From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #450 Dead-Flames Digest #450, Volume #48 Thu, 29 Sep 05 17:00:02 PDT Contents: Re: No Direction Home (Brad Greer) Re: No Direction Home (Brad Greer) Re: all the insults for fat people ("TNKEV") Re: Lost my Directions Home (brew ziggins) Re: No Direction Home (brew ziggins) Re: DeLay Indicted! (ndc) ("king88uy7") Re: Jerry's Garcia's widow, in the news again. (the.stugots@gmail.com) Re: No Direction Home (leftie) Re: Up in Smoke [NDC] (Steve S) Re: No Direction Home ("Olompali4") Re: No Direction Home ("Olompali4") Re: essential AUD recordings... ("Dave Kelly") Re: Vegoose Music Festival - Halloween 2005 ("Shawn") Re: Shut Down The War Machine ("Ray") Re: essential AUD recordings... (tonewoods@rockisland.com) Re: My NYC Experience 9/22/05 (Spider Dawg) GDTSTOO - P@F update / 6 more RatDog shows/ heads up Florida ("katrinka") Re: DeLay Indicted! (ndc) ("Ray") Re: GDTSTOO - P@F update / 6 more RatDog shows/ heads up Florida (leftie) Re: DeLay Indicted! (ndc) ("Ray") Re: GDTSTOO - P@F update / 6 more RatDog shows/ heads up Florida (Ken Fortenberry) Re: DeLay Indicted! (ndc) ("king88uy7") Re: (NDC) Bug Man goin' down? ("Richard Morris") A Test (band beyond description) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: No Direction Home Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:43:50 -0400 On 29 Sep 2005 13:01:16 -0700, "Deke_Rivers" wrote: >>As for the Beatles, Sgt. Peppers through Abbey Road is post-66. The >>definition of the Beatles to me. > >It's the opposite for me. Sgt Peppers was the beginning of the end. >Compared to the 3 previous albums(UK releases, btw), the songs much >weaker, and buried under too much production. I'll take Revolver and >Rubber Soul anytime. Revolver and Rubber Soul are my two favorite Beatles albums as well - it's when they really broke the mold of what a "pop" group was supposed to be. The songs still stand up today, I'm not sure how many people are cranking up Within You and Without You lately. ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: No Direction Home Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:48:11 -0400 On 29 Sep 2005 12:05:54 -0700, "Deke_Rivers" wrote: >>Maybe in the "rock" genre, but there are many others who will survive >>>just as well(Johnny Mercer, Hank Williams, Gershwin, Johnny Cash, Chuck >>>Berry, etc.) >>>Pierre > >>Chuck Berry isn't part of the "rock" genre? > >Of course he is...my mistake. So is Johnny Cash to an extent, his Sun >recordings have a heavy dose of rockabilly. Nah, I'll let Johnny Cash pass, most people don't think of him as being part of rock. But Chuck Berry, he defined Rock 'n Roll. But overall, I agree with your post - people who listen to rock music tend to forget their are other genres out there that are just as likely to endure. For example, if we're going to talk about 20th century composers I'm pretty sure Igor Stravinsky will be remembered for a while. ------------------------------ From: "TNKEV" Crossposted-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films,rec.arts.tv,rec.food.cooking Subject: Re: all the insults for fat people Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:53:34 -0500 alejandro de tacobell wrote: > beer gut > > tub of lard BLOBBA THE HUT! ------------------------------ From: brew ziggins Subject: Re: Lost my Directions Home Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:02:58 -0400 Thus spake FionaRCB@REMOVEcore.com... > "Ziggins" sprinkled some more Stardust > > Thus spake dylanstubs@gmail.com... > >> > brew ziggins wrote: > >> > >> > Neither the Beatles nor Dylan have done anything interesting since > >> > 1966, > >> > with the possible exception of 'Blood on the Tracks'. Oh, and the > >> > 'Penny > >> > Lane'/'Strawberry Fields' single. > >> > >> Are we speaking of studio work only? Oh Mercy, Time Out of Mind, and > >> Love and Theft were all great albums. > > > > A lot of people think so, I must've been born without the Dylan gene. I > > really can't tolerate his recent work. (Pssst...he can't fucking SING. > > Somehow he was able to pull it off in the early years, but lately...) > Yer a Donna Jean hater too ain't 'cha? While we're doing True Confessions, sure, yes, I am. > I bet you have amps independintly powerin' each channel seperately too! And > that's in yer PASSAT! What, you mean some people don't? -- bruce higgins ithaca ny most of the day, we were at the machinery ------------------------------ From: brew ziggins Subject: Re: No Direction Home Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:04:29 -0400 Thus spake wyeknot108@oohay.com... > brew ziggins wrote: > > I've just lost track of which of the Marks that post under various > > screen names are trolls and which not. > > Which therefore disqualifies you from dimissing vast volumes of Dylan's > catalog. I'm really not sure why ignoring most of the idiotic flame wars on this group disqualifies me from having an opinion about Bob Dylan -- bruce higgins ithaca ny most of the day, we were at the machinery ------------------------------ From: "king88uy7" Subject: Re: DeLay Indicted! (ndc) Date: 29 Sep 2005 14:10:35 -0700 Richard Morris >You don't want your wife to find out, so you lie about it. Again, I don't think it works to have the person under oath pick and choose when to tell the truth.... I think perjury punishments make sense. But I think it's great you are consistent in your judgements on honesty and integrity, I think partisanship is lame. ------------------------------ From: the.stugots@gmail.com Subject: Re: Jerry's Garcia's widow, in the news again. Date: 29 Sep 2005 14:15:18 -0700 genetically modifed foods can save lives - if we use them sensibly. http://www.biotech-info.net/saving_lives.html ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: No Direction Home Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:15:31 -0700 brew ziggins wrote: > I'm really not sure why ignoring most of the idiotic flame wars on this > group disqualifies me from having an opinion about Bob Dylan Ignoring the idiotic flame wars is admirable. I hope I can learn to do that. Of course you can have an opinion on Dylan regardless of your participation in flame wars. Your opinion is completely ill-informed and completely wrong-headed, but hey, you're completely welcome to it. ;-) "'come in', she said, 'i'll give you shelter from the storm...'" ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Up in Smoke [NDC] From: Steve S Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:19:03 -0500 Brad Greer wrote in news:dgeoj1513nodkrfkgd1s4b7d0l9k6cffs5@4ax.com: > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:07:58 -0700, "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" > wrote: > >> >>"Sean Baker" wrote in message >>news:11jo51ro2ui1485@news.supernews.com... >>> Seems the forests could not preserve this crop. >>> >>> http://tinyurl.com/c7vfd >>> >>> Peace, >>> >>> Sean >> >>I love how they always wildly exaggerate the value of whatever they >>confiscate. >> >>"The seizure from several fields in the south suburbs filled two pickup >>trucks and would have been worth about $12 million on the street." >> >>Yeah, two pickups = 12 million bucks. >> >>Uh huh. >> > Here's how they like to do it. Take some large, wholesale quantity of > a drug (in this case "two pickup trucks worth of weed") and figure out > how many of the smallest-dealt quantity you can get out of it (say, a > pin joint). Assign the highest possible price to that smallest > quantity (let's go with a $10 pin joint), multiply by the amount of > drug in question and throw that total out as the "street value" of the > drugs seized. Implying that the guy who was handling the wholesale > drug transaction stood to make that much money. Because everyone > knows the wholesaler gets full retail price, right? Or they assume each plant will yield 1 pound of bud and x that by the street price of a pound of pot - but the catch is they take 1 plant and chop it into 10 pieces. I'm sure one of these days some poor sap caught with a few grams of Mexican schwag will be charged with possesion of a ton of pot cause the pot that was seized contained 100 seeds which could in turn produce endless amounts of bud. ------------------------------ From: "Olompali4" Subject: Re: No Direction Home Date: 29 Sep 2005 14:19:09 -0700 John Lennon's near psychotic Plastic Ono Band era is an artistic catharsis virtually unmatched by anyone in Rock and Pop music. Johnny Cash is most certainly rock and roll. ------------------------------ From: "Olompali4" Subject: Re: No Direction Home Date: 29 Sep 2005 14:22:45 -0700 > Neither the Beatles nor Dylan have done anything interesting since1966, > with the possible exception of 'Blood on the Tracks'. Oh, and the 'Penny > Lane'/'Strawberry Fields' single. All of their work is, at the very least, "interesting." ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Re: essential AUD recordings... Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:13:12 GMT "Nick's Picks" wrote in message news:1127997882.795712.158610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Dave... > you ever hear a good AUD on a refference quality, full range stereo? > by full range, I mean capable of true 20Hz-20kHz reproduction? * let me get this straight...I should go out and purchase a $3,000 system to listen to dead audience bootlegs...when the SBD is available? You're not making much sense, nicky. FYI...I still rock a kenner close n' play. feel me. ------------------------------ From: "Shawn" Crossposted-To: alt.las-vegas.gambling,alt.vacation.las-vegas,rec.music.phish Subject: Re: Vegoose Music Festival - Halloween 2005 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:10:38 -0400 Looks like a good festival !! "Shawn" wrote in message news:6jEZe.1178$cq2.127172@news20.bellglobal.com... > > For info............ > Vegoose Music Festival > Las Vegas, Nevada > Oct 29-30th 2005 > > http://www.bandbuilder.com/vegoose/index.php?ref_code=F68544 > > > - Shawn > ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: Shut Down The War Machine Date: 29 Sep 2005 15:38:41 -0700 JimK wrote: > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:09:02 GMT, "DGDevin": > >"Organization" is a good description of what I suggested, being prepared for > >the anarchists and helping the cops deal with them in order to defend the > >integrity of the demonstatrion. If you want to dismiss that as "juvenile," > >cool, but let's not pretend that existing practices have done much to stop > >them from doing what they wanted. If your method worked we wouldn't even > >need to be discussing this, but anyone who saw previous anti-Iraq War > >protests turn into frat parties gone bad knows the status quo isn't good > >enough. > > What the hell are you talking about? Nearly all of the anti-Iraq War > rallies that I'm aware of have been remarkably peaceful for the most > part. Agreed. I have never witnessed an anti-Iraq War protest that has turned into "a frat party gone bad" - not even close. All of the ones that I have attended have been quite peaceful for the most part. That said, at least in the Bay Area, while relatively quite few in number the 'violence vampires' do show up - you can bank on it. And they are there to break things and incite violent confrontation with the police. And I think that organizers could do more to address that problem - specifically, as DG suggested, documenting via video etc what these people are doing and giving any incriminating evidence to law enforcement. And to loudly publicize beforehand that they are going to do this. It might or might not help, but at least then the organisers would be doing all they realistically can do to address the problem. And yes i would also be good PR - and isn't the whole point of these demonstrations to create good PR against the war and Bush's policies in the first place? And, like it or not, and 'fair' or not, not addressing the issue is bad PR. Which is to say, for both moral and tactical reasons IMO it would be the right move. Ray ------------------------------ From: tonewoods@rockisland.com Subject: Re: essential AUD recordings... Date: 29 Sep 2005 15:40:29 -0700 The AUD of 8/6/71 *kills* the SB (partial) that they just released... Listen to it on 'phones if you want to go back to '71.... Too bad they don't have the complete soundboards, 'cause a mix of the 2 in Protools would probably produce a final recording with a bit more defintition.... But as it is, it's pretty damn good.... ------------------------------ From: Spider Dawg Subject: Re: My NYC Experience 9/22/05 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:56:48 -0500 On 2005-09-28, The Iron Muffin <> wrote: > >> > 9. Next time I go to NYC, I'm going to make a point to take >> > some time and explore...especially that "Ollie's Noodle Shop" >> > that someone mentioned in another thread. >> >> Please do. It's among the great cities on earth. Still. > > Oh, I intend to. It's been ages since I visited any of the great > museums of New York, and I haven't been up the Empire State > building since I was ten. I'd also like to check out that hot > French chick in the harbor. > > I now have a cousin in college in NYC, so I'm sending her on > a secret mission to find cool restaurants and instrument shops. > Exactly the types of things I hope to do in NYC next month, keep us posted on the shops and eats. Jim ------------------------------ From: "katrinka" Subject: GDTSTOO - P@F update / 6 more RatDog shows/ heads up Florida Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:58:19 -0400 A few details concerning the Phil Lesh and Friends' "Shadow of the Moon" tour: We will have to close mail order for the 2 shows at the New Jersey Performing Arts Center, Newark, NJ. We do have small availability to fill orders still on the way to us. We also have to close mail order for the 3 shows at the House of Blues, Atlantic City, NJ. Although the Saturday show, 12.10 is completely sold out, we may be able to accommodate orders still on the way for 12.8 and 12.9. Tickets are available for all other shows on this tour. Mail order will remain open until October 15, so best get all your orders in by that date. As always, when in doubt, write or call. ========================================== Bob Weir and RatDog will play the following shows: You are welcome to mail in for all the following shows as soon as possible: Tuesday, October 25 at the Eagles Club, Milwaukee, WI. Doors open at 7:00 PM. Show time is 8:00 PM All ages welcome. General Admission. Mail order tickets are available at $26.50 per ticket. Wednesday, November 2 at the Rams Head Live ! Baltimore, MD. Show time is 9:00 PM. 18 and over only. General Admission. Mail order tickets are available at $39.50 per ticket. Friday, November 4 at the Palace Theatre, Greensburg, PA. Show time is 8:00 PM. All ages welcome. All seats are reserved. Mail order tickets are available at $42.00 per ticket. Friday, November 18 at Jannus Landing, St. Petersburg, FL. Show time is 8:00 PM. All ages are welcome. General admission. Mail order tickets are available at $33.00 per ticket. Saturday, November 19 at the Mizner Amphitheater, Boca Raton, FL. Doors open at 6:00 PM. Show time is 7:00 PM. All ages are welcome. General Admission. Mail order tickets are available at $38.00 per ticket. Sunday, November 20 at the House of Blues, Lake Buena Vista, FL. Doors open at 6:00 PM. show time is 7:00 PM. All ages welcome. General Admission. Mail order tickets are available at $32.50 per ticket. Toronto: Please note that the price for the show in Toronto has been changed to US$40.50 per ticket. The show at the Foxwoods Casino, Mashantucket, CT. is completely sold out. Obviously there are some empty spots in the schedule so we anticipate that some more shows will be added. Stay tuned. The Crew of GDTSTOO 9.29.2005 -- "It goes to show you don't ever know Watch each card you play and play it slow....." Robert Hunter Web Site: http://www.gdtstoo.com email: GDTSTOO@dead.net Customer Service Number: (415) 898-2364 Monday-Friday, 11am-5pm, PST. Tour information and mail order telephone hotline: 415-457-6388 To subscribe to our email announce list, send empty email to GDTSTOO-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - - - - this message posted by katrinka, GDTSTOO subscriber ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: DeLay Indicted! (ndc) Date: 29 Sep 2005 16:00:28 -0700 king88uy7 wrote: > Richard Morris > >You don't want your wife to find out, so you lie about it. > > Again, I don't think it works to have the person under oath pick and > choose when to tell the truth.... I think perjury punishments make > sense. I agree. 2 points however: 1) Lying about or obfuscating about personal mutually-consensual sexual relations -- even under oath -- IMO does not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that warrant the impeachment of a president. 2) Contrary to popular belief, Clinton's prosecutors never definitely proved that Clinton committed perjury in any event. Here are the details: ===================================== Perjury about sexual relations from the Paula Jones deposition During the Paula Jones deposition, President Clinton was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. But before the questioning began, the Jones' lawyers produced the following legal definition of sexual relations: "For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes: 1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; 2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or 3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body. Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing." A lengthy debate followed between the two teams of lawyers. It turned out points 2 and 3 were too broad: anyone accidentally brushing their hips against another person could be accused of having "sex." Judge Susan Webber Wright therefore eliminated points 2 and 3. However, notice that point 3 would have clearly included oral sex performed on Clinton. Its removal set the stage for the controversy to follow. The Jones' lawyers then asked Clinton if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky based on the remaining definition. Unfortunately, the definition still contained ambiguities. Who are the "persons" mentioned in the definition? Clinton interpreted it this way: "For the purposes of this deposition, a person [the deponent, in this case, Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes: 1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [that is, any other person, in this case, Monica Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky]; Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing." Given that understanding, the definition clearly does not include oral sex performed on Clinton. Why? Because oral sex is performed with the mouth, and "mouth" is not listed among the other body parts in point 1. Furthermore, a man receiving oral sex is generally considered to be receiving pleasure rather than giving it, and so fails the criterion "to arouse or gratify the sexual desire" of Ms. Lewinsky. Which may make Clinton sexually selfish, but that is not illegal. Some have argued that Clinton's interpretation of "person" is wrong, and that makes him guilty of perjury. But his interpretation is reasonable at most, and arguable at least. Even if Clinton did misinterpret the most obvious meaning, it is up to prosecutors to prove that he intended to lie about it rather than he was mistaken, something that is impossible to prove. And in any case, it is up the to the prosecution to agree to definitions that are not ambiguous. The Jones' lawyers could have easily eliminated any confusion by replacing the term "person" with "deponent and any second party," but they did not. They could have also asked follow-up questions to clarify anything - indeed, they were invited to by Clinton's lawyers - but they did not. The whole incident is a classic case of prosecutorial incompetence. Others have charged that Clinton lied because there was another form of sexual activity - namely, the infamous "Cigar incident." This was when Clinton allegedly inserted a cigar between Ms. Lewinsky's legs. But this fails the definition too. It defines "contact" as "touching, either directly or through clothing." "Direct" means skin-on-skin. "Through clothing" means skin-on-clothing or clothing-on-clothing. The Cigar incident was cigar-on-skin, which fails the definition. Critics have yet another argument that they claim proves perjury. For Clinton's legalistic answers to be true, he would have had to remain "hands off" during the many intimate encounters he had with Ms. Lewinsky. This is extremely unlikely, especially since Lewinsky testified that Clinton frequently touched her breasts and genitals, which is within the legal definition. In fact, the reason why Starr included so much graphic detail of Lewinsky's testimony in his report was to show that Clinton did touch her sexually. The sheer volume of the testimony is damaging. There are several defenses: Lewinsky may have exaggerated her testimony, or Starr may have coerced it. Another possibility, implied by Clinton himself, is that he did not touch her with "an intent to arouse or gratify." He may have been "hands on," but it might have been for his pleasure, not hers. In that case, his answers are still legally accurate. Again, this may make him sexually selfish, but that is not illegal. For critics to prove perjury, they must somehow enter Clinton's head and prove that he did not intend to sexually gratify Ms. Lewinsky. Which, of course, is clearly impossible. Clinton may have even made a mistake by interpreting the definition too narrowly, but that is not the same thing as lying. The bottom line is that the definition crafted by the Jones' team was deeply flawed, and allowed Clinton to make legally accurate answers in spite of what actually happened. --- http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonjonesperjury.html ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: GDTSTOO - P@F update / 6 more RatDog shows/ heads up Florida Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:00:48 -0700 Sorry, but I am holding those dates open in case Phil's kid gets kicked out of the dorm and we have to help him move. ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: DeLay Indicted! (ndc) Date: 29 Sep 2005 16:07:09 -0700 Chunk wrote: > "leftie" wrote in message > news:dhetk1$1rtf$1@agate.berkeley.edu... > > Tom DeLay has finally gone from unidicted co-conspirator to indicted > > conspirator! Plus, he's resigned the Speaker of the House position! > > > > Woohoo! Send that motherfucker to jail where he belongs!!!! > > > > But let's get him out of congress completely first. > > > > http://action.ourfuture.org > > > > > > > > "ding dong, the witch is dead...." > > Is this the same DA Ronnie Earle that went that tried to go after Kay Baily > Hutchinson when she ran for Senate and had his baseless case thrown out? > Travis County, the home of Bill Burkitt and the forged memos? Don't get > your hopes up. "Is this the same... Travis County, the home of Bill Burkitt and the forged memos?" ?!? LOL - I think you may have outdone yourself in the ridiculous mud-slinging dept. this time around, Chunk. And given your lengthy record of ridiculous mud-slinging here on rmgd that's no small accomplishment. Congrats, and keep up the, um, amusing work. Ray ------------------------------ From: Ken Fortenberry Subject: Re: GDTSTOO - P@F update / 6 more RatDog shows/ heads up Florida Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:17:35 GMT katrinka wrote: > A few details concerning the Phil Lesh and Friends' > "Shadow of the Moon" tour: Hmmmmm..., New Jersey on the 23rd and then Chicago on my birthday the 25th. I guess that solemn vow Phil made to spend time with his family doesn't necessarily include Thanksgiving. ;-) ;-) ;-) And Katrinka, Kristine asked me tell you that the poster arrived intact and beer stain free and thank you very much. -- Ken Fortenberry ------------------------------ From: "king88uy7" Subject: Re: DeLay Indicted! (ndc) Date: 29 Sep 2005 16:20:53 -0700 Ray >1) Lying about or obfuscating about personal mutually-consensual >sexual relations -- even under oath -- IMO does not rise to the level of >"high crimes and misdemeanors" that warrant the impeachment of a >president. I totally agree. >2) Contrary to popular belief, Clinton's prosecutors never definitely >proved that Clinton committed perjury in any event. Here are the >details: This is where I think the Democrat goggles come into play. Technically, you may be correct, but everyone knows he lied under oath and that's not OK. And it's not OK when DeLay or any of the other bozos do it. ------------------------------ From: "Richard Morris" Subject: Re: (NDC) Bug Man goin' down? Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:25:56 -0700 "John Doherty" wrote in message news:jgnospamdoherty-C50066.12262229092005@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > In article , > "Richard Morris" wrote: > >> "John Doherty" wrote in message >> news:jgnospamdoherty-0CDE89.15221128092005@comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> > In article <1127927086.398443.253310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> > "scarletbgonias@hotmail.com" wrote: >> > >> >> There'll be swinging, swaying and music playing >> >> And dancing in the street >> >> >> >> Next........ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ....will it be Frist indictment over the "blind" trust insider stock >> > sale? >> > >> > >> > ...or maybe the rumored Rove indictment in October? >> > >> > I read recently that the GOP government corruption is likely >> > unprecedented. Can you recall a similar scenario when the Dems (or any >> > other party in history) controlled the Presidency, the Senate & House, >> > and there were criminal investigations into all three branches (or >> > their >> > leaders, in the case of congress)? >> >> The Reagan and NIxon administrations. > > When during the Reagan & Nixon administrations did the GOP control the > House & the Senate? Jeez, I dunno, John! I was just getting into the spirit of the question. Reagan and Nixon had very corrupt administrations. R. ------------------------------ From: band beyond description <123@456.com> Subject: A Test Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:28:17 +0900 Here's a moral test for you... This test only has only one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally. ...in this unlikely, fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, and spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line. ========================= THE SITUATION You are in New Orleans, There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. You are photo journalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. You're trying to shoot career-making photos.  There are houses and people swirling around you, and disappearing under the water. THE TEST Suddenly you see a man in the water. He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar. You suddenly realize who it is. It's the President, George W. Bush. At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him under forever. You have two options- you can save the life of the President, or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the death of one of the world's most famous men. THE QUESTION Here's the question, and please give an honest answer....... Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white? -- Peace, Steve ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .