From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #37 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, February 5 1999 Volume 08 : Number 037 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: the Po-Apo Meme [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Re: Two Recently Discussed Albums [Capuchin ] I'm a procrastinating fool [Natalie Jacobs ] The Demise of the Cultural Collective, Pt. XVI ["JH3" ] Re: feelers was everywhere and nowhere (all at once) [Patrick Welker ] Re: Crow [amadain ] Re: The Demise of the Cultural Collective, Pt. XVI [Capuchin ] RE: Crow ["Partridge, John" ] Dangling prepositions and superficial thighs. [Capuchin ] the La's ["Russ Reynolds" ] 1998 best of feg? [woj sven-woj ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #36 ["Russ Reynolds" ] Re: the La's [Joel Mullins ] Re: 1998 best of feg? [Joel Mullins ] Dangling those prepositions [Ethyl Ketone ] Re: Uncle Tupelo ["D B" ] Re: the La's [Chris Gillis ] Re: Dangling those prepositions [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:09:33 EST From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: the Po-Apo Meme In a message dated 2/3/99 10:20:13 PM, kjseelna@students.wisc.edu writes: << Whoa, you freaked me out by putting "meme" in the subject header to a fegpost. I'm on a "virus" memetics mailing list as well, which can be found at: http://www.lucifer.com/virus/ >> Hmmm. Kind of interesting, but a little bit too much emphasis on rationalism for my tastes. What's wrong with a little intuition now and again? Without leaps of faith (often informed by rational thought and some amount of empirical data), where would be? I guess that, to me, it seems that having "sins and virtues" is, in and of itself, a bit dogmatic. But I don't know how seriously these folks take themselves, either. Anyway, yeah, memes are cool. Tell a friend ;-) - -----Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:17:24 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Two Recently Discussed Albums On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, cinders blue wrote: > which reminds me: jeme made some comment about how mp3 is going to spell > the end of record labels which will lead to artists earning their keep by > playing live, "as it should be" (forgive me if i paraphrase). while i would > not be griefstruck by the demise of record labels (though i doubt that mp3 > is going to take them them out anytime soon), i just wanted to make sure > jeme did not really mean that artists shouldn't be selling their recorded > works. (Don't take this the wrong way, as it's a common phrase among my friends and not meant to be insulting, but...) Woj, don't be dumb. Don't be dumb, Woj. Woj, don't be dumb. I mean exactly that. Selling their recorded works? How are you going to work that? This ludicrous idea of the "right to download" makes me laugh. You pay money so you can download something... then you put it on your web page (hosted by geocities or xoom or somebody that you can lie to and get free space) or post it to a newsgroup via anonymous redirecter and it's public and nobody pays. No matter what the encoding method, there will always be a way to freely, cheaply, and easily re-record and redistribute. That's the whole point of information revolution. It's the way things work. You can't sell your recordings because once you record them, they're infinitely reproducable (reproducible?). There is no supply problem. There is no scarcity. We bought LPs and cassettes and CDs because they were the highest quality we could get... and we couldn't make our own (we could make our own cassettes, but at a significant loss of quality... loss of already low quality). There was a scarcity of high quality recordings. For every established band that has the clout (and gall) to extort cash from their casual listeners, there are a hundred smaller bands willing to give you their new album in order to develop a fanbase. Some of these bands are bound to be better than the bigshot band. It's already happening with software. It is fully in place for websites (I'd rather read slashdot than ZDNet for tech headlines). Writers, unfortunately, aren't able to do this yet because readership is still largely based on paper books... which are expensive to reproduce. Boys and girls, THIS is what is meant by controlling the means of production. Cheap production that anyone can implement. Infinitely reproducable goods and services that it takes no status or wealth to provide. Yup, my idealism is showing. But just wait and see. Je. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:22:40 -0500 From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: I'm a procrastinating fool > Hey, Jeme (or anyone, really), are you >familiar with an essay that Hoffstadter wrote for Scientific American (and >which was a chapter in his book _Metamagical Themas_) about a concept called >"memes"? Brian Eno, in his diary, had an idea for a TV show called "The Memes That Made Me" and the transvestite version, "The Memes That Made Me Mimi." >and kapoochie, need i >remind you that the climax of The Huducker Proxy is a knife fight >between a handyman and a gear-keeper? Gee, could that be a COEN BROS movie? I'm shocked - shocked! >Falkner was a really frustrating interview, incidentally. He's one of those >people who rambles for five or six minutes for each teensy question, so you >only get through half your questions during the allotted timeslot. Blah. Uh, but isn't this sort of thing preferable to the artist whose every answer has to be pried out of him/her with a crowbar, and who communicates only in monosyllables? (You've encountered people like that, right?) Just askin'. n. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:45:31 -0600 From: "JH3" Subject: The Demise of the Cultural Collective, Pt. XVI Normally I wouldn't come out of hibernation to post an argument about economics, but hey, what can I say? Capuchin-meister wrote: >Boys and girls, THIS is what is meant by controlling the means of >production. Cheap production that anyone can implement. Infinitely >reproducable goods and services that it takes no status or wealth to >provide. I'm still not clear on whether I'm supposed to think this is a good thing or not, but either way, I don't think I can agree with this statement. When Marx wrote about workers controlling the means of production, he basically meant that it would be a better way to ensure equal distribution of the wealth returned by that production. But what you're talking about here is *consumers* controlling the means of production, which is a different thing altogether. There would be no wealth to distribute. If consumers are generating the product, then in effect there is *no* control over the means of production, which in my opinion is a far more accurate way of describing what's going on. My natural inclination is to think this is a bad thing, because, like Jeme says, musicians would be reduced to having to play live to earn money. That might seem nice to some, but I think it's going to have a HUGE chilling effect on music-making in general, because unless you're the Rolling Stones, you can't make money playing live - the overhead is too costly - unless you go out there with just an acoustic guitar and a mike. That kills off about 90% of the artists that are out there now. (I guess Robyn was pretty smart to join the other 10%.) Besides, once it becomes impossible to become a "rock star", due to the fact that big-money labels will no longer exist to properly hype people (and please don't tell me that free web sites are going to replace all-out media blitzes!), music-making will no longer attract the sort of people who have the sheer chutzpah to go out there in front of an audience anyway. And so you'll be left listening to classic rock radio or downloading the stuff that us computer geeks produce in our basements and bedrooms, most of which is dreck. The only musicians making a decent living will be the lucky few who manage to get jobs in Hollywood and Madison Avenue. On the other hand, that last observation is pretty much the way it is now, isn't it? With the labels taking 75% or more of the profits from an artist's recorded output anyway, and foisting off nearly all the financial risk on the artists as well (forcing most of the failures into personal bankruptcy), maybe it won't make much difference. I guess this has all been argued before... I agree with the main point: This stuff is inevitable, and there's no easy or fair way to prevent it. (There are a few difficult and unfair ways, I suppose... some of which will almost certainly be tried.) Welcome to the future! John "Chocolate Salty WHAT!?!?" Hedges PS. By the way, thanks for that Apple Venus review, Eb! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:00:05 -0800 (PST) From: Patrick Welker Subject: Re: feelers was everywhere and nowhere (all at once) >>select robyn hitchcock lyric to follow (not numbered): - - -->i don't care what you're called - - -->i just wanna shave you bald - - -->in some place that police never search<< Is this how it goes? Are you sure? I could swear it's "...you bald, and I'll know that I've finished my search" Hmm. Pat. n.p. John Lee Hooker :- "The Healer" C'mon four o'clock. Then I be free!! _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 12:32:30 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Crow >I didn't know until last week that Ted Hughes was dead and has been >so since last October. I don't even know who Ted Hughes is...the guy who draws the Crow comic book, I take it? In other "death" news, I hear that the ex-leader of the Triffids died, and that the Boo Radleys have broken up. Mickey Rooney remains alive, however. More as this story develops. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:04:14 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: Crow >>I didn't know until last week that Ted Hughes was dead and has been >>so since last October. > >I don't even know who Ted Hughes is...the guy who draws the Crow comic >book, I take it? No. He's a poet. He was the poet laureate of England for some years. "Crow" is a sort of mythic poetry cycle. It hasn't anything to do with the comic. He was also a bit infamous for having been married to Sylvia Plath. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:07:14 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: The Demise of the Cultural Collective, Pt. XVI On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, JH3 wrote: > Capuchin-meister wrote: > >Boys and girls, THIS is what is meant by controlling the means of > >production. Cheap production that anyone can implement. Infinitely > >reproducable goods and services that it takes no status or wealth to > >provide. > I'm still not clear on whether I'm supposed to think this is a good thing or > not, but either way, I don't think I can agree with this statement. When > Marx wrote about workers controlling the means of production, he basically > meant that it would be a better way to ensure equal distribution of the > wealth returned by that production. But what you're talking about here is > *consumers* controlling the means of production, which is a different thing > altogether. There would be no wealth to distribute. If consumers are > generating the product, then in effect there is *no* control over the means > of production, which in my opinion is a far more accurate way of describing > what's going on. I'm saying that the folks who actually create the product (and are they not workers) will be producing and distributing their work without any kind of managing influence. That's keen. See, I read Marx as a firm believer in technology. I think he intended his whole rant as