HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL)
Subject: Re: Unbearable Lightness of Being (was Re: Q about _Gravity's_Rainbow_)
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:47:07 GMT

dstein@rhea.math.ucla.edu (David Stein) writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.125840.6446@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>,
>wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
> 
>|> I do not. Read my reply to the previous post.

>   Which was:

>----
>I meant that Kundera concerns himself with explicit meanings of words. This
>is automatically a kind of aloofness, since with any explicit definition, the
>meaning moves further away. Hence Kundera's "pencil sketch with no outline"
>motif.
>----

>   I'm afraid your use of the word "aloof" is, well, a bit too aloof. 

>   So stop being aloof and define "aloofness". 


I hinted at what I meant in a reply to the other David. You probably have
slow newsfeed.


> 
>|> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>|> >I'm not a native speaker of English, so I'm not sure what I wrote.
>|> >Flames will be ignored unless you post them in perfect Czech.
>|> >================================ - David (the metamathician) - ===
>|> 
>|> 
>|> Te, kurvo, odpierdol sie!

>   A valiant try, but a failure nonetheless.  Clearly, Polish is no 
>   substitute for the far more superior Czech.

Oh? Which Czech do you mean? Havel or Dubcek?


> 
>|> jw

> - David 

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>I'm not a native speaker of English, so I'm not sure what I wrote.
>Flames will be ignored unless you post them in perfect Polish.
>================================ - David (the metamathician) - ===

Skurrrr....
From: tmaddox@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Maddox)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: _Gravity's_Rainbow_
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:21:57 GMT
Organization: The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington

In article <1992Apr14.160026.3274@Cadence.COM> vince@cadence.com (Vince Gibboni) writes:
>    Nonetheless, Tom, I applaud your having managed an entire post without 
>    the word "fuck" in it. 
	Good principle.  Next time, put it into practice.


-- 
				Tom Maddox
			tmaddox@u.washington.edu
		"Writing is reading and reading is writing."
				A. S. Byatt
From: kji+@SPEECH1.CS.CMU.EDU (Kathi Iannamico)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re:Hist/disp on hol/whomever
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:57:42 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Originator: kji@SPEECH1.CS.CMU.EDU

To all to felt you neded to police my posts:

Since the self-absorbed little nerds came out of the woodwork on this,
(and I doubt any of you even read the original post), you can all do something
you probably didn't have the brains to think of in the first place:
don't read the posts.  Now there's a novel approach in avoiding ideas that
displease you.

And I don't want any more of you pitiless eggs sending me any more of your
offensive tripe through my email either.  You're missing one very important
point: I don't care what you post; I don't care who you are; I don't care
what you think of me or my ideas.

If you want to continue this, you can do it among yourselves, you gaggle
of pompous, self-deluding geeks.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: dstein@amalthea.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Subject: Re: Unbearable Lightness of Being (was Re: Q about _Gravity's_Rainbow_)
Reply-To: dstein@amalthea.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 20:31:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.170359.26792@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>,
wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr10.055132.19393@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>
|> wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
|> >[Ulysses] belongs to a class of art which remains aloof from the
|> >reader/audience. It's like Kundera's "Unbearable Lightness .." (only
|> >in this sense, of course - Ulysses is far more complex)
|> 
|> I must have missed something when I read _Unbearable Lightness..._,
|> then, since I felt none of the aloofness you mention.  In fact, the

   Kundera wrote the book in a very accessible manner, and did so on purpose, 
I think.  Perhaps by "aloofness" you mean certain unrealness of the characters
and situations, in the sense that they seemed coming more from the author's
manipulation of them then from real life. Kundera does this quite openly.
But unlike Ulysses, _Unbearable Lightness..._ is easy to read and allows you
to sink in as much or as little as you feel fit.  

