imprint@orchid.UUCP (10/16/87)
In response to several items on UUPC to the USSR. . . Last Spring, I tried to set up an e-mail link with the USSR. Got encouraging response from low-level people at the USRR embassy in Ottawa. But when we got to the nitty gritty they just stopped answering letters, and I got too busy to pursue it. This much has been discovered however. There are comptuers in the USSR. The Soviets make an Apple 128 clone. Like ourselves, most universities in the USSR have Computer Science departments. The load on a mini or mainframe for communciation work is generally quite trivial, for modest volumes, so I don't think computing capacity would be a limiting factor. Right now a number of student newspapers in Canada are exchanging news by mail with a number of student papers in the USSR. (that's regular Canada Post). Novosti News Agency in Moscow is providing most of the translation. Their material arrives neatly printed on dot-matrix printers, so obviously they have computers. As FidoNet is continuing to show us, you don't *need* a mini to operate news and mail. A dedicated IBM PC can handle very substantial volumes. If it can be had on the streets of Taiwan for $500, I think the Soviets could get such hardware easily if they wanted. At one point the USSR embassy in Ottawa offered to use their data-line to Moscow as a gateway (they have PC clones) for FidoNet transfer for the student news exchange. Then they suddenly cooled down. Since Fido/unix gateways already exist (one operates right here) there is no real technical problem in the Soviets using IBM micros for their end. I suspect whatever minis or mainframes they have are of very different architecture to what we are used to. As for telephone lines, I really don't know. But if a major university wanted to do it, and had the political permission to do so, I doubt this would present too much of a problem, even if a call had to be operator handled in all cases. You can make a uucp/fidonet connection manually if you have to. It seems that Glasnost in the UUSR is eliciting two very different reactions. Wild enthusiasm (especially on the part of young intellectuals) and a great deal of cautious optimism on the part of bureaucrats. The latter do not know if the "liberalization" is permanent. Like bureaucrats everywhere, when the political environment is uncertain, they play it safe. None want to take the risk of pushing for such a link, it seems. Safer to do nothing. Then if the current regime falls, and a more tradtional, conservative regime replaces it, they are safe. If they become too closely identified with liberalization and it ends, they will probably end too. I think the Politburo would go for this kind of thing, it seems to be in line with their current strategy. I think practicing academics would go for this, especially Computer Scientists in the USSR. (at least there are some who would). Probably the way to accomplish it is to approach from the top and the bottom like that, and let *them* deal with the ones in the middle. If we can get some Soviet academic colleagues enthused, and if we can present the idea to the Politburo (I wonder how one would do that), the combination might get some action out of the bureaucrats. Finland is an excellent place to do this from. Start with asking for a link to that country. Not very radical in the USSR. But once there is a channel to Finland, there is a channel to the world. Yugoslavia does (last time I looked at the map) have a uucp site. I have seen msgs from Poland in Usenet news, in the newsgroup comp.sys.atari.8bit -- though that was nearly a year ago. A Pole had brought an Atari computer from the US and was begging netters to send him software. I have no idea how he made his link to Usenet. Perhpas he dialed a Usenet machine in Germany? Soviet commercial televion is broadcast to Ottawa via satellite right now, as a result of a joint venture between Carelton and (I dunno who in the USSR). It was arranged by the USSR embassy. Data can, of course, also be transmitted by satellite, and occupies a much narrower band-width. If they can get TV here, getting a good phone line is a snap, if there is the will to do it. I suspect it will take people on both ends pushing for it in order to make it happen. Don't expect the USSR bureaucrats to call you up and suggest it! As for the "security" concerns, I suspect a data line is cheaper and easier to monitor than a voice line for "security risks". Who, in their right mind, would put any sensitive material out over Usenet and/or Fidonet? If US regulations on information export to the USSR are a problem then just forget the US and do it from Canada or Finland where such problems do not appear to be of the same magnitude. I doubt if the US security people will try to stop academic dialogue with Canada or Finland! So what if the material gets forwarded? I'm no expert on security agaencies, but it seems that any security threat is much more imaginary than real. Further, you can be sure that Soviet "agents" can, if they want, read everything on Usenet. If any student at this university can, any "agent" who wants to can also get access. So there is nothing "secret" on Usenet. Getting a two-way link with the USSR requires that critical people in the USSR do the necessary work to establish it. Since e-mail networks are something that most Soviets have never heard of, this is unlikely to occur spontaneously. Somebody has to push. Doug Thompson !watmath!orchid!imprint Fido 221/162 voice (519-746-5022)
varol@cwi.nl (Varol Akman) (10/19/87)
In article <11217@orchid.waterloo.edu> imprint@orchid.UUCP (U of Waterloo Student Newspaper) writes: >In response to several items on UUPC to the USSR. . . > >............. (lotsa stuff deleted)............. > >Further, you can be sure that Soviet "agents" can, if they >want, read everything on Usenet. If any student at this >university can, any "agent" who wants to can also get >access. So there is nothing "secret" on Usenet. > >Doug Thompson >!watmath!orchid!imprint >Fido 221/162 >voice (519-746-5022) Just the fact that something is available for Russian agents doesn't imply that Americans should make life easier for them. In an ideal world, I would be all for your proposal but I believe that as long as the Russians continue their dirty aggressions and secret, harmful operations directed towards the free world, U.S. should try *hard* to make life difficult for them. Computer technology/science is one field where Americans excel and Russians stink. Why should we let them have a free lunch -- especially when it is obvious that they are going to use this technology against freedom-loving people all around the globe (including their own kingdom and the Eastern block)? Varol Akman, CWI, Amsterdam varol@cwi.nl What is an individual? A very good question. So good, in fact, that we should not try to answer it. - DANA SCOTT -- Varol Akman, CWI, Amsterdam What is an individual? A very good question. So good, in fact, that we should not try to answer it. - DANA SCOTT
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (10/20/87)
This reminds me -- it is easy to get Usenet 'news' inside the CCCP. "Just" get a satellite dish and decoder, and listen to Lauren's (and Usenix's) Stargate Project! Joe Yao
mwm@VIOLET.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer, My watch has windows) (10/20/87)
