From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V7 #145 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Wednesday, June 20 2007 Volume 07 : Number 145 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes [Scout82667@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes ["Sgt. Cockring" ] [loud-fans] meta: email communication styles ["outbound-only email addres] Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] meta: email communication styles [Betsy Lescosky Way ] Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes [Dennis Sacks ] Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes [Dennis Sacks ] Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes ["Tim Walters" ] [loud-fans] reply to considered harmful ["outbound-only email address" ] Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes ["Tim Walters" ] Re: [loud-fans] public apology [Dennis Sacks ] Re: [loud-fans] public apology ["Roger Winston" ] Re: [loud-fans] public apology [Dennis Sacks ] Re: [loud-fans] public apology [Dennis Sacks ] Re: [loud-fans] public apology ["Tim Walters" ] Re: [loud-fans] SIFF 2007's a wrap [zoom@muppetlabs.com] Re: [loud-fans] public apology [Gil Ray ] Re: [loud-fans] public apology [zoom@muppetlabs.com] Re: [loud-fans] SIFF 2007's a wrap ["Stewart Mason" ] Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes [Mike Curley ] Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes [Scout82667@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes ["Sgt. Cockring" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:57:21 EDT From: Scout82667@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes In a message dated 6/19/2007 1:24:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rwinston@tde.com writes: No offense, Mark, but my days of recreational drug use have been over for quite some time, and I don't think I can score anything tonight that will enable me to decipher this. I believe the average brain can only handle seven levels of digression. I hereby declare this thread closed. Latre. --Rog Somehow when the e-mail posted, the break between me quoting Andy and my text disappeared. I can understand you being confused by that. However, Rog, I will be the one who decides whether or not to stop my own threads--but, even at that point, I certainly cannot stop anyone from continuing on with one if they feel like it--I just don't have to participate or contribute anymore. It's just a little rule of mine: If you wanna be me, then you have to pay all my bills. Shall I send them on? Also, it makes me uncomfortable when someone writes me in such a way and then doesn't send me a copy to my own personal address, as well as the lists. I find that rather chilly. Au revoir. --Mark ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:08:44 -0400 From: "Sgt. Cockring" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes Perhaps Sarge can be of assistance here. "..and then do you know what was in the trunk with my Jenny Piccoloish clotheshorse best friend? No? The brick." - --Sarge On 6/19/07, Scout82667@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/19/2007 1:24:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > rwinston@tde.com writes: > > No offense, Mark, but my days of recreational drug use have been over for > quite some time, and I don't think I can score anything tonight that will > enable me to decipher this. I believe the average brain can only handle > seven levels of digression. I hereby declare this thread closed. > > Latre. --Rog > Somehow when the e-mail posted, the break between me quoting Andy and my > text disappeared. I can understand you being confused by that. However, > Rog, I > will be the one who decides whether or not to stop my own threads--but, > even > at that point, I certainly cannot stop anyone from continuing on with one > if > they feel like it--I just don't have to participate or > contribute anymore. > It's just a little rule of mine: If you wanna be me, then you have to pay > all > my bills. Shall I send them on? > > Also, it makes me uncomfortable when someone writes me in such a way and > then doesn't send me a copy to my own personal address, as well as > the lists. I > find that rather chilly. > > Au revoir. --Mark > > > > ************************************** See what's free at > http://www.aol.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:44:02 -0400 From: "outbound-only email address" Subject: [loud-fans] meta: email communication styles Mark: > Also, it makes me uncomfortable when someone writes me in such a way and > then doesn't send me a copy to my own personal address, as well as the > lists. > I find that rather chilly. Wow, that's interesting. My impression is that most people who were on the internet prior to 1994 (and many newer users influenced by the old guard) consider the duplicate copy-to-personal-address distinctly rude. I don't think I've ever heard someone express the reverse sentiment until now. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:44:24 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes At Tuesday 6/19/2007 02:57 AM, Scout82667@aol.com wrote: >Somehow when the e-mail posted, the break between me quoting Andy and my >text disappeared. I can understand you being confused by that. That's not what confused me. It was the stories within stories within stories within stories, filled with references that I was too tired to look up. And just the rambling nature of the post in general. >However, Rog, I >will be the one who decides whether or not to stop my own threads Joke, Mark, joke. >Also, it makes me uncomfortable when someone writes me in such a way and >then doesn't send me a copy to my own personal address, as well as >the lists. I >find that rather chilly. Okay, in all seriousness, this I totally don't understand. It's the first time I've ever heard someone express this opinion. I've never copied anyone on a list message, and I think that's a bad practice when someone does. I prefer not to get or send multiple copies of a list post, contributing to e-mail pollution. You already get the one from the list, why do you need an extra copy? That makes no sense. Does anyone else feel this way? Latre. --Rog - -- FlasshePoint, yet another blog among millions: http://www.flasshe.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:45:47 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes At Tuesday 6/19/2007 05:08 AM, Sgt. Cockring wrote: >Perhaps Sarge can be of assistance here. > >"..and then do you know what was in the trunk with my Jenny Piccoloish >clotheshorse best friend? No? > > >The brick." Sarge! That's the punchline to my *all time favorite joke*! How did you know that?? Are you my sister...? Latre. --Rog - -- FlasshePoint, yet another blog among millions: http://www.flasshe.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:56:24 -0400 From: Betsy Lescosky Way Subject: Re: [loud-fans] meta: email communication styles On Jun 19, 2007, at 7:44 AM, outbound-only email address wrote: > > Wow, that's interesting. My impression is that most people who > were on the > internet prior to 1994 (and many newer users influenced by the old > guard) > consider the duplicate copy-to-personal-address distinctly rude. I > don't > think I've ever heard someone express the reverse sentiment until now. A lot of folks on my neighborhood mailing list do this. I've always found it a bit bewildering myself. How many snarky emails about leaving one's trash can out does a person really need? Anyone heard the new Blonde Redhead? I don't think I really paid much attention to them in the past, but I heard a new song and it brought back warm and fuzzy My Bloody Valentine feelings for me. Maybe I'll have to go to a real record shop today. - --betsy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:15:13 -0400 From: John Swartzentruber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes On 6/19/2007 7:44 AM Roger Winston wrote: > Okay, in all seriousness, this I totally don't understand. It's the > first time I've ever heard someone express this opinion. I've never > copied anyone on a list message, and I think that's a bad practice > when someone does. I prefer not to get or send multiple copies of a > list post, contributing to e-mail pollution. You already get the one > from the list, why do you need an extra copy? That makes no sense. > Does anyone else feel this way? It's rude to not strip off the duplicate address. It messes up filtering. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:27:34 -0400 From: "outbound-only email address" Subject: [loud-fans] new blonde redhead (was: meta: email communication styles) Betsy: > > Anyone heard the new Blonde Redhead? I don't think I really paid much > attention to them in the past, but I heard a new song and it brought > back warm and fuzzy My Bloody Valentine feelings for me. Maybe I'll > have to go to a real record shop today. I like it a lot, a definite year's best list contender (so far). My experience of Blonde Redhead closely parallels my experience of Unwound, that is, I thought I didn't much like them for reasons that turned out to be based on an incorrect assumption, I encounter a relatively late album (in BR's case _Misery is a Butterfly_) that I really like, and cautiously explore backward. Moving back in time the band gets more clamorous, less nuanced, and the quality of the songwriting perhaps decreases somewhat -- but I still really like the records. MegaMusicGeek warning: The little red strap on the new Blonde Redhead disc is really hard to get back on. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:58:01 -0700 From: Dennis Sacks Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes Roger Winston wrote: > At Tuesday 6/19/2007 05:08 AM, Sgt. Cockring wrote: >> Perhaps Sarge can be of assistance here. >> >> "..and then do you know what was in the trunk with my Jenny Piccoloish >> clotheshorse best friend? No? >> >> >> The brick." > > Sarge! That's the punchline to my *all time favorite joke*! How did > you know that?? Are you my sister...? It doesn't involve a dog smoking a cigar, does it? Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:06:33 -0700 From: Dennis Sacks Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes Scout82667@aol.com wrote: > Also, it makes me uncomfortable when someone writes me in such a way and > then doesn't send me a copy to my own personal address, as well as the lists. I > find that rather chilly. > It is considered slightly rude to address mail to both the person and the list. That makes the person get two copies, which is wasteful and possibly confusing. So now you know. Not chilly, but frugal and polite. :) Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:12:44 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes Dennis Sacks on 6/19/2007 9:58:01 AM wrote: >It doesn't involve a dog smoking a cigar, does it? Yep, it does. Although the dog wasn't actually smoking a cigar now, was he? I believe we've had the discussion of this joke on the List before - a long long time ago. Sarge must be an old-timer! Latre. --Rog - -- FlasshePoint, yet another blog among millions: http://www.flasshe.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:40:11 -0700 From: Dennis Sacks Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes Roger Winston wrote: > Dennis Sacks on 6/19/2007 9:58:01 AM wrote: > > >> It doesn't involve a dog smoking a cigar, does it? >> > > Yep, it does. Although the dog wasn't actually > smoking a cigar now, was he? > > I believe we've had the discussion of this joke on > the List before - a long long time ago. Sarge must > be an old-timer! > Yeah, I *thought* we had discussed that joke before. My usual bad memory is even worse due to dealing with a two year old, which seems to suck all available energy and brain waves directly out of my body. Dennis www.bunchycat.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:58:41 -0700 (PDT) From: "Tim Walters" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes Dennis Sacks wrote: > It is considered slightly rude to address mail to both the person and > the list. So why not fix the Reply-To: field, since you're the boss and all? - -- Tim Walters | http://doubtfulpalace.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:20:58 -0700 From: Dennis Sacks Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes Tim Walters wrote: > Dennis Sacks wrote: > > >> It is considered slightly rude to address mail to both the person and >> the list. >> > > So why not fix the Reply-To: field, since you're the boss and all? > > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Dennis www.bunchycat.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:46:49 -0400 From: "outbound-only email address" Subject: [loud-fans] reply to considered harmful Sorry, I deleted the post I meant to respond to. This document: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html is nearly 5 years old. The 'net is a very different place now. I think that one of the priorities of any list administrator these days should be to safeguard subscribers' email addresses from scraping and other abuses, and header munging is one approach that can be used. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:57:19 -0400 From: "Stewart Mason" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] new blonde redhead (was: meta: email communication styles) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "outbound-only email address" > My experience of Blonde Redhead closely parallels my experience of > Unwound, > that is, I thought I didn't much like them for reasons that turned > out to be > based on an incorrect assumption, I encounter a relatively late > album (in > BR's case _Misery is a Butterfly_) that I really like, and > cautiously > explore backward. Moving back in time the band gets more clamorous, > less > nuanced, and the quality of the songwriting perhaps decreases > somewhat -- > but I still really like the records. Seconded, top to bottom. MISERY IS A BUTTERFLY and 23 are absolutely great albums, but I find slightly diminishing returns the further back I go. For that matter, as far as American noise pop bands with female Japanese lead singers go, this pretty much sums up my opinion of Deerhoof as well, substituting GREEN COSMOS for MISERY IS A BUTTERFLY. S ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:13:35 -0700 From: Dennis Sacks Subject: Re: [loud-fans] reply to considered harmful outbound-only email address wrote: > Sorry, I deleted the post I meant to respond to. > > This document: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > is nearly 5 years old. > > The 'net is a very different place now. I think that one of the priorities > of any list administrator these days should be to safeguard subscribers' > email addresses from scraping and other abuses, and header munging is one > approach that can be used. > Hmmm. I can see munging addresses in list archives where they could be scraped (note: I don't have any control over the loud-fans archives on smoe.org), but do any lists munge headers to obscure the real email addresses of list members? I've not seen any that do. Spam sucks. Dennis www.bunchycat.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:56:56 -0500 From: Tom Galczynski Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes Just asking 'cause I want to be clear: I use Thunderbird and when I click on "Reply to sender and all recipients" I get the original sender's email in the To: field and the group in the Cc: field. If I send it like this (which I just did), is that considered slightly rude? Should I remove the original sender from the To: and change the group from Cc: to To:? I apologize if this is old hat to most of you. I'm just an old dog still learning new tricks... ;-) Thanks, Tom Tom Galczynski Advanced Software Designs tom_g@asdsoftware.com www.asdsoftware.com - ------------------------------------------ All human beings should try to learn before they die what they are running from, and to, and why. -- James Thurber Dennis Sacks wrote: > Tim Walters wrote: >> Dennis Sacks wrote: >> >> >>> It is considered slightly rude to address mail to both the person and >>> the list. >>> >> >> So why not fix the Reply-To: field, since you're the boss and all? >> >> > > > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > Dennis > www.bunchycat.com > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:21:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Tim Walters" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Yes, I've read this bit of irritating bluster before. If you pretend that "reply to all" is the same as "reply to group," then of course you'll conclude that omitting the Reply-To: header is better. In the real world, you get two one-button solutions, neither of which do the right thing, which is to reply to the list without spamming the sender with an additional message. His "expected behavior" argument is bullshit, since the vast majority of mailing lists set the Reply-To: field. This is the only one I'm on that doesn't, and not coincidentally, the only one where I routinely hit the wrong button. If he thinks that one of (a) discourteously double-messaging the original sender or (b) manually stripping out the original sender's address is better than taking the risk of accidentally sending a private message to the list, he should say so. It's a reasonable enough position, although not mine. As it is, the whole article is completely beside the point. - -- Tim Walters | http://doubtfulpalace.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:26:38 -0400 From: "outbound-only email address" Subject: [loud-fans] public apology Dennis, Sorry, I would have been less testy if the vagaries of email-arrival-order hadn't led me to incorrectly infer that you'd quoted Tim's private email back to the list. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:37:28 -0400 From: "outbound-only email address" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] reply to considered harmful Dennis: > I can see munging addresses in list archives where they could be > scraped (note: I don't have any control over the loud-fans archives on > smoe.org), Oh, I didn't know you didn't have control over the configuration of that. I sort of thought at one point I was on a smoe-hosted list that did obscure email addresses in archives, but I may well be mistaken. but do any lists munge headers to obscure the real email > addresses of list members? I've not seen any that do I've definitely been on local-user-group lists for software tools of one sort and another in both the DC and Boston areas that hid email addresses (although to be fair, I should note that this did result in a certain amount of "send me your email so I can reply to you") traffic in both cases. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:26:00 -0700 From: Dennis Sacks Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes Tim Walters wrote: >> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >> > > Yes, I've read this bit of irritating bluster before. If you pretend that > "reply to all" is the same as "reply to group," then of course you'll > conclude that omitting the Reply-To: header is better. In the real world, > you get two one-button solutions, neither of which do the right thing, > which is to reply to the list without spamming the sender with an > additional message. > I'll switch to setting the reply-to header and see how that goes... Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:51:22 -0700 From: Dennis Sacks Subject: Re: [loud-fans] public apology outbound-only email address wrote: > Dennis, > > Sorry, I would have been less testy if the vagaries of email-arrival-order > hadn't led me to incorrectly infer that you'd quoted Tim's private email > back to the list. > No biggie, I didn't take it as particularly testy. Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:20:32 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] public apology Dennis Sacks on 6/19/2007 2:51:22 PM wrote: >No biggie, I didn't take it as particularly testy. Sheesh, what's it take to get a decent flame war going on around here anyway? Latre. --Rog - -- FlasshePoint, yet another blog among millions: http://www.flasshe.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:26:51 -0700 From: Dennis Sacks Subject: Re: [loud-fans] public apology Dennis Sacks wrote: > outbound-only email address wrote: >> Dennis, >> >> Sorry, I would have been less testy if the vagaries of >> email-arrival-order >> hadn't led me to incorrectly infer that you'd quoted Tim's private email >> back to the list. >> > No biggie, I didn't take it as particularly testy. > > Dennis And reply-to is now set to the list. Enjoy! Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:36:11 -0700 From: Dennis Sacks Subject: Re: [loud-fans] public apology Roger Winston wrote: > Dennis Sacks on 6/19/2007 2:51:22 PM wrote: > > >> No biggie, I didn't take it as particularly testy. >> > > Sheesh, what's it take to get a decent flame war > going on around here anyway? > > Latre. --Rog > > -- FlasshePoint, yet another blog among millions: > http://www.flasshe.com > What is that disgusting swill you like to think of as beer? Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:44:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "Tim Walters" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] public apology > And reply-to is now set to the list. Enjoy! To the first person who accidentally posts an embarrassing message: I'll buy you a drink if you promise not to kill me. - -- Tim Walters | http://doubtfulpalace.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:01:49 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] public apology Dennis Sacks on 6/19/2007 3:36:11 PM wrote: >What is that disgusting swill you like to >think of as beer? Dammit Dennis, now you've got me thinking about beer and it's not even the end of the day yet. What am I going to do? Hey, this new "reply-to" thing works pretty good! Latre. --Rog - -- FlasshePoint, yet another blog among millions: http://www.flasshe.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:10:23 -0700 (PDT) From: zoom@muppetlabs.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] SIFF 2007's a wrap > Did MONKEY WARFARE have the instructional video en francais at the > end? That it did, that it did. Two I missed mentioning: THIS IS ENGLAND (lovely late-70's reggae and punk on the soundtrack), and ONE DAY LIKE RAIN. Worst In Show: The profoundly unfunny DEATH AT A FUNERAL, the profoundly unenlightening GRIMM LOVE, the horror-by-numbers COLD PREY, and THE SIGNAL (think NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD with any reason to exist scientifically excisted). So, wait, are we still supposed to cc individual recipients to list messages, or...? Andy "And raw in fields the rude militia swarms, Mouths without hands; maintaind at vast expense, In peace a charge, in war a weak defence; Stout once a month they march, a blustering band, And ever but in times of need at hand." - --John Dryden, from CYMON AND IHPIGENIA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:16:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] public apology What did I miss??? Gil - --- Dennis Sacks wrote: > Dennis Sacks wrote: > > outbound-only email address wrote: > >> Dennis, > >> > >> Sorry, I would have been less testy if the > vagaries of > >> email-arrival-order > >> hadn't led me to incorrectly infer that you'd > quoted Tim's private email > >> back to the list. > >> > > No biggie, I didn't take it as particularly testy. > > > > Dennis > And reply-to is now set to the list. Enjoy! > > Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:43:41 -0700 (PDT) From: zoom@muppetlabs.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] public apology > Sheesh, what's it take to get a decent flame war > going on around here anyway? Once again, Loud Fans prove just too darn nice to ignite. Now, so long as we keep Rog away from John Barth, Donald Barthleme, Ken Kesey, and Mark Leyner, we'll have peace in the valley. Frankly, I find disconnected references dogs, cigars, and trunks as, if not more, baffling than car talk. (Good thing I didn't tell the story about smuggling a drag queen onto a Navy base in the trunk of a Lincoln), Andy MONDO 2000: Were the basic writing methods in your new book, My Cousin, My Gastroenterologist, any different from what you used in your earlier one, I Smell Esther Williams? MARK