From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #399 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, October 18 2001 Volume 10 : Number 399 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" [Viv Lyon ] Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" [bayard ] RE: Stirring the pot... ["Poole, R. Edward" ] Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" ["JH3" ] Re: the post-911 Situation, Vietnam & Pynchon [The Great Quail ] Uh.....Oops! I pulled a Hal! [The Great Quail ] RE: Stirring the pot... [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:33:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, John McIntyre wrote: > > .But, apropos of nothing, let's please address the fact that the true hero > > of the book is Sam, faithful diligent courageous Sam. Not Frodo. Sam. > > And where have we seen that before? Cervantes, anyone? That reminds me- I played Sancho Panza when my high school english class enacted Don Quixote. Hm. Perhaps I've been conditioned to champion the sidekick. Although I like the Tick better than Arthur. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:39:36 -0700 (PDT) From: bayard Subject: Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" > Well, Sam is the halfling that wears the ring and is not overcome by it > (granted he wears it for the least amount of time). well, for the sake of argument, Bilbo is never overcome by it - though he is changed by it. He is able to resist it - with a little help. > > But now that I stop and remember more clearly, Gollum is the halfling that > fulfills the prophecy by destroying the ring in the fire's of Mordor. yes, that's what i was thinking - Smeagol is the character that is changed in the most interesting/complex ways, and the one who is critical in the end. (sorry for the spoiler, if anyone hasn't read this) =b ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:36:52 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: Stirring the pot... Jeez, where to begin? I won't bother with much of what you said (seeing as mostly you willfully blind yourself to what I was actually saying), but... >Although my tendency is to agree that content based speech restrictions >are both unconstitutional and wrong. That's certainly a valid argument (and, interestingly, one I suggested to you). >> Even a terrorist or a bigot would probably agree that their actions >> are "worse," at least in the sense that they are directed to more than >> just the individual victims -- they are intended to send a "message" >> to others in the same class/group/race/etc as the primary victim. >Isn't sending a message BETTER than just randomly destroying? No -- unless you are in favor of the message being sent, I guess. What "message" is sent by scrawling anti-Semitic slogans on a synagogue? Perhaps, "you are not welcome here," or "I hate Jews," or "get out of here before we kill you"? So because there is a "purpose" behind the act -- no matter how repellant the message, or how offensive and/or psychically damaging and/or intimidating that message may be to the targeted group -- that is somehow "BETTER" than the "Def Leppard Rules" act? >Certainly assassinating a political leader that has little public support >isn't quite as bad as picking off a random person from a clock tower. This is a non sequitor. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion -- assassination isn't a hate crime or terrorism. The act is directed at a political leader, not a group. The object is to replace a government (or at least the leader of the government), not intimidate a civilian population. you are making less sense than usual -- and that's saying something. >> This secondary "message" or intimidation is the "plus factor" that >> makes the hate crime, or the terrorist act, more serious. >Right... you're saying it's worse if you have a message. Random acts >aren't as bad as acts with intended consequences outside the act itself. >I don't buy it. Yes, it's worse. In the random act, you harm the individual victim. In the hate crime -- or terrorist act -- you harm the individual victim(s), PLUS you harm the recipients of your "message." We're not talking about content-neutral messages here, or even "This Bud's For You." We're talking about messages like "you date our women & we'll string you up just like this nigger here" or "Too bad Hitler didn't finish the job." Do you really think those "acts with intended consequences outside the act itself" are somehow "BETTER" than random violence? >> Feel free to disagree (I wouldn't expect less), but do try to see how >> someone believes this is true. I, for one, believe it is true -- and >> if you deny my beliefs, you are (surprise surprise!) showing precious >> little respect for contrary opinions. >I don't see it. And it's not for lack of respect for contrary opinions >(though your response to