From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #727 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, October 2 2008 Volume 16 : Number 727 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: He's a Reptile [Rex ] Re: And when she... [Rex ] Re: an L series [Rex ] Re: He's a Reptile ["C. Huff" ] Re: Baseball [Michael Sweeney ] An open letter from Michael Moore [Carrie Galbraith ] Re: New Demme film [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: New Demme film ["m swedene" ] Re: An open letter from Michael Moore - and he's sound sensible to me! [M] Re: New Demme film [Rex ] Re: An open letter from Michael Moore - and he's sound sensible to me! ["] "Eb" in the Vortex ["Nectar At Any Cost!" ] big surprise of the day ["Miles Goosens" ] Re: an L series ["Miles Goosens" ] Re: Jason & The Scorchers (fegmaniax-digest V16 #720 ["Miles Goosens" Subject: Re: He's a Reptile On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:23 AM, 2fs wrote: > On 10/1/08, Jeremy Osner wrote: > > > I can't imagine Robyn now writing "The Pig-Worker" for example... > > Hmmm... "Strings" from (tellingly) the SB's reunion album is isn't too far afield... Early Robyn did do a little more literal reworking of source material-- "He's a Rebel" and "Hear My Brane" come immediately to mind-- but it keeps happening in one form or another throughout his career... "I know who wrote the Book of Love" and so forth... it's a great technique of his. I always think of it as the point where the song is about to go beyond the infinite in terms of imagery, and he suddenly pulls you back into the awareness that "it's just a pop song"-- sometimes it's nothing more specific than an "oh yeah"-- but in a way that, even after years of listening can still pull the carpet out from under a feg. It happens quite a few times on OT, and I think that's one of the main reasons I like that record so much. Reminds one of why one fell in love to begin with. I know your name, Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:02:10 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: And when she... On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Osner wrote: > Does anybody else think that maybe "Globe of Frogs" was conceived > whilst Robyn and the boys were jamming on "Strange"? I'm certainly not > sure that's the case but it seems to me like a distinct possibility. I'm sure somebody knows, but I don't-- which came first, the electric version or the one with the freaky psychedelic tablas? The album version has always seemed like another one of those heavy Lennon trips to me; the b-side resembles "Lady Waters" and/or "Underwater Moonlight"... if it came first, I imagine it was retooled for the very reason that it sounded a bit too much like those older songs. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:07:10 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: an L series On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Jill Brand wrote: > > I'm debating watching the debate. I want Biden to rip that cracker bitch > to shreds, but if he does, he'll be demonized for not being a nice person. > Speaking of not nice people, did anyone hear Barney Frank on TV/radio (God, > I love him!) when he said, "and because somebody hurt their feelings, they > decided to hurt the country....give me those twelve people's names and I > will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what > wonderful people they are, and maybe they'll now think about the country." > I have very mixed feelings about the bail-out, but I just love to listen to > unbridled Barney. Yeah, Barney Frank for the win on this deal... over and over again. We'd be hurting without him. The wife and I have gone from no TV at all to a steady stream of cable news leading up to, and then coming back down from, The Daily Show / Colbert Report block. It's as good a way to pass the time between bailout votes as any, I figure. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 23:39:48 -0700 (PDT) From: "C. Huff" Subject: Re: He's a Reptile > Here's a thought: I was listening to the record trying to pick out > stylistic differences that would let me distinguish between "The Soft > Boys" and "Robyn Hitchcock" and was not coming up with much beyond > Kimberly Ren on guitar -- which is not exactly a "stylistic > difference", more of a personnel change. So is the style of The Soft > Boys completely down to RH? Or there could of course be differences > that I just have not picked up on yet. I hear Kimberley and Robyn as very different guitarists. Kimberley is more aggressive, and most of the great Soft Boys noise came from his lovely direction. For example, You Have to Go Sideways on UM - RH plays the riff the whole time and Kimberley makes freaky noises around it...also, Andy Metcalfe was out for UM and Matt Seligman was in...I think Andy had a much broader, Beefheartian sense of counter-melody (think the ending of Man W/ Lightbulb Head on Fegmania, though this was much later)...Matthew's more like a hold down the bottom kind of guy... so you have the Soft Boys of Can of Bees and Invisible Hits...Blues beefheart odd 50s aaargh! wading through your ventilator....The line that gets me is "And you were the one who understood the tennis ball" lol the older I get the more I like the early Soft Boys stuff. and then the UM Soft Boys (I love that whole disc so much...) leaning toward the pop, not as noisy...More like Television or "New Wave"... and then RH solo is born... when I saw the SB's reunion, the first show I saw Kimberley was the ONLY one with any energy at all. 2nd show they all showed up, but 1st show was like Kimberley and the Soft Boys. Definitely a much different band with him in it. Changed everything...a show I saw in 99 called Robyn Hitchcock's Rock Armada at Bowery Ballroom in NYC was similar - K. Rew dropped in for Insanely Jealous and it brought the house down! That little guy has such great stage energy... Chris Robinson and Adam Duritz were at that show oddly enough...crows everywhere! > Also, is RH ageless? I'm not > hearing anything that makes me think "this is a young singer" -- for > that matter I don't really think "this is an old singer" when I'm > listening to his current stuff. As someone who has watched RH turn grey over the years, I can definitely say that he seems older but, judging by the last show I saw, he's got a lot of kick left in him.... lol I do call him "the old man" to my wife "Well, I guess I'll go see the old man again..." 20 odd shows and counting...I'm sure there's people on here who have seen many more.... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 06:48:24 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: Re: Baseball >While many of their fans are smarmy, self-absorbed north shore dipshits who deserve everything they get< ...As opposed, of course, to many of those oft-racist, intellect-limited, somewhat-inbred, wife-beating (heck, ANY-stranger-to-their-neighborhood-beating) South Side shithead Sox fans who deserve...uh...give me a second...um...nothing? I was born down there, I lived down there -- I chose to leave (thank gawd)... Michael "Yeah, and I know we lost tonight; but let's see what happens by Sun" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093185mrt/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 23:50:03 -0700 From: Carrie Galbraith Subject: An open letter from Michael Moore < Carrie Galbraith 707.477.8607 meketone@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 23:59:06 -0700 From: Carrie Galbraith Subject: An open letter from Michael Moore - and he's sound sensible to me! << > Carrie Galbraith 707.477.8607 meketone@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:16:49 +0100 From: matt sewell Subject: Jason & The Scorchers (fegmaniax-digest V16 #720) Yeah, Jason R was over here a few years ago, in fact my band supported him at the Oxford Zodiac. Downstairs there used to be a stage and then a cocktail bar that doubled as a dressing room - we played on the stage (to about 10 people) then Jason got up and started his set (to about 15). He quickly decided he wasn't getting across and herded everyone into the dressing room and played his set there. It was one of the best acoustic sets I've ever seen - rocking, charming, funny, the lot. Absolutely Sweet Marie was in the set, as was England Swings Like a Pendulum Do... Everyone in the audience came out of that gig feeling like they'd *really* got their money's worth. Jason himself was a really nice guy. Dunno if he's been in the country since... Back to lurking, Matt From: hssmrg@bath.ac.ukSubject: Jason and the Scorchers Miles Goosens writes: Last night at the Ryman, I was sort of wondering how many people therewere also at Jason & the Scorchers' gig last Thursday after they werehonored at the Americana Association Honors & Awards, and how manyfolks enjoyed both shows equally like I did? The Scorchers are mypick for Greatest Live Act Ever (in fact, their Lifetime Achievementaward was for live performance), and they're both kick-ass *and*smart. But the Scorchers fanbase, at least as represented online,seems largely hostile to Byrne and his artsy book-larnin'. TheScorchers actually opened for Talking Heads at Vanderbilt in the early'80s, and the Scorchers got booed, so maybe there's a specificlongterm antipathy there. Anyway, while watching the dance componentof the Byrne show, I was imagining the Scorchers' fans' reaction tothe dance component... but I live in both worlds and love themequally.And lest I be representing myself as a special little snowflake, Ithink Rex would be right there with me on this. Right, Rex? Rex?later,Miles * Wow! All I know about J and the S is that they did a wonderful cover of 'Absolutely Sweet Marie' some time ago. Have they ever come to the UK? If so, why wasn't I informed? - - Mike Godwin _________________________________________________________________ Discover Bird's Eye View now with Multimap from Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354026/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 08:50:41 -0400 From: "Jeremy Osner" Subject: New Demme film "Rachel Getting Married" is opening tomorrow -- I saw a preview and it looked like it would be pretty good. Did not realize until today that Mr. Hitchcock has music on the soundtrack and is maybe on camera as well. J - -- If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- Jose Saramgo http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:12:11 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: New Demme film - --On 2. Oktober 2008 08:50:41 -0400 Jeremy Osner wrote: > "Rachel Getting Married" is opening tomorrow -- I saw a preview and it > looked like it would be pretty good. Did not realize until today that > Mr. Hitchcock has music on the soundtrack and is maybe on camera as > well. He is! He's in the trailer and his name is listed in the credits at the end: Way cool. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:30:57 -0400 From: "m swedene" Subject: Re: New Demme film if you are all too lazy (or at work) to watch the preview.... I captured Mr H in his brief showing on the trailer. http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z277/midynyc/?action=view¤t=Picture2-7.png Mike On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Sebastian Hagedorn < Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de> wrote: > --On 2. Oktober 2008 08:50:41 -0400 Jeremy Osner > wrote: > > "Rachel Getting Married" is opening tomorrow -- I saw a preview and it >> looked like it would be pretty good. Did not realize until today that >> Mr. Hitchcock has music on the soundtrack and is maybe on camera as >> well. >> > > He is! He's in the trailer and his name is listed in the credits at the > end: > > > > Way cool. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:06:25 -0400 From: Marc Alberts Subject: Re: An open letter from Michael Moore - and he's sound sensible to me! Carrie Galbraith wrote: > << > > Parts are absolutely not sensible, like his entire preamble. What is sensible is point one, which would eliminate Franklyn Raines and Jim Johnson the rest of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac crew that are currently advising Obama on economics and other issues (Raines was the chair of his VP selection committee until public outcry had him moved off to a less-public role). If Obama wins, he is definitely better off without them. They are the epitome of what Moore is complaining about. Point two is a given, since "the rich" generally don't have problems with their mortgages. Heck, if they're rich, they generally don't have mortgages in the first place. If they have a problem with their mortgage, they should be allowed to lose their homes just like everyone else. Point three is ludicrous--the people "losing their homes" for the most part are people that, as a matter of public policy, were encouraged to "purchase" instead of rent (Fannie and Freddie were consistently given higher and higher targets for low-income loans since 1996, as well as given racial targets to meet thanks to Andrew Cuomo, whom McCain would be best to drop as a potential cabinet level official should he win). The problem here is that these "purchases" were generally zero down or a very minimal down payment, and were in the forms of loans that were often not even enough to cover interest payments. In other words, these "owners" had as much equity in their homes as your typical renter, because the government policy didn't really care if low income folks actually had home equity but rather whether they were nominally owners. A sensible policy would be to let people who were the victims of predatory mortages (the biggest baddie here is the prepayment penalty mortgage clause), but if nominal owners lose their non-existent equity there really isn't an economic harm here, so there is no reason to bail them out in the way that Moore is thinking. A bailout for them would be to increase deductibility for moving expenses. Point four is purely an ideological point, and I can see how public ownership of corporations appeals to Moore. It won't work here, however, as public-private "partnership" was what caused this problem in the first place. If the government can not only use Fannie and Freddie but virtually all the banks to push home ownership down the economic stack back into groups that are currently unable to afford homes again, all you do is you recreate the bubble again. Point five is a very simplistic way to look at the "crisis," which was, in much the way that the State of California energy crisis of 2000-1 was, as much a product of a poor regulatory regime as anything else. I think suggesting that the answer to regulations gone bad is more regulation seems to be very much Einstein's definition of insanity. That said, I believe putting Glass-Steagell back in place, while G-S was a reasonably good piece of legislation, will not help with this crisis. You can't unring a bell, and all putting G-S back in will do is force a lot of divestitures of companies that were recently sucked up that couldn't stand on their own in the first place. That puts us right back smack in the middle of the crisis that the bailout is thought to solve. I disagree that the bailout is the best option--I believe that the Detroit model of low-interest loans to cover reserve requirements (combined with a slackening of the reserve requirements rules, either through actually adjusting the Fed-mandated ratio or by loosening "mark-to-market" rules or both) is by far better as the failure of these banks and brokerages is not due to actual loses but in terms of a credit squeeze caused by "mark-to-market" rules put in after Enron. This forces banks to sell off assets that are declining in value, further causing home values to decline, which causes a race to the bottom which destroys enough paper value that the reserve requirement kicks in when there is no market for the assets so the firms have to sell themselves to a competitor with a healthier balance sheet. These sorts of regulations are exacerbating the problem, not helping the problem, and if the people really believe that the government can buy up these distressed properties and sell them later for a profit if they just hold long enough, then why not remove the taxpayer risk there and simply provide loans so that the banks can do the same thing without ownership entanglement? Point six is silly--if anything has been proven by this crisis, where Fannie and Freddie were "too big to fail," it is that no company is too big to fail. And a better way to look at this "economic Pearl Harbor" is that Fannie and Freddie, thanks to their implicit government backing, were able to corner the market on consolidating these loans, and thanks to certain reserve requirement structures that