LEYNER: The methods were basically the same. In fact the process hasn't changed much since I was about seventeen or eighteen, when I first began developing this way of writing. M2: Discovering a methodology that seems to work at age l7 or l8 is obviously very rare. Where did this aesthetic spring forth from-the forehead of Zeus, a hit of acid, Jimi Hendrix voodoo or what? ML: All of the above-plus Keith Richards' nasty guitar licks. The most powerful early experience I had aesthetically (if that word is meaningful in this context) was when I saw the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show. I seven or eight and was sitting in a house at the New Jersey Shore, near Asbury Park, and when the Beatles came on I was so absolutely transfixed that the ice cream cone I was eating melted down my arm. I was still a pre-adolescent, mind you, but after that I knew I wanted to be an artist in some way like the Beatles were. M2: How were the Beatles able to produce such a powerful reaction in American kids at that particular juncture? ML: In my case, it was this very proto-sexual experience I was having. From the male perspective, a lot of this had to do with seeing these little girls in the audience react to them in that way. All that squealing and jumping around does something to you. And naturally one of my first reactions to this was, "Wouldn't it be great to have people scream over something you did?" Even to this day, the Beatles' sound is remarkable, it affects you neurologically or something. It's the sound of McCartney's and Lennon's voice together, something unique, unduplicatable. Frankly demagogues always interested me in some way-I was excited by them, attracted to people in front of huge crowds who can whip everyone into a frenzy. This probably seems especially strange since, like everyone else in my neighborhood, I went to Hebrew School, which was always showing us films about Nazi Germany, the Leni Riefenstahl type of film. It was an incredible miscalculation to show us that kind of footage because adolescent boys are just going to get turned on by the Nazi aesthetic-all those shiny boots, the sheer energy and power and excitement. I know I got turned on. It was the same thing with baseball players. I was mesmerized by reading about people who had a powerful emotional effect on people by performing. And when the Beatles came along I intuitively knew they were doing something that somehow was connecting with all that excitement, creating such a stir on the news and what not. They were making everything different, at least for a moment. I knew I wanted to do something that could have that effect. Obviously at that age-eight or nine-I couldn't get a band together, and I couldn't make movies, but there was always pen and paper around. I suppose if I had unlimited resources-terribly wealthy parents who could buy me all the equipment I needed-maybe I would have done something else. But writing was something where the tools were right there, available to me whenever I wanted. - --Mark Leyner, from an interview by Larry McCaffrey originally published in Mondo 2000; more at http://gopher.well.sf.ca.us:70/0/Publications/MONDO/mark-ley.txt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:36:00 -0400 From: "Stewart Mason" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] SIFF 2007's a wrap - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Stewart Mason" Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [loud-fans] SIFF 2007's a wrap >> Did MONKEY WARFARE have the instructional video en francais at the >> end? > > That it did, that it did. Cool! The director said at Toronto last year that the lawyers had insisted it be removed from future prints, but apparently it's still okay on the festival circuit. Note to those who haven't seen it: the post-credits coda of this movie, about self-styled urban guerrillas, is a short with the film's editor, Flick Harrison, demonstrating how to make a Molotov Cocktail, which is a plot point in the movie itself. He does the entire thing in rather poor French, and it's oddly endearing...not least because he can't get any of the bloody things to work after he makes them. I think you can find it online in various places as well. Just google "monkey warfare flick". Good movie overall, starring two of my favorite Canadian actors, Don McKellar and Tracy Wright. It also pulls off the neat trick of a movie that's simultaneously sympathetic to its characters and utterly mocking of them as well. S ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:55:05 -0400 From: "Sgt. Cockring" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes Ahoy Roger! I'm replying to you directly and copying the list. Please feel the embedded warmth. Either I'm your sister...or Sarge once heard a version of this joke and Mark's post struck him (her?) as an amazingly apt set-up! It is a good joke, especially if you let a day or so go by. Glad you enjoyed it -- Sarge knew someone would know it. a salute to all-- - --Sarge On 6/19/07, Roger Winston wrote: > > At Tuesday 6/19/2007 05:08 AM, Sgt. Cockring wrote: > >Perhaps Sarge can be of assistance here. > > > >"..and then do you know what was in the trunk with my Jenny Piccoloish > >clotheshorse best friend? No? > > > > > >The brick." > > Sarge! That's the punchline to my *all time favorite joke*! How did you > know that?? Are you my sister...? > > Latre. --Rog > > -- FlasshePoint, yet another blog among millions: http://www.flasshe.