It was ditto. The earliest ODDs (see covers at the link I posted above) were hectograph, but that primitive gel-based repro system wouldn't yield much more than 20 copies (if that). But with either hecto or ditto, the Herring Bros. were absolute masters in getting the best detailed color results.

Hi Teresa! Long time no see. Small world and all that.

ODD was the first fanzine for which I did extensive comic art on ditto master, back when I was a teenager. There's more cool material from ODD online at Dave Herring's website at:

http://david.herring.home.comcast.net/~david.herring/

(Dave's site unfortunately eludes Google searches for "Dave Herring", and I had trouble finding it even though I knew it was out there.

Check it out. Great stuff.

One of the SF Chron photos has the caption "Bellbottoms and hippie garb were de rigueur in 1973, as these extras awaiting their call demonstrate on the Castro Street set of "Milk," directed by Gus Van Sant."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/30/MNUBULUI1.DTL&o=2

Aside from the fact that the photo doesn't really demonstrate the caption's claims, I find that notion of 1973 garb in the Castro to be rather dubious. I happened to live in the Castro in 1973 and my memory is that the clean cut clone look - which I recall as being either preppy or blue denim jackets and jeans. Bellbottoms and hippie garb may have been lingering around Mid-America, but the Castro?

I hope that they had a bunch of photos and footage from that era on Castro to double-check against. The clothing store photo from the Castro shopper http://castroshopper.vox.com/library/photo/6a00c2251c030c604a00e398d683a90002.html
struck me as particularly odd. I don't think anyone with any notion of style was wearing giant peace sign necklaces in 1973. Maybe Unitarian ministers in Wisconsin were...

Okay, I'm game.

What are we saving Stan from?
For six months, no less?

Oh, and while I'm being a Wet Blanket®, if I'm not mistaken, Cornell University's Making of America digital archive has had the Atlantic Monthly from 1857-1901 up on line for quite awhile already.
Making of America

Worth checking out in its own right.

Cory wrote:

The fantastic Atlantic Monthly magazine has dropped its paywall effective today, switching its archives (which stretch all the way back to 1857!) to an ad-supported model. First the New York Times, then the Atlantic...

I dunno. I've run into this meme before (maybe even here!) that the NYTimes was going free online, but if you try a search for NYTimes articles pre-1980, they still want $3.95 per article.

Which, of course, is their right (it's their site), but I'm not sure they quite deserve the praise they seem to have been getting.

When the Bee Gees originally surfaced, sounding like the Beatles was their schtick. Same with Badfinger.

I was in high school at the time that their first album came out and my girlfriend & I had an elaborate Bee Gee thing going. You see, her initials were B.G., so we plundered that first Bee Gees' album's lyrics for encoded catch phrases and passed notes full of nonsense back and forth. All pre-drugs, mind you, but very cosmic.

I agree about Cardinal, though I like Eric Matthews' solo albums even more. One of my favorite pseudo-Beatles songs is "It's Over" by the Scavengers on The IGL Rock Story, Part One (1965-67). They manage to take the riff from "Day Tripper" and turn it inside out. Great album overall, by the way. Full of obscure Iowa bands.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden wrote:

"I'm sorry to hear Lewis Lapham's taken the plunge into conspiracy theory. His heart is often in the right place, but he's never been the most rigorous of thinkers."

Ah, perhaps not as rigorous as you and I, but still pretty damn rigorous. Perhaps you can share your superior rigourousness with us on this topic?

You know, it has been over a month since I wrote this piece, and rereading it now I still stand by it. Sure, the tone was a bit flip, but hey, I'm a cartoonist, that's the way my mind works.

To me, the key paragraph in my mini-review was this:

It’s a shame, really, that Zeitgeist is, ultimately, such a mess. There are plenty of legitimate questions about what transpired on 9/11, just as there are plenty of shady doings in international finance or puzzling aspects of religious history, for that matter. And what is coming down in the name of National Security is truly unnerving. Yet, bundling them all together in disjointed fashion does justice to none of them....

For those who can read (apparently a minority among those sending or posting hatemail and indignant screeds), this says that I am not dismissing the myriad questions raised by the "official" 9/11 version of events. I agree that there are plenty of odd and downright suspicious aspects to what went down that day. However, I don't think that Zeitgeist did 9/11 research any favors by linking, by proximity, the 9/11 issues to unrelated matters such as Christian origins or the legitimacy of the income tax. Those may warrant their own investigations (and I encourage everyone to dig beneath the surface in every such area), but I thought it distracting and counter-productive to pile it all in together in one film.

I've been engaged in conspiracy research of one sort or another for over 30 years, and I would agree that there are plenty of conspiracies at work in the world at any given time. (See my other BoingBoing essay The Conspiracy Boom for a discussion of this.)

But the mere fact that conspiracies exist doesn't oblige me or anyone else to uncritically consume Zeitgeist's take on them, or anyone else's version, either. Take them into consideration, sure, and weigh the evidence presented from different sources. Then form your own opinion. If Zeitgeist "opened your eyes" to the possibility that all is not as it seems, fine. But I wouldn't advise taking Zeitgeist's presentation of quotes and perspectives as the final word.

In the end, I think that Zeitgeist is a powerful, but seriously flawed and muddled film. As the old online cliche goes, YMMV.