From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #56 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, February 16 2003 Volume 12 : Number 056 Today's Subjects: ----------------- The Son's Room ["bibi gellert" ] Re: The Son's Room [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: apropos of nothing [Christopher Gross ] Re: apropos of nothing [gshell@metronet.com] Snow. ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: apropos of nothing [Christopher Gross ] Re: Snow. [Christopher Gross ] RE: Snow. ["Roberta Cowan" ] RE: Snow. [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: apropos of nothing [Capuchin ] More on the paranoid angle [Barbara Soutar ] Re: Ya govor'yu Te Reo Maori ochen plokho [grutness@surf4nix.com (James D] Re: apropos of nothing [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:4:15 -0500 From: "bibi gellert" Subject: The Son's Room For years I've seen James Dignan's signature file, the one where he quotes the Brian Eno song. Last night I was watching Nani Moretti's "The Son's Room", an Italian film about a tragedy suffered by an Italian family, and how they deal with their grief. In one part of the film, the father goes to a cd store and asks to buy a cd for his son's friend, and the proprietor recommended one but didn't mention the name. He begins to play the cd, and although I didn't recognize it, it was a very pretty song, and it was also replayed over the ending credits, where much to my surprise, it was identified as "By this River". I grabbed a pen and wrote down some of the lyrics, and I knew I'd seen them before-in James' sig file. What a small world-I finally hear a Brian Eno song in an Italian movie that I recognized from a New Zealand sig file. bibi --- bibigellert@earthlink.net--- EarthLink: It's your Internet. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:08:31 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: The Son's Room - -- bibi gellert is rumored to have mumbled on Sonntag, 16. Februar 2003 11:04 Uhr -0500 regarding The Son's Room: > For years I've seen James Dignan's signature file, the one where he > quotes the Brian Eno song. Last night I was watching Nani Moretti's > "The Son's Room", an Italian film about a tragedy suffered by an Italian > family, and how they deal with their grief. In one part of the film, the > father goes to a cd store and asks to buy a cd for his son's friend, and > the proprietor recommended one but didn't mention the name. He begins to > play the cd, and although I didn't recognize it, it was a very pretty > song, and it was also replayed over the ending credits, where much to my > surprise, it was identified as "By this River". I grabbed a pen and > wrote down some of the lyrics, and I knew I'd seen them before-in James' > sig file. What a small world-I finally hear a Brian Eno song in an > Italian movie that I recognized from a New Zealand sig file. bibi --- Wow, I've seen the movie twice, one time actually in Nanni Moretti's own movie theater in Rome, and I liked the song a lot, but I never made the connection ... thanks for the info! - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156, 50823 Kvln, Germany http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:24:30 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: apropos of nothing On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Brian Huddell wrote: > Chris, why in the world are you even bothering to create a "better light" in > which to cast this possible strategy of Rumsfeld's? Because it bothers me when people automatically assume the worst, without any proof. (Especially when such assumptions are made only about the US, no one else.) > Let's grant all of your > more favorable interpretations. Yes, why not -- since there is EXACTLY as much evidence for them as for Capuchin's most UNfavorable interpretations. Which was one of my points. > Is it that hard to grant that any strategy designed to *provoke* attacks, on > *anyone*, is sick, impossible to control, and unsupportable? It's a bad idea, IMO. But was the idea for US forces to kill Americans and blame it on terrorists, as Jeff initially mis-remembered? No. And was the idea for the US to provoke non-terrorists into becoming terrorists so that Rummy can kill people he knows are no threat to us, as Capuchin believes? I don't think so. It's the latter two points that I was arguing. I was NOT defending the plan, I was disputing the more fantastic interpretations of it. On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > I think the "posters" were only you and I, and I clarified to you, in a > private e-mail, that I'd misremembered the specifics of Rumsfeld's policy. And I was completely done with the discussion at that point. However, I couldn't resist replying to Capuchin. (Which is a useful reminder of my own foolishness.) > However, what exactly is "fake" about a "terrorist attack carried out by the > US government against Americans"? Do you suppose the victims - whether > fatalities, injuries, or merely shock and fright, will feel all better once > they (excluding the fatalities, and including those people's friends and > relatives) hear that it was "only" the government? Sigh.... No, I meant a "fake terrorist attack" in the sense of "an attack carried out by US forces and falsely attributed to foreign terrorists." The point was the false attribution. Was that really unclear, or are you just trying to change the subject? For brevity's sake, I'll skip all the parts about the details of Rummy's plan. Just remember, I was not saying the plan was a good idea. I was saying that the plan does NOT prove a.) that Rumsfeld wants to kill Americans, b.) that it