rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/12/85)
>> From Pesmard Flurrmn (pyuxd!rlr) [what's he doing in this group, anyway? >> This is where we all went to avoid him]: [SARGENT] > One might indeed ask. This newsgroup was created to provide a forum in which > we Christians could discuss issues relevant to Christianity without the > continual carping and the same old tired, boring, and half-baked presumptions > about our intellect, background, and reasoning powers which YOU, RICH ROSEN, > continually spew out upon us. When net.religion.jewish was created it was > created to provide a similar forum for Jews to discuss their common religious > and cultural heritage. [HUTCH] I quote: > I think we have a difference of opinion here. Some of the readers & > posters to net.religion.christian think that net.religion.christian > should be a nice warm place where Christians can talk about Christianity > and maybe argue a bit among themselves and not have to defend anything > they say from flammage/arguments from Rich Rosen and any other non-Christian. > The problem is that when net.religion.christian was created, a lot of the > folks that *wanted* it particularily wanted it so that both sides of the > Christian arguments would go somewhere else so that whatever was left in > net.religion would be a) lower in volume and b) emphasize something > other than Christianity. We can read the Christian arguments when we have > time... (in other words, Rich, you've gotta move too...) [LAURA CREIGHTON] I *have* indeed used net.religion for discussions of religions in general, and have crossposted to net.religion.christian (or followed up there) where appropriate. My argument is not with Christians, but with particular notions of religion in general. It is certain Christians who seem to have an argument with me. > Of the approximately 20 articles which you have put out to this forum, > maybe three or four (generously speaking) have been polite, not presuming that > we were all a bunch of loonies for the Enlightened Rosen to administer the > balm of his superior wisdom upon. Well, Rich, the three or four articles > were welcome. The rest of your postings have been less than worthless. Thank you. Your analysis should be given the consideration it is due. Considering the articles that have discussed and maligned me in what was presumed to be my absence, I think I'll continue to respond where appropriate. Why doesn't Mr. Hutch offer the complete list of my 20 or so articles accompanied by *his* personal rating of each one? Perhaps because he doesn't have the list to back up his own assertion? Count this among the "impolite" articles, if you will, when I'm maligned publicly I feel no obligation to be polite. May I ask, does "polite" mean "agreeing with your point of view" while "impolite" means "disagreeing with your point of view"? RULE #1: People asking to continue a conversation only under the terms of rational discussion are actually asking to continue only if you agree with them. Anything else would not be rational discussion... -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/12/85)
On closer examination, I checked the last five articles (not including today's)
to see where the "impoliteness" lay:
<457@pyuxd.UUCP> - this is the very article Hutch is responding to, on the
topic of constructive/destructive (hopefully some further constructive
discussion will follow shortly in a later article)
<458@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to Dubuc's arrogance that may be construed as
"impolite"; though I wonder what adjective would then apply to Paul's
articles... ?
<462@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to an article on "death to gays", of which MY
response was probably one of the tamest (some of the louder responses
came from obviously devout Christians who told the guy that there was
something wrong with him)
<465@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to Bill Peter whom I had mistakenly referred to
as a Christian
<488@pyuxd.UUCP> - an article in response to (and in agreement with) an article
from Seifert/Snoopy on beneficial/harmful, asking (what *I* thought
were) some intriguing questions and asking for responses
I also examined earlier articles (there have been a total of 12, not 20, at
least in this calendar year). Among the earlier ones were: 1) my requoting of
Ken Arndt's claim that I was an apostate Jew defining Christianity (isn't
that how it got defined in the first place?), 2) the dreaded "Blast from the
Past" article, 3) my reposting of Dave Trissel's article on his own experiences
with religions that claim "we are right and they are wrong" (that was REAL
impolite of me to do...), 4) my first article in the constructive/destructive
discussion ("why must everything be beneficial?"), 5) a reply to Marchionni,
who was busily asking me questions and saying "too bad Rich Rosen won't ever
understand this" in my presumed absence, and 6) my first article on Wingate's
justification of proselytizing of Jewish children through manipulative
pamphlets by a church in Jerusalem. (Later perusals of archives showed NO
articles from me since at least mid-November!)
I welcome Hutch to tell all of us which of these were the rare "polite"
articles, and which were the less rare impolite ones, being sure to note which
times I was "impolite" because of impoliteness directed at me.
--
"Remember, if you enjoyed reading this article half as much as I enjoyed
writing it, then I enjoyed it twice as much as *you* did!"
Rich Rosen {ihnp4|harpo}!pyuxd!rlrpmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/12/85)
Rich Rosen: >I *have* indeed used net.religion for discussions of religions in general, >and have crossposted to net.religion.christian (or followed up there) where >appropriate. My argument is not with Christians, but with particular notions >of religion in general. It is certain Christians who seem to have an argument >with me. ... >On closer examination, I checked the last five articles (not including today's) >to see where the "impoliteness" lay: ... ><458@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to Dubuc's arrogance that may be construed as > "impolite"; though I wonder what adjective would then apply to Paul's > articles... ? I don't have any argument with you, Rich. You seem to like to "respond" to my comments directed toward others, though. I think they can do pretty well without your help, don't you? Yeah, I know, I'm arrogant and you're only impolite, sure. But let *them* tell me if they think so, OK? I know what you think about what I write. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/14/85)
>> I checked the last five articles (not including today's) >> to see where the "impoliteness" lay: ... >> <458@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to Dubuc's arrogance that may be construed as >> "impolite"; though I wonder what adjective would then apply to Paul's >> articles... ? [ROSEN] > I don't have any argument with you, Rich. You seem to like to "respond" > to my comments directed toward others, though. [DUBUC] In a public forum, no response is directed at particular others. Responses are for all to read, and re-respond to if they like. If responses were meant only for a single reader, private mail is appropriate. > I think they can do pretty well without your help, don't you? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When someone has a comment on one of *my* articles ("directed", say, at Steve Hutchison), certain people feel free to "respond" to my "comments directed at others". Why the double standard? > Yeah, I know, I'm arrogant and you're only impolite, sure. But let *them* > tell me if they think so, OK? I know what you think about what I write. And I know what you think about I write. Enough to respond to this article that wasn't "directed" at you, but not enough to respond to articles in direct response to yours. The intended "respondee" of an article should feel free to respond in turn (the article usually addresses some points the respondee had made), but others can and should feel free to say their own piece. You, however, have chosen to answer this particular article rather than many others that are in response to your own articles (which were in turn responses to mine). Why this one and not those? Moreover, why NOT articles like "Logic based on different sets of assumptions", in which any number of questions are asked that are an outgrowth of discussions with you? I'd like to hear what you (and others) have to say about the points made there. If this trend continues, Steve Hutchison's remarks about my "rudeness and impoliteness" will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. ("See? Rosen has posted all these articles to n.r.c that have nothing to do with Christianity and are very very nasty! ... Uh, well, yes, the articles WERE in response to charges made against Rich, and the accusatory articles *did* get abusive and Rich responded in kind, but still...") -- "Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/14/85)
}>> I checked the last five articles (not including today's) }>> to see where the "impoliteness" lay: } ... }>> <458@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to Dubuc's arrogance that may be construed as }>> "impolite"; though I wonder what adjective would then apply to Paul's }>> articles... ? [ROSEN] } }> I don't have any argument with you, Rich. You seem to like to "respond" }> to my comments directed toward others, though. [DUBUC] } }In a public forum, no response is directed at particular others. Responses are }for all to read, and re-respond to if they like. If responses were meant only }for a single reader, private mail is appropriate. That's true but your justification for posting articles here was that people are responding to you. Note my quotation of you, which you left out of this article: >I *have* indeed used net.religion for discussions of religions in general, >and have crossposted to net.religion.christian (or followed up there) where >appropriate. My argument is not with Christians, but with particular notions >of religion in general. It is certain Christians who seem to have an >argument with me. By your own admission, I do not respond directly to you very much so you justification is moot im my particular case. }> I think they can do pretty well without your help, don't