zines as art
Pingu
myself? Through circumstances I'm still trying to figure out, my simple
scrap is going to at an art gallery. Not just to sell, but my co-editor
and I are getting an entire gallery room of our own to do as we wish for a
month. How'd that happen?! Actually this post is not for me to toot my own
horn. I'm just curious on how other people view 'zines as art. There's an
entire history of mail art that could be brought up for discussion but
I'll leave that to those more knowledgable than myself.
Eric Skilling
http://welcome.to/squidmail/
Ninjalicious
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of zines as art. Calling a zine art,
or referring to the process of making a zine as 'work' (in the
artistic sense), strikes me as being pretentious.
I think some people use the term art far too freely, feeling some
strange need to call every positive creative effort art. Of course, I
don't like to hear books referred to as art either, so maybe I simply
have a more narrow definition than most.
I remember one time after a zine show I was walking home with a friend
of mine and a friend of his. His friend had just picked up a tiny arty
booklet filled with odd ink stamps and no words for a mere $8 (!). She
was extremely happy with this purchase, and exclaimed to the two of
us, "It's so cool to think that I own the only one of these in the
world." I thought it was pretty dopey that her joy would be
diminished if other people were enjoying the stamps too.
Jeff (aka Ninj)
http://www.infiltration.org
The Inner Swine
treat a certain medium as "art" (and when I put art in quotes I men to
imply a pretentious, self-important feel) then there you have it,
Eurotrash people will pay ridiculous amounts of money for it and people
wearing all black will gather in underground clubs to discuss it.
You can't always define what your stuff is. Sometimes people look the
zine over and proclaim it something you've never, ever, in your whole
life thought about. Once someone called TIS a "Lit Zine" just because it
had a short story and some poems in it -I cried for days. You lose
control of your creations the moment you release them to the world, and
from there it's all you can do to hang on.
Do I think zines are "art"? No, probably not, but I share Ninj's narrow
definition. But if someone wanted to hang my zines in a gallery I'd go
out and buy a black Armani and enjoy the hell out of it, baby.
Love
Jeff
tenthi...@yahoo.com
> Vincent Voelz <nos...@winternet.com> wrote:
> Zines are definitely art, and a unique kind of art (otherwise, why
> else are we writing/reading them
I would never consider my zine art. I consider it a forum for ideas,
music, art, photography, and more. Sure their is art within my zine, I
usually get an artist to do a cool cover and get a friend to do couple
comics. There is also usually some great photography, but these are art
within the zine, more the zine is the gallery to show off a bunch of
people's stuff.
> I'm curious as to how you're going to present your zine in a gallery--
>will
> the exhibit be concentrating on the zine as an *art object* in and of
itself
> (which aesthetically it often is), or presenting the words therein?
> Or the synthesis of the two?
I should mention we had a Zine Art convention here in Seattle a few
years ago (I sat next to Seth F5 when he was selling his F5 Reader
actually). The focus was on the art of zines, so various zines and zine
artists had art that was featured in zines up on the walls, and then
the zines they were featured in were on tables in front of the art
work. I got back a bunch of the original cover art illustrations from
people who had done covers for me and hung it and then had a table full
of zines. It was a different take on the regular old zine convention
and kinda cool. We had a zine burning, a collabrative zine, bands,
beer, videos, art in progress on the wall, and did a fair amount of
trading and selling. It worked out reasonably well. -dan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
tenthi...@yahoo.com
Ninjalicious
>Zines are definitely art, and a unique kind of art (otherwise, why
>:)
I read this twice in case I missed something, but this argument makes
absolutely no sense to me. Are you saying that there is no point in
creating or experiencing anything unless it is art? And are you
further saying that zines that are not artistic are merely
newsletters? 'Cuz that's crazy talk.
Jeff (aka Ninj)
http://www.infiltration.org
P.S. Can you please not post HTML codes in your messages? It makes
them very hard to read with my newsreader.
Agnes DeLappe
wrote:
>
>I'm uncomfortable with the idea of zines as art. Calling a zine art,
>or referring to the process of making a zine as 'work' (in the
>artistic sense), strikes me as being pretentious.
>
>I think some people use the term art far too freely, feeling some
>strange need to call every positive creative effort art. Of course, I
>don't like to hear books referred to as art either, so maybe I simply
>have a more narrow definition than most.
I think the opposite, too many people use the term art too
pretentiously, as if only Great Minds can create or understand art.
Real art comes from real people making something that they think says
something. You don't think Infiltration is art??? You have something
to say, and you say it beautifully, in writing and pictures and what
could be more art? Zines are definitely art, more than some snooty
six-million-dollar sculpture that looks like dog poop.
>
Eric Skilling
I think it's sort of wierd. They asked us. We just said "yeah okay. sounds
good to us" Anyhow, the official plan of action is for us to move our
"Headquarters" to the gallery for a month. This means making ourselves
literally at home. We want to sort of model the "room" after an Ikea
showroom. You know, the ones with the fake electronic equipment made of
molded plastic. We'll have signs for everything. We're making some huge
demands like extending gallery hours and getting expensive equipment.
Halfway through the month we're going on a road trip and we'll be
broadcasting back to the gallery room via computer our progress and
articles we may have written on a daily basis. If all goes according to
plan we'll have "Chat with Joel and Eric" at scheduled times.One of our
ideas is to be present at the gallery as little as possible.Also, In the
room we'll have an instructional video on how to write for Squidmail. All
tongue in cheek of course. We'll be encouraging the zine to write itself
during our absense. We'll be sending back our articles from afar for
anyone to have their way with (layout and what not and if even half of
them are given to us we'll be lucky. Personally, I don't think they have
any idea what they're in for or us even for that matter. I seems ambitious
but completely do-able. I guess they'll see in about three weeks time if
we can pull this off or if they'll let us do it the way we want it done.
As far as the idea of zines as art is concerned that can still be
debated. I survived art school so a lot of the rhetoric is still present
and willing to blathered at the drop of a hat.
Wuv,
Eric
Eric Skilling
(Ninjalicious) wrote:
>Vincent Voelz <nos...@winternet.com> wrote:
>>Zines are definitely art, and a unique kind of art (otherwise, why
>>else are we writing/reading them? This ain't alt.newsletters, eh?
>>:)
>
>I read this twice in case I missed something, but this argument makes
>absolutely no sense to me. Are you saying that there is no point in
>creating or experiencing anything unless it is art? And are you
>further saying that zines that are not artistic are merely
>newsletters? 'Cuz that's crazy talk.
I sort of agree, Jeff. Perhaps it's the jaded art student in me. But I
think the definition of art has become too muddied to the point where
we're not asking ourselves "what is art?" but rather "what isn't art?'
Well that's post-modernism for you (opens can of worms)
wuv,
Eric
http://welcome.to/squidmail/
Eric Skilling
>Real art comes from real people making something that they think says
>something. You don't think Infiltration is art??? You have something
>to say, and you say it beautifully, in writing and pictures and what
>could be more art? Zines are definitely art, more than some snooty
>six-million-dollar sculpture that looks like dog poop.
>>
Hey I made that sculpture :)
wuv,
eric
http://welcome.to/squidmail/
dbpedlar
>
> I think "art" is more a state of mind than anything else.
Writers often string words together to form a picture/an image in
the reader's mind. What one reader may see is different
than another reader although they both read the same piece.
Once upon a post in the recent past, Asha painted a humorous
word picture. She took a little color description from each
writer, mixed them together and presented us with:
Monsters of Zineland: The Tour
Most who read it formed a picture of the scene in their mind,
some of us may have collaborated with Asha and added more than what
she wrote. Asha made us laugh while she presented a vivid picture with
words.
When Ninj takes us with him into a building, is it just a place
with walls? Or does he paint a word picture for us to have a
sense of the texture of the walls, is the place cold, damp, dry, hot?
Do we look forward to see what is around the next corner, what's
behind the door, etc.?
Har, M'Ladies and M'Lords is the writing in yer zine an art form?
Is yer zine a form of art?
> If people
> treat a certain medium as "art" (and when I put art in quotes I mean to
> imply a pretentious, self-important feel) then there you have it,
> Eurotrash people will pay ridiculous amounts of money for it and people
> wearing all black will gather in underground clubs to discuss it.
I enjoy watching "art" people, from a safe distance.
>
> You can't always define what your stuff is. Sometimes people look the
> zine over and proclaim it something you've never, ever, in your whole
> life thought about. Once someone called TIS a "Lit Zine" just because it
> had a short story and some poems in it -I cried for days. You lose
> control of your creations the moment you release them to the world, and
> from there it's all you can do to hang on.
