From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V4 #325 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Tuesday, August 1 2000 Volume 04 : Number 325 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Mostly OT: Budgies [Chad Maloney ] Re: Mostly OT: Budgies [Veronica J Gruneberg <6vjg@qlink.queensu.ca>] Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions [fruvy ] Re: Bottom Line - 7/26/2000 [Lynne ] Re: Mostly OT: Budgies [Ellen ] Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions [Ellen ] Re: Mostly OT: Budgies ["Daancing Queen" ] my long 5 cents on Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions [SugarFly26@aol.com] Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions (fwd) [Lynne ] Re: Mostly OT: Budgies [Shilfiell ] Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions ["KatieWow" ] Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions [MJ ] Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions [MJ ] Re: Mostly OT: Budgies [Chad Maloney ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:02:32 -0500 From: Chad Maloney Subject: Re: Mostly OT: Budgies Melanie wrote: > > First let me say that I do NOT watch "Who Wants to Be a > Millionaire." But I was flipping through channels the other day and > the question before me on the screen was "What is a budgie?" > The contestant was obsessing over the two remaining choices. I > realized that I am among a select group of people who would put > the word "dog" after "budgie" and be reminded of a Canadian band > named Moxy Fruvous. Wow, that's so great! I wish I had seen that (I don't watch the show either). But really, I mean, there are a good number of fans and a lot of Fruvous fans are of the more intellectual type so maybe they are a bit more likely to get on a Quiz Show like that. But really, what's the chance of that? It makes me wonder really whether it's all just Fate sending us on a predetermined path. That events that are happening now are just pieces to a large puzzle with a predetermined shape. I mean, really, if there is no fate, there is no world. Everything is cause and effect truly, such that there are no free actions taken wholly and completely on their own without the impetus of other actions. Thus there are no free actions in the world and everything can be traced back to one free action that determined the outcome of everything. There is no free will and this no moral responsibility for your actions. Ok, that's bad. Re-think. But really when I think about it again, my above definition of a free action is probably wrong. The opposite of free isn't not doing something. So maybe I'm just blowing smoke out my ass. I'm sure some libertarian is gonna come and tell me my definition of free actions is dead on, but that all events aren't caused and that human nature is such that at least the resistence to the free action is not caused by the free action itself. Damn libertarian bunk. Compatibilism, bonus! - Chad (side-tracked I guess) ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 2000 18:31:38 GMT From: Veronica J Gruneberg <6vjg@qlink.queensu.ca> Subject: Re: Mostly OT: Budgies Chad,I agree wholeheartedly... I've ben caught up in the whoel Free Will vs determinism debate myself for sometime now. I mean, I know that I am a being capable of independent thought. And yet, there are so many things which appear to be fundamentally out of the control of us as a people, I often wonder if perpahs we are merely travelling a predetermined path through life... But then, I also get lost in the fork versus spoon debate... :) Veronica (it's the soup that eats like a meal, you know!) - -- *************************************************************************** "On the sixth day, God created | Veronica Gruneberg the platypus. And God said: let's | Dept. of Biology see the evolutionists try to figure | Queen's University this one out!!" | Kingston, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 11:34:57 -0700 From: fruvy Subject: Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions Gella wrote: >Meanwhile I've just shared something with you that I was only >just able to admit to myself the moment before I wrote the >initial post... and you choose to just pick out the tiny bit to >criticize me... My god people. I make one comment in support of Gella cause I could tell it was personal and could relate to it then all of a sudden the two of us are jumped on because of it? Like Gella, I also don't feel any sense of entitlement to any of his attention, he's just a man that I know that's been a good friend to me. That's all. I don't understand how what I said could be seen as the bitching it's been misconstrued as but again, just like Gella, I don't think there will be much posting from my side anymore either. Sally - ----------------------------------------------------------- Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:57:36 -0500 (CDT) From: Lynne Subject: Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions I think each individual human has their own definition of what a friend is to them, personally.... I understand that you are not asking that someone to meet your definition of friend.... but will you make judgements based on their responses? I wonder.... I also wonder what "owing" has to do with anything. Jian and Gella (Gella, you have asthama? correct?) shared a special interaction recently.. Jian was very caring and even, brotherly. Does this make them friends? I don't know. I think that is for the two of them to define. I know that he cares differently for her than for me. Are he and I friends? Not under my definition. So "my point" is, does it really matter what an individual defines as THE LINE? - -lynne PS. If it was Gella who began this whole topic, I would absolutely understand her concern if Jian wasn't as attentive as in the past. COuld she have told him in person, maybe.. but sometimes it's nice to just