carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/22/85)
> A campaign to protest the people being held hostage > in Beirut was started either in California or > Texas. If you oppose the actions of the terrorists > please do your daytime driving with you headlights on. <puke> (And what about the millions of Americans who *support* the actions of the terrorists?) I have a better idea. Let's all chant in unison, "USA! USA! USA!..." Maybe that will get the hostages released. > This may not have any direct influence for the hostages > release, Really. > but it will show Solidarity in America! Does anyone seriously think the Shiite radicals give two craps whether Americans are united in solidarity behind the hostages? They will do what they can to achieve their political objectives. If the US govt. is serious about getting the hostages released, it can pressure the Israelis to release the hundreds of Lebanese civilians (including women and children) that Israel has imprisoned in clear violation of international law, and that Israel was planning to release anyway. But no, that would cause people to question Reagan's manhood, which seems to be the bottom line for the Administration. Reagan's tough talk about retribution only serves to show up the US as a paper tiger, since everyone knows he isn't going to do anything. This idea of turning on your headlights to show American "solidarity" is just another example of the stupid Us versus Them mentality that may be appropriate at the Olympics but gets us into trouble around the world. This isn't a soccer match, goddammit, it's a POLITICAL problem that requires a POLITICAL solution. But if you think that God is on Our Side (as usual), why not pray instead of wasting good gasoline in such a dramatization of our powerlessness? Richard Carnes
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (06/23/85)
In article <498@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > ... If the >US govt. is serious about getting the hostages released, it can >pressure the Israelis to release the hundreds of Lebanese civilians >(including women and children) that Israel has imprisoned in clear >violation of international law, and that Israel was planning to >release anyway. ... Hey, great idea. Israel cut down on its problems with hijackers by refusing to deal with them, so that terrorists had nothing to gain. Let's prove that you can get Israel to do what you want by kidnapping, killing and torturing U.S. citizens instead. Then we can all feel safer ... Please, all of you with the "obvious solutions", consider both the long term AND short term consequences before you point out the stupidity/selfishness/etc. of those who have not publically espoused the same ideas!! FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc. UUCP: {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amd!cae780!gordon {nsc, resonex, qubix, hplabs, leadsv, teklds}!cae780!gordon
raju@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (raju bhatt) (06/26/85)
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) > They will do what they can to achieve their political objectives. If > the US govt. is serious about getting the hostages released, it can > pressure the Israelis to release the hundreds of Lebanese civilians > (including women and children) that Israel has imprisoned in clear > violation of international law, and that Israel was planning to > release anyway. But no, that would cause people to question Reagan's > manhood, which seems to be the bottom line for the Administration. > Reagan's tough talk about retribution only serves to show up the US > as a paper tiger, since everyone knows he isn't going to do anything. I don't believe that only those hostages (TWA flight) are the only consideration. How about the Navy man who they brutally killed? If their purpose was to release their comrades/people in the hands of the Israelis, then why kick the sh*t out of the Navy guy and then at point blank range put a bullet through/into his skull? He was not in the Israeli Navy, nor an Israeli citizen. The Shiites have every reason to be angry at both the US and Israel, as US ships bombarded Shiite neighborhoods during the Multinational Peacekeeping Force (or as the Warsaw Pact would say the NATO forces) occupation of Beirut. Israelis have in the past been willing to trade for Israelis in Palestinian, Syrian, and the local militias' hands. The killing of the poor Navy man signalled to the US that they were going to be tough. But was that display necessary? I don't believe so. I don't buy that the Israelis were going to release the Shiites that they had soon. This looks like a public ploy on their part and you know how the Israelis are with the American Media! A third party like the Red Cross (or in the Muslim World, the Red Cresent) could have helped to swap the passengers for the Shiites. Even though the US doesn't like to acknowledge, Arafat played clean. Prisoner swaps and when the civil war broke out in Lebonan broke out, Al Fatah was protecting the American Embassy. If the Syrians and Israelis didn't screw the guy, he could have helped in bringing to close the hijacking drama. And Nabih Berri (as Peter Jennings said, "The owner of several gas stations in the Detroit area"), has not been the Arafat that played it cool and won on the diplomatic scale. Berri has not done a service for his cause through his role in the drama. No matter how much the US State Department says that he is the 'man' who can resolve the drama, he (and his men) talk as if they are the hijackers and will kill them if the Shiites are released. The American Media has made such a play with his American affliation (another Peter Jennings favorite quote "He even has a green card"). And here is Berri the same man who is wiping the Palestianians in the refugee camps. Keeping the US Navy off the coast of Lebanon I believe is a good idea as Berri knows, Reagan (with US public opinion behind him) will do something when the drama gets resolved (either for the good or the bad). No Marines landing, but could do a number on the very same people he says he stands for with heavy bombing of the South Beirut neighbor- hoods for the purpose of 'getting even with the hijackers'. As swiftly as he took American forces to Lebanon, Honduras, and Grenada, he can do another 'trick' to Beirut especially when public opinion is behind him. The House Democrats/Liberals will not have the votes to stop him. Let's wait and see....
