<strong>No camps, no government support, just moving. That's grounds for surveillance, not war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm in the maybe-need-more-time-but-won't-rule-out-war camp. I'm afraid that the tooth pulling process with Iraq puts more at risk for our worst fears, but that we need more proof of Iraq's wilingness to let terrorists operate (meaning more than just moving through) untouched in the coutnry. I think a very aggressive stance is getting results though, however poorly the Bush admin handles it. I'd rather look to Tony Blair's example for that.
But I just don't want to hear that Iraq has been a good little boy all this time. I don't believe it for a second, and we might have have to agree to disagree on our approach and our attitude about Iraq.
I think a very aggressive stance is getting results though, however poorly the Bush admin handles it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I have no problem with an aggressive stance and it's what's necessary at this point to get something accomplished. This could be a make or break moment for the future of the UN, and if Bush screws it for his own short term goals I'll be pissed.
Personally I'm in the war-will-probably-be-the- only-way-to-handle-the-situation-but-we-must-get- there-through-the-UN camp.
Reading this bunge-BuonRotto debate got me thinking about the pro-war vs. anti-war debate in general. It's interesting to me because it is asymmetrical. What I mean is that there are very valid and logical and moral reasons for being against a war, and the reasons tend to be deductively valid, e.g., killing is wrong, therefore no war.
But the pro-war arguments can't, IMO, ever hold the same kind of deductive validity. The reasoning is more inductive: "yes there are pros and cons but the pros in this specific circumstance outweigh the cons."
I'm thinking about the rallies - millions of people have rallied against the war, and the anti-war reasoning is clear and straightforward. Apparently there have been some "pro-war" rallies, but they've been more "support our troops" rallies than truly pro-war.
Eh, I'm probably thinking too much. It's a bad habit.
<strong>Iraq is part of the war on terror, and by extension, the war on the Islamacists. Islam is a real and ominous threat. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh buddah. Here we go again.
You're scarred in your view of Islam because Muslims are doing horrible things in your neck of the woods. But a lot of that hatred comes from the horrible things Israelis are doing in your neck of the woods. If we were going to judge "Jewry" on the actions of the IDF alone we'd end up with a similar view of Judaism.
I know you can't see it's a double edged sword; that you think I'm blind to this ghastly Islamic threat.
Trouble is I live in Brick Lane with a bunch of Muslims and we get along juuuust fine (and no, they don't preach shit about me behind my back) so I see how racist and wrong you are every day. Every single day.
You're scarred in your view of Islam because Muslims are doing horrible things in your neck of the woods. But a lot of that hatred comes from the horrible things Israelis are doing in your neck of the woods. If we were going to judge "Jewry" on the actions of the IDF alone we'd end up with a similar view of Judaism.
I know you can't see it's a double edged sword; that you think I'm blind to this ghastly Islamic threat.
Trouble is I live in Brick Lane with a bunch of Muslims and we get along juuuust fine (and no, they don't preach shit about me behind my back) so I see how racist and wrong you are every day. Every single day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Harald,
I only hope you say this out of ignorance. Type: ?Muslim killing? or ?Muslim murder? into a google search. You?ll find out very quickly that there isn?t a place on this globe where Muslims just get along with others.
Also,
I find it extremely implausible that anyone, just gets along with you, Muslim or otherwise.
You're scarred in your view of Islam because Muslims are doing horrible things in your neck of the woods. But a lot of that hatred comes from the horrible things Israelis are doing in your neck of the woods. If we were going to judge "Jewry" on the actions of the IDF alone we'd end up with a similar view of Judaism.
I know you can't see it's a double edged sword; that you think I'm blind to this ghastly Islamic threat.
Trouble is I live in Brick Lane with a bunch of Muslims and we get along juuuust fine (and no, they don't preach shit about me behind my back) so I see how racist and wrong you are every day. Every single day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think what he was referring to was more along the lines of the Militant Islamists that are active in many parts of the world. I have many Muslim friends and love the dearly. I have had discussions with them and some agree that militant Islams is a major threat to world peace and stability. Look at most of the hot spots around the world and you will find a surprising number involve militant Islamists, fighting against injustice as they see it. Problem is, to many of them, so long as they are a majority, even in a small region of a country, they see it as an injustice that the are not living under Islamic law in an Islamic republic. Even in Islamic nations they rise up against secular govenments. Malaysia, The Philipines, Kashmir, Indonesia, Algeria, Chechnya, Bosnia and Kosovo, Singapore, and Isreal and all targets of militant Islamists. And since they often take their local fight international, we see attacks in New York and Washington, Moscow and Dehli, Yemen and Tanzania and Kenya. How many spectacles of mass murder, insurgency and terrorism can you site involving militant Jewery outside of Isreal, going with you own comparison?
While you and I live with peaceful moderate muslims, it would be foolish and blind to deny that there is a worldwide danger from militant Islamists.
I don't see where they are advocation 'world-wide oppression'. They seem to be advocation world-wide democracy.
<hr></blockquote>
If China, India, Italy or any other nation becomes too powerful, the current stategy is to stop them, ally or not. It is the main point behind Rebuilding America's Defenses. Take a second and actually look at what the actual policy is before forming such a strong backwards view.
[quote]
The fact that they lay it out in an open and honest text scares you? You would prefer it was hidden from you as a secret agenda? There is another thread here dealing with a frontline documentary...<hr></blockquote>
in the future, just assume that I have seen or read it when you refer to something. I'm so deep in info on this it will literally take you months and a job at a major library (and gov. depository) like mine to catch up.
BTW, moron, I cited the documentary in my original post. Good demonstration of how little you digest before spewing uninformed BS.
in the future, just assume that I have seen or read it when you refer to something. I'm so deep in info on this it will literally take you months and a job at a major library (and gov. depository) like mine to catch up.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okeedokey, I will from now on assume that you are all-knowing and all-wise, because you are a librarian.
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
BTW, moron, I cited the documentary in my original post. Good demonstration of how little you digest before spewing uninformed BS.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right, my bad, you did mention it. I defer to your seemingly infinite librarian wisdom.
If China, India, Italy or any other nation becomes too powerful, the current stategy is to stop them, ally or not. It is the main point behind Rebuilding America's Defenses . Take a second and actually look at it what the actual policy is before forming such a strong backwards view.
in the future, just assume that I have seen or read it when you refer to something. I'm so deep in info on this it will literally take you months and a job at a major library (and gov. depository) like mine to catch up.
BTW, moron, I cited the documentary in my original post. Good demonstration of how little you digest before spewing uninformed BS.
I?m not sure what you have in mind. You say you?ve read these documents, what do you suggest they mean with regards to stoping them?
Also,
as recent and not so recent events have clearly demonstrated, none can be counted on, ally or not. Not even Britain. You seem to be very happy with the status quo. I?m telling you it is a mistake to let it continue. Not only will the Iraq war be self-financing, Iraq is a means to changing the logic of our relationship with the Arab/Islamic world, particularly Saudia, which is the largest financier of radical Islam today.
<strong>Maybe it's a lack of education, but Americans seem to be ignorant of the fact that American military domination of the world is a BAD idea</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is not a bad idea. It has kept the world a more stable place than if we did not set up in stragic places all over the globe. You state it as domination I see that term as less than honest. The world would be far less at peace if we did not have our men and women stationed across the globe.
<strong>You guys have completely missed the point.
Advocating world-wide oppression is going to bite this entire country in the ass.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you on drugs? It is not the policy of the United States to oppress the world. You are way out there giant. You are beyond the realm of intelligent discussion. You need to think clearly before you insert these off the wall statements in your posts. You need to provide specific evidence to support what it is you say. Don't paint some doom and gloom picture filled with fear and oppression. ie working off of peoples fears to advance nothing but your brand of politics.
I find it interesting how close bunge and I are on this issue, but how different our opinions are at the same time. It's just a slight change in attitude from his opinion to mine. I suppose I'm like Bush in here, not the most eloquent, which is why I like to read others' comments who can make more cogent arguments, be it someone here, Tony Blair or whoever.