>> I suspect whatever minis or >> mainframes they have are of very different architecture to >> what we are used to. I suspect otherwise. There was an article discussing computing behind the iron curtain in Computing Surveys a couple of years ago. Seems that most of the mainframes were clones of old large IBM boxes. The peripherals were "badly-designed" plug compatables. All were running off-the-shelf IBM software. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that similear things were about the same for minis in the USSR - old PDP-11 designs, with maybe a PDP/VAX here and there. Anyone have more recent mainframe information, or hard mini information? <mike
fay@encore.UUCP (Peter Fay) (10/20/87)
In article <7445@boring.cwi.nl> varol@cwi.nl (Varol Akman) writes: >In article <11217@orchid.waterloo.edu> imprint@orchid.UUCP (U of Waterloo Student Newspaper) writes: >>In response to several items on UUPC to the USSR. . . >> >>............. (lotsa stuff deleted)............. >> >>Further, you can be sure that Soviet "agents" can, if they >>want, read everything on Usenet. If any student at this >>university can, any "agent" who wants to can also get >>access. So there is nothing "secret" on Usenet. >> >>Doug Thompson >>!watmath!orchid!imprint >>Fido 221/162 >>voice (519-746-5022) > >Just the fact that something is available for Russian agents doesn't >imply that Americans should make life easier for them. In an ideal world, >I would be all for your proposal but I believe that as long as the Russians >continue their dirty aggressions and secret, harmful operations directed >towards the free world, U.S. should try *hard* to make life difficult >for them. Computer technology/science is one field where Americans >excel and Russians stink. Why should we let them have a free lunch -- >especially when it is obvious that they are going to use this technology >against freedom-loving people all around the globe (including their own >kingdom and the Eastern block)? > > >Varol Akman, CWI, Amsterdam >varol@cwi.nl "Dirty aggressions and secret, harmful operations..." - is this really a criticism directed against the USSR? Espionage is a dirty business by any standards. And if you want to make charges, then go straight to the source - the CIA wrote the book on dirty aggression (see Agee's, Stockwell's, etc. books on the CIA campaigns in Vietnam, assasinations in Africa, Latin America, etc.). But all this is not even the issue. The issues in international informational exchange have been cloaked in terms of "security", but (especially in cases like USENET) are in fact political issues only: 1. The U.S. State Dept. (and of course FBI, CIA) wants to prevent all contact possible between people of the U.S. and socialist countries. This contact seriously undermines publicity campaigns against them in the U.S., and thus makes U.S. foreign policy more difficult to justify. 2. There are many ordinary people here who seriously believe there is a "security" threat and want no part of information exchange. (For example, many believed the "Libyan Hit Squad" stories planted by the CIA, -- and later exposed -- used to justify a military attack against Libya.) They are merely blinded by ignorance and naivete. 3. A major obstacle to overcome is the assumption that little is to be gained by such information exchange. I am not speaking of the Soviets - they understand this very well. Also many scientific circles in the West understand this very well - the above comments notwithstanding. In many fields the Soviets are far ahead of the U.S. (just ask NASA). This includes some fields of science, and much of the arts, music, sports, general education, etc. And probably more important, many fields exist there that don't exist here. (The converse is also true.) The people of the West certainly have something to gain in this. The question (as always) is: who wins the battle for control? The Western governments who stand to lose credibility by East-West exchange, or the rest of us, who stand only to gain? -- peter fay fay@multimax.arpa {allegra|compass|decvax|ihnp4|linus|necis|pur-ee|talcott}!encore!fay
zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (10/20/87)
The posters proposing a UUCP link with the Soviet Union are more than a little naive about the state of computing and information interchange in the Soviet Union. ALL means of mass dissemination of information are tightly controlled. Xerox machines are a bigger threat to security than any single state secret, and are accordingly controlled. The same, I expect, would go for computer printers, floppy disks and floppy media, etc. The short of it is that you might be able to get a link to some research institute set up (if you can get them to acknowledge the existence of their ill-gotten VAX and Unix system!) but your impact on the information available to anyone beyond the academicians they trust to travel in the West will be nil. The net benefit will be to Soviet intelligence gathering and analysis. I would oppose such a link at this time. The proposals I have seen in this newsgroup have all the marks of amateur diplomacy: an agreement of any sort is preferable to no agreement even if it gives a dangerous party an advantage. The goal of wider dissemination of information should be met before such an intelligence boon is granted to the Soviets. -Zigurd
roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) (10/20/87)
In article <11217@orchid.waterloo.edu> imprint@orchid.UUCP (U of Waterloo Student Newspaper) writes: >This much has been discovered however. There are comptuers >in the USSR. The Soviets make an Apple 128 clone. There are, indeed, computers in the USSR, and have been from the early 60's, but the huge emphasis has been on computers for military use. You just can't develop and operate today's weaponry without enormous computing resources. >As FidoNet is continuing to show us, you don't *need* a mini >to operate news and mail. A dedicated IBM PC can handle very >substantial volumes. If it can be had on the streets of >Taiwan for $500, I think the Soviets could get such hardware >easily if they wanted. Of course they can, but glasnost notwithstanding, the concept of a cheap, powerful computing device in the hands of essentially anyone who wants one is anathema to Soviet internal policies of the post-war decades. >I suspect whatever minis or mainframes they have are of very >different architecture to what we are used to. Not true, where do you think their architectures came from, and why is there a need for advanced computers, indeed computers of nearly every description, to be on a restricted export list from the US? The first, and to the best of my knowledge still, the mainstay of Soviet mainframe computing is a clone of the IBM/360 architecture. Indeed, it is a sufficiently well reverse-engineered beast that at one point it was running a standard IBM operating system. Examples of these systems are visible outside the Soviet Union, notably in India. The nuclear research institute near Hyderabad has an interesting collection. -- Robert Stanley Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 Voice: (613) 738-1440 (Research: there are 2!) 3755 Riverside Drive FAX: (613) 738-0002 Compuserve: 76174,3024 Ottawa, Ontario uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!roberts CANADA K1G 3Z4
khayo@sonia.cs.ucla.edu (Erazm J. Behr) (10/21/87)
