From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #296 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, August 17 2007 Volume 16 : Number 296 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: the buffy thread lives ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: the buffy thread lives [2fs ] Re: i wanna go backwards mp3 ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: i wanna go backwards mp3 [gaseous clay ] Demonoids? [Christopher Hintz ] Re: Demonoids? [jbj@tuthorse.net] Re: the buffy thread lives [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: the buffy thread lives [2fs ] Re: the buffy thread lives ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: the buffy thread lives [Christopher Gross ] Re: the buffy thread lives [2fs ] Re: the buffy thread lives [Capuchin ] Re: the buffy thread lives [Capuchin ] Re: the buffy thread lives [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: the buffy thread lives [Capuchin ] Re: the buffy thread lives [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Demonoids? [Rex ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #295 [grutness@slingshot.co.nz] Re: the buffy thread lives [Rex ] Re: the buffy thread lives ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #295 [Rex ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:45:48 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives 2fs says: > > 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. jeff, are you pulling my leg again? > You certainly couldn't prove that taking, say, you and me. (Math I suck at, > pretty much.) you're being harsh. it's more likely that you've never had much of an interest and/or just haven't studied it. that you have an understanding of music theory suggests (at least to me) that it's pretty unlikely that "Math [you] 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. in the particular case of math and science, i think much of the problem is a lack of interest on the part of females. there's nothing like a lack of interest to make one not excel at something. and sweet chocolate jesus, is there anything more likely to suck the life out of something than a high-school teacher? and don't get me started on high-school math teachers. whoops, too late. looking back on it, i honestly can't believe these people weren't forced to teach math under like threat of death or something. why else were they there? i was very fortunate to have been saved from the hell that was public school and sent to a little "alternative" hippie high school in 11th and 12th grade. there, i had a math teacher who actually gave a shit about math and her students. i can pin down an actual turning point where my life changed because of her. it was like it is in one of those inspirational movies. well, except the part about my having to go home after a rough day of trigonometry only to deal with a single mother or gang violence in my neighborhood. as ever, lauren - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:22:18 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On 8/17/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > 2fs says: > > > 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. > > jeff, are you pulling my leg again? That was overstated, yes - but my point is: just because on average members of Group X do better than members of Group Y, that does not mean you can predict that any given member of Group X will do better than any given member of Group Y - since the variation within Group is greater than the difference between the averages. Just because men are on average taller than women doesn't mean you can assume any random male will be taller than any random female. If you do so, you'll be right more often than wrong, yes - but you will be wrong much of the time. That's all I meant. To me, it would be smarter in most situations to ignore whatever the blunt statistical reality is and deal only with whichever individuals you're actually dealing with, and *their* skills, inclinations, etc. (One exception would be policy-making where - as you imply - one might find ways to deal with the *reasons* for those statistical trends.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:19:41 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: i wanna go backwards mp3 I once sent an email asking about Brick to RH dot com and got a quote from Robyn saying Brick is not the Radar album but a series of demos they recorded many of which are on IH. He said Brick was the original titles of Bees. >From: "Gene Hopstetter Jr." >Reply-To: "Gene Hopstetter Jr." >To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: Re: i wanna go backwards mp3 >Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:29:22 -0500 > >>From: gaseous clay >>Subject: i wanna go backwards mp3 >> >>quoth robyn, in the can of bees liner notes: > >Waitjustaminute. There's *another* unreleased Soft Boys album other than >Radar album (which is the Brick album, right?)