From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #539 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, March 15 2008 Volume 16 : Number 539 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Oliver Stone... ["kevin studyvin" ] Re: Oliver Stone... [Rex ] Re: Oliver Stone... ["kevin studyvin" ] Re: Oliver Stone... [Rex ] Apropos of Nothing, Part 2 [djini@voicenet.com] Re: Oliver Stone... ["kevin studyvin" ] Re: Apropos of Nothing, Part 2 ["(0% rh)" ] Re: Apropos of Nothing, Part 2 [Carrie Galbraith ] advice about landline vs. cable phone (verizon vs. comcast) ["(0% rh)" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:07:59 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: Oliver Stone... > (although I always find watching Jack Lemmon getting the shit beaten out > of him by Ed Asner extra creepy) > Ahhh, serves him right. The guy was just a scenery-chewer. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:10:49 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Oliver Stone... On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 9:36 AM, kevin studyvin wrote: > > > Stone's style seems to me less aligned with the '80's zeitgeist than > > with with the '60's relic that he is, > > > You say that like it's a bad thing... > Oh, it's not, when the statement is isolated like that. My point was that Stone wasn't/isn't exemplary of the quick-cut "MTV editing" post-modern thing to me, but more of an extension of the more indulgent, less coherent side of '60's filmmaking. I guess I mean that the credit Stone gets as an innovator is often overstated. > and that idea that if you're macho and on drugs, you're an unstoppable > > creative genius. > > > Which really goes back to Hemingway, ya ask me. > Sort of... the self-destructive genius thing has been around forever, but I think that before the '60's, I think those things were viewed as being part and parcel of a certain endemic personality type, whereas I think this lame idea that "normal guy takes drugs and thereby becomes a creative genius" did basically originate post-LSD. > Granted that flick is nothing but kitsch (& let me reiterate my belief > that casting Kyle McLachlan, one of the stiffest, most self-conscious actors > I've ever seen, as the supremely pompous Ray Manzarek was sheer genius) I'll > always have a soft spot in my heart for the Doors, who need to be seen in > their historical context if you're gonna be at all charitable (i.e., you > had to be there). > Probably so. But a lot of The Doors' contemporaries still reach me across the gap of years in a way that the Doors themselves don't. Probably just dumb luck. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:05:31 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: Oliver Stone... On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Rex wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 9:36 AM, kevin studyvin > wrote: > > > > > > Stone's style seems to me less aligned with the '80's zeitgeist than > > > with with the '60's relic that he is, > > > > > > You say that like it's a bad thing... > > > > Oh, it's not, when the statement is isolated like that. My point was that > Stone wasn't/isn't exemplary of the quick-cut "MTV editing" post-modern > thing to me, but more of an extension of the more indulgent, less coherent > side of '60's filmmaking. I guess I mean that the credit Stone gets as an > innovator is often overstated. > > Back in the days when Film Threat was a print magazine they devoted a whole issue to hyping the forthcoming Natch'l Born Killers, going on and on about what a genius technical breakthrough it was and how cool Stone was for using like forty-'leven different kinds of film and camera treatments and stuff and I bought their story and went to see the thing. All I can say is, the tech may have been swell but there was only about twenty minutes of actual story in there, and that pinhead Woody Harrelson isn't exactly the best advertisement for cannabis culture. > and that idea that if you're macho and on drugs, you're an unstoppable > > > creative genius. > > > > > > Which really goes back to Hemingway, ya ask me. > > > > Sort of... the self-destructive genius thing has been around forever, but > I think that before the '60's, I think those things were viewed as being > part and parcel of a certain endemic personality type, whereas I think this > lame idea that "normal guy takes drugs and thereby becomes a creative > genius" did basically originate post-LSD. > Yah, I think you're right there. I was thinking more in terms of the whole machismo, intoxicants & high-powered weapons thing that seems to originate with the Hemingway cult, which I mostly don't have any use for (although it did give us Dr. Thompson and Warren Zevon), and I automatically associate Ollie with that. > > > > Granted that flick is nothing but kitsch (& let me reiterate my belief > > that casting Kyle McLachlan, one of the stiffest, most self-conscious actors > > I've ever seen, as the supremely pompous Ray Manzarek was sheer genius) I'll > > aways have a soft spot in my heart for the Doors, who need to be seen in > > their historical context if you're gonna be at all charitable (i.e., you > > had to be there). > > > > Probably so. But a lot of The Doors' contemporaries still reach me across > the gap of years in a way that the Doors themselves don't. Probably just > dumb luck. > > And a nostalgic attachment to my junior-high years, or else you just have a lower corn tolerance then me. (Note: while I was typing this a lumber-yard truck drove by with DOORS written on the side in five-foot-high letters. Synchronicity, dood.) On another note, I now have PiL's Metal Box and a systematic A/B'ing with the Second Edition version of those tracks is illuminating. Way more presence. Bigger bass. Superior separation. You can hear a lot more of the the guitar & synths. It's just plain better. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:26:25 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Oliver Stone... On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:05 AM, kevin studyvin wrote: > > On another note, I now have PiL's Metal Box and a systematic A/B'ing with > the Second Edition version of those tracks is illuminating. Way more > presence. Bigger bass. Superior separation. You can hear a lot more of > the the guitar & synths. It's just plain better. > Awesome. Are you A/B-ing the respective CD issues? I love the purported idea of those recordings: just plain no middle frequencies. Kind of like predicting the aesthetic of the '80's anyway, but few basses would be as looowww as Wobble's, and little treble would be as piercing as Levene's scratching and Lydon's yowlering. (There were a lot of great records like that, notes the Slits and Au Pairs enthusiast, but it was much better earlier when it was being done on purpose or even confrontationally rather than the later '80's when that became a sort of sound-trend that wasn't given much thought). Vaguely related, I just listened to / digitized some old cassettes of Meat Beat Manifesto, and was delighted to find a Slits sample I hadn't recognized all those years ago, and some pretty satisfying reconfigurations of Future Sound of Londons ageless "Papua New Guinea" lurking on the "Psyche Out" EP. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:58:32 -0400 (EDT) From: djini@voicenet.com Subject: Apropos of Nothing, Part 2 Under the heading of things one just can't keep to oneself another second (and congrats Jeff!): The FedEx man just brought me one of these!!! http://laptop.org/ YAY! I've been waiting patiently since December. I did the One Laptop Per Child Give One Get One program, so presumably some kid in Peru or something now has one too. Despite all the weirdness surrounding the program and the difficulties they're having, I am still so, so excited for my new toy! Damn, I really don't want to go in to work now, Jeanne ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:36:20 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: Oliver Stone... > Stone's style seems to me less aligned with the '80's zeitgeist than with > with the '60's relic that he is, You say that like it's a bad thing... > and that idea that if you're macho and on drugs, you're an unstoppable > creative genius. Which really goes back to Hemingway, ya ask me. > All you really need to know is that he made a film about the Doors and > ...*meant* it. > Granted that flick is nothing but kitsch (& let me reiterate my belief that casting Kyle McLachlan, one of the stiffest, most self-conscious actors I've ever seen, as the supremely pompous Ray Manzarek was sheer genius) I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the Doors, who need to be seen in their historical context if you're gonna be at all charitable (i.e., you had to be there). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:10:51 -0400 From: "(0% rh)" Subject: Re: Apropos of Nothing, Part 2 jeanne says: > , I am still so, so excited for my new toy! i would love to play with one of those. have fun, and report back. btw, i really like the design of that website (the visual appearance is what i mean, rather than the functionality, particularly (now i'm unsure of what "design" means when describing a website - i guess there are multiple kinds of design, but maybe they need to invent some more words, or i just need to find out what they are, if they already exist.)) xo p.s. i love The FedEx man! although i'm not pure of heart - i also quite adore The UPS man and, of course, The Mail man. - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:18:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Carrie Galbraith Subject: Re: Apropos of Nothing, Part 2 - -----Original Message----- >From: djini@voicenet.com >Sent: Mar 14, 2008 11:58 AM >To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: Apropos of Nothing, Part 2 > >Under the heading of things one just can't keep to oneself another second (and congrats >Jeff!): >The FedEx man just brought me one of these!!! >http://laptop.org/ >YAY! I've been waiting patiently since December. I did the One Laptop Per Child Give One >Get One program, so presumably some kid in Peru or something now has one too. Despite >all the weirdness surrounding the program and the difficulties they're having, I am >still so, so excited for my new toy! > >Damn, I really don't want to go in to work now, >Jeanne I've been reading about this program for quite a while! I see they are saying 200 bucks buys a laptop, they wanted it to be 100 when they first started. Still - it's such a great idea! Let us know how it works and all! - - c ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:43:44 -0400 From: "(0% rh)" Subject: advice about landline vs. cable phone (verizon vs. comcast) hi fegs, just wondering if anyone has any comments about cable phone service through comcast vs. verizon landline. my older (oh, no, could they be *elderly*?) parents are switching from verizon landline to comcast, and i'm a bit concerned (my family and i are in the philadelphia area, if that matters.) you can stop reading here if you want; the rest is just details... i'm impervious to change, so wouldn't dream of not having a landline, but aside from my personal feelings, i've heard complaints about