was intended to turn innocent non-terrorists into terrorists, or c.) that Rumsfeld secretly tortures little kittens, molests nuns and listens to Celine Dion. > > Well, there's also precedent for terrorist groups killing people on > > their > > own initiative, without the Pentagon masterminding the whole thing; but > > I > > guess some precedents are meaningful and others aren't... > > That is correct: the meaningful precedents are the ones we can (or should be > able to) control (U.S. policy), not the ones we can't. Sigh #2.... My precendents quip was aimed at Capuchin. He claims precedent for believing the worst of the US government, but he also seems not to believe that any terrorists would attack us if we didn't trick them into it. I was pointing out that there are precedents for terrorist attacks that the terrorists carried out of their on volition ... precedents that Capuchin apparently ignores or discounts. Clear now? > > So why are we assuming the worst? > > If we are, it's because of the "precedent" above. But even if we're not, the > point is to suggest that the Bushies do *not* have the best interests of > most Americans at heart, or most people period. I don't see any "suggesting" this; it's more like assuming it as an article of faith.... Look, I oppose the war in Iraq and the great majority of Bush's other policies and actions. I think they are against the best interests of America and the world. But I part ways with the rest of you when you start demonizing him. I think he's doing what he incorrectly *believes* to be in America's best interests. I think opposition is more useful if it's based on this knowledge, instead of on some fantasy of Bush as cartoon villain. I dislike the widespread tendency among people of all political hues to assume that their opponents must necessarily be dishonest. And I really hate black-and-white thinking, no matter who engages in it. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:27:04 -0600 (CST) From: gshell@metronet.com Subject: Re: apropos of nothing On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Christopher Gross wrote: > For brevity's sake, I'll skip all the parts about the details of Rummy's > plan. Just remember, I was not saying the plan was a good idea. I was > saying that the plan does NOT prove a.) that Rumsfeld wants to kill > Americans, b.) that it was intended to turn innocent non-terrorists into > terrorists, or c.) that Rumsfeld secretly tortures little kittens, > molests nuns and listens to Celine Dion. just calico kitten and early Celine Dion, right? gSs ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:09:18 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Snow. Anyone else out there stuck in this storm on the east coast? We have nearly 7" already. It wasn't even supposed to start until 5 PM, it began at 8 AM. They say it won't end till 7 PM tomorrow, with the worst yet to come. It's mind blowing. Please Canadians, don't mock me! Max _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:29:54 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: apropos of nothing On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 gshell@metronet.com wrote: > > For brevity's sake, I'll skip all the parts about the details of Rummy's > > plan. Just remember, I was not saying the plan was a good idea. I was > > saying that the plan does NOT prove a.) that Rumsfeld wants to kill > > Americans, b.) that it was intended to turn innocent non-terrorists into > > terrorists, or c.) that Rumsfeld secretly tortures little kittens, > > molests nuns and listens to Celine Dion. > > just calico kitten and early Celine Dion, right? Calicos? No, you're thinking of John Ashcroft! ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:44:39 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Snow. On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Maximilian Lang wrote: > Anyone else out there stuck in this storm on the east coast? We have > nearly 7" already. We have about 10 inches (25 cm) here, and it's still coming down hard. This morning (at least two inches ago) I tried to walk a mile down the road to Dunkin Donuts, but couldn't make it -- it was too hard lifting my my feet above knee level with every step. I just wish I had a pair of snow shoes, because it's beautiful. Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon: in a heavy snow, some car owners will clear off their windshields and rear windows, but leave a thick cake of snow on their car roofs, which eventually either falls onto the windshield or blows onto the windshields of the cars behind. "Gee, people right behind me keep losing control of their cars. What a strange coincidence!" Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:57:07 -0500 From: "Roberta Cowan" Subject: RE: Snow. I was in New York yesterday for the peace rally and didn't get back to Baltimore until very late. So I didn't make it to the grocery store to stock up on eggs, cheese, milk and snack foods. Fortunately I have plenty of toilet paper and duct tape. 8-) Anyway, I thought I'd be able to go to the store today because I too had heard it wasn't supposed to start until much later. By the time I got up today I could barely get my front door open. The news said it could be in the top 5 storms we've ever had. Guess I'm going to be eating a lot of beans and soup for the next couple of days. Concerning the rally, if you'd like to see a fairly accurate account of what was going on I recommend the article from the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/international/16RALL.html?ex=1046421213&ei =1&en=7070d13fecd6765a I was one of the lucky people who walked from 53rd and Lexington up to 72nd and 2nd Ave. before being allowed access to the rally. My observation would be that the estimated tally of people at the rally would be greatly less than reality due to the large numbers who were discouraged by the police barricades and left and by the fact that due to the extreme cold, thousands of people were leaving throughout the afternoon, to be replaced by those latecomers who entered at 72nd St. and walked south again. There were thousands of others hanging out along the streets outside the barricades also. The good naturedness, determination and passion of many of the people I encountered yesterday will stay with me for a long time. It was worth the trip. Cheers, Roberta > Anyone else out there stuck in this storm on the east coast? We have >nearly 7" already. It wasn't even supposed to start until 5 PM, >it began at >8 AM. They say it won't end till 7 PM tomorrow, with the worst >yet to come. > It's mind blowing. Please Canadians, don't mock me! > > Max ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:22:30 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: Snow. Quoting Roberta Cowan : > I was in New York yesterday for the peace rally and didn't get back to > Baltimore until very late. So I didn't make it to the grocery store to > stock up on eggs, cheese, milk and snack foods. Fortunately I have > plenty > of toilet paper and duct tape. Funny how no one's caught on yet: the snowstorm is a terrorist attack! Al Qaeda seeded the clouds! Panic! Panic! Panic! - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: PLEASE! You are sending cheese information to me. I don't want it. :: I have no goats or cows or any other milk producing animal! :: --"raus" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:02:14 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: apropos of nothing On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Christopher Gross wrote: > On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Brian Huddell wrote: > > > Chris, why in the world are you even bothering to create a "better > > light" in which to cast this possible strategy of Rumsfeld's? > > Because it bothers me when people automatically assume the worst, > without any proof. What assumptions about "the worst" were made? Do you really think that the plan absolutely precluded the loss of innocent lives? Do you really think that anyone involved in that planning truly believes that's even possible? > (Especially when such assumptions are made only about the US, no one > else.) No one else's motives and methods are being discussed. > > Let's grant all of your more favorable interpretations. > > Yes, why not -- since there is EXACTLY as much evidence for them as for > Capuchin's most UNfavorable interpretations. Which was one of my > points. Actually, I was giving the original poster the benefit of the doubt by interpreting the terms "stage" and "staging" in that particular way. In that sense, I would say my interpretations were the more favorable. As for what the plan entails, I don't think there is a reasonable interpretation that precludes at least disturbing the peace of innocent lives (nor likely their safety). You wrote that it's a "bad idea" (probably and in your opinion and other such qualifiers), but you then reject any discussion of WHY it's a bad idea as "unfavorable interpretation" and "demonizing". > But was the idea for US forces to kill Americans and blame it on > terrorists, as Jeff initially mis-remembered? No. Well, that plan has been proposed and approved, it just hasn't been verified whether or not Rumsfeld approved such a plan. > And was the idea for the US to provoke non-terrorists into becoming > terrorists so that Rummy can kill people he knows are no threat to us, > as Capuchin believes? I don't think so. Chris, nobody's a "terrorist" until they inflict terror. If they haven't DONE anything destructive, they're not terrorists. You can provoke a rebel or dissident to BECOME a terrorist. Plans and ideas do not make you a criminal in my book. And provocation to crime makes one at least complicit to the crime, if not as responsible as the provoked. > It's the latter two points that I was arguing. I was NOT defending the > plan, I was disputing the more fantastic interpretations of it. So it's a "fantastic" interpretation to assume that the plan included injury or death to innocent people as possible collateral damage. And it's fantastic to assume that a person who has not yet attacked anyone might not attack anyone. It's possible to prevent injury to innocent people and all suspects are criminals. Great. > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > However, what exactly is "fake" about a "terrorist attack carried out > > by the US government against Americans"? Do you suppose the victims - > > whether fatalities, injuries, or merely shock and fright, will feel > > all better once they (excluding the fatalities, and including those > > people's friends and relatives) hear that it was "only" the > > government? > > Sigh.... No, I meant a "fake terrorist attack" in the sense of "an > attack carried out by US forces and falsely attributed to foreign > terrorists." The point was the false attribution. Was that really > unclear, or are you just trying to change the subject? It's unclear AND he's trying to change the subject. > For brevity's sake, I'll skip all the parts about the details of Rummy's > plan. Just remember, I was not saying the plan was a good idea. I was > saying that the plan does NOT prove a.) that Rumsfeld wants to kill > Americans, b.) that it was intended to turn innocent non-terrorists into > terrorists, or c.) that Rumsfeld secretly tortures