you? } }Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When someone has a comment on one of *my* }articles ("directed", say, at Steve Hutchison), certain people feel free to }"respond" to my "comments directed at others". Why the double standard? Really? Do they ask for your help? How nice of you to offer it unsolicited. If they don't ask, don't you think you're being a little condescending toward them? I am responding mainly to your name calling above, directed at me I assume. (My name really is Paul Dubuc. I use no other.) If I had made a comment about you in an article that was directed at someone else, I wouldn't blame you for responding. }> Yeah, I know, I'm arrogant and you're only impolite, sure. But let *them* }> tell me if they think so, OK? I know what you think about what I write. } }And I know what you think about I write. Enough to respond to this article }that wasn't "directed" at you, but not enough to respond to articles in direct }response to yours. The intended "respondee" of an article should feel free to }respond in turn (the article usually addresses some points the respondee had }made), but others can and should feel free to say their own piece. You, }however, have chosen to answer this particular article rather than many others }that are in response to your own articles (which were in turn responses to }mine). Why this one and not those? Moreover, why NOT articles like "Logic }based on different sets of assumptions", in which any number of questions are }asked that are an outgrowth of discussions with you? I'd like to hear what you }(and others) have to say about the points made there. No, I don't think you ask questions because you honestly want answers. You can say what you like about what I write. I don't think I'm under any obligation to respond to all of it. I don't really believe that you would really like to hear it, either. I've tried to have reasonable discussions with you. You evade points which whould hamper your counter-argument and twist the arguments of others out of context to suit your purposes. And it's usless to point it out to you because, rather than admit you are wrong about anything, you do more of the same twisting to justify yourself. Getting into a discussion with you is a vicious exercise in futility more often than not. There aren't any besides you that I really have that same opinion about. I'd rather spend time with others. You've "cried wolf" many times too often with me, Rich, claiming that your "only asking questions" and really want anwers. You have answers to your questions that you like very well you don't need any others. If you think the same about me then you're welcome to return the favor and ignore me also. If I'm wrong about you, then you don't need to discuss with me. Surely then there must be many others who are willing to discuss with you in your "honest desire" for answers to your questions. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (02/18/85)
In article <518@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes: >>> From Pesmard Flurrmn (pyuxd!rlr) [what's he doing in this group, anyway? >>> This is where we all went to avoid him]: [SARGENT] > >> One might indeed ask. This newsgroup was created to provide a forum in which >> we Christians could discuss issues relevant to Christianity without the >> continual carping ...<more griping at Rich>... continually spew out upon us. >> When net.religion.jewish was created it was >> created to provide a similar forum for Jews to discuss their common religious >> and cultural heritage. [HUTCH] > >I quote: >> I think we have a difference of opinion here. Some of the readers & >> posters to net.religion.christian think that net.religion.christian >> should be a nice warm place where Christians can talk about Christianity >> and maybe argue a bit among themselves and not have to defend anything >> they say from ... non-Christians. >> The problem is that when net.religion.christian was created, a lot of the >> folks that *wanted* it particularily wanted <to get rid of all Christian >> and anti-Christian arguments>... >> [LAURA CREIGHTON] > >I *have* indeed used net.religion for discussions of religions in general, >and have crossposted to net.religion.christian (or followed up there) where >appropriate. My argument is not with Christians, but with particular notions >of religion in general. It is certain Christians who seem to have an argument >with me. Go ahead, Rich. Appeal to authority. :-) Actually, I think we need a net.religion.holywars for the general hate-mail of all types. However, I am willing to take a poll and see what the general concensus is about the contents of net.religion.christian. 1) It should be an open forum for all debate which concerns Christianity in any way. This includes postings by people who want to abolish Christianity. 2) It should be an open forum for friendly discussion of Christianity and its doctrines, where any questions and replies are accepted as being the honestly held beliefs of the posters. Opposing points of view are encouraged but personal attacks and flaming are discouraged. 