YTSEJAM Digest 5082 Today's Topics: 1) Audio stuff by "Al @ Switchcraft" 2) Ripping cds by mams.gajic@t-online.de (Alex Gajic) 3) Canadian Skies MP3 by "Rainer" 4) Planet X by Oddvar Lovaas 5) Male Sexual Secrets-New Book for Men -eclbd by @usrwip.flash.net 6) More on MP3's by "Al @ Switchcraft" 7) The illusive Highs by "Al @ Switchcraft" 8) The Beard at the Astoria by "Charlie_Farrell" 9) Again... More on MP3's by "Al @ Switchcraft" 10) completely off-topic D/A war by Daniel Bosen 11) Re: YTSEJAM digest 5081 by email_address_removed 12) CDa and MP3s--again by Steffen Barabasch 13) Planet X by Steffen Barabasch - The Mirror 14) Re: Again... More on MP3's by Andrew Coutermarsh 15) Re: YTSEJAM digest 5081 by email_address_removed 16) Dream Theater by Ken 17) Re: Dream Theater by Trent 18) Re: CDa and MP3s--again by "Edward Polzin" 19) Re: 44.1 KHz vs. 48 KHz by Andrew Coutermarsh 20) Gwar by Dale R Newberry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 04:03:35 -0500 From: "Al @ Switchcraft" To: retaehT maerD Subject: Audio stuff Message-ID: CyberDuke wrote: >True, very true! But later I wrote about the range OUR EARS picks, and >that actually this is what we care about. I don't care if a dog notice >slight deviation from the REAL original quality in my 256 kbps MP3! :) I Frequency response is not the only issue. The MP3 compression scheme removes other artifacts they assume you won't miss. Example: My _ame is Al. I h_ve a dog n_med Sp_t. S_ot lik_s to run in th_ str_et. Sure you can figure it out, just like your ears figure out the missing data. The doesn't change the FACT that data is still missing. I CAN hear this. The shimmer of a cymbal, to ME, sounds synthetic in MP3 format. >It is said that you Al have good equipment, why don't you try it and >tell us? I don't need to. I can hear the difference on the computer sound systems. My Teac CD ROMs audio playback clearly outguns any MP3 I've played. I have two machines, one with a SoundBlaster AWE 32 with the daughter card and 8 megs on RAM, and one with a SoundBlaster Live. The AWE 32 blows the Live away! The Live was a huge improvement over the AWE 64 it replaced. The 64 really is a joke. I have also plumbed cables from the computer to the stereo... I was not amused. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Blanchard posted this paste: >We've been in contact with Derek already and informed him of the conflict. >The available evidence indicates to us and our attorney that we have used Hey Derek! Get your wallet out. :) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Bissonnette wrote: >Interesting point, and thanks for not calling me a retard =). As a >guitarist I've tried different cables and found that there is a very >noticeable difference. As a home theater aficionado I've tried different >cables and found little to no difference (at least once you get beyond the >cheap ass throw-in cables). And in the home theater area I've read some >quite detailed tests of wire quality stating that it really doesn't make a >difference, including the infamous coat-hanger-wire test (which is what led >to my sarcastic wire thickness comment). Al, care to shed any light on the >great mystery of speaker cables? Sure... First of all, interconnect cables are FAR more important than speaker cables. But the gear has to be worthy of good cables before you can expect to really benefit from audiophile grade cables. You don't put $350.00 (ea.) racing tires on a Hyundai Excel. Speaker cables ARE important, but not nearly a critical as some would like you to believe. Some speakers, particularly planer magnetic or electrostatics, have a very low impedance to begin with; At crossover frequencies they can fall below 1 ohm. Many low impedance dynamic speakers can also dip close to that range. Those types of speakers demand a very low series resistance transmission line (cable) to behave correctly. A low series resistance cable has L A R G E conductors. 6 AWG to 12 AWG. The other important factor is series inductance, the lower the better. Bottom line: For most speakers, 12 AWG Monster Cable is fine as long as the cable length is reasonable. 15 feet or less. For 20 foot runs, I'd go for at least 10 AWG. How the cable is terminated is also important. Good quality ends that are clean, tight fitting and properly attached play a major role in the cable quality. A poor solder joint (or cheap solder) would be a contaminate to a good transmission line. For those of you on a tight budget, try using 12 AWG Romex. It's a shitload better that that cheap thin cable most people use to wire their speakers. If you chose to run the wire without ends, make sure the copper is clean and the connection is tight. ALL cables ends should be cleaned every six months. I doesn't hurt to apply an antioxidant to the connections either. FYI, Caig DeoxIT D5 is one of the best antioxidants on the market. /Al contemplates the merits of cleaning his monster cable. :) -- Al - The Ytse-ProGtologist ^ Switchcraft Microsystems ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When you live in the land of 10,000 lakes, it's nice to know that all men are created equal in cold water. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:13:37 +0200 From: mams.gajic@t-online.de (Alex Gajic) To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Ripping cds Message-ID: Talking about ripping cd-tracks, check this out I found in the web: "Use this alternate CDFS.VXD cd driver on Win9x to show Audio CD's as WAV files IN THE FILE SYSTEM! This replacement driver shows WAV files in a variety of qualities. It works on any CD drive that Windows can support. Then you can use your favorite MP3 Compressor program to read directly from the CD. Never heard a skip or pop, unlike CDCopy or others... Put it in your \Windows\System\IOSubSys directory, and reboot." You can download it from my website at: http://home.t-online.de/home/mams.gajic/cdfs.zip (39 KB) Just thought you might be interested Haschkeks * Every breath takes me one less to my last * PULL ME UNDER (Dream Theater) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 20:42:38 +1000 From: "Rainer" To: Subject: Canadian Skies MP3 Message-ID: <000b01bf0742$b10209c0$470f000a@rainerpa> Can anyone tell me the URL for the Under Canadian Skies Mp3 Site, it seems to have dissapeared of the official page before I had a chance to bookmark it. Does anyone know where I can find the O Holy Night MP3? Thanks. Cheers, Rainer ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:48:44 +0200 From: Oddvar Lovaas To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Planet X Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19990925124844.006f685c@online.no> > Since the name of the band is Derek Shirinian and the albums name is=20 >Planet X I dont think it will be a problem.=20 Well, Derek and some others (including Tony MacAlpine(!)) have evolved Planet X to a band, and they are currently writing material for a new= album... Now this could be interesting... to see what will happen... Btw, one of the guys from the first Planet X band mailed Derek saying, in a friendly tone, that the name was occipied. This was done long beore Derek released the record and played live... Well here's the answer they got from Derek: "leave it to the lawyers, good luck. derek" Go to http://planetxrocks.com/pxjournl.htm#May0599 for the full story:) >I think its the seventh song is actually a=20 >jam that Dream Theater did after Metropolis in the medley of OIAL with DS= in=20 >the band. that could make for a legal battle also I guess but I dont know= =20 >for sure. It certainly appear to have some similiarity:) =A8 < flail - Oddvar Lovaas - http://home.sol.no/~flail - ICQ: 3253879 > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:53:23 -0800 From: @usrwip.flash.net To: email_address_removed Subject: Male Sexual Secrets-New Book for Men -eclbd Message-ID: Now any man, regardless of age, can easily learn: * To be multi-orgasmic * To greatly increase the intensity of his orgasm * Triple the length of his orgasm * The secrets to penis enlargement * Discover the male G-spot * To greatly increase semen volume * The facts about Viagra, plus new drugs * To eliminate premature ejaculation * The secrets of getting his partner to want more sex * To eliminate impotence at any age * To have up to a three hour erection New, Easy to Read Book on Men's Sexual Secrets Male Sexual Secret's Written by Robert Winter and Jeff Rutgard, M.D. Most Men Only Get A Fraction of The Pleasure They Can ]From Sex-After Only A Few Pages You Can Easily Triple That Amount Of Pleasure. This is a fantastic new book covering so many little known and unknown sexual secret's you'll be amazed. If you don't learn something new in the first few pages that greatly increases your sex life we'll return your money. The total cost of this book is only $12.95 plus $3.95 shipping and handling. To order " Men's Secrets" Call 800-426-5921 24 hours a day or you can send your check or money order for $16.90 to Avatar Publishing 168 second Ave #PBM 285 New York, NY. 10003 This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph(a)(2)(c) of S.1618 To be removed from our e-mail list