If it was the "who", how could we be having these last 2 or 3 posts like we are?

    VN> This reminds me again of an anecdote, about Bohr this time.  He is
    VN> said to have never criticized sharply people presenting their work,
    VN> and to have been well known for his civility.

    EN>   Guys, guys, are you quite sure you have read what I /actually/ write?

I think I am more guilty of writing poorly than of reading poorly.
With that anecdote, what I wanted was to express my reluctance to
believe in the effectiveness^1 of sugar-coated criticism.  (I use
this adjective, `sugar-coated,' to sum up my perception of the
approach, outlined in greater detail earlier in the thread, of
`being kind and gentle' to the person being criticized.)  Even with
Bohr---who was apparently a very nice person, and whom it would be
unfair to describe as giving out sugar-coated criticism with the
negative connotation I give it---it only went so far...
_________
^1 I do believe, however, in the _usefulness_ of sugar-coated
   criticism in various situations, including ones where some
   `Macchiavellian' purpose is involved, or ones where the
   objective pursued is something different from correction of
   mistakes

I realize now that in the way I wrote my post about Bohr, it could
be interpreted in quite a different way (i.e. suggesting Bohr as an
example for Erik to follow), which was not my intention.  Too
stupidly ambiguous of me, and I deserve to be flamed for not
learning to write before starting to post...

And just in case I need to make myself clearer, I cannot recall
you, Erik, ever posting or advocating sugar-coated criticism, and I
do not expect you to do that in the future; and to the extent that
my opinion matters, this has been and will be a good thing.

And note that the negation of sugar-coated criticism is not just
flame and acrimony, but also includes straight, to the point, and
fair criticism that identifies weaknesses and corrects errors
without undue concern that someone's feelings might be hurt because
they made a mistake in public and now it is being exposed in
public...

    [...]
    VN> By the way, once I heard someone (an algebra professor, if that matters)
    VN> say that learning is a painful process, and I believe that is true, at
    VN> least with regards to effective learning.

    EN>   It is made less painful the earlier you correct your mistakes.

True; but I think this path to pain minimization is seldom taken...
Most of us usually learn the hard way---but at least with some what
is learned is learned well.

    [...]
    EN>   What if someone started to behave the way you relate here about Bohr or
    EN>   others?

That's a rhetorical question, but...  As I wrote above, I would not
like to see any sugar-coated criticism in comp.lang.lisp.  Of
course, having anyone of Bohr's caliber in the group would be so
valuable that perhaps I would become a hypocrite and forget about
my objections to sugar-coated criticism if it comes from such a
person.

    *    *    *

Another great mind who had an encounter with Bohr early in his
career was Richard Feynman.  I read about it in `Los Alamos from
Below' as published in _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_ (the
story occurs about 4-5 pages from the end of that chapter).  I will
quote here just the two final paragraphs of that story (the whole
chapter, not just that episode, is worth reading; did you know that
he at one time was in charge of the `IBM group' (i.e. the
(mechanical) computers) at Los Alamos?):

  [on not being afraid to say when an idea is crazy]

  I was always _dumb_ in that way.  I never knew who I was talking
  to.  I was always worried about the physics.  If the idea looked
  lousy, I said it looked lousy.  If it looked good, I said it
  looked good.  Simple proposition.

  I've always lived that way.  It's nice, it's pleasant---if you
  can do it.  I'm lucky in my life that I can do this.

(The original reference seems to be: _Reminiscences of Los Alamos,
1943-1945__, edited by L. Badash et al., pp. 105--132.  D. Reidel
Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1980.)

---Vassil.

By the definition I use for adult if you are corrected in a blunt manor
or not you examin the data, determin if it is valid, take proper action
and thank the person who pointed it out.  You only thank the person if
you feel it was an attempt, succesfull or otherwise, by them to help you.

  Oh Christ.  Every analogy, by virtue of not being exactly the same thing,
  carries the potential that a person who manages to drop context or have
  none to begin with will go off on a tangent.  It is not my fault that you
  do this.  The point with analogy is to illustrate a point.  If you think
  you see another point and want to talk about that, instead, that is still
  your responsibility.

| Yes, I think you have diminished your efforts. I take it for granted that
| I can only talk about what I think and feel about things.