3) It should be a closed forum for the discussion of Christianity by Christians and no postings by non-Christians are really welcome. This would be similar to the current state of net.religion.jewish, where any intrusion is not welcome. (This is not an anti-Jewish statement. I respect the desire of the folks in n.r.j to have a forum where they can be unpestered by us goyim.) 4) None of the above (detail please). I will summarize the results of this poll in a few weeks, after the input has died down. Note that this cannot be considered binding, unless everyone who is currently active in the group agrees to abide by the majority voice. If there is no clear majority voice, we may be stuck with what we have now. >> Of the approximately 20 articles which you have put out to this forum, >> maybe three or four (generously speaking) have been polite, not presuming >> that we were all a bunch of loonies for the Enlightened Rosen to administer >> the balm of his superior wisdom upon. Well, Rich, the three or four articles >> were welcome. The rest of your postings have been less than worthless. > >Thank you. Your analysis should be given the consideration it is due. Yes, I admit it, I don't keep copies of everything Rich writes. Sorry, Rich, about the exaggeration. I agree that it makes your postings seem worse than they are. I made a guesstimate of how many articles you had posted and I should have indicated that it was in fact a guess. >Why doesn't Mr. Hutch offer the complete list of my 20 or so articles >accompanied by *his* personal rating of each one? Perhaps because he doesn't >have the list to back up his own assertion? Count this among the "impolite" >articles, if you will, when I'm maligned publicly I feel no obligation to be >polite. May I ask, does "polite" mean "agreeing with your point of view" >while "impolite" means "disagreeing with your point of view"? As I said, I don't keep copies of all Rich's postings. We expire things out here on a weekly basis. The majority of them have evaporated into the ether. I do not count your reply as "impolite" per se. It is as polite as most of what I have ever posted. >RULE #1: >People asking to continue a conversation only under the terms of rational >discussion are actually asking to continue only if you agree with them. >Anything else would not be rational discussion... > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr Snide, sir, snide. I said nothing about rationality, merely politeness. I do not EXPECT rationality from ANYONE on this net, yourself included. My response to your next article may explain what I found to be impolite, IF I can find enough of the originals to quote them.
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (02/18/85)
This is an attempt to answer where everyone can see, to Rich Rosen's astonished and shocked reply to my own public censure of him as being indefensibly rude in his postings to net.religion.christian. I will be indefensibly rude in my reply, since attempted subtlety has failed in the past. My apologies for any hurt feelings. ><457@pyuxd.UUCP> - this is the very article Hutch is responding to, on the > topic of constructive/destructive (hopefully some further constructive > discussion will follow shortly in a later article) You asked in your usual impatiently superior phrasing why we even bothered with putting such artificial constraints on our behaviour. It was intrusive, and impolite, because it was NOT phrased as a question, but as a chastisement of another person for WANTING to follow what he believes to be the teachings of his religion. If you really WANT to ask a question, ASK a question. Don't go feeling all agrieved when you attempt to burst someone's irrational (to you) bubble, and you get told off for it. ><458@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to Dubuc's arrogance that may be construed as > "impolite"; though I wonder what adjective would then apply to Paul's > articles... ? Dubuc is no more arrogant than you. Your gripe is with his beliefs and with the fact that he refuses to accept anything you say on face value. Yeah, I know, I am claiming to know what goes on in your mind. Can you honestly say that there is nothing to my claim? (Communication Theory 099: When you talk, other people can often understand what you are saying!) ><462@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to an article on "death to gays", of which MY > response was probably one of the tamest (some of the louder responses > came from obviously devout Christians who told the guy that there was > something wrong with him) Agreed. However, your response was still condemnatory of Christians. ><465@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to Bill Peter whom I had mistakenly referred to > as a Christian An embarrassing slip-up. I must admit that I thought the same thing, until his second posting. He understands (and tolerates) Christians a whole lot better than most Christians seem to. ><488@pyuxd.UUCP> - an article in response to (and in agreement with) an article > from Seifert/Snoopy on beneficial/harmful, asking (what *I* thought > were) some intriguing questions and asking for responses Not at all a bad article on the face of it. >I also examined earlier articles (there have been a total of 12, not 20, at >least in this calendar year). Among the earlier ones were: 1) my requoting of >Ken Arndt's claim that I was an apostate Jew defining Christianity (isn't >that how it got defined in the first place?), I agree that I attributed an improper count of articles to you, and I apologise for making you seem worse than you are. I assume you are making a pun on the word "apostate". My dictionary has been stolen so I cannot look up etymologies for you. > ... 