bcb@hhb.UUCP (Bob BField) (03/06/86)
This is the second posting in a series on the Sandinista Problem. The previous posting introduced our need to overthrow the Sandinistas with an invasion involving American forces. This posting deals with the task at hand here at home. F.B.E. ---------------------------------------------------------- Our first step in overthrowing the Sandinistas in Nicaragua is winning the support of the American public and of Congressmen. Some solutions are currently in place, but more must be done. The Reagan Administration and others have convinced a great number that the Sandinistas must go. We must take further steps to maintain and expand current support. This is no simple prospect with the specter of Vietnam haunting us. I congratulate the Administration and others for their successful efforts to control the nature and scope of information available to the public. They employ new techniques combined with traditional techniques to place Nicaragua in a dim light. Information favorable to the Sandinistas is quickly dispatched to obscurity, falsified, and overwhelmed. The most valuable, tried-and-true technique is red bating. It works miracles on laymen and Congressmen. We successfully labeled the Sandinistas as "communists" who threaten our National Security. This priceless technique renders them evil. It justifies military action. Those who speak favorably of the Sandinistas are automatically either dupes or communists. People who know things that we don't want said are wary of speaking up for fear of being fingered. The inescapable logic of red bating parallels the effective Moonie concept that all non-Moonies are possessed by the devil. Therefore they lie, trying to trick Moonies into abandoning their blessed state of grace. We must take advantage of red bating's fullest potential. An admirable technique employed by the Administration is the press barrage. When anything favorable to the Sandinistas comes out, the media are barraged with an abundance of statements swamping and attacking the validity of opposition information. This way, the media spend all of their time covering White House and Pentagon statements while ignoring the original story. A fine example of this is the barrage story of a Soviet jet fighter shipment to Nicaragua during their elections. We saw extensive coverage of this escalating threat with miniscule coverage of the elections. The only aspect of the elections for which the Media had time and space were official and unofficial statements that the elections were a sham. Proof that the jets were shipped and that the elections were a sham was neither necessary nor existent. It's the media coverage that counts; not the facts. Another technique involves the use of language. Since we control the language of the debate, we control the debate itself. The use of rhetorical abstraction places the debate on our own ground where the opposition is doomed to failure. We frame our turf with such language as Democratic, Freedom Fighters, National Security, Threat, Marxist, Leninist, Communist, Totalitarian, Puppet, Dictatorship, Just War. The opposition cannot avoid appearing apologetic, weak, and downright wrong. These and other techniques have proven to be very effective in obtaining support for the Contras in the past. At this point, we have lost much support in Congress for Contra funding. Also, we lack support for a full-blown military action involving a large contingency of American troops. We can always bypass Congressional funding hesitancy through alternative channels such as our good friend Israel. The invasion, however, requires strong support or it is doomed at the outset. This campaign demands a greater effort on our part. The primary obstacle here is the "Vietnam Syndrome" fear of foreign military action. We must also silence anyone who speaks favorably of the Sandinistas without it back-firing on us. Solving the latter solves the former because alternative sources of information nullify support for military action. The sources of information favorable to the Sandinistas are primarily Americans who have visited and resided in Nicaragua along with those journalists who disagree with our goal of eradicating the Sandinistas. To solve the information problem we must augment our discrediting campaign with direct attacks on these sources of information. The first, most obvious step is to ban all travel to Nicaragua by American citizens, recalling the great number who currently live there. We should also step up our efforts to bar any foreigner known to speak favorably of the Sandinistas from entering or remaining in the US. For those returning Americans who speak well of the Sandinistas, we should conduct a campaign of silencing and discrediting. We could use techniques such as accusing and arresting them for drug possession, child abuse, treason. Violent groups sympathetic with our cause will serve well to ransack opposition offices, living quarters, and lives. We used this form of harassment effectively on Vietnam war protesters and currently on groups assisting refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala. For those defiant Americans who remain in Nicaragua and for opposition journalists, we could train and finance death squads clad in Nicaraguan military garb. This would serve to eradicate our opposition while making the Sandinistas look worse. We could even use the killing of Americans to rationalize the invasion. We have plenty of experience with this avenue of action. Considering our current efforts and an expansion thereof, we will succeed in swaying public opinion sufficiently to overcome our reluctance to act. Once we have tighter control over the information, we will tailor history to suit our interests. We must succeed. We will succeed. F. B. Esdalib Next Posting: After the overthrow. ------------------------------------------------- The views expressed above are neither those of my employer, my colleagues, nor myself. _ Bob B-Field
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/08/86)
>This is the second posting in a series on the Sandinista Problem. The >previous posting introduced our need to overthrow the Sandinistas with >an invasion involving American forces. This posting deals with the task >at hand here at home. Great article :-) Seriously, I liked it (even though it had a slight bias :-). >Also, we lack support for a >full-blown military action involving a large contingency of American troops. >The invasion requires >strong support or it is doomed at the outset. This part I disagree with. The trick is to finish the invasion quickly. As long as you have a quick victory, you will have support from most of the population. If you blow it and get entangled in a long drawn out struggle (war of attrition) then your support will erode.
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (03/09/86)
In article <12256@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) writes: > >The invasion requires > >strong support or it is doomed at the outset. > > This part I disagree with. The trick is to finish the invasion quickly. > As long as you have a quick victory, you will have support from most > of the population. If you blow it and get entangled in a long drawn > out struggle (war of attrition) then your support will erode. What you prefer is to present the American people with a fait accompli, as Reagan did with Grenada. The very essence of democracy. Really Neat!
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (03/09/86)
In article <12256@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) writes: > > Great article :-) > > Seriously, I liked it (even though it had a slight bias :-). > I may have misunderstood Tom Tedrick's stand on this issue in my last posting. Being a recent participant on the net, I am just beginning to pay attention to ':-)' . I am sorry about the confusion.
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/09/86)
In article <89@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: >In article <12256@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) writes: >> >The invasion requires >> >strong support or it is doomed at the outset. >> >> This part I disagree with. The trick is to finish the invasion quickly. >> As long as you have a quick victory, you will have support from most >> of the population. If you blow it and get entangled in a long drawn >> out struggle (war of attrition) then your support will erode. > >What you prefer is to present the American people with a fait accompli, >as Reagan did with Grenada. The very essence of democracy. Really Neat! No, I think you missed the point. The point is that public opinion in a democracy is fickle. If you present them with a quick victory at little cost, you are likely to be well received. If you get in a war that drags on for awhile, public support is likely to erode. I prefer not to have wars in the first place. Why do you make inferences about my preferences when I am discussing a problem in military theory? I don't see the logical connection.
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/11/86)
>This is the second posting in a series on the Sandinista Problem. The >previous posting introduced our need to overthrow the Sandinistas with >an invasion involving American forces. This posting deals with the task >at hand here at home. F.B.E. >---------------------------------------------------------- My next posting deals with the need to "overthrow" propagandistic postings. Hey pal, you want to make some accusations? Then make explicit accusations. Don't disguse it as 'humor'. Also, please don't claim to represent your oppostion in a posting. It makes it difficult to respond since the 'you' and 'they' thing can get confused. More importantly it lowers your posting from rational discourse to just plain bs. >Our first step in overthrowing the Sandinistas in Nicaragua is winning >the support of the American public and of Congressmen. Some solutions >are currently in place, but more must be done. The Reagan Administration >and others have convinced a great number that the Sandinistas must go. >We must take further steps to maintain and expand current support. This >is no simple prospect with the specter of Vietnam haunting us. I take it you approve of the outcome in Vietnam. And, what's that other country's name, starts with a C, just can't seem to recall it. Uh, well, might it have been 'Cambodia', oops, sorry, I said the forbidden word. >I congratulate the Administration and others for their successful efforts >to control the nature and scope of information available to the public. >They employ new techniques combined with traditional techniques to place >Nicaragua in a dim light. Information favorable to the Sandinistas is >quickly dispatched to obscurity, falsified, and overwhelmed. Try to stick to reality, ok? I mean, what are you saying when you write 'quickly dispatched'? If you can't make an accusation that makes sense, why write? > >The most valuable, tried-and-true technique is red bating. It works Hitting them with a baseball bat, or a flying mammal? But seriously folks .... :-) . >miracles on laymen and Congressmen. We successfully labeled the Sandinistas >as "communists" who threaten our National Security. This priceless >technique renders them evil. It justifies military action. Those who The Saninistas aren't Communists? Communists aren't evil? I see. >speak favorably of the Sandinistas are automatically either dupes or >communists. People who know things that we don't want said are wary of >speaking up for fear of being fingered. The inescapable