vent and find support on the newsgroup, isn't it? - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:24:24 -0400 From: loren becker To: ammf@fruvous.com Like Chad, I ask this out of curiosity and don't mean it as a personal affront to your relationship with Jian (especially since I have no clue what that might be, hence the question). In fact, consider this inquiry directed at the general public, not just at Sally, because I'm curious about people's thoughts on this. When you say Jian (or any other band member) is a friend of yours, what does that mean? Do you hang out with him when he's not on the clock, so to speak? Does he confide in you? (Insert similar questions here.) Where is the line between fan and friend? I ask this because a lot of people think of members of the band as their friends. We, as fans, expect a lot from them. We also get a lot from them. But in truth, they have no responsibility to any of us no matter what we expect. The amount of attention the fans get is entirely up to the band, not any obligation. Enough from me. I'm exhausted and perhaps I'm just missing the point. /l ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o/~ I'm looking for one thing real tonight. o/~ - -- Dan Bern ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:06:16 -0500 (CDT) From: Lynne Subject: Re: Bottom Line - 7/26/2000 Both were outstanding..each one unique in it's own way. I think I preferred the first night, only because they began woth so much energy. The second night, had a slow start..but a wonderful ending..and how can you not absolutely LOVE a show that includes the semi-snotty-satirical CHER!!! - -lynne - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 01 Aug 2000 04:31:53 GMT From: Jill Friedman To: ammf@fruvous.com Newsgroups: alt.music.moxy-fruvous Subject: Re: Bottom Line - 7/26/2000 > >This was simply the best Fruvous show I've ever seen! >Feanole aka DrWhoFru > Really? I thought the first night's show was better. But that's just MHO... - -J The Leopard Lady "People shouldn't be judged by the color of their skin. They should be judged on important things like their taste in music!"-Murphy Brown "She's too short to play me."-Joey Potter Too short to play herself in a movie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 11:52:39 -0700 From: Ellen Subject: Re: Mostly OT: Budgies Chad Maloney wrote: > There is no free will and this no >moral responsibility for your actions. and, moreover, love sucks.[1] > human nature is such that at least the resistence to >the free action is not caused by the free action itself. i was following you until here. i really wanted to start a big flame war with you, Chad, but you totally went over my head here. peace, ellen (who doesn't know why her last post was signed simply, "pea" but is sure that AOL can be blamed for it) [1] because it's in cahoots with Fate. - ----------------------------------------------------------- Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:08:42 -0700 From: Ellen Subject: Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions Ellen wrote: >and if this criticism is enough to stop you from posting here, >then perhaps it's better that you do, at least for a while. >until you get some perspective. unfortunately, i hit send before actually developing this thought. i don't mean to push anyone away or imply that your contribution to amm-f is not a worthy one. but sometimes when you've gotten a little too close to a subject, taking a step back can give you a much more balanced view of the whole thing. in any case, take care and try not to sweat the little things. peace, ellen - ----------------------------------------------------------- Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:00:09 -0700 From: Ellen Subject: Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions gella and sally, i'm sorry, but i'm with the others. the reason that one detail was picked on was that that was where someone (or rather someoneS) felt that you were out of line. and you were. you shouldn't have to feel eternally grateful for any scrap of attention a band member gives you, because you shouldn't be needing it that much. do you see that? and you shouldn't be expecting it, either. it's not fair to the band you love so dearly to expect that kind of devotion from them. presumably, you give it freely to them, and that means they owe you nothing in return. but your expectations, as you state them here, have gotten out of hand. that's all anyone was trying to say. that's basically what YOU yourself (gella) said in the original post, and some people agreed with you. don't post things like that if you don't want to hear that others agree. and if this criticism is enough to stop you from posting here, then perhaps it's better that you do, at least for a while. until you get some perspective. peace, ellen - ----------------------------------------------------------- Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:21:19 -0700 From: MrB Subject: Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions ..I probably should just stay out of this and not post... but fuck it, I'm posting anyway... Frankly, I feel sorry for Jian, Murray, Mike and Dave, because not only do they have to deal with the sometimes selfish fans, but belive it or not, this NG gets read by them(1) and frankly it would piss me off if I was them. How would you like it if a 'friend' went on the internet and posted to a newsgroup that you felp slighted, even if it was a small detail of the post, obviously it stands out because so many people thought it was wrong/selfish/rude/whatever... I admire Fruvous for the fact that they are different and they talk to their fans and hang out from time to time with us, but I'll be damned, friend or no friend, if they owe me anything before/during/after a show... And... if the music biz is prostitution, and Fruvous sold themselves for fame, I hope they got change, frequent flyer miles or something else, cause I personally thing they are getting the shit end of the fame stick. - -Mark "*Bing* The Captain has turned on the 'Sit the f^ck down, Shut the f^ck up' light" -Henry Rollins (1)(Jian has told me he does, but I will not speak for the rest of them, only assume that they hear things from the NG via the grapevine) - ----------------------------------------------------------- Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:46:35 GMT From: mike96@bluecrow.com (Mike Yoshioka) Subject: Re: Mostly OT: Budgies On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:02:32 -0500, Chad Maloney wrote: > *snip a bunch of stuff on fate* Chad, now to really blow your mind. Pick up the book "The Bible Code" contrary to the title, it is not really a religious book. It's kinda frightening, and it's not fiction. Scary stuff Mike ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 2000 12:32:01 -0700 From: "Jason A.Reiser" Subject: Re: Mostly OT: Budgies In article <398702A8.FBCC15DB@fruvous.com>, Chad says... ... > >It makes me wonder really whether it's all just Fate sending us >on a predetermined path. That events that are happening now are >just pieces to a large puzzle with a predetermined shape. I mean, >really, if there is no fate, there is no world. Everything is >cause and effect truly, such that there are no free actions ... Chad, What have you been smoking? Did you bring enough for everyone? - - Jason ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 16:15:06 EDT From: "Daancing Queen" Subject: Re: Mostly OT: Budgies >From: Veronica J Gruneberg <6vjg@qlink.queensu.ca> >But then, I also get lost in the fork versus spoon debate... >:) Veronica (it's the soup that eats like a meal, you know!) Now there's a debate I can sink my teeth into... Sara (Sorry, it was just sitting out there, waiting to be said) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 16:17:47 EDT From: SugarFly26@aol.com Subject: my long 5 cents on Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions < I don't understand how what I said could be seen as the bitching it's been misconstrued as but again, just like Gella, I don't think there will be much posting from my side anymore either. >> Umm..I don't mean to sound really bitchy, but when people say stuff like I don't think there will be much posting from me anymore either, it kinda bugs me. Because it makes it sound like everything anyone else is saying that isn't in agreement with what you think is childish or bitchy. It seems really trivial, and chilidish in itself as if you wouldn't talk to a friend anymore if they commented something. If someone (even many someones) has a different opinion than you and even flames you for it (though if this was flaming, it was really nice flaming) doesn't mean it should be taken as your opinions don't matter, or oh fine I won't post anymore. I actually don't even think all the posts have *specifically* to do with you..I mean, yes some of them do, and it was your post that kinda instigated it. But in all honesty, I think at least a couple people wanted to be able to discuss friend vs. fan in general and it just happened that your post spurred it. I understand how you meant it to be sympathy to Gella, such as the way you might say something of a similiar experience in sympathy to an upset friend, which is why I didn't respond to it. But Gella, as far as people not responding to the main part of your post about missing them (which I noticed) I did respond. As far as the smallest detail getting picked out..well, it obviously angered some people. And when people get angry (or at least when *I* get angry) until I calm down a bit it's a little hard to focus on things that aren't the cause of the anger. Which is why when I get upset at something posted on the ng, I now try to wait before responding a little so I can think it through clearly. I am sorry that more people didn't answer your initial concern, but I don't think you should stop posting altogether, even if things *did* get a little chaotic. <> Well, there's more than one way to look at that. <> I see your point and all, but me personally..this sounds really stupid, but I wouldn't mind too much. Of course, I'm not a star type person, but if someone felt they could use an example of a lesser point of mine or something I did recently to give sympathy to someone else, or even if they just needed to vent to different friends (even ones who have never met me) then I say go ahead. And it's happened before, so I'm not talking out of thin air. I know I vent to people online a lot about my current friends in my town. And sometimes it's better that way because the online friends don't know the person or don't know them personally, and after I vent I know my venting won't be rushed gossip-style to my friend and I know the incident won't be brought up again by the online friend, and then I can actually decide what, if anything, to *do* about the thing that bothered me, do it, and get on with my life. << obviously it stands out because so many people thought it was wrong/selfish/rude/whatever...>> I'm glad that people voiced their opinions on that if they thought it was rude/selfish etc. but I guess I think it got taken a little far. Sometimes letting things you think are rude/selfish etc, slide (especially if they aren't the main point of the post or whatever) even if only you let it slide til later when things are a little calmed down, is better than jumping on it, even nicely jumping on it out of curiosity or defense for the band. << but I'll be damned, friend or no friend, if they owe me anything before/during/after a show...