Pardon me? History shows that within the last 170 years, Greeks played
that game twice: They used Istanbul Patriarch Grigorios in 1822 to
instigate the Morea rebellion that resulted in the massacres of
the Muslim people. Again, the Orthodox Patriarch Constantine V
invited the Russian Czar Nicholas II to invade the Ottoman Empire
'in the name of Jesus,' and save his flock from Ottoman rule.

Source: "The 'Past' in Medieval and Modern Greek Culture," in Speros
         Vryonis, ed., 'Byzantina kai Metabyzantina,' Vol I (Malibu,
         Calif., 1978).

p. 161.

In the words of Professor Skiotis, "With savage jubilance, [the Greeks]
sang the words 'Let no Turk remain in the Morea, nor in the whole world.'
The Greeks were determined to achieve to 'Romaiko' in the only way they
knew how: through a war of religious extermination."

  <<The leader of the Ashkenazi community of Corlu complained to the
  president of AIU [Alliance Israelite Universelle] in 1902 about
  persistent Greek attacks against its Jewish quarter:

    ''The fanatic Greeks of our city, as of other places in Thrace,
    have the habit of, contrary to the spirit of real Christianity,
    making a replica of Judas Iscariote and of burning it on the night
    of Holy Saturday. They construct a wooden figure, cover it with
    clothing which they claim is that of the ancient Jews, and they
    burn it publicly in the middle of a multitude of the ignorant and
    the fanatic. It often happens that this multitude, already excited
    by the tales of the suffering of Christ that has been made to them
    at the Church, is exaulted at the appearance of the execution of he
    who is supposed to have betrayed Christ, and works up a great anger
    against the Jews...For a long time we have known that each year,
    on such a day, they will cut off the heads and arms of the corpses
    in our cemetery and will burn them with great solemnity. We make
    no complaint about this in order not to create differences between
    the two communities. But this audacious madness of these fanatics
    has increased. We ourselves see the flames and hear the cries of
    hatred and vengeance against the Jews.''[42]>>

[42] Ashkenazi Community, Corlu, to AIU no.8783, 2 May 1902, in AIU
     Archives (Paris) II C 8, with report printed in El Tiempo of 1 May 1902.

Source: Professor Stanford J. Shaw, 'The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the
        Turkish Republic,' New York University Press, New York (1991).

 pages 202-203:

  <<In 1865, immediately after enactment of the new Organic Statute for the
  Jewish community, and just as Jewish capital from Europe was beginning
  to have an effect in Istanbul, local Armenians and Greeks started a pogrom
  against Jews immediately across the sea of Marmara at Haydarpasa, terminus
  of the Anatolia railroad, with three hundred Jews massacred and many more
  beaten and raped before the disturbance was stopped after the Sultan sent
  his personal guard across the bay to protect the Jews [39].

  In later years, ritual murder attacks against Jews, carried out mostly
  by native Greeks, Armenians, and, in Arab provinces, by Maronites and
  other Arab Christians, often with the assistance of the local European
  consuls, took place throughout the empire. There were literally thousands
  of incidents continuously until World War I, in Southeastern Europe as far
  west and north as Monastir and Kavalla, in Istanbul, at Gallipoli and
  the Dardanelles, at Salonica, and in all the Arab provinces as far south
  as Damascus and Beirut and in Egypt at Cairo and Alexandria. These
  invariably resulted from accusations spread among Ottoman Christians
  by word of mouth, or published in their newspapers, often by Christian
  financiers and merchants anxious to get their Jewish competitors out of
  the way or to divert onto the Jews Muslim anger at reports of Christian
  massacres of Muslims in Southeastern Europe or Central Asia, resulting
  in individual and mob attacks on Jews, and the burning of their shops
  and homes.

  Individual experiences were horrible. Jews constantly went in fear of
  Armenian or Greek attacks in the streets of Ottoman cities. In Egypt
  and Syria, it was usually the Greeks who led the way, in many cases
  with the assistance of local Armenians and Syrian Christians, whose
  Greek, Arabic and French-language newspapers often printed all the
  rumors they could find regarding Jews, evidently with the desire of
  instigating violence. The Syrian Arab Christians in particular spread
  their long-standing anti-Semitic hatreds from Syria to Egypt, where
  their monopoly of the local press and their espousal of popular causes
  such as Egyptian nationalism and opposition to the British rule, enabled
  them to spread their anti-Jewish message among the Muslim masses with
  little question or opposition.

  On 20 June 1890, thus, Sir Evelyn Baring (later Lord Cromer), British
  High Commissioner in Egypt, received the following report from David
  and Nissim Ades, in Cairo:

    ''Sir,

      I beg sir to draw to your attention to the violent articles which
      has (sic) appeared in an Arabic paper called El Mahroussa which
      contained nothing but lies and false accusations against the Jews,
      especially those (the issues) of the 14th, 17th and 19th instant.
      Now, Sir, are we to have here an anti-Semitic party amidst fanaticism,
      Greeks, Armenians, etc., or is he to be allowed to continue to poison
      the people's minds with exaggeration and painted words? In an article,
      he asserted that the Jews use Christian blood for Passover, of course
      this has caused a deal of excitement.'' [40]

  Whenever Greek and other Orthodox religious authorities or prominent
  Greek business leaders or consuls were asked to help to stem the violence
  or reduce tension, they invariably indicated their cooperation and then
  failed to do anything to prevent attacks or punish those who stimulated
  or led them. [41]

  The leader of the Ashkenazi community of Corlu complained to the
  president of AIU [Alliance Israelite Universelle] in 1902 about
  persistent Greek attacks against its Jewish quarter:

    ''The fanatic Greeks of our city, as of other places in Thrace,
    have the habit of, contrary to the spirit of real Christianity,
    making a replica of Judas Iscariote and of burning it on the night
    of Holy Saturday. They construct a wooden figure, cover it with
    clothing which they claim is that of the ancient Jews, and they
    burn it publicly in the middle of a multitude of the ignorant and
    the fanatic. It often happens that this multitude, already excited
    by the tales of the suffering of Christ that has been made to them
    at the Church, is exaulted at the appearance of the execution of he
    who is supposed to have betrayed Christ, and works up a great anger
    against the Jews...For a long time we have known that each year,
    on such a day, they will cut off the heads and arms of the corpses
    in our cemetery and will burn them with great solemnity. We make
    no complaint about this in order not to create differences between
    the two communities. But this audacious madness of these fanatics
    has increased. We ourselves see the flames and hear the cries of
    hatred and vengeance against the Jews.''[42]>>

[39] El Tiempo, 28 April 1926; Galante, Istanbul I, 185; Galante, Documents V,
     340-41.

[40] FO 78/430, enclosed in Baring no.207 to Lord Salisbury, Cairo,
     25 June 1890, reprinted in Landau, 'Ritual Murder Accusations', p.450.

[41] Jacob Landau, 'Ritual Murder Accusations and Persecutions of Jews
     in Nineteenth Century Egypt', Sefunot V (1961), 425-427; for example
     see report in BAIU [Bulletin de l'Alliance Israelite Universelle:
     Deuxieme Serie (Paris)], first semestre 1881, pp.66-67. Galante also
     reported similar difficulties with the Greek religious leaders while
     he was teaching in Rhodes.

[42] Ashkenazi Community, Corlu, to AIU no.8783, 2 May 1902, in AIU
     Archives (Paris) II C 8, with report printed in El Tiempo of 1 May 1902.

Serdar Argic


Dear Netters:

Maybe one of you can explain this.  From time to time I experience
a strange kind of feeling (I have all kinds of weird feelings) which
can be best described as the feeling of "losing gravity", like that one
experiences in a descending elevator.  Needless to say, it is not
enjoyable.  It sometimes comes with shortness of breath and extreme
fatigue.  It lasts from a few minutes to an hour and when it lasts
that long, it makes me sweatening.

Initially I called it "palpitation (spelling?)" until I later learnt that
the terminology has been reserved for the self-awareness of heart beats.

So, is there a specific term for this feeling, or am I a stragne person?
I always believe I am unique.

Thanks.


Here are a few ideas:

1) a free library card so they can look up the FBI
   Uniform Crime Report which shows how good HCI is
   at lying through their teeth,

2) a free RTD Transit Pass which will allow anti-gunners
   to tour South Central Los Angeles and convince
   people living there that they don't need guns to protect
   themselves because the police will do it for them
   (don't lose the pass, you'll need it to get out),

3) a free bus ride to Vermont, which has almost no gun
   control and, curiously enough, almost no crime either,

4) a free calculator, since anti-gunners have heretofore
   been unable to figure out what a small percentage of
   the guns owned in America are used to commit violent crime.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Gaucher    NRA                  |  My opinions.
gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu      |  No one else's.


	The statement above is _true_ to the spirit of the list because
	it is a false statement.  Misinformation: that's the spirit, Bill.

	My /5 will do wheelies because it's a chain drive model.


-> The current 4.9l V-8 will soldier on for about two years.  A version
-> of the 32 valve modular V-8 in the Mark VIII could be offered then.

How unfortunate for anyone who loves the simplicity with which 302 and
351 Fords and 305 and 350 Chevys can be built up. Still, it will provide
a needed punch for the Ford to stay up with the new Firebird/Camaros. It
wouldn't surprise me if Ford called the engine a 5.0 litre in the
Mustang. (We all know that the current 5.0 is really 4.9 litres anyway)

-> Undisguised, the car looks OK, but not nearly as exciting as the new
-> Camaro/Firebird, IMO.

I must agree. I don't think I've seen anything as impressive looking as
the new Firebird since my friend back home sold his 1970 Formula 400
Firebird (for a paltry $2000, without even telling me. The bastard.)


    It is Clinton's initiative now.  He is pushing it hard
    Aren't the liberals supposed to be concerned about privacy
    rights?

    If you want to know more about the wiretapping initiative,
    read "1984" - it's in there, installed in every bedroom.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.


