Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com (10/02/88)
Ok, all you alt.sex-ers. Time to call your congressman, or we may have to kiss alt.sex goodbye. >->->->->->->->->-> > A NETWORKER'S JOURNAL > ->->->->->->->->->->-> > Vol. 4 Sept. 30, 1988 No. 5 > > >SENATE PASSES ANTI-PORN BILL THAT COULD TARGET COMPUTERS > > The Senate this week unanimously passed a bill that would bar computer >distribution of child pornography and outlaw dial-a-porn telephone services. > Sponsored by Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., the proposal, which passed 97-0, >was grafted to an unrelated bill requiring large companies to offer at least >10 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave to employees with medical >emergencies or new babies. > If it becomes law, the porn measure would define new crimes and >punishments, including fines of up to $250,000 for many offenses and prison >terms ranging from two years to life. > Among other things, the amendment would make it illegal to sell or >possess child pornography, ban sexually-explicit computer transmission SUCH >AS SEX-ORIENTED BULLETIN BOARDS and those advertising child pornography, >require producers of video porn to document the ages of persons appearing in >the material and outlaw pornographic programs on cable TV. Other than the fact that certain parts of this seem to be in violation of the first ammendment, I'm very worried that it passed 97-0, which implies it is not a partisan issue. James
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (10/03/88)
In article <9644@cup.portal.com>, Ringworld-Engineer@cup writes: >> ban sexually-explicit computer >>transmission SUCH AS SEX-ORIENTED BULLETIN BOARDS Just how is this defined? Legally? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
jas5r@maxwell.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jennifer A. Schrader) (10/03/88)
In article <9644@cup.portal.com> Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com writes: >> >>SENATE PASSES ANTI-PORN BILL THAT COULD TARGET COMPUTERS >> > >Other than the fact that certain parts of this seem to be in violation of the >first ammendment, I'm very worried that it passed 97-0, which implies it is >not a partisan issue. > >James Wow. If I had known this was so sinful, I would have had more fun reading it! _______________________________________________________________________ The other day, one of my friends walked up to me with a grin and said, "So! What are YOU doing posting to alt.sex? heh heh heh..." To which I replied, "Same thing you're doing reading it, hm?" _______________________________________________________________________
jgo@mcgp1.UUCP (John Opalko, N7KBT) (10/04/88)
In article <9644@cup.portal.com>, Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com writes: > Ok, all you alt.sex-ers. Time to call your congressman, or we may have to > kiss alt.sex goodbye. > > > > >SENATE PASSES ANTI-PORN BILL THAT COULD TARGET COMPUTERS > > > > The Senate this week unanimously passed a bill that would bar computer > >distribution of child pornography and outlaw dial-a-porn telephone services. > > Sponsored by Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., the proposal, which passed 97-0, > >was grafted to an unrelated bill requiring large companies to offer at least > >10 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave to employees with medical > >emergencies or new babies. > > > > [remainder of text deleted] > > Other than the fact that certain parts of this seem to be in violation of the > first ammendment, I'm very worried that it passed 97-0, which implies it is > not a partisan issue. > > James Actually, this bill didn't pass on its own merits. It's a common scam in Congress to graft controversial legislation onto a mother-and-apple-pie bill that no congresscritter would dare oppose. What really scares me is the broad interpretation of the term "pornography," especially when it is applied to photos of children. A couple months ago my SO plunked down forty bucks and bought me a copy of David Hamilton's collection, "Images." No special reason; she knows I like his work and she wanted to do something nice for me. Anyway, this book can, in no way, be considered pornographic. Hamilton takes beautiful photographs, mostly full- figure nudes. Most of his models are in their teens; some look to be about twelve, or so. Genitalia are not covered in shame. I guess that, by the letter of the law, this is child pornography, she's a felon for buying it, I'm a felon for possessing it, and WaldenBooks committed a felony by selling it. Could it be that all this supposed filth and degeneracy exists nowhere but in the little, closed minds of our lawmakers and the small, but strident, Moral "Majority?" How much nicer if people in this country would learn to mind their own business, instead of meddling in the affairs of others. How much nicer if people would accept their own sexuality/sensuality as something wonderful instead of being ashamed of it. Bah! Well, I guess I'll step off the soapbox now. I just wonder why the founders of this nation never mentioned the, in my opinion, most important of inalienable rights: the right to be left alone. John DISCLAIMER: My views are my own. My employer, I am sure, does not share them. In fact, they'd probably be very happy to can me just for expressing them.
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) (10/04/88)
In article <9644@cup.portal.com> Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com writes: >Ok, all you alt.sex-ers. Time to call your congressman, or we may have to >kiss alt.sex goodbye. > >>SENATE PASSES ANTI-PORN BILL THAT COULD TARGET COMPUTERS >> >> The Senate this week unanimously passed a bill that would bar computer >>distribution of child pornography and outlaw dial-a-porn telephone services. > >Other than the fact that certain parts of this seem to be in violation of the >first ammendment, I'm very worried that it passed 97-0, which implies it is >not a partisan issue. First to dismiss the "First Amendment" nonsense. It is nonsense. Pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. Your complaining about the bill is covered. So you may continue to complain. ;-) My first question is, do any of the legal-beagles think this bill is aimed at things such as alt.sex? I don't have any qualms with dumping alt.sex if it is - and at the same time I am somewhat concerned considering I feed alt.sex into Michigan. [ thus, so my thinking goes, making this an interstate matter and more liking to fall under federal jurisdiction ] So, the question is, do I dump alt.sex? Or just ignore it? -- John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US) HASA, "S" Division "Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same entropy to create bugs instead?" -- Steve Elias
cme@cloud9.UUCP (Carl Ellison) (10/04/88)
In article <9644@cup.portal.com>, Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com writes: >> Sponsored by Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., the proposal, which passed 97-0, >>was grafted to an unrelated bill requiring large companies to offer at least >>10 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave to employees with medical >>emergencies or new babies. > > Other than the fact that certain parts of this seem to be in violation of the > first ammendment, I'm very worried that it passed 97-0, which implies it is > not a partisan issue. > Which passed 97-0? ...the amendment or the medical leave bill? I don't know which is more worrying to me: this kind of attitude in the Senate, Reagan's Supreme Court or Bush's repeated attacks on the ACLU plus the Duke's backing away from the ACLU in response. A friend of mine who lived through the 60's commented, back in 1980, that the conservative backlash had a good side. It would get so bad that there would be another uprising of the young -- another Hippie movement -- more fun times, battering the Establishment. Well ... have we had enough yet? --Carl Ellison ...!harvard!anvil!es!cme (normal mail address) ...!ulowell!cloud9!cme (usenet news reading)
jat@hpsemc.HP.COM (Joe Talmadge) (10/05/88)
>possess child pornography, ban sexually-explicit computer transmission SUCH >AS SEX-ORIENTED BULLETIN BOARDS and those advertising child pornography, Hmmm. It may very well be time to rename alt.sex to comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac. What say? Joe
jnw@shades.cis.ufl.edu (Joseph N. Wilson) (10/05/88)
In article <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) writes: > >My first question is, do any of the legal-beagles think this bill is aimed >at things such as alt.sex? I don't have any qualms with dumping alt.sex if >it is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ And I suppose that if oral sex or some other activity that you enjoy is being targeted by some other bill, you have no qualms with dumping that activity as well? joe wilson (jnw@shades.cis.ufl.edu)
bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (10/06/88)
This article makes statements which are not directly related to
news.admin, I would expect some follow-ups to be even less
related than the comments here. If so, please send e-mail
instead of posting, or suggest a group for discussion.
(Followups have been directed to comp.misc, as that is the best
group I could think of that I am also subscribed to.)
In article <1601@mcgp1.UUCP> jgo@mcgp1.UUCP (John Opalko, N7KBT) writes:
: [soapbox stuff with which I heartily agree.]
:
: Could it be that all this supposed filth and degeneracy exists nowhere but
: in the little, closed minds of our lawmakers and the small, but strident,
: Moral "Majority?"
One minor quibble: there *is* a tiny amount of the real "child
pornography" but that stuff is more properly child abuse done to
provide material to certain sickos. However, child abuse will
not be eliminated, or even slightly contained, by "child
pornography" laws.
This doesn't change the fact that the net is at risk.
To give a parallel, essentially all child abuse in this country
is done by someone close to the child: a relative or neighbor.
However, since the politicos need things to divert attention and
to acquire power, and since there is a real problem, that some
children have been abused, some fasten on the issue of "child
abuse". However, since the real culprits are not suitable
targets, being ordinary citizens, they look for some identifiable
group as the culprit, e.g., child care workers. They then crack
down on that group, creating entrance requirements and operating
restrictions and generally making their lives miserable.
Having done all this, even though it has no real effect on the
problem, they can then say to their constituents that they have
done something.
The end result of this is inevitable harm done to the child care
workers. Worse, the entrance requirements, operating
restrictions, and general harassment operate to eliminate the
human from child care facilities, thus creating a more
institutional environment. Such environments have been shown to
do psychological harm to children.
And the *real* child abuse problem is not touched. (The only way
to do that is for us to change our sexual mores.)
Now, while there is no real way in which the net could be
considered the *agent* of harm to a reader, this is irrelevant to
what a demagogue (or a shyster lawyer) might try to do to it.
Imagine this scenario: someone, looking for a cause, notices that
the net contains pornography. He also notices that the
government wants to create a national net. Plus any additional
garbage that might occur to his nasty little mind. He uses these
things to propose nationalizing the networks. Goodbye all kinds
of freedoms, including the ones we enjoy on the net.
Don't imagine that it can't happen. If you do, look to history.
Such things occur with distressing regularity.
What to do?
Learn and teach. Learn why the misnamed "conservatism" and all
other forms of collectivism are anti-human. Learn how and why
our perverse sexual mores harm ourselves directly and corrupt the
rest of our lives. Examine every unquestioned principle of your
life; look to see if it is justified. And once you have started
that, teach everyone you can reach what you have learned.
: Well, I guess I'll step off the soapbox now.
And I off mine. :-)
: I just wonder why the founders
: of this nation never mentioned the, in my opinion, most important of
: inalienable rights: the right to be left alone.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
^
---
Bill
You can still reach me at proxftl!bill
But I'd rather you send to proxftl!twwells!billjeremy@misadel.oz (Jeremy Begg) (10/06/88)
In article <9644@cup.portal.com>, Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com writes: > Ok, all you alt.sex-ers. Time to call your congressman, or we may have to > kiss alt.sex goodbye. > >>->->->->->->->->-> >> A NETWORKER'S JOURNAL >> ->->->->->->->->->->-> >> Vol. 4 Sept. 30, 1988 No. 5 >> >> >>SENATE PASSES ANTI-PORN BILL THAT COULD TARGET COMPUTERS >> >> If it becomes law, the porn measure would define new crimes and >>punishments, including fines of up to $250,000 for many offenses and prison >>terms ranging from two years to life. >> Among other things, the amendment would ... ban sexually-explicit >>computer transmission SUCH AS SEX-ORIENTED BULLETIN BOARDS > > Other than the fact that certain parts of this seem to be in violation of the > first ammendment, I'm very worried that it passed 97-0, which implies it is > not a partisan issue. > > James Although this won't have much affect on me (because 1. I live in Australia, and 2. I'm not a porno fan anyway) the article did cause a few questions to spring to mind: a) Does the new law relate to all pornography or only to child pornography? (I think most would agree that child pornography is particularly nasty, as the majority of "subjects" would have little understanding of the matter, and even less say in its production.) b) What is the definition of a "bulletin board" under the new law? Would this include mailing lists? c) It strikes me that many of the items in the various "jokes" newsgroups could fall under the definition of pornography, and certainly contain sexually explicit references. I hear the cry "exploitation of women" wheneer this subject comes up but I happen to know several women who find such jokes amusing, even those derogatory to women. Jeremy Begg -- +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Management Information Systems, | E-Mail: jeremy@misadel.oz | | 125 Dew Street, Thebarton, | Phone: (08) 3524877 (work) | | South Australia 5031 | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (10/06/88)
jfh writes: >First to dismiss the "First Amendment" nonsense. It is nonsense. Pornography >is not protected under the First Amendment. Your complaining about the bill >is covered. So you may continue to complain. ;-) I beg to differ with you. There is a huge body of common law based on the first amendment that deals with pornography. In fact, the "legal tests" for defining something as pornography are based on balancing the first amendment with community standards. So we *are* dealing with a first amendment issue. >My first question is, do any of the legal-beagles think this bill is aimed >at things such as alt.sex? I don't have any qualms with dumping alt.sex if >it is - and at the same time I am somewhat concerned considering I feed >alt.sex into Michigan. [ thus, so my thinking goes, making this an >interstate matter and more liking to fall under federal jurisdiction ] If you're not talking about child porn and/or 900 numbers (or whatever else they've decided to legislate about this time), you should be just fine. The first amendment doesn't cover child porn as it is a crime. However, 900 numbers? That could be a different story.
grimlok@hubcap.UUCP (Grimlok) (10/07/88)
From article <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>, by jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum): > In article <9644@cup.portal.com> Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com writes: >> >>>SENATE PASSES ANTI-PORN BILL THAT COULD TARGET COMPUTERS > > First to dismiss the "First Amendment" nonsense. It is nonsense. Pornography > is not protected under the First Amendment. Your complaining about the bill > is covered. So you may continue to complain. ;-) First off, I really hate it when the Legislative bracnh of government takes advantage 1) of the President's inability to use a line-item veto (not that Reagan would have vetoed this item) and 2) their ability to graft totally irrelevent amendments onto a 'certain-to-be-passed' bill. (What I am talking about here is the graphic depiction of sexual matters between consenting adults -- NO CHILDREN ALLOWED) Now, my understanding of pornography in the United States is that it technically doesn't exist. Granted, certain films, books, magazines, what-have-you have been found to be obscene, that is, serving to incite only the prurient interests without any social, political, artistic, or educational benefits. But these are few and far between and are hardly enough to compose any threat to society. People who insist on saying that pornography is not covered by the First Amendment fail to understand this point. The line between erotic films and obscene films (films here means videos, films, magazines...) is sometimes a fine one. Each of us does have the right to view whatever we please as long as our 'community' has not through due process of the law found it to be obscene. That last part is important. Due process of the law...for each and every item that falls under the heading of pornography/erotica...individually. One more thing, who is anyone else to tell what I can and can't do within my own home--as long as what I do isn't hurting _anyone_. I'm not out there trying to force people to watch the Playboy Channel, why is there a horde of people tryingto force me to not watch it? I always felt that my rights stopped at the end of my nose... Why didn't our founding fathers have the foresight to include the right to privacy/be left alone in the Bil of Rights? Sigh...
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/07/88)
In article <3161@hubcap.UUCP>, grimlok@hubcap.UUCP (Grimlok) writes: > From article <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>, by jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum): > > In article <9644@cup.portal.com> Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com writes: > > First to dismiss the "First Amendment" nonsense. It is nonsense. Pornography > > is not protected under the First Amendment. Your complaining about the bill > > is covered. So you may continue to complain. ;-) > > Now, my understanding of pornography in the United States is that it > technically doesn't exist. Granted, certain films, books, magazines, > what-have-you have been found to be obscene, that is, serving to incite > only the prurient interests without any social, political, artistic, or > educational benefits. But these are few and far between and are hardly > enough to compose any threat to society. Not quite true. There have been a number of decisions over the last 30 years on the subject of obscenity, and they haven't all agreed. The most recent decisions by the Supreme Court on this subject have left the door open for the definition of "obscenity" to be based on local community standards (whatever that means). Obscenity can be prohibited (though I don't think it should be). The question before the Supreme Court has been, over the last decade or so, not, "Can obscenity be prohibited?" but "What defines obscene?" > One more thing, who is anyone else to tell what I can and can't do > within my own home--as long as what I do isn't hurting _anyone_. I'm not > out there trying to force people to watch the Playboy Channel, why is > there a horde of people tryingto force me to not watch it? I always felt > that my rights stopped at the end of my nose... For the same reason that you aren't allowed to hire someone under any conditions that you both agree to -- someone is convinced that the external effects are so severe, as to be a hazard to the rest of the society. Capitalism is a private act between consenting adults -- just like you watching the Playboy Channel. A lot of people out there are convinced there are risks that accrue to the rest of us, and therefore require restrictions on individual freedom. (In both cases, of course, there may well be side effects to the society as a whole -- but in both cases, the meddlesome ones in our society use this as a excuse to run people's lives). > Why didn't our founding fathers have the foresight to include the right > to privacy/be left alone in the Bil of Rights? Sigh... Actually, they did -- the Ninth Amendment specifies that powers not granted explicitly are reserved to the people or states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Unfortunately, the courts found excuses to use the so-called "elastic clause" of the Constitution to expand the powers of the Federal Govern- ment, and the State Constitutions weren't sufficiently restrictive of state power. -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
synful@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu (10/09/88)
In article <312@misadel.oz>, jeremy@misadel.oz (Jeremy Begg) writes: > b) What is the definition of a "bulletin board" under the new law? Would this > include mailing lists? I think that the United States has a "bulletin board" defined as a computer system into which one may call using his computer or terminal and a modem. Recently there has been a fair amount of legislation about "electronic mail", especially dealing with bulletin board systems, aka BBS's. About a year ago, there was a court in the Indiana state court involving a woman suing a BBS sysop (System Operator) for violating the Electronic Mail Privacy Act (or something like that). On a side comment on this subject, I imagine that this law would shut down a lot of BBS's around the country which are "sexually oriented". There is even a network of gay-oriented BBS's (GayCom) and I doubt that anyone is going to make the distinction between "gay" and "sexual" interests. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Marc Shannon Internet Address (Bitnet name) | | VAX Systems Programmer SYNFUL@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (DRYCAS) | | Carnegie-Mellon University R602MS5U@VB.CC.CMU.EDU (CMCCVB) | | (412) 268-6290 "I mean, really, what could possibly go wrong?" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com (10/09/88)
A postscript from a usually reliable source: Although the legislative rider in question did pass overwhelmingly, the bill it was attached to went down in ignoble flames. Therefore, things are safe for the moment. On the other hand, the battle lines have clearly been drawn, and I suspect we can expect more of this BS in the future. Evidently one of the problems with this whole issue is that pedifiles DO use bulletin board systems to trade information, which confuses the entire issue even more. James
strahs@aecom.YU.EDU (Dan Strahs) (10/10/88)
In article <312@misadel.oz>, jeremy@misadel.oz (Jeremy Begg) writes: >In article <9644@cup.portal.com>, Ringworld-Engineer@cup.portal.com writes: >> Ok, all you alt.sex-ers. Time to call your congressman, or we may have to >> kiss alt.sex goodbye. >> >>>->->->->->->->->-> >>> A NETWORKER'S JOURNAL >>> >>> [much deleted here] >> >> Other than the fact that certain parts of this seem to be in violation of the >> first ammendment, I'm very worried that it passed 97-0, which implies it is >> not a partisan issue. > > Although this won't have much affect on me (because 1. I live in >Australia, and 2. I'm not a porno fan anyway) the article did cause a few >questions to spring to mind: > >a) Does the new law relate to all pornography or only to child pornography? (I >think most would agree that child pornography is particularly nasty, as the >majority of "subjects" would have little understanding of the matter, and even >less say in its production.) > >b) What is the definition of a "bulletin board" under the new law? Would this >include mailing lists? If I'm right about what bill this is attached to, I believe that we really do have reason to worry (at least Americans do... 8~). Currently slouching it's way through the 99th Congress is something called "the Omnibus Drug Act". Part of the current "Get Tough on Drugs" mentality, this bill has quite a few anti-First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth amendment provisions, such as: 1) removing darn near all rights of those convicted or found guilty of drug offenses 2) suspending all labor-management collective bargaining agreements that prohibit drug testing 3) allowing the Attorney General to fine anyone $10,000 for any drug offense, regardless of the magnitude of the offense. This bill passed the House 375-30 last month; it was slated for a Senate vote (probably) last week (maybe this week if they're being slow or their consciences are catching up with them or their doctors are prescribing higher doses of anti-psychotic medication). There is NO chance of it not passing the Senate , or Reagan not signing it. Frankly, I'm more than a little worried. It may be years before America comes to its senses over this McCarthy-ist attitude. But enough of this depressing news... Smile... 8~) I'm really not sure that this anti-pornography rider is attached to this bill. It makes sense that it is though, or that (at the very least) it will be interpreted in a similar anti-Freedom stance as the Omnibus Drug Act has been explicitly designed for. As to the future of alt.sex ...?? I'll consult my Ouija board... "... what rough beast is this that slouches towards Washington to be born..." - with apologies to W.B. Yeats -- Dan Strahs ARPANET: aecom!strahs@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Albert Einstein College of Medicine UUCP: {uiucuxc,cucard,philabs, etc.}! WORK: 212-430-3180 HOME: 212-863-4061 !aecom!strahs Disclaimer: "just a sunshine daydream"
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (10/11/88)
In article <0732.AA0732@salem1> brianop@salem1.UUCP (Brian McBee) writes: >In article <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US writes: >> Pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. > >Unfortunately, this is true. The constitution is whatever the Supreme Court >says it is, and they have decided pornography isn't covered. Actually, although the Supreme Court claims that pornography isn't protected by the First Amendment, some things to remember are: o The fact remains that the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. This is a *fact* that is not subject to interpretation. The current interpretation of the First Amendment is the one that is currently *enforced*, but this doesn't change what the Constitution *says*, only what is *enforced*. As times change, what is enforced will continue to change. o The Supreme Court has not clearly defined pornography. The best definition I have is that pornography is anything that offends anybody who can convince a judge to agree. This interpretation, too, will change as judges/lawyers/arguments/public perception/ published literature/juries change with time. Since this argument really belongs in misc.legal, follow-ups are directed there. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
brianop@salem1.UUCP (Brian McBee) (10/20/88)
In article <7507@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US writes: > Pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. Unfortunately, this is true. The constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, and they have decided pornography isn't covered. They could just as easily decide YOUR opinions weren't covered. Sad but true. Personally, I think the first amendment covers ALL forms of (non-violent<=>non-coercive) expression, but my opinion doesn't mean diddly. My advice: do whatever you want, but do it discretely (sp?). They aren't peeking in your windows yet! -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- What the eye beholds CI$: 72406.1363 And the heart covets PLINK: Brianop Let the hand boldly sieze! UUCP: uunet!tektronix!tessi!agora!salem1!brianop -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look at that path! Talk about being in the sticks...well connected I aint.