  Oh Christ.  Another one of those.  Listen carefully.  What you have been
  taught about only being able to talk about what you think and feel is
  /wrong/.  You can actually talk about something you have observed that
  other people can observe and validate themselves, too.  If you only want
  to talk about what you think and feel about things, it has no consequence
  whatsoever for others.  /Why/ should they listen to what /you/ think and
  feel?  The reason most people actually care what other people say is that
  they expect it to be about the same reality they live in.  If people only
  talk about what they think and feel, you actually have to care about them
  personally before you want to listen to them.  I want to care about what
  somebody says, /not/ about the person who says it.  However, I realize
  that a small fraction of people are so narrowly focused on people that
  they can only read what people they care about write.  I have a hard time
  figuring out how these people survive in an information society.  The
  very concept of caring about the author before you can listen seems so
  anti-intellectual and anti-intelligent.  Most of the time, good authors
  are not people you would like to deal with person-to-person.

  If you understand that you can actually talk about something that exists
  independently of yourself, then others can talk about those things, too,
  without your /personal/ think-and-feel nonsense and without having to
  care about /you/.  Your arguments should carry their own weight.

| In my previous message, I have just tried to give a (tentative) answer to
| some of your questions. (Quote: "Now tell me, where did this guy get the
| idea that I was full of poisonous bile?  What I had I /done/ to him?")

  You were speculating a lot, but now I see that it has no consequence for
  me, because it is only how you think and feel.  (Right?)

| You really want to be helpful and give good advice. I only think that you
| have an unusual arguing style, and this causes irritations.

  Well, this is how you feel.  Irrelevant.  People of a more intellectual
  bent will not feel that "unusual" leads to irritation.  They will /think/
  about the unusual and not just "feel" that it is irritating.  That is
  just how you react.  Other people do in fact react differently, and we
  have no indication that the person in question is just like you.  You
  really have to realize that you cannot both argue that everything you say
  is how you "think and feel" and then argue that it is universal that
  "unusual" leads to irritation.  It is just you, according to your own
  "only what I think and feel" position.  (Do you see how wrong that
  position is?)

* Erik Naggum
| You have a higher goal than programming in Common Lisp, however.  I think
| you should be aware of this and manage to see things in perspective.

* Pascal Costanza
| I don't understand this statement completely, and I would be (seriously)
| interested what you mean by that.

  You have shown me that you get distracted by "an unusual arguing style"
  an that you lose your focus on the argument and presentation when there
  is something you allow yourself to get irritated about.  That means that
  your highest value is not getting the most useful information out of what
  you read, but its conformance to some standard of your own that even
  causes irritation when you feel it is violated.

| I also think that politeness makes actual communication a lot easier, but
| I don't value it higher.  (I don't even understand what "value" means in
| this context.)  I also don't get why me being German should be relevant
| in this context.

  Then you should travel more.  Germans are fairly unique in their need for
  protocol, and it is actually something most Germans do not notice until
  they contemplate the irritation they feel when others do not behave just
  so and exactly according to their own standards.  However, many Germans
  fail completely to understand that they cause serious irritation among
  others because they are flat out uninterested in the differences and only
  blame other people for not adapting to their standards.  That you say you
  get irritated by the unusual is such a telling point, actually.

* Erik Naggum
| Oh, my goodness, a "swear word"!  Obviously, this is so important to you
| that you lose focus and get seriously distracted.

* Pascal Costanza
| No, it's not important to me.  Again, I have just tried to find an
| explanation for people's (or Jeremy's) reactions to your arguing style.

  But you only talk about how you think and feel.  Here you presume to
  think and feel on behalf of Jeremy, even to something that you do not
  find important to yourself.  What is this?  Telepathy?  Arrogance?  Pure
  speculation into the unknown?  If you have to /fabricate/ things that you
  do not even find important yourself, you are so far out on a limb that
  you really should stop before you fall.

| ?!? No, I don't think so. I imagine someone who has tried very hard to
| understand a very complicated topic. After quite a while he/she decides to
| give up because he/she seriously thinks it is too complicated. Then someone
| comes and tells this person that he/she "has decided not to deal with
| it". That would be an insult, because he/she _has_ decided to deal with it,
| but just failed. At least, it would be an incorrect assumption.

  Are you for real?  If he gives up because he thinks it is too complicated,
  he has ipso facto decided not to deal with it.

| I have tried to find an explanation what he could possibly have
| interpreted as personal attacks.

  But you engage in pure speculation about something that is not even
  important to yourself.  (And you only talk about how you think and feel.)

| As soon as he felt personally attacked he stopped arguing and started to
| complain. It might be his mistake that he just misunderstood you, but I
| thought you asked about the actual sources for misunderstandings.

  Yes, /actual/.  That is quite distinct from speculation.

| However, I think that acknowledging people's feelings makes communication
| a lot easier.

  Let me know when you think people acknowledge how I feel.  It is the
  age-old dilemma: "If I should always think of others before myself, who
  should the other people think of?".

| Acknowledgement of people's feelings is quite easy to accomplish, there
| are several simple techniques that are not hard to learn.

  Clearly, people think it is /wrong/ to acknowledge my feelings.  What do
  you think I could learn from that?

  My solution is higher standards of professionalism.  You leave your
  feelings out of public view so others do not have to acknowledge them.
  Imposing your feelings on others so they have to care about them is indecent.

| >   Why do you not fight those who attack /me/ so viciously and tell them
| >   to be nice ans positive towards /me/?
|
| Do you need this kind of support? ;)

  If you had principles worth shit, you would not even conceive of asking
  such a stupid question.  You /strongly/ imply selectivity in application
  with this response.  If you selectively apply your principles, they are
  not principles, only conveniences you choose when you have already
  selected whether to treat people well based on your emotional response.

| I am not selective.

  Please realize that you are.

| I didn't respond to negative statements of yours, but only to your
| statement that positive reinforcement does not work.

  Huh?  Which /statement/ would that be?

| Actually, I don't care personally if you continue to be "negative".

  This is what I find most fascinating about you touchy-feely people.  I am
  not negative.  I am simply not hugging and praising people.  People say I
  am "cold".  I do not feed people's need for affirmation and validation --
  I think they should keep such needs out of public view.  I have received
  high praise for my writing from professional authors and copyeditors and
  I actually consider the need to feel good about what you read to be quite
  pathological.  How do you deal with textbooks?  I notice that more and
  more newspapers are going into "feel-good reporting" in that they focus
  on making the reader comfortable.  They are amazingly uninformative as a
  result.  If you want to feel good about something you read, you cannot
  /also/ expect it to be informative and be able to teach you something.

  How you feel is your own responsibility.  Somebody can want to make you
  feel bad by trying to hurt you with their words, but even then, you have
  to decide to let this influence you.  If how you feel is only produced by
  other people, you have a /major/ psychological problem.

| For example, I have actually quit watching TV many years ago.  I don't
| think that's going nuts, but I rather see this as a very conscious and
| well-thought decision.  It has made me a calmer person.

  If you become a calmer person from ceasing to be exposed to TV, you have
  a /serious/ problem, and avoiding situations to make you feel better is
  the wrong choice.  I mean this quite seriously.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

  Those are not the only options.  Many people prefer being treated like
  children when they get a chance, and all you show is that by taking
  charge of their lives and making it your responsibility to make them feel
  good, they follow your lead.  But that is not what being an adult means.
  Being an adult means taking charge of your own life.  Some people say
  they did not become adults until they took charge of somebody else's
  life, but they are only big brothers to their own children, not adults.

  Treating people like adults produce far better results than treating them
  as children, however.  If all you test for is how childlike people respond
  under various stimuli, of course you get better results by being nice,
  but some people actually feel deeply insulted by treated like children.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

  I have read all of Feynman's books and those about him, and find that his
  person is quite interesting in addition to his work.  I still wonder what
  the "lucky" part refers to.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

 >   Please note that how much emotion we can handle and

For example, see the "Positive Feedback First" pattern from the
"Feedback Patterns" paper by Joe Bergin, at
http://csis.pace.edu/~bergin/patterns/FeedbackPatterns.html.

Here are some highlights:

 >>>

'If you are negative with your students they may tune you out and not
listen. If they are especially sensitive they may be hurt. If they are
especially arrogant they may take your comments as an attack and attack
back.'

'Therefore, when you give feedback, start and end with positive
feedback. Suggestions for improvement are sandwiched between these
reinforcing comments.

Even if you have largely negative things to say, you can still start
with the things that were well done and should be retained in the future.

Even in the less positive aspects of your feedback you can take a tone
that you are giving suggestions for improvement, not just condemning.
You can say “This might be made better if you think about …,” rather
than “This is bad.”   You can also say you don’t understand something,
or something in a presentation doesn’t “work” for you.'

'The patterns community IS a community largely because we use this
technique uniformly in analyzing each other’s work and giving feedback
on it. It is a very powerful community builder.'

<<<

Although Joe Bergin puts this pattern in the context of teaching and
learning between university educators and students, I think it can also
be applied in the context of a newsgroup. (It _is_ in fact also applied
in the Writers' Workshop format.) When you see someone making wrong
claims and want to correct him/her, you are taking on the role of a
teacher - therefore, the pattern can be applied in such a situation.

The "Positive Feedback First" technique has not been invented in the
Patterns community, so I am pretty sure that one can find some
statistical "hard" data that show the effectiveness of this technique.
If you insist, I am willing to do a little research to find some...

  That /is/ treating people like children.

  If you start off telling a stranger that you like him as a person but
  would prefer if he did not do something he did, some people are actually
  deeply insulted by your misuse of personal relations.

  I guess the examples I gave did not quite register with you and you only
  saw a reason to talk about something entirely different, which of course
  is what happens when you have an open forum and people cannot focus, but
  try to understand how the following will be interpreted by adults who do
  not want to have personal relations with other people in a professional
  setting, please.  Here is what I said.  Please try to focus on what I say
  and not only on how you think and feel.  Thank you.

  However, it is more correct that I do not think being liked and accepted
  should take predence to technical matters /in a technical forum/.  It
  would be inconceivable for me to say "I like you as a person, but you
  post misinformation about Common Lisp in comp.lang.lisp".  I think that
  would be about as likely as a stock broker saying "I like you as a person,
  but you give your customers really bad stock advice", or a priest saying
  to another "I really like you as a person, but could you please cut down
  on murdering abortion doctors?"

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

marc

* Pascal Costanza
| No, I don't think it's obvious.  Actually I have a hard time to follow
| your line of reasoning.

  Perhaps things will improve if you /think/ about it.  This really is so
  obvious that researchers who want to get useful data from people have to
  get rid of how good they feel about the topic.  I guess you may have
  heard of the placebo effect.  "Placebo" actually means "I shall please".

| Obviously, we both have a very different background of experiences - I
| think it's interesting to sort these differences out.  At least I have
| the feeling that I would learn something from this discussion.

  And I have the exasperated feeling of telling a stubborn and not very
  bright child that not everyone is just like himself.

* Erik Naggum
| If I am responding technically and to the point but use a
| "cold" language, some people only feel the "cold" and go bananas without
| even seeing the technical contents.

* Pascal Costanza
| I don't get this. Do you _intentionally_ use a "cold" language?

  Yes.  It is called technical writing, objective communication, impersonal
  reporting, etc.  Most publishers want their writers to engage in as few
  personal and emotional issues as possible, because their readers should
  be able to read the material /without/ having to empathize with the
  author and his plight.  Unlike you, some people actually write about more
  than they personally "think and feel".  I should have learned a lesson.
  People who think that everything is a personal opinion are nuts.

| What would be the price to pay for using a "warmer" language?

  That would be condescending to the adult readers.

* Erik Naggum
| Please note that how much emotion we can handle and still keep thinking
| straight varies dramatically from person to person.

* Pascal Costanza
| My conclusion would be to take this into account and acknowledge people's
| feelings upfront.

  Look, is this so fantastically hard to grasp?  I use an emotion-free and
  impersonal language when I answer people on technical counts because I do
  not want them to "share my feelings", but actually find needful things to
  learn in what I write.  When people do not want to learn, but feel good,
  and attack me because there were no emotions their simple minds could
  attach to, yes, I do get quite hostile towards such touchy-feely people.
  And they have intentionally wanted to hurt my feelings for not having
  /pleased/ them.  Please try to understand this.

| Again, I think this can be accomplished by some simple rhetoric tricks,
| so it actually wouldn't take too much effort. (And I am not specifically
| suggesting this to you, but also to everyone else, of course.)

  It would only make people appear, and often be, condescending because
  they would feel, and rightly so, that their readers would not be able to
  deal with reality unfiltered.  As Vassil Nikolov said, "sugar-coating".
  This is just plain /wrong/ in a technical forum, but perfectly reasonable
  in a support group.  I really suggest people go create alt.support.lisp
  if they want a newsgroup for this kind of bullshit.

* Erik Naggum
| The task of becoming able to function under the influence of emotions
| rests heavily upon all of us.  All but a small percentage of the adult
| population can handle it and are fully able to function and reason well
| whether they feel excellent, good, bad, or terrible.  People lose their
| parents, their jobs, their homes, and still function, often well.  People
| pull themselves together and act professionally in the face of the direst
| of straits.

* Pascal Costanza
| I am aware of the fact that people are able to make considerable personal
| improvements when faced with loss or other traumatic experiences.
| However, I think that these situations are exceptional cases, and should
| be.  Do you suggest to intentionally create stressful situations in order
| to "help" people improve their personality?  I think this is a weird
| strategy.

  Fuck you.

| This section seems to support the notion that you suggest to
| intentionally create stressful situations for people that need to learn
| something.  Do I understand you correctly?

  I am glad that we have now seen that there is something seriously wrong
  with you.  The becoming calmer from not watching TV thing should have
  told me not to respond any further to you.

| Back to my question on measures: I don't think you need a
| measure. Qualitative assessments are sufficient, in my opinion.

  Of course you think so.  You would be proven wrong if you went about what
  you suggest scientifically to actually collect useful information about it.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

Come to think of it, that was my approach with the worst kids in class
(when they crossed a line which in my day would have had me suspended
for a week): explode first, finishing with a positive message directed
at the malefactor specifically.

Why thank them? To reward them? To fulfill a social obligation? Other?

I understand the dichotomy between the rational side and the emotional
side of poeple you obviously believe in (do you?), but I think it's a
wrong perception of reality. (Think about it: There's no rational reason
for being rational.)

Most probably they shouldn't, but it's also probable that they continue
to react like that.

 >   You

 >   That means that

However, I firmly believe in the "Positive Feedback First" technique,
and some of your statements can be understood as suggesting an
"opposite" technique. I have responded to that, and that's the only
point I really care about in our discussion.

'However, it is more correct that I do not think being liked and
accepted should take predence to technical matters /in a technical
forum/.  It would be inconceivable for me to say "I like you as a
person, but you post misinformation about Common Lisp in
comp.lang.lisp".  I think that would be about as likely as a stock
broker saying "I like you as a person, but you give your customers
really bad stock advice", or a priest saying to another "I really like
you as a person, but could you please cut down on murdering abortion
doctors?"'

I have read this as a statement that you don't "believe" in positive
reinforcement techniques, like the "Positive Feedback First" pattern.
Please correct if have gotten that wrong.

  Would you ask these same questions if the suggestion to send thanks were
  specifically directed to be done by mail, not in public?

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

This sounds a bit stylized, as it can get in examples, but in practice
this works extremely well.

Sometimes it can even be rewarding for you to think about the positive
aspects of a contribution when they are not obvious. Of course,
sometimes it doesn't work - but in my experience this is very seldom the
case.

  For a person who only talks about what you think and feel, you are
  awfully persistent.

| I know what I am talking about in this regard.

  Of course you do.  Listening to others was ruled out long ago.

| Why are you so sure about your assessment of the "nice" approach?
| Have you actually seen it fail?  Repeatedly?

  Yes, but you would not believe me.

| Sorry, how can you avoid a personal relation with people you need to deal
| with?

  Oh Christ.  You really /have/ no concept of professional relationships.

| We are having a personal relation right now, aren't we?

  No.

| What is it that I get wrong here?

  That you are in a discussion, not a social club.

| OK, here is suggestion that is more concrete:

  Oh Christ.  Do you have the capacity to listen to other people?

| Of course, sometimes it doesn't work - but in my experience this is very
| seldom the case.

  Your data is only how you feel about these things.  You have explicitly
  rejected measurements that would establish whether what you believe would
  actually hold water under testing and you reject counter-information
  before you could possibly have thought about it and evaluated it.
  Therefore, what you present to us is indeed what you think and feel, and
  nobody should pay any attention to it because you do not pay attention to
  the information that would invalidate or update it.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

If you give positive and negative feedback for the same subject
you will appear two-faced.  Giving the "positive feedback" first is an attempt
to get the person to like you up front (and take your correction because they like
you, even IF you are correct).  It is also trying to build up a bank of
forgiveness ahead of time.  Its hardly treating yourself with respect.

Isn't it better to give up all those mind games and just be yourself, and,
let others be themselves?  Act as you need to act and interact with others
on that basis.  With mind games everyone feels pressure to play them
to protect themselves, and rightly so.  I think everyone knows someone
who is just themselves and it is a great relief to be around them, you
can let your guard down.  Its the child like thing to do.  Perhaps a movie
recommendation is in order, "The Education of Little Tree" (its also a book),
rent it if you can.

Why do people try to correct others anyway?  Perhaps you can examine that
motivation?

 >   Unlike you, some people actually write about more

  Oh Christ.  Listening to other people's point of view is not your strong
  suit, is it?

| Sure. I have read a similar argument by Immanuel Kant, and I think this is
| right, but only to a certain degree.

  German philosophy.  Spare us.

| >   If you only want to talk about what you think and feel about things,
| >   it has no consequence whatsoever for others.
|
| This is not a correct conclusion.

  So?  That, too, by your own admission, is only what you think and feel.

| >   /Why/ should they listen to what /you/ think and feel?  The reason
| >   most people actually care what other people say is that they expect
| >   it to be about the same reality they live in.
|
| Of course.

  This clearly contradicts what you said about only talking about what you
  think and feel.  You obviously think you can get by with approximations,
  and pretty fuzzy ones at that.  I pity your miserable life that you have
  come to believe this.

| Arguments never carry their own weight. Arguments are always communicated
| by people; without people, there would be no arguments.

  Oh Christ.  You are one of those.

| I understand the dichotomy between the rational side and the emotional
| side of poeple you obviously believe in (do you?), but I think it's a
| wrong perception of reality.  (Think about it: There's no rational reason
| for being rational.)

  Oh Christ.  You are one of those.  This is just too goddamn stupid to be
  worth a serious comment.

| No, actually I don't see any contradiction in this regard.

  It is more important to you to deny things than to understand them.

| However, I firmly believe in the "Positive Feedback First" technique,

  It has stunted your mental growth, just as I argue that technique will.
  People grow from challenges.  People who avoid challenges tend not to
  grow, or worse, they tend to rot.

| > | I didn't respond to negative statements of yours, but only to your
| > | statement that positive reinforcement does not work.
|
| >   Huh?  Which /statement/ would that be?
|
| The starting point of our discussion was the following statement of yours:
:
| I have read this as a statement that you don't "believe" in positive
| reinforcement techniques, like the "Positive Feedback First" pattern.

  Pascal, you are an idiot or extremely sloppy intellectually, so listen
  carefully.  When you say "your statement that positive reinforcement does
  not work", that means that I made a statement to that effect.  Do you
  understand this simple piece of English?  Since you are obviously quite
  influenced by toxic philosophies that wipe out the distinction between
  what you think and feel and observable reality, you think you can claim
  that I /said/ something that you /believe/ as a consequence of what you
  /think/ I said.  This is not a fucking /game/, OK?  If you are so unable
  to deal with the world around accurately that you cannot even distinguish
  between someone else's /actual statements/ and what you /think and feel/,
  you should realize that you have nothing whatsoever to offer anyone.

| Please correct if have gotten that wrong.

  I generally think this line is produced only by retards who are too
  fucking lazy to pay attention to details.  You confirm that opinion.

| On the other hand, it's equally unwise to try to expose yourself to all
| conceivable stressful situations.

  No, it is not.  You really should talk to the psychotherapists that are
  paid to be friendly to idiots and learn what they know about coping
  strategies.

| The "truth" is somewhere in between.

  Oh Christ.  You're a goddamn /relativist/!

| (In my opinion, TV is one of the most dangerous sources of stress of our
| times, and exposing yourself to it is not rewarding at all. So i have
| decided to quit watching it. But I am getting very off-topic here...)

  Basket case closed.

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

  Do you really need to be explained?  Jesus Christ, you are unbelievable!

--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway