From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #294 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, August 15 2007 Volume 16 : Number 294 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: the buffy thread lives [2fs ] Re: Fantasy Football [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: the buffy thread lives [2fs ] RH & V3 in PDX @ Doug Fir [gaseous clay ] Robyn performing at End Of The Road festival [gaseous clay ] i wanna go backwards mp3 [gaseous clay ] Re: the buffy thread lives ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: the buffy thread lives [Rex ] Re: the buffy thread lives ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: the buffy thread lives [2fs ] Re: the buffy thread lives [2fs ] and here's the pitch... [2fs ] Re: Robyn performing at End Of The Road festival [Rex Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On 8/15/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > Sebastian says: > > > > > Yes, but I don't think they are depicted as being "healthy". > > agreed, but the relationships are _interesting_. and perhaps more > realistic. i do know a fair amount people who have healthy > relationships, but, you know, i'm sheltered. a number of female > friends (these tend to be my non-geek friends (which may actually be > relevant to the discussion)) are, unfortunately, not in that camp. > actually, probably the healthiest person i know (not just as far as > relationships, but all-around) is gay, and, again, i wonder about the > correlation. i think there's a real confusion for men and woman in > "the modern world" - for their roles, for their identities, and my gay > friend has not had these issues. not that being gay doesn't present > its difficulties - i don't mean that all - but i think that in some > ways, the "straight" world is a bit rough these days as well. In some ways I feel underqualified to address this, having been in a committed and exclusive relationship for more than twenty years. However: one thing I'll add to the whole m/f difference thing is that whatever differences exist pre-culturally (and how can you measure which?), our culture currently indulges ruthlessly in defining and inscribing gender difference. It's ridiculous the extent to which popular media is constantly policing the bounds of what's acceptable (i.e., "normal") male behavior (in particular - again, my perspective limits my ability to see the extent to which this happens with female behavior, though I know it's out there - I know it's out there somewhere). Point is, I'm very much doubtful that we need to *endorse* those culturally mandated differences, even particularly when they reinforce evolutionary/biological imperatives. Culture is the thing that *counters* those imperatives, arguably. One thing I don't like about P*glia (oops!) is her near-worship of certain kinds of gender roles - her Keith Richards jones, say. Mostly it makes me want to just say, shut up already. I digress: the point, though, is that just because lot of people find something appealing doesn't mean it's a good idea, or one we should endorse. I question the kind of argument that goes, well yeah, but this is a very powerful social/biological/evolutionary/etc. force, so we shouldn't fight it. Bullshit: if it leads to bad results, that's *why* we should fight it. (Not saying *you're* making that argument - just that in my free-associative way, I've drifted from the point you were making to this one...) > > btw, isn't the whole thing with vampires kind of tied into these > things? i'm not much up on the vampire mythology, but it _does_ seem > like they have the old-fashioned darkness thing going on. i mean, > doesn't love has an aspect of _consumption_ in the vampire world? > there's got to be some weird power shit going on there. God yes. ME is pretty clever, actually, in *evoking* a lot of somewhat nasty cultural baggage and then either playing with it or sort of leaving it in the background as a bit of a joke (this is the horror-movie heritage, I think). I've often thought it's quite a testament to Anthony Stewart Head's acting that he almost never comes across at all creepy - even though his whole deal is getting rather intimately involved in the lives of women 20-30 years younger than he is. (Although there's a later episode - not giving anything away - when he says, straightfaced, to Willow, "Do you want me to tie you up?" The whole little scene is played completely straight - but someone somewhere surely was in on the joke.) again, apologies on my not keeping up my end here - i know i should > explain my point better here, but it has to do with females being more > comfortable with the idea of merging in their relationships. their > boundaries of self are more permeable. so permeable, in fact, that > occasionally another being pops out of them. they are more of water, > and males are more of the earth. male identity is in many ways a > creation of men, whereas female identity is more a creation of nature. > males are more threatened by loss of identity. i'm talking in > general, of course. but it's the idea that one of the (archetypal i > think i mean) reasons the male fears true love and commitment is a > primal fear of the loss of self. [Quote myself: nature/culture blah-blah.] Anyway: I think this whole business is one reason it's so often Xander who's in crisis about his role (that and that he's not magic, or superstrong, or a demon, etc.). On the one hand, he wants to be a part of this wonderful collective...on the other, he wants to know (and have) *his* own role in it - and I think that he's often the only young male in the group does play into that tension. That he's a socially compromised male (i.e., a geek - even though far too good-looking and hunky to be as ostracized in real life...) heightens that particular tension. Not to mention that he has, of course, at various times had crushes on three of the female Scoobies (and been crushed on by the youngest one). I think I need a parenthesis) (oops - getting all geekity my own bad self: forgot to explain that "ME" is "Mutant Enemy" - the shows' production team, used in recognition that the shows are not all Joss all the time...even though it's endlessly amusing to me, whenever I listen to a commentary, the way the writers are always confessing that the lines that fans quote back at them, saying "damn that was a great line," almost invariably turn out to be Joss's emendations of their scripts...) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:22:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Fantasy Football If you click on the top where it says "Sign Up Now" over the "piss off" message, it should lead to the chain of where you can join. Michael Sweeney wrote: > On 8/14/07, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > >Anyone want to sign up for the yahoo! fantasy football league I > >didn't need to set up after all? > > When I tried to link, I got this: > > "There was a problem > > You are not allowed to view this page because you are not in this > league. (Error #152)" > > Not sure which is more disheartening -- getting confirmation that > I'm not in Jeff's (and TC's) league...or that there are at least > 152 things that can go wrong with Yahoo Fantasy Football. To be fair, it's only 148 things. And it could be worse: it could be one of the paid leagues where those same 148 things apparently all still can go wrong. Or it could be the ESPN baseball where the first week of trades in all leagues were deleted because some intern downloaded his porn onto the wrong server. > > Oops! "There was a problem: By attempting to bench your fantasy > team's > quarterback, Peyton Manning, and instead promoting Rex Grossman, > you have > triggered Error #127, crashing all non-Linux systems currently > connected to > teh Intrawebs...and possibly launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike > against > China. Have a nice day!" > > > Michael "Remember Super Bowl XX; forget Super Bowl XLI" Sweeney > > _________________________________________________________________ > See what youre getting intobefore you go there > http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_preview_0507 > "Children have always enjoyed my movies. They are just not allowed to watch many of them." -- John Waters . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:29:16 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives Because my fingers are all typety right now: One thing I was thinking in re all that power/role thing is that I'm persuaded one of Joss Whedon's Big Ideas - something he returns to repeatedly - is that We Are Not Necessarily Who We Are. That is, just because we believe, and have been taught to believe, that we are such-and-such a way, that it's in our nature, that all such-and-suches have always been this way, that doesn't mean it's true in an ironclad way. This is most obvious in Angel, Spike, Anya, and of course Buffy. To an extent, he implies, vampires act like vampires not because they must ("what did you expect? I'm a crocodile!") but because it never occurs to them to try to do otherwise. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:05:04 -0400 From: gaseous clay Subject: RH & V3 in PDX @ Doug Fir - ----- Forwarded message from barboglass ----- To: RobynHitchcockClub@yahoogroups.com From: "barboglass" Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:48:52 -0000 Subject: [RobynHitchcockClub] RH & V3 in PDX @ Doug Fir ROBYN HITCHCOCK & THE VENUS 3, SEAN NELSON & HIS MORTAL ENEMIES  Saturday December 1. This is not posted on RH's website. However, it IS on Doug Fir's website. Haven't seen them listed at the other likely NW venues...YET!?! Barbara ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:06:09 -0400 From: gaseous clay Subject: Robyn performing at End Of The Road festival - ----- Forwarded message from Grimble Gromble ----- To: VegetableFriends@yahoogroups.com From: "Grimble Gromble" Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:52:55 -0000 Subject: [VegFriends] Robyn performing at End Of The Road festival Robyn will be performing at the End Of The Road festival at Larmer Tree Gardens in North Dorset on September 14-16 which claims to be "an intimate music festival for just 5,000 people." "On the bill are Yo La Tengo, Super Furry Animals, Architecture in Helsinki, I'm From Barcelona, Jens Lekman, the Concretes, the Twilight Sad, Scout Niblett, Danielson, Lambchop, Howe Gelb, My Brightest Diamond, Midlake, Joan as Police Woman, Richard Swift, Vandervelde, Loney, Dear, British Sea Power, David Thomas Broughton, Jesse Sykes & the Sweet Hereafter, Robyn Hitchcock, Brakes, Archie Bronson Outfit, Euros Childs, Devastations, the (Band of) Bees, Jim White, King Creosote, Viking Moses!, and a bunch of others." Source: http://tinyurl.com/2zrqmn Any veggies attending? Grimble ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:09:55 -0400 From: gaseous clay Subject: i wanna go backwards mp3 stereogum has a mp3 of "i wanna go backwards" from the upcoming rarities set: http://www.stereogum.com/archives/mp3/new-old-robyn-hitchcock-i-wanna-go-backwards.html quoth robyn, in the can of bees liner notes: I have included what details I can remember of the 'missing' second SB's album. This is not the 'legendary' Radar album ('legendary' only because it was too bad to release) but a series of songs recorded between 'A Can Of Bees' and 'Invisible Hits' that for various reasons never came out, tracks as follows: ... I WANNA GO BACKWARDS - Beach Boys arrange a