my PS and your use of the phrase "reality TV" >both do quite a bit of damage to my respect for you personally). If you ever "respected" me before, it was too subtle for me to pick up on. "Reality TV" is what they call it -- I'm just using the lingo. And yes, I like some of those shows. What a moron I must be. Boo hoo. >I guess I could understand a person who is a member of the ruling class >and existing power structure believing that a society wherein opinions >contrary to the status quo are repressed and actions that carry messages >contrary to the standing party line were more heavily punished than random >actions. But clearly those people are acting only selfishly and those >message-carrying acts are not worse for society, but worse for those >individuals. Yeah, "tell that to the Polish, tell that to the Jews." It's hard to tell whether you are talking about terrorism or hate crimes here. If the latter, this in incomprehensible -- the victims of hate crimes are, almost by definition, not members of a "ruling class." As for terrorist acts, you are the only one who is suggesting that speech is being targeted (I'll grant that there is an argument to be made w/r/t hate crimes, but not terrorism). For your statement to make any sense, the words of the act would have to be interpreted very liberally by the Courts, while ignoring the 1st Amendment ramifications of sanctioning actions based on their speech component. If that speech is itself protected (as, indeed, peaceful expressions of protest ARE), no court would interpret the law to cover peaceful demonstrations. You are reaching for the worst possible interpretation of the statute. As applied in your fantasy, it would be unconstitutional -- and rightly so. >>>PS to Ed: do try to modify your headers. You've been replying to both the >>>list and my address directly, so I've been getting two copies. This is >>>unnecessary as I am obviously on the list. > >> Yeah, whatever -- that was careless. But now that I know it annoys >> you, I doubt I'll stop any time soon. >Well, I'm glad we're all grown-ups here. Guilty as charged. Nyah nyah boo boo! ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:26:40 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" > ...Smeagol is the character that is changed > in the most interesting/complex ways, and the > one who is critical in the end. (sorry for the > spoiler, if anyone hasn't read this) I haven't read it. Now you've ruined EVERYTHING! Am I the only one, btw? Surely there are others on this list who haven't read Tolkien... Other than Eb, of course... John "but I WAS a geek in high school" Hedges PS. I saw the Ralph Bakshi movie, but I'm under the impression that this doesn't actually help. PPS. I have, of course, read Dostoyevsky. That *always* helps. PPPS. As long as I'm in confessional mode, I didn't much care for "Gormenghast" either! Take THAT, you normal human bastards... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:34:11 -0700 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: the post-911 Situation, Vietnam & Pynchon Doug writes, >Are they really? The U.S. fought in Vietnam in part to "contain" Communism >within a broader strategy of seeking to eliminate or contain Communism; the >U.S. fights in Afghanistan for similar reasons, substitute "terrorism" for >"Communism". See, that's the substitution that you feel comfortable making, and I do not. I find it specious. I feel as if you use Vietman as a general template rather than a specific situation. If time flowed in reverse, would you feel as comfortable substituting Naziism for Communism? Where would you take a stand that violence is acceptable? (I mean that sincerely.) Just because the US has an antagonism against a people, it does not mean you can interchange the circumstances with other people with whom we have had antagonisms. Communism was perceived as a threat; which has some legitimacy, even though it was greatly exaggerated, misunderstood, and used opportunistically. But Communism was a rival political ideology; not a base method of coercion through violent means. (Although of course Communist and Democratic states certainly did a lot of that; all states do.) The terrorists we are now fighting are in conflict with us directly; they have attacked our soil, or people, our embassies, or politicians, and so on, they have done this *directly.