Gary Numan Digest Thu, 20 Jan 2000 Volume 2 : Issue 5 Today's Topics: Billy and Trent Bootlegs Date Problem Do you remember............ Dramatis Gary Numan, some assembly required Hating his music? laser printer toner csrtridges Living Ornaments North American Gary Numan Fan Club Show me the ****ing censorship Thank you Phil Videos ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:11:26 -0500 From: Matthew Roberts Subject: Billy and Trent To: Gary Numan The following news item appears in the 22/1/00 edition of Kerrang!, tagge= d onto the end of a story about how difficult The Smashing Pumpkins' lead singer is: "Corgan may find solace in the prospect of working on electro-icon Gary Numan's new album. Kerrang! understands that Corgan and Numan will be meeting up when the Pumpkins hit London, to discuss Corgan's role in the process. Nine Inch Nails mastermind Trent Reznor also plans to contribute= to the album - as does Fear Factory producer/collaborator Rhys Fulber." This is fantastic news in terms of the Numan publicity machine, even if y= ou aren't a Pumpkins/NIN/FF fan. "Cars" by Fear Factory was also voted 3rd best single of 1999 in the Readers Poll. A quick note about the article on 'Remote Viewing' in Alien. Anyone who h= as this ability should go to http://www.randi.org/ where they will receive USD1million. It's a genuine offer by an organisation that is so offended by this sort = of paranormal nonsense, it's willing to stake a million bucks on it. But that shouldn't put off a genuine psychic like YOU!!! Matthew Roberts ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 11:12:36 -0500 From: Matthew Roberts Subject: Bootlegs To: Gary Numan JAD gave Jim Napier a hard time in the last Digest. Maybe fair, maybe not= It prompted a memory of when I was young(er) and naive and I ordered some= audio tapes that purported to be remixes of Berserker and The Fury. They,= of course, turned out to be no more than bootlegged copies of the extende= d versions of those albums. Call me stupid, but I do like to give people th= e benefit of the doubt - once again I was disappointed. I think all buyers of Numan stuff should bear this in mind - be ABSOLUTEL= Y certain what you are getting. If the seller isn't clear about what they a= re selling (or won't be), it's PROBABLY not worth buying. And remember, unle= ss you are a mathematician or sound/video engineer, quality is a subjective thing. A seller's "good" quality is likely to be your "disappointing". That's all. Matthew Roberts ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 08:17:00 +0000 From: vickers@netcomuk.co.uk Subject: Date Problem To: Gary Numan My computer reckons that all the Volume 1 Digests were sent on 01/01/70. The Y2K problem was not invented as a scare, but the computer industry managed to rid itself of most of the bugs before the NUmillennium. Paddy Vickers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:47:36 +0000 (GMT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Gary=20Perkins?= Subject: Do you remember............ To: Gary Numan Digest I patiently await the next Numan incarnation, with a new album described by the man himself as =91..nasty, spiteful, aggressive=85=85with no poetry in its heart=92, choc full of cheery ditties about child killers etc.=20 Meanwhile, my mind drifts back to a more innocent and friendly time, when I seem to recall that Numan wrote a song for Marti Caine. Yes, the Marti Caine. Now American readers are unlikely to know of Marti, so let me just confirm that I do NOT mean Micheal Caine.=20 Marti Caine might be compared to, say, Bette Midler.=20 This may give some idea of the magnitude of this claim. Anyway, as I recall it, Numan was appearing on the evening show on Radio 1 (clearly this was some time ago), perhaps with Andy Peebles although like most of this tale I can=92t really remember. It would have been around the time of the release of the =91I Assassin=92 album in 1982. Numan said that he had written the =911930s Rust=92 for Marti Caine. At the time I thought =91do what?=92. Looking back I am speechless. I know of the link with Leo Sayer, and I quite approve of that (being an old git as I am), but Marti Caine? I never heard this referred to again. Either by Numan or Marti Caine. I assume that Numan was told to keep his =91trap=92 shut by his advisors at Beggars. I don=92t know if Marti ever performed the song, or even discussed it with =91our man=92. I can imagine the punters choking on their scampi and chips as she announced =91=85and here is a new one written for me by Gary Numan=92. As the lady has now passed away we may never know - I can=92t see Numan admitting to it.