 |
 |
 |
 |
||
From:
rdtrn@torithoughts.org
Date:
Mon, 15 Jul 2002 02:45:02 -0700
Subject:
RDT Right Now #1668
To:
rdtrn@torithoughts.org
Do not hit reply to unsubscribe. To unsub, send a message to:
<rdtrn-request@torithoughts.org>
with "unsubscribe" in the subject and body.
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Really Deep Thoughts Right Now Volume 02 : Issue #1668
.
o - O - O - O - O - O - O - O - o
. o o .
o o
O "Thoughts right now... O
o What will become of me, o
o Become of her, become of we?" o
. o o .
O O
O - o - o - o - o - o - o - o - O
o .
o
o
o
Tori Amos, "Thoughts"
In this issue:
o-o-o-o-o-o-o
drums [ "h." <orphea@pacbell.net> ]
wheeeee.... [ Cyndi S Crawford <cyndi.crawford@ju ]
Ell Aay [ Beth Winegarner <echoes@atlantic.de ]
Doo-de-de-doo de-doo-doo [ "Lavenda" <earth@comcen.com.au> ]
Napster: the saga continues [ Brian Cooper <ByteMe@smartchat.net. ]
the plot sucks too [ Emmanuel Caballero <spacedog@prodig ]
[ =======================> In RDT History <======================= ]
On July 14th in 1993, people were arguing over which format was
better: CDs or vinyl. Also, someone posted this groaner:
Did you hear about the collaboration between Primus and
Bjork? They called the album 'Bjork Soda.' I'm sorry, that
was awful, I know.
In 1995, people were discussing such things as whether they'd
rather lose an arm or a leg, lose an eye or an ear, how they'd
prefer to die, and other Important Questions. Also, some
pointers about choosing a tattoo.
In 1998, the Toriphoria vs. Tori Amos Lyric Database (TALD)
debate hit the list.
In 1999, a member announced the news that shoemaker Steve
Madder was going to design a special Tori Amos shoe. 100% of
the proceeds from the sale of the shoes were going to go to
RAINN. Also, news that Steve Caton's band, Binge, would soon be
releasing an album.
[ =======================> In RDT History <======================= ]
On July 15th in 1994, a discussion about glockenspiels. Yes,
really. Also, the fan club (Upside Down) and a couple of
members posted Tori dreams.
In 1995, living off your art (with Rantz posting "Art is either
Masturbation or Prostitution"), how lovely the moon is,
religion, Darwin stickers (and abortion and religion bumper
stickers), some interpretations of "Got a cat named Easter...
empty cage girl if you kill the bird" (including an ee cummings
reference), spontaneous combustion, burning vs drowning as a
form of death, and list shirts. Also, a member offered an
interesting thought about "Sugar":
I've beeen reading this book Religions of Man, by Huston
Smith, really good entry level text--not too in-depth, but
pretty penetrating, and surprisingly readable. In it, the
author refers to a Hindu way of describing the goals of
bhakti yoga as 'I want to taste sugar, not be sugar' which
of course reminded me of 'Sugar' although I haven't thought
about it much yet.
In 1999, NIN/Tori connections (following news of 'Starfucker,
Inc'), Tori on Binge, origins of the Skye Boat Song, and list
civility, and real names in archives. Two or three pretty ugly
and memorable flamewars were going on simultaneously (the first
couple weeks in July 1999 were especially ugly for this list).
A certain listowner reminded us:
*** Yes, Be Warned That Archives Can Come Back And Haunt All Your Asses
digest ***
In 2001, race, good looks and modelling, a member new to Tori
reveals she _gave away_ her parents copy (they didn't want it
either) of YKTR (yes, original) on cd, Suzanne Vega, the SLG
concept, and people were arguing about US inhabitants refering
to themselves as "American." One wrote:
It doesn't make sense to object to the way a culture uses
its own word if you don't know the complete definition of
the word within that culture. It could be that the word does
mean what the people are using it to mean.
[ ================================================================== ]
Today's fuzzy ferret assistants: Beth Winegarner & Lavenda
Missed a digest? Pick up a copy at the RDTRN archives:
http://www.torithoughts.org/rdtrn/archives
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
[top]
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 19:39:42 -0700
From: "h." <orphea@pacbell.net>
To: "'RDT Right Now'" <rdtrn@torithoughts.org>
Subject: drums
> what i love about asf so far is how evans' bass tone fits in so weirdly. i
> can't decide whether i like his bass tone or not, but there's something
> about it that makes me think the "bad news bears" clinching the NL east.
> it's weird, but it fits, somewhat. the song's got a nice groove to it,
even
> if bellson can't tell the difference between real and synth drums. ;-)
well i don't know who this bellson guy is, but i have to agree with him. ;)
the drums might as well be synth since they're so damn repetitive and poppy.
if someone would just take the drum track off that song, and maybe edit
out/replace the "a sorta fairytale with you, a sorta fairytale with you"
chorus, that song would be fabulous. well, hell it's still pretty fabulous.
;)
so, over on the board formerly known as the dent forums, there's been
evidence that the promo hasn't even been pressed. if that's true, then
maybe this version is just one of several mixes they're considering for
release.
redstamen
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
[top]
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 23:24:45 -0400
From: Cyndi S Crawford <cyndi.crawford@juno.com>
To: rdtrn@torithoughts.org
Subject: wheeeee....
Heyyy how do you become a fuzzy ferret assistant???
Beth said: "I'm not so sure about that. I listened to System of a Down's
samples on amazon.com and they were so crappy-sounding that I thought I
wouldn't like the CD, and therefore didn't buy it."
CDNow is the way to go, dear. That's where I went to check out
samples of Tori's music before downloading and burning (and eventually
BUYING) the songs.
Doug: Keep hassling your brothers to GET A WEBPAGE MADE!!!
*** Remember...The *Neck* Needs Sunblock Too (Sunburn SUU-UUCKS) digest
***
huh.. sounds like SOMEBODY'S been at the beach!
Sincerely, Cyndi S. Crawford (Keyyooo on ICQ and IRC, Keyyooo1 on AIM)
http://learntothink0.tripod.com/learntothinkagain/ --
http://www.geocities.com/keyyooo/ --
http://www.platinumcomplication.com/cyndi/ --
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store/store.aspx?storeid=kittitude
Tori Amos' response when asked to describe herself in five words: "I. Do.
Not. Describe. Myself."
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
[top]
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:06:16 -0700
From: Beth Winegarner <echoes@atlantic.devin.com>
To: RDT Right Now <rdtrn@torithoughts.org>
Subject: Ell Aay
Someone (who said hi to me but didn't sign her name!) said:
> I'm could be mistaken, but I believe her career "really took off" more in
> the UK than here at first.
Yes, I guess you're right. I didn't word it very well. I just meant that
Tori signed her deal with Atlantic while in LA, and made her first album
(YKTR) in LA, and returned to the piano while still in LA.
It was her early demos for LE that made Atlantic send her to the UK to
finish her album. So if it weren't for those experience, her
career might not be where it is now, etc. etc... that's what I meant. :)
And thanks to you and the others who explained "She's Come
Undone." I don't know if I'll ever find the time to read it, but it does
sound good.
Beth
--
"How do you 'consume' music, when (a) music isn't a thing and (b)
it's still there after you've used it... Just because the industry markets
it as a commodity doesn't mean we have to accept their terms of reference.
It's time people stopped talking about 'consuming' art and culture and so
on and started thinking of art as an activity." (Christopher Small)
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
music reviews + stories + poetry + photography + collage + Watchers
livejournal + selkies + esoterica + links = http://echoes.devin.com
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
[top]
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:05:09 +1000
From: "Lavenda" <earth@comcen.com.au>
To: "Strange Little Arty Turners" <rdtrn@torithoughts.org>
Subject: Doo-de-de-doo de-doo-doo
Hmm, a few speculative thoughts on the album/ASF. I'm not crazy on it, but
then I'm not listening to it at the moment. It is growing on me. One thing
that crossed my mind was LE was a diary, UTP an impressionist painting, BFP
was a novel, FTCH was... I forget, TVAB was a journey around the body (one
metaphor that sticks in my mind. I remember her saying on song was behind
the left ventricle and stuff like that), I don't recall Tori saying anything
like this for SLG, but this one sounds like a road trip (I guess it has been
pretty much described as such, but I wrote this before I read a lot of
that).