* They have declared war upon us, and there methods are best described as terrorism. And in my opinion, they are too powerful, and have too much national support (Taliban, for starters) to approach them as criminals and try to extradite them. They are hate-filled and brutal people who wish our whole state to be destroyed, and have attacked us several times. They offer no "better way of life," they have no rival ideology to speak of that doesn't offer only repression and totalitarianism. This is not even remotely the same as Communism or our response in Vietnam. The Vietnamese did not attack us, we went there and became embroiled in a terrible postcolonial civil war. We were not under attack by these people, and when they did attack us, it was not because they were Communists attacking Capitalists, but because we had become involved all on our own. (Oh, and thanks a lot, France.) I think we overreacted to "Communism," and I think we fought an unjust war. I do not think this current war is an overreaction to "Terrorism," nor do I think trying to kill these people -- the terrorists and their direct national supporters -- is the same as killing Vietnamese. Indeed, the terrorists are Islamic, and yet we do not officially perceive Islam as a Communism-style ideological threat. It is violent fundamentalism that is the threat, and a very real one. >The U.S. fought in Vietnam in part to keep oil flowing; Partly, perhaps -- but that was hardly the main reason. >certainly this is lies at the heart of the strategic concerns the U.S. has >in Central Asia and the Middle East at present. Well, of course it lies there! Hell, if the region had no oil, we wouldn't care if they all went nuts on each other, or just opened fruit stands. (Well, of course, there's Israel. I don't want to be reductionist myself.) But I disagree when you say, "at present." While oil may be the root cause of our involvement and concern in the Middle East (which has actually been fairly limited compared to colonial Europe and imperialist USSR) it is certainly not "at the heart" of our attacks against the Taliban, or our desire to crush Islamic terrorism. What is at the heart of this is simple -- they bombed us worse than anyone else in our history ever has. I think you have the tendency to look only to the most base, worst, corrupt aspects of the US political system sometimes, and draw the conclusion that these things are sole motivations, and everything else is hypocrisy. >Some historians have >argued, convincingly, that the U.S. fought in Vietnam in part within an >ongoing U.S. imperialism project I have read this too, and I think there is some truth in it, but I also think hysteria regarding "Communism" was more in play, as well as simple global politics. I mean, it's not like we wanted to colonize Vietnam. >that began in the19th century; just as >clearly in the present Situation, the U.S. has now taken up again the Great >Game that imperial powers began in the 19th century. I disagree. While we would certainly not complain if we had better access to oil in these regions, the imperial powers of the 19th century were more interested in colonization and empire building to directly take over resources. We are interested in (1) disabling and retarding terrorist networks, (2) increasing our capitalist coffers, (3) increasing our oil reserves, and (4) promoting our modern, democratic capitalist way of life. None of these directly involves colonization, annexation, and so on. (Which is not to say that they don't involve some capitalism ugliness.) In fact, it would be delightful if some of these Islamic countries could develop a more democratic tradition that didn't self-annihilate, but let's face it, they *like* Islam being the basis for their laws and government. We really don't speak the same language at times. >So there are >meaningful parallels. We see a direct line of descent from the politicians >and military strategists who planned and executed the Vietnam War (at least >one of them -- Kissenger -- we see on the Tube, explaining why we need this >war and why it must go on indefinitely) Well, yeah, of course Kissinger likes this War. He'd like it if we invaded Canada. I meant, he's hardly credible. > to the politicians and military >strategists who now plan and execute the war in Afghanistan, as well as the >fact that many of the corporations that will profit from supplying weapon >systems, other goods, and services to the U.S. military remain the same, Yes, of course they will benefit. But that hardly means that's the reason we are going to war. If a country suddenly rolled tanks into California, and we went to war to fight back, would you complain that the weapon-supplying corporations would benefit? I just don't attach such the significance to it that you do; not in the current situation, at least. >One way -- just one way, and certainly not the only way -- to read Vineland I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and I read it like that, too. >Is anything like that happening >right now, or in the context of the post-Gulf War strategy to contain or >eliminate terrorism (at least the terrorists who don't support U.S. foreign >policy). Actually, you know what? I really don't think so. Of course the government may squawk about some war protesters, but the time of Kent State is over, for both sides. There's just