logic of red Are you kidding? Who in _this_ country is afraid of speaking up? This just isn't what is happening. Some people (like Reagan) have the almightly nerve to say that if you espouse policies that help the Communists, hey, you ESPOUSE POLICIES THAT HELP THE COMMUNISTS. Like, ah, wow man, like A = A. How astonishing. Of course, this is fascism. >bating parallels the effective Moonie concept that all non-Moonies are >possessed by the devil. Therefore they lie, trying to trick Moonies into >abandoning their blessed state of grace. We must take advantage of red >bating's fullest potential. >An admirable technique employed by the Administration is the press barrage. >When anything favorable to the Sandinistas comes out, the media are >barraged with an abundance of statements swamping and attacking the >validity of opposition information. This way, the media spend all of >their time covering White House and Pentagon statements while ignoring >the original story. A fine example of this is the barrage story of a How nervy. The Administration actually puts forth its views? What's the world coming to? Some of these statements disagree with the Sandinistas' point of view. Definitely fascism. >Soviet jet fighter shipment to Nicaragua during their elections. We >saw extensive coverage of this escalating threat with miniscule >coverage of the elections. The only aspect of the elections for which >the Media had time and space were official and unofficial statements >that the elections were a sham. Proof that the jets were shipped and >that the elections were a sham was neither necessary nor existent. It's >the media coverage that counts; not the facts. Point: The Administration actually didn't want the story covered, especially in the sensationalistic way it was. And the Administration _never_ said that there were Migs on the way to Nicaragua. The press did enjoy asking lots of very leading questions and trying to get the US to say something provocative. This leads to the _real_ point. I think you're trying to say that there is a conspiracy in the media to support US policy in Nicaragua. Is that why you post humor? This is simply not the case. Say so if you think it is actually the situation. I doubt if you have the nerve to actually claim that. >Another technique involves the use of language. Since we control the >language of the debate, we control the debate itself. The use of rhetorical >abstraction places the debate on our own ground where the opposition is >doomed to failure. We frame our turf with such language as Democratic, >Freedom Fighters, National Security, Threat, Marxist, Leninist, Communist, >Totalitarian, Puppet, Dictatorship, Just War. The opposition cannot avoid >appearing apologetic, weak, and downright wrong. In orther words, if the Administration doesn't phrase its arguments in the least convincing way possible, they're all National Socialists. >These and other techniques have proven to be very effective in obtaining >support for the Contras in the past. At this point, we have lost much >support in Congress for Contra funding. Also, we lack support for a >full-blown military action involving a large contingency of American troops. >We can always bypass Congressional funding hesitancy through alternative >channels such as our good friend Israel. The invasion, however, requires >strong support or it is doomed at the outset. This campaign demands a >greater effort on our part. The primary obstacle here is the "Vietnam >Syndrome" fear of foreign military action. We must also silence anyone who >speaks favorably of the Sandinistas without it back-firing on us. Solving >the latter solves the former because alternative sources of information >nullify support for military action. The US policy is to send in US troops, right? You are claiming that this is really Reagan's 'secret plan', aren't you? >The sources of information favorable to the Sandinistas are primarily >Americans who have visited and resided in Nicaragua along with those >journalists who disagree with our goal of eradicating the Sandinistas. 'Eradicating' is rather strong terminology. We don't want to allow emotionalism to distort our argument, do we? Actually, as I see it, there are no sources of information favorable to the Sanidistas. There are plenty of sources that parrot the M-L line (that's Marxist-Leninist). One major point of that line is that Reagan plans to send in US combat troops, apparently just for the fun of it. That is pretty close to what you say, right? IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT. >To solve the information problem we must augment our discrediting >campaign with direct attacks on these sources of information. >The first, most obvious step is to ban all travel to Nicaragua by American >citizens, recalling the