Sorry for the Jerry Springer "moment of truth" bit.
I find it appaling that you people admit you haven't even read one of these documents, much less even studied these policies for any length of time, yet you try to argue against YOURSELVES. In one breath you support American military oppression and in the next deny that it exists.
You haven't even thought through the policies you support. You haven't even listened to what their proponents are saying. If you talked to Cheney, Perle or Wolfowitz, they would think you were a complete fool.
In their own words, they feel peace is only possible through a 'Unipolar' political landscape that limits the military capabilities of ALL other nations. If this isn't world domination, then nothing is. The fact that you don't want to accept that you are supporting that doesn't change the reality. The fact that you BELIEVE our sanctioned forms of democracy to be the best does not change the fact that you are imposing political systems on soveriegn states such as Iraq.
You belief in the virtue of the strategy does not change what it is. It also show a lack of exposure to other political systems and world history. Communism, for one, is a system that, on paper, is more virtuous than our current system, but the oppression that resulted from OFFENSIVE strategies let to much pain and suffering.
This is exactly what is happening now with the US and why the vast, vast majority of people on earth do not support it. But hawkish Americans have made it very clear that they (you) think they know better than everyone else and justify the adoption of an OFFENSIVE and OPRESSIVE strategy.
There is no debate as to WHAT the strategy is (it's all right in front of you. hell, some of you even say it here), the debate centers around the question: do you think you know better than the rest of the world and do you support imposing your political and economic systems on others?
If you do not impose your political and economic system, others will impose theirs. The Islamacists certainly have. So have the Fascists, Communists. How long do you think it will be before they come after you? Nevermind. That's been answered already.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong> It is not the policy of the United States to oppress the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, the decades of US intervention in Central and South America have resulted in a blossoming of stable, prosperous democracies across the entire region. The rest of the world can't wait to follow suit.
<strong>If you do not impose your political and economic system, others will impose theirs. The Islamacists certainly have. So have the Fascists, Communists. How long do you think it will be before they come after you? Nevermind. That's been answered already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see. the reason we've had this political system for the past 225+ years (longer than any democracy) is because we have been the sole superpower dictating the political systems and limiting expansion and advancement of every nation on Earth. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I see. the reason we've had this political system for the past 225+ years (longer than any democracy) is because we have been the sole superpower dictating the political systems and limiting expansion and advancement of every nation on Earth. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Where shall we start? With British and French? The Spanish? The Germans, Russians, Japanese, Chinese? The lesser players like Egypt, South Africa, Iraq? How well do you think America would have faired against the Communists without her trading partners? America without her trading partners would not have been able to withstand the Communist?s advances. Why do you think America has so many aircraft carriers? Why the American commitments to Europe or the Pacific, the ME, South/Central America, etc? It?s so American client states remained American client states.
PS.
Your sarcasm betrays a disturbing oblivion to reality. I would have liked to mark it off as ignorance but I doubt such is the case. The emotional attachment to your position completely blinds you to the reality of things. And it might surprise you to know, I?m not at all so enthusiastic about American intervention. But neither am I blind to its merrits. And the Iraq War, I believe, is a smart move.
I see. the reason we've had this political system for the past 225+ years (longer than any democracy) is because we have been the sole superpower dictating the political systems and limiting expansion and advancement of every nation on Earth. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
And your reasons for the longevity of the American political system? Assume for a moment you were not a superpower...do you imagine you would have your current system?
Reality check. Your current system is protected by your stature as a superpower. How is it wrong/immoral/scary/unexpected that a superpower would wish to protect it's pre-eminence, given the alternatives provided by other recent superpowers and rising superpowers? It is a natural state of order that the strong wish to remain strong.
As a side note, since you feel that you are best informed and obviously no one else has an opinion that matters, unless they have the rsources of a government library (and obviously a whole lot of free time on and off the job), why do you bother wasting your time posting here? Surely it is an exercise in frustration to have to enter into polite discussion with some many obviously inferior people.