not that much active protest of this war, and the governmet really isn't trying to shut down forums for what exists. (Though their paternalism bothers me, and they should be closely watched.) I am sure there are some details the CIA and the Pentagon are not telling us, but I don't see any evidence of conspiracies, gross lies, and cover-ups so far. To be honest, I just see a bunch of stressed out people trying to wage a just war. Maybe I am naive, maybe you are right, and maybe if this thing drags on for years, I will look at it differently. >GR also alludes to this, but the text is far more complex, and >open to many more interpretations, one of the reasons, I believe, that >some Pynchon scholars prefer it to Vineland. Heh heh...very true! >One way -- just one way, and >certainly not the only way -- to read M&D is to see it going straight to >the heart of the genocide and profit motive that underlie the development >of corporations in the first place and the role they play in the European >imperialism project in Africa, Asia, and America; Again, I agree with you 100%. >Disregard such readings as "propaganda" if you will, Not at all; again, I agree with you. I just think that this situation is different than Vietnam or even the Gulf War. I do not agree with many of the more paranoid articles you have passed along. But I do believe a lot of what you do as well -- though I tend to see Eurpean and American imperialism and colonialism as just another shitty fact of life, and nothing special or particularly more or less evil than anything any other power has done throughout history. I also look more on the positive achievements of the West, I think. I also think that we, especially in America, have been trying to evolve, and I think we are the most enlightened and positive empire in world history, with promise for even better a future. No one gets a free ride, though, and our Empire has crushed many in its path of development. >Or, are you among the Pynchon >readers who prefer to ignore the political and historical content of his >work and read it in a vacuum, not seeking to relate it to the world in >which we live? No, actually I am not like that at all. I agree with you in your claims that Pynchon is a moral writer; I just don't agree with you to the length that you carry it. >Quail, you said the other day that you thought that Pynchon would be >opposed to the current war. Assuming you still think that, I do, yes. >I wonder, >instead of spending your time pontificating and excoriating Barbara, why >don't you challenge rj/rjackson/jbor/?'s assertion that Pynchon would >approve of the Bush's war on Afghanistan? Because though I don't agree with him, I only see it as his opinion on a minor issue to me. If I posted my disagreements with every opinion that I don't hold to, I would jam up the list. Frankly, I just don't see the issue of Pynchon's agreement or disapproval as something I wish to debate. Also, there's just no real way of arguing what Pynchon thinks, without a tedious round of my quote/your quote. However, I am in more sharp disagreement with some of your opinions and NP postings, and more so, I am even more in disagreement with the attitude you often display. Although, I am finding most of this most recent letter the most reasonable, calm, and thoughtful thing you've said in about this situation so far, and I am actually enjoying responding. I feel more like we are discussing, than shouting, harping, or "excoriating." >Do you think, based on what we >read in V., GR, Vineland, M&D, that Pynchon would really aprove such a >venture, as rj/rjackson/jbor/? Nope. But as I have also stated, I don't set my own moral compass by Pynchon. He is more left than me, which is just fine. He's a brilliant writer, and that's the most important thing to me. >seems to be arguing, with all its trappings >of uncritical flag-waving chauvinism, the cowboy vengeance rhetoric, I don't think jbor is uncritical or a chauvinist; I myself am flying a US flag at home, and I don't think Bush has acted as a cowboy or out of vengeance. > the >perversion of language that permits a Secretary of Defense to dismiss the >killing of innocent civilians (in the hundreds now, according to many >reputable sources outside the U.S.) by saying they have been warned and >saying that if they're still near U.S. targets they must be working for the >Taliban Yes, that was horrible! A horrible thing to say, and all too reminiscent, as you remarked, of Vietnam. But I think I may be more open to complexity here, and I understand that the government is made up of disparate, image-conscious people, not all of them compassionate and intelligent. In fact, I think Rumsfeld is an ass. I think it's our duty to protest when they say things like that. >(this he said, on TV, with a straight face; maybe he wasn't >thinking about the two-month old baby bombed in the village of Karam , but >I was)? Again, war is horrible, and I feel sick that this is happening, but I think the alternatives will only lead to even more American dead. Innocent people die in war, it's the terrible fact, it's why I think it needs to be carefully weighed and then carried out with grimness and as much care as possible. I also hope that any government which follows the Taliban will have to be better for the people in the long run. >In my personal opinion, and based on a close reading of Pynchon's >novels as well as a small library of critical works relating to Pynchon's >work, I don't see how anybody could argue, from the evidence in the novels, >that the author (not the human being who lives in Manhattan, and not an >"ideal author" constructed from textual evidence) would support the current >war. Do you agree? If so, do you think that rj/rjackson/jbor/? is >off-track to assert that Pynchon would support it? Yes, I agree with you, and I disagree with jbor. But that is only a gut feeling on this one, because Pynchon does not seem to be a pacifist or appeaser, either. My feeling is that Pynchon probably thinks the terrorists should be routed, but by non-violent means, if possible. Though I do not adopt that stance myself -- as I've said, I think Pynchon's politics are more left leaning than my own. It wouldn't surprise me if he voted for Nader. But then again, he could think this is a credible threat and support a limited war; I could *barely* see that; but it would still surprise me. I could also *barley* see him thinking this was all a conspiracy to get more oil; but that would surprise me a bit too. For once, nice talking to you, Doug, - --Quail - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth: http://www.TheModernWord.com If I have said anything to the contrary I was mistaken. If I say anything to the contrary again I shall be mistaken again. Unless I am mistaken now. Into the dossier with it in any case, in support of whatever thesis you fancy. --Samuel Beckett, "The Unnamable" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:53:50 -0700 From: "mats" Subject: Re: McCartney Tribute Contest PW - ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian To: Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 9:01 AM Subject: Re: McCartney Tribute Contest > What's the answer to the trivia question? Any one know? > Trivia Question: > > Which artist DID NOT contribute a track to Listen to What the Man > Said: A Tribute to the Music of Paul McCartney? > > Owsley > Semisonic > Matthew Sweet > Paul Westerberg > SR-71 > > Thanks, > Nuppy > > > > > At Wednesday, 17 October 2001, you wrote: > > >got this from ice magazine: > > > >>Robyn Hitchcock covers Paul McCartney's "Let Me Roll It" on the > new tribute > >>"Listen to What the Man Said!" ICE magazine is hosting a trivia > contest at > >>www.icemagazine.com in which 5 people will win copies of the album. > > > >the contest details are at >http://www.icemagazine.com/promotions/mccartney_175.html >. > > > >woj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:44:24 -0700 From: The Great Quail Subject: Uh.....Oops! I pulled a Hal! Sorry Fegs, Pleas ignore that very, very long post to the Pynchon List's Doug Millison. There has been a massive debate over the War and Vietnam lately -- I have no idea how I accidentally sent this to the Fegs! I must have been half numb when I clicked my address book. I swear to GOD that I did not "accidentally on purpose" post this to the Fegs to start a discussion, or to slam Nader. I am quit embarrassed.... By the way, Doug is a legendary figure on the Pynchon List -- he is the biggest Net Nanny and list-bully I have ever seen. He harasses people constantly, he posts off-list stuff as attacks, and he even occasionally creates alternate personalities with hotmail accounts so he can agree with himself and lavish praise on his own posts! Once he even found out someone's phone number and called them up to harass them further! - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:55:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Stirring the pot... On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Poole, R. Edward wrote: > >Although my tendency is to agree that content based speech restrictions > >are both unconstitutional and wrong. > That's certainly a valid argument (and, interestingly, one I suggested to > you). Actually, you mentioned Scalia's belief that hate crime legislation leads to content-based speech discrimination. And I used the word "agree". Certainly I'm not just sitting here claiming to agree with myself. > >Isn't sending a message BETTER than just randomly destroying? > > No -- unless you are in favor of the message being sent, I guess. > What "message" is sent by scrawling anti-Semitic slogans on a > synagogue? Perhaps, "you are not welcome here," or "I hate