goran@erix.UUCP (Goeran Baage) (06/27/85)
In article <313@ihlpm.UUCP> rcj1@ihlpm.UUCP (r j) writes: > > A campaign to protest the people being held hostage > in Beirut was started either in California or > Texas. If you oppose the actions of the terrorists > please do your daytime driving with you headlights on. > This may not have any direct influence for the hostages > release, but it will show Solidarity in America! > Please participate.... If nothing else it should bring the number of car accidents down, That is at least the reason why we are forced (by law) to drive with our headlights on during daytime here in Sweden. Goeran Boge
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (06/28/85)
> = Bhatt > I don't buy that the > Israelis were going to release the Shiites that they had soon. This > looks like a public ploy on their part and you know how the Israelis > are with the American Media! For your information, the Israelis originally had about 1100 mostly Shiite prisoners from Lebanon. They had already released over 300 unilaterally BEFORE the hijacking. Of course, this could all have just been made up by the American media. -) -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
raju@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Raju Bhatt) (07/02/85)
From me > I don't buy that the > Israelis were going to release the Shiites that they had soon. This > looks like a public ploy on their part and you know how the Israelis > are with the American Media! From Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan > For your information, the Israelis originally had about 1100 mostly > Shiite prisoners from Lebanon. They had already released over 300 > unilaterally BEFORE the hijacking. Of course, this could all have > just been made up by the American media. -) Those Israelis are the nicest! After grabbing a whole mess of them, giving back a few of them should make them happy right? The Shiites should be grateful they got that many back! How kind and merciful Israeli Army! The Israeli government always plays to the American media, to show how kind and merciful it is with these "They all look the same" Shiites.
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (07/04/85)
Please forgive me if this is a duplicate posting. I got an error message on the first posting, so I am trying again. > From Raju Bhatt: > > I don't buy that the > > Israelis were going to release the Shiites that they had soon. This > > looks like a public ploy on their part and you know how the Israelis > > are with the American Media! > > From Bill Tanenbaum > > For your information, the Israelis originally had about 1100 mostly > > Shiite prisoners from Lebanon. They had already released over 300 > > unilaterally BEFORE the hijacking. Of course, this could all have > > just been made up by the American media. -) > > From Raju Bhatt: > Those Israelis are the nicest! After grabbing a whole mess of them, giving > back a few of them should make them happy right? The Shiites should be > grateful they got that many back! How kind and merciful Israeli Army! > The Israeli government always plays to the American media, to show how > kind and merciful it is with these "They all look the same" Shiites. ------------------------------- Dear Raju: Your response is totally irrelevant to my point. All I was doing was responding to your incorrect assertion that Israel did not intend to release the Lebanese prisoners. I never said that the arrest of the Shiites was justified. Your outburst totally ignores my point. Don't let your hatred of Israel blind you to facts. I personally heard Nabih Berri say on T. V. that Israel was going to release the prisoners anyway. Of course, he too is probably in the pay of those nasty Zionists-). By the way, you are correct in your response to Ephraim Silverberg that he cannot tell Lebanese Shiites from Palestinians. His posting reeked of ignorance. Yours reeks of hatred. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (07/04/85)
Israel is holding several hundred Shiites. Lebanon claims these are innocent people who were randomly rounded up as Israel withdrew from Lebanon. If this is true, it's a pretty serious violation of international law and should get lots of negative publicity for Israel. However, this has been virtually ignored by the media I've seen. What does Israel say its reason was for taking these prisoners? What do third parties say? Are these people as innocent as the Americans on the TWA plane? Are they terrorists? Military? And why is this being swept under the rug?
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (07/05/85)
In article <1948@ut-ngp.UTEXAS> raju@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Raju Bhatt) writes: ||Those Israelis are the nicest! After grabbing a whole mess of them, giving ||back a few of them should make them happy right? The Shiites should be ||grateful they got that many back! How kind and merciful Israeli Army! ||The Israeli government always plays to the American media, to show how ||kind and merciful it is with these "They all look the same" Shiites. Hold it right there. These weren't people picked randomly off the street, as you imply. They were arrested during Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon for actions against Israeli forces. Remember that Lebanon and Israel are officially at war and have been since 1948 (Lebanon, along with every other Arab country except Egypt, refuses to recognize Israel's existence, has refused any peace treaty, and has attacked Israel: that places the countries in a state of war). The last thing Israel wants is more prisoners. Not quite. The last thing it wants is more terrorist attacks on its citizens and guerrilla attacks on its army, which is trying to protect its citizens. As things settle down in Lebanon, Israel has been releasing the Shiites, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with the TWA hijacking. Dave Sherman Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
jaakov%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA (07/08/85)
From: Jacob Levy <jaakov%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
A. There's no government in Lebanon, except maybe some leftovers from
the Syrian puppet government that have not been killed or otherwise
rendered inneffective by the different militia's fighting at each
other's throats -
therefore
B. I nor anyone I have spoken to in the US recently, has heard anything
official from the Lebanese government complaining that Israel has
kidnapped 700 of the Lebanese government inoccent citizens..
on the other hand,
C. The only group actively interested in these people who are held by Israel,
whether they are terrorists or law-abiding citizens, is the Amal
Liberation Front, a highly-radical Shi'ite Moslem group that's being told
to do whatever they do by Iran and the Ayatollahs. Doesn't the fact that
the Lebanese government (if they exist) washes their hands of these people
indicate who they really are?
Mark, how can you put these people and the US citizens who were killed and
kidnapped in the TWA affair on the same scale? Did these US citizens send
car bombs to Israel with suicide-minded crazed drivers? Did they kill off
300 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila camps just during the time they
were held? Or maybe these are actions of the people Israel is holding or
of their friends such as Nabia Berri?
USE YOUR BRAIN before you talk! Maybe you should stick to
the UUCP project and not get mixed up in politics..
Rusty Red (AKA Jacob Levy)
BITNET: jaakov@wisdom
ARPA: jaakov%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
CSNET: jaakov%wisdom.bitnet@csnet-relay
UUCP: (if all else fails..) ..!ucbvax!jaakov%wisdom.bitnetdave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (07/10/85)
In article <8869@ucbvax.ARPA> jaakov%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA writes: ||Mark, how can you put these people and the US citizens who were killed and ||kidnapped in the TWA affair on the same scale? Did these US citizens send ||car bombs to Israel with suicide-minded crazed drivers? Did they kill off ||300 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila camps just during the time they ||were held? Or maybe these are actions of the people Israel is holding or ||of their friends such as Nabia Berri? || || USE YOUR BRAIN before you talk! Maybe you should stick to || the UUCP project and not get mixed up in politics.. That's not very kind, Yaakov. Mark simply asked some questions, and not in any offensive tone. If you have answers to the questions as you appear to, why not provide them? Although I support Israel wholeheartedly, I would also like to hear the answers. Specific details about the Shiite prisoners would be most helpful to those of us who argue Israel's cause in many forums. Dave Sherman Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
raju@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Raju Bhatt) (07/10/85)
> ... Remember that Lebanon > and Israel are officially at war and have been since 1948 ... I guess the war seemed only to continue with the Muslim populations, not with the sweet Facist Phalange Party and the other Christian populations. > ... every other Arab country except Egypt, refuses to recognize > Israel's existence, has refused any peace treaty, and has attacked > Israel: that places the countries in a state of war). Does that mean any country not recognizing the state of Israel should fear Israeli action one day? > last thing it wants is more terrorist attacks on its citizens > and guerrilla attacks on its army, which is trying to protect > its citizens. Likewise the Shiites are only trying to protect their people from the Israeli army and the local traitors (those helping the 'occupation forces' of Israel) along with the South Lebanese Army. > As things settle down in Lebanon, Israel has been > releasing the Shiites, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with > the TWA hijacking. How about once all Israeli soldiers are 'safe' the Shiites were slowly being released? You are right this action had nothing to do with the TWA hijacking.
martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo) (07/10/85)
> > ... Remember that Lebanon > > and Israel are officially at war and have been since 1948 ... >I guess the war seemed only to continue with the Muslim populations, not >with the sweet Facist Phalange Party and the other Christian populations. Muslims as a matter of religious faith and practise consider themselves obligated to humiliate and degrade non-Muslims. As far as I can tell, the only reason the phalange is fascist is that when they have been strong enough to resist, they have been unwilling to grovel and lick the feet of Muslim overlords. I should point out the the "fascist" phalange often helped and aided Jewish and other refugees from Hitler while most Muslim political parties and religious leaders have been and still are openly sympathetic to Hitler. By being sympathetic to Arab Muslim nationalist movements, Raju Bhatt clearly demonstrates his basic Nazi racist outlook. > > ... every other Arab country except Egypt, refuses to recognize > > Israel's existence, has refused any peace treaty, and has attacked > > Israel: that places the countries in a state of war). >Does that mean any country not recognizing the state of Israel should >fear Israeli action one day? Lebanon declared war on Israel in 1948 and never terminated the state of war. > > last thing it wants is more terrorist attacks on its citizens > > and guerrilla attacks on its army, which is trying to protect > > its citizens. >Likewise the Shiites are only trying to protect their people from the >Israeli army and the local traitors (those helping the 'occupation >forces' of Israel) along with the South Lebanese Army. What Bullshit! Shiites in no danger will go out of their way to attack non-muslims. I have seen many articles telling how sympathetic we should be to poor oppressed sunnis and shi`is. While shi`is have known some minor oppression from sunnis in recent times, any one who bothers to read the writings of Shi`i mullahs and other religious leaders as I have quite quickly realizes, shi`is are upset that they were not doing the oppressing of sunnis. In any case, whether or not shi`is were being oppressed by sunnis the shi`is made an especial effort to persecute, oppress and degrade the non-muslims in their regions. If the sunnis required non-muslims to remove their shoes when leaving the non-muslim ghetto (don't want that disgusting non-Muslim dust mixing with that good Muslim dust), the shi`is practised child-kidnapping as matter of religious principle. My family comes from an Ismaili (a type of shi`ite) area in Libya. The Koran says there should be no compulsion in religion. The `ulama (scholars) say that a person's natural religion is Islam. Out of respect for your father you might be a non-muslim. Any other reason would be compulsion. Therefor if your father died before you became an adult (12-13 years old), your mother would be compelling you if she raised you in any religion but Islam. Therefor Muslims took away the young children of widowed mothers in our region. Of course, they were most zeolous in the case of 13 year-old females so that the practise really amounted to systematic kidnapping and rape. This practise also existed in Yemen, Iran and Shiite dominated areas of India. > > As things settle down in Lebanon, Israel has been > > releasing the Shiites, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with > > the TWA hijacking. >How about once all Israeli soldiers are 'safe' the Shiites were slowly >being released? You are right this action had nothing to do with the >TWA hijacking. The real basic problem is that in modern times given current destructive possibilities of technology, Islam is an unacceptable system of life. For non-muslims in muslim areas, Islam is worse than Jim Crow. In no country ruled by Muslims are non-muslims treated on terms of mutual respect and equality. In fact, Islam is probably the cause of Apartheid. Not too surprising, one Afrikaner derogatory term for black is kafir which of course is Arabic for non-adherent to Islam. Basically the dutch in South Africa showed no signs or racial bigotry toward blacks until they began interacting with the Arab and Indian Muslim slave traders. Most of the structure of Apartheid is directly based on the Islamic treatment of non-Muslims. If you oppose apartheid, you must oppose Islam. The only decent places to live in the Muslim world for non-Muslims to live have been those areas dominated by Europeans who were gradually stamping out Islamic barbarism. Granting Muslim nations independence without first extirpating Islamic practises was perhaps the most regressive series of events in the last millenium. Muslim independence given the nature of Islam immediately leads to barbaric acts like the Iranian and TWA hostage crisis. By sympathizing with such Muslim barbarism, Bhatt shows himself an enemy of humanity. Until Muslims show some decency in the way they relate to the non-muslim world, the only proper course of action is to suppress them and eventually return Muslim nations to colonial domination.
slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Ling Ku) (07/11/85)
I shouldn't even bother, but I just can't resist. In article <284@mit-athena.UUCP> martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo) writes: > I should point out the the "fascist" phalange >often helped and aided Jewish and other refugees from Hitler while most >Muslim political parties and religious leaders have been and still are >openly sympathetic to Hitler. By being sympathetic to Arab Muslim >nationalist movements, Raju Bhatt clearly demonstrates his basic Nazi >racist outlook. WHAT! Bravo, what logic. > > .. more stuff .. > >The real basic problem is that in modern times given current destructive >possibilities of technology, Islam is an unacceptable system of life. Apparantly, lots of people in this world think it is acceptable. Gee, they must crazy or mentally retarded. (Yeah, I know you will agree). > .. In fact, Islam is probably the cause of Apartheid... Basically >the dutch in South Africa showed no signs or racial bigotry toward >blacks until they began interacting with the Arab and Indian Muslim >slave traders. Good observation. The plantation owners of the ante bellum South must be closet Muslims too. You shouldn't have missed that. > Most of the structure of Apartheid is directly based on >the Islamic treatment of non-Muslims. If you oppose apartheid, you must >oppose Islam. A brilliant display of logic again!! >The only decent places to live in the Muslim world for non-Muslims to >live have been those areas dominated by Europeans who were gradually >stamping out Islamic barbarism. Granting Muslim nations independence >without first extirpating Islamic practises was perhaps the most >regressive series of events in the last millenium. Muslim independence >given the nature of Islam immediately leads to barbaric acts like the >Iranian and TWA hostage crisis. By sympathizing with such Muslim >barbarism, Bhatt shows himself an enemy of humanity. Until Muslims show >some decency in the way they relate to the non-muslim world, the only >proper course of action is to suppress them and eventually return Muslim >nations to colonial domination. Folks, I am speechless. (I am NOT a Muslim, nor a Nazi, therefore I must be a civilized humanitarian (as western civilization would invariably lead us.)) -- Siu-Ling Ku {decvax, harvard}!mitvax!slk slk%vax@mit-mc.ARPA
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (07/19/85)
In article <2004@ut-ngp.UTEXAS> raju@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Raju Bhatt) writes: > > > ... every other Arab country except Egypt, refuses to recognize > > Israel's existence, has refused any peace treaty, and has attacked > > Israel: that places the countries in a state of war). > > Does that mean any country not recognizing the state of Israel should > fear Israeli action one day? Read what I said. "... AND HAS ATTACKED ISRAEL." If Country X chooses not to recognize Israel, that is Country X's prerogative. If Country X chooses to send its army into Israel in an attempt to destroy it and expel (or kill) all the Jews, that is an act of war. Lebanon committed such an act. > > last thing it wants is more terrorist attacks on its citizens > > and guerrilla attacks on its army, which is trying to protect > > its citizens. > > Likewise the Shiites are only trying to protect their people from the > Israeli army and the local traitors (those helping the 'occupation > forces' of Israel) along with the South Lebanese Army. Protect their people from the Israeli army? The Israeli army is not attacking random civilians. It went into Lebanon to eliminate terrorist attacks on Israel. Once there, it got stuck, because withdrawing without leaving any force to fill the void would simply let the terrorist attacks continue. Dave Sherman Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (07/19/85)
In article <2004@ut-ngp.UTEXAS> raju@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Raju Bhatt) writes: > > > ... Remember that Lebanon > > and Israel are officially at war and have been since 1948 ... > > I guess the war seemed only to continue with the Muslim populations, not > with the sweet Facist Phalange Party and the other Christian populations. Yes, because it's the Muslims (throughout almost the entire Middle East) who have refused to come to terms with the existence of an independent Jewish state in their midst. Since before it was born, Israel has sought peace; the Arab response was always "no": no recognition, no negotiation, no peace. Israel occupies a tiny sliver of land out of the region, yet even that appears to be too much for some people. Dave Sherman Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (07/19/85)
In article <716@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >Protect their people from the Israeli army? The Israeli army >is not attacking random civilians. What exactly, then, was the shelling of Beirut? (or the air attacks on terrorists that just happen to be in civilian villages). Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of this particular action, it was the attacking of random civilians. It probably wasn't the intention of the Israelis to kill innocent bystanders, but that's pretty poor consolation to the ones that are dead. You aren't going to do any cause any good by asserting something that is clearly wrong. It's a damn shame that both the US and Israel (and to a certain extent, Great Britain) were so heavy handed and indiscriminate (eg: the American shelling of the Beirut area) in their intervention in Lebanon. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
ptb@ukc.UUCP (P.T.Breuer) (07/25/85)
In article <1406@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >In article <716@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: > >>Protect their people from the Israeli army? The Israeli army >>is not attacking random civilians. > >What exactly, then, was the shelling of Beirut? (or the air attacks on >terrorists that just happen to be in civilian villages). Regardless of the >rightness or wrongness of this particular action, it was the attacking of >random civilians. It probably wasn't the intention of the Israelis to >kill innocent bystanders, but that's pretty poor consolation to the >ones that are dead. > >You aren't going to do any cause any good by asserting something that is >clearly wrong. > >It's a damn shame that both the US and Israel (and to a certain extent, >Great Britain) were so heavy handed and indiscriminate (eg: the American >shelling of the Beirut area) in their intervention in Lebanon. >-- >Chris Lewis, >UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis >BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321 Not Britain, at least not recently. We sent a token peace-keeping force of 100 men. They may not have done much good but I think they literally didn't fire a shot in anger.
terryl@tekcrl.UUCP (07/31/85)
<Enter obnoxious, sarcastic mode here>
Come on, people, get this garbage out of net.followup. Leave it to
net.politics (and heaven forbid, DON'T EVEN think of posting this to
net.general).
<Exit obnoxious, sarcastic mode here>