applied only to them, it took only a relatively small number of mortgage defaults to bring down the entire house of cards. But make no mistake--it was government policy that made them as big as they were, not the market. Point seven is interesting, but if you think CEO pay is a problem, what would you suggest doing about it? Stop grousing about the pay disparity and show me the plan to end it so we can dive into the details and figure out if the societal benefits are really there or if this is just envy. Also, when comparing CEO pay it is useful to take into account differences in local market conditions, which just comparing across the board like that doesn't do. Point eight is reasonable in terms of savings accounts, but protecting private pensions through insurance seems something that is better done privately. Furthermore, referring to the stock market as a "casino" is just plain silly if you only put back in the uptick rule and actually enforce laws already on the books against naked shorts. How the FDIC would protect peoples' homes, however, is something Moore doesn't even discuss except in the header, and it is extremely problematic when people only nominally own homes, as is the case with a good chunk of the subprime and Alt-A market. Since it is nothing but a bullet point, though, there's no real way to judge how he proposes this idea would work or what the potential benefits or harms might be. Point nine is the most sensible thing he has written to this point. I agree entirely. Unfortunately for Moore, though, this doesn't jibe with Obama's "the worst economy blah blah blah" histrionics, but rather aligns him well with John McCain, who was excoriated for saying the economy was fundamentally sound not too long ago. Point ten is a "wouldn't it be nice?" sort of point that might sound good on the surface but I think we have seen where government involvement in formerly private economic activities can lead us if we just go by a "wouldn't it be nice?" sort of approach. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:27:35 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: New Demme film On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:30 AM, m swedene wrote: > if you are all too lazy (or at work) to watch the preview.... I captured Mr > H in his brief showing on the trailer. > > http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z277/midynyc/?action=view¤t=Picture2-7.png > Cool... can we ID the other musicians in that shot? That's a nice... erm... oud? Lute? - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:16:16 -0500 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: Re: An open letter from Michael Moore - and he's sound sensible to me! On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Marc Alberts wrote: > Carrie Galbraith wrote: >> >> << >> > > > Parts are absolutely not sensible, like his entire preamble. What is > sensible is point one .... > > Point two is a given, since "the rich" generally don't have problems with > their mortgages.... > > Point three is ludicrous--the people "losing their homes" for the most part > are people that, as a matter of public policy, were encouraged to "purchase" > instead of rent... etc. etc. Marc's point-by-point analysis sums up my problems with Michael Moore. On the one hand, he's a really bright guy whose heart is in the right place who provides much-needed gadfly services to our society. But on the other hand, his anti-intellectualism hurts him on a number of levels. For instance, his lack of intellectual rigor leads him to think it's ok to splice "creatively" in his documentaries, when (1) the actual words of the folks he's skewering in their original context is usually more than enough to make them look like fools, and (2) by playing so fast and loose with a few things in each documentary, it opens him up to his entire work being easily tarred with "oh, he twisted what they were saying." It shows in his proclivity to sneer at college professors and other egghead types who are actually on his side. It shows in his totemic blue-collar-cred advocacy of hometown dunderheads Grand Funk Railroad, who make Spinal Tap look like Jackson Browne. And here, it shows up in his lack of logical consistency and his chronic inability to think things through. He doesn't have to lose his rhetorical liveliness or show footnotes, but he can't keep thinking that every thought he tosses off is pure gold. I like the guy a lot. I just want him to do a better job, so the Michael Moore-skewerers of the world have less ammunition. Plus he so needs to get over that whole Grand Funk thing, or at least do a real public service and make Mark Farner put on a shirt. later, Miles - -- now with blogspot retsin! http://readingpronunciation.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:18:59 -0700 From: "Nectar At Any Cost!" Subject: "Eb" in the Vortex anyway, i always thought it was *El* (as in, short for "elevated"). no? but hasn't it always been like that? i always wondered what the deal was with all you east-coasters; who didn't seem to mind staying up all hours of the night to take in your sporting events; but then be up way early to run the world. i remember the first time i went back east, being incredulous at myself for actually going to bed before i knew the result of the mariners' game. ha ha! but, can an alaskan truly be a "cracker"? of course, he *ought* to be demonised for being a fucking piece-of-shit war-monger. god, i hate that son of a bitch. jill, jill, jill. please don't tell me you've bought in to this bullshit manufactured sky-is-falling hysteria? this