In article <2052@encore.UUCP> fay@encore.UUCP (Peter Fay) writes: (...) >1. The U.S. State Dept. (and of course FBI, CIA) wants to prevent all >contact possible between people of the U.S. and socialist countries. This >contact seriously undermines publicity campaigns against them in the U.S., >and thus makes U.S. foreign policy more difficult to justify. >are merely blinded by ignorance and naivete. Go tell Academician Sakharov this. Tell it to the Jewish refuseniks. Go to Bulgaria, burn your US papers & apply for a passport. In case you were simply joking, my sense of humor has been severely tested. (...) >The question (as always) is: who wins the battle for control? The Western >governments who stand to lose credibility by East-West exchange, or the >rest of us, who stand only to gain? Funny - last time I checked you didn't need a permit for a satellite dish to receive Molnia, and Radio Moscow isn't being jammed (at least in CA :-)) Maybe I misread you - say again, who stands to lose credibility?... > peter fay > fay@multimax.arpa I'm all for the idea of global communications - I know that there will be a whole lot fewer ignorant and unhappy people when it becomes reality. We are witnessing this on a small scale now and here, in the case of the infamous FCC proposal (public response to which has been so voluminous that the Commissioners' mouths and eyes are still wide open in amazement; guess why so many letters were sent in such a short time?) However, history (whose value most Americans tend to underestimate) teaches us that in the West the governments usually manage to adapt to any such change and live with it; in the East they most often try to squelch it and get away with it. As one of the posters pointed out, Xerox machines are very tightly controlled in all Eastern Bloc countries; I was glad to see someone mention it, because my usual response to questions about "glasnost'" is: I'll believe that things have *really* changed over there when they will install a copy machine in the Leningrad GUM, which (a) would accept kopecks (b) would not be guarded by a militiaman (c) would not have the "out of toner" sign permanently attached to it. If and when such a time comes (and stays for a while!), I'm sure that the West will lose many prominent composers, writers, ballet dancers etc. - who will return to their country of birth. However, as long as the principle of information control is firmly in place - only relaxed a little wherever it's most visible to the Westerners, I don't think we can count on dialling up a *private* Russian and his PC-klonskii and engaging in a free exchange of thoughts. To quote Hartley's First Law: "You can lead a horse to water, but if you can make him float on his back, you've got something." All this belongs in 'politics.misc', I guess, but I simply couldn't resist. ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>>---------------> khayo@MATH.ucla.edu
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (10/21/87)
zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) wrote: > The net benefit will be to Soviet > intelligence gathering and analysis. > ...The goal of wider dissemination of information > should be met before such an intelligence boon is granted to the > Soviets. I am really, truly wondering what information there is on Usenet that the Russian "NSA equivalent" doesn't recieve many times over while watching it being transmitted from net site to net site. Surely they monitor the undersea telephone cables on which it moves to Europe, as well as many other telephone switching sites in many European countries, Japan, Korea, etc. Not to mention listening to the microwave towers that carry telephone calls in the U.S. Besides, if we can't get our own government to listen to us netters (witness the FCC versus packet switching networks), maybe we can get some attention from the Russian government... :-) John PS: I suspect that the War Dept. Internet folks let so much third party traffic go through their network because it gives them an excellent chance to watch it all, perfectly legally. (What was that about four IMPs at Ft. Meade?) Maybe the KGB would give us a similar deal; say, funding PC Pursuit after the FCC kills it. It never hurts to ask... -- {dasys1,ncoast,well,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com
ccplumb@watmath.UUCP (10/21/87)
In article <7213@eddie.MIT.EDU> zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) writes: >The posters proposing a UUCP link with the Soviet Union are more than >a little naive about the state of computing and information >interchange in the Soviet Union. ALL means of mass dissemination of >information are tightly controlled. Xerox machines are a bigger threat >to security than any single state secret, and are accordingly >controlled. The same, I expect, would go for computer printers, floppy >disks and floppy media, etc. > >The short of it is that you might be able to get a link to some >research institute set up (if you can get them to acknowledge the >existence of their ill-gotten VAX and Unix system!) but your impact on >the information available to anyone beyond the academicians they trust >to travel in the West will be nil. The net benefit will be to Soviet >intelligence gathering and analysis. > >I would oppose such a link at this time. The proposals I have seen in >this newsgroup have all the marks of amateur diplomacy: an agreement >of any sort is preferable to no agreement even if it gives a dangerous >party an advantage. The goal of wider dissemination of information >should be met before such an intelligence boon is granted to the >Soviets. > >-Zigurd Isn't this a little bit silly? The original proposal (not in the References: line, from imprint@orchid) was more in the "wouldn't it be fun if there was a mail link to U of Moscow?" spirit. USENET is hardly a U.S. state secret (or I wouldn't be getting it!), and I suspect a Soviet consulate could find an agreeable party to give them a feed if they wanted it. Then we could all put "World communist conspiracy" in our .signatures to give kgbvax's supergrep indigestion, just like we already do for nsavax and csisvax. If you want to see how bad a security risk it would be, find out how high a DARPA type jumps after hearing that a connection, however gatewayed and (probably) unreliable is to be made between the ARPANET and kremvax. I doubt it would be measurable. Really now, "intelligence boon"? We'd probably drive a few KGB types insane if they tried to follow Mark Ethan Smith, alt.flame, Matthew Wiener, soc.women, Gene Ward Smith, talk.religion.newage, Tim Maroney, or other well-known sources of content-free grammar [:-)]. As to the problems of getting the Soviets to agree, I do see how that could be difficult. Still, it's probably possible to find someone who has the authority and wants to look good to root@politburo.USSR (also known as gorby@kremvax). If you need to feel anti-socialist (the USSR is *not* communist) about this, consider the rapid growth of USENET (7600 sites a few weeks ago), and the enormous amounts of time spent reading news instead of doing what we "should" be doing. You're introducing a new, highly contagious sin to the Soviet Union, and thereby hastening it's decline. (Although how anything can fall faster than the US economy is beyond me. :-) ) (:-( if you live there, I suppose, although I heard that IBM is off 25% - cause for celebration if true.) -- -Colin (watmath!ccplumb) Zippy says: How many retured bricklayers from FLORIDA are out purchasing PENCIL SHARPENERS right NOW??
