From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #297 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, October 20 2004 Volume 13 : Number 297 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? [FSThomas ] Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? [] Pixies, Dallas(ish), TX 10-19 [Bret ] Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? [FSThomas ] Arcade Fire for Jolie Holland [51% Canadian Content] ["Stewart C. Russell] RE: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registere d voters make a difference? [Dr John Halewo] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:23:12 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? Bret wrote: >>>Also, I don't see anything wrong with showing your ID when you vote. >>>It just proves you are who you say you are when they cross your name >>>off in the book. Your name isn't on your ballot. >> >>I don't understand the problem with that, either. Seems to be about the >>best way to ensure that there is a minimum of voter fraud. > > That *is* the problem. Wait... Are you saying that ensuring there's a reduced amount of fraud is a *problem*? That voter fraud, election tampering, and the like are *good* things? Just curious. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:29:05 -0500 From: Bret Subject: Fwd: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bret Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:28:42 -0500 Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? To: FSThomas On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:23:12 -0400, FSThomas wrote: > Bret wrote: > >>>Also, I don't see anything wrong with showing your ID when you vote. > >>>It just proves you are who you say you are when they cross your name > >>>off in the book. Your name isn't on your ballot. > >> > >>I don't understand the problem with that, either. Seems to be about the > >>best way to ensure that there is a minimum of voter fraud. > > > > That *is* the problem. > > Wait... > > Are you saying that ensuring there's a reduced amount of fraud is a > *problem*? That voter fraud, election tampering, and the like are > *good* things? > Simply saying the folks who are complaining the loudest about the requirement of ID, are quite likely the same folks who want to vote 37 times, register felons and others who cannot legaly vote, and then claim they were never given the chance to vote. - --Bret Bolton - -- - --Bret Bolton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:35:57 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? Christopher Gross wrote: > I personally don't think it makes sense anymore; but > then, neither does the Electoral College, and THAT is still law too....) Ech. The Electoral College ensures that the individual states gain equal representation in the electoral process. Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census). If we were do do away with this portion of our governmental process that "doesn't make sense," then Presidential elections would simply boil down to New York, Michigan, Florida, and California elections, with the rest of the country falling by the wayside. Live in Oregon? Wanna see the Presidential candidates or, God forbid, have *anything* on their ticket have next to *anything* to do with you? Pack yer bags and move to California. Christ, the Constitution stipulated that the President was to be chosen by the states to begin with--the office was *never* intended to be filled by a vote--much less one measured by the majority. People foolishly think we live in a democracy; we don't. The word doesn't appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Not once. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:44:32 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Gender issues in Homo neanderthalensis Neanderthal Man (Godley/Creme/Stewart) I'm a neanderthal man, you're a neanderthal girl Let's make neanderthal love in this neanderthal world I'm a neanderthal man, you're a neanderthal girl Let's make neanderthal love in this neanderthal world I'm a neanderthal man, you're a neanderthal girl Let's make neanderthal love in this neanderthal world I'm a neanderthal man, you're a neanderthal girl Let's make neanderthal love in this neanderthal world I'm a neanderthal man, you're a neanderthal girl Let's make neanderthal love in this neanderthal world .... Neanderthal man, neanderthal man, aaah I'm a neanderthal man, you're a neanderthal girl Let's make neanderthal love in this neanderthal world .... Ohoho, ohoho - na-na-na-na na na-na .... GB #2 7/70 D #4 8/70 see also Mindbenders .... (Graham Gouldman & Eric Stewart) 10cc .... Godley & Creme .... Wax .... (Graham Gouldman) ************************************************************************ Weirdly, some websites ascribe this song to Elton John. Any idea why? - - Mike "homo habilis" Godwin PS to Matt: Have you had any takers for that Glastonbury ticket yet? Um... er... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:02:46 -0500 From: Subject: Re: pre-reap? [demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:27 , 2fs sent: >"Not that I care as a non-motorcyclist, but I don't suppose all >motorcyclists are neanderthal sexist pigs, are they? (Although judging >from the crowd at the Harley 100th anniversary annoyance in Milwaukee >last year, an awful lot of them are...)" 