From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #203 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, May 15 2007 Volume 16 : Number 203 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: the material world ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: Oh No! [Barbara Soutar ] Re: the material world [craigie* ] RE: other people's books ["Bachman, Michael" ] So you want to know who played with Frank Zappa on the road... [2fs ] RE: the material world ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: the material world [JBJ ] Re: the material world [Benjamin Lukoff ] RE: other people's books [kevin ] reap [FSThomas ] Re: the material world ["m swedene" ] REAP!!!!! [Jeff Dwarf ] RE: the material world [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: the material world [Benjamin Lukoff ] RE: data mass ["David Stovall" ] Re: What about them CD thingies? [2fs ] Re: the material world [2fs ] Re: data mass [2fs ] take us to your leader ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 02:19:23 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: the material world 2fs says: > Are you talking about the cardboard wraparound that some CDs (notably, on > Nonesuch Records) have? I think they're just another packaging option. > Sometimes, when the artwork or information is redundant with the rest of the > packaging, I just toss them. But in some cases (for example, Magnetic > Fields' _i_ which we were just discussing), the wraparound is integral to > the packaging. yes, that's it. i was going to mention the gothic archies' recent cd (which is probably on nonesuch) as one of the examples for the packaging, but i figured oh, i think the fegs voted and stephin merritt lost, so i put 'funhouse' in instead. actually, when i played 'i' the other day, i *thought* the cover looked different. i guess i got irritated at the 0 cover (btw, that's only looks like an '0' in like font="futura squashed") and got rid of it. > (Speaking of that album, it was just the other day that I finally got the > joke: all the songs' titles begin with "i" yes - but between "I," "in," > "it," and "if," you can pretty readily retitle *any* song to begin with the > letter "I." Certainly, more than almost any other letter excepting possibly > "T" (the, this, they, etc.).) i like that stephin cheated here and there in the 'i' concept. i seriously love that guy. so much that i'd even love him if he were straight. > > I keep them until they get ragged, them I toss them. Digipacks need them > > more than cd's. You can always transfer jewel box artwork and liner > > notes to another jewel box. Once a digipack gets ragged looking, your > > stuck with it's ragged looking condition. > > True, but...I've never seen a digipak that comes in a cardboard wraparound > as well. Perhaps I'm obsessive...but I tend to keep my CDs carefully enough > that things don't become ragged. i used to keep everything so pristine and then i started taking cds to work and then i was tired and busy all the time and so dropped stuff fairly often and then i moved and then i moved again and somewhere in there i just didn't give a fuck anymore. my albums are in very nice condition...i used to tape most of them as soon as i got them, mostly for listening to in the car or at work. the lps got to stay at home and get a lot beauty rest. > As an aside (and with no particular data on whether the same people are > making the argument), I find it amusing that anti-CD people will cite saving > space as an argument...while the far more massive LP finds its advocates > despite its size. My basis for this is beginning my collection back in vinyl > days and having to cart about 1,000 of the buggers in wooden crates every > time I moved (like back in college): they were like Chuck D's Uzi. Whereas > CDs are far lighter, and pack more readily into boxes that can be sealed. the cds do gain a bizarre amount of weight once they find out they are moving, but, true, it's nothing compared to lp weight gain. those anti-CD folks are probably kids who never lugged vinyl around. a cd is large is you compare to an mp3. out of curiosity, wouldn't 1000 lps weigh a lot more than an uzi? xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 02:28:04 -0400 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Re: Oh No! While it's too late to delete my letter to Madeleine, wish I could remove my address at least from the archives. To explain a part of my letter, it was to an 84 year old friend who is hard of hearing who keeps telling me I talk too fast. In an attempt to defend myself, I had been trying to explain how being a fast talker was a GOOD thing when you are reading to the blind. She's a fairly difficult person to communicate with. Still haven't heard back from her... Will stock up on beer for those of you who will be dropping by my house... Barbara Soutar Victoria, BC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:25:26 +0100 From: craigie* Subject: Re: the material world I just keep the CDs in the slipcase... but, to qualify, I think I only have two (maybe three at a push...) and since one is the Ramones' Anthology with a book, it makes sense to keep them boxed. (off the top of my head, the other one is All About Eve's Keepsakes with a DVD. Oh, and there's the Damned's Neat Neat Neat set (3 CDS style jewel boxes in a slip). Just file 'em with the slip case to the back of the shelf and the jewel spines showing seems to work. c* On 14/05/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > hi fegs, > > i was doing my ~quarterly cd filing, and was wondering... > > what do people do with those cardboard cd sleeves that some cds come > in? you know those covers that kind of make it