? Holy shit is that good >news. > >>doth it live uptoth the hype? > >Hell yes. October's gonna be a good month for me and my turntable. _________________________________________________________________ Tease your brain--play Clink! Win cool prizes! http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:49:57 -0400 From: gaseous clay Subject: Re: i wanna go backwards mp3 one time at band camp, Maximilian Lang (maximlang@hotmail.com) said: >I once sent an email asking about Brick to RH dot com and got a quote from >Robyn saying Brick is not the Radar album but a series of demos they >recorded many of which are on IH. yeah, i get the impression a lot of people (present company excluded) don't really pick up on the fact that hits is really a post-mortem for the metcalfe incarnation of the soft boys, containing a hodge-podge of material from *between* bees and moonlight. it's not really even an album, per se, i suppose. >He said Brick was the original titles of Bees. huh, don't think i knew that. or maybe i just forgot. woj ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:38:38 -0400 From: Christopher Hintz Subject: Demonoids? If any fegs are members of demonoid and have the files to seed the Sex Food Death doco, it would be great. As of now I'm the only seed and I know I'll have to divert the computer at times over the weekend. Three people who are downloading it now would surely appreciate it too! Also, IMHO the Backwards mp3 is much more recent Robyn than early solo days. I'm convinced he put down new guitar and vocal tracks on top of whatever the old demo was. It sounds like a more seasoned Hitchcock voice than the one that appears on the old recordings. Yes? No? Also, hello fegs. Rev Chris ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:57:15 -0700 (PDT) From: jbj@tuthorse.net Subject: Re: Demonoids? > Also, IMHO the Backwards mp3 is much more recent Robyn than early > solo days. I'm convinced he put down new guitar and vocal tracks on > top of whatever the old demo was. It sounds like a more seasoned > Hitchcock voice than the one that appears on the old recordings. > Yes? No? Yes, it sounds that way to my ears as well. I remember Robyn adding shit to the You & Oblivion tracks as well. "Surgery" is the one that comes to mind -- tambourine and some extra Robyns on backing vox. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:38:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, 2fs wrote: > On 8/17/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > > > 2fs says: > > > > 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. > > > > jeff, are you pulling my leg again? > > That was overstated, yes - but my point is: just because on average > members of Group X do better than members of Group Y, that does not mean > you can predict that any given member of Group X will do better than any > given member of Group Y - since the variation within Group is greater > than the difference between the averages. Just because men are on > average taller than women doesn't mean you can assume any random male > will be taller than any random female. If you do so, you'll be right > more often than wrong, yes - but you will be wrong much of the time. > That's all I meant. This all seems to depend on the meaning of "predict." Of course you won't be able to guess relative height with 100% accuracy--but you'll be able to make a decent guess. > To me, it would be smarter in most situations to ignore whatever the blunt > statistical reality is and deal only with whichever individuals you're > actually dealing with, and *their* skills, inclinations, etc. (One exception > would be policy-making where - as you imply - one might find ways to deal > with the *reasons* for those statistical trends.) Yes, it would--but people are lazy.. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:06:29 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On 8/17/07, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, 2fs wrote: > > > > > > Especially since, the variation *within* gender is far greater than > the > > > > variation *between* genders. > > > just because on average > > members of Group X do better than members of Group Y, that does not mean > > you can predict that any given member of Group X will do better than any > > given member of Group Y - since the variation within Group is greater > > than the difference between the averages. Just because men are on > > average taller than women doesn't mean you can assume any random male > > will be taller than any random female. If you do so, you'll be right > > more often than wrong, yes - but you will be wrong much of the time. > > That's all I meant. > > This all seems to depend on the meaning of "predict." Of course you won't > be able to guess relative height with 100% accuracy--but you'll be able to > make a decent guess. That depends on how you define "decent" - and more importantly, on other characteristics of the groups being compared aside from "average." Average is, notoriously, in many ways a poor indicator of normality: the obvious example is when you have extreme outliers (hey: the average income of that homeless guy and Bill Gates is...about half Bill Gates' income - they're doing pretty well, aren't they!). But even in more reasonably distributed selections, a very tight distribution, coupled with a largeish difference between averages, can mean fairly high predictability: two classes of students compare their average scores; one class's avg. is 46, the other's is 53. As it turns out, no student in the first class scored higher than 49, and no student in the second class scored lower than 50. In fact, in this case generalzing from the average would be correct 100% of the time. But take two other classes, again one with an avg. score of 46 the other with 53, only this time each has a broad distribution of scores, such that (say) 33% of the lower-scoring class has scores higher than members of the higher scoring class (the area where the two curves intersect if you graph both sets of scores). In that case, predictability is diminished, and it becomes less reliable the broader the range and the closer the averages. So when all you know is the averages, you really can't say how predictive they are. They're somewhat predictive, of course - but again, it seems to me that in most real-world situations you're better dealing with what's in front of you (the particular individuals) rather than with the statistical overall. > To me, it would be smarter in most situations to ignore whatever the blunt > > statistical reality is and deal only with whichever individuals you're > > actually dealing with, and *their* skills, inclinations, etc. (One > exception > > would be policy-making where - as you imply - one might find ways to > deal > > with the *reasons* for those statistical trends.) > > Yes, it would--but people are lazy. Which is another way of saying "people often do the dumber thing"...and, since I was talking about what people *should* do - which is to say, the not-dumber thing - I guess we agree ;-) Now what does this have to do with Buffy again? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:50:28 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives 2fs says: > That depends on how you define "decent" - and more importantly, on other > characteristics of the groups being compared aside from "average." Average > is, notoriously, in many ways a poor indicator of normality: the obvious > example is when you have extreme outliers (hey: the average income of that > homeless guy and Bill Gates is...about half Bill Gates' income - they're > doing pretty well, aren't they!). But even in more reasonably distributed > selections, a very tight distribution, coupled with a largeish difference > between averages, can mean fairly high predictability: two classes of > students compare their average scores; one class's avg. is 46, the other's > is 53. As it turns out, no student in the first class scored higher than 49, > and no student in the second class scored lower than 50. In fact, in this > case generalzing from the average would be correct 100% of the time. But > take two other classes, again one with an avg. score of 46 the other with > 53, only this time each has a broad distribution of scores, such that (say) > 33% of the lower-scoring class has scores higher than members of the higher > scoring class (the area where the two curves intersect if you graph both > sets of scores). In that case, predictability is diminished, and it becomes > less reliable the broader the range and the closer the averages. well, silly, that's why one would be remiss in not reporting the standard deviation and the median, in addition. and the entire distribution as a backup slide. btw, when i started back to school in january, i pulled out The Archives from the parents' upstairs room, and when going over some old tests and problem sets, it occurred to me for the first time that professors' reporting of mean, median, and standard deviation might be a trait constrained to The Geek Studies. > So when all you know is the averages, you really can't say how predictive > they are. They're somewhat predictive, of course - but again, it seems to me > that in most real-world situations you're better dealing with what's in > front of you (the particular individuals) rather than with the statistical > overall. i may have misunderstand the comment you made about differences between and among genders. were you talking more about things like school and "what do you want to be when you grow up?" i think you make valid points about approaching how to teach students, regardless of gender. but knowing about the human brain, and differences between the genders is IMO useful. also i think it's ludicrous to deny the difference such as males being stronger and more aggressive (on average), if only from the standpoint of physical safety standpoint. and i think the weight of biology is much as the weight of history it - - it doesn't condemn us, but it does inform us. > Now what does this have to do with Buffy again? not much, since willow picks up buffy's math slack. btw, the decrypting willow does...pllllleeeeaaaasssse. the reason people can't decrypt things these days is not because they aren't smart, it's because they don't have, oh, eternity to spend on a cipher that would take about, oh, eternity, to crack (sorry, just have to throw in a little of "how i spent my summer.") not that the shows all "reality-a-go-go" or anything. i'm just saying... btw, i have grown to like buffy's character much more as the show has progressed. okay, she still doesn't take her studies seriously, but she takes _something_ seriously, and that's much of what makes a person have character. she's grown to have a hell of a lot of character, and that i respect. but the boys are still my favourites...giles and spike. at this point (about to watch "i was made to love you") spike is the real draw for me. if he didn't exist, he would have to be invented. as ever, lauren - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:35:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > (i also love the little sort of toss-off things about angel's like the > short shot (i think it was a buffy episode) of his reading "nausea" (i > assume it was) - in the original french of course. Bit of a late reply here.... I think Spike spotted Angel reading _Nausea_ in the episode Lovers Walk. This book apparently had a huge impact on Joss Whedon when he read it as a teenager. In the DVD commentary for the Firefly episode Objects in Space, Joss talks about the book and its influence on the episode -- not its plot, but overall theme and some of the characters' attitudes and personalities. (Have you seen Firefly, Lauren? I can't remember if you've said. It didn't last long, but episode for episode it was even better than Buffy and Angel. Objects in Space is one of my favorite items in Joss Whedon's entire body of work.) > btw, do they ever explain when the hell he lost the bad accent? Heh. If you think Angel's Irish accent is bad, wait 'til you hear a certain minor character's Cockney accent in BTVS season 7. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:36:26 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On 8/17/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > 2fs says: > > > i may have misunderstand the comment you made about differences > between and among genders. were you talking more about things like > school and "what do you want to be when you grow up?" Uh, I don't remember any more. i think you > make valid points about approaching how to teach students, regardless > of gender. but knowing about the human brain, and differences between > the genders is IMO useful. also i think it's ludicrous to deny the > difference such as males being stronger and more aggressive (on > average), if only from the standpoint of physical safety standpoint. > and i think the weight of biology is much as the weight of history it > - it doesn't condemn us, but it does inform us. True enough. I forget the context again. That's what happens when one of these discussions goes on all week - your brain gets completely bleached dry by Friday of whatever it was soaking in on Monday. btw, the decrypting willow does...pllllleeeeaaaasssse. the reason > people can't decrypt things these days is not because they aren't > smart, it's because they don't have, oh, eternity to spend on a cipher > that would take about, oh, eternity, to crack (sorry, just have to > throw in a little of "how i spent my summer.") Yes yes yes... Next thing you're going to tell me "vampires don't really exist you know." My theory is that in a world where vampires *do* exist, encryption is far less sophisticated. Usually, it's just a matter of, like, ,pbomh pmr gomhrt pbrt pm yjr lrunpstf/ but the boys are still my favourites...giles and spike. at this point > (about to watch "i was made to love you") spike is the real draw for > me. if he didn't exist, he would have to be invented. See? She is a girl! - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:04:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Yes, it would--but people are lazy.. They're only lazy in general. You can't assume that any particular individual is lazy without accepting that you will be wrong a whole lot. As for this general laziness, that could be just because enough people assume that everyone is lazy to make those that would or could put in more effort feel as though they don't have to do so. Of course, encouraging laziness (and assuming people are lezy encourages laziness) is the primary means of enacting a conservative agenda. J. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:07:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > but the boys are still my favourites...giles and spike. at this point > (about to watch "i was made to love you") spike is the real draw for me. > if he didn't exist, he would have to be invented. HA! Right before I Was Made To Love You, no less! Hilarious. By the way, that episode is a bright and shining example of a throw-away being used to explore shit that couldn't be addressed in a serious episode. All of the most absurd episodes are the ones where the really heavy shit gets hashed out. And, of course, it's all about the closing 15 seconds of that episode. Damn. J. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:21:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Capuchin wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > Yes, it would--but people are lazy.. > > They're only lazy in general. You can't assume that any particular > individual is lazy without accepting that you will be wrong a whole lot. You know what I meant! > As for this general laziness, that could be just because enough people > assume that everyone is lazy to make those that would or could put in more > effort feel as though they don't have to do so. Perhaps. > Of course, encouraging laziness (and assuming people are lezy encourages > laziness) is the primary means of enacting a conservative agenda. I knew we'd get around to that. Are you trying to imply something? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:59:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Capuchin wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: >>> Yes, it would--but people are lazy.. >> They're only lazy in general. You can't assume that any particular >> individual is lazy without accepting that you will be wrong a whole >> lot. > > You know what I meant! Well, I was just applying the principle of Jeff's assertion to your comments on that assertion. >> Of course, encouraging laziness (and assuming people are lezy encourages >> laziness) is the primary means of enacting a conservative agenda. > > I knew we'd get around to that. Are you trying to imply something? I'm trying to imply everything that logically follows from my statements. That's way too much to write here, I think. And I'm just going to assume my readers (including you) will figure out what those are. J. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:22:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Capuchin wrote: > >> Of course, encouraging laziness (and assuming people are lezy encourages > >> laziness) is the primary means of enacting a conservative agenda. > > > > I knew we'd get around to that. Are you trying to imply something? > > I'm trying to imply everything that logically follows from my statements. > That's way too much to write here, I think. And I'm just going to assume > my readers (including you) will figure out what those are. I am so sick of people assuming I'm conservative because I disagree with them. (Assuming I'm conservative apparently encourages my supposed conservatism, BTW, apparently) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:07:22 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Demonoids? On 8/17/07, Christopher Hintz wrote: > > If any fegs are members of demonoid and have the files to seed the > Sex Food Death doco, it would be great. As of now I'm the only seed > and I know I'll have to divert the computer at times over the > weekend. Three people who are downloading it now would surely > appreciate it too! > > Also, IMHO the Backwards mp3 is much more recent Robyn than early > solo days. I'm convinced he put down new guitar and vocal tracks on > top of whatever the old demo was. It sounds like a more seasoned > Hitchcock voice than the one that appears on the old recordings. > Yes? No? Yeah, it does. But the guitar sounds very demo-y (in a cool way), so maybe it was an unfinished demo or had dummy lyrics that had to be re-done in order to make sense. It happens. I guess the acid test for the vocal would be to scramble it up with, say, INVISIBLE HITCHCOCK and see just how 21st-Century it sounds in contrast. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:09:37 +1200 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #295 >So no one thinks that "My Wife and My Dead Wife" is so named sheerly >out of coincidence, right? That seems an incredibly unlikely >prospect. I really think that Robyn should have been given some sort >of passing mention, at the very least, in the credits, although it >doesn't seem that he has, anywhere that I can see. Hell, if the film "Things to do in Denver when your dead"'s title was a coincidence with the Zevon song (which it apparently was), then anything's possible. >Any other coincidentally titled FegFilms? Most be a few. I mean, law of >averages, there must be films called, "Knife", "Glass", "Love", and "Leppo >and the Jooves", right? "Winchester '73" is damn close to being a two-in-one song title, as is "The surgeon's knife". "The leopard" (1963), Burt Lancaster, Alain Delon and Claudia Cardinale "Nocturne" (1946) George Raft, Lynn Bari "America" (1924) Neil Hamilton, Carol Dempster ach, that'll do. James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:14:19 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives On 8/17/07, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > I am so sick of people assuming I'm conservative because I disagree with > them. (Assuming I'm conservative apparently encourages my supposed > conservatism, BTW, apparently) I think that's the way it usually works. Calling people "insane" has a similar effect, at least to outward appearances (and no, I'm not drawing a parallel between conservatism and insanity)... - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:14:23 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: the buffy thread lives Capuchin says: > I'm trying to imply everything that logically follows from my statements. > That's way too much to write here, I think. And I'm just going to assume > my readers (including you) will figure out what those are. well, not _all_ of them. but then again, i'm not much on reading between the lines. sometimes i'm not even good at reading lines. but "[your] readers" - you were just speaking in general? xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:15:11 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #295 On 8/17/07, grutness@slingshot.co.nz wrote: > >So no one thinks that "My Wife and My Dead Wife" is so named sheerly > >out of coincidence, right? That seems an incredibly unlikely > >prospect. I really think that Robyn should have been given some sort > >of passing mention, at the very least, in the credits, although it > >doesn't seem that he has, anywhere that I can see. > > Hell, if the film "Things to do in Denver when your dead"'s title was > a coincidence with the Zevon song (which it apparently was), then > anything's possible. Dunno about that-- I feel pretty certain the film was named after the Zevon song-- but I do recall that John Cale's "Things" (and its evil twin "Things X") features the refrain "Doing the things / Things you do in Denver when you're dead", which he admits to having borrowed from the film title, but was unaware that the film was already named after a song, although he did express general admiration for Zevon as an artist when told about it. Please don't look at that sentence too closely because it really isn't one. John Cale is teh awesome. I bet you didn't know I was going to say that, did you? Oh, and today I finally listened to "Challengers", sort of dreading it after Eddie's tumultuous emotional struggle with it and my own having turned out to really not like Destroyer (and the shock of that Wilco thing being as bad as I'd been warned), but you know what? I instantly and completely love everything about it. What I like about the Buffy thread is that it's really the Lauren thread, a vicarious conversion in progress. But some of y'all really do have the sequence of episodes and plot arc down way too pat. - -Rex ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #296 ********************************