=20 Goodness only knows what NIN, Fear Factory and the rest would make of it. Mind you, I guess these boys would be too young to remember anyway. Well. Can anyone shed any light on this? Please tell me this wasn=92t a dream (nightmare). Gary P ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:41:30 EST From: SteelHanky@aol.com Subject: Dramatis To: digest@garynumanfan.nu Hi Folks: I just picked up the Dramatis "For Future Reference" LP. My copy includes "Human Sacrifice", following "2025" on side 1. My old cassette copy does not have this track, hence, this is the first time I've ever heard this song (save for the snippet on the flip side of "No One Lives Forever"). 1. Does the LP have two different tracklists? 2. If so, is one variation significantly harder to find than the other? Thankew, JAD... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:34:12 -0600 From: Valerie Iglar-Mobley Subject: Gary Numan, some assembly required To: The Gary Digest Dear numanoids, I should've mentioned, the compilation on 21st Circuitry records is called 'Newer Wave.' You know how the US edition of 'Exile' had a live "Down In The Park" tacked on as a coda? And the 'Dawn' version of 'Sacrifice' was described as being inspired by her character? My wife, Val, suggested they should have tacked on a live track they could have honestly said was inspired by her: "Everyday I Die" I don't know if the download tracks CDnow has listed can be used in their build-your-own-cd department, but Tower Records' site has what looks like the entire catalog of Gary tunes on Beggars Banquet listed on THEIR custom-cd pages, again at about a buck a pop. I've been tempted to use it to compile some 'Rubatos Restored' discs of Gary's original recordings of the songs Terre Thaemlitz performed piano renditions of, just to give as companions to the people I gave that tribute disc to this past Solstice. http://www.towerrecords.com http://www.customdisc.com love to all, and let us know what kind of Gary discs you'd put together, Benjamin Iglar-Mobley http://home.earthlink.net/~iglarmobley (proud member of the Boys Like Us) * * * "You know, guys, I get the feeling we're not really cut out to do train songs, after all. I really think that, being who we are in space and all, we're a lot better suited to singing about being... IN CARS!" --Joel and the bots ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:21:56 -0600 From: hartlaub@falcon.tamucc.edu Subject: Hating his music? To: digest@garynumanfan.nu First things first: In my opinion, the more machmen, the better. Secondly, Matthew Roberts recently wrote: >>I still don't know how it is >>possible to adore Replicas and hate Machine And Soul. An interesting question. I'd like to go one step further. In my opinion there is way too much musical categorizing, if you will, in the music scene today and among music fans. More and more people say, "I like everying but __(insert any type of music here)___". I think that is terribly limiting and frankly kind of dumb. For example, I'm not a fan of Neil Diamond, but I'm not going to say that EVERY song he every wrote and recorded is crap. I agree with Mr. Roberts as I would never say I HATE anything that Gary has done. That is not "out of respect" for him, but because I like his music. I think "Strange Charm" is one of his weakest albums, but there's still songs I like on it ("Strange Charm", "My Breathing", and yes, I'm afraid, even "New Thing From London Town"). The weaker songs I would rate as "okay", but never "crap" or "garbage." I remember someone on AFE writing "'Absolution' is absolute crap." While I agree it's not one of the stronger tracks on "Exile", I think it's still a good song. Never in a million years would I say it's crap. I'll keep it short; I think I've made my point. [Is there a prize for most quotations marks used?] Happy (*really happy*) listening. -Mark "We're dreams in cold storage" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 18:48:24 From: bmark1@atlantaoffice.com Subject: laser printer toner csrtridges To: (null) BENCHMARK SUPPLY 7540 BRIDGEGATE COURT ATLANTA GA 30350 ***LASER PRINTER TONER CARTRIDGES*** ***FAX AND