great number who currently live there. We should Pardon me, _great number_ ? >also step up our efforts to bar any foreigner known to speak favorably of >the Sandinistas from entering or remaining in the US. For those returning >Americans who speak well of the Sandinistas, we should conduct a campaign >of silencing and discrediting. We could use techniques such as accusing >and arresting them for drug possession, child abuse, treason. Violent Come _on_. Silencing? How is that done? The discrediting is easy, just let them talk. It's all very reminiscent of the people who made trips to Cuba and Vietnam. Same praise, same lies. Also, please inform me of any _treason_ arrests made by the US of people returning from Nicaragua. I don't think you can support this claim. >groups sympathetic with our cause will serve well to ransack opposition >offices, living quarters, and lives. We used this form of harassment >effectively on Vietnam war protesters and currently on groups assisting >refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala. As I recall the Vietnam war protesters, they were the ones planting bombs, burning down buildings and harassing people. By the way, the immigration laws apply to everyone, even self styled saviors who feel they have the right to violate any law they feel like. >For those defiant Americans who remain in Nicaragua and for opposition >journalists, we could train and finance death squads clad in Nicaraguan >military garb. This would serve to eradicate our opposition while >making the Sandinistas look worse. We could even use the killing of >Americans to rationalize the invasion. We have plenty of experience with >this avenue of action. Just make up lies if the facts don't support your case. I notice the 'eradicate' word creeping in there again. I like this, just blend up a random mix of lies, propaganda and bs, post it to the net and call it humor. Very funny. >Considering our current efforts and an expansion thereof, we will succeed in >swaying public opinion sufficiently to overcome our reluctance to act. >Once we have tighter control over the information, we will tailor history >to suit our interests. We must succeed. We will succeed. > F. B. Esdalib >Next Posting: After the overthrow. >------------------------------------------------- >The views expressed above are neither those of my employer, my colleagues, >nor myself. _ Bob B-Field > Is this a parody of itself, or is it just moronic? Guy
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/11/86)
Guy Ferraioli really got upset at the luscious satire posted on Reagan's Central American War. Of course some of his points may make no sense but .... > > Bob B_Field >Guy Ferraioli > >miracles on laymen and Congressmen. We successfully labeled the Sandinistas > >as "communists" who threaten our National Security. This priceless > >technique renders them evil. It justifies military action. Those who > > The Saninistas aren't Communists? Communists aren't evil? I see. > Is the government of Nicaragua "communist"? The media seems totally unwilling to confront this question but the answer is an unequivocal no. As has been pointed out before 35% of the Nicaraguan Assembly elected to office in the election of 1984 (an election, please note) are from opposition parties and not even Sandinistas. Besides these official organizations who are not Sandinistas whatsoever, the Sandinistas themselves include various factions from priests to former guerrilas some of whom are Communists and some who are not. Nor does the label "communist" necessarily mean "undemocratic". This was demonstrated when Communists participated in the government of France after being elected as part of the Socialist-Communist coalition. On to red-baiting: (one notes the former point is *never* made in the media) > >speak favorably of the Sandinistas are automatically either dupes or > >communists. People who know things that we don't want said are wary of > >speaking up for fear of being fingered. The inescapable logic of red > > Are you kidding? Who in _this_ country is afraid of speaking up? This > just isn't what is happening. Some people (like Reagan) have the > almightly nerve to say that if you espouse policies that help the > Communists, hey, you ESPOUSE POLICIES THAT HELP THE COMMUNISTS. Like, > ah, wow man, like A = A. How astonishing. Of course, this is fascism. Well, for one, Republican Senator from Kansas, Nancy Kassebaum, was upset enough about Reagan's red-baiting tactics that she gave a speech deploring such tactics. Secondly, it is one thing to "ESPOUSE POLICIES THAT HELP THE COMMUNISTS" (note previous comment about whether Nicaragua is "communist" and what the hell does that mean anyway?) and another thing to ESPOUSE POLICIES OF WANTON TERROR, VIOLENCE, MURDER, RAPE, AND DESTRUCTION against the innocent civilians of a fellow member of the Organization of American States. Let us consider an analogy to this reasoning: "IF you do NOT support lining up all martini-drinkers against the wall and having them shot then you are ESPOUSING POLICIES THAT PROMOTE DRUG ABUSE." Can you see the difference there, Guy? (I *hope* you do not see executing martini-drinkers as good....) "Peace in the World, or the World in Pieces!" tim sevener whuxn!orb