little kittens, > molests nuns and listens to Celine Dion. For brevity and reason's sake, I'll skip all of the absurd associations you're trying to draw and stick to a) and b). a) Rumsfeld approved a plan that includes "provoking terrorists into attack". The fantastic assumption here is that nobody would get hurt, not that somebody could get hurt. Whether those people are Americans or not is totally beside the point. b) A person is innocent until they take action. Provoking an attack means pushing people who are not yet guilty into becoming guilty. Whether or not those people would have taken action on their own is pure speculation. > > > Well, there's also precedent for terrorist groups killing people on > > > their own initiative, without the Pentagon masterminding the whole > > > thing; but I guess some precedents are meaningful and others > > > aren't... > > > > That is correct: the meaningful precedents are the ones we can (or > > should be able to) control (U.S. policy), not the ones we can't. > > Sigh #2.... My precendents quip was aimed at Capuchin. Right, so only I can bite at your bait. If you really want such restrictions on the replies to your comments, perhaps you shouldn't make them on a public list. > He claims precedent for believing the worst of the US government, but he > also seems not to believe that any terrorists would attack us if we > didn't trick them into it. The first really depends on your definition of "the worst". The second is total nonsense and not at all supported by what I wrote. Let's assume that by "trick" you mean purposely provoke a particular group of people into a particular type of attack. Merely provoking the attack isn't enough because, as you wrote yourself, U.S. foreign policy (i.e. the war with Iraq) will provoke plenty of attacks on its own. Provoking just any old group of people isn't enough because unless the group is well-known and specifically targetted, you can't know who to hit back after the attack. And provoking a particular group of human beings into any old attack isn't sensible because it would be very hard to prove that the attack was related to the group you provoked without some foreknowledge and because the attack provoked might be totally out of scale with your "acceptable risk" analysis (and I think assuming such an analysis is done certainly shows I'm not just demonizing). Since you have to target your provocation on a particular group of people, you're assuming that that particular group of people would attack (someone) if they weren't "tricked". That assumption is totally bogus. I absolutely accept that SOME groups are going to do some attacking without specific provocation (being tricked), but I absolutely reject that any particular group is going to do something without such provocation. Just like I believe that somebody's going to kill someone else in New York City this month, but I'm not about to say that it's a particular person and provoke them into doing it at a particular time or place or in a particular manner so that I can have the evidence to pin it on them. That's just wrong. > I was pointing out that there are precedents for terrorist attacks that > the terrorists carried out of their on volition ... precedents that > Capuchin apparently ignores or discounts. Clear now? How were you pointing that out? You wrote that it's fantastic to assume that terrorists attacks wouldn't happen unless they were provoked by a specific provocation plan. I agree with that statement. However, it's totally irrelevant. It's at least unfair, certainly unjust, and probably untrue to assume that a particular group of people would engage in a particular criminal act without being lead to it through a targetted provocation. You seem to have swallowed this idea that there is such a thing as a "terrorist" who has not yet committed an act of terror. By the way, I'd LOVE to read your definition of "terrorist" some time. > Look, I oppose the war in Iraq and the great majority of Bush's other > policies and actions. I think they are against the best interests of > America and the world. But I part ways with the rest of you when you > start demonizing him. I think he's doing what he incorrectly *believes* > to be in America's best interests. I think opposition is more useful if > it's based on this knowledge, instead of on some fantasy of Bush as > cartoon villain. I dislike the widespread tendency among people of all > political hues to assume that their opponents must necessarily be > dishonest. See, here's where you're just plain wrong and not looking at the arguments presented because of your own biases and fears. Nobody said Bush & co. were out there committing evil acts for the sake of evil (as a cartoon villain might). Nobody wrote that they were being particularly dishonest in carrying out there actions (though I think an argument for intellectual dishonest and doublethink could probably be made in some cases, but that's not quite the same thing). And I don't think anybody wrote that they're knowingly and intentionally destroying freedom in the sense that they understand and appreciate it (though it's exactly the difference between their understanding of concepts like freedom and democracy where the judgment of evil can be inserted). In fact, I think the Bush administration has been SHOCKINGLY honest in their descriptions of what they want and how they're going to go about doing it. And it's shocking because it is so clearly one-sided and destructive to the world outside their privileged American lifestyles. Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. were responsible for putting together that hideous "Project for the New American Century" which is just a terrifying description of global imperialism and world domination. The National Security Council published their National Security Strategy for the United States of America which describes the destruction of foreign sovereignty and political economy as a matter of U.S. national security. And these things are all described in terms of promoting freedom and security. And if you're a rich white person, that's pretty much what they do for you. The ruling class is guilty of a whole lot of things, but dishonesty isn't really one of them. The rest of the world is being told exactly how they're going to get fucked. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:03:46 -0800 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: More on the paranoid angle Christopher Gross said: "If I can engage in petty quibbling for the third time in two days ... Ronald Reagan returned to private life on 20 January 1989. In 1994 we had already endured a term of Bush Sr. and were well into the Clinton era. Are you sure this show was funded by "a government agency"? This would be very unusual in the US. Although PBS is partially funded by the feds, otherwise the government generally stays out of the TV biz. (We red-blooded Americans can't have socialized TV any more than socialized medicine!) Could it possibly have been sponsored by some private body with a vaguely governmental-sounding name, like the National Committee for Ethnic Stereotyping? I wonder if these could have been old "classic" cartoons. I've heard that a lot of viciously racist cartoons were made by the Looney Toons people and their contemporaries back in the '40s, only to be quietly retired from syndication in the '60s. Did Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck appear at any point? Just curious...." In reply, I am quite aware that what I said the other day is horrible. That the American government was funding anti-arab cartoons as far back as the early 90's. I even hated to mention it because it's such a disturbing thought. Yet I saw it and I knows what I knows. These cartoons contained no charming characters like Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck. They were not made in the past with loving care, they were churned out on a modern computer. Granted I was iffy about the date so I checked that - we moved from that house in 1993 so it can't have been as late as 1994 that I saw them. My knowledge of American government is also shaky, so it may have been during the reign of Bush rather than Reagan. I was actually hoping that someone would correct me on that. But there was a government label introducing the cartoons, something to do with children and education. I watched mesmerized as the racial stereotypes did their deeds in a charmless way. Normally I would turn off such a cartoon, but it was so bizarre to see and my daughter was so young that she didn't know it was junk. Note to Stewart: bravo for protesting in such icy weather in Toronto! Try to get a job in Victoria, it's rainy here but not cold. Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 01:00:42 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: Ya govor'yu Te Reo Maori ochen plokho >Also, ochen' has a soft sign and govoryu does >not. you're right, of course. Shows how much Russian I've written in the last ten years (approximately zero). Also, I never could remember where those damned soft signs went. James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:10:19 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: apropos of nothing Quoting Capuchin : > Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. were responsible for putting together that > hideous "Project for the New American Century" which is just a > terrifying > description of global imperialism and world domination. The National > Security Council published their National Security Strategy for the > United > States of America which describes the destruction of foreign sovereignty > and political economy as a matter of U.S. national security. > > And these things are all described in terms of promoting freedom and > security. And if you're a rich white person, that's pretty much what > they > do for you. True in the short term - but even rich white people will eventually suffer from these plans, since they are, ultimately, destructive of so many things that even RWPs depend upon: our economy, for one. And to take an obvious example: if the Bushies' policy results in, say, another terrorist attack on the level of the WTC attack, no amount of wealth would protect anyone at the site of the attack. While Bush has been, in some respects, straightforward in expressing his vision of the new US empire, tax policy that blatantly favors the wealthy, etc., he has also been dishonest in the political presentation of much of this. That is, in, say, the SOTU address, he's not saying, "You, the average American viewer, will suffer immensely from the long-term effects of my policies. My policies will increase the gap between the wealthy and the poor, sap funding that might stem the decay of our poorer urban neighborhoods, increase the likelihood of crime, desperation, adn starvation, increase the animosity of the rest of the world toward the United States"...etc. etc. etc. Not that I'd expect *any* politician, even ones I admire, to be *quite* so forthcoming about the negative aspects of a policy (and every policy hurts someone, because some people's interests are inalterably opposed to some other people's interests). ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb :: --Batman ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #56 *******************************