From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #484 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, February 4 2008 Volume 16 : Number 484 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama [Rex ] Re: so let's talk about Buffy [Christopher Gross ] Re: in "arrested development" news/rumours to-day... [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama [Rex ] Re: Ralph! ["Stacked Crooked" ] Re: so let's talk about Buffy [lep ] Re: Lolita/American tunes [grutness@slingshot.co.nz] Re: so let's talk about Buffy [lep ] Reap ["Stewart Russell" ] Re: so let's talk about Buffy ["Jason Brown" ] Re: so let's talk about Buffy [Carrie Galbraith ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #483 [grutness@slingshot.co.nz] Re: Lolita/American tunes [Rex ] Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ["Jason Brown" Subject: Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama On Feb 4, 2008 12:36 PM, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > it used to be. :-) > > > But it's points against > > both of them in my book that they're wasting time keeping up with > > serialized television, and that's pretty much it. > > That's just as BS as saying reading (fiction) is a waste of time. TV *can* > be as valid an art form as anything. In the case of "The Wire", it is. Maybe. I don't really like the idea of these folks doing a lot of self-entertaining, to be honest, but if it came right down to it, I think following a serialized form of entertainment demands more of one's time than reading. That, frankly, is why I do read fiction and don't watch TV (broadly speaking). - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:53:47 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: so let's talk about Buffy On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, lep wrote: > WARNING: SPOILERS. > > > > > > (space) > > > > > (end of space) > > i never really got past angel's anger at wesley for taking the baby > conner. for me, it was his biggest black mark, and also for his pals > who towed his party line against wesley. i swear, sometimes angel is > such a drama queen with "oh, kill me when you know it's the right > thing to do", but heaven forbid, you try to save the damn baby. do > you think it was written to generate that effect, or that's more of a > personal reaction, i.e. does everyone tend to think angel acted like a > complete ass? I don't remember for certain if you saw the last two seasons of Angel, so I'll ignore the way Angel's relationships with the others develop after season 3.... I think Angel's anger was deliberately written as going too far, blinding him to Wesley's side of the story. Not for the purpose of alienating the audience from Angel, though. It was really just a natural outgrowth of where he was at that time. He had poured his entire emotional self into his son and his team, so when one of the team members betrayed him by taking the son, he was far too upset to think about things objectively. To me it's like his descent into darkness while hunting Darla the previous season: Angel doing wrong in a way that's interesting to watch. If for you it's a flaw too far, and you can no longer like Angel the character afterwards, that is of course your right, but I don't agree. One of the things I love about Joss's work is that he shows us conflicts between the main characters in which you can understand both sides' point of view. Rarely if ever is it a simple question of one person being right and the other being an idiot. Good examples include the argument between Buffy and her friends when they learn that she's been keeping Angel's return a secret in Revelations, and the argument over what to do with River in Firefly's Objects in Space. > and, just because i like to point these things out, how come joss is > like "oh, buffy can't possibly be with spike" because it would be too > "luke and laura" (even after spike gets a soul), but meanwhile, angel > offs jenny calendar, tortures giles, threatens joyce, and kills > willows goldfish, but, when he gets his soul back, it's all okay, > because, you know, now he has a soul. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Did Joss actually say that or are you just describing how the relationships develop on screen? If the latter, I have to disagree. They tease us with Angel popping up near the BTVS series finale, but there's no definite statement that he is better for Buffy than Spike is. (And as mentioned with that poll, let me add that I like it that way.) Nor is Spike ever definitely ruled out. Angel's past is always presented as as a big a burden as Spike's, and things are never "it's all okay now that he has a soul" between him and Buffy. And for both vamps (Angel in season 3 and Spike in 6-7) the biggest issue what kind of men they are *now* and how that compares to what Buffy needs. You'll note that in the end, *neither* relationship actually works out. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:05:07 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: in "arrested development" news/rumours to-day... lep wrote: << > 'Arrested Development' Film Planned? > Actor Jason Bateman has confirmed plans are underway for a movie > version of cancelled TV sitcom Arrested Development. A rumored > meeting > between the star and series creator Mitch Hurwitz late last year > fuelled speculation a big-screen adaptation of the cult show was in > the pipeline. And now the Juno star has confirmed the cast has > received calls from executives asking if they would be interested > in > reviving their roles once the ongoing Hollywood writers strike is > over. He tells E! News, "I can confirm that a round of sniffing has > started. Any talk is targeting a post-strike situation, of course. > I > think, as always, that it's a question of whether the people with > the > money are willing to give our leader, Mitch Hurwitz, what he > deserves > for his participation. And I can speak for the cast when I say our > fingers are crossed." > >> > > taken from: > http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/#celeb8 And http://www.pagesix.com/story/big%2Barrested%2Bdevelopment "I'm not tempted to write a song about George W. Bush. I couldn't figure out what sort of song I would write. That's the problem: I don't want to satirize George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporize them." -- Tom Lehrer "The eyes are the groin of the head." -- Dwight Schrute . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:14:03 -0800 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: in "arrested development" news/rumours to-day... OK, now I have something else to wait for after the strike ends, besides Whedon's Dollhouse project (assuming that hasn't already fallen by the wayside). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:16:57 -0800 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: Ralph! To quote the old ladies from Monty Python, "Moan, moan, moan." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:24:17 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama On Feb 4, 2008 11:42 AM, The Great Quail wrote: > True, but I have been surprised at how many of these "redneck" types would > rather have Obama than Hillary as president. Granted, they'd rather have > any > Republican in office than either of those two, but still.... That's why I call it immaterial, for the most part. > > When I see Hillary rallies, I see a bunch of aging white Boomers and their > kids. When I see Obama rallies, I see the future of an America I > desperately > crave to inhabit. When I listen to Hillary, I hear the echo of past > battles > being granted the status of current affairs. When I listen to Obama, I > hear > the voice of a generation that's moving beyond those battles, eager to > create a new world. When I think about Hillary, I find myself mired in > cynicism. When I think about Obama, I find myself actually hoping again > for > the first time in years. Maybe I am being naove -- I am certainly being > naove, and I am sure Eddie would be happy to hand me my ass on a plate -- > but dammit, Obama makes me feel proud to be an American again. That's totally cool, but I think you might be bringing old baggage to your concept of the Clinton campaign. I just don't see Obama as that much more energizing, although I know a lot of people do. Obama speaks, and I do say hell yes, but just not that much louder of a hell yes than I do for Ms. Clinton. > To further your metaphor, I suppose I am not ready to crawl back to an old > lover, no matter if she's finally found her voice, no matter of she wants > a > second chance. (Hell, or believes she's entitled to it.) I want to move > on. That's what I thought your comments implied, but I wasn't sure you were consciously saying so... > > Aside from the fact I dislike her? But you are, so that's cool. > And aside from the fact I believe she > really does polarize people? Only those who are pre-polarized, I think, which, should she be the nominee, would be a moot point. > Nor do I want another Clinton/Bush in the White > House. Jesus -- let's abolish the parties, and just pick Clinton/Bush > every > four years! I don't like the dynasty thing either, for what it's worth, and two years ago I wouldn't've expected to be taking this position, but things change. > > Well, those few friends tend to skew more libertarian or simply craggy. > The > majority of my Democratic party friends will vote for Hillary, though most > feel the same way I do about her. Bear in mind, she was our state senator, > so maybe we've dealt with her more, and have developed more of a distaste > for her artificiality. The more you write about it, the more I suspect this has a lot to do with it. I get that. > > Well, as I said, I'm not aware of any of the candidates' takes on > > videogames, partially because I don't give a shit about them personally. > > And isn't that the root of most political apathy? I think I'm allowed to be apathetic on video games, as they just don't interest me that much. Nor do professional sports, muscle cars, scrapbooking, or celebrity marriages, so I haven't sought out the candidate's takes on those issues, nor do I feel obliged to. Video games-- a pretty small subject in the overall scheme of things, wouldn't you have to agree? I'll say this, if suddenly "video game violence" became a huge manufactured cultural crisis issue (as with rock lyrics in the '80's or comic books in the '50's) and were threatened with that kind of censorship/demonization, I'd be right there with you crying foul, as it's a short hop from games to film, music, and lit. It just so happens that the candidates haven't talked much about videogames, at least not in forums that I've seen, and as a non-gamer I haven't heard anything about this. If one of the candidates has a similar position on, I dunno, indie-rock or whatever, I probably would have heard about it. > > > I will decline an extensive argument on this subject, but I feel you are > typifying the position of the other side, which tends to demonize and > ghettoize video games in the same way that comic books and rock music were > also marginalized in the 80s. Well, I read a hell of a lot of comic books and played a hell of a lot of video games in the 