comcast (actually, i was really surprised when my mom told me she was switching - she hates change even more than i do, although, as she gets older, she's getting prone to weird decisions.) because i'm her daughter, my mother *never* listens to me. but she very well might listen to complete strangers such as yourselves. i'm of the mind that they should have what's more convenient for them to use. also, i worry about the cable going out, and their not having phone service. they do both have (verizon) cell phones, but they're always off because like ten years ago, cell batteries used to drain pretty fast, and my parents have yet to adjust their internal records for this decade. also, when the cell phones do happen to be on, they usually ignore them anyway. they're old enough that they should have something reliable (they both have assorted health issues.) and, they're old enough that when something goes wrong, i have to hear about it for the rest of their/my life (if i'm "lucky", i might get to fix it.) and i have to explain to them in great detail, multiple times, how to use anything they haven't used before. although, i confess, my mom is quite the whiz on the world wide web, and the only person of her generation that i've known to be able to program her VCR. any comments or advice would be appreciated. as ever, lauren - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:55:08 -0400 (EDT) From: djini@voicenet.com Subject: Re: the force is maybe with you, yaddy, yaddy, yah, pt. 409 Re my earlier message: no offense meant to any fegs of the professin' profession. I actually think fondly of that bunch of teachers - I went to a weird little school and they were mostly very jokey and laid-back. It really did feel like every once in a while they just decided to shut all us little buggers up in a room with whoever drew the short straw running the projector though. > Carrie said: > >> And maybe we all remember it >> because of the Red Balloon?? I mean a classic I remember as if I was >> a child when I first saw it (which is doubtful since French films did >> not show on the TV in LA in the 60s). > > Maybe you saw it at school? I have a pretty clear memory of sitting on the floor in some > schoolroom, watching that movie. "Special assembly" they called it, or, I suspect, > "Happy Hour in the Teacher's Lounge." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:26:23 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: ...And in the latest Mac-hination news... "Sheryl Crow Says She'll Sing With Fleetwood Mac" -- http://tinyurl.com/2p6slt ...Although, following Fleetwood Mac tradition, it was not announced which male band member's marriage Crow would seek to break up... Michael "Current longest shot to have an affair with Crow is John McVie -- since it would seriously cut into his drinking and napping time" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:37:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: yet another challenge for all you computer geniuses Hey Y'all, I know I'd have to spend a fortune on the Geek Squad if it weren't for you guys, so I'd like you to know how much I've appreciated everyone's help over the years. I've reached another stumbling block in the world of winRAR. I have downloaded three videos of live of Montreal concerts. One is only about 2.5G, so it's not a problem, but the other two are just over 4G. The result is that I cannot "unpack" the larger files. Every time I get to the very end of the unpacking process, I get these two messages: There is not enough space on the disk. Write error: only NTFS file system supports file larger than 4 GB The shows are divided into 6 different rar files, but they are joined, so when I put three of the files in another folder, I got a message saying that I needed the rest of the files before the process of unpacking could continue. I have no idea what to do. Any takers? BTW, I have a PC, not a Mac, but someday soon.... Thanks again. Jill ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:42:40 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: yet another challenge for all you computer geniuses On Mar 15, 2008, at 8:37 AM, Jill Brand wrote: > Hey Y'all, > > I know I'd have to spend a fortune on the Geek Squad if it weren't > for you guys, so I'd like you to know how much I've appreciated > everyone's help over the years. I've reached another stumbling > block in the world of winRAR. I have downloaded three videos of > live of Montreal concerts. One is only about 2.5G, so it's not a > problem, but the other two are just over 4G. The result is that I > cannot "unpack" the larger files. Every time I get to the very end > of the unpacking process, I get these two messages: > > There is not enough space on the disk. > Write error: only NTFS file system supports file larger than 4 GB I'd say that your best choice - while deciding which Mac to buy - is to find a friend who has a machine that can handle files >4GB and ask them to unrar the archive and split the video up into two smaller files for you. You could ask them to burn a DVD too. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:58:12 -0400 From: "m swedene" Subject: iphone question (o% RH, 5% REM) I am having issues synching my address book.Using Mac OS X 10.4.12 and a 16GB iPhone all programs are up to date. When I sync contacts from the phone to the machine it replaces the ones on the phone with the iChat contacts and doesnt move my new contacts from iPhone to machine. Thoughts? Mike ps - accelerate has leaked. It is pretty good. Gives me hope. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #539 ********************************