is exactly the same crap we had to endure during the run-up to the invasion of iraq. "ahhhh! if we don't do this fucking NOW, we're all doomed for certain! ahhhh! ahhh! ahhhh!" a daily visit to and should oughta get you offa the fence. wow, just picked this up from the library meself. must finish david b.'s excellent *Epileptic* first, though. but as to-day apparently marks the official end of perhaps the most bitchin'-ly divine seattle late-summer of my lifetime (at least since '87, at any rate), there'll now be plenty o' time for reading. kevin, i think you'd dig john gray's *Straw Dogs*, if you've not read it before now. kinda interesting that the cubs, red sox, and white sox were all three so dominant, and then, pffft. had forgotten that this year marks 100 years since the cubs' last title -- surely the longest drought in professional sports? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:30:51 -0500 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: big surprise of the day OK, reuniting the Jam without Paul Weller seemed like the punchline to a joke. While it's not a perfect analogy (seeing as Morris and Andy don't have their own underrated TOUCH SENSITIVE(s) out there), it does sound as pointless as reuniting the Egyptians under that name to play Robyn's music without Robyn being on board. But now From the Jam, as the Foxton/Buckler joint calls itself, has a live EP which is at least available on eMusic right this minute . And holy cow, it rocks like a mutha. As I say in my newish blog , new vocalist/guitarist Russell Hastings is doing a better Paul Weller than Paul Weller's done in over a decade and a half. I'd definitely go see 'em if I could. later, Miles - -- now with blogspot retsin! http://readingpronunciation.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:40:39 -0500 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: Re: an L series On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:56 PM, 2fs wrote: > On 10/1/08, kevin studyvin wrote: >> >> >> > but if he does, he'll be demonized for not being a nice person. > > > I'm just hoping some headline writer somewhere is a Wire fan...so they can > write the headline PALIN BELIEF: NOT WITHOUT FAULT. I just wanted to acknowledge the genius of this, along with my envy that I hadn't come up with it. Especially since I've had http://www.paleinbelief.com for years (though for budget reasons - and the fact that I never did anything with it - I'm probably gonna let it go). for a long time I free fell without divisions or grace, Miles p.s.: Googling the "Houses in Motion" lyrics, I just discovered that the first line is actually "for a long time I FELT..." which, if accurate, means I've been mishearing it for twenty-eight years. I think I like mine ("fell" instead of "felt") better. - -- now with blogspot retsin! http://readingpronunciation.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:46:22 -0500 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: Re: Jason & The Scorchers (fegmaniax-digest V16 #720 On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:16 AM, matt sewell wrote: > Yeah, Jason R was over here a few years ago, in fact my band supported him at > the Oxford Zodiac. Very cool! >Downstairs there used to be a stage and then a cocktail bar > that doubled as a dressing room - we played on the stage (to about 10 people) > then Jason got up and started his set (to about 15). He quickly decided he > wasn't getting across and herded everyone into the dressing room and played > his set there. > > It was one of the best acoustic sets I've ever seen - rocking, charming, > funny, the lot. Absolutely Sweet Marie was in the set, as was England Swings > Like a Pendulum Do... Everyone in the audience came out of that gig feeling > like they'd *really* got their money's worth. Jason himself was a really nice > guy. While no Nashville show, Scorchers or solo, is ever that ill-attended, that matches up with things people have told me about the band rockin' it whether it's a full room or five folks. One friend who's not usually interested in alt-countryish things saw the reunited lineup c. 1996 (I think in Cleveland) play to a half-dozen or so folks, and he says it was the best show he's ever seen - they gave it the full Scorcherization and then some, making a great memory for the people who showed up. > Dunno if he's been in the country since... Usually every year there's some sort of JR solo and/or Scorchers U.K/Europe action... just watch http://www.jasonringenberg.com to see what's happening. greetings from Nashville, the new LA, Miles - -- now with blogspot retsin! http://readingpronunciation.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:02:35 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: Jason & The Scorchers (fegmaniax-digest V16 #720 > greetings from Nashville, the new LA, > > Miles > I prefer to think that title belongs to Seattle, or as some of us like to call it, North North Hollywood. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:07:22 -0700 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: An open letter from Michael Moore - and he's sound sensible to me! > It shows in his totemic blue-collar-cred advocacy of hometown dunderheads > Grand Funk Railroad, who make Spinal Tap look like Jackson Browne...he so > needs to get over that whole Grand Funk thing, or at least do a real public > service and make Mark Farner put on a shirt. Dude. "Paranoid." Aging Seattle lefty who's been mistaken for Mr. Moore a time or two / KS ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #727 ********************************