From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V17 #51 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, February 18 2009 Volume 17 : Number 051 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Oslo [lep ] Re: And Now Back to Buffy... (was Re: more listening necessary) [kevin st] Re: more listening necessary [Michael Sweeney ] Re: And Now Back to Buffy... (was Re: more listening necessary) [lep ] Re: And Now Back to Buffy... (was Re: more listening necessary) [2fs ] RE: more listening necessary [Michael Sweeney ] Fuckin' Awesome Band-Name I Just Thought Of ["Nectar At Any Cost!" ] Re: more listening necessary ["craigie*" ] Re: more listening necessary [Sebastian Hagedorn ] RE: more listening necessary [Michael Sweeney ] Reap [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: more listening necessary [Tom Clark ] Oslo on allmusic.com [Tom Clark ] Re: Damn [James Dignan ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:34:00 -0500 From: lep Subject: Re: Oslo just wanted to say that i'm enjoying reading all the comments about "goodnight oslo", and enjoying more that UPS just came by and i'm about to take off the shrink wrap as we speak... as ever, lauren - -- "people with opinions just go around bothering one another." -- the buddha ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:53:41 -0800 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: And Now Back to Buffy... (was Re: more listening necessary) > perhaps it's just that i view firefly as a much more mature story. > everything about it seems more "true" to me than buffy or angel series > - the characters, the situations, the world, the compromises. and > it's incredibly funny, and the way its funny comes from the way its > true, so, for me, it's way more funny than buffy or angel. and with > less loss of truth. I'm inclined to agree on the whole, except that Firefly suffers from a strategic lack of Vampire Willow. i believe it was jeff 2fs who once wrote something to the effect that one thing that could really prevent one from liking buffy is not liking/appreciating the genre of comic books. and i think that's the case with me, and i think it helps point out why i view buffy/angel and firefly very differently - at the heart of it, they...are very different. YMMV. I'm married to someone who's never ever acquired the comic virus, as opposed to my terminal case - and yet she enjoys the Buffyverse possibly more than I do. I think it's the clever repartee, mostly. Enjoyed the Dollhouse. Crazy dramatic potential. Wonder how long it will take Fox to destroy it? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:04:52 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: Re: more listening necessary FSThomas wrote: >I wasn't the biggest Buffy fan (though it's something else I should revisit), but Firefly was probably the best sci-fi show yet. ...Speaking as one of the (apparently; perhaps Jill notably recently excepted) very few non-Whedonites out here -- I don't believe I have seen more than a few moments of any of his work -- I must say that "Firefly" / "Serenity" is something I've definitely considered for my first exposure to his stuff. (Although...it also sounds like the only thing of it all that I'd be completely into...) Michael Sweeney * My current personal must-watches: "Heroes," "Big Love" (although I cannot stand Chloe Sevigny or her character), the Thurs. NBC comedies (except "Kath & Kim"), "24"; and I can't wait for the April return of "Rescue Me"... _________________________________________________________________ Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn 10 hidden secrets from Jamie. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550 F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:13:37 -0500 From: lep Subject: Re: And Now Back to Buffy... (was Re: more listening necessary) kevin says: >> perhaps it's just that i view firefly as a much more mature story. >> everything about it seems more "true" to me than buffy or angel series >> - the characters, the situations, the world, the compromises. and >> it's incredibly funny, and the way its funny comes from the way its >> true, so, for me, it's way more funny than buffy or angel. and with >> less loss of truth. > > > I'm inclined to agree on the whole, except that Firefly suffers from a > strategic lack of Vampire Willow. agreed, but the same could be said for buffy series. > i believe it was jeff 2fs who once wrote something to the effect that > one thing that could really prevent one from liking buffy is not > liking/appreciating the genre of comic books. and i think that's the > case with me, and i think it helps point out why i view buffy/angel > and firefly very differently - at the heart of it, they...are very > different. > > YMMV. I'm married to someone who's never ever acquired the comic virus, as > opposed to my terminal case - and yet she enjoys the Buffyverse possibly > more than I do. I think it's the clever repartee, mostly. yes, the clever repartee is the wonderful thing about buffy and angel series. although...did i mention the boys? the missing shirts? giles? so i'm curious - how's the wife feel about firefly? > Enjoyed the Dollhouse. Crazy dramatic potential. i have to re-watch it. i was way too distracted by friday's BSG episode to pay attention to much else (still am, so it'll probably be a week or two before i watch it properly (or, let's be real - after BSG "e" "n" "d" "s".)) > Wonder how long it will > take Fox to destroy it? you speak of the future. that's what i love about you, kevin: your optimism. (i just semi-relatedly thought of that series with martin donovan (sp?) that aired all of two times, i believe? oh, brother.) xo - -- "people with opinions just go around bothering one another." -- the buddha ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:22:09 -0500 (EST) From: djini@voicenet.com Subject: Re: BSG (because I have nothing to say about Rush) I haven't seen it yet (no cable) - I will keep an eye out! Shoot, I am going to miss the April RH show. I will be off snorkeling though, so I'm not that bummed. Never been snorkeling before! Jeanne > > Darn it. I'll have to rewatch. > > Veerrry interesting BSG. > > Sumi > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Brian Huddell wrote: >>> xo >>> >>> p.s. re: BSG "no exit": did anyone catch that so-feg-thread line that >>> our gal said in sick bay right towards the end of the show? i did half >>> of double-take (which, no lie, somehow my brain thinks is different >>> than a single take.) >> >> Yes! Djini totally got a shout-out! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:39:37 -0500 (EST) From: djini@voicenet.com Subject: Re: Something beautiful to look at Stewart wrote: > > Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:33:25 -0500 > From: "Stewart C. Russell" > Subject: Re: Something beautiful to look at > > Jeremy Osner wrote: >> Dudes, you gotta check these photos out: http://readin.com/blog/?id=1733 > > meh, polariser and HDR. That technique's getting as overexposed as false > tilt-shift (or 'tilt-shit' as it should be properly known). > I like 'em. Less for the perspective bending than for the sky. I used to drive regularly from Providence RI to S. Dartmouth, Mass, and the skies along that drive were so spectacular. I also lived in Reno for a spell and got some big sky there. Even if the photos are doctored, I would contend that un-doctored photos have very little chance of capturing those sights, unless a genius is behind the camera. Delaware is such a swamp, I don't get those sights very often. Jeanne ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:46:47 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: more listening necessary On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Michael Sweeney wrote: > > ...Speaking as one of the (apparently; perhaps Jill notably recently excepted) > very few non-Whedonites out here -- I don't believe I have seen more than a > few moments of any of his work -- I must say that "Firefly" / "Serenity" is > something I've definitely considered for my first exposure to his stuff. > (Although...it also sounds like the only thing of it all that I'd be > completely into...) Speaking as a Rush fan, I say it doesn't matter what you're into because Rush obviously rules, because... Oh wait: wrong fanaticism. Ahem. Speaking as one of Joss Whedon's countless minions, I'd point out that "sounding like something you'd be into" is a poor guide: his "science fiction" isn't really that, his "western" isn't really that, his "vampire" stuff isn't really...you get the idea. It begins there - but he uses genre tropes to take off into what are eventually highly character-based shows that explore, you know, the human condition and all that. Everything's a metaphor for something else. And: my hammer goes to 11. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:49:40 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: And Now Back to Buffy... (was Re: more listening necessary) On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:31 PM, lep wrote: > i believe it was jeff 2fs who once wrote something to the effect that > one thing that could really prevent one from liking buffy is not > liking/appreciating the genre of comic books Probably wasn't me - at least not in quite those terms - since I myself am not a comic fan by any means (I don't hate 'em, I just don't consume them). What I may well have said (possibly with comics as an example, since they're clearly dear to Our Joss's heart) is that one needs to be able to appreciate genre fiction, and kinda go with its tropes. If the whole idea of taking anything involving vampires seriously just rubs you totally the wrong way, you probably won't be able to go with it. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:52:29 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: BSG (because I have nothing to say about Rush) On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:22 PM, wrote: > Shoot, I am going to miss the April RH show. I will be off snorkeling though, so I'm not > that bummed. Never been snorkeling before! Something I've always wondered: do people who are into snorkeling have to have a certain period of time to overcome the sheer funniness of the word "snorkel"? I can barely type it without chuckling... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:30:34 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Damn So, on Monday I go to the hospital and get the all-clear after my knee surgery. I seem to be healing beautifully, and am already ahead of the rehab schedule. And at 2am on Tuesday morning I end up at hospital with severe abdominal pain, vomiting a mixture of stomach acid and blood. Guess who has been diagnosed with a likely gastric ulcer? Sigh. 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: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:53:50 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: RE: more listening necessary Jeff wiff two effs wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Michael Sweeney > wrote: > > > > ...Speaking as one of the (apparently; perhaps Jill notably recently excepted) > > very few non-Whedonites out here -- I don't believe I have seen more than a > > few moments of any of his work -- I must say that "Firefly" / "Serenity" is > > something I've definitely considered for my first exposure to his stuff. > > (Although...it also sounds like the only thing of it all that I'd be > > completely into...) > > Speaking as a Rush fan, I say it doesn't matter what you're into > because Rush obviously rules, because... > > Oh wait: wrong fanaticism. Ahem. > > Speaking as one of Joss Whedon's countless minions, I'd point out that > "sounding like something you'd be into" is a poor guide: his "science > fiction" isn't really that, his "western" isn't really that, his > "vampire" stuff isn't really...you get the idea. It begins there - but > he uses genre tropes to take off into what are eventually highly > character-based shows that explore, you know, the human condition and > all that. Everything's a metaphor for something else. And: my hammer > goes to 11. ...Yeah, I get all that -- that's what I actually meant by "something I'd be into"...not necessarily the sci-fi (or any genre) element. But, hey, stick some people, maybe a robot, maybe an alien, in an isolated, team-driven place like spaceship (and make at least one of 'em a hot chick...), and, well...I can probably be there. Still...actully need more time in any given week (and I don't even have kids...lol...just cats). Michael "Plus, there's almost always some form of 'Law & Order' on..." Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550 F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:11:44 -0800 From: "Nectar At Any Cost!" Subject: Fuckin' Awesome Band-Name I Just Thought Of = "the worms". how come nobody's ever used this before (or at least, never ridden it to prominence)? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:14:09 -0500 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: Fuckin' Awesome Band-Name I Just Thought Of First album is "Diet of Worms". If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- Josx Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Nectar At Any Cost! wrote: > = "the worms". how come nobody's ever used this before (or at least, never > ridden it to prominence)? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:22:35 -0500 From: m swedene Subject: Re: Fuckin' Awesome Band-Name I Just Thought Of the worm is the spice! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:05:23 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Fuckin' Awesome Band-Name I Just Thought Of Nectar At Any Cost! wrote: > = "the worms". how come nobody's ever used this before (or at least, never > ridden it to prominence)? Well, there was 80s punk band WC Subject: Re: Fuckin' Awesome Band-Name I Just Thought Of FSThomas wrote: > Nectar At Any Cost! wrote: >> = "the worms". how come nobody's ever used this before (or at least, >> never >> ridden it to prominence)? > > Well, there was 80s punk band WC Subject: Re: Damn On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:30 PM, James Dignan wrote: > So, on Monday I go to the hospital and get the all-clear after my knee > surgery. I seem to be healing beautifully, and am already ahead of the rehab > schedule. > > And at 2am on Tuesday morning I end up at hospital with severe abdominal > pain, vomiting a mixture of stomach acid and blood. Guess who has been > diagnosed with a likely gastric ulcer? Ouch. Geez - get well soon! - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:46:23 +0000 From: "craigie*" Subject: Re: more listening necessary On 17/02/2009, Michael Sweeney wrote: > > * My current personal must-watches: "Heroes," "Big Love" (although I > cannot > stand Chloe Sevigny or her character), WHAT? 'cannot stand Chloe Sevigny' is not a phrase we allow round here... You talk of the woman I love and I *will* have satisfaction, sirrah! ;-) c* - -Everyone don't dance to beat of just one drum... - -- first things first, but not necessarily in that order... I like my girls to be the same as my records - independent, attractively packaged and in black vinyl (if at all possible)... Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc (the motto of the Addams Family: "We gladly feast on those who would subdue us") ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:35:37 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: more listening necessary - --On 17. Februar 2009 20:04:52 +0000 Michael Sweeney wrote: > My current personal must-watches: "Heroes," Seriously? I liked the first season a lot, but the second was pretty bad, and when the third one didn't start out much better I decided to drop it. I've read that they culled some of the most grating characters (Maya!) and threads, but I have too much other stuff on my plate to revisit it any time soon. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:13:55 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: RE: more listening necessary craigie* wrote: >On 17/02/2009, Michael Sweeney wrote: * My current personal must-watches: "Heroes," "Big Love" (although I cannot stand Chloe Sevigny or her character), >WHAT? 'cannot stand Chloe Sevigny' is not a phrase we allow round here... > >You talk of the woman I love and I *will* have satisfaction, sirrah! ;-) ...Oops -- I understand perhaps-unexpected stepping on any celebrity crush (or more) -- personally, I would broken-bottle fight any scurrilous scumbag who would speak ill of Tina Fey -- but...sigh...maybe it's just the absolutely-not-supposed-to-be-likable-AT-ALL character she's playing on "Big Love." She's...uh...doing a REALLY good job portraying that character to me... Sorry 'bout that... Michael "Still beyond me why they didn't get Lindsey's 'Big Love' as the show's theme song (instead of the B. Boys' 'God Only Knows')" Sweeney _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows Mobile brings your life togetherat home, work, or on the go. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093182mrt/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:21:01 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: RE: more listening necessary Sebastien wrote: > --On 17. Februar 2009 20:04:52 +0000 Michael Sweeney > wrote: > > > My current personal must-watches: "Heroes," > > Seriously? I liked the first season a lot, but the second was pretty bad, > and when the third one didn't start out much better I decided to drop it. > I've read that they culled some of the most grating characters (Maya!) and > threads, but I have too much other stuff on my plate to revisit it any time > soon. ...I was also not very thrilled with the 2nd season (for much of the same reasons -- loss of focus, too many new char.s, etc.), but I thought that, after a better (but not perfect) beginning, the 3rd got really back into it pretty quickly (IMHO)...and has been pretty damn good since. Michael "Save the cheerleader, save the...well, heck - actually just save the cheerleader for yerself..." Sweeney np - VU, "I'm Sticking With You" (have I mentioned that I LUV Sirius Radio lately?) _________________________________________________________________ Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550 F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:04:09 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Reap Touch & Go!! http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/149244-touch-and-go-records-to-stop-releasing-new-music-shut-down-distribution "I love how (coffee) makes me feel. It's like my heart is trying to hug my brain!" -- Kenneth Parcell ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:31:14 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: more listening necessary On Feb 18, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Michael Sweeney wrote: > np - VU, "I'm Sticking With You" (have I mentioned that I LUV Sirius > Radio > lately?) I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I only recently became a Pandora convert. It really came through for me last night while driving home after a most fabulous dinner with our own Michael Wells. He and I ended our man-date with a discussion of how hard Secret Machines rock, so I really needed to hear them during the ride home. Alas no tracks on my iPhone mix (the hell you say?). Luckily I was able to crank my Pandora Secret Machines station instead! RAWK!! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:33:04 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Oslo on allmusic.com Front page. http://www.allmusic.com - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:04:02 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: Damn Thanks for all the get well soon wishes I've had from people here. Hopefully it's a pretty straightforward thing and I'll be back to normal fairly soon, though I'm going to have to take things easy for a while. 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") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V17 #51 *******************************