Also, eastbound. Aside from all the mythologyical and such associations with
east and west, she's going toward New York when people were leaving NY. And
she's travelling (allbeit by car) when a lot of people were staying put.
To sum it all up... it's still growing. I guess it doesn't leave a fantastic
aftertaste, though it's not bad. I was grabbed by Bliss and SLG more than
this.
Coops of course brought up the 'i won't listen to anything until the new
album is out', which is sort of what I was trying to do, but then, this is
going to be the first single so it is expected to be heard ahead and away
from the rest of the album. Maybe the reason it isn't clicking for me is
it's not summer here.
I oft times have music playing in my head. And if it's not in my head, then
it's Tiarna singing it :)
I don't think the changes in Tori are necessarily due to motherhood, though
they are probably a part of it. I think it's just natural progress through
life, dare I say maturing?
Linda, loved your gyno story!!!
Welcome Ian!
X
Lavs
(Lavenda 1, primary adjunct of dominatrix Glenn)
~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~
Who could ever say you're not simply wonderful
- 'Merman', Tori Amos
~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~ ~^^~
http://www.freewebs.com/tiarna/start.html - Tiarna's Homepage
http://www.freewebs.com/drifts/start.html - Drifts Get Deeper
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
[top]
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:12:29 +1000
From: Brian Cooper <ByteMe@smartchat.net.au>
To: Really Deep Thrusts Right Now <rdtrn@torithoughts.org>
Subject: Napster: the saga continues
Before I start getting serious, I'd like to nominate for my choice of
celebrity friend/dinner date/lover, one Tori Amos. Well someone had to say it.
I was expecting certain responses to my post about Napster like software
and Chris' reply in #1666 didn't disappoint me one bit.
> I have friends who've worked for napster and the thing that puzzled them
>and us was that the radio can play music all day long for free but the
>moment you record it (even if you record it from that same radio
>broadcast) and put it on an mp3...you are a bad bad person.
While recording commercial music that you own for personal use is against
the law, record companies are going to turn a blind eye to you until you
start making it readily available to the masses. Current technology is at
the point where it is cheap to produce and distribute while keeping the
quality high. That is something that has never existed before.
Maybe if those who started Napster had maybe studied simple law, or even
learned to read and comprehend fine print like "Unauthorized duplication is
a violation of applicable laws", then just maybe they'd be making a
squillion dollars now and even be in a position to take over some of the
record companies despise. A grasp of simple economics would have helped
immensely as well.
Music played on the radio is by no means free. Nothing comes for free,
which is why Napster in its original form had to die. They created
something which could bypass the system and in turn have paid for their
mistake. Every song you hear played on the radio, on TV, in a shopping
mall, in an elevator or even while on hold generates income for not only
the record company, but the artist and songwriter as well. Start giving
this product away for free and you're biting the hand that feeds you.
> But radio stations pay artists for the right to play their songs.
It's not so much the right to play their songs, more of a payment in
appreciation of what these artists are doing. A radio station lives and
dies on ratings. If they play songs nobody likes, their listeners will
leave them in droves, which means their advertisers will go with them. A
station with any brains will drop a dud song so as not to risk that. Those
that generate more listeners will increase how many times a particular
artist is played, which in turn generates more royalties for them.
>Okay...fine...Why do you WANT to download metallica? Because you heard it
>on the radio...when the artist was paid for the broadcast. You didn't
>usually waste half an hour of download time to listen to something you've
>never heard of...
In which case if you heard Metallica on the radio and liked them, your
first stop should have been the local CD outlet, not the computer. Why
bother wasting that time downloading something that is easily accessible
and really doesn't cost that much? The answer? Greed.