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:42:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Curley Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes OK OK...it's probably a good time for someone to re-tell this joke. Mike (who is thrilled to be using this new "reply to the list" capability) - ----- Original Message ---- From: Sgt. Cockring To: Roger Winston Cc: loud-fans@smoe.org Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 4:55:05 PM Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes Ahoy Roger! I'm replying to you directly and copying the list. Please feel the embedded warmth. Either I'm your sister...or Sarge once heard a version of this joke and Mark's post struck him (her?) as an amazingly apt set-up! It is a good joke, especially if you let a day or so go by. Glad you enjoyed it -- Sarge knew someone would know it. a salute to all-- - --Sarge On 6/19/07, Roger Winston wrote: > > At Tuesday 6/19/2007 05:08 AM, Sgt. Cockring wrote: > >Perhaps Sarge can be of assistance here. > > > >"..and then do you know what was in the trunk with my Jenny Piccoloish > >clotheshorse best friend? No? > > > > > >The brick." > > Sarge! That's the punchline to my *all time favorite joke*! How did you > know that?? Are you my sister...? > > Latre. --Rog > > -- FlasshePoint, yet another blog among millions: http://www.flasshe.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:16:31 EDT From: Scout82667@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes In a message dated 6/19/2007 12:12:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dennis@works4me.com writes: It is considered slightly rude to address mail to both the person and the list. That makes the person get two copies, which is wasteful and possibly confusing. So now you know. Not chilly, but frugal and polite. :) Dennis Well, okay, and sorry for being such a little snippy bitch yesterday. My pain meds weren't working and this morning I was coughing up blood--a lot of it, so I went to the doc and he said this is normal. So, okay--it's normal to look like the Son of Sam has killed someone in your bathroom a week after a tonsilectomy (Dr. Giggles knows all) and it's normal to not do two repliy addies. Learn something new every day. Helter Skelter, - --Mark ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:04:28 -0400 From: "Sgt. Cockring" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nancy Drew tunes Sarge admits to finding the desire for duplicate messages strange. But the real puzzler is below. Just who got served what here? Who wants to be who and who's paying whose bills? What does this mean? Anyone? It sort of *sounds *snappy in a junior-diva manner, but...what? Here's hoping loudfans everywhere are having a lovely summer evening unencumbered by automobills, - --Sarge On 6/19/07, Scout82667@aol.com wrote: > > > It's just a little rule of mine: If you wanna be me, then you have to pay > all my bills. Shall I send them on? > > > -------------------------- At first we started out real cool,(cool) Taking me places i ain't never been But now you're getting comfortable Ain't doing those things that you did no more You're slowly makin me pay for things Your money should be handling And now you ask to use my car (car) Drive it all day and don't fill up the tank And you have the audacity To even come and step to me And ask to hold some money from me Until you get your check next week You triflin', good for nothing type of brother Silly me,why haven't I found another? A baller, when times get hard he's the one to help me out insted of, a scrub like you who don't know what a man's about can you pay my bills can you pay my telephone bills can you pay my automo'bills then maybe we can chill I don't think you do so you and me are through now you been maxing out my card (card) give me bad credit, buying gifts with my own ends haven't paid the first bill but you steady heading to the mall going on shopping sprees peprpetrating to your friends that you be ballin' and then you use my cell phone (phone) callin' whoever that you think at home and when the bill comes all of a sudden you be acting dumb don't know where none of these calls come from when your mamma's number's here more than once ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V7 #145 *******************************