    Which, I must note, does not mean it is a simple book -- in fact, I wonder
if Ulysses is that "far more complex" --  it is simple `locally', in the sense
that you can read any part of it without great effort or fundamental loss of
meaning.  But as a whole,  _Unbearable Lightness..._ is quite complex.

 - David
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not a native speaker of English, so I'm not sure what I wrote.
Flames will be ignored unless you post them in perfect Czech.
================================ - David (the metamathician) - ===
From: tmaddox@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Maddox)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: ENGLISH AS SHE IS SPOKE
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:59:44 GMT
Organization: The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington

In article <1992Apr17.140526.7311@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale) writes:
>They're freeways in Cleveland.  Not the Turnpike, which costs, but all the
>others. 

	I believe the original meaning of the "free" in freeways is 
"unimpeded," like the "thru" (ugh) in thruway, not "free" as in "costs
nothing."  However, the _American Heritage_ dictionary recognizes the
latter meaning as a legitimate number two.
-- 
				Tom Maddox
			tmaddox@u.washington.edu
		"Writing is reading and reading is writing."
				A. S. Byatt
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Gravity's Rainbow
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:40:32 GMT

In article <leroy.702884997@syzygy> leroy@socs.uts.edu.au (Leroy.) writes:
>weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>
>>I don't think it is representative.  It's his first truly political book,
>>which is part of its appeal.
>
>    Deifying the sixties is hardly politics.

Uh, "deifying the sixties" is the *opposite* of what Pynchon is doing in
VINELAND.




--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Anyone who has obeyed nature by transmitting a piece
mnemonic@eff.org | of gossip experiences the explosive relief that
(617) 864-0665   | accompanies the satisfying of a primary need."
EFF, Cambridge   |          --Primo Levi
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: dstein@rhea.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Subject: Re: Q about _Gravity's_Rainbow_
Reply-To: dstein@rhea.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 05:35:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.174800.19856@infonode.ingr.com>,
palmerc@palmerc@abulafia.b21.ingr.com (Christopher M. Palmer) writes:
|> In article <73066@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu
(Matthew P Wiener) writes:

|> I don't have a lot of respect for non-representational art *if* I
|> don't know that the artist is capable of representational art.

   Please send your SAT verbal score so I can evaluate your statement.

                                                           Thank you - David

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not a native speaker of English, so I'm not sure what I wrote.
Flames will be ignored unless you post them in perfect Czech.
================================ - David (the metamathician) - ===
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: New Scientists' summary
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 04:34:46 GMT

In article <1992Mar29.161201.23110@leland.Stanford.EDU> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
>
>It was, of course, not Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin but her daughter, Mary
>Wollstonecraft Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein.

The latter Mary was also a Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin before she married 
Shelley in 1816, I feel compelled to add.

I can't imagine why this bit of trivia sticks in my brain.


--Mike Godwin



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis
mnemonic@eff.org | qu'on a perdus."
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |          --Marcel Proust
From: tmaddox@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Maddox)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Gravity's Rainbow and Gaddis
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:58:43 GMT
Organization: The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington

In article <t#rjrdk.snow@netcom.com> snow@netcom.com (Tim Szeliga) writes:
>By the way, if you don't understand the ending of GR, compare it to the
>ending of "The Recognitions", the unacknowledged source for much of
>the style of GR . . .

	Virtually everything in Pynchon's fiction is "unacknowledged"--the only
exceptions I can think of being the preface to _Slow Learner_ and the letter he
wrote to a student in which he talked about his "discovery" of the Herero 
genocide in the New York Public Library.  However, the Gaddis-Pynchon 
influence is certainly acknowledged in the criticism.

	One question:  you want to claim Gaddis influenced Pynchon's style; I
don't see it (narrative structure, yes, use of allusions, other things that I
don't quite have a name for).  Can you support this assertion with anything
concrete?

	(For a weird and--it seems to me--clear example of Gaddis-influenced
style, see John Sladek's _Roderick_ books.  He even uses the Gaddis [and Joyce]
method of punctuating dialogue; in fact, his whole use of dialogue feels like
Gaddis's.) 
-- 
				Tom Maddox
			tmaddox@u.washington.edu
		"Writing is reading and reading is writing."
				A. S. Byatt
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: holocaust books
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:31:22 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <RHk2iB1w164w@jab.tucson.az.us> cr@jab.tucson.az.us (clint ruoho) writes:
> In my heart, I am neutral on this issue, and I would really like to read an 
> appropriately balanced view of the "holocaust" which takes Revisionst 
> theories into account.

One might as well ask for an appropriately balanced view of whether the
earth is round or flat, or whether Velikovsky's theories are correct.

Look, in soc.history there are regularly posted refutations to every
claim the revisionists make to "prove" the Holocaust never existed.  Go
read those if you want, as well as the revisionist claims made there.
(Since they're reposted regularly, you won't have to wait long.)

When some racist group claims that blacks and whites are really
different species, you don't see a lot of distinguished scientists
spending their time debating this.  Someone merely points out that
according to scientific definitions, these people are wrong, and then
drops it.  They, like the rest of us, have better things to do with
their time than waste it in long debates with people who wouldn't
recognize a proof if it jumped up and grabbed them by the kazonkas.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
					 -- Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Q about _Gravity's_Rainbow_
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:28:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.065419.2533@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:

>I received a packet of 25 postings -- all from Godwin -- this morning.
>Should i send the details off to the Guinness Book of Records?

I'd be taking credit when it wasn't due me. The problem was with the
system here. 

Even in my most manic phases, I rarely approach 25 postings in a day.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Anyone who has obeyed nature by transmitting a piece
mnemonic@eff.org | of gossip experiences the explosive relief that
(617) 864-0665   | accompanies the satisfying of a primary need."
EFF, Cambridge   |          --Primo Levi
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: hlaufman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Harry B Laufman)
Subject: Sexual Personae, Vol. 2 ?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:32:05 GMT

In the Preface to her wonderfully obnoxious book _Sexual Personae_
Camille Paglia writes "The second volume will show how movies, sports,
and rock music embody all the pagan themes of classical antiquity."

When is this second volume due?

Harrington hlaufman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: Emotional Responses (was Re: Why Do People Read Horror?)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 13:13:23 GMT




In a previous article, nadel@aero.org (M.H. Nadel) says:

>In article <1992Apr3.005803.3374@mdd.comm.mot.com> rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com
(Doug Rudoff) writes:

>>Do people really get frightened while reading?

>>How about other emotional responses to books?  Only one book has made
>>me cry, V.  Seth's _The Golden Gate_, and I think it was related the
>>emotional turmoil I was going through at the time.

>I remember _Black Beauty_ making me cry as a child.  And I wept and wept
>when I read S.E. Hinton's _The Outsiders_ in junior high.  More recently,
>sections of various books by Chaim Potok and Elie Wiesel have gotten a bit
>soggy.


 
For me, it's anything to do with time passing and old age or death
coming--like "John Anderson, My Jo" or "Ulysses" --the Tennyson one, that
ends "and though/ We are not now that strength which in old days/ Moved
earth and heaven, that which we are, we are--/ One equal temper of heroic
hearts,/ Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will/ To strive, to
seek, to find, and not to yield."  Poetry is mostly what gets me,
especially if I try to read it aloud.  "This is great; you have to hear
this," I say to some poor victim; then I choke up over it.  It's worse than
laughing when you're trying to tell a joke.

By the way, the "Ulysses" quote can be especially poignant to Trekkies.


A thought: Some genres are defined by subject matter and some by effect on
the reader.  Science fiction, for example, can be horrifying, romantic,
intellectually interesting--whatever.  It's defined by what it's about, not
by emotional effect.  Same, I believe, for fantasy, mystery, Westerns,
historical fiction.

But horror, suspense, porn, and tear-jerkers are defined by the effect they
have on the reader.  If it doesn't scare or nauseate you, make you tense,
arouse you sexually, or make you weepy, it's failed its mission. 

Which is where I think people go wrong in discussing genres.  If you can't
stand horror or suspense (as I can't), you aren't saying anything about the
quality of the genre, just about what vicarious experiences you enjoy. 
It's like not having a taste for mustard; there's no point in going
around saying, "Eeeuuw--you eat that stuff?" to people who like it.  But we
do anyway.


Bonita Kale


Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: Novelist seeks 1645-1660 England info
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 10:55:23 GMT




In a previous article, bobdev@hprpcd.rose.hp.com (Bob Devereaux) says:

>
>I'm contemplating a novel set in 17th century England, specifically
>during the Cromwellian decade or a portion thereof.  I'd appreciate
>any leads as to good non-fictional accounts of that time and/or
>convincing novels set in that same period.  General histories are
>good, though mostly I'm looking for books that can provide the look
>and feel of the time, details I can judiciously lift and rearrange
>to help create a convincing background for my story.


There's a book which may be out of print called _The Connoisseur's Complete
Period Guides_, edited by Ralph Edwards and L.G.G.  Ramsey.  Copyright The
Connoisseur, 1956, 1957, 1958.  First published in one volume, 1968.  It
has a section on the Stuart period, with articles on such things as
Domestic Metalwork, Silver, Bookbinding, and Textiles.  It's pretty good
for the -things- that make up a world. 


Bonita Kale
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Asimov's nonfiction
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:09:42 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <1992Apr13.204156.7761@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> seiler@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ed Seiler) writes:
>In article <122183@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
>> "Words on the Map" -- I'm a geography book, and this is probably my
>>      favorite book on the subject.

>Sorry to hear that. Boy, Project Gutenberg must be making some terrific
>advances lately! ;-)

Of course, that was a typo.  I meant to say I'm a geography buff!

>> "Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare"

>Together with "Asimov's Guide To The Bible", a fascinating pair of books
>that, instead of analyzing or interpreting these works of literature, the
>way 99% of the books on these subjects seem to do, instead give the background,
>historical or otherwise, so that they may be better understood and perhaps
>appreciated.

That's exactly what I love about his guide to Shakespeare.  I have his
guide to the Bible too, but it doesn't interest me quite as much.

>> "In Joy Still Felt", the first volume of his autobiography.

>Actually, the second volume, the first being "In Memory Yet Green." Asimov
>promised the the third volume would be published posthumously.

Is that really true?  I hadn't heard that.  Asimov had said that Janet
kept pestering him to write it.  In fact, apparently Janet wanted him to
continue his autobiography on a yearly basis, so that when he died it
would only be a year or so out of date!  I have no idea if he did anything
of the kind.

You're right about my mixup in the titles.

>Finally, let's not forget his humor books. Several limerick books, plus "The
>Sensuous Dirty Old Man", "Isaac Asimov's Treasury of Humor", and the just
>published "Asimov Laughs Again", a follow-up to Treasury of Humor.

Ah yes, I have both his Treasury of Humor, and Laughs Again.  I thought
the Treasury was funnier.  However, what I found interesting about Laughs
Again is that it goes into much more detail in some aspects of his life
than even his autobiography did!  The autobiography hardly describes
the problems with his first marriage at all, and when they divorce no
real reason is given.  In Asimov Laughs Again he describes much more what
a bad marriage it turned out to be.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov
From: vance@speech.sri.com (Vance Maverick)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Q about _Gravity's_Rainbow_
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:14:38 GMT
	<1992Apr9.174800.19856@infonode.ingr.com>
	<1992Apr9.142342.16989@hemlock.cray.com>
	<1992Apr10.195958.25042@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Speech recognition group, SRI
In-reply-to: msmorris@watsci.waterloo.edu's message of 10 Apr 92 19:59:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.195958.25042@watserv1.waterloo.edu> msmorris@watsci.waterloo.edu (Mike Morris) writes:

   In Dubliners I
   get a strong sense of the sterility of lives within a modern mass society,
   lives seem to be small and contained to me. There is a thematic content
   to Dubliners that I can carry away from it.

How do you know this is the content?  Isn't it rather the form which
contains all that exquisitely controlled narrative prose?  Why
privilege the "theme", and this one way of extracting it?

   My trouble is that I never have gotten past the
   impression that Joyce isn't artistically ``playing'' or ``dancing''
   with these themes the same way he dances with his words.

Well, if there's nothing better he could have done with his words, why
is there anything better he could have done with his themes?

	Vance
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,soc.history,soc.culture.jewish
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Hitler's Religion (was re: Instant Yuppies)
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
 <1992Apr13.191030.11055@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Apr14.233539.12913@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:56:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.233539.12913@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
[wrt Cramer's use of Shirer and Speer as his sources]
>>Love your bibliography.  Like I said, a book report.

>What's the complaint?  Clayton didn't have to look far to find evidence 
>that Naziism and Christianity were inconsistent practically as well as 
>theoretically, but he thought it worth while to tell us where he looked. 
>Why should that give you a problem?

Because of WHERE he looked.  Speer wrote a fairly self-serving memoir
after being released from prison; and Shirer's 30-year-old book was not
as well-researched (as I have demonstrated in other postings) as one
used to think.  It was a journalist's historical account.  Since then,
vast amounts of literature has demonstrated that far more of the
religious establishment collaborated with Hitler, and encouraged its
flock to do the same, than Shirer lets on.  One tiny example: the last
German pastoral letter, written in 1936, which encouraged the bombing of
Spain.

Hitler played both sides of the street.  Yes, one had to deny
Catholicism to join the party, but joining the party wasn't for
everyone.  For the rest, religion had to be co-opted, and the appalling
part of the story is the ease with which the co-optation occurred.
Christian religion MADE itself compatible with Nazism, to a great
extent.  Yes, there were dissidents and protesters, but they were the
minority; the majority of Christian organizations -- and themajority of
Christians -- fairly rushed toward "Gleichschaltung" and participation
in the regime.

But to learn about this, one must look farther than Shirer, say, to one
of the many books on this very subject that ahve been written since
then.

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: fischer@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (W. T. Fischer)
Subject: Re: Robert Parker
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:18:52 GMT


To find out about Robert B. Parker's, or anyones, before they are published,
look up two magazines, _Booklist_ or _Publisher's Weekly_.  These contain all
kinds of prepuplication reviews.  They are designed partly for libraries to
order books.

Bill Fischer
Internet: fischer@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
--
This is a .signature file.
From: spb0457@zeus.tamu.edu (SubGenius)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Burgess' _99 Novels_
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:24:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


Since, after my oblique reference to Anthony Burgess' essay _99 Novels_, I've
receive quite a number of requests for further information.  Instead of
replying to them indivdually, I'll just post a general response here.

A couple years back, Burgess wrote and had published a book containing
a brief (1 < page length < 2) synopsis and critiqui of 99 novels 
published between 1939 and 1984 that he judged to be the best produced
in that time period.

While it is a somewhat slender volume, it is still considerably more than
I'd be willing to hunt-and-peck into electronic text.  And then there's
the copyright (remember those?) considerations.  However, I believe I can
lay hands on a copy of the list (sans commentary), and if I do I'll post it.

Note:  Several (~25 or 30) of the books are currently out of print in the
U.S., and several of the novels that he lists as one are actually several
books (ummm... _A Dance To The Music of Time_, _The London Novels_, and
_Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight_ spring to mind.  Sort of an _A La Recher
Du Temps Perdu_ type thing--a half dozen [give or take] volumes, each
with separate titles, gathered together under one title).





-SubGenius