But what if you spent all that time downloading a file that was listed as
Metallica, but turned out to be Britney Spears? Or even if it was
Metallica, it wasn't the song it was listed as either? You've wasted all
that time and come up with something you didn't want. Who are you going to
complain to when you're not paying anything for the product in the first
place? Or those times when you've already downloaded 95% of the file, only
to lose the connection for just about any reason? What if you do eventually
get what you wanted, but the file was encoded badly and is not worth
listening to?
> But maybe it's an unknown artist? Metallica used to encourage people to
>copy their music and give it to people because it was good advertising.
Did it make them hypocrites when they stood up against Napster? Yes. But
money talks and bullshit walks. Their record company execs probably sat
them down and explained to them in simple terms how much money their big
mouths were costing them. When the very substantial penny dropped, you
can't fault them for taking the money. Anyone else with half a brain would.
> If radio was new, you would hear all these artists screaming about
>that...
No you wouldn't, because the artists are getting paid for their product
being played. Their music is also being advertised more widely with
in-built quality control than any computer can achieve at this time.
> Leave the griping about technology to the grampas out there who still
>think we owe them a government check just because they haven't died yet.
Keep in mind that in 20 years time, Napster users will be the record
company execs who are fighting tooth and nail to maintain their bottom line
and keep their fat arses in a job. They will rightfully use every resource
they can to maintain that.
The people who squealed loudest about the demise of the original Napster
were those who had their snouts deepest in the trough - the ones who
downloaded to their heart's content and never bought anything. They are the
ones to blame for anti-piracy technology on CDs that refuse to play on your
expensive CD player because they don't recognise the format.
Let's try some simple math. Assume for a moment that 10% of the world's CD
buying population have access to the internet. Of that 10%, assume that 10%
are Napster users. Of the Napster users, assume 10% download but never buy
the CDs of artists they download. What have we got? 0.1% of the CD buying
populace being responsible for something that will probably annoy 90% of
all CD purchasers. Thanks!
Onto Beth's wonderfully well thought out reply in #1667...
>Did you read the whole thing? I'm sort of curious.
Since you said there's more, I will go and read it. I wouldn't be surprised
if some of Janis Ian's thoughts on the recording industry match mine.
>that there has not been a very good study of napter&co's actual
>effect on people's buying habits -- is true.
I don't think you'll ever get an accurate answer out of any study either.
People don't like to admit breaking the law, even when it's in confidence.
Any result would be skewed towards people buying more CDs than they
actually do.
> I've seen some articles suggesting that it's causing the slump in music
> buying, but none with real evidence to back that up.
There has to be some sort of impact, but it cannot be easily quantified. A
lot of the blame for a slump in music buying can be directed towards the
record companies themselves. At the end of the 90's there were many
mega-mergers of record companies. The new conglomerates cut a lot of
artists from their books. I'm sure everyone lost a favourite artist from
that bloodbath. They were the ones with a good following, but weren't
perceived to be profitable.
When there were more companies, they were prepared to take a risk on an
unsigned artist. Why haven't there been any really new trends in music over
the last few years? Companies are still trying to find their place in the
world and aren't prepared to risk anything. They are also owned by
corporations who have no original background in music, so the music has to
suffer.
These corporations are also only interested in profit, thus they will not
take risks and will only put out what they think the public wants. This
also means they will lock profitable artists into tighter contracts and
will directly have a say in the artistic direction. The current business
climate isn't conducive to taking a risk, so when something like Napster
comes along to cut even deeper into profits, there has to be a backlash and
the only ones that will get hurt are the artists and the music buying public.
> And a lot of people these days buy their music from online
>sellers, especially if they're already online listening to an mp3. My habit
>tends to be: listen to mp3s, put album on amazon wish list, and then either
>buy it on amazon or from my local, independent record store the next time I
>happen to be there. (Or, if I don't like something, I won't buy it.)
By what you describe, you're doing a higher tech version of what people
have been doing for years. Before the internet took hold, if you heard a
band on the radio and liked the song, but wanted to hear more before buying
an album, you'd go into a store, say you'd like to hear some of it and
they'd put it on so you could listen to it on headphones. They wouldn't let
you listen to the whole album, but you got a taste, which on-line retailers
are letting you do now. If you didn't like it, you just walked out the door.
>I do think that record companies are
>so hell-bent on believing that mp3s are the reason sales are slumping that
>they're not willing to look at whether that's really true.
I'm sure they do, but they should examine themselves more closely before
making their minds up. I believe they're as much to blame as the
downloading public, if not more, but that is still no excuse for what is
outright theft.
>Ian's article goes into a lot of other issues, anyway, since she also talks
>about how record companies totally shaft artists and the generally monstrous
>behavior of the major labels.
Which suggests why if I read her article in its entirety, I believe I'd
have much the same views as her.
>For those out there who are opposed to mp3 trading, how do you feel about
>record stores which sell used CDs? Artists do not make money off the sales
>of used CDs except indirectly -- if you buy a used CD and you like it,
>you're more likely to buy other albums by the same artist, and conceivably
>some of those would be full-price sales.
Since you asked, you answered it myself. But the difference here is they
have already received a royalty for the original sale. That is different to
never having made a sale.
>But on the other hand, many people want to protest the behavior of the music
>industry, especially the escalating and ridiculous prices of CDs,
Really hurting the record companies from the consumer side of things is
harder to do than it seems, especially when music is just a facet of their
overall business these days. The only people who can truly hurt the record
companies are the artists themselves. Any consumer attempt to hurt them
only hurts the artists.
While her methods may be unconventional, I do support Courtney Love on her
stand against contracts in the music industry. All contracts are grossly
skewed towards the companies and can be wildly different between artists on
the same label. I'm sure we've all heard horror stories of popular artists
from the 50's and 60's who have died destitute because of their contracts.
The industry has changed little. Only the artists themselves have the right
or the power to truly hurt these mega-corporations. The answer - they all
must stand united and insist on standard contracts across the board that
aren't screwed too much in anybody's favour.
As for prices of CDs, I know they've blown out over the last couple of
years in the US, but here they've been largely stable. If you take
inflation into account, they are cheaper now than they have ever been and
are probably even cheaper than vinyl at its peak. I'd have to pull a lot of
statistics to prove that, but my gut tells me I'm right.
>there are not a lot of ways to use your dollars to protest the major labels
>without also hurting the artists -- except insomuch as artists do not make
>most of their money off record sales, anyway.
But royalties can be their pension plans. Or they could be the difference
between being able to concentrate on a career in music or having to go out
and get a day job.
> > Just about all on-line CD retailers have samples of every song off an
> > album. That is only advertising to get you to buy it. If you need more
> > than that to decide if you like an album or not, you're probably too
> > fussy.
>
>I'm not so sure about that. I listened to System of a Down's samples on
>amazon.com and they were so crappy-sounding that I thought I wouldn't like
>the CD, and therefore didn't buy it. However, my brother played it for me
>recently and I *really* liked it.
Ok, Ms. Fussy Boots, consider this. They might have sucked from the samples
you heard. In a month or two, you might hear another single from their
album and liked it, or, as what happened, you heard it played by someone
you know and liked it. The traditional methods of deciding whether or not
to buy an album still exist. The only thing hearing a full album of MP3's
does is allow you to make up your mind faster. If something is good, you
will find out in the long run. Cream always rises to the top.
Now for how Napster could have done it right and kept everybody happy,
except maybe those who want everything for nothing. They could have
approached the record companies with their software and proposed this whole
new method of distribution. The companies could have bought into it and
hosted the files themselves, so there'd be no drop outs during downloads,
there would be quality control of the files. Commercial tracks could be
released when artists and companies want, not when somebody has stolen a
pre-release copy or released it without authority.
This of course would come at a price, but compared to what is out there
now, it could be done much cheaper. Albums could be sold as e-albums, just
like you have now with e-books. Any simple grasp of economics will tell you
that if you can deliver content without actually making a physical item and
shipping it all over the place, costs can be cut dramatically. People will
buy a product that is much cheaper if the quality is nearly as good as the
full priced product. At the end of the day, the artists would still receive
royalties and can continue to do what they do best without ending up in
poverty.