80's (the first time they turned all of our youth into psyschopaths, myself included), so I'm sensitive to the broad brush that can be used here. I don't think it's out of line to say that videogames are a little bit different these days, and that the more macabre edge of them is pretty damned distasteful to me... not because of the imagery so much as the fact that they seem to be there so people can live out fantasies which are pretty unpleasant. I'm not sure that the argument that they constititute an "outlet" for modern man's need to, erm, kill people and so forth, I guess, makes modern man's need for that any less worrisome. None of which should be legislated. It's just squicky to me. There also seem to be plenty of games that are really interesting and inventive. For many reasons, I'll never have the time to explore that world, so I just leave it alone. I also might be dodging it for the same reason I've never taken acid: I know my own mind well enough to be concerned that I'd like it too much and would never come back. > However, you nail a valid point at the end -- > as a parent, it's your job to know the ratings, and to limit what your > kids > can do in your own home. Thanks... it used to surprise me that I had to clarify that, but I've learned. > "The Wire" is pretty much one of the best show's that's ever been on > television. Of course, if you have dismissed the entire medium of > serialized > television as a waste of time, that's not going to sway you. I rather > believe that every medium has its wasteland of junk, its few solid hits, > and > its occasional flashes of genius. That's my assessment, too, actually, it's just once again the limitations of time that keep me from actively pursuing any shows these days. My wife's not into it either, so that makes it easy for us to figure out how to use our leisure time. > > > > Hopefully this is useful stuff-- YMMV. > > What does YMMV mean? > Atypical usage of internet abbreviation for me, I know! I have no idea why I did that. Cheers, Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:25:34 -0800 From: "Stacked Crooked" Subject: Re: Ralph! maybe it's because we're reading different translations; but *my* copy of the good book names jesus' sole invention as the pork pot pie. <"America - Fuck Yeah!" from the "Team America" soundtrack.> oh! good call! actually, "Everybody Knows" would be more suited to the theme. you realise, of course, that this is precisely osama's argument justifying attacks on american civilians? yeah, no shit! similarly, if those dirty, stinky iraqi niggers would just *stand aside* and let us steal their oil *peacefully*, then we wouldn't have need to bomb the fuck out of them for fighting back. but they won't. so, for anybody who understands logic, we have no choice but to bomb the fuck out of them. seriously, though, hamas' actions (ditto the iraqi querillas') are not a violation of international law -- which grants to those suffering occupation to use any means at their disposal to force the occupiers to quit. that doesn't mean that you or i have to *approve* of their methods - -- though for any tax-paying american, it's an awfully big case of glass-house syndrome to criticise others' use of violence to effect a political end. but, remember, hamas were democratically elected (that is to say, the population, generally, appears to approve of its methods). and i daresay that were any of us living in the occupied territories, our high-minded proclamations of strict non-violence would be quickly out the window. and, also, um, you know: how if russia or china were to supply the palestinians with billions of dollars' worth of military equipment -- just as the u.s. does to israel -- thereby leveling the playing field, and obviating the necessity to resort to the use of "terror tactics"? surely you'd not have an issue with this? sure you will, ferris. sure you will. indeed (from ): >>The Pentagon on Monday will unveil its proposed 2009 budget of $515.4 billion. If it is approved in full, annual military spending, when adjusted for inflation, will have reached its highest level since World War II.<< ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:28:31 -0500 From: lep Subject: Re: so let's talk about Buffy Christopher Gross explained: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, lep wrote: > > > WARNING: SPOILERS. > > > > > > > > > > > > (space) > > > > > > > > > > (end of space) > > > > and, just because i like to point these things out, how come joss is > > like "oh, buffy can't possibly be with spike" because it would be too > > "luke and laura" (even after spike gets a soul), but meanwhile, angel > > offs jenny calendar, tortures giles, threatens joyce, and kills > > willows goldfish, but, when he gets his soul back, it's all okay, > > because, you know, now he has a soul. > > I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Did Joss actually say that or > are you just describing how the relationships develop on screen? just a note that what i was referring to came from episode commentaries. the "luke and laura" bit is straight from joss. my impression was that joss felt that it would have beyond the pale to have buffy and spike together after spike tried to force himself on her. which is understandable, but sort of raises the question of why she could be with angel after the little end-of-season-one deathfest. (by "be with" i don't mean forever, just in the sense that joss seemed very opposed to e.g. buffy and spike going on dates or doing "it" again. xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:29:24 +1300 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: Re: Lolita/American tunes >Put into perspective - how many Wal-Mart employees do you think have heard >of the book or film? Or Nabokov ?(outside of being in a song by the >Police...) If it was just the book and original film, I could understand it. The fact that there was also a remake fairly recently makes it pathetic that this sort of mistake would happen. Especially given the fact that the term "Lolita" for a sexually precocious early teen is pretty common in language in general. >I like "Yes". I have most of their early records, I've seen them live and >when I read (to my big surprise because I failed to see the parallels) that >they were fans of Paul Simon and had covered "America" I went out of my way >to get that song. I hate it. To me it demonstrates all that is wrong with >"Yes" and that they don't seem to understand what it is about Paul Simon's >songs that makes them so great. I don't mind their cover, but you're right about it the lack of understanding. The original was tired and introspective deliberately. Missing the thoughful weariness of someone who has searched and failed to find the real America (cue "Easy rider" comparisons) misses the song's entire point. Their cover of the Byrds' "I see you" is, however, pretty damn fine, as is their fairly rare cover of the Beatles' "I'm down". > > > Burning Man theme - American Dream.> > > > > MDC, "John Wayne Was A Nazi" > > R.E.M., "Welcome To The Occupation" > >You bastard! How can you list all of those American cautionary tales and NOT >list Rush's "Beneath, Between, and Behind?" Here's a cautionary one from waaay out in left-field: C.W. McCall's "There won't be no country music, there won't be no rock'n'roll". A pro-environmentalist truckin' song from the guy only ever remembered for the considerably inferior hit, "Convoy". Has anyone else out there even heard this track? It is, IMHO, a bizarre classic. James (who's just been interviewed for a nationwide radio show, talking about flags :) PS: go for the first film. Peter Sellers is amazing - -- 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: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:30:27 -0500 From: lep Subject: Re: so let's talk about Buffy i say: > she could be with angel after the little end-of-season-one deathfest. sorry, meant to say end-of-season-two deathfest. xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:39:41 -0500 From: "Stewart Russell" Subject: Reap Sheldon Brown, 63 (Jeme might be the only other feg who'd know about "Captain Bike") - -- http://scruss.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:44:42 -0800 From: "Jason Brown" Subject: Re: so let's talk about Buffy On Feb 4, 2008 2:28 PM, lep wrote: > Christopher Gross explained: > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, lep wrote: > > > > > WARNING: SPOILERS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (space) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (end of space) > just a note that what i was referring to came from episode > commentaries. the "luke and laura" bit is straight from joss. my > impression was that joss felt that it would have beyond the pale to > have buffy and spike together after spike tried to force himself on > her. which is understandable, but sort of raises the question of why > she could be with angel after the little end-of-season-one deathfest. > (by "be with" i don't mean forever, just in the sense that joss seemed > very opposed to e.g. buffy and spike going on dates or doing "it" > again. I think the big difference is that the part of spike that allowed him to tried to rape her was very much part of the intense and a dangerous side of Spike that attracted her, while Angel's transgressions as Angelus were wholly apart from what attracted her to Angel and once the angel she once loved returned she could give him another chance. Plus the guilt about killing him after his soul returned figures in as well. Personally, I don't think Buffy will ever end up with either Spike or Angel. In the realm of Buffy's love life they are ultimately just the first love and her bad boy mistake and not "the one" - -- "Never go with a hippie to a second location." - Jack Donaghy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:52:00 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: Carrie Galbraith Subject: Re: so let's talk about Buffy - -----Original Message----- >From: Christopher Gross >Well, if you insist. It's fascinating to me the depth that Joss and the other writers give to these characters. I find myself agreeing with Chris on the level of involvement in the characters as written. It's what got me immediately hooked on Firefly and made me sorry that the 'Verse, as conceived in that show, never got to be flushed out in 7 seasons or so. It was already rich and full of so much exploration in to what makes us tick that it is riveting to watch. Being only at the beginning of S3 of Angel I didn't read the other posts - the ones with the spoilers. I'll just have to wait until I finish Buffy and Angel before I can weigh in on Wesley and the like. But I have to say, the "new" Angel, the post-sex-with-Darla Angel, kind of creeps me out. He's so, well, chipper. >Sorry, vampire romance is not the be-all and end-all of Buffy the Vampire >Slayer. Feh. I'd agree. It's just a side-bar. I like the Angel character and I find some aspects of Spike endearing. Oddly, Spike strikes me as the more complex character, but that's just what I'm seeing so far. >Besides, we all know Buffy is eventually going to hook up with Faith.... Ah, there is the one character I have had the hardest time finding any empathy for