rendevous [sic] with Steeleye Span in a darkened forest, but they never quite meet up. Nice flange on the harmonies, though. doth it live uptoth the hype? woj ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:13:22 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives 2fs says: > Yes - but Paglia's by far not the only one acknowledging that. But rather > than get sidetracked by a discussion on the pros and cons of Camille Paglia > (which I also don't want to do because it would mean I'd be duty-bound to > read her stuff again), I'll just drop the Paglia-bashing. understood. in appreciation, i'll try to drop the hero-worship. well, not drop it, because, internally, there's it's still there. oh frack it, you know what i mean. one of my fond "dad" memories is watching camille on the charlie rose show. occasionally i break out the old vhs tape. we both find her a complete hoot. (whoops, sorry, will drop it now...) > Actually this part of my response will be better placed in response to your > response to Sebastian's response to the house that Jack built. > women among only women (because the cameras and mics I installed didn't work > properly), but that's my impression - if only because there's no insult to > women along sex-role lines as intensive as "fag" is among men. it's my impression as well. i was somewhat shocked when i found about all the "fag" talk among boys. > Anyway: I'd be more sympathetic to Riley's predicament if I liked his > character better (and if Marc Blucas were a better actor) - sorry, I'm kinda > in the anti-Riley crowd there. Although he got better: when he returns > (don't know if you've gotten that far, so I'll avoid details) he actually > seems far more grounded and worthy - and it's Buffy who's rather more messed > up at that point. yes, he's not returned yet, and yes, he's a dork. i was hoping he was gone for good. > And is true that sex is obviously a very deep and inherent quality of human > existence...but the ways in which it's expressed (or rejected, or avoided, > or danced about) vary tremendously from culture to culture. In a highly > competitive, male-dominated culture, naturally men in particular will > experience anxiety if that sort of dominance they've been trained to expect > doesn't happen - and I think it's significant that ME chose to make Riley a > military man ( i.e., a very structured organization that's traditionally a > sine qua non of maleness). well, yes, i'm speaking of western culture since that's the one that's around. here at least. as ever, lauren - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:15:01 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives > now onto to the small small: > i'm curious as to whether people have an opinion about watching a show > as it airs on television vs. watching it over a much shorter period of > time on dvd. The DVD thing makes a TV show (at least a decent serialized drama) more like a novel, and is great for that. I'm quietly happy that when I get around to catching up on all the "must-see" shows of the past decade or so, they'll be available in that form. I really hate commercials. That said, I must confess that I finally skipped a few posts in a Buffy thread. Partly it's because I have to get in my car right now, but maybe part of me is slightly miffed that not a single feg picked up my "what the hell is cheering, melodically speaking" thread seed, because it's bugging me more than evar since I posted it.. see, like when RH referant Eazy (Motherfuckin) E raps "the boys in the hood are always hard", that's clearly not a melody, but it's also clear that his voice is descending in pitch as he raps. But HOW? - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:36:48 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives 2fs says: > In some ways I feel underqualified to address this, having been in a > committed and exclusive relationship for more than twenty years. However: > one thing I'll add to the whole m/f difference thing is that whatever > differences exist pre-culturally (and how can you measure which?), our > culture currently indulges ruthlessly in defining and inscribing gender > difference. It's ridiculous the extent to which popular media is constantly > policing the bounds of what's acceptable ( i.e., "normal") male behavior (in > particular - again, my perspective limits my ability to see the extent to > which this happens with female behavior, though I know it's out there - I > know it's out there somewhere). Point is, I'm very much doubtful that we > need to *endorse* those culturally mandated differences, even particularly > when they reinforce evolutionary/biological imperatives. Culture is the > thing that *counters* those imperatives, arguably. One thing I don't like > about P*glia (oops!) is her near-worship of certain kinds of gender roles - > her Keith Richards jones, say. Mostly it makes me want to just say, shut up > already. I digress: the point, though, is that just because lot of people > find something appealing doesn't mean it's a good idea, or one we should > endorse. I question the kind of argument that goes, well yeah, but this is a > very powerful social/biological/evolutionary/etc. force, so > we shouldn't fight it. > > Bullshit: if it leads to bad results, that's *why* we should fight it. (Not > saying *you're* making that argument - just that in my free-associative way, > I've drifted from the point you were making to this one...) again, i hope to do more justice to the conversation later, but just some thoughts on this. i'm not endorsing the point of view, but, rather, i accept the reality of it. i think that culture, against biology's wishes, is what has allowed women to be, to the extent that they now are, in the world of men. of that, i am _extremely_ grateful. i don't have to get pregnant and i get to study math. i always revert to the personal, but it is my experience of the world, and it colours my opinions. i actually have to remember that not everyone has had the advantages that i've had (yes, i stole that line) and one of the advantages i admit to is having parents who gave gender roles no mind. my dad always says my mom is the original feminist, and because my mom seems nothing like a traditional feminist to me, i never understood what he meant until i was older. what he means is that she's never paid attention to the sort of motto that women have their place in the world. she just does whatever the fuck she wants. and she's polite and nice and caring and a mom to boot. at any rate, with conceit to such advantages, it's still difficult for me to understand the outrage at e.g. that guy from harvard who was studying womens' abilities in math or science or whatever it is. men and women are made from different things. there's different hormones, just for starters. maybe there is something in the male brain that makes him "better suited" for science or math. the thing is, so fucking what? like i give a shit if some study says women aren't as good as men at math? noted, and ignored. whatever the "truth" is, it didn't make a difference in my life. maybe i worked harder. maybe understanding math was really important to me. maybe that's why i got the "A"s while the oh-so-smart guys were getting the "B"s. these people aren't going to tell me what to be. and anyway, the mathematicians always accepted me more than the sociologists. so make your studies. the thing is, i just don't care if they're true. but again, this is all personal, and i understand that many women have been told things about their roles and that they don't need more reasons to doubt themselves. i guess what i'm saying, in a world where gender didn't matter (which is different than gender differences not existing), such studies could be made, and they'd just be studies...they wouldn't be afront to anyone's identity or confidence because women (and men) would have the confidence to do what they want, regardless of history, regardless of the "facts." waaaay too much typing for me so hopefully i'll pick up later on the rest of your points. as ever, lauren - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:27:15 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On 8/15/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > > > men and women are made from different things. there's different > hormones, just for starters. maybe there is something in the male > brain that makes him "better suited" for science or math. the thing > is, so fucking what? Especially since, the variation *within* gender is far greater than the variation *between* genders. That is, the average says *nothing* predictable about any given person. Men are better than women at math? You certainly couldn't prove that taking, say, you and me. (Math I suck at, pretty much.) There's also the question: okay, on aggregate Group A is better than Group B at Thing X. What do you do about that? Some would say: emphasize Thing X more among Group A, since they're (on average) better at it so your odds are better you'll get more, better Thing X'ers. But others would say: No, emphasize Thing X more among Group B, since people in Group A need less assistance than people in Group B do, so that emphasis will bring the overall level up. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:39:58 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On 8/15/07, Rex wrote: > > > > That said, I must confess that I finally skipped a few posts in a Buffy > thread. You mean, like one or two of my seven different thousand-word screeds? Unforgivable. Partly it's because I have to get in my car right now, but maybe > part of me is slightly miffed that not a single feg picked up my "what the > hell is cheering, melodically speaking" thread seed, because it's bugging > me > more than evar since I posted it.. see, like when RH referant Eazy > (Motherfuckin) E raps "the boys in the hood are always hard", that's > clearly > not a melody, but it's also clear that his voice is descending in pitch as > he raps. But HOW? Err, what's the confusion? Pitch (as in: singing a D-flat) is achieved by learning how to get all the tones you produce vibrating at frequencies that reinforce the dominant frequency of a D-flat. The normal voice, even though it's not as "pointed" as that, certainly has pitch - as listening to a conversation between Barry White and Truman Capote would establish. But the frequencies are scattered, non-aligned, so you don't get *notes*. Say you want to tune your guitar to an open D tuning. One way you can tell everything's in tune is that the instrument sounds better, because all the notes reinforce one another, because the top string's low D resonates and reinforces the next string's A, the next string up's D, etc. (The same is true to a lesser degree with standard tuning.) Hit any one string; it'll resonate for a while because the sympathetically tuned strings reinforce its vibration (specifically, a note an octave up vibrates twice as fast as the lower tone, one a perfect fifth up vibrates 1.5 times, and similar frequently-reinforcing ratios for other notes in the chord). Now detune your instrument at random, so no string is sounding a note that's at all in tune with any other string (in other words, make all the strings "between" notes). Hit any one string: it'll sound dead, relatively, because none of the other strings are reinforcing its vibration. (Or maybe one or two are: it's difficult to tune so there's *no* reinforcement). The normal, speaking voice (or, say, percussion) is like that: a scattering of non-reinforcing frequencies. The singing voice (or a pitched instrument) reinforces. So waht's going on with your cheerleaders and rappers is simply that they have two things going on that tunes have - rhythm, and cadence (which is the word typically used to describe the relative highness or lowness of things). When you're speaking, certain syllables will be accented: if you listen to a recording of speech, you'll also notice that, most often, those accented syllables are higher in pitch than unaccented ones. Or (in American English) the way questions end with rising intonation. (Valley Girls famously will end declarative sentences with rising intonation, I'm so sure). And robots, of course, are well known for not varying their intonation at all (That's how you can tell they're robots. That, and the metal skin.) Unsurprisingly, composers have made use of this: Arnold Scho:nberg developed something called "sprechstimme" (Sebastian can give a literal translation), which basically is semi-notated speech. Rather than give notes, he gave rhythms and a general drift of cadence: rise here, fall here, rise *a lot* here, etc. There: a thousand words on *your* question. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:31:44 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: and here's the pitch... Incidentally (following up on my response to Rex's query re: unpitched intonations), the whole issue of tuning is quite a vexed one, historically. "Natural" pitch (involving whole-number ratios between intervals, derived from the overtone series - such as literally subdividing a vibrating guitar string...) is quite different, in many cases, from what we use now (12-tone equal temperament). There's an interesting little chart in the Wikipedia entry on "interval," for example (scroll down to "Comparison of different interval naming systems") which details those differences. Naturally occurring overtones are those whole-number ratios from which "just intonation" derives - the problem there is that it works only within a single key. You can test this yourself: the relation between a C and and E (a major third) is 5:4 in just intonation; but try to modulate to the key of E, and use that new 5:4 ratio to derive a G#: but the resulting compound ratio is not the same as the interval from the original C to the G# derived therefrom in just intonation (which is 8:5). Beginning with 256Hz for C, your E is 320Hz (256 x 1.25, or 5:4). Multiply *that* by 1.25, and you get 400. But multiply the original C (256) by 8:5, or 1.6, and you get 409.6. As western music evolved such that modulation became increasingly common, it was necessary to find a tuning system to allow it - eventually "equal temperament" was the solution, such that every semitone (next note on the piano; next fret on geetar) had the same ratio, a ratio set by dividing an octave (2:1) into twelve equal steps: therefore, the 12th root of 2 became a half step. This meant that nearly every note was slightly out of tune with the naturally occurring overtone series (which is why tuning the damned G string is the hardest bit with a guitar: if you keep going up by pure fourths - such as by sounding the harmonic - by the time you get to G, which is a tenth (an octave plus a minor third) above the lowest-pitched E, the difference between acoustic intervals (the harmonics) and the equal tempered scale is enough that you'll get into a bit of trouble. At this point, you start playing chords and tuning strings till the chords sound right. (Or you're not a Neanderthal and you just use a damned electronic tuner.) (Probably also why Fripp invented - or adopted - that weird tuning system that goes C-G-D-A-E-G: everything's a perfect fifth, except the last G...which is two octaves plus a fifth. FIfths are nice, low-number ratios - 3:2 - so they remain consistent longer as you stack them...) Can you tell I'm avoiding preparing crap for the next semester which is a few weeks off? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:57:04 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Robyn performing at End Of The Road festival On 8/15/07, gaseous clay wrote: > Robyn will be performing at the End Of The Road festival at Larmer > Tree Gardens in North Dorset on September 14-16 which claims to be > "an intimate music festival for just 5,000 people." > > "On the bill are [..] Architecture in > Helsinki, I'm From Barcelona, Bad band name trend alert. > My > Brightest Diamond, Bad band name trend breathing its last? > Viking Moses!, Um... don't recall where single exclamation marks are on the Bad Band Name Bell Curve right now... >and a bunch of others." Those guys rock. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:42:15 -0400 (EDT) From: djini@voicenet.com Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #286 Tom Clark wrote: > > On Aug 8, 2007, at 1:54 PM, djini@voicenet.com wrote: > >> Tom Clark wrote: >> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> >> Is that the very first iphone-to-feglist communi-k? That tag is a >> very smart little piece of marketing. >> Do you have the option to turn it off if you want to? >> > I think that was the first email I sent with it, and I didn't notice > it. It's just the default sig which you can change. I'm guessing it's not apparent to the user so that there will be a flurry of "sent from my ipod" messages out there before everyone gets around to changing it. Like I said, smart! > Ironically I'm sending this from my iphone (we are hanging out at the > Santa Cruz boarwalk today) Wow, I've been there, like a million years ago. Such a pretty town! Though I visited directly after the earthquake, so I remember the tents. Jeanne ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #294 ********************************