kempf@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Jim Kempf) (10/21/87)
Supposedly, the Soviet Union has a listening post in Cuba able to tap in on all the telephone traffic along the U.S. East Coast. So they're probably able to get anything they want. I doubt if it makes much difference to their intelligence whether they get an open UUCP connection. On the other hand, it may make a lot of difference to how informed their citizens are about both technical and nontechnical developments in the West, and about how informed we are what goes on there. In fact, considering how closed their society is, we might be the ones to gain. Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com Usual disclaimer
rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. Rupp) (10/21/87)
In article <8751@shemp.UCLA.EDU> khayo@MATH.UCLA.EDU (Erazm J. Behr) writes: >In article <2052@encore.UUCP> fay@encore.UUCP (Peter Fay) writes: >(...) >>1. The U.S. State Dept. (and of course FBI, CIA) wants to prevent all >>contact possible between people of the U.S. and socialist countries. This >>contact seriously undermines publicity campaigns against them in the U.S., >>and thus makes U.S. foreign policy more difficult to justify. >>are merely blinded by ignorance and naivete. > Go tell Academician Sakharov this. > Tell it to the Jewish refuseniks. > Go to Bulgaria, burn your US papers & apply for a passport. > In case you were simply joking, my sense of humor has been >severely tested. > > etc., etc., etc. > >>>>---------------> khayo@MATH.ucla.edu Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! My God, is it really that difficult to look at the Soviet Union (as opposed to the Russian people) and the West and not see the differences?! I think we should try as much as possible to make contact with ordinary Soviet Citizens. At the same time, we should not harbor any illusions regarding the cultural and political differences. As a corrective exercise, I suggest that doubters contrive to get themselves arrested (preferably for a really nasty crime) in both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. If you do, please write up your impressions of how the two legal systems work with respect to the rights of accused persons! Bill ====================================================================== I speak for myself, and not on behalf of any other person or organization .........................How's that, Gary? ======================================================================
imprint@orchid.UUCP (10/21/87)
In terms of "amateur diplomacy" and open dialogue with the Soviet people, i should point out that the student newspaper news exchange which has been started between Canada and the USSR was initiated by Soviet students. So far, much of the material we have received is stingingly critical of their bureaucrats and authorities. So much so, that we would blush to publish such pointed criticism of our own bureaucrats. There is no indication that censorship is occurring in either direction. Since the news exchange within Canada and between Canadian and US student newspapers is being computerized right now, there seems to be some logic in including other countries as well. If any kind of computer data link can be established, it follows that a Usenet link should also be able to be established. Just how the establishment of dialogue between individuals across the iron curtain, in a very open and public way is liable to jeopardize security still baffles me. If anything, personal aquaintence and familiarity is liable to reduce tensions and thus improve everyone's security. You must remember that just because you have to register photo-copiers -- and even typewriters in the USSR doesn't mean you can't get access to them for non-criminal activity. After all, does the fact that you have to register your automobile restrict you from using it? It's about the same kind of "registration". The material we get from the Soviet Union is prepared on (presumably) registered typewriters and computer printers. So what? Doug Thompson imprint@orchid Fido 221/162
pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (10/22/87)
I was just told that this subject was being discussed here.
Please excuse me if I am repeating something.
Yes, Fido does have gateways into USENET/UUCP, although
unofficial at this time. Also there are official
nodes/systems/machines that are in the current nodelist that are
located in Poland. IFNA announced at the last FidoCon at the
end of August, that they are trying to establish contact with
existing fido networks in the Soviet Union. For more
information you can write IFNA at:
International FidoNet Association
P. O. Box 41143
St Louis, Missouri 63141
USA
--
Tim Pozar
UUCP pozar@hoptoad.UUCP
Fido 1:125/406
USNail KKSF
77 Maiden Lane
San Francisco CA 94108
PaBell (415) 788-3904fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/22/87)
In article <2052@encore.UUCP>, fay@encore.UUCP (Peter Fay) writes: > > "Dirty aggressions and secret, harmful operations..." - is this really > a criticism directed against the USSR? Espionage is a dirty business by > any standards. And if you want to make charges, then go straight to the > source - the CIA wrote the book on dirty aggression (see Agee's, > Stockwell's, etc. books on the CIA campaigns in Vietnam, assasinations in > Africa, Latin America, etc.). I assume you're speaking of getting reading material available on the reasonably open market...because if not, you're about as wrong as you could be without going to a lot of trouble. It's just that the Russians don't publish equivalent books openly. The U.S. is a late-comer in the field of "Dirty aggressions and secret, harmful operations..." and pretty amateur most of the time, at that. The Czarist period showed lots of examples of such activity, both inside and outside Russia. (Ask India or Poland about that, for starters) and the Soviets have generally improved on the Czarists. You forgot about the Soviet assasination teams that operated in Europe during the 1920s killing White Russian emigres (or even Leon Trotsky). Don't forget the taking of the Baltic States, or the suppression of dissent in the Ukraine. Don't forget the internal troubles staged by Stalin, who learned from Lenin, and only outshone him because the latter clocked out before he was finished. The English were in the business, and very effective at it, long before the Russians ever started playing. (And the French, and the Germans, and the Poles, and Italian city states, and China, and Japan [internally and externally], and ...) Various factions in the Islamic world used assasination and intimidation as normal tools of governing, both against Europe and other Islamic neighbors. Rome sometimes seemed to use "covert" dirty tricks as a favorite participant sport, which they picked up from the Greeks before them. And if you want to see someone who really got into this sort of stuff, you really ought to look up the history of the Assyrian Empire. It makes the rest of the crown look like a bunch of pansies. Their kings made monuments boasting of the horrible things that they did. This is not to exonerate the U.S. But to say that the U.S. "wrote the book on dirty agression" is a grossly ignorant statement. Do you really believe that things like Hungary in '56, Czechoslovakia '68, and Poland in '45 never happened? Or Afghanistan today? Just because journalists can't easily get in and out of Afghanistan freely doesn't mean that nothing is going on there. Just because you haven't read anything by Soviet equivalents to Agee and Stockwell doesn't mean that such doesn't happen... > 1. The U.S. State Dept. (and of course FBI, CIA) wants to prevent all > contact possible between people of the U.S. and socialist countries. This The Soviet government doesn't want to prevent all (except carefully monitored) contact between its citizens and foreigners? Ever heard of the MVD Border Troops? They keep citizens in, not immigrants out, by the way. You like the idea of internal passports? Some people have lived with them all their lives. Oh, by the way: your terminology is loose. "Espionage is a dirty business by any standards." Every nation engages in intelligence- gathering. (The vast majority of it, even by those corrupt and war-mongering Americans, is by reading newspapers and magazines and listening to the radio. Almost all people engaged in intelligence work have the exciting task of reading day in and day out. Believe me, reading Pravda is not my idea of having fun.) Information gathering isn't the same as assasination, or planting booby-trapped toys for kids to pick up. Any nation that doesn't perform some sort of intelligence-gathering puts itself at horrible risk. The covert operations that you're concerned with are another kettle of fish entirely. If you're concerned about covert agression, label it properly. seh
bha@suadb.UUCP (Bertil Hansson) (10/23/87)
If I remember our biggest daily, Dagens Nyheter correctly, some
Macintoshes have been exported to USSR with all the proper
authorization, and with a Swedish one-man company acting as
intermediary (and physical carrier...)
--
Bertil Hansson, University of Stockholm, Sweden
INTERNET: bha@suadb.se
{uunet,mcvax,munnari,cernvax,diku,inria,prlb2,tut,ukc,unido}!enea!suadb!bhaimprint@orchid.waterloo.edu (U of Waterloo Student Newspaper) (10/23/87)
> >Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! My God, is it really that difficult to look at the >Soviet Union (as opposed to the Russian people) and the West and not see >the differences?! I think we should try as much as possible to make >contact with ordinary Soviet Citizens. At the same time, we should not >harbor any illusions regarding the cultural and political differences. > >Bill I question whether it is relevant, when contemplating the opening of network links to other countries, to undertake an evaluation of that country's political correctness first. I have not seen any suggestion that there are not differences between East and West, quite the contrary. It is the very fact of those differences, and the fact that they presently threaten the entire human race with extinction, that makes it so important to work at bridging them. The fact that the Soviet government is a "bad" government leads some to say we should not talk to their people. I am sure that the same logic works the other way, the fact that we in the West have "bad" governments (in the Kremlin's opinion) has caused them to carefully regulate communication. What do we fear? What do they fear? Political contamination? I doubt it. Foreign political ideas seldom take root. What is to be feared is that the illusion created by the propaganda machines on both sides will be shattered by face to face dialogue and mutual understanding. There are huge numbers of people employed in both the USSR and the USA in enterprises which have a substantial vested interest in maintaining the status quo of massive arms production and "fear" of the other side. If it ever came to pass that the USSR and USA were to abandon their acrimony, and discard the weapons they keep to defend themselves against each other, there would be severe economic dislocations in both nations. Some very, very powerful people will be reluctant to let that happen. It is not the differences between us that matter so much, I think, as the fact that a lot of people would be out of a job if we ever began to bridge them! Doug Thompson imprint%orchid@watmath Fido 221/162
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (10/25/87)
In article <8710200847.AA14687@hadron.UUCP> jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes:
<This reminds me -- it is easy to get Usenet 'news' inside the CCCP.
<"Just" get a satellite dish and decoder, and listen to Lauren's (and
<Usenix's) Stargate Project!
That won't work. A geostationary comsat that will cover the US is not going
to be over the horizon in the USSR.
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."kurt@doodah.UUCP (Kurt VanderSluis) (10/25/87)
In response to U. Waterloo article, Varol Akman writes: > > Just the fact that something is available for Russian agents doesn't > imply that Americans should make life easier for them. In an ideal world, > I would be all for your proposal but I believe that as long as the Russians > continue their dirty aggressions and secret, harmful operations directed > towards the free world, U.S. should try *hard* to make life difficult > for them. Computer technology/science is one field where Americans > excel and Russians stink. Why should we let them have a free lunch -- > especially when it is obvious that they are going to use this technology > against freedom-loving people all around the globe (including their own > kingdom and the Eastern block)? > There are many reasons to criticize the USSR, but unless your glass windows are made with unbreakable glass, the fact that Russians carry on dirty, secret and harmful agressions around the world is not one of them. All major industrialized countries do this. Some to a great extent (Russia, US) and some to a very small extent (Japan). Caspar Weinberger has said the "low-intensity conflict" (the technical term for these actions) will dominate warfare for the forseeable future. It's cheaper in terms of money and political liability to sponsor someone else to do your dirtywork. Economically mature states have always been militarily overcommitted. LIC is one way to extend your capabilities. LIC presents several problems in terms of control and accountability. The Contras in Nicaragua are a good example of this. Because the accounting for this is not publicly acknowledged, corruption within the Contra command is inevitable. The sponsoring country has to decide what level of corruption it can deal with. Similarly, the Contras are pretty much free to decide their own policies with regard to the conduct of the war, including how they handle highly printable issues like the disposition of civilians in the conflict. My personal position is that the Contras were a bad idea in the first place, in that they are not an effective instrument of diplomacy. But given the organizational problems of LIC, it is not surprising that they (whatever the intentions) have devolved into a bunch of self-seeking brigands that are willing to befriend any policy as long as the pay is good. And .. the pay hasn't been that good. My hope is that the Arias peace plan will be a better deal for them than the love-hate relationship of the American government. -- Kurt VanderSluis ********************************* Boeing Computer Services * These opinions are mine, * M/S 6R-37 P.O. 24346 * not the Boeing Company's. * Seattle, WA 98124 *********************************
macbeth@artecon.UUCP (Beckwith) (10/27/87)
In article <11325@orchid.waterloo.edu> imprint@orchid.waterloo.edu (U of Waterloo Student Newspaper) writes: >> >>Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! My God, is it really that difficult to look at the >>Soviet Union (as opposed to the Russian people) and the West and not see >>the differences?! I think we should try as much as possible to make >>contact with ordinary Soviet Citizens. At the same time, we should not >>harbor any illusions regarding the cultural and political differences. >> >>Bill > >I question whether it is relevant, when contemplating the >opening of network links to other countries, to undertake an >evaluation of that country's political correctness first. > >I have not seen any suggestion that there are not >differences between East and West, quite the contrary. It is >the very fact of those differences, and the fact that they >presently threaten the entire human race with extinction, >that makes it so important to work at bridging them. > >[Doug continues, but I've deleted in interest of brevity] Re these differences: How many of you watched any of the "People's Summit" programs (hosted by Phil Donahue and a Soviet gentlemen whose name escapes me)? I saw two groups of people who had been out of touch with each other for a very long time, who had preconceptions of the other's lives that were way out of whack, and who were having a heck of a time just getting a decent discussion going. There was great confusion and mistrust on both sides and in some ways it was a very unsatisfying experience. And yet... It was a beginning. By the end, I saw two groups who were closer to understanding each other. There were no major revelations, but there was most certainly a removing of some blinders. It was a small, tentative step toward mutual appreciation for the other's attitudes. If this UUCP link were to be established, it will probably suffer from many of the same problems as did these "Summits". I would hope it could press on, however, and perhaps, just for a few people, start really building a bridge. Lest you think me YANL (Yet Another Naive Liberal), let me say that I firmly believe in a strong defense and in kicking ass when it needs kicking (the sight of open water where an oil platform used to be was most satisfying). But I also hold with a saying from a man who is nobody's YANL: "Always leave room for your enemy to become your friend." Spasebo. -- + David Macy-Beckwith Artecon, Inc. {sdcsvax,hplabs}!hp-sdd!artecon!macbeth + + The Company has enough on its plate || "Let's see what's out there..." + + without supporting the crazed postings || - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard + + of its newsaholic minions. || +
andys@men2a.ORI-CAL.COM (Andrew Sibre) (10/27/87)
>personal aquaintence and familiarity is liable to reduce >tensions and thus improve everyone's security. There was a lot of "personal acquaintance and familiarity" prior to both WW1 and WW11. It didn't serve the victims all that well. >The material we get from the Soviet >Union is prepared on (presumably) registered typewriters and >computer printers. So what? I submit that said registration exerts what we in this nation call a "chilling effect" -- F F r
schiltz@csinn.uucp (Jean Pierre Schiltz) (10/27/87)
After reading all the articles I have here about the issue (as recommended in 'How to use the news :-)'), I would like to precise the following : - Moscow is only 44 hours from Paris by train, and the soviet customs are the only ones that actually open the cars ceilings to look if there is someone there. I suppose that some*thing could be put in as well, and a Sun is not that big, is it ? - I think it is quite difficult to phone from Moscow to Paris (about 2 hours waiting), for technical reasons essentially (or that is what they say). Note that I have been there for a few weeks, not for tourism. I do not pretend that I know ALL about Soviet Union anyway, but I think I know a very little bit more than some other people. - Hungarian people can go as they want to Austria and to Europe, provided they pay. I know they can bring computers home if they say it was a gift (for fiscal reasons). It is very easy to phone France from Hungary (I have done so from a phone booth). It is also very easy to go to Hungary (I got my visa 2 days before leaving from the embassy in Vienna). - Note that though I also have been to Yugoslavia, and speak some russian, I am not a 'crypto-communist' (;-)) and have no money in the Banque de l'Europe de l'Est... - For minitels, I can tell you that lots of people finally got a $800 bill for a month, and that in France, if you claim your bill is too high, the first question you are asked is "did you get a minitel ?". I think the discussion such as the one we have seen before would not be that long if all the writers had had to pay that price. Pink Minitel companies are the ones that make the more money in France. - For computers in soviet union, as far as big computers are concerned, the only terminals I have seen were old tin-boxes in the airports. In the big hotels of Moscow and Leningrad, there are NONE. So I suppose that would they have such computers, they would prefer to use them for more URGENT purposes than discussing with people overseas. Paper magazines are still up-to-date, air mail works well (at least in Europe, I have been told that US mail was not that good, is it ?), it gives the writers time to think instead of typing things at the same time as they come to the mind (just what I am doing at the moment :-)) and -of course- it is much easier to control. For the Canadian to Soviet paper someone told about a few messages ago, notice that of course you will see a lot of criticism about bureaucracy - it has been a long time tradition in USSR and even in Russia to do so - but you will never see any criticism about WHY the bureaucracy is like that - not speaking of criticizing the Government. Now, to relax, a joke : An american man says to a soviet man : " America is real democracy : I can go in front of the White House and shout "Reagan, you bastard !", no one will arrest me ! " And the soviet answers : " Well, I can do the same, go in front of the Kremlin and shout "Reagan, you bastard !", no one will arrest me either !". Sorry for my english, very approximative, and for this long notice. I am very interested in any review, mail lists, and theoretical works, etc... in/about Esperanto. I can not speak esperanto, or at least very few. Jean-Pierre Schiltz - Cap Sogeti Innovation - 118 rue de Tocqueville 75017 Paris (France) - +33(1) 46 22 60 27 # 232.
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (10/27/87)
In article <1622@cognos.UUCP>, roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) writes: > The first, and to the best of my knowledge still, the mainstay of > Soviet mainframe computing is a clone of the IBM/360 architecture. > Indeed, it is a sufficiently well reverse-engineered beast that at > one point it was running a standard IBM operating system. There was an article or two in *Computing Surveys* some years back about computing in the USSR. I was highly amused to see a news clip in the Discovery Network's encore showing of highlights of the Soviet TV shows they ran against *Amerika* which showed some people sitting at a Ryad, sure enough with the IBMoid terminal. The system messages were in English, so as of the time those pictures were taken, they were probably running a stock IBM OS without even translating the text of the error messages. James Jones
rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. Rupp) (10/27/87)
Vladimir Posner was the English speaking host of the Russian audience in the Phil Donahue US/USSR people-to-people TV show. This was a very interesting show from a number of angles. For instance: 1. NONE of the Soviet speakers had anything bad to say about the Soviet government or system. 2. MANY of the US speakers condemned the U.S. in terms that rivalled those used by the prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials after WWII to condemn the atrocities of National Socialism. 3. With the exception of obvious topics such as Afghanistan, few really tough questions were put to the Soviets. 4. The Soviet citizens responded clearly and coherently to the U.S. questions. I would not say that they were coached, but they surely knew their Communist rhetoric extremely well. 5. On the other hand, the Americans did not seem to me to have as good an intellectual grasp of what their nation was all about. They were, for the most part, either openly hostile to the U.S., or they relied on tired and not very sophisticated anti-communist rhetoic. 6. Phil, to his credit, ended the show by saying that he perceived that to most Americans, the total lack of any disagreement with their government on the part of the Soviet speakers was simply not credible. What does it all add up to? I am not sure. But it was clear to me that the Soviet participants were either hand-picked (I think a Soviet defector has made that charge) or were very reliable aparchiki (I'm sure that spelling must be wrong). Certainly there were no Jewish dissidents among them. By the way, I do not mean to imply that these people were insincere. On the contrary, they seemed quite sincere. I would say they were professional types, if that makes sense with reference to Soviet citizens, and probably people I would be pleased to know. I would mind the policies of their government, of course. What about the Americans? Why was there so high a percentage (25%?) of them who seemed to want to outdo each other in bad-mouthing the U.S.? Was the U.S. audience rigged against the U.S.A.? That seems highly unlikely. Yet, if the audience is typical of the entire U.S. populatioin, we have a very grave situation indeed. It's bad to ignore your country's faults, but it is equally bad to take an automatically negative postition. What if one day a U.S. President, let's say a Black, liberal, woman, gets a reliable intelligence report indicating an imminent Soviet thurst across the Bering Straights to recapture Alaska (BTW, this is my pet hobby horse; that the most likely area of conflict between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. will be Alaska)? She goes to the U.S. people to gain support for a general mobilization designed to discourage the Soviets from executing their plan. But along comes "Citizens for the Anti-American Way", etc, lying down in front of troop trains or on airbase runways, and generally making the mobilization unworkable. In short, the degree to which Americans have only a shallow concept of their political heritage, as well as history in general, bodes ill for the future. Bill ====================================================================== I speak for myself, and not on behalf of any other person or organization .........................How's that, Gary? ======================================================================
barry@aurora.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (10/28/87)
In article <15236@watmath.waterloo.edu> ccplumb@watmath.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) writes: >In article <7213@eddie.MIT.EDU> zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) writes: >>The goal of wider dissemination of information >>should be met before such an intelligence boon is granted to the >>Soviets. > >Really now, "intelligence boon"? We'd probably drive a few KGB types >insane if they tried to follow Mark Ethan Smith, alt.flame, Matthew >Wiener, soc.women, Gene Ward Smith, talk.religion.newage, Tim Maroney, >or other well-known sources of content-free grammar [:-)]. You said it. I suspect John Gilmore was right when he suggested that the Sovs get Usenet already, as a side effect of their monitoring US communications. Anybody wanna bet they already have a filter in place to throw *away* Usenet stuff? The biggest headache in blanket electronic espionage is filtering out all the useless garbage. Making some poor human sift through Usenet for useful intelligence would have to be the KGB's electronic equivalent of exile to Siberia :-). Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electric Avenue: {dual,seismo,ihnp4,hplabs}!ames!aurora!barry
bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU.UUCP (10/28/87)
I've decided that the anti-Soviet contingent has now grabbed info-futures and turned it into a cheap soap-box for their cause. They have nothing new to add, we've heard it all 10,000 times before, but that won't stop their low-brow drivel. Apparently they got a mere whiff of a conversation exploring the possibility of network connections to the USSR which, if you review the notes that brought it up, were fairly value-free other than perhaps the assumption that opening channels of communication might be a good thing, and felt compelled to obsessively use this list to denounce everything they've ever thought was wrong with the USSR over and over again, virtually flooding the group. Sure, some uncomfortable with their mono-maniacal view of the world took the bait and began answering them. That's all part of their intention, to turn *any* conversation which has the letters "USSR" in it into a confrontational, frustrating free-for-all and make sure no progress is made on the original issue. WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY AFRAID OF?! They're certainly afraid of something. That perhaps all of us on this list are not red-white-and-blue enough for your tastes? That any conversation addressing the USSR *must* be properly balanced with 80% anti-soviet propaganda? Arrogant bastards. I hope the members of this group see through what these fanatical right-wingers are really up to. They are trying to shout down *any* conversation having to do with communication with the USSR. They can't stand the thought that others are even engaged in such a discussion, it makes them angry as hell. Sad when we see the pot call the kettle black. I'm sure many of the Russians think they're being "patriots" also... But go ahead, shout down any free and open discussions, it's the American way you're out to protect, right? You wave the flag, shout commie-bashing rhetoric apoplectically and *IT JUST CAN'T BE WRONG*. YOU'VE GOT GOD AND MOTHER AND APPLE-PIE ON YOUR SIDE! Hypocrites. I am seriously considering: a) Withdrawing info-futures from usenet distribution. b) Going to a digestified, edited format to restore order and eliminate this tripe. Of course, the radical right will claim "censorship" because in their small minds it is their *right* to reply with tons of their crap and co-opt any conversation they're not comfortable with. Sorry losers, we're just trying to reduce the *boredom* level. Feel free to start your own group. -Barry Shein, Boston University
varol@cwi.nl (Varol Akman) (10/28/87)
In article <8710280303.AA01116@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > > [some material deleted; some offensive stuff follows] > >Sure, some uncomfortable with their mono-maniacal view of the world > ------------- >took the bait and began answering them. That's all part of their >intention, to turn *any* conversation which has the letters "USSR" in >it into a confrontational, frustrating free-for-all and make sure no >progress is made on the original issue. > >I hope the members of this group see through what these fanatical > --------- >right-wingers are really up to. > >They are trying to shout down *any* conversation having to do with >communication with the USSR. They can't stand the thought that others >are even engaged in such a discussion, it makes them angry as hell. > >Hypocrites. >---------- > >I am seriously considering: > > a) Withdrawing info-futures from usenet distribution. > ------------------------------------------------- > b) Going to a digestified, edited format to restore order > and eliminate this tripe. > -------------------- > >Of course, the radical right will claim "censorship" because in their >small minds it is their *right* to reply with tons of their crap and > ---- >co-opt any conversation they're not comfortable with. > >Sorry losers, we're just trying to reduce the *boredom* level. Feel > ------ >free to start your own group. > > -Barry Shein, Boston University Mr Shein, I've several questions to you: 1. Who gives you the right to use such abusive language? 2. Are you trying to impress someone? 3. Who the hell are you to withdraw info-futures from usenet? 4. Why don't you try to precisely identify whom you're trying to talk to instead of painting a large group of us as right-wing hypocrites? I was one of the people who objected against usenet connections to Russia. I'm, to my best knowledge, not right-wing. I'm not American either. 5. Finally [not that I care about it but], I think you owe the readers of this group an apology. Keep cool, pal! Varol Akman, CWI, Amsterdam What is an individual? A very good question. So good, in fact, that we should not try to answer it. - DANA SCOTT
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (10/28/87)
>There was a lot of "personal acquaintance and familiarity" prior to both >WW1 and WW11. It didn't serve the victims all that well. It seems to me there wasn't enough personal acquaintance and familiarity. The German political leaders, in particular, badly misjudged England and the United States. The Soviet political leaders, are badly misjudging the United States, in my opinion.
witters@fluke.UUCP (10/28/87)
It occurred to me that there is already a precedent for UUCP links to the Soviet Union. Amateur Radio operators have been communicating with people in the Soviet Union for many years. Of course there are few amateur radio operators in the USSR, (there aren't all that many in the USA either). Based on this precedent, I would predict that even if UUCP links to the USSR became as common as links between the USA and Europe or the Far East, only a very small number of people would use it for communicating. This is true now of Amateur Radio. If you want to increase the amount of interaction between countries, I think you are better off promoting tourism and student exchange programs. -- I'm not a lumberjack and I'm not O.K. John Witters (206) 356-5274 John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc. cryptography DES drugs cipher NSA CIA DIA P.O.B. C9090 M/S 245F NRO IRS coke crack missile atom Libyan RSA Everett, Washington 98206
cyrill@scicom.UUCP (10/28/87)
From a local newsletter newsgroup at 'scicom.alphacdc.com','taos','embudo' and 'arcangel'.
In article <1207@scicom.alphacdc.com> you write:
+
+I've decided that the anti-Soviet contingent has now grabbed
+info-futures and turned it into a cheap soap-box for their cause.
+
+WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY AFRAID OF?! They're certainly afraid of
+something.
+
+That perhaps all of us on this list are not red-white-and-blue enough
+for your tastes? That any conversation addressing the USSR *must* be
+properly balanced with 80% anti-soviet propaganda? Arrogant bastards.
+
+They are trying to shout down *any* conversation having to do with
+communication with the USSR. They can't stand the thought that others
+are even engaged in such a discussion, it makes them angry as hell.
+
+Hypocrites.
+
+I am seriously considering:
+
+ a) Withdrawing info-futures from usenet distribution.
+
+ -Barry Shein, Boston University
I for one agree and do hope you with draw info-futures from netnews
distribution. This person finds the discussion about opening channels
to belligerent countries right in line with a view of the world as
a global community.
By the way, info-futures mailer seems to be mailing two copies of everything.
Cyro Lord Alpha Comm. Dev. Corp. 2570 Sky Ranch Rd. Aurora, CO. 80011
UUCP/DOMAIN {boulder,hao,isis}!scicom!cyrill / cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com
"Endeaver to Persevere"fay@encore.UUCP (10/28/87)
In article <8710280303.AA01116@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > >I've decided that the anti-Soviet contingent has now grabbed >info-futures and turned it into a cheap soap-box for their cause. > > >I am seriously considering: > > a) Withdrawing info-futures from usenet distribution. > b) Going to a digestified, edited format to restore order > and eliminate this tripe. >... > > -Barry Shein, Boston University I plead guilty to being the object of much of the scorn wreaked by the anti-Soviets. My comments, if you will recall, simply stated that: 1. The U.S. is probably the leader in foreign campaigns of 'dirty aggression', but I said this was a non-issue. 2. The U.S. government discourages information exchange between Americans and socialist countries. 3. Beliefs of 'security threats' from exchange are unwarranted. 4. There is much to be gained from technical and social interchange. The negative responses were absolutely vehement, but should at least be addressed. They are summarized (as objectively as I can) below: --------------------------------------------------------------- We (proponents) are "naive". - This is immaterial whether true or not. Only "approved" "academicians they trust to travel to the West" will be able to participate. - If true, the usenet exchange would be at least as fruitful as current cultural and scientific exchanges. "Amateur diplomacy" - This is the whole idea. "Intelligence boon" to the Soviets. - They likely already receive Usenet. The Soviets really "want to prevent all (except carefully monitored) contact". - See mail on Soviets initiating student newspaper exchange - critical of Soviet government. "Illusions regarding the cultural and political differences." (Read: U.S. is far freer and superior.) - The differences are precisely what we are trying to address by info exchange. Other than that, issue is irrelevant. No useful technical information will flow East-to-West. - You can find dozens of Soviet technical journals translated into English sitting on the periodical shelves of most U.S. universities - presumeably for a good reason. Also note the thousands of American scientists, physicians, academics who meet with Soviets each year. Registration of typewriters and Xerox machines exerts a "chilling effect". - This (even if true) is irrelevant. "Personal acquaintance and familiarity" didn't stop WWI and WWII. - A US-USSR link won't stop WWIII either. It may however have some tiny effect on reducing tensions, which makes a link well worth while. ------------------------------------------------- As to eliminating the newsgroup, or moderating it: The irrelevant comments about how the USSR is 'oppressive' (irrelevent to this group, anyway) are a pain to wade through. Nevertheless, a lot of very interesting info has come out of this group - particularly from outside the US. It would be a shame to shut it down. If the irrelevent anti-Sovietism continues, perhaps moderation is the route to go, to keep discussion on the topic. -- peter fay fay@multimax.arpa {allegra|compass|decvax|ihnp4|linus|necis|pur-ee|talcott}!encore!fay