Bob: Excellent! To the point and correct! Spread the word.


Is it possible to rip an external SyQuest removable drive out of its
external casing and install it into the 5 1/4" empty bay slot on a
Centris 650? I know a special bracket would need to be purchased, but
is there any power hookup/SCSI constraints that would prevent it? If
anyone has done it, could they mail me some instructions. It doesn't
seem to be that overwhelming an undertaking.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


#Frank, unless you didn't realize it, you are just now involved
#in a debate where we have various opinions, and each entity
#has its own frame where the opinion is expressed. I think I
#don't need to state the dreadful r-word.

So, it's _sometimes_ correct to say that morality is objective, or what?
After all, I could hardly be wrong, without dragging in the o-word.
For your part, when you say that relativism is true, that's just
your opinion.  Why do folk get so heated then, if a belief in relativism
is merely a matter of taste?  (to be fair, _you_ have been very calm,
I get the impression that's because you don't care about notions of
objectivity in any flavour.  Right?)


Can someone please give me a couple names of anonymous
ftp sites that cater to graphics.  I am looking for info/
sources/images for building a ray tracer.

Thanks,


Good point - there haven't even been any recent posts about Ulf!
Secretly, I'm convinced that he's responsible for the Bs being down 3-0
to Buffalo, somehow.


THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 23, 1993

                  PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT

                            The East Room

1:00 P.M. EDT

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Terry, do you have a question?

	     Q	  Mr. President, there's a growing feeling that the
Western response to bloodshed in Bosnia has been woefully inadequate.
Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel asked you yesterday to do something,
anything to stop the fighting.  Is the United States considering
taking unilateral action such as air strikes against Serb artillery
sites?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first let me say, as you know, for
more than a week now we have been seriously reviewing our options for
further action.  And I want to say, too, let's look at the last three
months.  Since I became President I have worked with our allies and
we have tried to move forward, first on the no-fly zone, on
enforcement of it, on the humanitarian airdrops, on the war crimes
investigation, on getting the Bosnian Muslims involved in the peace
process.  We have made some progress.  And now we have a very much
tougher sanctions resolution.  And Leon Fuerth, who is the National
Security Advisor to the Vice President, is in Europe now working on
implementing that.  That is going to make a big difference to Serbia.

	     And we are reviewing other options.  I think we should
act.  We should lead -- the United States should lead.  We have led
for the last three months.  We have moved the coalition.  And to be
fair, our allies in Europe have been willing to do their part.  And
they have troops on the ground there.

	     But I do not think we should act alone, unilaterally,
nor do I think we will have to.  And in the next several days I think
we will finalize the extensive review which has been going on and
which has taken a lot of my time, as well as the time of the
administration, as it should have, over the last 10 days or so.  I
think we'll finish that in the near future and then we'll have a
policy and we'll announce it and everybody can evaluate it.

	     Q	  Can I follow up?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Sure.

	     Q	  Do you see any parallel between the ethnic
cleansing in Bosnia and the Holocaust?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think the Holocaust is on a whole
different level.  I think it is without precedent or peer in human
history.  On the other hand, ethnic cleansing is the kind of
inhumanity that the Holocaust took to the nth degree.  The idea of
moving people around and abusing them and often killing them solely
because of their ethnicity is an abhorrent thing.  And it is
especially troublesome in that area where people of different ethnic
groups live side by side for so long together.  And I think you have
to stand up against it.  I think it's wrong.

	     We were talking today about all of the other troubles in
that region.  I was happy to see the violence between the Croats and
the Muslims in Bosnia subside this morning, and I think we're making
progress on that front.  But what's going on with the Serbians and
the ethnic cleansing is qualitatively different than the other
conflicts, both within the former Yugoslavia and in other parts of
the region.

	     Q	  Mr. President, by any count, you have not had a
good week in your presidency.  The tragedy in Waco, the defeat of
your stimulus bill, the standoff in Bosnia.  What did you do wrong
and what are you going to do differently?  How do you look at things?
Are you reassessing?  (Laughter.)

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't really believe that the
situation in Bosnia -- it's not been a good week for the world, but I
don't know that the administration could have made it different.

	     On the stimulus package, I'd like to put it into the
larger context and remind you that in this 100 days we have already
fundamentally changed the direction of an American government.  We
have abandoned trickle-down economics.  We've abandoned the policies
that brought the debt of this country from $1 trillion to $4 trillion
in only a decade.

	     The budget plan, which passed the Congress, which will
reduce the deficit and increase investment, has led to a 20-year low
in mortgage rates, dramatically lower interest rates.  There are
probably people in this room who have refinanced their home mortgages
in the last three months, or who have had access to cheaper credit.
That's going to put tens of billion dollars coursing throughout this
economy in ways that are very, very good for the country.  And so we
are moving in the right direction economically.

	     I regret that the stimulus did not pass, and I have
begun to ask -- and will continue to ask not only people in the
administration, but people in the Congress whether there is something
I could have done differently to pass that.  Part of the reason it
didn't pass was politics; part of it was a difference in ideas.
There are really people still who believe that it's not needed.  I
just disagree with that.

	     I think the recovery -- the economists say it's been
underway for about two years, and we've still had 16 months of seven-
percent unemployment, and all the wealthy countries are having
trouble creating jobs.  So I think there was an idea base -- an
argument there, that while we're waiting for the lower interest rates
and the deficit reduction and the investments of the next four years
to take effect, this sort of supplemental appropriation should go
forward.

	     Now, I have to tell you, I did misgauge that because a
majority of the Republican senators now sitting in the Senate voted
for a similar stimulus when Ronald Reagan was President in 1983, and
voted 28 times for regular supplemental appropriations like this.  I
just misgauged it.  And I hope that I can learn something.  I've just
been here 90 days.  And, you know, I was a Governor working with a
contentious legislature for 12 years, and it took me a decade to get
political reform there.  So it takes time  to change things.  But I
basically feel very good about what's happened in the first 100 days
with regard to the Congress.

	     Q	  Waco --

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, with regard to Waco I don't have
much to add to what I've already said.  I think it is a -- I want the
situation looked into.  I want us to bring in people who have any
insights to bear on that.  I think it's very important that the whole
thing be thoroughly gone over.  But I still maintain what I said from
the beginning, that the offender there was David Koresh.  And I do
not think the United States government is responsible for the fact
that a bunch of fanatics decided to kill themselves.  And I'm sorry
that they killed their children.

	     Q	  Mr. President, to follow up partly on Helen on your
stimulus package and on your political approach to Capitol Hill, Ross
Perot said today that you're playing games with the American people
in your tax policy.  He was strongly critical of your stimulus
package.  He said he's going to launch an advertising campaign
against the North American Free Trade Agreement.  How are you going
to handle his political criticism?  Will it complicate your efforts
on the Hill with your economic plan?  And do you plan to repackage
some of the things that have been in your stimulus program and try to
resubmit them to the Hill?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me answer that question first.
We're going to revisit all of that over the next few days.  I'm going
to be talking to members of Congress and to others to see what we can
do about that.  With regard to the economic plan, I must say I found
that rather amazing.  I don't want to get into an argument with Mr.
Perot.  I'll be interested to hear what his specifics are, but I
would -- go back and read his book and his plan.  There's a
remarkable convergence except that we have more specific budget cuts,
we raise taxes less on the middle class and more on the wealthy.
But, otherwise, the plans are remarkably similar.

	     So I think it would be -- I'll be interested to see if
maybe perhaps he's changed his position from his book last year and
he has some new ideas to bring to bear.  I'll be glad to hear them.

	     Q	  To follow up, sir, how do you plan to handle his
political criticism?  He's launched a campaign against you.  Do you
think you can sit back and just --

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I will ask you to
apply the same level of scrutiny to him as you do to me.  And if he's
changed his position from the positions he took in the campaign last
year, then we need to know why and what his ideas are.  Maybe he's
got some constructive ideas.

	     I think the American people have shown that they're very
impatient with people who don't want to produce results.  And the one
thing I think that everybody has figured out about me in the last --
even if they don't agree with what I do -- is that I want to get
something done.  I just came here to try to change things.  I want to
do things.  And I want to do things that help people's lives.  So my
judgment is that if he makes a suggestion that is good, that is
constructive, that takes us beyond some idea I've proposed that will
change people's lives for the better, fine.  But I think that that
ought to be the test that we apply to everyone who weighs into this
debate and not just to the President.

	     Q	  Mr. President, to go back to Bosnia for a minute.
You continue to insist that this has to be multilateral action, a
criteria that seems to have hamstrung us when it comes to many
options thus far and makes it look as if this is a state of
paralysis.  The United States is the last remaining superpower.  Why
is it not appropriate in this situation for the United States to act
unilaterally?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the United States -- surely you
would agree, that the United States, even as the last remaining
superpower, has to act consistent with international law under some
mandate of the United Nations.

	     Q	  But you have a mandate and --

	     THE PRESIDENT:  They do, and that is one of the things
that we have under review.  I haven't ruled out any option for
action.  I would remind all of you, I have not ruled out any option,
except that we have not discussed and we are not considering the
introduction of American forces into continuing hostilities there.
We are not.

	     So we are reviewing other options.  But I also would
remind you that, to be fair, our allies have had -- the French, the
British and the Canadians -- have had troops on the ground there.
They have been justifiably worried about those.  But they have
supported the airdrops, the toughening of the sanctions.  They
welcomed the American delegation now in Europe, working on how to
make these sanctions really work and really bite against Serbia.  And
I can tell you that the other nations involved are also genuinely
reassessing their position, and I would not rule out the fact that we
can reach an agreement for a concerted action that goes beyond where
we have been.  I don't have any criticism of the British, the French
and others about that.

	     Q	  Would that be military action?

	     Q	  Mr. President, several of the leading lights in
your administration, ranging from your FBI Director to your U.N.
Ambassador, to your Deputy Budget Director to your Health Services
Secretary, have issued statements in the last couple of weeks which
are absolutely contradictory to some of the positions you've taken in
your administration.  Why is that?  Are you losing your political
grip?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Give me an example.

	     Q	  Example?  Judge Sessions said that there was no
child abuse in Waco.  Madeleine Albright has said in this morning's
newspapers, at least, that she favors air strikes in Bosnia.  All of
these are things you said that you didn't support.

	     THE PRESIDENT:  First of all, I don't know what -- we
know that David Koresh had sex with children.  I think that is
undisputed, is it not?  Is it not?  Does anybody dispute that?  Where
I come from that qualifies as child abuse.  And we know that he had
people teaching these kids how to kill themselves.  I think that
qualifies as abuse.  And I'm not criticizing Judge Sessions because I
don't know exactly what he said.

	     In terms of Madeleine Albright, Madeleine Albright has
made no public statement at all about air strikes.  There is a press
report that she wrote me a confidential letter in which she expressed
her -- or memo -- in which she expressed her views about the new
direction we should take in response to my request to all the senior
members of my administration to let me know what they thought we
ought to do next.  And I have heard from her and from others about
what they think we ought to do next.  And I'm not going to discuss
the recommendations they made to me, but in the next few days when I
make a decision about what to do, then I will announce what I'm going
to do.  So I wouldn't say that either one of those examples qualifies
speaking out of school.

	     Q	  How about the Value Added Tax, Mr. President?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  What was that?

	     Q	  The Value Added Tax -- Mrs. Rivlin and Miss Shalala
both said that they thought that that was a good idea.

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't mind them saying they think it's
a good idea.  There are all kinds of arguments for it on policy
grounds.  That does not mean that we have decided to incorporate it
in the health care debate.  No decision has been made on that.  And I
have no objection to their expressing their views on that.  We've had
a lot of people from business and labor come to us saying that they
thought that tax would help make their particular industries more
competitive in the global economy.  I took no -- that wasn't taking a
line against an administration policy.

	     Q	  Mr. President, a week ago a group of gay and
lesbian representatives came out of a meeting with you and expressed
in the most ringing terms, their confidence in your understanding of
them and their political aspirations, and their belief that you would
fulfill those aspirations.  Do you feel now that you will be able to
meet their now enhanced expectations?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I don't know about that.  And I
don't know what their -- it depends on what the expectations are.
But I'll tell you this:  I believe that this country's policies
should be heavily biased in favor of nondiscrimination.  I believe
when you tell people they can't do certain things in this country
that other people can do, there ought to be an overwhelming and
compelling reason for it.  I believe we need the services of all of
our people, and I have said that consistently.  And not as a
political proposition.  The first time this issue came up was in 1991
when I was in Boston.  I was just asked the question about it.

	     And I might add -- it's interesting that I have been
attacked -- obviously, those who disagree with me here are primarily
coming from the political right in America.  When I was Governor, I
was attacked from the other direction for sticking up for the rights
of religious fundamentalists to run their child care centers and to
practice home schooling under appropriate safeguards.  I just have
always had an almost libertarian view that we should try to protect
the rights of American individual citizens to live up to the fullest
of their capacities, and I'm going to stick right with that.

	     Q	  Are you concerned, sir, that you may have generated
expectations on their end and criticism among others that has
hamstrung your administration in the sense of far too great emphasis
on this issue?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, but I have not placed a great deal
of emphasis on it.  It's gotten a lot of emphasis in other quarters
and in the press.  I've just simply taken my position and tried to
see it through.  And that's what I do.  It doesn't take a lot of my
time as President to say what I believe in and what I intend to do,
and that's what I'll continue to do.

	     Q	  Mr. President, getting back to the situation in
Bosnia -- and we understand you haven't made any final decisions on
new options previously considered unacceptable.  But the two most
commonly heard options would be lifting the arms embargo to enable
the Bosnian Muslims to defend themselves and to initiate some limited
air strikes, perhaps, to cut off supply lines.  Without telling us
your decision -- presumably, you haven't made any final decisions on
those two options -- what are the pros and cons that are going
through your mind right now and will weigh heavily on your final
decision?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I'm reluctant to get into this.  There
are -- those are two of the options.  There are some other options
that have been considered.  All have pluses and minuses; all have
supporters and opponents within the administration and in the
Congress, where, I would remind you, heavy consultations will be
required to embark on any new policy.

	     I do believe that on the air strike issue, the
pronouncements that General Powell has made generally about military
action, apply there.  If you take action, if the United States takes
action, we must have a clearly-defined objective that can be met.  We
must be able to understand it and its limitations must be clear.  The
United States is not, should not, become involved as a partisan in a
war.

	     With regard to the lifting of the arms embargo, the
question obviously there is if you widen the capacity of people to
fight will that help to get a settlement and bring about peace?  Will
it lead to more bloodshed?  What kind of reaction can others have
that would undermine the effectiveness of the policy?

	     But I think both of them deserve some serious
consideration, along with some other options we have.

	     Q	  Do you think that these people who are trying to
get us into war in Bosnia are really remembering that we haven't
taken care of hundreds of thousands of veterans from the last war and
we couldn't take care of our prisoners and get them all home from
Vietnam?   And now many of them are coming up with bills for
treatment of Agent Orange.  How can we afford to go to any more of
these wars?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think that's a good argument
against the United States itself becoming involved as a belligerent
in a war there.  But we are, after all, the world's only super power.
We do have to lead the world  and there is a very serious problem of
systematic ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, which could
have not only enormous further humanitarian consequences -- and
goodness knows there have been many -- but also could have other
practical consequences in other nearby regions where the same sorts
of ethnic tensions exist.

	     Q	  Did you make any kind of agreement with Boris
Yeltsin to hold off either on air strikes or any kind of aggressive
action against the Serbs until after Sunday?  And in general, how has
his political situation affected your deliberation on Bosnia?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  No, I have not made any agreement, and
he did not ask for that.  We never even discussed that, interestingly
enough.  The Russians, I would remind you, in the middle of President
Yeltsin's campaign, abstained from our attempt to get tougher
sanctions through the United Nations in what I thought was the proper
decision for them and one that the United States and, I'm sure, the
rest of the free world very much appreciated.

	     Q	  Do you wish, Mr. President, that you'd become more
involved in the planning of the Waco operation?  And how would you
handle that situation differently now?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I don't think as a practical matter that
the President should become involved in the planning of those kinds
of things at that detail.  One of the things that I'm sure will come
out when we look into this is -- the questions will be asked and
answered, did all of us who up the line of command ask the questions
we should have asked and get the answers we should have gotten?  And
I look forward to that.  But at the time, I have to say, as I did
before, the first thing I did after the ATF agents were killed, once
we knew that the FBI was going to go in, was to ask that the military
be consulted because of the quasi, as least, military nature of the
conflict given the resources that Koresh had in his compound and
their obvious willingness to use them.  And then on the day before
the action, I asked the questions of the Attorney General which I
have reported to you previously, and which at the time I thought were
sufficient.  I have -- as I said, I'm sure -- I leave it to others to
make the suggestions about whether there are other questions I should
have asked.

	     Q	  Mr. President, what is your assessment of Director
Sessions' role in the Waco affair?  And have you made a decision on
his future?  And if you haven't, will you give him a personal hearing
before you do decide?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I have no assessment
of his role since I had no direct contact with him.  And I mean no
negative or positive inference.  I have no assessment there.  I stand
by what I said before about my general high regard for the FBI.  And
I'm waiting for a recommendation from the Attorney General about what
to do with the direction of the FBI.

	     Q	  Mr. President, since you said that one side in
Bosnia conflict represents inhumanity that the Holocaust carried to
the nth degree, why do you then tell us that the United States cannot
take a partisan view in this war?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I said that the principle of
ethnic cleansing is something we ought to stand up against.  That
does not mean that the United States or the United Nations can enter
a war, in effect, to redraw the lines, geographical lines of
republics within what was Yugoslavia, or that that would ultimately
be successful.

	     I think what the United States has to do is to try to
figure out whether there is some way consistent with forcing the
people to resolve their own difficulties we can stand up to and stop
ethnic cleansing.  And that is obviously the difficulty we are
wrestling with.  This is clearly the most difficult foreign policy
problem we face, and that all of our allies face.  And if it were
easy, I suppose it would have been solved before.  We have tried to
do more in the last 90 days than was previously done.  It has clearly
not been enough to stop the Serbian aggression, and  we are now
looking at what else we can do.

	     Q	  Yesterday you specifically criticized the Roosevelt
administration for not having bombed the railroads to the
concentration camps and things that were near military targets.
Aren't there steps like that that would not involve conflict --direct
conflict or partisan belligerence that you might consider?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  There may be.  I would remind you that
the circumstances were somewhat different.  We were then at war with
Germany at the time and that's what made that whole incident so --
series of incidents -- so perplexing.  But we have -- as I say, we've
got all of our options under review.

	     Q	  The diplomatic initiative on Haiti is on the verge
of collapse.  What can you do to salvage it short of a full-scale
military operation?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you may know something I don't.
That's not what our people tell me.  I think Mr. Caputo and
Ambassador Pezzullo have done together a good job.  The thing keeps
going back and forth because of the people who are involved with the
de facto government there.  It's obvious what their concerns are.
They were the same concerns that led to the ouster of Aristide in the
first place, and President Aristide, we feel, should be restored to
power.  We're working toward that.  I get a report on that -- we
discuss it at least three times a week, and I'm convinced that we're
going to prevail there and be successful.

	     I do believe that there's every reason to think that
there will have to be some sort of multilateral presence to try to
guarantee the security and the freedom from violence of people on
both sides of the ledger while we try to establish the conditions of
ongoing civilized society.  But I believe we're going to prevail
there.

	     Q	  Mr. President, would you care to make your
assessment of the first 100 days before we make one for you?
(Laughter.)

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I'll say if -- I believe, first of
all, we passed the budget resolution in record time.  That was the
biggest issue.  That confirmed the direction of the administration
and confirmed the commitments of the campaign that we could both
bring the deficit down and increase investment, and that we could do
it by specific spending cuts and by raising taxes, almost all of
which come from the highest income people in this society --reversing
a 12-year trend in which most of the tax burdens were borne by the
middle class, whose incomes were going down when their taxes were
going up, while the deficit went from $1 trillion to $4 trillion, the
total national debt, and the deficit continued to go up.

	     We have a 20-year low in interest rates from mortgages.
We have lower interest rates across the board.  We have tens of
billions of dollars flooding back into this economy as people
refinance their debt.

	     We have established a new environmental policy, which is
dramatically different.  The Secretary of Education has worked with
me and with others and with the governors to establish a new approach
in education that focuses on tough standards, as well as increasing
opportunity.  We have done an enormous amount of work on political
reform, on campaign finance and lobbying reform.  And I have imposed
tough ethics requirements on my own administration's officials.
These things are consistent with not only what I said I'd do in the
campaign, but with turning the country around.  The Vice President is
heading a task force which will literally change the way the federal
government operates and make it much more responsive to the citizens
of this country.

	     We are working on a whole range of other things.  The
welfare reform initiative, to move people from welfare to work.  And,
of course, a massive amount of work has been done on the health care
issue, which is a huge economic and personal security problem for
millions of Americans.

	     So I think it is amazing how much has been done.  More
will be done.  We also passed the Family Leave bill.  A version of
the motor voter bill -- that has not come out of conference back to
me yet.  And everything has been passed except the stimulus program.
So I think we're doing fine and we're moving in the right direction.
I feel good about it.

	     Q	  Sir, a follow-up.  Wouldn't you say, though, that
one of your biggest initiatives, aid to Soviet Russia, is now
practically finished -- if we can't pass a stimulus bill in our own
country, how can we do it for them?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me recast the question a little bit.
It's a good question -- (laughter) -- it's a good question, but to be
fair we've got to recast it.  We have already -- the first round of
aid to the Soviet -- to non-Soviet Russia, to a democratic Russia, is
plainly going to go through, the first $1.6 billion.  The aid that we
agreed with our partners in the G-7 to provide through the
international financial institutions, which is a big dollar item, is
plainly going to go through.  The question is, can we get any more
aid for Russia that requires a new appropriation by the United States
Congress?  And that is a question I think, Mary, that will be
resolved in the weeks ahead, in part by what happens to the American
workers and their jobs and their future.  I think the two things will
be tied by many members of Congress.

	     Q	  The tailhook report came out this morning,
documenting horrendous and nearly-criminal conduct on the part of the
Navy.  How much did you discuss the incident and what might be done
about it with your nominee to be the Secretary of the Navy?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  First, let me comment a little on that.
The Inspector General's report details conduct which is wrong and
which has no place in the armed services.  And I expect the report to
be acted on in the appropriate way.  I also want to say to the
American people and to all of you that the report should be taken for
what it is, a very disturbing list of allegations which will have to
be thoroughly examined.  It should not be taken as a general
indictment of the United States Navy or of all the fine people who
serve there.  It is very specific in its allegations, and it will be
pursued.

	     The only thing I said to the Secretary-Designate of the
Navy and the only thing I should have said to him, I think, is that I
expected him to take the report and to do his duty.  And I believe he
will do that.

	     Q	  Mr. President, to back to Russia for just a minute.
The latest poll show that Mr. Yeltsin will probably win his vote of
confidence.  But there seems to be a real toss-up on whether or not
voters are going to endorse his economic reforms.

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I understand that.

	     Q	  Can you live with a split -- (laughter) -- can you
live with a split decision, though, or do you need both passed in
order to then build support for Russian aid?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I believe -- the answer to your question
is, for the United States, the key question should be that which is
posed to any democracy, which is who wins the election.  If he wins
the election, if he is ratified by the Russian people to continue as
their President, then I think we should do our best to work with him
toward reform.

	     You know, we had a lot of other countries here for the
Holocaust Museum dedication -- their leaders were here.  Leaders from
Eastern Europe, leaders from at least one republic of the former
Soviet Union; all of them having terrible economic challenges as they
convert from a communist command and control economy to a market
economy in a world where there's economic slowdown everywhere.  And
in a world in which there's economic slowdown and difficulty, all
leaders will have trouble having their policies be popular in a poll
because they haven't produced the results that the people so
earnestly yearn for.  You can understand that.

	     But if they have confidence in the leadership, I think
that's all we can ask.  And the United States will -- if the Russian
people ratify him as their President and stick with him then the
United States will continue to work with him.  I think he is a
genuine democrat -- small d -- and genuinely committed to reform.  I
think that we should support that.

	     Q	  Mr. President, Mr. Perot has come out strongly in
what is perceived behind the line against a free trade agreement --
NAFTA.  How hard are you going to fight for this free trade agreement
and when do you expect to see it accomplished?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I think we'll have the agreement ready
in the fairly near future.  You know, our people are still working
with the Mexican government and with the Canadians on the side
agreements.  We're trying to work out what the environmental
agreement will say, what the labor agreement will say, and then what
the fairest way to deal with enforcement is.

	     The Mexicans say, and there is some merit to their
position, that they're worried about transferring their sovereignty
in enforcement to a multilateral commission.  Even in the United
States, to be fair, we have some folks who are worried about that --
about giving that up.  On the other hand, if we're going to have an
environmental agreement and a labor standards agreement that means
something, then there has to be ultimately some consequences for
violating them.  So what we're trying to do is to agree on an
approach which would say that if there is a pattern of violations --
if you keep on violating it past a certain point -- maybe not an
isolated incident, but a pattern of violation -- there is going to be
some enforcement.  There must be consequences.  And we're working out
the details of that.

	     But I still feel quite good about it.  And this is just
an area where I disagree with Mr. Perot and with others.  I think
that we will win big if we have a fair agreement that integrates more
closely the Mexican economy and the American economy and leads us
from there to Chile to other market economies in Latin America, and
gives us a bigger world in which to trade.  I think that's the only
way a rich country can grow richer.  If you look at what Japan and
other countries in the Pacific are doing to reach out in their own
region, it's a pretty good lesson to us that we had better worry
about how to build those bridges in our own area.

	     So this is an idea battle.  You know, you've got a lot
of questions and I want to answer them all, but let me say not every
one of these things can be distilled simply into politics -- you
know, who's for this and who's for that, and if this person is for
this, somebody else has got to be for that.  A lot of these things
honestly involved real debates over ideas, over who's right and wrong
about the world toward which we're moving.  And the answers are not
self-evident.  And one of the reasons that I wanted to run for
President is I wanted to sort of open the floodgates for debating
these ideas so that we could try to change in the appropriate way.
So I just have a difference of opinion.  I believe that the concept
of NAFTA is sound, even though, as you know, I thought that the
details needed to be improved.

	     Q	  Mr. President, there was a tremendous flurry of
interest earlier this month in the Russian document that purported to
show that the Vietnamese had held back American prisoners.  General
Vessey has now said publicly that while the document itself was
authentic, he believes that it was incorrect.  Do you have a personal
view at this point about that issue?  And more broadly, do you
believe that, in fact, the Vietnamese did return all the American
prisoners at the time of the Paris Peace Accord?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  First let me say, I saw General Vessey
before he went to Vietnam and after he returned.  And I have a high
regard for him and I appreciate his willingness to serve his country
in this way.  As to whether the document had any basis in fact, let
me say that the government of Vietnam was more forthcoming than it
had been in the past and gave us some documents that would tend to
undermine the validity of the Russian documents claim.

	     I do not know whether that is right or wrong.  We are
having it basically evaluated at this time, and when we complete the
evaluation, we'll tell you.  And, of course, we want to tell the
families of those who were missing in action or who were POWs.  I
think that we'll be able to make some progress in eliminating some of
the questions about the outstanding cases as a result of this last
interchange, but I cannot say that I'm fully satisfied that we know
all that we need to know.  There are still some cases that we don't
know the answer to.  But I do believe we're making some progress.  I
was encouraged by the last trip.

	     Q	  I'd like to follow up on that.  Before the U.S.
normalizes relations, allows trade to go forward, do you have to be
personally sure that every case has been resolved or would you be
willing to go forward on the basis that while it may take years to
resolve these cases, the Vietnamese have made sufficient offerings to
us to confirm good faith?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  A lot of experts say you can never
resolve every case, every one, that we couldn't resolve all the cases
for them and that there are still some cases that have not been
factually resolved, going back to the Second World War.  But what I
would have to be convinced of is that we had gone a long way toward
resolving every case that could be resolved at this moment in time,
and that there was a complete, open and unrestricted commitment to
continue to do everything that could be done always to keep resolving
those cases.  And we're not there yet.

	     Again, I have to be guided a little bit by people who
know a lot about this.  And I confess to being much more heavily
influenced by the families of the people whose lives were lost there,
or whose lives remain in question than by the commercial interest and
the other things which seem so compelling in this moment.  I just am
very influenced by how the families feel.

	     Q	     your economic stimulus package, are you doing
some kind of reality check now and scaling back some of your plans,
your legislative plans for the coming year, including the crime bill,
the health care initiative and other things?  Are there any plans to
do that?  And also, did you underestimate the power of Senator Bob
Dole?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  No, what I underestimated was the extent
to which what I thought was a fairly self-evident case, particularly
after we stayed below the spending caps approved by this Congress,
including the Republicans who were in this Congress last year -- when
we had already passed a budget resolution which called for over $500
billion in deficit reduction.  When they had voted repeatedly for
supplemental appropriations to help foreign governments, I thought at
least four of them would vote to break cloture, and I underestimated
that.  I did not have an adequate strategy of dealing with that.

	     I also thought that if I made a good-faith effort to
negotiate and to compromise, that it would not be rebuffed.  Instead,
every time I offered something they reduced the offer that they had
previously been talking to the Majority Leader about.  So it was a
strange set of events.  But I think what happened was what was a
significant part of our plan, but not the major part of it, acquired
a political connotation that got out of proportion to the merits, so
that a lot of Republicans were saying to me privately, "Mr.
President, I'd like to be for this, but I can't now.  And we're all
strung out and we're divided."

	     And I think we need to do a reality check.  As I said,
what I want to know -- let me go back to what I said -- what I want
to know from our folks and from our friends in the Senate on -- and
Republicans or Democrats -- is what could I have done differently to
make it come out differently.  Because the real losers here were not
the President and the administration.  The real losers were the
hundreds of thousands of people who won't have jobs now.  We could
have put another 700,000 kids to work this summer.  I mean, we could
have done a lot of good things with that money.  And I think that is
very, very sad.  And it became more political than it should have.
But the underlying rationale I don't think holds a lot of water --
that it was deficit spending.  That just won't wash.

	     Q	     and redo --

	     THE PRESIDENT:  No.  I mean, you know, for example --you
mentioned the crime bill.  I think it would be a real mistake not to
pass the crime bill.  I mean, the crime bill was almost on the point
of passage last year.  And they were all fighting over the Brady
Bill.  Surely, surely after what we have been through in this country
just in the last three months, with the kind of mindless violence we
have seen, we can pass a bill requiring people to go through a
waiting period before they buy a handgun.  And surely we can see that
we need more police officers on the street.

	     That's another thing that -- I really believe that once
we move some of that money -- not all, but some of it up into this
jobs package to make some of the jobs rehiring police officers on the
street who'd been laid off, that would be a compelling case.  I mean
people are scared in this country and I think we need to go forward.
I feel very strongly that we need to go forward on the crime bill.

	     Q	  Mr. President, back to the tailhook report for a
second.  That report contained very strong criticism of the Navy's
senior leadership in general, but did not name any of the senior
officers.  Do you believe that the senior officers who are implicated
in this, including Admiral Kelso who was there one night in Las
Vegas, should they be disciplined and do you believe the public has a
right to know the names of the senior officers?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  You should know that under the rules of
law which apply to this, I am in the chain of command.  There is now
an Inspector General's report and the law must take its course.  If I
were to answer that question I might prejudice any decisions which
might be later made in this case.  I don't really think -- I think
all I can tell you is what I have already said.  I was very disturbed
by the specific allegations in the Inspector General's report, and I
want appropriate action to be taken.

	     Until the proper procedures have a chance to kick in and
appropriate action is taken, I have been advised that because I am
the Commander-in-Chief I have to be very careful about what I say so
as not to prejudice the rights of anybody against whom any action
might proceed or to prejudice the case in any other way either pro or
con.  So I can't say any more except to say that I want this thing
handled in an appropriate and thorough way.

	     Q	  Mr. President, could I ask you for a clarification
on Bosnia?  You said that you were not considering introduction of
American forces.  Does that include any air forces as well as ground
forces, sir?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I said ground forces.

	     Q	  You said ground forces.  Could I ask you, sir, if
you fear that using U.S. air strikes might  draw the United States
into a ground war there?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  I just don't want to discuss our
evaluation of the options anymore.  I've told you that there's never
been a serious discussion in this country about the introduction of
ground forces into an ongoing conflict there.

	     Q	  With hundreds of thousands of gays in Washington
this weekend for the march, did you ever reconsider your decision to
leave town for this weekend?  Did you ever consider in any way
participating in some of the activities?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  No.

	     Q	  Why not?

	     THE PRESIDENT:  Because I -- and, basically, I wouldn't
participate in other marches.  I think once you become President, on
balance, except under unusual circumstances, that is not what should
be done.  But more importantly, I'm going to the American Society of
Newspaper Editors, a trip that presumably most of you would want me
to make, to try to focus anew on what I think are the fundamental
issues at stake for our country right now.  And I expect that I will
say something about the fact that a lot of Americans have come here,
asking for a climate that is free of discrimination; asking,
basically, to be able to work hard and live by the rules and be
treated like other American citizens if they do that, and just that.
And that's always been my position -- not only for the gays who will
be here, but for others as well.

	     Thank you very much.


I see what you are getting at (or at least I think I do).  Correct me if
I am mistaken, but I *think* you are asking me if I still believe that we
should uphold all of the Laws pertaining to capital punishment for such
things as adultery, rape and other heinous crimes.  As you may recall,
Jesus was confronted by this same question in regards to the adultress
who was caught in the act and brought before Jesus.  And His reply, "Let
he who is without sin cast the first stone."  Jesus does not deny the
sentence that is to due for this violation of the Law.  What do you think
of this?

Agreed.  :)

Agreed also.  If one is to use the Bible as a reference, one must always be
open to different interpretations.  As a Christian, I have the Spirit of God
to verify what I believe in the Word.  If what the Spirit tells me is not
backed up in scripture then the spirit I am communicating with is not of
God.  After all, Jesus tells us to "test the spirits" to know for sure that
it is from God.

I obey what the Spirit of God tells me to do.  The Spirit will not violate
anything that is written in the Bible because that is the Word of God.  I do
not worship pastors, preachers, my wife, my mother or my father.  What they
tell me does not carry the weight of what God tells me to do and His commands
are rienforced in the Bible.

Eternal damnation is the consequence of the choice one makes in rejecting
God.  If you choose to jump off a cliff, you can hardly blame God for you
going *splat* at the bottom.  He knows that if you choose to jump, that
you will die but He will not prevent you from making that choice.  In fact,
He sent His Son to stand on the edge of the cliff and tell everyone of what
lies below.  To prove that point, Jesus took that plunge Himself but He being
God was able to rise up again.  I have seen the example of Christ and have
chosen not to jump and I'm trying to tell you not to jump or else you'll
go *splat*.

You don't have to listen to me and I won't stop you if you decide to jump.
I only ask that you check it out before taking the plunge.  You owe it to
yourself.  I don't like seeing anyone go *splat*.

God be with you,


This question comes up frequently enough that there should be a faq
about it...


Yeah sure.  Maybe thermal GUNSIGHTS on the armored vehicles.  When
discussing military hardware and weapons, the media generally looks like
a ufology convention.

CS is merely the garden variety military teargas.  As far as it being
"humane and harmless", I've seen teenage boys knock 200lb. drill
sergeants flat getting away from it....

What do you expect when idiots and criminals confirm paranoids in their
paranoia...?


***** FORSALE *****

Intel i486DX-33 CPU

Price: $300

Must sell immediately.

Andie Wei-Ku Lin


All you have to do is buy a MacroMedia MacRecorder. This plugs into your
seril port and acts as a microphone. North Star computers should be able
to order you one.
--
---------------------------------------
Liam Morland  ad358@freenet.carleton.ca


I found this on the net at my college. It sounds pretty good to me. What do
    you folks think?

    >This are the tenets of Stan as handed down and set within the Holy Book
    >of Stan.
    >
    >1: Thou shalt not spill thine drinks or waste thine food, for all that
    >is is sacred, and to waste is the denizen of Luc, the Infidel. All who
    >waste today shall have not tomorrow.
    >
    >2: Thou shalt pay heed to those who know the higher calling of Stan so
    >that they may teach you the way, and that thou shalt become one with
    >Stan and the universe shall be in your hands.
    >
    >3: Thou shalt honor thy loved ones and cherish those near you, for they
    >are the true path to happiness, and happiness is a devine gift of thy
    >lord Stan.
    >
    >4: Stan is the one true God and shall be taken before all others so
    >that the false gods will know that he is the one, and all who oppose
    >him shall forever be banished to the form of the sheep and be sent to
    >the flocks of Luc for all eternity.
    >
    >5: The word is the law, and the law is the word. The word is within
    >thine own heart, follow the path and be true to thine own self and thou
    >shalt be blessed by Stan, thy lord and saviour.
    >
    >6: Thou shalt honor the faiths of others, for it is their choice to
    >follow this path, and do not think less of others for being of a
    >different faith, yet even in the face of these false gods, do not
    >waiver in thine faith in Stan, and hope that the unbeliever will see
    >the light that is Stan.
    >
    >7: Thou shalt not wrong others for being different, for Stan cherishes
    >the different, and holds freedom in the highest regard, for to do less
    >would be to fall in with Luc, the Infidel, for Stan does not control,
    >he merely guides, and lets the choice lie within thine own heart.
    >
    >8: Thou shalt know that thy lord Stan has many names and is called
    >differently by many people, but know also that Stan is the true name,
    >and all those of the faith shall know that Stan is God and God is Stan.
    >
    >9: Thou shalt be to the world what thou art to thineself, for to be
    >false to others is to be false to yourself. Thy lord Stan asks not that
    >you be like him, he asks only that you be like yourself for that is all
    >you were ever meant to be.
    >
    >10: Thou shalt not kill the innocent nor spill blood unnecessarily, for
    >those who are deserving of death shall be dealt with by Stan and sent
    >for all eternity to the flocks of Luc, and those who harm the children
    >of Stan, being born of Woman, shall be judged as the sheep of
    >Luc and spend all of time within his flocks.
    >
    >These commandments are the words of Stan. Heed them and he shall be
    >happy, and if thy lord Stan is happy, his happiness shall be passed
    >down to his followers.
    >
    >Hail Stan!

   It seems like a pretty good set of tenets to me.

				-=V=-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like kittens... | E-Mail:                    | Robert Voss            | DIE!!
Especially with   | rgv9488@ultb.isc.rit.edu   | 25 Andrews Memorial Dr | DIE!!
a side order of   | RGV9488@RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU | CPU# 01479             | DIE!!
french fries...   | RGV9488@RITVAX.BITNET      | Rochester NY 14623     | DIE!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------| DIE!!
    I AM DARKNESS ETERNAL! CALL ME! MY PHONE NUMBER IS (716) 475-4197   | DIE!!


	This is a real address. My understanding of the current process
that mail takes is it gets downloaded on floppy disk and is processed
by retiree volunteers, who match the message against message profiles
and check the message count. (I.e.: "yeah, that's a for gays in the
military. what's this clipper stuff? must be against gays in the
military...")

	The higher-volume white-house email stuff is in the works,
I know for a fact, but won't be online for probably another month
or two at the soonest. My understanding is that the link speed will
increase (direct internet instead of Compu$erve to floppy) but the
message processing will remain the same.

	The white house email does get read. I agree that printing it
and sending Cc: to everyone you can think of is probably better because
it is more visible, but the message processing (fitting messages against
a template) is the same in either case.


Yes, that's exactly what I felt.  My heart just felt that what I was
being taught was *wrong* -- a basically good message, but framed in
errors.  I could not with a clear conscience accept that women were
somehow not equal to men, that homosexuals are "guilty" of their
lifestyle, that pride in one's work is a bad thing, that Jesus died
for me -- I don't want ANYBODY to die for me, especially as an
impersonal act where the person can't possibly even *know* me well
enough to really know if I'm worth dying for or not.

I was never able to accept the bit about Jesus's death being a good
thing.  If that means that I'm just not comprehending a basic message
of Christianity, then so be it.  Maybe I'm just not compatible with
Christianity.  I just refuse to follow rules blindly, and since I
can't even convince myself that your god even EXISTS in the way you
describe it, I've got to just follow my own conscience in these matters.

Don't think that my morals are shoddy or nonexistent just because I
don't believe in your god.  I will not steal, and I will not murder --
not because I fear divine repudiation, but because these just *aren't*
in my character.  You may think there's nothing keeping me from just
running around on a murdering spree, stealing things when I'm able,
insulting people for the heck of it, because I'm not answerable to
anyone; but you'd be wrong.  I'm answerable to myself.  A life like
that would be a cheap life; I happen to want to earn respect in myself.

My initial break with Christianity came after a lot of soul-searching
and a lot of wondering why I could no longer feel the 'presence' of
God with me.  I finally decided that I had once "felt" this presence
just as I had "felt" my mighty teddy bear beside me when I was a
little tyke, protecting me from the monsters under the bed -- that I
had believed in God just as I had believed in the teddy bear, as
something of an emotional crutch to protect me from perceived dangers.

Since then, I've never abandoned the possibility that maybe your
supernatural trinity does exist.  But there are a few times when, in
my darkened room by my bed, I have set aside everything I believe for
a moment and called out to whatever's out there, because I want to
know the truth even if it means abandoning everything I know.  And I
have not yet received an answer.

Nope.  It may well be unknowable.  Scientists have suggested that the
universe may be finite and wrap around on itself (the three-dimensional
universe may be mapped onto a four-dimensional supersphere in the same
way you can map a two-dimensional plane onto a three-dimensional
sphere; see _Sphereland_, the sequel to _Flatland_, for more thoughts
on this).  Our entire universe might just be an electron in a four-
dimensional universe, which in turn may only be an insignificant speck
in a universe above that, and so on and so forth until the variables
become too much for us to even speculate on.

That is, there's no possible way for us to know exactly how we came to
be, so there's no reason at all to believe that your God exists nor
had anything to do with it.

Christians have provided me with nothing except quotes from your holy
book, and all sorts of tactics to try to get me to believe: guilt
trips, insinuations that I'm without morals, arguments from disbelief
("how can you possibly believe that God *doesn't* exist?"), and so
forth.  All I'm asking is for you to convince me.  I want to be convinced,
but it's not going to be easy.

Having had years upon years of contact with your religion from both
the inside and the outside, I view it as harmful in many ways.  It
preys on people who want to find meaning in their lives, and once it's
got these people, it teaches them to have pity (and sometimes starkly
intolerant) of others who do not share these views.  Maybe you'll say
that your religion doesn't teach that -- but I've got to judge
Christianity from the Christians I know.

I feel that it is entirely possible and good to have faith in one's
self, and to be a positive influence on society for no better reason
than that.

So I hope that my words in this newsgroup will at least make some
people think.  I want Christians to realize that there are perfectly
valid lifestyles and opinions that have nothing to do with their deity
whatsoever, and I want people who are considering Christianity to
realize that Christianity does not hold the sole key to a happy,
fulfilled life.

I have known some very nice Christians who have done some very nice
things.  I think what sets these people apart from the general masses
is that they recognize that their religious beliefs may be wrong, and
they know the weaknesses of their religion, yet they still decide to
believe, but they keep their beliefs to themselves and do not think
any less of people who don't agree with them.

Precisely my point.  You've still not given me a reason to be a
Christian instead of a Buddhist or a Moslem...

... just as the Moslems aren't religious, and the Buddhists aren't
religious.  Who *is* religious, then?


If Croats are now divided, it is because Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia.
Croats in Croatia, B-H, and Serbia were in *one* country--Yugoslavia--
until they divided themselves.

If Muslims are now divided, it is because B-H seceded from Yugoslavia.
Muslims in Croatia, B-H, and Serbia were in *one* country--Yugoslavia--
until they divided themselves.

That Croats and Muslims in Yugoslavia decided to divide themselves does
*not* give them the right to divide Serbs in Yugoslavia.

Croatia and B-H shoulder the burden for dividing their own nations among
various unstable countries.


OK, here's my results so far....

1: You have to define the monitor as LCD - it doesn't really support
   Analogue video input (It works, but isn't very linear...)

2: The incoming sync pulses need inverting. This is best achieved
   with either a cmos XOR package or a transistor inverter.
   If you don't know how to do it, don't even contemplate it.. :-)

3: It'll only work in standard VGA mode.

OK, having said that, I'm trying to either find a circuit or IC
which will act as a universal sync decoder.

I want somethikng which basically only detects the leading sync
pulse edge, and doesn't care about the polarity, outputting
the -ve going pulses that the atari monitor requires.

There are 2 reasons for doing this

1: VGA cards change their sync polarity depending which mode they're
   in - herc emulation is +,- while MVGA is +,+ for example.

2: It means I don't have to put a toggle switch on the back of the
   monitor in order to be able to run it off both the atari and my
   IBM. Currently I have 3 (Yes, 3!) monitors sitting on my desk,
   and I want to get that number down as much as possible.
   Being able to use the atari monitor as a paper-white VGA
   will cut things down to 2. If I forget about Atari colour,
   I can get down to 1.

Ultimately, the best course of action is to get a multisync monitor,
but I'm as pressed for cash as anyone else, so it'll have to wait...


To paraphrase, I may not agree with what you're encrypting, but I defend
your right to encrypt it.


[ ... Mr. Mamaysky's proposal to forbid "any action which serves to promote a
      morally incorrect action" omitted for brevity ...]

I prefer the freedom granted in the first amendment of the US
Constitution to an arbitrary definition of "universal morality."
Steve
P.S.  I can elaborate in e-mail if this isn't clear
P.P.S.  I'm very sorry about misspelling your name


BusLogic just announced the BT445 FAST SCSI-2 VLB Interface as of
April 20.  This always happens to me!

I have a one week old BT545S which is the ISA version.  I am
enjoying spectacular performance with a Micropolis MC2105 560mb 10ms
3.5" HH 5200 RPM drive.  I'll be changing to the BT445 VERY soon,
though it is difficult to imagine even higher transfer speeds with
the 32bit VESA support.

You can call BusLogic and ask 'em about the NT question. I hear that
the support is excellent.   I have not had to call them myself yet.
Regards.


I made a few phone calls today, and found that if you call the Bill Room at
the Sacramento State Capitol, you may order free of charge any bills that
are currently being pushed.  I was told that they will only fill an order of
five bills per phone call, but when I asked kindly and told the nice lady that
it was very important, she filled my order for ten.

California State Bill Room
916-445-2323

Subject:  Re: Need Senate Bill numbers and House Resolution numbers

Sorry I forgot to include this in my previous letter but we also
have to worry about State bills.  These are the ones that I am
currently aware of:

SB 292
SB 247
SB 67
SB 89
SB 180

AB 117
AB 155
AB 166
AB 482
AB 501

My thanks to Bob Hale for providing the bill numbers!

/------------------------------------------------------------------------\
\------------------------------------------------------------------------/


I am looking for a 20/40 MHz scope, in good condition.  Please email me or call me at (713)280-2788.


I'm writing a driver that needs to remap some I/O ports.  This means
virtual mode.  Unfortunately virtual mode means it won't get along
with expanded memory managers, so I need make it an EMM driver too.

Does anyone out there have EMM code.  Can any point me to an EMM code source?

-Thanks, Morgan


Are you pretending not knowing it? Here is why:
"Those who are not obedient to we West must be evil!".


The fan in my power supply, like most, is distractingly LOUD. Has anyone found
a solution to running a pc with peace and quiet? Short of buying a notebook
PC, I don't know what to do. Oh yeah, I did hear about a power supply called a
"Silencer" - which is supposed to be more quiet. Has anyone had experience with
this? I was quoted a price of $225 (!) for a 270Watt Silencer.

I've even considered stuffing my PC case in one of those acoustic "printer
enclosures", but that wouldn't be the most elegant solution. Also, I'm
guessing that would also cut the ventilation.

Any other ideas?

Thanks in advance for ANY suggestions! Please E-mail whatever you post...


REFLECTIONS ON BOSNIA

LORD OWEN AND THE SERBS

In early February '93, Lord Owen made appearances in New York City
on the Donahue and Charlie Rose shows. On a couple of occasions on
those shows Lord Owen gave away his pro-Serbian position when he
made the point that much or most of the Bosnian territory then in
dispute or already overrun by Serbian forces had been controlled
and occupied by Serbs before WWII.  It was as if he were saying
that since the Serbs had previously occupied those territories and
lost them during the Hitler years, they should be allowed to
reconquer them today.

I was familiar with this view because my father, a Yugoslav Jew
who escaped to this country during the war, was aided and found
sympathy among the Serbs during those harrowing years.  In recent
months when the subject of Serbian aggression was mentioned, my
father would make the point that 850,000 Serbs were killed by Nazi
and pro-Nazi Croatian forces known as the Ustasha.  My father is
so pro-Serbian that he dismissed reports of Serbian atrocities. My
father also excoriated New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis,
because, my father said, Anthony Lewis "is always talking about
the Muslims."

Update--April 28, 1993 After an uneasy truce in and around
Sbernica, shelling has resumed in nearby areas by all sides and
the killing and the misery continues apace while the Clinton
administration dithers its response.  In the days leading to the
collapse of resistance at Sbernica, Lord Owen changed his tune.
Previously he had opposed military intervention on the grounds
that it would endanger U.N. relief workers. When Serbian forces
began to march on Sbernica, the threat to U.N. relief soldiers
went unmentioned while Lord Owen called for outside intervention
to stop Serbian aggression, including the use of air strikes.  The
current disastrous situation can be seen as a failure of the West
and a failure of the Vance-Owen initiative which did nothing to
halt the Serbs. Now that it's too late to save Muslim areas that
Lord Owen felt should be in a Muslim state, Lord Owen belatedly
calls for strong action.

CLINTON AND BOSNIA

In the summer of 1992, George Kenney, a senior State Department
official, the undersecretary in charge of the Yugoslav desk, made
news when he resigned from the State Department because of the
Bush administration's refusal to take any action to halt Serbian
aggression.  As Kenney saw it, Bush's inaction was largely due to
the president's unwillingness to risk any political capital by
getting involved there.

Apparently the same is true of the Clinton administration.
Clinton gives the impression that he cares more than Bush did
about the terrible ongoing tragedy, but the practical effect has
so far been the same.

According to the New York Times, (4/16/93) the Clinton
administration did everything it could to suppress a mid-March
report by its own experts which called for military action if
necessary to protect "safe havens" for the Muslims. At one point,
Senate majority leader, George Mitchell was so incensed that the
report was kept from Congress, that he called for an
investigation.

Instead of helping the desperate Bosnians, Clinton has signalled
again and again that Milosevic and the Serbs are free to do what
they want in Bosnia--indeed, Clinton and the West have been
signalling that the Serbs should get on with the job and finish
off the Bosnians as quickly as possible while we turn the other
way.  A key signal was when Clinton made it clear that he would
NOT send in American military forces on the ground.  On this
issue, Clinton has made me wistful for Bush.  Bush and Baker could
not have done worse, and might have been pressured to do better
well before this time.  Lives in Bosnia might have been saved and
the destruction might have been curtailed..

The Nation, the left and "the Bosnian QUANDARY"

Typical of the left's inability to come to grips with the core
issue involved in Bosnia, i.e., a clear aggressor destroying
hundreds of thousands of lives, is the editorial on the "Bosnian
quandary" in The Nation (4/26/93).  In the end the editorial votes
to do nothing, even while noticing "the ghastly atrocities of the
Bosnian Serbs"  and that the "greater and lesser powers...dither
and fuss [and] hang back." ("Before anything else happens, the
Clinton Administration ought to pay the $530 million the United
States owes the" U.N. the editorial concludes.)

In its most striking passage, the editorial writer warns that
"those who are pushing President Clinton to intervene on the side
of the Bosnians had better review U.S. foreign policy since World
War II."  The editorial argues for inaction on the basis that the
Bosnian Serbs are no worse than any number of U.S. clients
including the Chileans, the South Africans, the Greek fascists and
others. (In a subsequent column for The Nation, Christopher
Hitchens correctly called this editorial, "contemptible.")

***

William Pfaff, a European based journalist who writes for the The
New Yorker and the Los Angeles Times, is among a group of liberal
columnists like Anthony Lewis, and Leslie Gelb who have clearly
and consistently called for strong Western and American
intervention to stop the Serbs.  Pfaff's most recent column
(Liberal Opinion Week 4/19/93) is entitled "International
Cowardice Worsened Bosnian Tragedy."

He clarifies the international failure which has led to present
situation in one sentence. "Having refused to intervene to
sanction the threat to minority rights in newly independent
Croatia in June 1991, or to block or penalize the military
aggression by Serbia that immediately followed, and the atrocious
"ethnic cleansing" which followed that, the United Nations now
contemplates deploying in Bosnia military force on a scale which
two years ago could have deterred the horrors Yugoslavia has since
experienced."  He goes on to explain that U.N. plans now envisaged
call for a "more daunting and open-ended military assignment than
a direct military intervention to halt the aggression would have
been a year ago."

Aryeh Neier on the Serbs In his "Watching Rights" column in the
The Nation (5/3/93) Aryeh Neier gets to the heart of the
motivation of the "aggressors"--the preferred term for the Serbian
forces who have been besieging and shelling Sarajevo for more than
a year.  He explains that "there is no  military purpose that is
served by the destruction of its fabric and its people...Above
all, few of those aligned with the forces attacking Sarajevo would
want to live there even if the city could be rebuilt.  They are
not city people.

"It is this, I believe--aside from a desire to break the morale of
Bosnians and make them press their government to accept peace at
any price--that explains the conduct of the siege of
Sarajevo...[I]t is a loathing for all that is urban, pluralist and
cosmopolitan that has made Sarajevo the object for devastation.

"Historically, most of the Serbian population in Bosnia and
Herzegovina has been rural, while Muslims, who were the civil
servants and intelligentsia during the centuries of Ottoman rule,
made up a disproportionate share of the urban population....The
destruction of Sarajevo is not only an expression of hostility
against this city; it is also an attack on the urban idea....The
demagogues who whipped up the passions let loose by this war
exploited not only ethnic and religious bigotry but also hatred
for all that is cosmopolitan."

The light that Neier sheds on the issue helps to clarify what is
at stake.  The Serbs represent the know-nothing, anti-secularist,
fundamentalist, fascist forces who are attacking the urban,
cosmopolitan, secular, multi-cultural idea.  They are attacking
the rest of us, just as Hitler did. One irony is that at the
beginning of the crisis over Bosnia, it was for awhile maintained
by the Serbs and their supporters that they were responding to a
threat by the Bosnian Muslims to create a fundamentalist state.

Neier has shown that it is the Serbs who are  the great threat to
secularism, multi-culturalism, diversity and democracy.  It's the
Serbs who are attacking the democratic notion, the democratic
idea.

Anthony Lewis comes close to the point when he asks why does
respect for Clinton's presidency "depend...on his acting
effectively against Serbian aggression?...First of all because to
do nothing about genocide would be such a betrayal of the values
we and our allies profess."  (Times, 4/26/93) But it's not merely
a betrayal of our values.  It's because the Serbs are attacking us
by proxy, just as Hitler was.

One argument for decisive action by the West that is heard in a
different form, is that war in the Balkans is destablizing for
Europe.  We hear it as, the Bosnians are Europe's Palestinians;
that is to say, just as the Palestinian refugee problem has been
the key to instability in the Middle East, just so will the
hundreds of thousands of Yugoslav refugees of all ethnicities
result in turmoil in Europe for decades to come.

One of the lessons of the twentieth century is that even though
the Atlantic Ocean divides us, the Americas are ultimately tied to
the destiny of Europe. If Europe is destabilized, the U.S. will
inevitably be affected and drawn into its problems.  As in a
whirlpool,  sooner or later we will be drawn into the maelstrom.
And as past history and Pfaff have shown, it's much better if we
do so decisively, quickly and on our terms.


	Again we have the trust in government problem here. Members of
Mr. Sternlight's generation trust the government to a degree which
members of my generation find ridiculous. I would suggest that Mr. Sternlight
read about the COINTELPRO program, or about J. Edgar Hoover, or about
the wire-tapping of Martin Luther King, then, after he has digested this
information he can ponder the fact that while the government does not
tap every conversation that they have a record of tapping many conversations
that they have no right to, even under their own laws. Given the long
history of members of the US government ignoring the laws that apply
to them, it is no wonder that so many people in here sound so paranoid, and
given the fact that it is often difficult or impossible to punish these
individuals once they are discovered, it is no wonder that so many people
in here have so little faith in the escrow proposal for Clipper.


We tried to compile an old X11R4/Motif program with X115 and a newer
Version of Motif.

But we newer succeed. Any ideas?

CC  -o xtrack.new main.o libxtrack.a ../xutils/libxutils.a ../pmshort/libpmshort.a  ../matrix/libmatrix.a  otte/lib_otte.a verb/lib_verb.a /tools/newmotif/lib/libMrm.a /tools/newmotif/lib/libXm.a -L/tools/X11R5/lib -lXaw -lXmu -lXt -lX11  -lL -lm -lXext
cXm.a -lXaw -lXmu -lXt -lX11 -lL -lm -lXext -L/usr/CC/sun4/ -lC
ld: /tools/X11R5/lib/libXaw.sa.5.0(sharedlib.o): _vendorShellWidgetClass: multiply defined
*** Error code 2
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `xtrack'

Thanks FvD.


BR> From: wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins)
BR> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
BR> Organization: DGSID, Atlanta, GA

BR>        Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you
BR> are referring         to the New Testament.  Please detail
BR> your complaints or e-mail if         you don't want to post.
BR>  First-century Greek is well-known and
BR> well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish
BR> Historian,         who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition,
BR> the four gospel accounts		 are very much in harmony.

It is also well known that the comments in Josephus relating to Jesus were
inserted (badly) by later editors.  As for the four gospels being in harmony
on the issue of Jesus...  You know not of what you speak.  Here are a few
contradictions starting with the trial and continuing through the assension.

Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of
iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his
bowels gushed out."

Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
and departed, and went and hanged himself.  And the chief priests...bought
with them the potter's field."

Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34

Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30

MAR 14:72  And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind  the
word  that  Jesus  said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny
me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74  Then began he to curse and to swear,  saying,  I  know not the man.
And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75  And Peter remembered the word  of  Jesus,  which  said unto him,
Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept
bitterly.