Jews," or > "get out of here before we kill you"? So because there is a "purpose" > behind the act -- no matter how repellant the message, or how > offensive and/or psychically damaging and/or intimidating that message > may be to the targeted group -- that is somehow "BETTER" than the "Def > Leppard Rules" act? Well, those, in particular, both have a message. And the crimes (of vandalism) should be treated equally. And they're both BETTER than just a random spray-painted squiggle or indecipherable glyph or image because we can understand WHY a person did it and take steps to address the cause of the crime. > >Right... you're saying it's worse if you have a message. Random acts > >aren't as bad as acts with intended consequences outside the act itself. > > Yes, it's worse. In the random act, you harm the individual victim. > In the hate crime -- or terrorist act -- you harm the individual > victim(s), PLUS you harm the recipients of your "message." Receiving a message isn't harmful. And the law has already defined a "threatening speech" that is illegal. You're missing what these acts ADD to the mix. > We're not talking about content-neutral messages here, or even "This > Bud's For You." We're talking about messages like "you date our women > & we'll string you up just like this nigger here" or "Too bad Hitler > didn't finish the job." Do you really think those "acts with intended > consequences outside the act itself" are somehow "BETTER" than random > violence? Yes. See above. I'm not saying that the person should be punished less or more. I'm saying that it's better to have a society of people acting out of passion and expressing themselves than a society of random violence. There will always be violence and I'll take the former over the latter. [Quoting myself so as not to trouble Ed with back-referencing] > >I guess I could understand a person who is a member of the ruling class > >and existing power structure believing that a society wherein opinions > >contrary to the status quo are repressed and actions that carry messages > >contrary to the standing party line were more heavily punished than random > >actions. But clearly those people are acting only selfishly and those > >message-carrying acts are not worse for society, but worse for those > >individuals. > > Yeah, "tell that to the Polish, tell that to the Jews." It's hard to > tell whether you are talking about terrorism or hate crimes here. The new definition of "terrorism", in particular. > If the latter, this in incomprehensible -- the victims of hate crimes > are, almost by definition, not members of a "ruling class." I didn't say the VICTIM supports the legislation. I said I could understand a person supporting legislation that treats message-filled acts more harshly than message-neutral acts if they were a member of the ruling class. After all, even racists in power are willing to harshly punish those that would make the racist motivation for their crime public. > As for terrorist acts, you are the only one who is suggesting that > speech is being targeted (I'll grant that there is an argument to be > made w/r/t hate crimes, but not terrorism). They're EXACTLY THE SAME. The regulations both make crimes more heavily punishable if they carry a message that might influence people. It is exactly the message that the act carries that is the speech component of the act. And it is only the message that is being targetted... only the "intimidation or coersion" factor. The rest of the act is ALREADY CRIMINAL. They're criminalizing the speech portion of the act IN ADDITION to the content-neutral portion. > For your statement to make any sense, the words of the act would have > to be interpreted very liberally by the Courts, while ignoring the 1st > Amendment ramifications of sanctioning actions based on their speech > component. Which the courts have already done with regard to "hate crimes". They carefully worded this bill to be similar and hence, already carry the court's stamp of approval in interpretation. > If that speech is itself protected (as, indeed, peaceful expressions > of protest ARE), no court would interpret the law to cover peaceful > demonstrations. You are reaching for the worst possible interpretation > of the statute. As applied in your fantasy, it would be > unconstitutional -- and rightly so. The law doesn't require any sort of violent nature in the act. 500 people sitting in front of, say, an abortion clinic or a secret GATT meeting, blocking entrance, are criminal and intimidating. They're saying "If you want to do shit like we know you're about to do in there, you're going to have to tear us down." The law is written as broadly as possible to make it easier to bring the hammer down on those that oppose the dominant regime. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #399 ********************************