'Neanderthal Sexist Pigs'. So you were including in this description, women as well? That would make you the first person I have ever heard describe any woman as a neanderthal sexist pig. >You can call it a "misconception" if you want - but in fact, it's a >perception, and as I phrased it, I recognize that it's limited and >tentative. For what it's worth, easily 90% of the bikers (by which I >mean: people actually operating the motorcycle) were male. There were >some women bikers, to be sure. But most of the women I saw (and this >is based on having to be out trying to drive somewhere as the bikers >clogged up the streets) were riding on the controversially-designated >seat in question. So are these woman the sexists or are they just more like the sheep, in your opinion? I have been riding in some form or another since I was 7. And through the entire time I have been trying to get any of my girlfriends to drive, not ride. In all this time only a few have ever even attempted it. One learned to operate a YZ 125 fairly well, but still preferred to ride as a passenger no matter how much I insisted. >Further: at least 75% or more of the bikers were white guys (or more >accurately: very few were black). At least half looked exactly like >what you'd think a biker looks like (i.e., in their forties or >fifties, heavy, longish unkempt hair, beard, wearing black leather). > >This is the picture of America's great nonconformist, the biker... The majority of modern 'bikers' are frustrated middle aged men. Most of them had never before owned or even ridin a motorcycle until fairly recently. Modern bikers, are not the picture of America's great nonconformist. The majority are in fact conformists with a short lived wild hair. They buy a new bike for 15-20 thousand dollars, join a local riders club and then sell their bikes within about 3 years and never ride again. >But as far as the notion that "neanderthal" somehow refers to men >(generally, not just in the sentence I wrote), elementary logic time: You must not read what I write very thoroughly. I stated specifically that very point. Yet, your reference was in regard to men exclusively. >If I said, "a group of glasses-wearing Robyn Hitchcock fans," that >doesn't mean that everyone who wears glasses is a Robyn Hitchcock fan. >Substitute "neanderthal" for "glasses-wearing," and "bikers" for Robyn >fans - and Greg's logic error becomes quite a bit clearer, I think. Your deduction is flawed. Again, when you used the phrase 'neaderthal sexists pigs', you were not talking about women. You used the phrase to misclassify 'an awful lot of them'. That was my point, which I believe you actually understood. >Oh - and if you really believe that your Humpty-Dumpty-esque usage of >"pussy" is a compliment, I suggest you wander into a bar and call a >man that...and then try explaining you only meant that he was a source >of joy and good feeling. I don't drink, so I have no reason to venture into a bar and I certianly wouldn't walk up to a strangers just to insult them. Words like vestibule, labia major, vulvae just don't work for me in most of the situations where I would need to use such words. I do say clit normally instead of clitoris, though not always, but pussy is a word I like to use in place of the word vagina in a complimentary manner and almost always in or leading up to an intimate situation, not as insult to a stranger in a bar or even as a cheap comment regarding someone I don't care for. Does that mean I have never called a guy a pussy? No, I have used the word as an insult when I was younger, but I have never called a girl a pussy. I did hear a girl call another a girl a 'pussy bitch' once. A few of us onlookers just glanced at each other and shook our heads. Then we started offering more appropriate and fitting insults for each of them to use. gSs nip - vein melter, herbie hancock - ---- Msg sent via WebMail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:16:21 -0500 From: Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? [demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:35 , FSThomas sent: >Christ, the Constitution stipulated that the President was to be chosen >by the states to begin with--the office was *never* intended to be >filled by a vote--much less one measured by the majority. Wasn't it originally intended that the house of representatives would make the final choice from a list of finalists that had been determined by the states? gSs - ---- Msg sent via WebMail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:32:35 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:29:05 -0500, Bret wrote: > Simply saying the folks who are complaining the loudest about the > requirement of ID, are quite likely the same folks who want to vote 37 > times, register felons and others who cannot legaly vote, and then > claim they were never given the chance to vote. Do you seriously think this is a common problem? I mean, maybe in Chicago - I know Michael Wells usually votes about eight times...;) - but I don't think there are a huge mass of people out there who "want to vote 37 times." Quite the opposite: too many people don't bother to vote or, worse, don't bother to be informed enough to vote (or worse yet, vote anyway). Different states have different laws about whether felons who've done their time can vote - but I fail to see why a felon who has done his time shouldn't be allowed to vote. I don't get the logic there at all: they still live in our society, and if we want them to contribute positively, un-representing them is not a good way to do it. And far more *non*-felons whose names or other biographical data were vaguely similar to felons - and who, in a stunning and completely accidental utter coincidence, were African-American all out of proportion to their presence in the population as a whole - were denied votes they had the right to, far more than felons who did (improperly, according to the laws of their state) actually vote. It's a red herring issue: lack of access to polls, apathy, and outright intimidation is a far huger issue than voter fraud. This is true on principal as well as in terms of number. - -- ++Jeff++ The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:29:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? FSThomas wrote: > The Electoral College ensures that the individual states > gain equal representation in the electoral process. > Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to > the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the > number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change > each decade according to the size of each State's > population as determined in the Census). Except that once they set the membership of the House of Representatives at a fixed number (435), less populace states have gained an increasing disproportionate amount of say in the Electoral College. The Electoral College no longer ensures that smaller states will not be ignored; instead, it enables a tyranny of the minority. > If we were do do away with this portion of our > governmental process that "doesn't make sense," then > Presidential elections would simply boil down to New > York, Michigan, Florida, and California elections, with > the rest of the country falling by the wayside. Live in > Oregon? Wanna see the Presidential candidates or, God > forbid, have *anything* on their ticket have next to > *anything* to do with you? Pack yer bags and move to > California. Whereas now, if you live in California or Texas or New York - -- the three most populace states -- and you want to see a Presidential candidate (outside of fundraisers), move to Nevada. > Christ, the Constitution stipulated that the President > was to be chosen by the states to begin with--the office > was *never* intended to be filled by a vote--much less > one measured by the majority. True. And it's time to fix that flaw within the document, just as we recognized that blacks are whole people rather that just 60% and that women are people and.... ===== "[The Bush administration] deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride." -- President Aleksander Kwasniewski, Poland "'Bushworld' is sort of an alternate universe where things are the opposite of what they seem. President Bush said the other day, 'It is a ridiculous notion to assert that because the United States is on the offensive, more people want to hurt us. We are on the offensive because people do want to hurt us.' I mean that is a perfect 'Bushworld' quote. It's not true and it's nonsensical. It's the opposite of what is true. His new campaign motto is 'America is safer. Be afraid, be very afraid.' Everything is an oxymoron." -- Maureen Dowd Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:59 -0500 From: Subject: Re: Fwd: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? [demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text] On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:29 , Bret sent: >Simply saying the folks who are complaining the loudest about the >requirement of ID, are quite likely the same folks who want to vote 37 >times, register felons and others who cannot legaly vote, and then >claim they were never given the chance to vote. I think there are 16 states that do not allow convicted felons to vote. Essentially, the rest will let them vote once they have completed their sentences, ie.. probation, county/city jail, parole or prison. Some of these states are a bit stricter than others in regard to having the 'right' restored in that some require you to actually petition or request the restoration of the right to vote. In Texas, I believe that anyone on probation, parole or in jail for any offense, felony or misdemeanor cannot legally vote. But like the misdemeanor criminal, once the felons have completed their sentences all they have to do is register. gSs nip - black girlfriend, porno for pyros - ---- Msg sent via WebMail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:44:21 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: My new crew - --On Mittwoch, 20. Oktober 2004 8:43 Uhr -0500 "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." wrote: > Watch out, we're gonna get you. Was that really supposed to direct me to ??? With most pictures taken from www.schladerbotze.de? How did you find that? These are all people that belong to a Karnevalsverein in Bergisch Gladbach (where Heidi Klum hails from!) ... - -- Sebastian Hagedorn PGP key ID: 0x4D105B45 http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:51:35 -0500 From: Bret Subject: Pixies, Dallas(ish), TX 10-19 For those planning on seeing shows on this tour, I was simply blown away by the show they put on last night. Last time I saw the Pixies was in 1992 or so, and was not nearly impressed. Last night was a 5000 seat venue and all but the uppermost balcony was full (who'd have thought they still have this sort of draw). They came out, ripped through 25 or so songs, almost never said a word, and played basically everything one would expect to hear. Frank sounded great; same as ever, but Kim, didn't sound nearly as well as before (could have been a cold, the long tour, anything) no real complaint, just an observation. As some friends of mine (a guy I ride motorcycles with funny enough) still work at the venue I was able to have suite tickets for my wife and myself. This allowed me to watch the ALCS game 6 on a nice HD flatpanel hanging on a wall in the suite before the show, and could peek over our shoulder back into the room during. So it was a good night for us. If you're questioning the tour, it is worth it. (and worth it just for a pixies:sellout shirt) Now, back to politiks, and pussies. - -- - --Bret Bolton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:12:54 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? Jeff Dwarf wrote: > Except that once they set the membership of the House of > Representatives at a fixed number (435), less populace > states have gained an increasing disproportionate amount of > say in the Electoral College. The Electoral College no > longer ensures that smaller states will not be ignored; > instead, it enables a tyranny of the minority. Arguably so. The number of Electorates is dictated now by the census, I believe, hence the states of Florida and California wielding such ungodly amounts of power. Placing anything on a Federal level up to a simple majority vote--be it election of the President to Constitutional reform--is a plain *bad* idea, though. If you want to see your rights whittled away, the fastest way to do it is to switch to a majority rule system. Under that system gone would be the protection afforded to minorities (that's any minority, be it black, Jewish, foot fetishist, what have you). > ...it's time to fix that flaw within the document, > just as we recognized that blacks are whole people rather > that just 60% and that women are people and.... Do you honestly think that any of those amendments you mentioned have been ratified--much less considered--had they been left to a popular vote? Ice cube's chance in Hell, boy-o. > Whereas now, if you live in California or Texas or New York > -- the three most populace states -- and you want to see a > Presidential candidate (outside of fundraisers), move to > Nevada. Heh. Actually Ohio's been the playground for the Man Who Would Be King (and King Again) lately. At the core, though, meddling with the Constitution is a bad idea (outside of meaningful amendments, natch). Meddling with the way that elections are held is a bad idea, too, IMHO. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:19:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, FSThomas wrote: > The Electoral College ensures that the individual states gain equal > representation in the electoral process. Each State is allocated a > number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) > plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each > decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in > the Census). Yep, and that's exactly what I'd like to get rid of. When you're voting for president, a nation-wide office, why the hell should it matter what state you live in? WHY? Every US citizen should have an equal say in the presidential election. Under the current system, Wyoming, with a population of about 490,000, gets 3 electoral votes, or 1 per 163,333 residents. California, with a population of about 33,870,000, gets 55 electoral votes, or 1 per 615,818 residents. Can anyone explain how this could possibly be fair? > If we were do do away with this portion of our > governmental process that "doesn't make sense," then Presidential > elections would simply boil down to New York, Michigan, Florida, and > California elections, with the rest of the country falling by the > wayside. And Texas! Second most populous state, I believe. But actually, I think it's more likely that campaigns would broaden to appeal to the country as a whole, rather than focus on individual states to the extent they do now. If votes are not apportioned by state, then a Californian and a ... Wyominger? ... are equally valuable to candidates. Sure, candidate's personal appearances and rallies might be more limited to large urban areas, since that's where the most voters are, but that'd be no worse than the current practice of focusing on swing states. And personal appearances are just a part of campaigning. > People foolishly think we live in a democracy; we don't. The word > doesn't appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or > the Bill of Rights. Not once. The republic-vs.-democracy distinction is pretty much dead outside of Poli Sci OO1 multiple-choice exams. In the eighteenth century, to be sure, "democracy" meant "mob rule." In modern times, the word "democracy" has come to mean self-government by the people, either directly or through elected representatives. I certainly HOPE we live in a democracy by the modern definition! - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:19:33 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registered voters make a difference? At 08:29 AM 10/20/2004 -0700, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > If we were do do away with this portion of our > > governmental process that "doesn't make sense," then > > Presidential elections would simply boil down to New > > York, Michigan, Florida, and California elections, with > > the rest of the country falling by the wayside. Live in > > Oregon? Wanna see the Presidential candidates or, God > > forbid, have *anything* on their ticket have next to > > *anything* to do with you? Pack yer bags and move to > > California. > >Whereas now, if you live in California or Texas or New York >-- the three most populace states -- and you want to see a >Presidential candidate (outside of fundraisers), move to >Nevada. > > Christ, the Constitution stipulated that the President > > was to be chosen by the states to begin with--the office > > was *never* intended to be filled by a vote--much less > > one measured by the majority. > >True. And it's time to fix that flaw within the document, >just as we recognized that blacks are whole people rather >that just 60% and that women are people and.... A compromise could be reached between a nationwide majority-win type system, and the desire to make sure each state has adequate representation in the process, without touching the Constitution nor doing away with the electoral college. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a state must award all of its electoral votes to one candidate. Electoral votes could be split among candidates based on regions within the state (with the "Senatorial" votes going to the winner of the state-wide popular election), or split the electoral votes based on the percentages voting for each candidate within a state. Either way, the red-state/blue-state dichotomy would be become much less important, although it would not be completely disregarded. Maine and Nebraska currently award two electoral votes to the statewide winner and one apiece to the winner in each of their congressional districts. Colorado has something on the ballot this election that would, if it passes, split all the electoral votes of the state based on percentages (in this race as well). If all states adopted the potential Colorado system, it would bring the electoral count much closer to the popular count, while still weighing the counts in favor of less populated states. Because of the extra two "Senatorial" electoral votes, the electoral vote percentages would not necessarily match the nationwide voting split - but it would bring it much closer to the "popular vote" than the current manner in which 48 states do it. Even the Maine/Nebraska method would be preferable, in my opinion, although you'd most likely see even worse attempts at gerrymandering as the formation of red and blue districts becomes even more important for the major parties - not only affecting the House but also the Presidential outcome. Republicans would hate to see the Colorado system adopted in Colorado this election, because it will most likely mean Bush will come out with less electoral votes. But, in the end, if it happened nationwide, they'd be more than thrilled to be able to pull electoral votes out of places like California and New York. That said, I'd still favor a nation wide popular count for the one elected nationwide office (well, two-in-one). I don't think it's fair for the votes of people in less-populated states to count more, and the concept of states rather than citizens choosing the president is rather antiquated. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:02:17 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: pre-reap? 2fs wrote: > > "Bastard" is not a particularly gendered term. but it is a grade of file. I used one yesterday that was stamped with the brand "Sunflower Bastard". Which might be a good name for a band, or Robyn's next album. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:25:16 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Arcade Fire for Jolie Holland [51% Canadian Content] Despite not liking Spooked, the Wild East guy did recommend two effin' amazing CDs: * Arcade Fire "Funeral" - think harsh-edged Roxy Music. Lovely, complex, slightly over the top rock. And from Montreal, too. * Jolie Holland "Escondido" - a folk/blues Bjork, with perhaps that jazz chanteuse thing going on too (but not in a boring smooth [think D. Krallzzzzzzz] way). Formerly the voice of the Be Good Tanyas, so got her start in Canada. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:37:02 +0100 From: Dr John Halewood Subject: RE: 2 weeks to go to the election, will all the newly registere d voters make a difference? Ferris scribbled: > In the UK (FegUKs, currect me if I'm wrong) they have a > National Heath Service (NHS, or some similar acronym--forgive me, it's been > years since I've been over--). They have a "right" to health care. When they > exercise that right, they go to the hospital and produce an NHS card > with a number on it. How is exercising your right to vote in the US any > different? Wanna vote? Produce evidence you're who you say you are. Okay, you're wrong ;-) In the UK the NHS provides health care that is 'free for all at the point of care', which basically means that anyone is treated (at Accident and Emergency departments at least) without any proof of identification and without any cost involved. For all services, you don't need your NHS number - - just a name and address. If you're a non-national (tourist etc) you'll eventually need to produce evidence of health insurance, and in other cases they'll try and claw back money from you (for example, if you were in a car crash which was your fault, the fire brigade and the NHS will charge costs of attending to your car insurance). The NHS number is a bit of a mystery though - a few years ago I changed doctor and helpfully brought along my NHS card with my NHS number on it, only to be told it was no use as they'd changed the system a few years back and everybody had been issued new numbers. They didn't tell me what my new number was - all they wanted was name, address (which was different to my previous one) and date of birth. However the powers that be are now threatening to bring in a wonderfully dodgy ID card scheme, complete with non-working biometric features (fingerprint recognition that doesn't work, ditto retinal scans) which will supposedly be compulsory to get medical treatment - apart from the fact that the actual medical staff are seemingly set against it and won't implement it. cheers john p.s. Apparantly there is no scientific evidence for validating fingerprints. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #297 ********************************