a most-likely-case for economic evolution. First you had your fiefdoms and such in your harsh monarchies and oligarchies. Then you had the rebellion of the newly empowered merchant class that gave birth to capitalism. Then you get a newly empowered working class (who can distribute their own goods with low financial risk) and you get a kind of socialism (not like anything practiced, mind... something theoretical so far) that is a dictatorship of the masses (every bit as harsh to the minority as a dictatorship of the few or the one). And lastly, self-sufficiency and affluence run rampant (for whatever reasons of production and technology) until there is no dictating going on and there is no control over anyone and you get that utopian communism. That's my reading of Marx (who got his degree by mail order and might or might not have been much of a thinker). I know it's controversial, but I think Marx didn't understand the way things would really turn and he didn't have the vocabulary to describe what happens after a long run of capitalism. But back to the music business. > My natural inclination is to think this is a bad thing, because, like Jeme > says, musicians would be reduced to having to play live to earn money. That > might seem nice to some, but I think it's going to have a HUGE chilling > effect on music-making in general, because unless you're the Rolling Stones, > you can't make money playing live - the overhead is too costly - unless you > go out there with just an acoustic guitar and a mike. But it doesn't have to be that expensive, John. And you can't tell me that twelve bucks a head at the Crystal Ballroom won't turn a profit (or even the six bucks Fugazi wants). I would think that even five or seven bucks at Satyricon (which holds about a hundred people, but small shows see thirty or fifty folks) would turn enough profit for dinner for the band and gas to get there. Club owners just want to sell drinks. The only reason they charge so much for artists and bands to play is because labels will pay. > Besides, once it becomes impossible to become a > "rock star", due to the fact that big-money labels will no longer exist to > properly hype people (and please don't tell me that free web sites are going > to replace all-out media blitzes!), music-making will no longer attract the > sort of people who have the sheer chutzpah to go out there in front of an > audience anyway. The world is becoming increasingly subcultured. Popular culture just splinters and splinters. And for everything there is to be a fan of, there is a community of fans (anyone you know?). This will only increase as people all over the world gain shared experience through high speed communication and, by the same means, are able to stay in contact with one another. This already means that "rock stars", even if the money stays in the record label's hands, are a dying breed. You can't please everyone and with more and more choices, it gets harder and harder to please a significant portion of the population. > And so you'll be left listening to classic rock radio or > downloading the stuff that us computer geeks produce in our basements and > bedrooms, most of which is dreck. The only musicians making a decent living > will be the lucky few who manage to get jobs in Hollywood and Madison > Avenue. Gads... you can if you like. As for me, I'll take Mark Gloster and Big Rubber Shark. But that's something else you're mistaking. For now it's computer geeks... but it was computer geeks alone that had internet email addresses eight years ago and it was computer geeks alone that had home computers and pocket calculators before that. You can't say that that's geek culture invading mainstream culture, it's just a better way of doing things moving into general use. > On the other hand, that last observation is pretty much the way it is now, > isn't it? With the labels taking 75% or more of the profits from an artist's > recorded output anyway, and foisting off nearly all the financial risk on > the artists as well (forcing most of the failures into personal bankruptcy), > maybe it won't make much difference. Bingo. Now, this person may have been mistaken (and I'm hoping they were), but a friend told me yesterday that Alanis Morrisette is the only reason Time Warner profitted last year... that is to say, without her album sales, they'd've broken even or maybe even been a touch in the red (not unheard-of for a company like that). Do you think Alanis herself made any significant portion of that money? Granted, with those numbers, any portion would be significant compared to my salary, but my point stands. Percentage-wise, she saw very little even of the profits. In her case, I might argue that that's perfectly sensible as she's a media creation built by her company and is merely a single actress in a vast machine that is Alanis' image... but some would argue otherwise and we can give her the benefit of the doubt. Costs in the music industry are artificially high. We should already know this. How much does a CD cost? The same goes for concert tickets, venue prices, and everything on down. > I guess this has all been argued before... > I agree with the main point: This stuff is inevitable, and there's no > easy or fair way to prevent it. (There are a few difficult and unfair ways, > I suppose... some of which will almost certainly be tried.) And none of which will succeed. I, for one, am happy about it. Control is a bad thing. > Welcome to the future! I can't wait! > John "Chocolate Salty WHAT!?!?" Hedges http://www.theonion.com/onion3502/bloodthirsty_ghoul.html More crap from me. Je. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:09:40 EST From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: The Demise of the Cultural Collective, Pt. XVI In a message dated 99-02-04 14:43:57 EST, John Hedges writes: << On the other hand, that last observation is pretty much the way it is now, isn't it? With the labels taking 75% or more of the profits from an artist's recorded output anyway, and foisting off nearly all the financial risk on the artists as well (forcing most of the failures into personal bankruptcy), maybe it won't make much difference. >> One of the biggest consumerism problems with music is that, unlike, paintings and statues and facades on beautiful buildings, it's most often not particularly rare. Maybe musical artists are going to have to come up with some way to make their products unique. Maybe through the artwork or something. Obviously, you can't have a record that goes gold wherein each CD cover is hand-painted by the artist, though. What to do? Just put *some* songs as mp3's up on your band's website, and then have the full-length CD available for special order, and sign each one? I guess record sales would no longer become important, and success could be measured by the number of times somoeone downloads your "hit" single. Or maybe it could all be based on concert ticket sales. Yes, quite a dilemma. The ease and cost effectiveness of the consumers ability to obtain pre-recorded music could spell the demise of pre-recorded music. Wait! I know! Maybe a new business could be generated where people have to go to certain places to hear music. Just like movie theaters, only maybe smaller. After 6 months or so of people having to pay admission to go to these listening theaters, the album could then be released as regular product (again, like movies). Some people will still buy it, just to have all the nifty, high-gloss artwork, while others will just download and burn. It would be a cool, social thing, too. You would run into people who presumably like the same kind of music. And, obviously, you'd probably want to somehow center the whole thing around coffee -- maybe a big Starbucks in the middle of all these mini-theaters, so that you could go grab a cup of joe with your newfound Wilco-lovin' friends. And, if artists made videos for all their songs, then it could be *just* like going to the movies. But that would obviously be a big, additional cost to the artists. And not many people want to sit around watching 12 videos that were thrown together by some band using a camcorder. Hmmm. Well, the idea needs some fine-tuning, but I'd be happy to start collecting checks from any venture capitalists that might be lurking on the list . . . anyone? . . . helloo? - ------Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:33:16 -0500 (EST) From: Eric Loehr Subject: Re: Crow On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, amadain wrote: > >>I didn't know until last week that Ted Hughes was dead and has been > >>so since last October. > > > >I don't even know who Ted Hughes is...the guy who draws the Crow comic > >book, I take it? > > No. He's a poet. He was the poet laureate of England for some years. "Crow" > is a sort of mythic poetry cycle. It hasn't anything to do with the comic. > > He was also a bit infamous for having been married to Sylvia Plath. > > Love on ya, > Susan Ted Hughes also wrote The Iron Man, a book that some British fella named Pete made an album of. (how's that for a dangling preposition?) Eric ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 13:51:24 -0800 From: "Partridge, John" Subject: RE: Crow Dolph reading Ashberry, Ted Hughes references flying, erudition never looked so accessible! I am a big fan of Ashberry's and Hughes' and would recommend Crow as Hughes' most fun. I always thought it was weirdly elemental the way this earthy English poet was married to this fiery American poet. Speaking of dangling prepositions, here is what the sick boy said to his mother as she entered the room to read him a book: "What did you bring me the book I don't want to be read out of up for?" Can anyone do five? - -----Original Message----- From: Eric Loehr [mailto:loehr@javanet.com] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 1:33 PM To: spleens a go-go Subject: Re: Crow On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, amadain wrote: > >>I didn't know until last week that Ted Hughes was dead and has been > >>so since last October. > > > >I don't even know who Ted Hughes is...the guy who draws the Crow comic > >book, I take it? > > No. He's a poet. He was the poet laureate of England for some years. "Crow" > is a sort of mythic poetry cycle. It hasn't anything to do with the comic. > > He was also a bit infamous for having been married to Sylvia Plath. > > Love on ya, > Susan Ted Hughes also wrote The Iron Man, a book that some British fella named Pete made an album of. (how's that for a dangling preposition?) Eric ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 14:27:26 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Dangling prepositions and superficial thighs. On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Partridge, John wrote: > Speaking of dangling prepositions, here is what the sick boy said to > his mother as she entered the room to read him a book: "What did you > bring me > the book I don't want to be read out of up for?" Can anyone do five? I can do seven... but not without cheating horribly. It's what the sick boy said to his mother when she entered the room to read him a book about the antipodes: "What did you bring me the book I don't want to be read out of about down under up for?" Bye bye. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 14:46:28 -0800 (PST) From: Richard Plumb at NTAC Subject: Robyn at Nefertiti's In searching through the swedish webpages haven't been able to find any reviews, but did find a preview at the page of the club where robyn was performing. Nfertiti's has this to say: Kultfigur i den engelska och amerikanska musikbranchen. Aktuell på festivalen i filmen som handlar om densamme gjord av mannen bakom succén ”Stop Making Sense”. Robyn Hitchcock -vok, git. Also could somebody recommend a Triffids album. I hadn't heard anything about them until the death yesterday of their singer. They sound very interesting. Recommended reading: Handling Sin by Michael Malone. The funniest book I've ever read. == Rich reply to either: rplumb@cais.com or billytell@yahoo.com webpage: http://www.dc.net/rplumb/ _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 22:07:31 -0800 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: the La's Nat sez: >p.s. Check out the list of "established classics" they excluded - Garbage? >The La's? The Happy Mondays?? That La's album is one of my favorites. Hardly an established classic, though, which I guess was the point. I like to put it on my "now playing" shelf next to "Eye" and pretend I'm being watched. Maybe some of you have more conventional hobbies... - -rUss - ------- Russ Reynolds ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:51:49 -0500 From: woj sven-woj Subject: 1998 best of feg? do i remember correctly that someone was going to collect the various feg top 10 lists (including not-a-feg even eb's) and compile a collective best of '98 list for all of us? or am i just dreaming this recollection? if no one else was or will, i guess i'll do it since i'm curious... woj n.p. shotgun wedding -- a big world of fun ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 19:37:00 -0800 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #36 Eb: >I did a phone interview with Jason Falkner this morning, and he said a few >really gushy things about Robyn Hitchcock (thoroughly unprompted by me, I >might add). Like we really thought you'd fish for gushy comments about a B+ artist... >Falkner was a really frustrating interview, incidentally. He's one of those >people who rambles for five or six minutes for each teensy question, so you >only get through half your questions during the allotted timeslot. Blah. in radio we call that a GOOD interview. - -rUss - ------- Russ Reynolds ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 22:41:58 -0800 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: the La's Russ Reynolds wrote: > > Nat sez: > >p.s. Check out the list of "established classics" they excluded - Garbage? > >The La's? The Happy Mondays?? > > That La's album is one of my favorites. Hardly an established classic, > though, which I guess was the point. > > I like to put it on my "now playing" shelf next to "Eye" and pretend I'm > being watched. Maybe some of you have more conventional hobbies... Hell yes!! I love that La's album. An old band of mine used to play I Can't Sleep. And I've heard that L.A. Mavers has a new band together, but I don't know what they're called. - --Joel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 22:43:21 -0800 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: 1998 best of feg? woj sven-woj wrote: > > do i remember correctly that someone was going to collect the various > feg top 10 lists (including not-a-feg even eb's) and compile a collective > best of '98 list for all of us? or am i just dreaming this recollection? > > if no one else was or will, i guess i'll do it since i'm curious... If someone does this, I want to send in a new list. - --Joel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:10:08 -0800 From: Ethyl Ketone Subject: Dangling those prepositions >On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Partridge, John wrote: >> Speaking of dangling prepositions... Thanks for learning me a gammer item I never quite learned!!! I had an english teacher back in High School who talked endlessly about dangling prepositions (among other grammatical rights and wrongs). This was in Los Angeles at the peak of what I'll call the "thai stick craze" for you oldsters out there. Unfortunately, I never really got clear on what she was talking about because she was from the deep south and I didn't understand a word she said (definately NOT the thai stick, no sireee)! She quit teaching after that year and went on to become a country western singer named Donna Fargo (you know, the happiest girl in the whole USA). Like far out man. - - c "Questions are a burden for others. Answers are a prison for oneself." **************************************************************************** M.E.Ketone/C.Galbraith meketone@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 21:17:44 PST From: "D B" Subject: Re: Uncle Tupelo I am listening to "Uncle Tupelo, March 16-20, 1992" tonight (a friend of mine at work turned me on to them, via Wilco, Son Volt, Jawhawks, etc. talk)and very much enjoying the experience. Does anybody else like these guys? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:46:18 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Gillis Subject: Re: the La's On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Russ Reynolds wrote: > That La's album is one of my favorites. Hardly an established classic, > though, which I guess was the point. > This is one of my "all times..." I would call it a classic, but this is not a universally held position. Although, most who don't think this have not given it a good listen, IMHO. .chris (who is finding out that "internet start-up" means work, work, work) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 00:10:27 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Dangling those prepositions On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Ethyl Ketone wrote: > She quit teaching after that year and went on to become a country western > singer named Donna Fargo (you know, the happiest girl in the whole USA). That's just about the ass kickin'est thing I've ever heard. In true Tewsian hyperbolic fashion, The happiest girl in the whole USA, J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #37 ******************************