The conspiracist in me tells me that Giant has been attempting to lube "us" up on the idea over a matter of months in little tidbits and suggestions, and then chose to drop this "bombshell" on us today hoping we would gulp it hook, line, and sinker. :eek: Well, it's just a theory... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Damn it, he's onto us! [cuts open the smuggled panda cages and starts packing important documents and manifesto]
Comments
<strong>No camps, no government support, just moving. That's grounds for surveillance, not war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm in the maybe-need-more-time-but-won't-rule-out-war camp. I'm afraid that the tooth pulling process with Iraq puts more at risk for our worst fears, but that we need more proof of Iraq's wilingness to let terrorists operate (meaning more than just moving through) untouched in the coutnry. I think a very aggressive stance is getting results though, however poorly the Bush admin handles it. I'd rather look to Tony Blair's example for that.
But I just don't want to hear that Iraq has been a good little boy all this time. I don't believe it for a second, and we might have have to agree to disagree on our approach and our attitude about Iraq.
<strong>
I think a very aggressive stance is getting results though, however poorly the Bush admin handles it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I have no problem with an aggressive stance and it's what's necessary at this point to get something accomplished. This could be a make or break moment for the future of the UN, and if Bush screws it for his own short term goals I'll be pissed.
Personally I'm in the war-will-probably-be-the- only-way-to-handle-the-situation-but-we-must-get- there-through-the-UN camp.
But the pro-war arguments can't, IMO, ever hold the same kind of deductive validity. The reasoning is more inductive: "yes there are pros and cons but the pros in this specific circumstance outweigh the cons."
I'm thinking about the rallies - millions of people have rallied against the war, and the anti-war reasoning is clear and straightforward. Apparently there have been some "pro-war" rallies, but they've been more "support our troops" rallies than truly pro-war.
Eh, I'm probably thinking too much. It's a bad habit.
<strong>Iraq is part of the war on terror, and by extension, the war on the Islamacists. Islam is a real and ominous threat. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh buddah. Here we go again.
You're scarred in your view of Islam because Muslims are doing horrible things in your neck of the woods. But a lot of that hatred comes from the horrible things Israelis are doing in your neck of the woods. If we were going to judge "Jewry" on the actions of the IDF alone we'd end up with a similar view of Judaism.
I know you can't see it's a double edged sword; that you think I'm blind to this ghastly Islamic threat.
Trouble is I live in Brick Lane with a bunch of Muslims and we get along juuuust fine (and no, they don't preach shit about me behind my back) so I see how racist and wrong you are every day. Every single day.
<strong>
Oh buddah. Here we go again.
You're scarred in your view of Islam because Muslims are doing horrible things in your neck of the woods. But a lot of that hatred comes from the horrible things Israelis are doing in your neck of the woods. If we were going to judge "Jewry" on the actions of the IDF alone we'd end up with a similar view of Judaism.
I know you can't see it's a double edged sword; that you think I'm blind to this ghastly Islamic threat.
Trouble is I live in Brick Lane with a bunch of Muslims and we get along juuuust fine (and no, they don't preach shit about me behind my back) so I see how racist and wrong you are every day. Every single day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Harald,
I only hope you say this out of ignorance. Type: ?Muslim killing? or ?Muslim murder? into a google search. You?ll find out very quickly that there isn?t a place on this globe where Muslims just get along with others.
Also,
I find it extremely implausible that anyone, just gets along with you, Muslim or otherwise.
<strong>
Oh buddah. Here we go again.
You're scarred in your view of Islam because Muslims are doing horrible things in your neck of the woods. But a lot of that hatred comes from the horrible things Israelis are doing in your neck of the woods. If we were going to judge "Jewry" on the actions of the IDF alone we'd end up with a similar view of Judaism.
I know you can't see it's a double edged sword; that you think I'm blind to this ghastly Islamic threat.
Trouble is I live in Brick Lane with a bunch of Muslims and we get along juuuust fine (and no, they don't preach shit about me behind my back) so I see how racist and wrong you are every day. Every single day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think what he was referring to was more along the lines of the Militant Islamists that are active in many parts of the world. I have many Muslim friends and love the dearly. I have had discussions with them and some agree that militant Islams is a major threat to world peace and stability. Look at most of the hot spots around the world and you will find a surprising number involve militant Islamists, fighting against injustice as they see it. Problem is, to many of them, so long as they are a majority, even in a small region of a country, they see it as an injustice that the are not living under Islamic law in an Islamic republic. Even in Islamic nations they rise up against secular govenments. Malaysia, The Philipines, Kashmir, Indonesia, Algeria, Chechnya, Bosnia and Kosovo, Singapore, and Isreal and all targets of militant Islamists. And since they often take their local fight international, we see attacks in New York and Washington, Moscow and Dehli, Yemen and Tanzania and Kenya. How many spectacles of mass murder, insurgency and terrorism can you site involving militant Jewery outside of Isreal, going with you own comparison?
While you and I live with peaceful moderate muslims, it would be foolish and blind to deny that there is a worldwide danger from militant Islamists.
I don't see where they are advocation 'world-wide oppression'. They seem to be advocation world-wide democracy.
<hr></blockquote>
If China, India, Italy or any other nation becomes too powerful, the current stategy is to stop them, ally or not. It is the main point behind Rebuilding America's Defenses. Take a second and actually look at what the actual policy is before forming such a strong backwards view.
[quote]
The fact that they lay it out in an open and honest text scares you? You would prefer it was hidden from you as a secret agenda? There is another thread here dealing with a frontline documentary...<hr></blockquote>
in the future, just assume that I have seen or read it when you refer to something. I'm so deep in info on this it will literally take you months and a job at a major library (and gov. depository) like mine to catch up.
BTW, moron, I cited the documentary in my original post. Good demonstration of how little you digest before spewing uninformed BS.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
in the future, just assume that I have seen or read it when you refer to something. I'm so deep in info on this it will literally take you months and a job at a major library (and gov. depository) like mine to catch up.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okeedokey, I will from now on assume that you are all-knowing and all-wise, because you are a librarian.
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
BTW, moron, I cited the documentary in my original post. Good demonstration of how little you digest before spewing uninformed BS.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right, my bad, you did mention it. I defer to your seemingly infinite librarian wisdom.
<strong>
If China, India, Italy or any other nation becomes too powerful, the current stategy is to stop them, ally or not. It is the main point behind Rebuilding America's Defenses . Take a second and actually look at it what the actual policy is before forming such a strong backwards view.
in the future, just assume that I have seen or read it when you refer to something. I'm so deep in info on this it will literally take you months and a job at a major library (and gov. depository) like mine to catch up.
BTW, moron, I cited the documentary in my original post. Good demonstration of how little you digest before spewing uninformed BS.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I?m not sure what you have in mind. You say you?ve read these documents, what do you suggest they mean with regards to stoping them?
Also,
as recent and not so recent events have clearly demonstrated, none can be counted on, ally or not. Not even Britain. You seem to be very happy with the status quo. I?m telling you it is a mistake to let it continue. Not only will the Iraq war be self-financing, Iraq is a means to changing the logic of our relationship with the Arab/Islamic world, particularly Saudia, which is the largest financier of radical Islam today.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>Maybe it's a lack of education, but Americans seem to be ignorant of the fact that American military domination of the world is a BAD idea</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is not a bad idea. It has kept the world a more stable place than if we did not set up in stragic places all over the globe. You state it as domination I see that term as less than honest. The world would be far less at peace if we did not have our men and women stationed across the globe.
Fellowship
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>You guys have completely missed the point.
Advocating world-wide oppression is going to bite this entire country in the ass.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you on drugs? It is not the policy of the United States to oppress the world. You are way out there giant. You are beyond the realm of intelligent discussion. You need to think clearly before you insert these off the wall statements in your posts. You need to provide specific evidence to support what it is you say. Don't paint some doom and gloom picture filled with fear and oppression. ie working off of peoples fears to advance nothing but your brand of politics.
Fellowship
Sorry for the Jerry Springer "moment of truth" bit.
I find it appaling that you people admit you haven't even read one of these documents, much less even studied these policies for any length of time, yet you try to argue against YOURSELVES. In one breath you support American military oppression and in the next deny that it exists.
You haven't even thought through the policies you support. You haven't even listened to what their proponents are saying. If you talked to Cheney, Perle or Wolfowitz, they would think you were a complete fool.
In their own words, they feel peace is only possible through a 'Unipolar' political landscape that limits the military capabilities of ALL other nations. If this isn't world domination, then nothing is. The fact that you don't want to accept that you are supporting that doesn't change the reality. The fact that you BELIEVE our sanctioned forms of democracy to be the best does not change the fact that you are imposing political systems on soveriegn states such as Iraq.
You belief in the virtue of the strategy does not change what it is. It also show a lack of exposure to other political systems and world history. Communism, for one, is a system that, on paper, is more virtuous than our current system, but the oppression that resulted from OFFENSIVE strategies let to much pain and suffering.
This is exactly what is happening now with the US and why the vast, vast majority of people on earth do not support it. But hawkish Americans have made it very clear that they (you) think they know better than everyone else and justify the adoption of an OFFENSIVE and OPRESSIVE strategy.
There is no debate as to WHAT the strategy is (it's all right in front of you. hell, some of you even say it here), the debate centers around the question: do you think you know better than the rest of the world and do you support imposing your political and economic systems on others?
[added smiley]
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong> It is not the policy of the United States to oppress the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, the decades of US intervention in Central and South America have resulted in a blossoming of stable, prosperous democracies across the entire region. The rest of the world can't wait to follow suit.
<strong>If you do not impose your political and economic system, others will impose theirs. The Islamacists certainly have. So have the Fascists, Communists. How long do you think it will be before they come after you? Nevermind. That's been answered already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see. the reason we've had this political system for the past 225+ years (longer than any democracy) is because we have been the sole superpower dictating the political systems and limiting expansion and advancement of every nation on Earth. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
I see. the reason we've had this political system for the past 225+ years (longer than any democracy) is because we have been the sole superpower dictating the political systems and limiting expansion and advancement of every nation on Earth. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
To a great extent yes.
Where shall we start? With British and French? The Spanish? The Germans, Russians, Japanese, Chinese? The lesser players like Egypt, South Africa, Iraq? How well do you think America would have faired against the Communists without her trading partners? America without her trading partners would not have been able to withstand the Communist?s advances. Why do you think America has so many aircraft carriers? Why the American commitments to Europe or the Pacific, the ME, South/Central America, etc? It?s so American client states remained American client states.
PS.
Your sarcasm betrays a disturbing oblivion to reality. I would have liked to mark it off as ignorance but I doubt such is the case. The emotional attachment to your position completely blinds you to the reality of things. And it might surprise you to know, I?m not at all so enthusiastic about American intervention. But neither am I blind to its merrits. And the Iraq War, I believe, is a smart move.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>
I see. the reason we've had this political system for the past 225+ years (longer than any democracy) is because we have been the sole superpower dictating the political systems and limiting expansion and advancement of every nation on Earth. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
And your reasons for the longevity of the American political system? Assume for a moment you were not a superpower...do you imagine you would have your current system?
Reality check. Your current system is protected by your stature as a superpower. How is it wrong/immoral/scary/unexpected that a superpower would wish to protect it's pre-eminence, given the alternatives provided by other recent superpowers and rising superpowers? It is a natural state of order that the strong wish to remain strong.
As a side note, since you feel that you are best informed and obviously no one else has an opinion that matters, unless they have the rsources of a government library (and obviously a whole lot of free time on and off the job), why do you bother wasting your time posting here? Surely it is an exercise in frustration to have to enter into polite discussion with some many obviously inferior people.
[ 03-04-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
Damn it, he's onto us!