From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #267 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, July 19 2007 Volume 16 : Number 267 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: wave your geek flag [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: wave your geek flag [Christopher Gross ] and on a literary sadfangirl note [Jill Brand ] Re: and on a literary sadfangirl note ["m swedene" ] Re: and on a literary sadfangirl note [Sebastian Hagedorn ] too much for my blood pressure meds to take [Jill Brand ] Re: Rudy Rucker ["Gene Hopstetter Jr." ] RE: and on a literary sadfangirl note ["Michael Wells" ] Re: and on a literary sadfangirl note ["Sumiko Keay" ] Re: Announcing the official Feg greeting ["Gene Hopstetter Jr." ] Re: wave your geek flag [Carrie Galbraith ] Re: wave your geek flag ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: too much for my blood pressure meds to take ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: too much for my blood pressure meds to take [2fs ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:29:22 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: wave your geek flag Hi Lauren, - --On 18. Juli 2007 00:04:33 -0400 Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > so, my netflix queue: "babylon 5" or "buffy"? what's your vote? Buffy, of course! B5 is pretty cool as well, but I just love Buffy's genre bendiness: it's horror, drama, suspense and comedy, often all within one minute. > i > tried watching "firefly" (which i have to catch myself or i called it > "firefox") and either did not watch the correct episode number one, or > am not savvy enough to follow it, or both. Well, that doesn't exactly bode well for Buffy appreciation. Did you watch Firefly on TV or DVD? The right first episode is "Serenity". On TV it was "The Train Job", which is episode two on the DVD set. - -- .:.Sebastian Hagedorn - RZKR-R1 (GebC$ude 52), Zimmer 18.:. Zentrum fC Subject: Re: lolfeg Impressive lolfegz! Perfect thing for a rainy unemployed morning! (Rev) Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:11:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: wave your geek flag On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > so, my netflix queue: "babylon 5" or "buffy"? what's your vote? i > tried watching "firefly" (which i have to catch myself or i called it > "firefox") and either did not watch the correct episode number one, or > am not savvy enough to follow it, or both. As Sebastian already said, the correct place to start is Serenity. (That's Serenity the pilot episode, not Serenity the movie! The movie should be watched *last*.) No other episode would be half as good as an introduction. But it's true that a lot of people watching the DVDs -- including some who eventually became huge Firefly fans -- found Serenity-the-episode hard to follow the first time around. I think it may be because the characters are introduced so gradually, that you have to be willing to sit through much of the episode paying attention to characters that you don't yet know or care about. My only advice is to stick with it and watch them all in order. I could name the best episodes, which are scattered through the series, but don't skip ahead -- even the worst episode contributes a lot to the characters and their relationships. And since the whole series only totals about 10 or 11 hours, even if you end up not liking it, you won't have wasted *that* much of your life.... As for the main question, I of course vote for Buffy. (NOT that there's anything wrong with the B5 option!) However, Buffy's first season isn't the greatest. They were still figuring out what the hell they were doing at that point, and the show doesn't really hit its stride until mid-season 2. If you only want to watch a few episodes before committing to the whole series, I'll recommend an abbreviated season 1: - -Welcome to the Hellmouth and The Harvest: crucial as an introduction to the series, though the direction and cinematography are often weak - -The Pack: a good example of a dark, angsty episode, and a good example of a teen-metaphor episode as well - -Angel: like WTTH/TH, it's crucially important to the development of the series, even though the filming isn't always what it should be - -The Puppet Show: a good example of a more humorous episode - -Prophecy Girl: by far the best episode of the season, and also vital to the way the series develops in later years If you aren't *that* impatient, I'll recommend a less-abbreviated season 1: just watch everything except Teacher's Pet and I, Robot, You Jane. Even those episodes have a few good moments, but on the whole they're best forgotten. Some of the Buffy DVDs fail to make the order of the episodes clear, and if you rent from Netflix you won't have the accompanying booklet to help you out. This web page gives you the proper episode order: http://www.buffyguide.com/episodesplain.shtml As a first-timer you should AVOID the equivalent page on Wikipedia, as it includes episode descriptions that spoil all sorts of plot developments. As I told Viv a few weeks ago, if you can watch all the way through to the end of season 2 without becoming addicted to Buffy, then maybe it isn't for you. But season 3 is often regarded as the all-around strongest season, even though other seasons have more indidual outstanding episodes. And there is a vocal minority who prefer the more adult later seasons. So, well, I guess I'm trying to say that you shouldn't judge the show based on one or two episodes. Just watch 'em all! The whole series only totals a little over 100 hours, so.... - --Chris the Geek ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:22:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: and on a literary sadfangirl note Two more days till Deathly Hallows. I managed to re-read Books 1-6 during part of May and June. I will be far too busy with school to devour it so PLEASE, if anyone else out there is a Potterite, please, please, please put in BIG spoiler warnings if you post anything about the last book. I can't believe that my son started this saga at the age of ten and that he will be entering college a month after he finishes reading the last volume. I'm having a very emotional day. Jill P.S. Does anyone else miss Eb? It doesn't mean I love you any less, Rex. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:38:14 -0400 From: "m swedene" Subject: Re: and on a literary sadfangirl note Becareful. the book has been leaked to the interwebs and people are posting spoilers all over the place. My wife and I are heading to the scholastic party here in NY and then over to Brooklyn for some street party. Should be good time geeky fun! Mike ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:39:55 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: and on a literary sadfangirl note Hi Jill, - --On 18. Juli 2007 10:22:39 -0400 Jill Brand wrote: > Two more days till Deathly Hallows. I managed to re-read Books 1-6 > during part of May and June. impressive. I've read each once only, and I read them so quickly that I don't remember anything :-) But that's not the point, to me anyway. > I will be far too busy with school to > devour it so PLEASE, if anyone else out there is a Potterite, please, > please, please put in BIG spoiler warnings if you post anything about the > last book. OK. I'm planning to read it over the weekend. > P.S. Does anyone else miss Eb? It doesn't mean I love you any less, Rex. My feelings exactly. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:45:14 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: wave your geek flag On 7/18/07, Christopher Gross wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > > so, my netflix queue: "babylon 5" or "buffy"? what's your vote? i > > tried watching "firefly" (which i have to catch myself or i called it > > "firefox") and either did not watch the correct episode number one, or > > am not savvy enough to follow it, or both. > > > As I told Viv a few weeks ago, if you can watch all the way through to the > end of season 2 without becoming addicted to Buffy, then maybe it isn't > for you. But season 3 is often regarded as the all-around strongest > season, even though other seasons have more indidual outstanding episodes. > And there is a vocal minority who prefer the more adult later seasons. > So, well, I guess I'm trying to say that you shouldn't judge the show > based on one or two episodes. Just watch 'em all! The whole series only > totals a little over 100 hours, so.... What he said (including the deleted parts). I'd add that the acting improves considerably over the run of the series as well. And, as with any character-based series, any given episode becomes deeper the more you know the characters. That includes the earlier ones, viewed retroactively - since the show was very good at picking up on moments/clues/throwaways and developing them, later, into plot points and character traits so the show *seems* to be more planned-out than it actually is. And of course, assuming our fiendish plot - uh, friendly advice - works, you'll also have to watch _Angel_ (the series) as well - another show that takes a little while to catch its tone and characters, although it does so a little more quickly than _Buffy_, since its creators had the advantages of (a) using several characters already developed in the Buffyverse, and (b) the experience of having developed those characters. At its peak, _Angel_ was arguably an even better show than _Buffy_, its adult characters and situations allowing it a more powerful resonance than the more limited perspective available to BTVS's youthful characters. (Okay, I'll stop now.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:18:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: too much for my blood pressure meds to take I was not in a good mood when I got up this morning (summer-session start-up is never fun) but then.....then.....then.....I got this Live Nation update (and I almost didn't read it because, well, I don't go out much these days :-( ) Of Montreal with Grand Buffet and MGMT Friday, Oct 12 Roxy Boston, MA Presale Thurs, 7/19 10am to 5pm Public on sale Fri 7/20, 10am Buy Presale Tickets I've mananged to scrape myself off the floor. On Monday I found out that they closed their Pitchfork set with All Day and All of the Night (with Kevin Barnes in fishnets and a g-string no less). Now this. Two plus years ago I asked you all if I could brave a Decemberists concert alone, and the affirmation led to all kinds of adventures. I figure, I am guaranteed to be the oldest person at an oM gig, but I've lost my pride and some of my inhibitions. And the New Pornographers will be here less than two weeks later. I'm waiting for the sadfangirl in me to die. But until then........... Jill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:55:50 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter Jr." Subject: Re: Rudy Rucker > From: "Lauren Elizabeth" > Subject: Re: Announcing the official Feg greeting > > i have a book by rudy rucker and that's not at all the impression i > got from it. it's about infinity. maybe it's a different rudy > rucker. Well, the context (of sorts) of the picture is one of Rudy's blog posts: http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2007/07/15/on-mundane-sf/ But there's only one Rudy Rucker. He's a nifty mathmatician/computer scientist who writes great science fiction. And he keeps getting better at it. Two of his recent novels, "Frek and the Elixir" and "As Above, So Below" (which is actually straight fiction, based on the life of Peter Breugel) are quite fun. > or maybe thinking about infinity too much makes you wig out from > time to time... Yep, the same thing happens to me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:00:19 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: RE: and on a literary sadfangirl note Jill: > I will be far too busy with school to devour it so PLEASE, if anyone else out there is a Potterite, please, please, please put in BIG spoiler warnings if you post anything about the last book. Will you be able to avoid it for long? I imagine by about 12:05 Saturday morning it will be all over the wires. We'll see if the spoilers posted so far are right, at least. Saw the movie over the weekend, and (surprisingly) enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. Of course due to the book length - I guess somebody was too scared to tell her to edit herself about that time - big chunks had to be cut out, but overall I think they did quite well with it. More focus on the people and less on places is my read. I've got an "I Escaped from Azkaban t-shirt, don't you know" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:23:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: and on a literary sadfangirl note After Voldemort hits Harry in the head with a golf ball, he wakes up and finds himself in bed with Larry, his brother Darryl, and his other brother Darryl. Jill Brand wrote: > Two more days till Deathly Hallows. I managed to re-read Books 1-6 > during part of May and June. I will be far too busy with school > to devour it so PLEASE, if anyone else out there is a Potterite, > please, please, please put in BIG spoiler warnings if you post > anything about the last book. I can't believe that my son started > this saga at the age of ten and that he will be entering college a > month after he finishes reading the last volume. > > I'm having a very emotional day. > > Jill > > P.S. Does anyone else miss Eb? It doesn't mean I love you any > less, Rex. "Children have always enjoyed my movies. They are just not allowed to watch many of them." -- John Waters . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:43:44 -0500 From: "Sumiko Keay" Subject: Re: and on a literary sadfangirl note Somebody in Maryland got their copy yesterday! Deepdiscount sent it out early by mistake and NOT in the Harry Potter wrapping that warns that it cannot be delivered before the 21st. Sumi On 7/18/07, Jill Brand wrote: > Two more days till Deathly Hallows. I managed to re-read Books 1-6 during > part of May and June. I will be far too busy with school to devour it so > PLEASE, if anyone else out there is a Potterite, please, please, please > put in BIG spoiler warnings if you post anything about the last book. I > can't believe that my son started this saga at the age of ten and that he > will be entering college a month after he finishes reading the last > volume. > > I'm having a very emotional day. > > Jill > > P.S. Does anyone else miss Eb? It doesn't mean I love you any less, Rex. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:47:54 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: and on a literary sadfangirl note On 7/18/07, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > After Voldemort hits Harry in the head with a golf ball, he wakes up > and finds himself in bed with Larry, his brother Darryl, and his > other brother Darryl. And that Darth Vader is...his father! - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:51:05 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter Jr." Subject: Re: Announcing the official Feg greeting > From: gaseous clay > Subject: Re: Announcing the official Feg greeting > > dammit. i missed the mime boundry again. gene seems to send his posts > to the owner address instead of the list address, so i send them > through manually Well, when I respond to a digest in my mail client (Mac Mail, OS X 10.4.10), it sends to the address fegmaniax@smoe.org. Is that wrong? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:35:33 -0700 From: "vivien lyon" Subject: Re: and on a literary sadfangirl note I accidentally-on-purpose got spoiled, and I'm gnashing my teeth. Don't let it happen to you! Even if it's fake, it's dampened my anticipation a bit. On 7/18/07, Jill Brand wrote: > > Two more days till Deathly Hallows. I managed to re-read Books 1-6 during > part of May and June. I will be far too busy with school to devour it so > PLEASE, if anyone else out there is a Potterite, please, please, please > put in BIG spoiler warnings if you post anything about the last book. I > can't believe that my son started this saga at the age of ten and that he > will be entering college a month after he finishes reading the last > volume. > > I'm having a very emotional day. > > Jill > > P.S. Does anyone else miss Eb? It doesn't mean I love you any less, Rex. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:51:48 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: and on a literary sadfangirl note > Jill > > P.S. Does anyone else miss Eb? It doesn't mean I love you any less, Rex. We could put together a Top 10 most missed Feg. Lots of candidates to choose from. Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:16:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: wave your geek flag On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, 2fs wrote: > And of course, assuming our fiendish plot - uh, friendly advice - works, > you'll also have to watch _Angel_ (the series) as well - Oh yes. The two shows run concurrently starting with Buffy season 4/Angel season 1. There are occasional crossover episodes, especially during Angel's first two seasons, so the *ideal* method is to intersperse the two series: watch the first episode of Buffy S4, then the first of Angel S1, then the second of Buffy S2, and so on. But if you have to do it in a less than ideal way, like watching all of Buffy and then all of Angel, that's still far better than nothing. Re: Jeff's comment (which I deleted) about the acting on Buffy improving: ironically, it was Angel himself, title character of the spinoff season, who most needed improvement at the beginning of Buffy. Fortunately, improve he did. I think the turning point was the middle of Buffy S2, when the actor was able to really cut loose for reasons I won't go into here. After that he improved noticeably, even when his character is *not* cutting loose but just quietly brooding. > another show that > takes a little while to catch its tone and characters, although it does so a > little more quickly than _Buffy_, since its creators had the advantages of > (a) using several characters already developed in the Buffyverse, and (b) > the experience of having developed those characters. I think Angel's first season is even more uneven than Buffy's first; but thanks to the above-mentioned advantages, the high points are better than anything in Buffy S1 except Prophecy Girl, making up for a few embarrassing low points. IMHO, except for the premiere and season finale, all the best moments in Angel S1 are the ones centered around guests from Buffy. It's really in the middle of season 2 that Angel finds its true strengths and starts focusing on them. Season 3 is probably my favorite, but again, collect 'em all.... Hoping my verbosity hasn't just driven Lauren away from anything Whedony, Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:26:52 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: Carrie Galbraith Subject: Re: wave your geek flag - -----Original Message----- >From: Christopher Gross > >As Sebastian already said, the correct place to start is Serenity. >(That's Serenity the pilot episode, not Serenity the movie! The movie >should be watched *last*.) No other episode would be half as good as an >introduction. But it's true that a lot of people watching the DVDs -- >including some who eventually became huge Firefly fans -- found >Serenity-the-episode hard to follow the first time around. - - and all the rest... I am now a very big Firefly fan, as I mentioned before on the list, even attending Browncoat events (geek alert!). When I got introduced to the show I found the characters and their interactions intruiging but the pilot - Serenity_ a bit tough to follow. I persevered and it's paid off. I have favorite episodes but agree with Chris, you should start with the pilot intended to be first seen. Dn't skip around. Since I'm new to the Whedonverse, I decided to watch Buffy one day last week when house sitting for friends. I found it difficult at first since it ranged all over the map, but eventually got engaged with the characters. I might have been watching a pilot rerun? Not sure. I will give it more of a chance and am now intrigued by Angel and will eventually watch that as well. I can't help but be seduced by the skill with which these characters, in Firefly and in Buffy, have been developed. They are, on a whole, complex and flawed and pretty deep. I find it refreshing! Be Seeing You, - - c ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:41:42 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: wave your geek flag Chris says: > Hoping my verbosity hasn't just driven Lauren away from anything Whedony, No, no, I'm appreciative of everyone's input. The episode I watched of "Firefly" was the one called "Serenity" and I'll confess that I tend to watch television episodes when my attention is not up to that needed for a movie (kind of a bad attitude, I know.) I felt like I sort of came in on the middle of it. Another problem may be that I've really watched very few dramatic series on television (mostly for fear of getting sucked into them) and maybe I'm expecting a little more hand-holding. The miniseries for BSG seemed to introduce the characters in a very easy way, but, then again, it was 4 hours long, wasn't it? I think only dramatic series I can remember really following are "Twin Peaks," "The X-Files," and "Six Feet Under." Okay, sometimes "90210" and "The O.C." (shh) but those are a different animal. I think it was Natalie who recently started to watch Buffy...hopefully she will chime in on how it's going. Keep waving those flags. (BTW, I was talking to a CS teacher at school who runs a summer program for teenagers to get them interested in science, and she was talking about how there's still this pretty bad impression of geeks and scientists and mathematicians and such and that she was hoping to change the stereotype of the sort of geeky, odd, obsessed scientist (it was more complicated than that, but that's the gist.) I felt like she had it the wrong way around - the problem is that these kids have the wrong _attitude_ about the stereotype - being geeky, odd, and obsessed is cool**.) xo ** okay, there are some counterexamples but hopefully they are in jail. - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:03:08 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: too much for my blood pressure meds to take Jill Brand wrote: > > Of Montreal > with Grand Buffet and MGMT > Friday, Oct 12, Roxy, Boston, MA You'll find the support bands exceptionally weak. I've heard that KB really likes MGMT, but they're somewhere between 'Huh?' and 'meh.' for me. Grand Buffet are okay if you like comedy heavy metal rap. But OM just won't be the same without Matt Dawson. His bass playing *ruled*. When Dottie, Jamey (who has played with Robyn) and Matt all picked up their basses, it was great. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:26:03 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: too much for my blood pressure meds to take On 7/18/07, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > > Grand Buffet are okay if you like comedy heavy metal rap. As opposed to the other kind? - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:49:28 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: i maad u rare anmal, but i eated it this guy is darling; i especially the touch of anteater in him: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2080499.ece xo p.s. apologies on recent thread titles; send lolanidote. - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:56:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: more boring of Montreal info There is a whole US tour planned for the fall, which I fell on by accident (while avoiding any Harry Potter info) here... http://www.harpmagazine.com/news/detail.cfm?article=11447 I apologize for being obsessive. Jill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:26:23 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: too much for my blood pressure meds to take On 7/18/07, Rex wrote: > > On 7/18/07, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > > > > Grand Buffet are okay if you like comedy heavy metal rap. > > > As opposed to the other kind? I suppose that description only means they *know* they're ridiculous. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:26:10 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: Rudy Rucker Gene Hopstetter Jr. wrote: > Well, the context (of sorts) of the picture is one of Rudy's blog > posts: http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2007/07/15/on-mundane-sf/ > > But there's only one Rudy Rucker. He's a nifty mathmatician/computer > scientist who writes great science fiction. And he keeps getting > better at it. Two of his recent novels, "Frek and the Elixir" and "As > Above, So Below" (which is actually straight fiction, based on the > life of Peter Breugel) are quite fun. Thanks to Gene and Kevin for the skinny on Rudy. I had no idea. I think I picked up that book at the old Encore books that used to be down the street. It was a pretty lame store, but it actually had a good little math/science/philosophy section where I would sometimes find cool stuff (I got "Godel, Escher, Bach" at that store as well.) Actually, the Rucker book has been sitting in a pile of books that I want to "get to" that I put aside when I last unpacked. That just means it will get not read sooner and more often than the rest of my books. I found Rucker's blog entry on "mundane science fiction" to be pretty interesting. He cites the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundane_science_fiction); here are some excerpts: << The central ideas are: * That interstellar travel remains unlikely; that Warp drives, worm holes, and other forms of faster-than-light travel are wish fulfillment fantasies rather than serious speculation about a possible future. * That unfounded speculation about interstellar travel can lead to an illusion of a universe abundant with worlds as hospitable to life as this Earth. This is also viewed as unlikely. * That this dream of abundance can encourage a wasteful attitude to the abundance that is here on Earth. >> etc. I find this pretty bizarre in the sense that one could say sort of similar things about regular old fiction. Perhaps there should be "mundane fiction" which doesn't encourage such fanciful unrealistic ideas such as the existence of selfless leaders, interesting detective cases, world peace, or getting the girl. Oh wait, it already exists - they call it "non-fiction". xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #267 ********************************