please call 888-248-2594 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 06:37:50 -0500 From: "Al @ Switchcraft" To: retaehT maerD Subject: More on MP3's Message-ID: The Cow God wrote: >ok, i'm sure you get great quality from those tape decks, and as an >audiophile i'm sure its a good purchase. but... winamp is free. and you >dont have to calibrate it to the mp3s. and you have random access. while Cheap and easy... Would you like a wife like that? The better things in life are worth working for. >we all now know that it is POSSIBLE to find a tape deck that sounds as >good as an mp3, its still not a practical alternative. moo. That depends on your usage. What if I want to record a radio program or something from a vinyl source that I wish to play somewhere other than the computer room? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Ptacek wrote: >Well, first of, I normally bow to your expertise in this aera, but >there's no way the Signal to noise ratio is correct. Other than your opinion, have you ANY credible data to back up this assertion? The Tascam 122 has a signal-to-noise ratio of 80 dB. I believe the Revox, and the Tandberg units are even better. >Every time you play a tape it demagnetizes, and looses a bit more sound quality. >There's no way I am aware of to avoid this, since recording magnetizes a tape, and >the playback heads are themselves, magnets. So every time you listen to your The PLAYBACK heads are magnets? Nonsense! Your opinion is, indeed, your opinion. But the physical composition of tape heads pays not the slightest heed to your or anyone else's opinion. Tape heads can BECOME magnetized if not properly maintained, that's why the owners manual suggests using a head demagnetizer on them periodically. Tape heads typically are a metal alloy with a helical wound pickup coil that reacts to magnetic media by reading the particles previously arranged by the record head and converting the magnetic information to electrical impulses. The record head is fed electrical impulses and converts that to magnetic impulses that rearrange the magnetic particles on the tape. The erase head is simply a mini electromagnet. This is a VERY elementary description, but adequate for our purposes. I assure you, the tape heads themselves are NOT magnets. >tape it gets muddier. Then, consider the fact that MP3s are copies of the >cd. Every time you copy a tape, the new one loses 6db of signal, which is >replaced with noise. The only way an MP3 will gain noise is if the ripping >process adds it, which it shouldn't, or if the encoder's codec is made to These are generalizations that really don't apply to this argument. Nobody in their right mind makes a copy of a copy, particularly with cassette tape. Cassettes, as well as any other magnetic media, do degrade with age and play. This is accelerated by improper storage and poor playback gear maintenance. Once this happens, you should re-record a new tape from the original source. If the original is no longer available, you're bummin'. Cassette is not a good choice for long-term storage, that's not to say that the media can't outperform MP3's sonically; They just can't maintain their original signal integrity for several decades. Just remember the original claims you made. If you want good long-term storage, use a GOOD A-to-D converter and burn them to a CD, or record to 1" tape and store the tape in a suitable tape vault. >not only remove frequencies, but to add noise too... which I doubt. Tape is >warmer, and it is constant, instead of sampled, but it will always run into You want to hear noise? Try this: Record a CD audio track to wav. Now convert it to MP3. Take the MP3 and convert it back to a wav. The convert the new wav back to MP3 and listen to it. You'll be surprised. >these problems, and CASSETTE tapes are always going to be massively inferior >to cd. This is an axiomatic statement that has NOTHING to do with the our original argument. That's OK Chris, I still love you. :) -- Al - The Ytse-ProGtologist ^ Switchcraft Microsystems ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When you live in the land of 10,000 lakes, it's nice to know that all men are created equal in cold water. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 06:55:29 -0500 From: "Al @ Switchcraft" To: retaehT maerD Subject: The illusive Highs Message-ID: Andy Putman wrote: >You may not actually hear it, but you do sense it on some level. It adds to >the 'feel' of the actual live instruments, though it's subtle enough that >many people don't notice it. Very well said. My aural sensory input ends at 15k, but when an ultrasonic filter is inserted in the signal path, I can detect it immediately even though the low end of the filters slope is supposedly above my hearing range. Who knows, maybe it's bone conduction. -- Al - The Ytse-ProGtologist ^ Switchcraft Microsystems ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When you live in the land of 10,000 lakes, it's nice to know that all men are created equal in cold water. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:06:06 +0100 From: "Charlie_Farrell" To: "Ytsejam list" Subject: The Beard at the Astoria Message-ID: <000e01bf074e$5a1a9bc0$4f8abc3e@farrell> Hi Ash, Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:50:11 +0200 ]From: "Ashley Wong (ETL)" To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" Subject: RE: Charlie's 40th >..heheh....Belated birthday greetings to you Charlie! Thanks >I'm not too far behind you, as I turned 30 (gulp!) on Monday. >So I'll be getting to bed early with my warm cup of Horlicks >and copy of Reader's Digest (large print). Its still better reading than Kerrang and metal Hammer these days. :-)) >See you at the Forum for Spock's Beard! Well I'll be at the Forum on Fri Oct 1st for Megadeth and then the Astoria II for Spocks Beard - be there early 'cos Saturday is the big Gay Disco night and the venue closes early. I have good reason to understand that we can expect the company of Mr Borland too - Whooah 3 UK jammers - we could have a convention - or at least a drink in a Pub? The George is the closest and you'll probably find me in there - wearing a black Vanden Plas longsleeve 'The God Thing' shirt. Charlie ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 07:17:45 -0500 From: "Al @ Switchcraft" To: retaehT maerD Subject: Again... More on MP3's Message-ID: Steffen Barabasch wrote: >Use a slightly higher bit rate, 160-192kbps usually are sufficient >for virtually original sounding MP3s. And, a LOT more important: Use >a better encoder. Anything with the original Fraunhofer encoder will >do. Damn slow, but SO much better. To all of you who think they can >still hear artifacts even at higher bitrates: Use another encoder, >and be enlightened ;-) As true as that is... That also GREATLY increases the file size. At what point do you quit, when the MP3 is a big as the original CDA file? Pass me the CD. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trent inquired: >With all this talk of mp3s, encoders and Al's comments >on why analog is best, I found myself wondering what Analog has the ability to truly capture the original event; Digital is simply an interpretation of that event that has to be converted to analog before it can be perceived as sound to the human ear. Unfortunately, most people have never heard quality analog. (Your daddy's cheap Pioneer turntable with it's pathetic little Audio Technica cartridge can't begin to explore the beauty of good analog playback.) Good analog does not come cheap. Most consumer grade CD players suffer from lousy D-to-A converters so you're not even getting anywhere near the best sound the digital domain has to offer. Consumers need to wise up and hold the gods of technology *choke* to higher standards. -- Al - The Ytse-ProGtologist ^ Switchcraft Microsystems ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When you live in the land of 10,000 lakes, it's nice to know that all men are created equal in cold water. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:29:26 +0200 From: Daniel Bosen To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: completely off-topic D/A war Message-ID: "Al @ Switchcraft" wrote: > Analog has the ability to truly capture the original event; > Digital is simply an interpretation of that event that has to be > converted to analog before it can be perceived as sound to the No Al, I do agree with your other opinions on this subject, but you can't say, a priori, that analog is a more truly caption. Whether it is analog, or digital doesn't matter, because both is an approximation of the real world. Its just a matter of the amount of knowledge, money and engineering you put into, to get the better interpretation. But I have to admit, that the digital field is kind of outdated (but still good enough for me). Daniel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:28:20 EDT From: email_address_removed To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 5081 Message-ID: Yea on that DS problem....you would think he would get Busted for using a part form ACOS in his new album but i think since he wrote that little Jingle and he still seems to be buddy buddy with MP, they wont do anything...well at least i hope not...Track 7 on planet X is one of my faves!!! Just my opinion... we will see what happens... Dust Ro ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:10:01 +0200 From: Steffen Barabasch To: Ytsejam Subject: CDa and MP3s--again Message-ID: >the mp3s sound pretty good. Lately I've been using >48,000 Hz, 16 bit, Stereo, 188 kb/s setting. I moved >that up from a slightly lower setting. The files Well, that's like resizing a 440 Pixel wide picture to 480 pixels. You'll lose lots of original information because of the interpolation etc. CDs are fixed to 44.1kHz, 16 bit, stereo, so you *lose* instead of *gain* quality if you rip and interpolate it to 48kHz. Except we're talking about DAT, that uses up to 48kHz. And about what Al said about this tape deck: If you like analog better than digital, well, I'm not going to further discuss this, it's a matter of taste, and it depends on what you want to achieve. But spending more than a few bucks for a lousy cassette recorder is like tuning a VW bug. Totally pointless. If you want a faster car, buy a faster car. If you want better sound than your average tape deck, use a different technology. Steffen -- Steffen Barabasch (mailto:email_address_removed) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:13:15 +0200 From: Steffen Barabasch - The Mirror To: Ytsejam Subject: Planet X Message-ID: > Since the name of the band is Derek Shirinian and the albums name is >Planet X I dont think it will be a problem. Speaking of Planet X I dont know Derek's band *is* called Planet X, just like his solo album. Steffen -- Steffen Barabasch (mailto:email_address_removed) THE MIRROR - German Dream Theater Fan Club (http://www.dtifc.com/themirror) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:56:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Coutermarsh To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Again... More on MP3's Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Al @ Switchcraft wrote: > Steffen Barabasch wrote: > >Use a slightly higher bit rate, 160-192kbps usually are sufficient > >for virtually original sounding MP3s. And, a LOT more important: Use > >a better encoder. Anything with the original Fraunhofer encoder will > >do. Damn slow, but SO much better. To all of you who think they can > >still hear artifacts even at higher bitrates: Use another encoder, > >and be enlightened ;-) > > As true as that is... That also GREATLY increases the file size. At > what point do you quit, when the MP3 is a big as the original CDA > file? Actually, encoding a file at 160Kbps only increases the file size by about 25%. In other words, where as a 128Kbps file will get about 1 meg per minute, a file at 160 will get about 1.25 megs per minute. To me, the file size is worth it (especially now that I've bought a larger hard drive), because the files are that much clearer. As a musician, I'd like to say that I have a very critical ear. And when I can afford it, I'm going to buy at least mid-fi gear so that I can show my ear what it's been missing. But at this point in my life, I don't have a problem with listening to MP3s - sure, sometimes I can hear some really crappy sound coming out of my speakers, but most of the time it just doesn't bother me. I'm sure that when I get higher-quality gear, it'll make a HUGE impact on what I hear coming from my computer into my stereo. Got a question for you, Al. If I were to make a copy of a CD (onto a CD-R), would it make a difference in sound? There are physical differences between the two (for example, audio cds are pressed, have no tracks, where as a CD-R has built in tracks for recorder purposes), and I was wondering if that could make a difference in sound quality. /me wonders how much high-end hearing loss occurred in his left ear last night when he went to that enormously loud rave... ------------------------------------------------- Andrew Coutermarsh email_address_removed http://cout.dhs.org/ Cloak on IRC ICQ: 2513441 ------------------------------------------------- The only stupid question is the one that is never asked, except maybe "Don't you think it's about time you audited my tax return?" or "But officer, isn't it morally wrong to give me a warning when, in fact, I was speeding?" ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:33:15 EDT From: email_address_removed To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 5081 Message-ID: On just a correction of my statement before on DS...I ment OALT not ACOS.. that DS plays his little part of song 7 of Planet X...also just want to add that of all the boots and different times i have seen DT, DS never played that part the same...the only time I have hever herd him play it the same as song 7 is when he did the 5YIALT video and CD...so I think it was all just improv...???never know??? later, DustRo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 02:30:59 GMT From: Ken To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Dream Theater Message-ID: Hello, Long time fan, first time writter. I would like to be added to any mailing lists that Dream Theater has. They are an inspiration to us all. The only band left that has the balls to play what THEY WANT to play. Not selling out; sticking to thier guns! A glimpse of Heaven? Perhaps! Thank you!!! Adesso che ho perso la vista, ci vedo meglio e di piu Ken "Tucson, Az" Owin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 20:00:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Trent To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: Dream Theater Message-ID: --- Ken wrote: > > Hello, > Long time fan, first time writter. I would > like to be added to any > mailing lists that Dream Theater has. They are an > inspiration to us all. > The only band left that has the balls to play what > THEY WANT to play. Not > selling out; sticking to thier guns! A glimpse of > Heaven? Perhaps! Thank > you!!! Direct your web browser to www.dreamtheater.net and check out the mailing list sections. There are (at least) two DT lists. There's The Mirror (which is devoted to discussing Dream Theater or derivatives thereof) or the Ytsejam (which is off topic from time to time, but has a strong DT permeation to it). Both are good and insightful, but beware-- most people are nice, but some are total dickheads. Most of 'em are gone now. Laterz. ===== *Trent "Life is like a nacho; if it gets to cheesy, it's your own fault." Me "There's a lot of people coming up to me and they say 'hey Eddie, remember me from high school?' Hey, man, I've smoked a lot of pot since then. I don't know who the fuck you are." Eddie Vedder, 11-2-93, San Diego __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 22:28:09 -0500 From: "Edward Polzin" To: Subject: Re: CDa and MP3s--again Message-ID: <006f01bf07cf$2852c140$d6b28ad1@boner> > Well, that's like resizing a 440 Pixel wide picture to 480 pixels. > You'll lose lots of original information because of the interpolation > etc. CDs are fixed to 44.1kHz, 16 bit, stereo, so you *lose* instead > of *gain* quality if you rip and interpolate it to 48kHz. Except > we're talking about DAT, that uses up to 48kHz. you dont lose any information when upsampling (44.1kHz to 48kHz). The extra samples are just filled with samples of nothing. you lost info when you downsample though. (44.1kHz to 22.05kHz). Half the samples are thrown out when you do that. later. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 01:45:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Coutermarsh To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 44.1 KHz vs. 48 KHz Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Edward Polzin wrote: > you dont lose any information when upsampling (44.1kHz to 48kHz). > The extra samples are just filled with samples of nothing. you lost > info when you downsample though. (44.1kHz to 22.05kHz). Half the > samples are thrown out when you do that. later. You may not lose any data when you rip wavs to 48 KHz, but as whomever it was said - what's the point? You don't lose any data when you rip to 44.1 KHz either. Why would you bother with the extra disk space when there isn't any added bonus to doing it? All he was saying was that it didn't make any difference whether one ripped to 44.1 KHz or 48. Myself, I'd rip to 44.1, just because it makes the file size smaller. We're talking about several megs' worth of space when you get into larger files. ------------------------------------------------- Andrew Coutermarsh email_address_removed http://cout.home.dhs.org/ Cloak on IRC ICQ: 2513441 ------------------------------------------------- FOR SALE: One parachute, used but unopened. One small stain. Going VERY cheap. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 02:10:02 -0500 From: Dale R Newberry To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Gwar Message-ID: Oh man, I can't believe this. MTV is actually playing a Gwar video :) Something about the all time rock hard videos from A-Z. Good thing I've got the VCR running :). Dale R> Newberry ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ End of YTSEJAM Digest 5082 **************************