throughout the show. Faith leaves me cold. She doesn't even work as the "dark side of the slayer made manifest" for me. Perhaps it's the actress. I don't know. Her screentime bores and annoys me. You know, I don't own a TV so it's only been recently that I have found this serialized TV interesting to watch. Perhpas it's that I can control the pace and there are no commercials that makes it more rewarding. But I also suspect it's the damn good writing going on. I thought The Prisoner was the best TV ever made (and it certainly was ahead of it's time) but some of the TV happening today really works, on the same kind of complex levels. I'm interested in checking out other contemporary TV shows now. Oh, and Be Seeing You, - - c ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:55:00 +1300 From: grutness@slingshot.co.nz Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #483 >Here's some statistics to back up that factoid I threw out in an earlier >post: > >"Malpractice litigation" > >"The extra cost of malpractice lawsuits accounts for some of the >difference in health spending in the two countries. In Canada the total >cost of settlements, legal fees, and insurance comes to $4 per person >each year, but in the United States it is $16. Average payouts to >American plaintiffs were $265,103, while payouts to Canadian plaintiffs >were somewhat higher, averaging $309,417. However, malpractice suits are >far more common in the U.S., with 350% more suits filed each year per >person. While malpractice costs are significantly higher in the U.S., >they make up only a small proportion of total medical spending. The >total cost of defending and settling malpractice lawsuits in the U.S. in >2001 was approximately $6.5 billion, or 0.46% of total health spending. >Critics say that defensive medicine consumes up to 9% of American >healthcare expenses. In the same year in Canada, the total burden of >malpractice suits was $237 million, or 0.27% of total health spending." New Zealand goes one stage further. AFAIK there has been no malpractice litigation since the mid 1970s at all - it's all government-covered. An interesting overview of this is at or (this is a htmlised version of a power-point document, so it looks a little weird). The system's not perfect, of course, but even the more critical reports on it indicate that it is superior to the US system (e.g., or ). yes, tax rates are higher because of it, but increases in tax when weighed against virtually free health care... well, you'd have to be stupid not to think it was worth considering. Or perhaps Americans simply all plan to have perfect health throughout their lives and into their old age. But it is a fine, effective system for the most part, and far fairer than anything the US seems to have to offer. I personally am very thankful, since in the last week and a half I have had a doctor's visit ($22) followed by an X-ray (free) and am today starting a course of physiotherapy (up to 16 visits free). Without subsidised health care, I would simply continue to limp and be in tears every time I had to climb steps. 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: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:10:01 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: Lolita/American tunes On Feb 4, 2008 2:29 PM, wrote: > > Here's a cautionary one from waaay out in left-field: C.W. McCall's > "There won't be no country music, there won't be no rock'n'roll". A > pro-environmentalist truckin' song from the guy only ever remembered > for the considerably inferior hit, "Convoy". Has anyone else out > there even heard this track? It is, IMHO, a bizarre classic. > WANT. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:22:22 -0800 From: "Jason Brown" Subject: Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama On Feb 4, 2008 2:24 PM, Rex wrote: > > And aside from the fact I believe she > > really does polarize people? > > Only those who are pre-polarized, I think, which, should she be the nominee, > would be a moot point. I personally know five moderate independents that have told me that they will vote for Obama over McCain but will vote for McCain over Clinton. And all are not fans of Bush. > > > Well, as I said, I'm not aware of any of the candidates' takes on > > > videogames, partially because I don't give a shit about them personally. > > > > And isn't that the root of most political apathy? > > > Video games-- a pretty small subject in the overall scheme of things, wouldn't you > have to agree? The video game industry is now brings in more money in the US than either the film industry or the music industry. So its no small potatoes. Not exactly important on the level of the iraq war andhealthcare but still significant. > I'll say this, if suddenly "video game violence" became a > huge manufactured cultural crisis issue (as with rock lyrics in the '80's or > comic books in the '50's) and were threatened with that kind of > censorship/demonization, I'd be right there with you crying foul, as it's a > short hop from games to film, music, and lit. I think its fair to say that video game censorship is a huge manufactured cultural crisis issue on level of rock lyrics and comic books of yore. However, because of the relative newness of the medium and the general cultural fracturing of the internet age, non-gamers are unlikely to be exposed to the efforts for asshole activists like Jack Thompson outside of scare tactic reports on the local news at 11. - -- "Never go with a hippie to a second location." - Jack Donaghy ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #484 ********************************