COPIER TONER*** WE ACCEPT GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL & UNIVERSITY PURCHASE ORDERS JUST LEAVE YOUR PO # WITH CORRECT BILLING & SHIPPING ADDRESS CHECK OUT OUR NEW CARTRIDGE PRICES : APPLE LASER WRITER PRO 600 OR 16/600 $69 LASER WRITER SELECT 300,310.360 $69 LASER WRITER 300, 320 $54 LASER WRITER LS,NT,2NTX,2F,2G & 2SC $54 LASER WRITER 12/640 $79 HEWLETT PACKARD LASERJET SERIES 2,3 & 3D (95A) $49 LASERJET SERIES 2P AND 3P (75A) $54 LASERJET SERIES 3SI AND 4SI (91A) $75 LASERJET SERIES 4L AND 4P $49 LASERJET SERIES 4, 4M, 5, 5M, 4+ (98A) $59 LASERJET SERIES 4000 HIGH YIELD (27X) $99 LASERJET SERIES 4V $95 LASERJET SERIES 5SI , 8000 $95 LASERJET SERIES 5L AND 6L $49 LASERJET SERIES 5P, 5MP, 6P, 6MP $59 LASERJET SERIES 5000 (29A) $135 LASERJET SERIES 1100 (92A) $49 LASERJET SERIES 2100 (96A) $89 LASERJET SERIES 8100 (82X) $145 HP LASERFAX LASERFAX 500, 700, FX1, $59 LASERFAX 5000, 7000, FX2, $59 LASERFAX FX3 $69 LASERFAX FX4 $79 LEXMARK OPTRA 4019, 4029 HIGH YIELD $135 OPTRA R, 4039, 4049 HIGH YIELD $135 OPTRA S 4059 HIGH YIELD $135 OPTRA E $59 OPTRA N $115 EPSON EPL-7000, 8000 $105 EPL-1000, 1500 $105 CANON LBP-430 $49 LBP-460, 465 $59 LBP-8 II $54 LBP-LX $54 LBP-MX $95 LBP-AX $49 LBP-EX $59 LBP-SX $49 LBP-BX $95 LBP-PX $49 LBP-WX $95 LBP-VX $59 CANON FAX L700 THRU L790 FX1 $59 CANONFAX L5000 L70000 FX2 $59 CANON COPIERS PC 20, 25 ETC.... $89 PC 3, 6RE, 7, 11 (A30) $69 PC 320 THRU 780 (E40) $89 NEC SERIES 2 LASER MODEL 90,95 $105 PLEASE NOTE: 1) ALL OUR CARTRIDGES ARE GENUINE OEM CARTRIDGES. 2) WE DO NOT SEND OUT CATALOGS OR PRICE LISTS 3) WE DO NOT FAX QUOTES OR PRICE LISTS. 4) WE DO NOT SELL TO RESELLERS OR BUY FROM DISTRIBUTERS 5) WE DO NOT CARRY: BROTHER-MINOLTA-KYOSERA-PANASONIC PRODUCTS 6) WE DO NOT CARRY: XEROX-FUJITSU-OKIDATA OR SHARP PRODUCTS 7) WE DO NOT CARRY ANY COLOR PRINTER SUPPLIES 8) WE DO NOT CARRY DESKJET/INKJET OR BUBBLEJET SUPPLIES 9) WE DO NOT BUY FROM OR SELL TO RECYCLERS OR REMANUFACTURERS ****OUR ORDER LINE IS 770-399-0953 **** ****OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE LINE IS 800-586-0540**** ****OUR E-MAIL REMOVAL AND COMPLAINT LINE IS 888-494-8597**** ****PLACE YOUR ORDER AS FOLLOWS**** : BY PHONE 770-399-0953 BY FAX: 770-698-9700 BY MAIL: BENCHMARK PRINT SUPPLY 7540 BRIDGEGATE COURT , ATLANTA GA 30350 MAKE SURE YOU INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN YOUR ORDER: 1) YOUR PHONE NUMBER 2) COMPANY NAME 3) SHIPPING ADDRESS 4) YOUR NAME 5) ITEMS NEEDED WITH QUANTITIES 6) METHOD OF PAYMENT. (COD OR CREDIT CARD) 7) CREDIT CARD NUMBER WITH EXPIRATION DATE 1) WE SHIP UPS GROUND. ADD $4.5 FOR SHIPPING AND HANDLING. 2) COD CHECK ORDERS ADD $3.5 TO YOUR SHIPPING COST. 2) WE ACCEPT ALL MAJOR CREDIT CARD OR "COD" ORDERS. 3) OUR STANDARD MERCHANDISE REFUND POLICY IS NET 30 DAYS 4) OUR STANDARD MERCHANDISE REPLCAMENT POLICY IS NET 90 DAYS. NOTE NUMBER (1): PLEASE DO NOT CALL OUR ORDER LINE TO REMOVE YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS OR COMPLAIN. OUR ORDER LINE IS NOT SETUP TO FORWARD YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS REMOVAL REQUESTS OR PROCESS YOUR COMPLAINTS..IT WOULD BE A WASTED PHONE CALL.YOUR ADDRESS WOULD NOT BE REMOVED AND YOUR COMPLAINTS WOULD NOT BE HANDLED.PLEASE CALL OUR TOLL FREE E-MAIL REMOVAL AND COMPLAINT LINE TO DO THAT. NOTE NUMBER (2): OUR E-MAIL RETURN ADDRESS IS NOT SETUP TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE REGARDING OUR PRODUCTS. OUR E-MAIL RETURN ADDRESS IS ALSO NOT SETUP TO TAKE ANY ORDERS AT THIS TIME. PLEASE CALL THE ORDER LINE TO PLACE YOUR ORDER OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ANSWERED. OTHERWISE PLEASE CALL OUR CUSTOMER SERCICE LINE. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:03:18 -0000 From: thoutby@fusiongroup.co.uk (Tim Houtby) Subject: Living Ornaments To: "'Numan Digest'" Hello all, I chanced upon & managed to buy up a few Living Ornaments 79 & 80 vinyl box sets last week from some dark corner. I wondered if any of you would be interested in purchasing one ?? To be honest a couple of the boxes are in poor condition, but the record sleeves and the discs are absolutely mint, and unplayed. I'm not sure as to the value of these things now, but if anyone wants to make an offer for one, please feel free to mail me direct at: thoutby@fusiongroup.co.uk Cheers Tim. ________________________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by the Star Screening System http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 06:02:44 -0500 From: "Polare Bear" Subject: North American Gary Numan Fan Club To: "Gary Numan Digest" >This cheesy and quite UNentertaining drivel sure brings back memories of the >equally cheesy North American Fan Club newsletter. << I will grant the >following: I may still be bitter over ordering and never receiving a number >of Numan videos Napier claimed to have sent and re-sent me (his replies of "I >guess there's a Numanoid at the Fort Bragg post office who wanted those tapes >just a little bit more than you!" got old REAL fast) >A freaking copy of a copy of a copy of those old Numan >tv appearances a lot of us have, copied once more and auctioned off to the >public. Somehow, I find this so much different than offering identical >copies to his old newsletter subscribers for $10, maybe $15, or selling his >"Noise Noise" cassettes for $5. I am tolerant of selling these tapes to >Numanoids at a reasonable price to cover expenses, but putting one on Ebay is >clearly a moneymaking venture. Those Numan clips aren't yours to sell, >Napier. What on EARTH was your motivation to do this? Well I promised myself I would never take part in one of these on the digest in a public forum. First off, WOW I never knew that was you! How have you been? All this time I've been reading your posts oblivious that it was you. I do remember that video fiasco. Other NAGNFC members received their videos no problem. And I do remember sending an apologetic letter, something to the effect of "Please know I'm not that kind of person", after which I received no reply. And I remember they were in trade for your excellent Beatles video. You even wrote JDFC on the label in tandem with my writing NAGNFC on labels. Ahh, but then it all fell apart. I really did send two videos to you. Who knows what happened? All I can do is offer apology in either cash, or the video (to another address this time please!). Honestly, the main reason for the eBay auction was to make contacts with others who don't have my video, and moreover, to get chummy with folks who have video I don't have. The response was immense. I will gladly provide their e-mail addresses to you at your request. Please allow me to respect their privacy and ask them first before publishing their e-mail addresses here. I'm sorry to have caused ill will, but if you consider a person who gives away live Numan audiotapes every month for 11 years a scam artist whose only intent is to rip off people, then I'll be happy to itemize my budget from the fanzine days (I even kept receipts!) to prove not only did I continue to operate at a loss (in the spirit of Gary's lavish tours), but hopefully to prove that I was never in the fanzine business to 'get rich quick', or even turn a profit, which it never did and now never will as websites are free to look at. Which reminds me, why would a scam artist suddenly post the popular paper monthly issues for free online as I have done now for months? And then please tell me why I would totally foot the bill for lavish US NAGNFC Numan discos once a year from 1990-1995 with several pizzas, an electronic band, stage lighting and a place to hold it without charging a dime to the Numanoids who came from coast to coast to attend? And did you know that for the entire duration of the Fanzine, no other Fanzine of any description was cheaper to subscribe to for 12 issues? Also, despite getting 300 hits a month on the present NAGNFC Website, you'll notice the rare absence of commercial banners so I can make a quick buck off of Numanoids who click on unslightly ads. That is never what the Club was about. My biggest regret is that you have missed the whole point actually. The mishandling and overlooking of memberships is my fault. Once a year, I get wind of an old friend who is rather pissed that they were never refunded the difference of their membership after the Club Fanzines ceased operation. I'm not going to be petty and itemize the vast time and commitment that goes into venturing solo on such a project (it was purely a labor of love, and is to this day), but once again, please mail your address , and I will mail you your refund quickly. It rather puts one in mind of Gary being slagged off and branded a capitalist with caricatures of money bulging out of his pockets, when in fact, you know what he made on his