2) the dreaded "Blast from the Past" article, I "enned" it as soon as I read the first three lines. > ... 3) my reposting of Dave Trissel's article on his own experiences >with religions that claim "we are right and they are wrong" (that was REAL >impolite of me to do...), If it was without permission, yes, it was impolite, good of you to notice. :-) > ... 5) a reply to Marchionni, >who was busily asking me questions and saying "too bad Rich Rosen won't ever >understand this" in my presumed absence, It was not clear to me that he presumed your absence, merely that he presumed you won't ever understand the mysteries of the Trinity. That may not be true. It would take a MAJOR change in your belief structure first. Yes, I left out a few of your references. I didn't read them after seeing your name on the header and noticing that they contained flames. I do the same with other flames in non-net.flames newsgroups. >I welcome Hutch to tell all of us which of these were the rare "polite" >articles, and which were the less rare impolite ones, being sure to note which >times I was "impolite" because of impoliteness directed at me. I won't attempt to try and divine which times you thought people were being impolite to you. As Miss Manners says, "It is more satisfying to be polite in reply to rudeness because it will drive them out of their skulls." Thank you for your generous welcome. I must decline. (Feeble attempts at humor follow. You have been warned.) I often wondered why your postings seem to be so ... intense. I finally realized that py* are in Puxatawney, New Jersey, a state famous for the number of its chemical waste dumps and their proximity to the homes of the residents. Perhaps this accounts for the pervasive disdain for other human beings which is manifested in that part of the country. I have been told by easterners, especially Joisey-ites, that the mellow friendliness of the west coast is just not natural. Imagine, going into a restaurant where the waitperson actually welcomes you and takes your order with a smile, not a snarl! WE do it regularly out here... Hutch
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/25/85)
>>>Of the approximately 20 articles which you have put out to this forum, >>>maybe three or four (generously speaking) have been polite, not presuming >>>that we were all a bunch of loonies for the Enlightened Rosen to administer >>>the balm of his superior wisdom upon. Well, Rich, the three or four articles >>>were welcome. The rest of your postings have been less than >>>worthless.[HUTCH] > >>Thank you. Your analysis should be given the consideration it is due. [ROSEN] > Yes, I admit it, I don't keep copies of everything Rich writes. Sorry, Rich, > about the exaggeration. I agree that it makes your postings seem worse than > they are. I made a guesstimate of how many articles you had posted and I > should have indicated that it was in fact a guess. [HUTCH] No one's asking you to keep copies of anything. But if you are going to make wild accusations about something, you'd better think twice about doing so if your evidence is based on "guesstimates". > This is an attempt to answer where everyone can see, to Rich Rosen's > astonished and shocked reply to my own public censure of him as being > indefensibly rude in his postings to net.religion.christian. > I will be indefensibly rude in my reply, since attempted subtlety has > failed in the past. My apologies for any hurt feelings. Why should the reply be any different from the original article? >><457@pyuxd.UUCP> - this is the very article Hutch is responding to, on the >> topic of constructive/destructive (hopefully some further constructive >> discussion will follow shortly in a later article) > You asked in your usual impatiently superior phrasing why we even bothered > with putting such artificial constraints on our behaviour. It was intrusive, > and impolite, because it was NOT phrased as a question, but as a chastisement > of another person for WANTING to follow what he believes to be the teachings > of his religion. If you really WANT to ask a question, ASK a question. > Don't go feeling all agrieved when you attempt to burst someone's irrational > (to you) bubble, and you get told off for it. 1) I did ask questions. 2) If YOU felt it was a chastisement, well, that's your personal perspective, because that isn't how or why it was written. But it does say something about you yourself that you saw it that way. >><458@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to Dubuc's arrogance that may be construed as >> "impolite"; though I wonder what adjective would then apply to Paul's >> articles... ? > Dubuc is no more arrogant than you. Your gripe is with his beliefs and with > the fact that he refuses to accept anything you say on face value. Yeah, I > know, I am claiming to know what goes on in your mind. Can you honestly say > that there is nothing to my claim? (Communication Theory 099: When you talk, > other people can often understand what you are saying!) 1) In answer to your question: No. My "gripe" is that I treat those I communicate with as reasonable intelligent people, expecting them to answer my reasoning with either counter-reasoning or agreement. Many people have said (including you, Hutch) that I treat my argumentative opponents like they were children or fools. If I have a failing in this area, it is that I go too far to do quite the opposite: I expect capable reasoning and intelligence, and often I get it, but just as often the response to me is empty and/or hateful. 2) About your theory (ahem ahem): I wish "often" was the right word, but it isn't. When face-to-face communication is fraught with inaccuracy, how can we expect electronic typewritten messages to be any better? >><462@pyuxd.UUCP> - a response to an article on "death to gays", of which MY >> response was probably one of the tamest (some of the louder responses >> came from obviously devout Christians who told the guy that there was >> something wrong with him) > Agreed. However, your response was still condemnatory of Christians. It was condemnatory of Christians who quote things like "Those who are blind and will not see"-isms regarding the "wrongthinking" people (like gays, in this case) who do not think like them. I always consider it ironic that such people don't realize that such passages are better suited for THEM than for those they hate. It was NOT by any stretch of the imagination condemnatory of anyone else other than those who do such quoting. >><488@pyuxd.UUCP> - article in response to (and in agreement with) an article >> from Seifert/Snoopy on beneficial/harmful, asking (what *I* thought >> were) some intriguing questions and asking for responses > Not at all a bad article on the face of it. I'm touched. I'm only sorry Seifert didn't feel the same way. His article was rather good, and I thought mine had something to offer beyond it. >>I also examined earlier articles (there have been a total of 12, not 20, at >>least in this calendar year). > I agree that I attributed an improper count of articles to you, and I > apologise for making you seem worse than you are. Cute. How bad should you have made me out to be instead? >>Among the earlier ones were: 1) my requoting of >>Ken Arndt's claim that I was an apostate Jew defining Christianity (isn't >>that how it got defined in the first place?) > I assume you are making a pun on the word "apostate". My dictionary has been > stolen so I cannot look up etymologies for you. Hardly. If Jesus himself and the apostles were not "apostate Jews" according to perceptions of that time, well, what were they? >> ... 2) the dreaded "Blast from the Past" article, > I "enned" it as soon as I read the first three lines. So nice to know that you read my work before telling everyone it's impolite. >> ... 3) my reposting of Dave Trissel's article on his own experiences >>with religions that claim "we are right and they are wrong" (that was REAL >>impolite of me to do...), > If it was without permission, yes, it was impolite, good of you to notice. :-) Dave didn't think so. Are you assuming he did? With such hard work going into your investigation prior to accusation, what more can I do in my defense except to laugh out loud. >> ... 5) a reply to Marchionni, >>who was busily asking me questions and saying "too bad Rich Rosen won't ever >>understand this" in my presumed absence, > It was not clear to me that he presumed your absence, Then he presumed I would be there to answer. It's one or the other. > I won't attempt to try and divine which times you thought people were being > impolite to you. Instead, you chose to attempt to try and divine which times YOU thought *I* was being impolite to others. Slick. > (Feeble attempts at humor follow. You have been warned.) > I often wondered why your postings seem to be so ... intense. I finally > realized that py* are in Puxatawney, New Jersey, a state famous for the > number of its chemical waste dumps and their proximity to the homes of the > residents. Perhaps this accounts for the pervasive disdain for other > human beings which is manifested in that part of the country. I have been > told by easterners, especially Joisey-ites, that the mellow friendliness > of the west coast is just not natural. Imagine, going into a restaurant > where the waitperson actually welcomes you and takes your order with a smile, > not a snarl! WE do it regularly out here... It WAS feeble, and it WAS an attempt, but at what I'm not sure. I'm glad Hutch so willingly let's us all in on how his prejudices have a strong bearing on his judgments of other people. I wonder if he's ever been to New Jersey. If you want an "eastcoast-westcoast" debate, take it offline. But realize that Puxatawney is in Pennsylvania. Next time, read a little, and make your hasty judgments after. -- "Right now it's only a notion, but I'm hoping to turn it into an idea, and if I get enough money I can make it into a concept." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr