In article <1991Oct14.204919*ci...@solan.unit.no> ci...@solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes: >Nobody's even mentioned chocolate chip cookies yet. *snf*
Thanks, Cindy. You made me think of several other things, especially since you post to alt.fan.dan-quayle so much, which brings me to.....
J. Danforth Quayle! Has there been a source of such political humour from any other country, at least in this century?
And, along that thread, who could have passed up Jim Hensen's Muppets? (It is rumoured on alt.fan.dan-quayle that Dan is actually an escaped muppet which Jim never perfected.) The Muppets have brought humor, warmth and gentle teaching to millions of youths and adults (including me!).
>.... >And if you have to be nasty to another country, do you have to bring out the >same old cliches?
In article <1991Oct15.000410.9...@lclark.edu>, c...@lclark.edu (John
Costello) writes:
|> |> J. Danforth Quayle! |> Has there been a source of such political humour from any other country, |> at least in this century? |> How about Canada's Bill Vander Zalm, a laugh a minute, except if you lived in BC and had to put up with him.
Bob Cano Bell-Northern Research | When all else fails, rcano@.bnr.ca P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C | read the instructions. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | (613)763 4086 K1Y 4H7 |
c...@lclark.edu (John Costello) writes: >J. Danforth Quayle! >Has there been a source of such political humour from any other country, >at least in this century?
One of the most silly episodes of Dutch parliamentary history was the rise and fall of Boer Koekoek (Farmer Cuckoo). He was the leader of the farmer's party, which gained a glorious one seat in the (150 seat) parliament.
The guy was an idiot (with rather ultra-right wing sympathies, but fortunately not the intelligence to do something with them), and his performances were always a source of amusement. What he said was never relevant and always silly. I remember one time where the chairman of the session cut off his more than usual irrelevant ramblings, and Farmer Cuckoo walked back from the microphone, complaining `Ooh, I never get to say anything here'.
In article <1991Oct15.000410.9...@lclark.edu> c...@lclark.edu (John Costello) writes:
J. Danforth Quayle! Has there been a source of such political humour from any other country, at least in this century?
In Finland we used to tell jokes about Ahti Karjalainen and his bad English. Then again, when 5 million Finns tell jokes about him and 200 million Americans tell jokes about Quayle.. and Ahti Karjalainen wasn't actually the _source_ of the humor.
Is it true that the _other_ political party in the US of A (the one Bush and Quayle do _not_ represent) has been thinking of selecting Bush to be their candidate too in the next presidential elections, but with another (_anyone_ else than Quayle) vice-presidential candidate? Since Bush is going to win anyway unless he screws up REAL BAD?
In article <F40661B.91Oct17154...@saha.hut.fi>, f406...@saha.hut.fi (Harri Haanp{{) writes...> >Is it true that the _other_ political party in the US of A (the one Bush and >Quayle do _not_ represent) has been thinking of selecting Bush to be their >candidate too in the next presidential elections, but with another (_anyone_ >else than Quayle) vice-presidential candidate? Since Bush is going to win >anyway unless he screws up REAL BAD?
>Harri
No, sorry to say. Those comments represent a sarcastic joke by Republicans (Bush's party), poking fun by saying that this is the only way the Democrats (the other party) could hope to win an election.
And Bush has, by the way, screwed up real bad...domestically at least. He kept denying that a recession was taking place, refusing to take necessary steps until they were absolutely necessary. You see, if people are convinced the economy is bad, even if it isn't, the economy will become bad. Bush also believes the converse to be true: that if people believe the economy is good, even if it is bad, the economy will get better. That might work for a very short, shallow recession. But with the huge deficit we have, I can't see how any resonable person would say this past recession would have been shallow or short.
It all depends how much the media plays up the economic problems. Bush will wrap himself in the flag and his victories overseas, while the democrats will note how we have 1-2 million more Americans out of work than before he took office. It's really hard to say what will happen in a country whose voter turnout can swing between 10% and 40%... if people mobilize a vote, it can swing things. -s
In article <17OCT199113255...@utkvx3.utk.edu> dre...@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes: >In article <F40661B.91Oct17154...@saha.hut.fi>, f406...@saha.hut.fi (Harri Haanp{{) writes...> >>Is it true that the _other_ political party in the US of A (the one Bush and >>Quayle do _not_ represent) has been thinking of selecting Bush to be their >>candidate too in the next presidential elections, but with another (_anyone_ >>else than Quayle) vice-presidential candidate? Since Bush is going to win >>anyway unless he screws up REAL BAD?
>>Harri
>No, sorry to say. Those comments represent a sarcastic joke by Republicans >(Bush's party), poking fun by saying that this is the only way the Democrats >(the other party) could hope to win an election.
>And Bush has, by the way, screwed up real bad...domestically at least. He >kept denying that a recession was taking place, refusing to take necessary >steps until they were absolutely necessary. You see, if people are convinced >the economy is bad, even if it isn't, the economy will become bad. Bush >also believes the converse to be true: that if people believe the >economy is good, even if it is bad, the economy will get better. That might >work for a very short, shallow recession. But with the huge deficit >we have, I can't see how any resonable person would say this past recession >would have been shallow or short.
>It all depends how much the media plays up the economic problems. Bush >will wrap himself in the flag and his victories overseas, while the >democrats will note how we have 1-2 million more Americans out of work >than before he took office. It's really hard to say what will happen >in a country whose voter turnout can swing between 10% and 40%... if >people mobilize a vote, it can swing things. >-s
Not much Quayle talk in this response. I suggest all the people who are flaming Bush or the Republican Party to start alt.gbush.sucks or alt.fuckoff.republicans. If the point of this newsgroup is Quayle jokes and sarcasm, let's please stay away from serious political talk (which obviously could never be linked with Dan Quayle). --
In article <F40661B.91Oct17154...@saha.hut.fi> f406...@saha.hut.fi (Harri Haanp{{) writes: >In article <1991Oct15.000410.9...@lclark.edu> c...@lclark.edu (John Costello) writes: >Is it true that the _other_ political party in the US of A (the one Bush and >Quayle do _not_ represent) has been thinking of selecting Bush to be their
Which other political party do you mean? There are hundreds.... oh, you mean the Democrats...... ;-)
-- School:driv...@cs.ulowell.edu | Those who know/What's best for us/| Work: riv...@claude.ma30.bull.com | Must rise and save us from | My opinions are my own. | ourselves. - "Witch Hunt" Rush |
Hey there. I thought to myself, "self, why is this topic on alt.tv.muppets?" Then I thought, "I'll bet that this topic had to do with muppets in some vague way and now it has totally changed" Please people, edit the sbject line. It doesn't take too much effort. Thanks.
Flame off
-Lynne
-- O body swayed to music, O brightening glance/ How can we know the dancer from the dance?...W.B.Y. -- phlyrt
In article <17OCT199113255...@utkvx3.utk.edu> dre...@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
<stuff about democrats running bush w/o dan as their candidate>
>No, sorry to say. Those comments represent a sarcastic joke by Republicans >(Bush's party), poking fun by saying that this is the only way the Democrats >(the other party) could hope to win an election.
And like many of the best jokes, largely true. In america, we have the freedom of choosing between fascism and impotence, and seem to prefer fascism.
>And Bush has, by the way, screwed up real bad...domestically at least. He
...he likes to call himself the "environmental president." i submit that his choice of running mate makes him the "humor president."
> ...denying that a recession was taking place... > ...the economy is bad... >... I can't see how any resonable person would say this past recession >would have been shallow or short.
Although i agree with most of your points, i'm not sure that you are making a good case that the recession is *over*, as king George would have us believe and as you seem to imply. On the other hand, my viewpoint may be biased since i'm in california, which has been hit hard by the loss of the Communist Threat (as well as by the evil spectre of home audio taping ;-) .
>It all depends how much the media plays up the economic problems.
... I doubt they would or will. We suffer from a collective jingoistic denial that this Great Land of Ours could be subject to any form of weakness. To admit economic failure on the part of our government as well as private-sector mismanagement and unjustified greed on the part of our workforce is as unAmerican as hondas, peace treaties, and clean air.
>Bush will wrap himself in the flag...
I think Bush signed a law against wrapping oneself in the flag, if memory serves.
>....and his victories overseas, while the
You give me $500 million a day to spend using highly skilled troops and advanced equipment against a bunch of ignorant fourth-world peasants manning cast-iron russian surplus and I'll give you a stunning example of gunboat diplomacy just like Bush did.
>democrats will note how we have 1-2 million more Americans out of work... e.g., Dukakis :-) >than before he took office. It's really hard to say what will happen >in a country whose voter turnout can swing between 10% and 40%... if >people mobilize a vote, it can swing things.
Well, i certainly hope so, but i tend to think that there is something wrong with us as a people, and that George Bush/ Dan Quayle are merely symptoms of that sickness. I tend to think that we are a nation in decline, much like the UK, with the loss of our empire. Perhaps a new Depression, or some equivalent "economic Pearl Harbor" can shock us into recovery, but whatever it is, it's not going to be pretty.
You can stop posting this boring stuff to alt.tv.muppets now...
--Liz
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; Liz Stewart ; "I want to give myself to you." ; Today's Mood: l...@wpi.wpi.edu ; "Sorry, I don't accept cheap gifts." ; grin and Venus on IRC ; ("Smart Comebacks", by Sol Gordon, PhD) ; bare it ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;
In article <19...@hacgate.UUCP> tack...@ipld01.hac.com (Walter Alden Tackett) writes:
>In article <17OCT199113255...@utkvx3.utk.edu> dre...@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes: ><stuff about democrats running bush w/o dan as their candidate> >>No, sorry to say. Those comments represent a sarcastic joke by Republicans >>(Bush's party), poking fun by saying that this is the only way the Democrats >>(the other party) could hope to win an election. >And like many of the best jokes, largely true. In america, we have the freedom >of choosing between fascism and impotence, and seem to prefer fascism.
Not that I admire Bush, but you're using 'fascist' in such a way as to render it useless for anything other than another word for 'bad'.
>>And Bush has, by the way, screwed up real bad...domestically at least. He >...he likes to call himself the "environmental president." i submit that his >choice of running mate makes him the "humor president."
It's an old tradition to have a running mate who appears so terrible (Agnew) or incompetant (Taft) that possible assassins are deterred from wacking the president.
No, I have no idea how Taft got elected President. Sunspots, maybe. Anyway, he wasn't as bad as Exorcist II.
Lots of stuff deleted
>Well, i certainly hope so, but i tend to think that there is something wrong >with us as a people, and that George Bush/ Dan Quayle are merely symptoms of >that sickness. I tend to think that we are a nation in decline, much like >the UK, with the loss of our empire. Perhaps a new Depression, or some >equivalent "economic Pearl Harbor" can shock us into recovery, but whatever >it is, it's not going to be pretty.
You folks down south *do* realise that the US produced something like 60% of the World Product in the 40s? Given how poorly industrialised many nations were in the 40s, and how many have since industrialised, isn't it reasonable to expect the US's *relative* economic position to have declined?
>In article <17OCT199113255...@utkvx3.utk.edu> dre...@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes: ><stuff about democrats running bush w/o dan as their candidate> >>No, sorry to say. Those comments represent a sarcastic joke by Republicans >>(Bush's party), poking fun by saying that this is the only way the Democrats >>(the other party) could hope to win an election. >And like many of the best jokes, largely true. In america, we have the freedom >of choosing between fascism and impotence, and seem to prefer fascism.
>>And Bush has, by the way, screwed up real bad...domestically at least. He >....he likes to call himself the "environmental president." i submit that his >choice of running mate makes him the "humor president."
>> ...denying that a recession was taking place... >> ...the economy is bad... >>... I can't see how any resonable person would say this past recession >>would have been shallow or short. >Although i agree with most of your points, i'm not sure that you are making a >good case that the recession is *over*, as king George would have us believe >and as you seem to imply. On the other hand, my viewpoint may be biased since >i'm in california, which has been hit hard by the loss of the Communist Threat >(as well as by the evil spectre of home audio taping ;-) .
Sorry, the LAST thing I wanted to imply is that the recession is over!
>>It all depends how much the media plays up the economic problems. >.... I doubt they would or will. We suffer from a collective jingoistic denial >that this Great Land of Ours could be subject to any form of weakness. To admit >economic failure on the part of our government as well as private-sector >mismanagement and unjustified greed on the part of our workforce is as >unAmerican as hondas, peace treaties, and clean air.
Agreed. >>Bush will wrap himself in the flag... >I think Bush signed a law against wrapping oneself in the flag, if memory >serves.
Not that I recall. The flag-burning amendment died. Anybody else remember?
>>....and his victories overseas, while the >You give me $500 million a day to spend using highly skilled troops and >advanced equipment against a bunch of ignorant fourth-world peasants manning >cast-iron russian surplus and I'll give you a stunning example of gunboat >diplomacy just like Bush did.
Their equipment was not all that bad. It was not top-of-the-line, but we have the give the Iraqis proper credit for poorly employing what little they had. Had a decent strategist been in charge, the US would have lost several thousand lives. We were quite lucky, thanks to the GU.
>>democrats will note how we have 1-2 million more Americans out of work... >e.g., Dukakis :-)
Nahh, only about 20,000 in MA.
>>than before he took office. It's really hard to say what will happen >>in a country whose voter turnout can swing between 10% and 40%... if >>people mobilize a vote, it can swing things. >Well, i certainly hope so, but i tend to think that there is something wrong >with us as a people, and that George Bush/ Dan Quayle are merely symptoms of >that sickness. I tend to think that we are a nation in decline, much like >the UK, with the loss of our empire. Perhaps a new Depression, or some >equivalent "economic Pearl Harbor" can shock us into recovery, but whatever >it is, it's not going to be pretty.
I agree. I hope whatever cataclysm it is , it comes (to us George's words from the war), "sooner rather than later." -s
dre...@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes: >It all depends how much the media plays up the economic problems. Bush >will wrap himself in the flag and his victories overseas, while the >democrats will note how we have 1-2 million more Americans out of work >than before he took office. It's really hard to say what will happen >in a country whose voter turnout can swing between 10% and 40%... if >people mobilize a vote, it can swing things.
Personally I hope Bush wins in '92. I fully expect that in the following four years, no matter who is President, the economy will suffer a serious collapse due to the economic policies of the Reagan/Bush administrations. The strains of inequitable tax burden, supporting a voracious military establishment, horrendous national debt, bailouts of S&Ls plus more and more banks, and nonending recession cannot be overcome without major changes to the economic policies of the country. Both parties are too fossilized to attempt it before a disaster strikes, but at least if a Republican is in office when it happens they won't be able to blame the Democrats for it. Of the two, the Democrats are at least better equipped to bring us out of it if they are given a clear mandate in 1996.
----- Eric Smith | er...@sco.com | Rosemary started drinking hard er...@infoserv.com | and seeing her reflection in the knife CI$: 70262,3610 | - Bob Dylan
In article <1991Oct20.104816.23...@cs.yale.edu> horne-sc...@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes: >(I'm dropping `alt.tv.muppets' from the distribution of this article and >encourage others to do the same.)
>In article <14...@scolex.sco.COM>, er...@sco.COM (Eric Smith) writes: >< ><Both parties are too ><fossilized to attempt it before a disaster strikes....
>Both parties? Someone wisely pointed out that we have only one party-- >with two right wings.
Someone related a quote by one of the Presidential candidates (I believe he's a Demo, although I'm not sure), which is similar to Scott's comment:
"The Democrats just want to be Republicans, and the Republicans are *pure* evil!"
In article <1991Oct21.032648....@lclark.edu> c...@lclark.edu (John Costello) writes: >Someone related a quote by one of the Presidential candidates (I believe >he's a Demo, although I'm not sure), which is similar to Scott's comment: >"The Democrats just want to be Republicans, and the Republicans are *pure* >evil!" >Got quite a kick out of that one. >(Slipping into my asbestos, elephant-proof jammies......) >Cos
I somehow find it unlikely that a Democrat would say such a thing; indeed, I find it unlikely that anyone serious considering running for office would say such a thing. I seem vaguely to recall having heard that the statement was made by Frank Zappa, though I don't have a source or anything.
ObJoke: A Real Dan Quayle Fan Club -- Marc VanHeyningen | mvanh...@indiana.edu | Life is like a sewer. Computer Science | BITNET: mvanheyn@iubacs | What you get out of it Cognitive Science | The dead fish | depends on what you Indiana University | goes with the flow. | put into it. -T. Lehrer
>In article <1991Oct21.032648....@lclark.edu> c...@lclark.edu (John Costello) writes: >>Someone related a quote by one of the Presidential candidates (I believe >>he's a Demo, although I'm not sure), which is similar to Scott's comment:
>>"The Democrats just want to be Republicans, and the Republicans are *pure* >>evil!"
>>Got quite a kick out of that one.
>>(Slipping into my asbestos, elephant-proof jammies......)
>>Cos
>I somehow find it unlikely that a Democrat would say such a thing; >indeed, I find it unlikely that anyone serious considering running for >office would say such a thing. I seem vaguely to recall having heard >that the statement was made by Frank Zappa, though I don't have a source >or anything.
Yeh, I guess I put too much faith in my sources. As I said, I think it was a Demo, but it could have been some unknown, Mid-West Independent. Then again, the person who told me could have a brain made of swiss chees (*cheap* swiss cheese, as several of his ex.'s would attest to :-) and may have misquoted.
Gosh. Guess I pulled a Dan Quayle! :-)
>ObJoke: A Real Dan Quayle Fan Club >Marc VanHeyningen | mvanh...@indiana.edu | Life is like a sewer. >Computer Science | BITNET: mvanheyn@iubacs | What you get out of it >Cognitive Science | The dead fish | depends on what you >Indiana University | goes with the flow. | put into it. -T. Lehrer
In article <1991Oct20.104816.23...@cs.yale.edu>, horne-sc...@cs.yale.edu
(Scott Horne) writes: > Both parties? Someone wisely pointed out that we have only one party-- > with two right wings.
An American friend of mine wrote that in America, conservatives are called 'liberals' and reactionaries are called 'conservatives'. The opinion of another American friend of mine is that the Democrats are totally useless since they are trying so hard to prove to the electorate that they are just as conservative as the Republicans.
-- Teemu Leisti / U. of Helsinki, Finland / lei...@cc.helsinki.fi
James Nicoll wrote: > Not that I admire Bush, but you're using 'fascist' in such a way > as to render it useless for anything other than another word for > 'bad'.
Unless one makes a complete treatise about 'fascist - fascism' it has to be used as another word for 'bad' (its even worse).
You didn't tell your opinion about it, James.
Kurt
-- --
Kurt Fuchs voice: +43 (1) 39 16 21 / 177 Alcatel Austria-ELIN Research Center fax: +43 (1) 39 14 52 Ruthnergasse 1-7 Internet: fs_fu...@rcvie.at A-1210 Wien UUCP: ...mcsun!tuvie!rcvie!fs_fuchs Austria/Europe
-- --
Kurt Fuchs voice: +43 (1) 39 16 21 / 177 Alcatel Austria-ELIN Research Center fax: +43 (1) 39 14 52 Ruthnergasse 1-7 Internet: fs_fu...@rcvie.at A-1210 Wien UUCP: ...mcsun!tuvie!rcvie!fs_fuchs
horne-sc...@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes: >(I'm dropping `alt.tv.muppets' from the distribution of this article and >encourage others to do the same.)
Thanks; I hadn't noticed that a muppets group was in the distribution (?!). I've been getting hate mail from muppets fans, if you can believe such a thing.
>In article <14...@scolex.sco.COM>, er...@sco.COM (Eric Smith) writes: >< ><Both parties are too ><fossilized to attempt it before a disaster strikes.... >Both parties? Someone wisely pointed out that we have only one party-- >with two right wings.
Yes, how clever of our politicians. At the same time that they can sneer at other countries for their one-party systems, they can offer U.S. voters the illusion of choice that really isn't one.
----- Eric Smith | er...@sco.com | No fun to be the one that love is practised on. er...@infoserv.com | - Chris Isaac CI$: 70262,3610 |
(I've removed alt.tv.muppets from the distribution list for this article. I've learned my lesson; getting flamed by muppet fans is no fun. Although since Bush and Quayle really ARE muppets, I think it's totally appropriate anyway).
jdnic...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
> It's an old tradition to have a running mate who appears so terrible >(Agnew) or incompetant (Taft) that possible assassins are deterred from wacking >the president. > No, I have no idea how Taft got elected President. Sunspots, maybe. >Anyway, he wasn't as bad as Exorcist II.
Say what? Taft was never the Veep, nor anyone's running mate. He got elected President because he was Teddy Roosevelt's hand-picked successor. Then he followed such an independent course after election that Teddy returned and ran against him four years later (remember the Bull Moose Party, one of the great names in American political history?), thereby splitting the Republican vote and allowing Wilson to be elected.
Say, maybe THAT'S how the Democrats could win an elction in 2000. :-)
> You folks down south *do* realise that the US produced something like >60% of the World Product in the 40s? Given how poorly industrialised many >nations were in the 40s, and how many have since industrialised, isn't >it reasonable to expect the US's *relative* economic position to have declined?
Really, it's unfair to choose the '40s as an example, since the U.S. was just about the only major industrialized country that didn't have its large cities bombed out and its economic infrastructure totally disrupted by world war.
The fact is that for a period after World War II, the U.S. was pre-eminent in the world, politically, industrially and militarily (given the Atomic Bomb). Since that time the U.S. has been on a long course of believing that it has a right to that position, without having to do any of the hard work or make any of the hard decisions. This trend reached its peak under Reagan, who assured the voters that they can have anything they want, and if there's no money to pay for it then we can just borrow it. The economic extravagances of the '80s will not be paid for for many years, if ever, and will guarantee the gradual decline of the U.S. into a second- rate economic power, *unless* hard choices are made to commit to new economic strategies involving the redistribution of wealth. But that's extremely unlikely to happen because the idea that the riches of the world belong to the U.S. by right is too ingrained in the segments of the society that would have to vote for such new economic policies. As a result, expect to see lots more actions like Operation Desert Storm whenever the economic resources of the U.S. are threatened by countries that can be easily militarily defeated. It's called the New World Order ...
----- Eric Smith | er...@sco.com | No fun to be the one that love is practised on. er...@infoserv.com | - Chris Isaac CI$: 70262,3610 |
< <>(I'm dropping `alt.tv.muppets' from the distribution of this article and <>encourage others to do the same.) < <Thanks; I hadn't noticed that a muppets group was in the distribution (?!).
Some fool put it there to stir up flames. As my kindergarten teacher used to say:
Attention, attention, attention I crave: And if I don't get it, I'll misbehave!
<I've been getting hate mail from muppets fans, if you can believe such a <thing.
Anyone who'd call himself a Muppets fan can be safely ignored. :-)
<>Someone wisely pointed out that we have only one party-- <>with two right wings. < <Yes, how clever of our politicians. At the same time that they can sneer <at other countries for their one-party systems, they can offer U.S. <voters the illusion of choice that really isn't one.
Educators call it controlling the options. It's a good way to get what one wants while leaving others with the satisfaction that they made the decision.
--Scott
-- Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne ho...@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 203 436-1848 Residence: Rm 1848 Silliman College, New Haven, CT "Jing1pi4 ye3 shi4 pi4." --Anonymous
In article <14...@scolex.sco.COM>, er...@sco.COM (Eric Smith) writes:
< <Say what? Taft was never the Veep, nor anyone's running mate. He got elected <President because he was Teddy Roosevelt's hand-picked successor. Then he <followed such an independent course after election that Teddy returned and <ran against him four years later (remember the Bull Moose Party, one of the <great names in American political history?), thereby splitting the Republican <vote and allowing Wilson to be elected. < <Say, maybe THAT'S how the Democrats could win an elction in 2000. :-)
Good idea. We need to create an offshoot of the Democratic Party. `Bull Moose' has a nice ring to it, but it's already taken. How about `Bull Donkey'? Or just `Jackass'?
--Scott
-- Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne ho...@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 203 436-1848 Residence: Rm 1848 Silliman College, New Haven, CT "Jing1pi4 ye3 shi4 pi4." --Anonymous
|