tours. He just couldn't get it across to some people that it's just supposed to be for the fun of it. In addition to the admittedly awful humor, my hope is that folks who subscribed to the paper fanzine enjoyed the monthly updated news (otherwise unavailable to North Americans - the Official Numan Club wasn't international then like the NAGNFC), also the exclusive one month old tour pictures, the illustrated discographies, the trivia contests, free classified placements and a chance to communicate with Numanoids in a much different kind of open forum that didn't involve a mouse. My apologies for publishing this crap, but I am very proud of the accomplishment and the service my, no, OUR NAGNFC has provided for 11 years. I had no choice but to respond. Jim "The Machman" Napier NAGNFC http://themachman.garynumanfan.nu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 08:57:53 -0700 From: "Joey Lindstrom" Subject: Show me the ****ing censorship To: "Gary Numan" A note to all subscribers: the following message is a reply to Ben Mobley in regards to his assertion that the Digest should have no limits whatsoever in terms of message content and his characterization of Derek Langsford as a control freak. My reply, while citing a few slightly Numan-related references, is (as was Ben's) pretty much off-topic. I apologize for this, but after due consideration decided to post it anyways - this is a topic that has come up before and is at the heart of many long-running threads here on the Digest. I hope to put the matter to rest, but I won't bet the farm on it. :-) Anyways, skip past it if the whole thing bores you. On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 01:00:05 MST, Ben Mobley wrote: >Uh, judges, I'm going to need a ruling on this one... > >> Bzzzzzt WRONG! > >Oh, I'm so sorry, thank you for playing. The judges were obviously on the take, as Derek's analogy is bang on. Ben, there have been these things called "newsgroups", "mailing lists", "echomail", "groupmail", and other similar things for a couple of decades now (perhaps longer), and this argument has come up again and again. And the long and the short of it is that the argument is always settled, sometimes after long debate, sometimes not, as follows: whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether it sounds draconian or not, the simple fact of the matter is that, while you have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to free speech HERE. (In point of fact, your right to free speech only guarantees that the government won't put you in jail for saying things they don't want you to say - it does not protect you from the court of public opinion or in the private sector.) In fact, you have no rights here whatsoever. And it's an argument you can never win, any more than the sun will turn pink just because you think it'd be so much cooler that way, because it's not a matter of opinion we're discussing. It's a matter of fact. What you do have here are PRIVILEGES. There's a difference. Derek Langsford administers the Digest. Dave Datta handles the software. I handle the hardware. Without the three of us, there is no Digest, and we retain the right to moderate it at our own discretion (although we jointly hand over that responsibility to Derek). In point of fact, without the MEMBERS of this mailing list, it would be rather pointless to go to the effort. Thus the right balance of moderation has to be struck. Personally, I would prefer to see all posts vetted by a moderator prior to publication - it would cut down on the noise. But I defer to Derek's judgment, even though personally I disagree with it (a bit), because if we ran it the way I'd like to see it run, we'd probably have fewer people posting. I'd bet, though, that we'd have more regular readers, and fewer people canceling their subscriptions because they're tired of the bullshit (including, I regret to say, some that I've injected here). People come here to read about, and discuss, Gary Numan and related subjects. Derek allows a *VERY* broad interpretation of what is "related", broader than I'd probably allow... so it's a good thing Derek's in charge, heh heh! But in point of fact, the Digest is as "free" as it is because Derek has chosen to make it that way. And God bless him for it. If he operated it the way you have depicted, there would be nobody here. >Where your analogy breaks down is in the fact that no one can monopolize >the Digest. There isn't just one microphone. No matter how long any >one person yammers on, anyone else is still free to post whatever else >they wish to. Those text-salad image-file attachments amply proved that >point; they were absolutely huge, but the rest of the Digest came >through nonetheless, they weren't squeezed out. > >No one even HAS to read anyone else's post. Anyone can skip over a post >by just doing a search for the next "subject:" (barring that phrase >being interjected into a post, like this). I've done this myself to get >past those pesky image files. The software used to produce the Digest is old and cantankerous - we're using it mainly because it isn't costing us anything. But it's also extensible, and we're considering options to filter out things like attachments, MIME and HTML encoding, and the pinheads that quote back the entire Digest with their replies. That'll take time (mainly because I have almost-zero experience with Perl). And the reason we're doing this is because it pisses people off when that crap comes through with the Digest. Oh, and just in case it's not clear... it also pisses them off when off-topic messages come through. I never thought I'd see the day a stalwart fan like Riana Pfefferkorn would bail out of the Digest, but bail she did, for exactly this reason. >So, since it's not out of consideration for size constraints, nor to >save subscribers from messages they can't avoid, the ONLY reason to >censor messages is... just to control the speech. Just for fun. Just >to flex muscle. To get rid of whatever input you personally would like >to do without. > >Well, how nice for you. Show me an example of Derek exercising the power that he has (and that he MUST have). There are very, very few such examples. So stop painting him as a control freak, because that is the last thing Derek should ever be accused of. >> But any post about the validity of Christianity, homosexual morality >> or any off-topic subject is the initial act of alienation. > >That is just so wrong. Diversity is not alienation, it's exactly the >opposite; it's inclusion. Censorship is alienation! (That comment of >yours is so Orwellian it rates right up there beside the classics, like >"war is peace" or "freedom is slavery.") Are you refusing to get the point here, or just unable to? ANY off-topic post, regardless of the content of the post itself, is the initial act of alienation. Derek merely picked two recent examples. And if you'd care to continue this little thread in email, answer me this: why is it that so many people who preach that they value "diversity" seem to have a paranoid fear of Christians and anyone even one millimeter right of center, and that it's ok to refer to these people as "evil" with impunity? I've got a WONDERFUL little essay on this topic I'll send you (or anyone else) if you're at all interested... >> While dissent is fine with me, a democracy this is not. > >Well now, isn't that an interesting statement. I hope everyone read >that comment, and understands what is being said. > >"Ultimately, this isn't OUR Digest. It's mine." Absolutely, 100% correct. Well, "ours" actually. :-) It's a fact. We have, however, chosen to allow it to operate in a nearly-independent fashion. But it is owned and operated by the three of us jointly, and I'll be damned if I'll allow anyone, you or anybody else, to tell me that they have the *RIGHT* to do what *THEY* want with *MY* hardware. You are our GUEST using our system. You are a welcome guest, despite my recently-lowered opinion of you, but a guest nonetheless. I'm sorry this wasn't clear to you when you first signed on - it was clear to (most) everybody else. A good example of it not being a democracy is this: when the news came that the CS.UWP.EDU machine, formerly the home of the Digest, was going to the great Bit Bucket In The Sky, Derek asked for opinions as to the best course of action. This solicitation resulted in a large number of suggestions. Derek gathered them all together, discussed things with Dave, and then MADE A DECISION. Do you remember being asked for your vote on the decision? No, you don't, because he never asked you for your vote. He made the call, wrote a cheque, and the ball was set in motion. Derek is Captain Picard... he listens to opinions, then makes HIS call. And that's exactly how it should be, but evidently you disagree. It costs me $1800 (Canadian) per year to pay for the internet feed to the Gary Numan Fan Server network, which includes six Numan websites, twelve non-Numan websites, and the Digest (which is produced on its own machine). Some of that $1800 is recouped from the member websites and from my room-mate, who uses the feed for his personal web surfing, but about $1000 of that is ponied up by yours truly. This pricetag doesn't include the cost of electricity to power everything, nor the price of equipment (now up to four servers, plus battery-backups etc.), nor the cost of our labour in keeping it operating (and believe me, we don't come cheap). I got a nice bargain on the 486 machine that produces the Digest: it cost me only $150, of which $80 was later kicked in by Derek (thanks again, Derek!!!). So... tell me again about your "rights" here on the Digest... I need a good chuckle. Do we "own" the Digest? Well, my Visa bill tells me that, yeah, we do. What does your Visa bill say? Do you think we're the government, and that you're entitled to a Gary Numan Digest? Answer me this: if you surfed over to Rob's AFE bulletin board system, and began posting messages about what a prick Tony Blair is and how he should be assassinated forthwith, and Rob decided to punt your ass off the board and lock you out, would you be screaming about how unfair Rob was being, that he *DARED* operate the UBB as if he (gasp!) *OWNED* it? Well, guess what? He does. And he can do with it as he pleases. Just like we can, with the Digest. It pleases us to operate it without censorship in 99.99999% of all cases (which is how the members of the Digest, mostly, want it to be), but the final choice lies with us, not you. >Of course, I think we all know why the Digest has censors. What is it >they're afraid we might say? Why has Gary stopped linking to some >sites, claiming he was doing so "because they were offering MP3 files >for downloading"? Name one such site, please. (open mouth, insert foot) I do recall Gary placing a threat to unlink such sites, but don't recall him ever actually following through. >Let's bring it out in the open! The real reason they're afraid to keep >this forum free is because of the danger that we might expose the truth, >which is that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX >XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX >XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX bootleg recording of Gary's >unreleased demos of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX >XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX >XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX >XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX the "machmen" co-conspiring to XXXXXXXXXXXXX >XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX >XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX >XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX finally get to be heard. > >There. Now, it's been said. Derek and Dave, you don't have to worry >about censorship, anymore; the dirty little secret you've been hiding is >out of the bag, at last. You can relax your vigilant watch over what we >post. Again, there have been *EXTREMELY* few instances of censorship, and in those cases (if I recall correctly), it was invoked only to prune a thread of conversation that was VERY badly off-topic and had gone on for a long time and wasn't stopping despite repeated requests by the moderator to take it to email. Your pathetic attempt at comedy in the preceding paragraphs tries to paint Derek Langsford (and, by extension, Dave and myself) as a paranoid control freak, and you owe him an apology for it because he is nothing of the sort and you cannot cite any example to prove otherwise. But I don't expect that apology to be forthcoming. In society, we need to balance things between personal liberty and the need for order - the latter to prevent our rights from being trampled upon by others, caught up on the zeal of exercising that liberty (otherwise summed up as "the rights of your fist end where the rights of my nose begin"). With this Digest, Derek Langsford puts the balance *HEAVILY* in the direction of personal liberty, yet retains the absolute last-resort right to exercise the ability to restore ORDER, should the need ever arise. But there are some people in this world who do not believe in any limits at all, and you appear to be one of them. I can't imagine living in a world without a cop on the beat, without courts to administer punishment to those who beat me and rob me, without a FRAMEWORK in which to live our lives. Well, actually, I CAN imagine it... usually only in my nightmares, of course. The fact remains: somebody does own the Digest, and that's what all of this really boils down to. It didn't get here on its own, it doesn't continue operations on its own. And Derek will maintain his right to exercise his control over the Digest (even though he does so very infrequently) for the same reasons that you don't remove the locks from your doors and allow any bum off the street to crash on your couch any time he feels like it. It's not a democracy, nor is anybody forcing you to follow the few rules Derek lays down. You can always start your own mailing list, which is exactly what happened with Usenet when the anarchists rebelled at the notion of moderated newsgroups. The result is a torrent of spam that never, ever ceases (an estimated 30% of newsgroup traffic consists of CANCEL requests sent out by self-appointed newsgroup monitors, in an effort to kill the spam). Is this what you really want here? / From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom / Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU / Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU / / "The hunter and the hunted are not well defined." / --Everything I Need To Know I Learned From Babylon 5 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:10:17 -0500 From: "Michael J. Damrath" Subject: Thank you Phil To: Gary Numan > > Terrific - my first mail to the new Digest includes a load of > html...sorry everyone. I updated my email program and for some > reason it turned off the "send as plain text" tick box I had > previously...didn't last time I installed an update, so it didn't occur it > might have this time...anyway, very sorry to all; hopefully this > message is code free. And I don't even use Outlook.... Let's all thank Phil Marsh for, in his own subtle way, finally giving everyone the lesson they desperately needed on how to send plain-text email messages! Maybe now the annoying: crap can end! It was a great plan Phil, I only wish I had thought of it first! -- Mike Damrath Technical Projects Manager/Webmaster Riddick Corporate Marketing, Inc. Tel: (804)780-0006 Fax: (804)788-4571 email addresses: damrat@earthlink.net webmaster@riddickinc.com miked@carrottopdesigns.com http://home.earthlink.net/~damrat ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 2000 15:48:06 -0000 From: "Poppitt Gary" (MLGB/CSC/CS170) Subject: Videos To: "digest@garynumanfan.nu" Hi All, I know this is probably running over old ground, but I've missed some diges= ts over the past couple of months for one reason or another, and I was wond= ering if anybody has any videos of Gary at all that they could sell to me??= For some reason I seem to have lost mine during a house move and can't fi= nd any replacements anywhere=21=21=21 If you could e-mail me personally I'= d be very, very grateful. Cheers Pops. gary.poppitt=40merck-ltd.co.uk ------------------------------ End of Gary Numan Digest ****************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------- T H E G A R Y N U M A N D I G E S T is produced and distributed by Derek Langsford, Dave Datta, and Joey Lindstrom dlangs@sunstroke.sdsu.edu, datta@cs.uwp.edu, Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU ------------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to the messages in this list, email: digest@GaryNumanFan.NU If you want to be removed, or someone wants to be added, email: digest-request@GaryNumanFan.NU ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Gary Numan Digest is brought to you via Joey Lindstrom and the GaryNUmanFan server Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU All of the opinions in this digest belong to the respective authors and do not necessarily agree with those of the Digest Producers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Produced and distributed by Derek Langsford dlangs@sunstroke.sdsu.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to the messages in this list, mail to: digest@garynumanfan.nu If you want to be removed, or someone wants to be added, you can mail to digest-request@garynumanfan.nu --------------------------------------------------------------------------