe. i used to wonder how they knew all these young actresses were going to grow up to be such shapely and clear-skinned teenagers, perfect for more movie roles. then i realized they don't know and just don't show us the ones that fail to grow up to be babes. have you seen "the wonder boys"? that one's got a similar feel to it. michael douglas plays jeff daniels and katie holmes plays anna paquin. xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:36:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? m swedene wrote: > Where was Bill? He went to get a sideways haircut, a striped shirt, plastic shoes, some funny sunglasses, an Air Force parka, a Vespa scooter, a British flag; then he went to go Mod Ska dancing. He did not go get a mohawk and some gnarly thrash boots, nor to go ride his skateboard. He may have gone to see the Circle Jerks. "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: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:38:05 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:18 PM, kevin wrote: > So Robyn Hitchcock, Peter Buck and Scott Macaughey walked into a > bar...you'd think one of them would have noticed it... Actually I had a dream last night that RH&V3 were playing an afternoon gig at a local bookstore. Everyone was having a good time until there was a pause in one of Robyn's monologues and all that anyone could hear was me ordering a Maker's Mark on the rocks. Robyn was extremely pissed and even followed with some disparaging remarks about me. All was forgiven later though, when I took the band to the hottest sushi place in town. Then I was awakened by my daughter yelling "I need more toilet paper!!!" - -tc, $17k tax refund this year. Where's the justice? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:40:40 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:21 PM, m swedene wrote: > On 4/19/07, kevin wrote: >> So Robyn Hitchcock, Peter Buck and Scott Macaughey walked into a >> bar...you'd think one of them would have noticed it... > Where was Bill? > Was he unloading his drums on his own? > > Was he working on a list (or a t-shirt) on reasons to hate Tom Clark? Oh come on, everybody knows Bill hates *everyone*. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:43:38 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > m swedene wrote: >> Where was Bill? > > He went to get a sideways haircut, a striped shirt, plastic shoes, > some funny sunglasses, an Air Force parka, a Vespa scooter, a British > flag; then he went to go Mod Ska dancing. He did not go get a mohawk > and some gnarly thrash boots, nor to go ride his skateboard. He may > have gone to see the Circle Jerks. *Golf clap* - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:44:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Tom Clark wrote: > -tc, $17k tax refund this year. Where's the justice? Seriously? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:59:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: rights On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Marc Alberts wrote: > On the other side, workers are hardly paid "diddly." The median family > income is over $50k per year, which may not make you rich but certainly > isn't "diddly." The median household income in the USA, according to the US Census Bureau 2006 survey, is US$46,326. That's not at all "over $50k". Consider that the middle 20% of households make between US$34,738 and US$55,331. That means just about 60% of the households in this country make less than US$50,000 per year. > And what do unions do? They restrict employment to their members and > then by creating an artificially small supply of labor drive up costs at > the expense of those who choose not to join a union. That's just not accurate. First, the point of the labor union is to take labor costs away from market control (where it will be driven down, like all production costs -- the reason we like market systems). So it's not an effect of a smaller supply of laborers that makes the wages higher. The labor union is there to make sure as much of the industry's revenue as possible is going toward worker compensation. This has to be done outside the supply/demand market system. Second, you claim that people who choose not to join a union are somehow suffering because of the union's existence. I can only guess at why you think that's true, so please feel free to interject your real reason if I missed it. If your claim is that workers are willing to work at lower rates and are being denied jobs because of union rules, you're right. But that doesn't mean the work isn't getting done or that anybody is unemployed because of this practice. That low-wage, non-union worker would replace a high-wage, union worker and the net effect would be lower income with the same level of employment. If your claim is that people are not taking jobs because they refuse to join a union, well, I would like to see any kind of evidence that this is a significant enough portion of the population to impact employment levels. The only people hurt by the unions are the capitalist profiteers... and their hurt is only measured in marginal profit loss. > And the flip side, getting back into the labor market, the employers can > just boycott the local unions and get in their proverbial carpool and > head towards labor markets that are willing to charge much less. This > is why unions need to change or they need to die--the market for labor > isn't a community anymore (nor is the market for the one local store in > your analogy local anymore since people can just buy over the internet > if they think local prices are too high), and as such local unions > artificially driving up labor prices tend to kill the employment in the > end. Either the employers move to other markets, or they stay with the > unions and fail to compete until they're virtually dead (see Motor > Company, Ford). Um, where's the net benefit? By what mechanism do people get improved standards of living if the employers are always moving to the lowest cost labor? Sure, we could kill our labor unions and compete economically by dropping our standard of living through the floor. Or we could keep our unions until every piece of production that is economically viable has moved overseas and our standard of living drops because of massive unemployment. Either way, we lose. Why would ANYONE support such a system? > Should we A) keep people from driving and hope that the trend slows > enough so that we don't see as much of a rise; or B) invest in systems > to protect people in low-laying levels, provide tax incentives to those > who would relocate to higher ground, etc.; or C) nothing we can do will > really matter anyway because everything is too unpredictable so we > should just watch it for now and develop policies based on real harms > since any real rise in sea levels will be so gradual that we'll have a > good amount of time to figure this stuff out? That is where the debate > really is. Or, at least, where it should be. D) All of the above, naturally. > Focusing on blaming man instead of solutions is real bass-ackwards. The problem is that people see cause-analysis as "blame". If we can determine that there is a current generation of people who have significantly effected the climate by their technology and behavior, our entire worldview changes, philosophically and practically. Emerson's essay entitled "Nature" argues that nature is those things that are unchangeable such as the mountains and the oceans. But if we can change the very climate, does the climate cease to be nature? Is Emerson wrong? If so, what is nature? And if the actions of individuals caused the change in climate to what we're getting, can the actions of people change the climate back? Or is it all too delicate and non-linear to attempt to manipulate intentionally? And if we did this, what else might we be doing with our current and future actions? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:55:42 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: like you're dying to know what i just got... >have you seen "the wonder boys"? that one's got a similar feel to it. > michael douglas plays jeff daniels and katie holmes plays anna >paquin. > Love Wonder Boys. It's really got that romantic early-70s we're-all-doomed vibe down and the cast is great. I can only hope Katie Holmes will escape the clutches of her dwarfish captor and do more decent work to justify how great I told everybody she was going to be after I saw her in Go, before I'd even heard of Dawson's Creek... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:04:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Tom Clark wrote: > -tc, $17k tax refund this year. Where's the justice? That's my annual stipend for the next five years. And I'm pretty happy about that. Did I mention that I got a teaching assistantship at Tulane and will be working on my PhD in the fall? I'm moving to New Orleans. That's going to be some culture shock. I hope I don't get Rexed for putting personal triumphs on the list. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:00:19 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Tom Clark wrote: > >> -tc, $17k tax refund this year. Where's the justice? > > Seriously? > Dude, having a mortgage and a child is a taxpayer's wet dream these days. Granted, I should be chastised for not submitting an updated W4 when I realized some unplanned gain, thus giving the feds an "interest free loan" for eight months. Anyway, my unmade point is that the tax system really is unfair from my perspective. I'm fortunate enough to make a decent living, but at the same time I have all this guilt about the loopholes I'm entitled to take advantage of on my 1040 every year. I mean, I don't know what Jeme's actual tax rate is, but anybody in this country who earns $7K should not have a tax bill at all. Once again, I probably just should have kept my mouth shut... - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:00:38 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: virginia tech reap On 4/19/07, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, 2fs wrote: > > > You meant "imply" rather than "infer." Anyway: my other job is doing > > > administrative work at a tax accounting firm. Several clients have > > > investments such that their little seven-year-old kids have income of > > > $100,000 per year. You tell me that that kid "earned" that money. > > > > The Declaration of Independence makes a very bold statement that I > happen > > to support: that people should be able to live free from remote > tyranny. > > Inherited wealth is nothing short of transgenerational remote tyranny. > > I'm not saying the estate tax should be eliminated (though it does need > some tweaking), but the idea that other members of the family do NOTHING > to contribute to the parents' earning is rather silly. First, I said nothing about eliminating the estate tax (which taxes the inheritor, not the "inheritee" i.e. the dead guy); in fact, the implication is that insofar as those claiming money should be earned rather than merely given to people ought to support such a tax. But as to your last statement: arguably, and by most conventional economic measures, a seven-year-old child not only does not contribute to the parents' earning, it's quite likely they detract from it - in that they cost more than they bring in. But in non- traditionally-economic measures, a child may indeed contribute to a family's wealth (not just economically). They contribute psychologically, emotionally, and in other ways (and, focusing for the moment strictly on wealth, may allow that person to be in a focused, non-worried state of mind that maximizes their ability to accumulate and create wealth). Go that way, though, and you may arrive at something I've been implying all along: wealth is not created strictly by the individual, and so it's not only the individual who should benefit from it (yes, there are degrees here, and wealth is distributed in various ways - but the general notion is that "I've earned my money, so I should be able to keep it"). Every human being is *interdependent* upon other human beings: upon their knowledge, their skills, their labor, their fellowship. The principle that we should *first* ensure that no one is starving or dying of untreated illness derives from this idea. My feeling might be that so long as we do make such provisions first, people can then go on to make as much money as they want. Maybe. But here's where it gets interesting: if the world actually were organized so that *first* all people's needs were met, it would be rather likely that people's priorities generally would be rearranged*...and people who did primarily focus on accumulating wealth for themselves would be (as noted the other day) socially reprimanded. They'd be regarded in pretty much the way most people regard a person who, arriving at a party with ten attendees and two pizzas with twelve pieces total, immediately grabs four pieces: as a selfish pig. I'm not sure why that's true on the individual level but not on the social one. * Someone might be inclined to say it's excessively utopian and idealistic to imagine this could ever be the case. Someone in the 18th century suggesting that the insane be treated humanely, that animals not be tortured for amusement, that non-European peoples be regarded as fully human, might also have been thought of as painfully idealistic, if not themselves slightly wacko. But for the most part, such attitudes are indeed generally held today. The world changes, and people change with it. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:58:45 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: Can somebody please change the subject? Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Tom Clark wrote: > > > -tc, $17k tax refund this year. Where's the justice? > > Seriously? I think the correct response here was "fuck you, Tom Clark." Also--Tom: in all seriousness you really should get your HR department down there at the infinite loop to do a bit better on your deductions. Giving the government an interest free loan of $17k so they can spend it on the war on terror must chap your hide. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:04:02 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Gays, guns, and guts made the Feglist free... On 4/19/07, The Great Quail wrote: > > > I think you misunderstand me, sir. > > Perhaps I did misunderstand you a bit, sir, but allow me to take umbrage > anew. Stop! Stop! Umbrage thief! - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:27:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? Tom Clark wrote: > On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > m swedene wrote: > >> Where was Bill? > > He went to get a sideways haircut, a striped shirt, plastic > > shoes, some funny sunglasses, an Air Force parka, a Vespa > > scooter, a British flag; then he went to go Mod Ska dancing. He > > did not go get a mohawk and some gnarly thrash boots, nor to go > > ride his skateboard. He may have gone to see the Circle Jerks. > > *Golf clap* More than that deserves, actually; if I'd done it from memory, it might have deserved more, but why remember things when you can cut and paste. "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: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:32:46 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? On Apr 19, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Capuchin wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Tom Clark wrote: >> -tc, $17k tax refund this year. Where's the justice? > > That's my annual stipend for the next five years. And I'm pretty > happy about that. > Did I mention that I got a teaching assistantship at Tulane and > will be working on my PhD in the fall? Say what you will about Jeme (and you have), but I think that's pretty admirable. I wish I could target my tax dollars so they could better support people who choose to trade wealth for public service. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:48:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: virginia tech reap On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, 2fs wrote: > On 4/19/07, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Capuchin wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, 2fs wrote: > > > > You meant "imply" rather than "infer." Anyway: my other job is doing > > > > administrative work at a tax accounting firm. Several clients have > > > > investments such that their little seven-year-old kids have income of > > > > $100,000 per year. You tell me that that kid "earned" that money. > > > > > > The Declaration of Independence makes a very bold statement that I > > happen > > > to support: that people should be able to live free from remote > > tyranny. > > > Inherited wealth is nothing short of transgenerational remote tyranny. > > > > I'm not saying the estate tax should be eliminated (though it does need > > some tweaking), but the idea that other members of the family do NOTHING > > to contribute to the parents' earning is rather silly. > > First, I said nothing about eliminating the estate tax (which taxes the Nope--that was me. > But in non- traditionally-economic measures, a child may indeed contribute > to a family's wealth (not just economically). They contribute > psychologically, emotionally, and in other ways (and, focusing for the > moment strictly on wealth, may allow that person to be in a focused, > non-worried state of mind that maximizes their ability to accumulate and > create wealth). Exactly. > Go that way, though, and you may arrive at something I've been implying all > along: wealth is not created strictly by the individual, and so it's not > only the individual who should benefit from it (yes, there are degrees here, > and wealth is distributed in various ways - but the general notion is that > "I've earned my money, so I should be able to keep it"). Every human being > is *interdependent* upon other human beings: upon their knowledge, their > skills, their labor, their fellowship. The principle that we should *first* > ensure that no one is starving or dying of untreated illness derives from > this idea. Believe it or not, I agree with you here. That's why I'm a "bad" libertarian. I have absolutely no problem with guaranteeing people don't starve or die on the streets for lack of shelter, etc., and if the private sector can't do it, the government should. I guess the question is... > My feeling might be that so long as we do make such provisions first, people > can then go on to make as much money as they want. Maybe. > But here's where it gets interesting: if the world actually were organized > so that *first* all people's needs were met, it would be rather likely that ...what counts as a "need." That's where people are apt to disagree. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:51:24 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Approximately Joe Boyd If you browse my library's online catalog looking for the title White Bicycles, you'll find it between a British juvenile called The White Bicycle (apparently concerned with recycling) and a novel called White Bikini Panties (apparently about the unsatisfactory love life of a young woman with a boring office job, rotten boyfriend, and possibly genital warts). The richness of the 21st century infosphere is truly dazzling. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:53:07 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: like you're dying to know what i just got... Sweeney says: of "the squid and the whale": >> Great film, great characters (although the younger brother may have >> been sketched a little broader than the rest of the family, but...no >> matter), great performances...Then, as the ending scene ramps up, the >> familiar strings start up and I am forced to exclaim out loud, "Holy >> shit -- 'Street Hassle'"...and this after already being amazed at the >> music clearance budget being no doubt blown on getting "Hey You." Lauren wrote: >i ended up renting this and watched it last night. it's only like an hour and 20 minutes - kind of a movie novella (movilla?) >rewatching the movie reminded me of my fondness for portrayals of semi-failed intellectuals. i think the movie was just >slightly cartoonish, but it still rang true. there was some really funny parts to it - i love e.g. how the father makes >fun of people without ph.d's and when the older kid calls "the metamorphosis" kafkaesque, and how he parrots his father's >e.g. "it's minor fitzgerald" phrases. Semi-failed intellectuals, or at lease of the eastside Manhattan bourgeoisie is of course a main theme in "Metropolitan" >and anna paquin - sheesh, what a babe. i used to wonder how they knew all these young actresses were going to grow up to >be such shapely and clear-skinned teenagers, perfect for more movie roles. then i realized they don't know and just don't show us the ones that fail to grow up to be babes. One of Scarlett's first movies as a pre-teen, "Manny and Lo", is decent. I really like her in "American Rhapsody", a very interesting true story of a young girl left behind by her family in communist Hungary. Scarlett plays the girl as a teenager in the second half of the movie. The girl grew up to be one of Francis Ford Coppola's top assistants, Eva Garos. >have you seen "the wonder boys"? that one's got a similar feel to it. >michael douglas plays jeff daniels and katie holmes plays anna paquin. Very good acting by Michael Douglas. I thought with "LA Confidential" and "The Wonder Boys" that Curtis Hanson would move to the very top tier of directors, but he has seemed to lost his way lately with less than stellar movies like "In Her Shoes". MJ Bachman NP Freedy Johnson - Live at McCabes ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:56:38 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? >> Where was Bill?: >> > He went to get a sideways haircut Not too clear what the sideways haircut is. I just keep seeing images of Budgie from the Banshees back about '81 or 2 when his hair looked like it was sculpted out of margarine. I still like Rieflin no matter what you guys think. np Songs Of Leonard Cohen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:01:55 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? Capuchin says: > That's my annual stipend for the next five years. And I'm pretty happy > about that. i'm assuming you're getting paid to study math. sounds like a winning deal to me. > I'm moving to New Orleans. That's going to be some culture shock. there are rumoured to be a few gun owners down there. i hear business is booming. xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:15:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Tom Clark wrote: > Say what you will about Jeme (and you have), but I think that's pretty > admirable. Aw, that's sweet. I don't know what to say, but... Fuck you, Tom Clark! > I wish I could target my tax dollars so they could better support people > who choose to trade wealth for public service. Wouldn't that be something? I have a merit-based (whatever that means) tuition scholarshop for their absurd $35,000+ annual tuition. The stipend for the teaching assistantship means that my total award package is over $50,000 annually. So I would hardly say I'm sacrificing. I'll be attending a private university (one going through a little rough economic time, to be sure), myself. Of course, I'm anxious about my ability to do all of the things that the job requires me to do and the dissertation is daunting (though a couple of years away) and I have no idea how I'm going to learn the two required foreign languages. But the scariest part for me is leaving Portland perhaps forever. And I don't pay any taxes on my regular income, just so you know. Before you pity my lowly state, I'll say that I have a very nice standard of living. My house is beautiful and the rent is cheap. One of my housemates delivers organic produce for a living, so I have great food all the time. I won't own a car (which shaves $7,000 off my cost of living compared to the average car owner) and have three bicycles which are all beautiful. And I work seven hours a week for that income. The free time is worth way more than the extra money. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:17:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Can somebody please change the subject? On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > Capuchin says: >> That's my annual stipend for the next five years. And I'm pretty happy >> about that. > > i'm assuming you're getting paid to study math. sounds like a winning > deal to me. Ayup! Can't be beat. >> I'm moving to New Orleans. That's going to be some culture shock. > > there are rumoured to be a few gun owners down there. i hear business > is booming. There are plenty of guns in Oregon, too. But we don't have extreme weather or bugs here. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #167 ********************************