LUK 22:60  And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest.  And immediately,
while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61  And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And  Peter remembered
the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou
shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38  Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?
Verily,
 verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me
thrice.

JOH 18:27  Peter then denied  again:  and  immediately  the  cock crew.

(This is interesting because Matthew quotes a prophesy that was never made!
Not the only time he does this either...)

MAT 27:9  Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy  the prophet,
saying,  And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was
valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

zechariah 11:11-13
(nothing in Jeremiah remotely like)

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?

scarlet - Matthew 27:28

purple John 19:2

Mark says the third hour, or 9 a.m., but John says the sixth hour (noon) was
when the sentence was passed.

Matthew  --  This is Jesus the king of the Jews
Mark	 --  The King of the Jews
Luke	 --  This is the king of the Jews
John	 --  Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews

vinegar - Matthew 27:34

wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23

Matthew said many stood far off, including Mary Magdaline, Mary the mother of
James, and the mother of Zebedee's children.  Mark and Luke speak of many far
off, and Mark includes Mary Magdeline and Mary the mother of James the less.
John says that Jesus's mother stood at the cross, along with her sister and
Mary Magdalene.

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me?"  ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice,
yielded u the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto
 thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is
finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Matthew says that the veil of the temple was rent, that there was an
earthquake, and that it was dark from the sixth to the ninth hour, that graves
opened and bodies of the saints arose and went into Jeruselem, appearing to
many (beating Jesus to the resurection). Mark and Luke speak of darkness and
the veil of the temple being rent but mention no earthquake or risen saints.
John is the only one who mentions Jesus's side being peirced.

Matthew says the Jews asked Pilate for a guard to prevent the body from being
stolen by the disciples, and for the tomb to be sealed. All of this was
supposedly done, but the other gospels do not mention these precautions.

Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will
spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", and Mark 10:34
has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again". As far as I can
see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days", but the
post-resurrection narratives have "on the third day".

Matthew says Sunday at dawn, Mark says the sun was rising, and John says it
was dark.

MAT 28:1  In the end of the sabbath, as it began to  dawn  toward the first
day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1  And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the  mother
of  James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and
anoint him.

JOH 20:1  The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene  early, when  it
was  yet  dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the
sepulchre.

MAT 28:2  And, behold, there was  a  great  earthquake:  for  the angel of the
Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door,
and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3  His countenance was like  lightning,  and  his  raiment white as
snow: MAT 28:4  And for fear of him the keepers did shake,  and  became as
dead men. MAT 28:5  And the angel answered and said unto  the  women,  Fear
not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5  And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a  young  man sitting  on
the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4  And it came  to  pass,  as  they  were  much  perplexed thereabout,
behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12  And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at  the head,  and
the  other  at  the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

Matthew says the guard was paid to tell this story, but no other gospel makes
this claim.

Matthew says an angel at the tomb told the two Marys and that Jesus also told
them, to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee.  The disciples then went
to a mountain previously agreed opon, and met Jesus there.  This was his only
appearance, except to the women at the tomb.  Matthew only devotes five verses
to the visit with the disciples.

Mark says that Jesus walked with two of the disciples in the country, and that
they told the rest of the disciples, who refused to believe.  Later he
appeared to the 11 disciples at mealtime.

Luke says two followers went, the same day that Jesus rose from the dead, to
Emmaus, a village eight miles from Jeruselem, and there Jesus jioned them but
was unrecognised.  While they ate a meal together that evening, they finally
recognised Jesus, whereopon he dissapeared.  Returning at once to Jeruselem,
they told the
disciples of their experience, and suddenly Jesus appeared among them,
frightening them, as they thought he was a spirit.  Jesus then ate some fish
and honey and then preached to them.

John says Jesus appeared to the disciples the evening of the day he arrose, in
Jeruselem, where they were hiding.  He breathed the Holy Ghost opon them, but
Thomas was not present and refused to believe. Eight days later Jesus joined
the disciples again at the same place and this time he convinced Thomas.	Once
more Jesus made an
appearance to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias but again was not
recognised.
 After telling them to cast their netson the other side of the boat, Jesus
becomes known to them and prepares bread and fish for them.  They all eat
together and converse.

The book of acts further adds to the confusion.  It says that Jesus showed
himself to the apostles for a period of 40 days after his resurection (thus
contradicting Matthew, Mark, Luke AND John) and spoke to them of things
pertaining to the kingdom of God: "And when he had spoken these things, while
they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud recieved him out of their sight.
And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, two men stood
by them in white apparel: Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye
gazing into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken from you into heaven,
shall so comein like manneras ye have seen him go into heaven" Acts 1:3-11

Paul outdoes every other "authority" by saying that Jesus was seen by 500
persons between the time of the resurection and the
assension, although he does not say where.	He also claims that he himself "as
one born out of due time" also saw Jesus. 1 Cor 15:6-8.

Matthew says nothing about it.	Mark casually says that Jesus was recieved into
heaven after he was finished talking with the
disciples in Jeruselem.  Luke says Jesus led the desciples to Bethany and that
while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up into heaven.
John says nothing about it.  Acts
contradicts all of the above.  (See previous section)

MAT 24:34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all
these things be fulfilled.

MAR 13:30  Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall  not pass, till
all these things be done.

LUK 21:32  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not  pass away, till
all be fulfilled.

1 thessalonians 4:15-18

1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)
MAT 28:16  Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain
where Jesus had appointed them.

	"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)

	"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, 	...
the Son of Man." (John 3:13)

As you can see, there are a number of contradictions in the account of the
trial, crucifiction and resurection of Jesus.  If these are good witnesses,
you would think that they could get SOME of these important details right!
(In fact, I cannot find very many points on where they AGREE.  You would think
that they could at least agree on some of the points they were supposedly
observing!) Because of the fact that there is so much contradiction and error,
the story of the resurection as presented cannot be taken as literal truth.
(Due to the nature of the story, I doubt if it should be taken as ANY sort of
truth.)


Overall (career)
1.	Don Mattingly
2.	Don Mattingly
3.	Don Mattingly
4.	Don Mattingly
5.	Don Mattingly
6.	Don Mattingly
7.	Don Mattingly
8.	Don Mattingly
9.	Don Mattingly
10.	Don Mattingly
11.	Don Mattingly
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50.	Don Mattingly


The burden of proof rests upon those who claim the existence
of this "syndrome".  To date, these claims are unsubstantiated
by any available data.  Hopefully, as a scientist, you would
take issue with anyone overstating their conclusions based
upon their data.

Gee, I have many interesting and enlightening anecdotes about
myself, my friends, and my family, but in the practice of
medicine I expect and demand more rigorous rationales for
basing therapy than "Aunt Susie's brother-in-law ...".

Anecdotal evidence may provide inspiration for a hypothesis,
but rarely proves anything in a positive sense.  And unlike
mathematics, boolean logic rarely applies directly to medical
issues, and so evidence of 'exceptions' does not usually
disprove but rather modifies current concepts of disease.

I would characterize it not as 'abject disbelief' but rather
'scientific outrage over vastly overstated conclusions'.

I have no problem with such an approach; but this is NOT what
is happening in the 'trenches' of this diagnosis.


	Think video.  Brooktree sells a whole line of DACs that can
	be used, normally for graphics applications, in either 50 or
	75 ohm systems.  For example, the BT468 can be had in speeds
	up to about 200 mHz, BT492 to 360 mHz, and 400 mHz with the
	BT109.


i want to do something like this:

  date | xcb -s 0 | xcutsel

to get the output of the date command put into the XPRIMARY selection.
unfortunately, xcutsel is an interactive little bugger and there isn't a
command argument to tell it to just do it and not put up its little
window.  so, is there some other command that i CAN use like this?  or,
is there an analog to xcb that will put stuff in XPRIMARY instead of cut
buffer 0?


It may be a good way to catch a cold.  It's easy to pick up cold
viruses on your fingers, either from touching a contaminated surface,
or by shaking hands with someone that has a cold.  Then putting your
fingers in your nose will transfer the viruses to your nose.

--
Steven Litvintchouk
MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA  01730-1420


Don't find out if she has to pee by scaring it out of her.

Don't armorall the seat just before her first ride even if you think
you will need its urine-proofing qualities.


I'm told that VRrend386 is available on the internet. I wanted to know where it is.

Thanks in advance.

Raoul


      This is a 1950s idea.  Supposedly, splicing in a frame of "Buy
popcorn" upped popcorn sales in a movie theatre.  Big flap at the time.
Congress involved.  Talk of making it illegal.  General agreement by
networks not to do it.

      A few years ago, some junior person at an advertising agency
re-invented subliminal projection and one commercial went out on tape
with single-frame messages.  It aired on a few stations, but a tech
at one station, previewing the tape, noticed a flicker and looked at
the tape frame-by-frame to find the "defect".  Big flap.  FCC notified.
Commercial pulled.  Press reports. Embarassed ad agency.  You could
probably find the press reports via Dialog or Nexis if you wanted.

      Now that everybody has VCRs, it's not likely that anybody could
get away with this on TV.


   Analog SF magazine did an article on a similar subject quite a few
years ago.  The question was, if an alien spacecraft landed in
Washington, D.C., what was the proper organization to deal with it: The
State Department (alien ambassadors), the Defense Department (alien
invaders), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (illegal aliens),
the Department of the Interior (new non-human species), etc.  It was
very much a question of our perception of the aliens, not of anything
intrinsic in their nature.  The bibliography for the article cited a
philosophical paper (the name and author of which I sadly forget; I
believe the author was Italian) on what constitutes a legal and/or moral
person, i.e., a being entitled to the rights normally accorded to a
person.  The paper was quite interesting, as I recall.

   I think you'd have to be very careful here if the answer is yes.  The
human track record on helping those poor underpriveleged cultures (does
underpriveleged mean not having enough priveleges?) is terrible.  The
usual result is the destruction or radical reorganization of the
culture.  This may not always be wrong, but that's the way to bet.