like the cd is coming > out of a little album sleeve (e.g joanna newsom's "Ys" came in one, > the 2-disc "funhouse" came in one)? i find them really annoying. i > usually just put them in a stack here or there and until they > eventually irritate me enough that i throw them away. > > i don't even know what the point of those sleeves is. maybe they are > supposed to protect the jewel case (another stupid cd thing, imo - > calling that plastic case a "jewel case.") but if you would actually > use them, i think the only thing they would do is protect the cd from > ever being played. > > i am trying to think if a robyn cd ever came in one of those dumb > things but i can't recall any that did. more proof (and you know, i > *do* need proof...) that robyn is cool. probably if i had gotten one > from a robyn cd, i would feel compelled not to throw it out, and i > haven't noticed any hanging around. > > xo > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." > > - The Buddha > - -- first things first, but not necessarily in that order... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:14:06 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: other people's books - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Lauren Elizabeth Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:09 PM To: a sweet little cupcake...baked by the devil! Subject: Re: other people's books Rex says: > On 5/14/07, Bachman, Michael wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> I thought that John Sayles did a great job transforming the book > >> "Eight Men Out" into a movie. Then again I could be prejudiced as I > >> like all of John's movies. He's adapt at making male centered movies > >> (Eight Men Out, Lone Star, Brother from Another Planet) female > >> centered movies (Passion Fish, Lianna) or movies that feature both > >> at the center (Return of the Secaucus Seven, Limbo). > > >> A humanist filmmaker? > >> "Lone Star" remains a favorite with me. I haven't seen every Sayles >> movie, but I usually like even the ones on which most people are >> "meh", so I should probably make it a point to do so. >"Limbo" was by far my favourite. There are a number of his movies that I've liked very much, and others >that I probably didn't even finish watching. That one about developers in Florida I think I left the movie theatre (in all fairness, I should say I likely would have stayed except that I was with a date who clearly was not enjoying himself.) That was Sayles, wasn't it? I love the perfect ending of "Limbo", as it leaves the viewer in limbo just as it does it's three main characters. Haskell Wexler is such a great Director of Photography, and "Limbo" is one of his best. "Sunshine State" was Sayles. As was The Island Of Lost Babies (English translation). I have yet to see them as well as "Men With Guns". I forgot to mention "Maitwan", which I have on VHS. "Maitwan" really needs a decent DVD release, as the current one is just a dub from a VHS soruce from whay I have read. >The "penultimate" boyfriend (not the second-to-last boyfriend, but the grammar hound who liked the word "penultimate") used to be amused when instead of "Men With Guns," I would accidentally call it "Men Without Guns."' The Coen brothers "Miller's Crossing" could easily be called "Men Without Hats", with all the hats that get knocked off from it's characters heads! MJ Bachman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:25:21 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: the material world On 5/15/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > 2fs says: > > > > > As an aside (and with no particular data on whether the same people are > > making the argument), I find it amusing that anti-CD people will cite > saving > > space as an argument...while the far more massive LP finds its advocates > > despite its size. My basis for this is beginning my collection back in > vinyl > > days and having to cart about 1,000 of the buggers in wooden crates > every > > time I moved (like back in college): they were like Chuck D's Uzi. > Whereas > > CDs are far lighter, and pack more readily into boxes that can be > sealed. > > out of curiosity, wouldn't 1000 lps weigh a lot more than an uzi? Sorry - that was a middle-aged white guy's nearly twenty-year-old hip-hop reference: the line is "my Uzi weighs a ton" (spelling altered). - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:29:56 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: So you want to know who played with Frank Zappa on the road... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:27:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the material world On Mon, 14 May 2007, 2fs wrote: > Of course, putting all your sound files on a single hard-drive is even > more compact. Until you lose the data. I can't see taking that risk. Well, I, for one, keep them on more than one hard drive. So the risk is much lower than keeping them all in one place. > Incidentally, I have no idea (i.e., am too lazy to do the math) but: how > many GBs would 5,000 CDs encoded at 256kbps take up? (Assume an average > length of 50 minutes - which, as it happens, is nearly correct for my > collection. My average track length is 3:51. Because someone somewhere > must care. Oh - and show your work.) Now now, you can do this. 256 kilobits per second times 3000 seconds times 5000 discs. That's 3,840,000,000 kb or 480,000,000 kB. 468,750 MB or 457 GB. Three hard drives of that size should cost around $325. Keep one of them in a fireproof data-certified storage box and you can sleep at night. > Did someone here offer a reason as to why it was *not* likely that > full-fidelity sound files would ever be the online standard (i.e., .wav > files)? Is there some bandwidth or storage limitation that makes that > unlikely? Oh, certainly not. I'm sure that all storage and bandwidth limitations will eventually seem quaint (that is, until the real energy crunch). > Because if not, people who've relegated their entire collection to mp3s > are going to feel like folks who recorded everything to cassette in the > '80s then ditched the LPs... Actually, no, we're not. Because the very fact that these higher definition files are the new online standard means that we will be able to replace our MP3s online at little or no incremental cost. On the internet, it doesn't matter much where the discs are. They don't have to be at my house. So long as somebody has them, I can get the data from them. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 12:46:49 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: the material world Jeme wrote: >On the internet, it doesn't matter much where the discs are. They don't have to be at my house. So long >as somebody has them, I can get the data from them. Jeme, I take it you don't have any signed cd inserts by Robyn or others if you are brooming (no offense Rex) all you cd's? MJ Bachman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 11:38:38 -0500 (CDT) From: David Witzany Subject: What about them CD thingies? About those O-sleeves: I check to see if they have any content that's not part of the regular CD packaging. They almost never do, in which case I just toss 'em. The only exception is for multi-disc sets, like the complete Beethoven symphonies and such. (I own the Magnetic Fields' _i_ but didn't save the O-sleeve; what essentiality have I lost?) As to the amount of digital space 5,000 CDs would take up: A CD can hold .7 gigabytes of data, so those CDs potentially represent 3,500 gigabytes, or 4 terabytes. Since CDs don't use all the available space, call it 3 terabytes. There are external hard drives out now for about $600 with 1.5 terabytes capacity, so if those CDs cost an average of fifteen dollars each, you could computerate your $75,000 CD collection for $1,200. Dave. David Witzany ...one of nature's witzany@uiuc.edu bounds checkers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:04:17 -0700 (PDT) From: JBJ Subject: Re: the material world On Tue, 15 May 2007, Capuchin wrote: > Well, I, for one, keep them on more than one hard drive. So the risk is much > lower than keeping them all in one place. I'm in the process of backing up all my mp3 albums to dual-layer DVD's. I figure between one hard drive and the optical discs that I'll be good to go. What is the best file system for using these DVD's between Windows and Mac boxes? I'd like to preserve the long filenames. Is UDF my only choice?? =jbj= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:14:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: the material world On Tue, 15 May 2007, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > the cds do gain a bizarre amount of weight once they find out they are > moving, but, true, it's nothing compared to lp weight gain. and nothing compared to books, either! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:26:39 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: RE: other people's books >The Coen brothers "Miller's Crossing" could easily be called "Men >Without Hats", with all the hats that get knocked off from it's >characters heads! > >MJ Bachman ...or "Men Without Glass Keys" in acknowledgment of the Dashiell Hammett novel that was its primary source... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:36:54 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: reap Rev. Jerry Falwell. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:38:39 -0400 From: "m swedene" Subject: Re: the material world On 5/15/07, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2007, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > > the cds do gain a bizarre amount of weight once they find out they are > > moving, but, true, it's nothing compared to lp weight gain. > > and nothing compared to books, either! All my books, LPS and CDs are stored at my parents' house. I am upset that I never ripped all of my Hitchcock stuff before I moved. One of these days I will need to head home, laptop in hand and just rip them. Mike "in nyc with CDs all over the country" swedene ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: REAP!!!!! Satan has called Jerry Falwell home. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070515/ap_on_re_us/jerry_falwell "Children have always enjoyed my movies. They are just not allowed to watch many of them." -- John Waters . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:52:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: RE: the material world On Tue, 15 May 2007, Bachman, Michael wrote: > Jeme wrote: > > >On the internet, it doesn't matter much where the discs are. They > don't have to be at my house. So long >as somebody has them, I can get > the data from them. > > Jeme, I take it you don't have any signed cd inserts by Robyn or others > if you are brooming (no offense Rex) all you cd's? So long as somebody has them...that you can trust. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:52:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: the material world On Tue, 15 May 2007, m swedene wrote: > On 5/15/07, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Tue, 15 May 2007, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > > > > the cds do gain a bizarre amount of weight once they find out they are > > > moving, but, true, it's nothing compared to lp weight gain. > > > > and nothing compared to books, either! > > All my books, LPS and CDs are stored at my parents' house. I am upset what do you read? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 11:00:09 -0700 From: "David Stovall" Subject: RE: data mass ....Jeff Norman >Incidentally, I have no idea >(i.e., am too lazy to do the math) but: how many GBs would >5,000 CDs encoded at 256kbps take up? (Assume an average >length of 50 minutes - which, as it happens, is nearly >correct for my collection. My average track length is >3:51. Because someone somewhere must care. Oh - and show >your work.) I won't be able to get you quite there, but close. 5000 CDs x (at uncommpressed .wav size =~ 10MB/minute) 500MB = 2500 GB ...(ignoring, for a moment, the difference between binary and decimal factor-of-1000/1024 unitizing,...). So, about 2.5 terabytes *uncompressed*. Here's where my uncertainty about MP3 encoding comes in. Stingily compressed MP3s hover around 1/10 the size of their source stereo .wav files, and generously encoded ones around 1/5 the source size. But, I don't know where 256 kbps encoding is on that scale; I just don't use MP3 often enough to know. More towards the generous end, but that's only a guess. So, say about 500 GB. You can buy a 500 GB hard drive for around a hundred bucks (see tigerdirect.com's current rebate offer on a Seagate EIDE 500GB drive (Seagate offers the longest warranty period of ay HD mfr. and, in my experience, is very reliable) - one of which is winging its way toward my home at this moment). >Did someone here offer a reason as to why it was *not* >likely that full-fidelity sound files would ever be the >online standard (i.e., .wav files)? Is there some >bandwidth or storage limitation that makes that unlikely? Most likely it was an unimaginative claim that bandwidth availability would always be a prohibiting factor. But, considering that I pay $36/month for a decent DSL connection (I reliably get ~3mb/s - - that's mega-bit-per-second, not mega-byte) and have amassed something on the order of 5,000 - 10,000 CDs worth of lossless compressed (FLAC, SHN, etc.) audio in under three years via BitTorrent trackers, for my money, bandwidth is no limitation (I've downloaded roughly zero MP3s in that same amount of time) (and, heck, some markets are getting fiber-to-the-premises service now that makes my DSL look like a horse and buggy). Incidentally, FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) and SHN (Shorten) algorithms both compress .wav files to around 1/2 their original size, LOSSLESSLY. So, they take up only about 2.5 times as much space as generously encoded MP3s. When the bandwidth disparity was a factor of ten, it may have seemed a lot more prohibitive, but good compression algorithms make it a lot less so. As for storage, I use redundant DVD+R and offline hard drives. d9 Now, this doesn't mean it's not just STOOPID of me to keep accumulating all this material at a rate faster than I can ever hope to effectively listen to it all,.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:40:49 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: What about them CD thingies? On 5/15/07, David Witzany wrote: > > About those O-sleeves: I check to see if they have any content that's not > part of the regular CD packaging. They almost never do, in which case I > just toss 'em. The only exception is for multi-disc sets, like the complete > Beethoven symphonies and such. (I own the Magnetic Fields' _i_ but didn't > save the O-sleeve; what essentiality have I lost?) The entirety of the artistic concept of the sleeve's design, in that case. To me, one reason I still like CDs is that they are conceived as a complete multimedia package (pardon the trendy speak): the songs are sequenced, and the packaging is designed to complement the music. I honestly don't understand people who see no value in the packaging. As to the amount of digital space 5,000 CDs would take up: A CD can hold .7 > gigabytes of data, so those CDs potentially represent 3,500 gigabytes, or 4 > terabytes. Since CDs don't use all the available space, call it 3 > terabytes. There are external hard drives out now for about $600 with 1.5terabytes capacity, so if those CDs cost an average of fifteen dollars each, > you could computerate your $75,000 CD collection for $1,200. Ah, but you're forgetting the time and labor costs: someone still has to slot the CDs into the drives, start up the ripping software, and remove the CDs when they're done being ripped - and fetch the CDs from wherever they are in the first place, and put them back (or if you're getting rid of them, put them in whatever container you're using to take them to the library/Goodwill/etc.) Even at five minutes per disc, that's 25,000 minutes of time, or more than 17 days (24-hour days). Break that up into three 8-hour days; assume the labor's worth, say, $10/hr (mostly because in theory I'd be doing it myself), add on a couple hours moving the CDs, and it's more like $1,500 at least. Then again, there's *some* value to all those CDs: the simplest thing is to give them to Goodwill or something, value them at $10/ea as a charitable deduction (I think the way that actually works out is you end up being able to take about 25% of that). So I guess you'd come out ahead, overall... Except for you've lost (as I imply above) all the artwork and most of the information included with the discs: AMG's a poor substitute. A weak comparison is the difference between looking at a reproduction of a painting in a book or on a computer screen compared to seeing the real thing: there are significant differences both tangible and less so, for which the reproduction really cannot account. In terms of time: Actually, my experience with something similar - databasing my CD collection - was done gradually over a period of a couple years. I did eventually finish (although as time went on I realized I needed to edit entries - a lot of inaccuracies out there - and so earlier entries took less time than later ones. Basically I'd bring up a box full of CDs, in order, and enter them evenings and weekends (not *all* of the evenings and weekends - I'm not that hardcore). - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:52:40 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: the material world On 5/15/07, Capuchin wrote: > > On Mon, 14 May 2007, 2fs wrote: > > Of course, putting all your sound files on a single hard-drive is even > > more compact. Until you lose the data. I can't see taking that risk. > > Well, I, for one, keep them on more than one hard drive. So the risk is > much lower than keeping them all in one place. > > > Incidentally, I have no idea (i.e., am too lazy to do the math) but: how > > many GBs would 5,000 CDs encoded at 256kbps take up? (Assume an average > > length of 50 minutes - which, as it happens, is nearly correct for my > > collection. My average track length is 3:51. Because someone somewhere > > must care. Oh - and show your work.) > > Now now, you can do this. I didn't say I *couldn't* do it - I said I was too lazy to do it... 256 kilobits per second times 3000 seconds > times 5000 discs. That's 3,840,000,000 kb or 480,000,000 kB. 468,750 MB > or 457 GB. > > Three hard drives of that size should cost around $325. Keep one of them > in a fireproof data-certified storage box and you can sleep at night. > > > Because if not, people who've relegated their entire collection to mp3s > > are going to feel like folks who recorded everything to cassette in the > > '80s then ditched the LPs... > > Actually, no, we're not. Because the very fact that these higher > definition files are the new online standard means that we will be able to > replace our MP3s online at little or no incremental cost. > > On the internet, it doesn't matter much where the discs are. They don't > have to be at my house. So long as somebody has them, I can get the data > from them. But again, you're forgetting the time and labor costs of finding them and giving them even rudimentary organization. For example: I am in the process of downloading a certain album on a major label (because I've decided that in most cases I don't want to buy m.l. product anymore). Granted, it's a fairly easy-to-find item, and it didn't take me long to find a high-res version, but it's slowish downloading (seems to be more on their end than on mine in this case). Once they're here, I need to load them onto iTunes. Minor investments, yes...but multiply by a large number of discs, and it's a significant load. I'm still suspicious of whether these things *will* in fact remain "out there" for everyone. There will still be rarity and, effectively, absence: if only 100 people on the planet own a particular title, for you to get that, you and one of those people have to be online at the same time. That math I can't quite do, sorry: but at some point, if you really want that title, it will probably occur to you, oh wait, I can go to the CD store (or the used CD store: my other alternative re major-label releases, btw) and buy the damned thing for less investment than waiting around for you and one of Persons 1-100 to be online when you are so you can download. I downloaded a relatively unpopular torrent I'd found looking for a particular artist; it took several days to come through, because very few people were interested in it (apparently) and so it was very narrowly distributed. If I were trying to do that with a whole buncha titles, I'm sure I'd lack patience to wait... Then, if my circumstances were such that I simply didn't *have* space to store music in physical media and I couldn't afford to buy it, I'd certainly see the light there. And in fact, I'm spending a lot less on music now than I used to: legitimate, quasi-legitimate, and not-so-legit downloads do take up more of my collection (and therefore, my time - obviating the need to buy new physical media, to a degree) than they used to, and that percentage has been rising steadily. Obviously things are changing: I'm just unwilling to sound the death knell for all physical media, at least not for me and not for the world either. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:55:32 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: data mass On 5/15/07, David Stovall wrote: > > . > > Now, this doesn't mean it's not just STOOPID of me to keep accumulating > all this material at a rate faster than I can ever hope to effectively > listen to it all,.... Apparently, I anticipate some future moment when days double in time and I don't have to work any more... I think we should arrange for all musicians and labels to go on vacation for a year, just to give us some time to catch up. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 15:06:19 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: take us to your leader hi fegs, curious if any u.k. folks watched the scientology documentary: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6650545.stm those scientologists sure get a bit huffy when you start asking questions. sheesh, lighten up. sure i've found god too but you don't see me getting all upset when someone says mathematics is a big hoax. unfortunately, john sweeney (not our sweeney) did look the fool in that youtube clip but at least he's acknowledged that he was out of line. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA5VsSF6FZA&mode=related&search= xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #203 ********************************