>> And that brings us back to Gella's original thing...she said in another post that her feeling slighted by Jian added to her being upset that she was too obsessed with Fruvous. This seemed to get overlooked too. She recognizes that they don't owe her anything, and she understands it. But, if I'm interpreting this right, she is upset because she doesn't understand why she *feels* slighted when she *knows* and believes they don't owe her anything. But whatever. Sorry if I pissed you off. - -----------> Ln ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:44:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Lynne Subject: Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions (fwd) So does this make "MRB" a friend? or not? just kidding, just kidding.... -but couldn't resist - -lynne - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:21:19 -0700 From: MrB To: ammf@fruvous.com Newsgroups: alt.music.moxy-fruvous Subject: Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions (1)(Jian has told me he does, but I will not speak for the rest of them, only assume that they hear things from the NG via the grapevine) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 20:35:51 GMT From: Shilfiell Subject: Re: Mostly OT: Budgies In article <8m72od$5s9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Daancing Queen wrote: > > Melanie wrote: > > First let me say that I do NOT watch "Who Wants to Be a > > Millionaire." But I was flipping through channels the other day and > > the question before me on the screen was "What is a budgie?" > > The contestant was obsessing over the two remaining choices. I > > So let me clairify this - the person actually had to use a 50-50 on > this question? > > What has happened to the classic skill-testing game shows of old, > filled with whammies (NO whammies) and pitfalls (go Alex! Shhh CanCon). It gets worse: before she finally elected to use the 50/50, Katie (the contestant) was clearly leaning towards the A answer, "Love Seat." Imagine THAT Früvous logo. That was only the $4,000 question. They DID get harder. - -kimberly - -loyal game show watcher ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:46:01 -0400 From: "KatieWow" Subject: Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions Just one other thing . . . While the fact of whether or not Jian actually reads this thing anymore is up for debate (e.g., I've heard him say he never will again and then had him tell me that he read that I did/said/read something or went somewhere), it really shouldn't be a reason not to post something here. I'm sure that whether he reads or not, he wouldn't want any of us to feel as though we should censor ourselves for his eyes. That said, don't think that he won't call you on something he reads :). Anyway, I feel the age-old "Can I call them my friends?!" debate coming on. And certainly, they're friendly to us. Also certainly, some of them have real friendships with some fans. It's kind of arbitrary really . . . but I don't know that I am in a position to put a label on someone else's relationship with any band member. I do think, however, that information on personal discourse with the band is better left off of this particular forum, but, again, I can't really say what someone should or should not do. The band members put themselves in a precarious position by treating their fans the way that they do. It's not necessarily contingent upon either side of the equation to cross any specific lines. There's a strange balance, I think. I've had lengthy conversations with various band members about lots of different things; certainly some of those conversations are not unlike ones I frequently have with old friends or teachers. It's a tough distinction, I think; but mostly, I think the mass of us needs to be very diplomatic and respectful when it comes to this particular part of our lives - if it's something some of us care about deeply . . . and it certainly seems to be. I can't really relate to either side of this argument because I don't know that I fall firmly in line with either opinion, but I think careful consideration and exercise of good judgement are really the keys to a successful decision. - --Kate, feeling mock-profound :) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 16:37:30 -0400 From: MJ Subject: Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions "A.J. LoCicero" wrote: > Oh let's cut the PC crap for once. I'm sick and tired of everyone going > on and on about how "they deserve their own live" etc. Face it, the > music biz is a kind of prostitution. They've sold themselves for fame, > and so it is only logical that we the consuming masses want to collect. > They owe it to us to schedule plenty of time after shows to have long > discussions with each of us about hockey, or music, or whatever boring > subject may be on our minds. They should be more careful to ensure that > EVERY SINGLE FAN gets at least one hug per show. I'm going to end up repeating everybody, but I felt that I just had to share my $.02: I'm kinda split on this whole issue. Not to sound like a total materialistic @$$hole or anything, but I was sort of under the impression that not only is the after-show meet & greet fun for the fans and themselves, but they also do it because it probably works quite well as a mechanism in attracting new fans. So, I kinda do understand where our high expectations come from. Sure, other more mainstream bands don't do this kind of stuff, so why should we expect this much from Fruvous? Well, after spending $120-ish on them, maybe we should. But we (and the performers) don't; those are the facts. OTOH, I do see what everyone has been saying to Gella and Sally, and I think Ellen managed to put it best. At the risk of repeating everyone else, Gella and Sally, if you're still reading, I think that no one meant for you guys to take it personally; they just wanted to point out that as much as the guys probably enjoy interacting with their fans, you need to take it easy on whatever expectations you have for them. For example, wouldn't it be considered rude if you were deep in conversation with Person A, and Person B gets all upset just because you didn't pay attention to Person B immediately at that time and point? Maybe the situation was more complicated than that, but it certainly came across to at least me that way. And I'm going to be stepping on a lot of toes here, but Gella and Sally aren't the first ones who've reacted this way on the NG. Just pointing that out. And Gella, like you yourself said, maybe it *does* have to stop. Reassess the way you're reacting. Take a break from Fruvous, and come back in a year. Maybe any Fru-experiences then will be much more enjoyable for you. ~MJ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 16:37:45 -0400 From: MJ Subject: Re: Ghosts of Fruvous; obsessions "A.J. LoCicero" wrote: > Oh let's cut the PC crap for once. I'm sick and tired of everyone going > on and on about how "they deserve their own live" etc. Face it, the > music biz is a kind of prostitution. They've sold themselves for fame, > and so it is only logical that we the consuming masses want to collect. > They owe it to us to schedule plenty of time after shows to have long > discussions with each of us about hockey, or music, or whatever boring > subject may be on our minds. They should be more careful to ensure that > EVERY SINGLE FAN gets at least one hug per show. I'm going to end up repeating everybody, but I felt that I just had to share my $.02: I'm kinda split on this whole issue. Not to sound like a total materialistic @$$hole or anything, but I was sort of under the impression that not only is the after-show meet & greet fun for the fans and themselves, but they also do it because it probably works quite well as a mechanism in attracting new fans. So, I kinda do understand where our high expectations come from. Sure, other more mainstream bands don't do this kind of stuff, so why should we expect this much from Fruvous? Well, after spending $120-ish on them, maybe we should. But we (and the performers) don't; those are the facts. OTOH, I do see what everyone has been saying to Gella and Sally, and I think Ellen managed to put it best. At the risk of repeating everyone else, Gella and Sally, if you're still reading, I think that no one meant for you guys to take it personally; they just wanted to point out that as much as the guys probably enjoy interacting with their fans, you need to take it easy on whatever expectations you have for them. For example, wouldn't it be considered rude if you were deep in conversation with Person A, and Person B gets all upset just because you didn't pay attention to Person B immediately at that time and point? Maybe the situation was more complicated than that, but it certainly came across to at least me that way. And I'm going to be stepping on a lot of toes here, but Gella and Sally aren't the first ones who've reacted this way on the NG. Just pointing that out. And Gella, like you yourself said, maybe it *does* have to stop. Reassess the way you're reacting. Take a break from Fruvous, and come back in a year. Maybe any Fru-experiences then will be much more enjoyable for you. ~MJ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:57:33 -0500 From: Chad Maloney Subject: Re: Mostly OT: Budgies Pea wrote: > > > > human nature is such that at least the resistence to > >the free action is not caused by the free action itself. > > i was following you until here. i really wanted to start a big > flame war with you, Chad, but you totally went over my head here. If you'd just like to start a flame war, please skip down to the READ HERE mark. Otherwise, continue. The part that I didn't explain well is the libertarian view of things. I don't believe in it, but I'll try to explain it a bit. Please pound me if I'm confusing again. Sorry. More or less, define a "free action" as any action that is taken purely on it's own merit without any cause/effect correlation. The basic theory of fate (or determinism) is that all actions are a result of one or more cause/effect correlation and thus there are no free actions in the world. Nothing is done purely on it's own merit without any cause/effect correlation. Personally, I don't agree with that. It's not so cut and dry. I'm fine with the idea that all actions are a result of one or more cause/effect correlations. That's great. BUT I don't agree with the definition of "free action" I made up there (even though I made it). It's not on or off. You don't have to either be free or directly related. There are loads of tangents that can be taken. An action can be free, yet be part of a cause/effect. Then, I confused you I guess. I was trying to bring the libertarian view into this. They traditionally agree with my first defintion of "free action", but they don't believe that all actions are part of a cause/effect. They think that resisting the natural cause/effect is, in itself, a free action. These free actions are the sole result of the person who chooses them and thus that person is morally responsible for those actions. Traditional determinism holds the hard line and says that no actions are free actions and this there is no moral responsibility in the world. Something long ago started everything in motion and there is nothing that can be done to change it. Am I making more sense or just being even more confusing? You want to know the worst part about all this? It started by me misreading Melanie's post and thinking that someone on Who Wants to Be A Millionaire actually said something about Fruvous. That is the worst part. - Chad READ HERE for flames Sheesh, Ellen. How little mental bandwidth do you have to not follow my simple words? Was I using too many syllables for your small brain? I'd call you names, but I don't know if you'd understand them either, you idiot. Go back to listening watching TV or something less strenuating and stop bothering us with your blathering. Thanks. - Chad ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V4 #325 ********************************************