Most poetry (not all) is enough to make anyone cry.
>
> Do I think zines are "art"? No, probably not, but I share Ninj's narrow
> definition. But if someone wanted to hang my zines in a gallery I'd go
> out and buy a black Armani and enjoy the hell out of it, baby.
>
> Love
> Jeff
Whew, for a minute you as the Emperor had me worried. We must not
forget Ninj is walking, crawling, squeezing through dark, narrow
places so he can be excused for offering narrower definitions.
I am undecided if zines are art, but in agreement with you, I
think most zines are probably not "art".
I can positively say I like some of the art in zines though.
DB
the skunks are off getting fitted for those funny round hats,
purchasing fake goatees, cigarette holders,and their own
monogram wine glasses and cheese forks with case to take with
them to the gallery, if they are invited.
creepy
wrote:
>Well that's post-modernism for you (opens can of worms)
Try post-talent.
_____________________________________________________________________________
"I frequently missplell in my posts."-- T.Luster, alt.horror
cre...@att.net
THE URL MIRSKY'S WORST OF THE WEB DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE!!!
PSYCHOPATHIA UBER ALLES
http://home.att.net/~psychopathia
"This is pretty disturbing... I don't know if I would be encouraging the
author."-Mirsky
ANOROTICA NERVOSA
http://home.att.net/~creepy
icq# 7435218
_____________________________________________________________________________
Kevin Clow
> or referring to the process of making a zine as 'work' (in the
> artistic sense), strikes me as being pretentious.
why pretentious? okay, so someone uses a typewriter, some clip art, and a
whole lotta glue, and puts together a little piece of the zine world,
someone's gonna say it's crap, not art. but how is that any less valid than
someone sitting in their garage strumming on a guitar? both have a
potential to be something better, and be elevated to some level of art.
both also have a potential to be perverted and commercialized.
> I think some people use the term art far too freely, feeling some
> strange need to call every positive creative effort art. Of course, I
> don't like to hear books referred to as art either, so maybe I simply
> have a more narrow definition than most.
maybe. the more you narrow your definition of "art" the more you run the
risk of being an elitist snob who dismisses anything you dislike as
"invalid".
> I remember one time after a zine show I was walking home with a friend
> of mine and a friend of his. His friend had just picked up a tiny arty
> booklet filled with odd ink stamps and no words for a mere $8 (!). She
> was extremely happy with this purchase, and exclaimed to the two of
> us, "It's so cool to think that I own the only one of these in the
> world." I thought it was pretty dopey that her joy would be
> diminished if other people were enjoying the stamps too.
well, this analogy might seem a little outlandish, but would you not perhaps
treasure a Picasso painting a little less if you knew that he painted 2,000
copies just like it? true, this little booklet was probably not worthy of
being compared to Picasso's work (or maybe it is, who's to say?), but there
is a certain appeal to one-of-a-kind items.
Stacey Case
There was an art show in Toronto two years ago, I think, at A Space. It
showcased a collection of female zinemakers. There were original pages
from their zines hung up on the walls. Was it 'art'? In the context of
the show, I'd say yes.
Was it good?
That's open to debate.
This is all that is important to me. Is it good, or not? But my
definition of 'good' is not bound by any known laws of physics or reason,
so I'm probably going to graciously bow out of this discussion.
Have fun with the show, though. It sounds good.
stace.
Yojimbo
serious.
If I was to put on a zine art show, I'd throw covers and pages or blow-ups
of either in frames around the room, then have a middle area of benches
with all sorts of actual zines to look at and read. I'm sure it would blow
the occasional mind and introduce people to zines.
Stacey Case <stace...@mailcity.com> wrote in article
<37614E0C...@mailcity.com>...
Jason Adams
<37610664...@news.interlog.com>...
| nos...@nospam.com (Pingu) wrote:
| I'm uncomfortable with the idea of zines as art. Calling a zine art,
| or referring to the process of making a zine as 'work' (in the
| artistic sense), strikes me as being pretentious.
I'd say that zines have artistic value, but using the term "art" to
describe zines is no Jeffersons-style movin'-on-up scenario. The idea of
zines as 'art' is much more limiting, elitist, and weak than they actually
are. Art's a small cage to stuff our fucked up friend (no, not asha --
zines) into. Zines is more like folk culture than art, where the
participants build on and adapt the work of others into a unique vision,
giving it to others to do the same (or throw it away, if it sucks I mean).
I better stop now before I descend into Jeff Potter lunacy.
------------------------------------jason
Try this: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2458
JP
[]
> describe zines is no Jeffersons-style movin'-on-up scenario. The idea of
> zines as 'art' is much more limiting, elitist, and weak than they actually
> are. Art's a small cage to stuff our fucked up friend (no, not asha --
> zines) into. Zines is more like folk culture than art, where the
> participants build on and adapt the work of others into a unique vision,
> giving it to others to do the same (or throw it away, if it sucks I mean).
> I better stop now before I descend into Jeff Potter lunacy.
HEY! :) What's this prejudice against art? Screw the *artists* of whatever
era you like for whatever REASON you have, but ART? Leave it be. It's everyone's.
It's a big tent. (Getting back onto my usual track: folk culture is more 'art' than
the marketing schemes of today's image hustlers, so you're not wrong there.
But that ain't ART's fault! By gar!)
--
Jeff Potter jp@glpbooksDELETETHIS!.com delete 'DELETETHIS!' to reply
***"Out Your Backdoor": Friendly Magazine of DIY Adventure and Culture
http://www.glpbooks.com/oyb ... with a full line of books, bookstore & forum
Jason Adams
<7jse99$e1f$4...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
| HEY! :) What's this prejudice against art? Screw the *artists* of
whatever
| era you like for whatever REASON you have, but ART? Leave it be. It's
everyone's.
| It's a big tent. (Getting back onto my usual track: folk culture is more
'art' than
| the marketing schemes of today's image hustlers, so you're not wrong
there.
| But that ain't ART's fault! By gar!)
As a term, art lacks definition, and you run into stuff like this, where
two guys are saying the same thing in different terms. I was talking about
Art with a capital A, the commodity, the Sound Investment. "Safely entombed
in these museums where they can no longer really affect people's everyday
life, zines may now have Artistic Value", said the Ted Koppel of my
nightmares (who is exactly like the Ted Koppel of real life).
I have no problem with scams, however. Andy Warhol's career was a big scam,
for instance, as was Marcel Duchamp. They weren't very folksy (even in
pomo, ziney terms), but they both revolutionized their environments.
------------------------------------jason (talked about art, and somehow
feels dirty)
Try this: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2458
JP
[]
> As a term, art lacks definition[]
It would be fun to work on a definition; it's probably not that undoable.
I heard a recent one that seemed kind of cool. It divided art into objective
and subjective.
Obj is where what you do produces a known, planned effect
on an audience, viewer, listener, no matter what their previous state; that
the effect is unnatural (with x,y,z together a should happen but instead
b happens due to the intervention of the artist); that the effect contains
definite information which can be used for the improvement of life by one
who can find it and is ready.
Subj is someone expressing themselves for their own reasons.
Any effect is possible and not in their control or interest.
Artifact is an object resulting from a culture. Is artisan same as artist?
Artifice. Funny how these words seem easier to work with than 'art'.
Does art have anything to do with truth? Reflection? (Reflecting a culture
truthfully to itself, so it can see itself. Ruses might be required.)
[]
> I have no problem with scams, however. Andy Warhol's career was a big scam,
> for instance, as was Marcel Duchamp. They weren't very folksy (even in
> pomo, ziney terms), but they both revolutionized their environments.
Are 'changers' artists? But anyway, I'd say that type of scam qualifies as art.
But also I don't care if it's big or little 'a' art, the authorities don't have it
either way in my book. Neither Andy nor Marcel probably got permission
from anyone or followed anyone's advice on 'positioning'. Their imitation
was strategic, but their own. Imitation is a big part of art. What is art?
JP
Is a concert announcement art? An ad? A report on a news item?
These things can be artfully designed or accomplished, but I think
that to the extent they relate some functional info maybe they're not art.
It's a continuum, a sliding scale of more or less art.
Now, you might say in that case that a painting of a flower isn't art either
because the flower isn't art. But it's what the artist is doing with the
flower that makes it art.
If he's giving instruction on the care and watering of the flower, that
instruction might be artful but the painting would then be simply
an illustration for an article on gardening. To that extent not art
but simply info.
If he's using the image of the flower to move us in an inner way,
to change our souls, then that's art.
(And it can be either in a pre-planned, known-response way, making
it objective art. You say that sounds more like 'science,' well, it is
the highest science. Science didn't used to be separate from art.
The painting can also be a report on his own experience, which
we might or might not then sympathize with and possibly grow thereby,
making it subjective art. PS: Objective art tends to be done in more
permanent media, meant to last across civilizations, like stone.
Sphinx, Stone'enge, etc.)
JP
How do the muses and amusement relate to art?
FitchDonS
Maybe it would help if we tried (preferably successfully) to
break this down into at least three categories:
Graphics as a form of Art
Artifacts as a form of Art
Written-word communication as a form of Art.
Then, after figuring out what the creator was (probably) trying
to do, we could ask, "is it done successfully?", and maybe even
"is it worth doing?".
I've seen many zines that fit predominantly into one or another
of those categories, but only a very few that manage to combine
all of them.
My own orientation is to prize, above all else, the
communication of ideas (and, perhaps to a lesser extent,
emotions) through written words... and to wonder whether the
upper-case initial in "Art" should be used or implied in this
context, if only because I think it requires a higher level of
communication-beyond-the-obvious than I've seen in any but a
very few zines (or, for that matter, Art Museums). There is,
IMHO, nothing wrong with the clever and cute aspects of some
zines, but I'm not so sure about the pretentiousness of calling
them "art", even in the lower-case.
Even Communication of ideas as an art is sometimes suspect --
one can't help but think about Hermione and her Little Group of
Serious Thinkers... or at least, those of us who think we've
outgrown that stage can't help thinking of it.
Don Fitch,
who's remembering with pleasure that Sam Maloof, a wood-worker
who lives nearby, agreed to sell (for several thousand dollars
each) a few of his rocking-chairs to a prestigious Boston Art
Museum... only on the condition that they not be placed in glass
cases, but be put out where tired people could sit in them for a
while. That's what chairs are _for_. I'm not entirely sure
what zines are (or ought to be) for, but "eye-candy/art" is
nowhere near the top of my list of good reasons for them to
exist. YMMV, of course.
--
Stacey Case
Yojimbo wrote:
> Stacey, Rivet *is* art. I'll never throw any of those away, ever. I'm
> serious.
Hey, thanks, Yo. I'm sure you can understand my hesitancy at agreeing with you
though. It runs counter to the punk rocker in me to call my zine *art*. While
I have a hard time saying *that word*, I have no problem with other people
saying it. I just don't want to turn into the type of person I despise the
most.
stace.
PS It would be fun to do an art show the way you mentioned. No pretense, just
reality.
Ninjalicious
AgnesDe...@yahoo.com (Agnes DeLappe) wrote:
>Real art comes from real people making something that they think says
>something. You don't think Infiltration is art??? You have something
>to say, and you say it beautifully, in writing and pictures and what
>could be more art? Zines are definitely art, more than some snooty
>six-million-dollar sculpture that looks like dog poop.
No, I'm not an artist, I'm just a guy. I think of Infiltration as a
zine, and I'm proud of that categorization.
"Kevin Clow" <das...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>why pretentious? okay, so someone uses a typewriter, some clip art, and a
>whole lotta glue, and puts together a little piece of the zine world,
>someone's gonna say it's crap, not art. but how is that any less valid than
>someone sitting in their garage strumming on a guitar? both have a
>potential to be something better, and be elevated to some level of art.
>[...]
>maybe. the more you narrow your definition of "art" the more you run the
>risk of being an elitist snob who dismisses anything you dislike as
>"invalid".
>[...]
>well, this analogy might seem a little outlandish, but would you not perhaps
>treasure a Picasso painting a little less if you knew that he painted 2,000
>copies just like it? true, this little booklet was probably not worthy of
>being compared to Picasso's work (or maybe it is, who's to say?), but there
>is a certain appeal to one-of-a-kind items.
I'm not saying zines are less than art, I'm saying they are different
than art. Two flags flying at equal height on separate flagpoles.
Zines are more valid for me, personally -- I won't speak for everyone
else (right now). For the most part, anything that calls itself art is
too painfully earnest for my tastes.
No, I would not treasure a painting less if I knew there were 2,000
copies of it. Why would you? How would your copy be diminished?
Stacey Case <stace...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>There was an art show in Toronto two years ago, I think, at A Space. It
>showcased a collection of female zinemakers. There were original pages
>from their zines hung up on the walls. Was it 'art'? In the context of
>the show, I'd say yes. Was it good? That's open to debate.
My girlfriend at the time had her zine on display at that show. I
thought the show was awful. Putting the zines up on pedestal-like
shelves, or mounted behind plexiglass, while people milled about to
elegant music... it was all wrong! Zines aren't meant to be seen like
that. That show left me cold, uncomfortable, and hungry for some
fajitas.
Vincent Voelz <nos...@winternet.com> wrote:
><HTML>
><P><TT>But I *do* think there's some reason why we're all into zines, and
>it's because they are inherently *art*, however you want to define "art".
>Maybe I'm just an optimist, but zines unavoidably fall under any definition
>of "art" I can possibly think of. I don't think life would be worth
>living if so much of what we do as humans *wasn't* art.</TT><TT></TT>
><TT>Sorry -- I'm using Netscape Navigator/Collabra as my (crappy) newsreader.
>Wasn't even aware it was putting HTML in... (I tried to fix it -- Is it
>still?) </TT><TT></TT>
I think you're giving the word art much too hard a workout. When a
word is forced to mean too many different things, it becomes diluted.
(This quotation probably answers your question about HTML codes. Those
aren't arty in the least.)
JP <jp@glpbooksDELETETHIS!.com> wrote:
>Amusement has for the meaning of its root 'a-musement': against the muses.
>How do the muses and amusement relate to art?
I know Jeff gets a kick out of making up new etymologies for words,
but just in case anyone else cares, the actual origin of amusement is
from the French à (to) and the Old French musé (gaze). It means
"[something] to gaze upon", not "against the muses".
fitc...@aol.com (FitchDonS) wrote:
>I'm not entirely sure
>what zines are (or ought to be) for, but "eye-candy/art" is
>nowhere near the top of my list of good reasons for them to
>exist.
Amen to that.
JP
[]
> JP <jp@glpbooksDELETETHIS!.com> wrote:
> >Amusement has for the meaning of its root 'a-musement': against the muses.
> >How do the muses and amusement relate to art?
>
> I know Jeff gets a kick out of making up new etymologies for words,
> but just in case anyone else cares, the actual origin of amusement is
> from the French à (to) and the Old French musé (gaze). It means
> "[something] to gaze upon", not "against the muses".
Hey, size matters and it probably depends on the size of your dictionary.
I whupped you guys before with only my fair-sized Random House Unabridged.
You seem to have me this time though. But did you use the OED? I bet
the professor who told me the above did and I'll check back with him,
since he teaches and writes on this exact subject and is far more detail
oriented than I am. I see chinks in the armor already: the French 'to' form
of 'a' is right above the 'against' form. Does close count? And the archaic
French 'muse' is right above 'Muse'...I wonder where muse came from?
Will the OED settle the score? If Ninj didn't use it, does anyone else
have one? :)
Agnes DeLappe
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:24:19 GMT, squi...@home.com (Eric Skilling)
wrote:
>
>>Real art comes from real people making something that they think says
>>something. You don't think Infiltration is art??? You have something
>>to say, and you say it beautifully, in writing and pictures and what
>>could be more art? Zines are definitely art, more than some snooty
>>six-million-dollar sculpture that looks like dog poop.
>>>
>
Agnes DeLappe
<P><TT> Vincent - </TT><TT></TT>
</TT></I><I><TT></TT></I>
<P><TT>Welcome to alt.zines, but </TT></I><I><TT></TT></I>
</TT></I><P><TT>Usenet isn't written in HTML.</TT></I><I><TT></TT></I>
<BR><TT></TT> </HTML>
</TT><TT>/ Can you do anything about this? </TT></I><I><TT></TT></I>
Vincent Voelz
Thanks for the unnecessary sarcasm. I already said I was trying to fix
the problem. How about now -- is my post HTML-free now? I changed the
settings on my Netscape Collabra (crappy) reader. --Vince
Agnes DeLappe
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:59:39 -0500, highway sweetheart
<krob...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>If you took the unnecessary sarcasm out of Usenet, there wouldn't be much
>left.
>