This is the way of the future. Napster mark II is a step in the right
direction and when questioned, most users would be happy to pay the
subscription fee. The only reason other free file sharing services are
still in business, like Kazaa and Audio Galaxy is that their method is
slightly different to the original Napster, but their end result is the
same. They are only getting by on technicalities in the law, but that can't
last forever.
there's more that I could go on with, but for the sake of sanity and the
fact it's getting late, I'll leave it for now.
Brian
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
[top]
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 15:25:09 -0500
From: Emmanuel Caballero <spacedog@prodigy.net.mx>
To: RDT Right Now <rdtrn@torithoughts.org>
Subject: the plot sucks too
As I said in a recent post: I enjoyed Lilo & Stitch for the first half -
which is basically the presentation of all the characters. When the thing
gets mushy and crappy, well, its crap. The evilly developed alien realizes
he is lost and without love, Lilo finds herself about to be separated from
her sister because she isnt being taken care of, and a really dumb surfer
helps them ( but I still dont know what he helps them with ).
So... no, the plot is no good. I don't care much for the publicity either.
They make you believe you're gonna see a bunch of Disney characters being
harassed by the ugly alien - all you get is corn. big no-fat corn.
I can't begin to say how disappointed I've been by the latest summer movies.
Episode II was a hoax. MIB 2 is equally terrible. I believe only Spiderman
made the grade. Can't wait for LOTR 2. At least I know the plot for that is
fucking great.
enough random hate, love to all
e.
o-o-o o-o-o o-o-o o-o-o o-o-o o-o-o o-o-o o-o-o o-o-o o-o-o
*** A Wholesome Mind Is Wasted Potential digest ***
To POST messages to this list: <rdtrn@torithoughts.org>
Can't figure out how to SUB, UNSUB, or CHANGE ADDRESSES? Send a message
to <rdtrn-request@torithoughts.org> with "help" as the subject.
Digest PROBLEMS or QUESTIONS? Contact: <admin@torithoughts.org>
Want your BIRTHDAY announced on RDTRN in 2002? Visit the registration
form located at http://www.torithoughts.org/RDTRN/birthday.html
RDTRN SITE AND ARCHIVES:
http://www.torithoughts.org/rdtrn
RDTRN'S SUBLIMINAL THOUGHTS (you can't see this):
http://www.torithoughts.org/rdtrn/subliminal/
For information on joining the TORITOUR list: Send a blank message
to <tour@torithoughts.org> and you'll receive an instruction
file.
Any self-respecting Toriphile is on The Registry. (That means you!)
http://thedent.developium.com/
_ .
/\ , _ _ ( _ )_
{Oo\{o\ .=. ( ` )_ (_ _(_ ,)
{o: \:.\ / \ ( ) `) |
{O:' \:.-'_.-\_)____ (_ (_ . _) _) \ _ /
{o:. /`~('-./-----.\ -= (_) =-
}o: // /| `/\ ( ) / \
{O:'// /-' /\/\ ( ` ) . ) |
}o-/( <___ \'/ /\/\/\ (_, _( ,_)_)
/o./ ;--._)====* -\/\/\/
`"`\ \ /.\ `""`
\ \
\ \ wWWWw wWWWw
/`\ ) vVVVv (___) wWWWw (___) vVVVv
|/| | vVVVv (___) ~O~ (___) vVVVv ~H~ (___) vVVVv
_// \| (___) ~H~ \| ~U~ (___) |/ ~T~ (___)
| / || \~T~/ \| \ |/ \| / \~G~/ \| \ |/ \~S~/
|/ / | \\|// \\|// \\|// \\|/// \\|// \\|// \\\|/// \\|//
` `\| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
` thanks for visiting this pretty garden
[Prev Digest
Date Index
Next Digest]
[Author Index]
ToriThoughts.Org > RDTRN > Archives > July 2002
This collection copyright RDT/RDTRN. All rights reserved.
Archive contents cannot be altered.
Contact.