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/12/86)
> Guy Ferraioli really got upset at the luscious satire posted > on Reagan's Central American War. Of course some of his > points may make no sense but .... >>> = Bob B_Field >> = Guy Ferraiolo > = Tim Sevener >> >miracles on laymen and Congressmen. We successfully labeled the Sandinistas >> >as "communists" who threaten our National Security. This priceless >> >technique renders them evil. It justifies military action. Those who >> >> The Saninistas aren't Communists? Communists aren't evil? I see. >> >Is the government of Nicaragua "communist"? The media seems totally unwilling >to confront this question but the answer is an unequivocal no. As has >been pointed out before 35% of the Nicaraguan Assembly elected to office >in the election of 1984 (an election, please note) are from opposition >parties and not even Sandinistas. Besides these official organizations >who are not Sandinistas whatsoever, the Sandinistas themselves include >various factions from priests to former guerrilas some of whom are >Communists and some who are not. I've been told that there are no Communists in the world, only dedicated Socialists working towards Communism. So I use the term Communist to describe orthodox Marxist-Leninists. That does seem to describe the Sandinistas. As for the other political groups currently involved with the Sandinista dominated government, they are about as important as the other 'non-Communist' groups that formed part of the NLF in Vietnam. I hope everyone remembers how the NLF was going to govern the South, how it wasn't Communist controlled, and how it was really a broad front of various groups opposing 'imperialism'. Too bad all those statements were false. I _predict_ that if the Sandinistas remain in control of Nicaragua, the other groups will eventually be forced out just like in Vietnam. For a view of how this works (written by someone not favorable to the US) read 'A VietCong Memoir'. I'll dig up the author's name if necessary. It was published last year. > Nor does the label "communist" >necessarily mean "undemocratic". This was demonstrated when Communists >participated in the government of France after being elected as part of >the Socialist-Communist coalition. Sorry, _by definition_ Communism rejects what we think of as democracy. M-Lism requires the existence of a 'vanguard' of revolutionaries who are not bound by democratic controls. This is exactly what is wrong with Communism. Of course, a Communist organization can participate in democratic government, just like the National Socialists did. That didn't make the Nazis democratic and it doesn't make Communists democratic. Try reading "On Utopian and Scientific Socialism" by Lenin. >On to red-baiting: (one notes the former point is *never* made in the media) >> >speak favorably of the Sandinistas are automatically either dupes or >> >communists. People who know things that we don't want said are wary of >> >speaking up for fear of being fingered. The inescapable logic of red >> >> Are you kidding? Who in _this_ country is afraid of speaking up? This >> just isn't what is happening. Some people (like Reagan) have the >> almightly nerve to say that if you espouse policies that help the >> Communists, hey, you ESPOUSE POLICIES THAT HELP THE COMMUNISTS. Like, >> ah, wow man, like A = A. How astonishing. Of course, this is fascism. >Well, for one, Republican Senator from Kansas, Nancy Kassebaum, was >upset enough about Reagan's red-baiting tactics that she gave a >speech deploring such tactics. I claim that _very_ few people in the US are afraid of government punishment for speaking up. Certainly Senator Kassenbaum has a right to criticise the Administration. I don't think she is _afraid_ to speak up. Certainly she hasn't been silenced. Just because some people don't like what the Administration is saying, doesn't mean that the Administration is frightening people into silence. Provide some examples of people being silenced (as opposed to speaking out) and I might believe you. > Secondly, it is one thing to >"ESPOUSE POLICIES THAT HELP THE COMMUNISTS" (note previous comment >about whether Nicaragua is "communist" and what the hell does that mean >anyway?) Good question. Of course on a metaphysical level, it's tough to say. Maybe Britain _shouldn't_ have opposed the Nazis in, say, 1933. Maybe by letting the National Socialists alone until forced into war in 1939, Britain gained some advantage. It is possible, and there isn't any scientific or logical way to prove it one way or the other. Perhaps we can use "common sense" to decide what is meant by "helpful to x". It seems clear that giving weapons to the contras is harmful to the Sandinistas. It also seems that _not_ giving arms to the contras at least relieves the Sandinistas of some problems. Therefore, not giving arms to the contras is helpful to the Sandinistas. If that's not clear, let's try another tack. Ask this question: Would the Sandinistas prefer to have the US continue with current policy? OR Would they prefer the US to provide the arms that the Reagan Adminstration wants to provide? Is there any question that the Sandinistas would prefer the US not to increase arms aid to the opposition forces? Isn't that a reasonable definition of 'helpful' versus 'not helpful'. I'm sorry to beat this issue to death, but if it's not obvious to you, then I'll try to make it so. Incidentally, only such an educated group of people as this could for a moment doubt that giving arms to the opposition in Nicaragua is 'harmful' to the Communists and that, conversely, not giving arms aid is 'helpful'. Clear enough? > and another thing to ESPOUSE POLICIES OF WANTON TERROR, >VIOLENCE, MURDER, RAPE, AND DESTRUCTION against the innocent civilians >of a fellow member of the Organization of American States. The conflict in Nicaragua is not significantly different from most other wars. People caught in the middle suffer. If you are a total pacifist, that's your privilege, after all, it's a free country. Of course, the Sandinistas never commit any of the crimes you ascribe to the "contras", do they? And just because Nicaragua is a member of the OAS, so what? The Sandinistas broke their promises to the OAS, which they made in order to get the OAS to go along with the anti-Somoza revolution. Both sides in Nicaragua are very similar and I find it hard to believe that the contras are totally evil. One final thought on this point; it is easier to control a well financed force than a poorly financed one. >Let us consider an analogy to this reasoning: >"IF you do NOT support lining up all martini-drinkers against the wall >and having them shot then you are ESPOUSING POLICIES THAT PROMOTE >DRUG ABUSE." Can you see the difference there, Guy? >(I *hope* you do not see executing martini-drinkers as good....) Yes, I can Tim. Drunk driving isn't backed by the largest country in the world. Also, I don't propose _killing_ all Communists. All I propose is giving arms to people who don't want the Communists to kill or enslave them. If you want to propose an alternative way of 'not helping' the Communists, feel free. But it should be something that the Sandinistas would prefer no more than what the Reagan Administration proposes. Otherwise _some_ people might think you really don't want to 'not help' the Sandinistas. > "Peace in the World, > or the World in Pieces!" > tim sevener whuxn!orb "Give me liberty or give me death" Guy
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (03/17/86)
> "Give me liberty or give me death" > > Guy "Patria libre o morir" (Translation: `Free homeland or death') Gosh, Guy, these quotes sound pretty similar, like maybe they grew out of similar situations. I wonder where they come from? Latitudinarian Lobster
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/18/86)
>Are you kidding? Who in _this_ country is afraid of speaking up? This >just isn't what is happening. Some people (like Reagan) have the >almightly nerve to say that if you espouse policies that help the >Communists, hey, you ESPOUSE POLICIES THAT HELP THE COMMUNISTS. Like, >ah, wow man, like A = A. How astonishing. Of course, this is fascism. > Why does he so consistently do it, then? Most people who oppose Reagan's foreign policies do so because they so obviously and directly help the Communist cause. Do you really think Communism is less popular in Central America and elsewhere now than it was in 1980? Reagan's policies and behaviour are about as strong an inducement for people to turn away from the US as one can imagine, and where else would people look for help other than to the USSR? Remember, in Nicaragua in particular, it was ONLY the US that was so wound up about the Sandinistas. Canada, Western Europe, and much of the rest of the Americas were all trying to help the people of Nicaragua while Reagan was trying to destroy their economy (and doing a pretty good job). Is that the way to make friends and influence people (in your favour)? Espouse policies that help the communists...Hah! -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt