Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:51:44 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Response on Homosexuality - LONG POST

LONG POST WARNING !!!

I would like to welcome Derrick and Angela to the list.

I assume that you are friends of amycat (that is the nickname
that I know her as) who have joined the list to lend her moral support,
increase the number of openly homosexual voices on the list, engage in
debate with the few people who are willing to oppose the homosexual
lifestyle, or simply try to gain mutual understanding through civil
discourse.

But, since you are new, let me briefly explain my own beliefs, well
known to the regular members of the list.  If I need to elaborate
on any of this, let me know.

I believe that homosexuality is a sin.  This is a religous belief.

I believe that many people have homosexual urges, just as they
have the urge to lie, cheat, or commit adultry.  Like all those
things, it is "wrong" when a person gives in completely to the
temptation, and becomes a lifelong liar, cheater, or adulteror.

These are my personal beliefs.  They are taken directly from
the Bible.

Unlike murder or adultry, homosexuality is an act of consenting adults
and does not hurt anyone (I don't fully believe that, as I think
widespread homosexuality has a negative impact upon society, but
leave that concern aside for now).  Since 1) homosexuality is
between consenting adults without hurting anyone and 2) it is based
upon a religous belief, the law should not represent these views.

So, I seperate my personal beliefs about homosexuality, which are simple,
from my beliefs about how the law should regard homosexuals, which are
more complicated.  The goal of the law, in my opinion, is to neither
encourage nor prohibit homosexuality lifestyle.

Let me make another distinction.  I seperate a person who engages
in one or two homosexual acts from a person who desires a homosexual
lifestyle.  This is another religous distinction, which simply
regards a basically moral person who slips once (like a person
who commits adultry once, but makes an effort to be loyal) as well
meaning but whom made a mistake.  A person who wants to live
openly, unashamed, and activly as a homosexual has rejected the
preposition that there is something wrong with the activity.
These people want to live the homosexual lifestyle, the graveman of my
distaste.

The law should not prohibit homosexuality.  I am a citizen of
Georgia and I was very unpopulat among my conservative friends for
speaking against the infamous "Bowers" sodomy law (which was not
a homosexual issue of course, but was made one).  I also think
that the reasons given for the military's anti-homosexual policy
is wrong and that, again in Georgia, the rationale behind the decision
by Bowers to not hire a homosexual lawyer was wrong.  Note that I might
support that last two policies based upon other rationale.

At the same time, I think laws that "encourage" or "legitimize"
homosexuality are wrong.  So, I do not favor granting homosexuals a legal
marrage status like that enjoyed by hetrosexual couples.  I would
strongly resist a law that prevented me from discriminating based
upon sexual preference.

Finally, the above is not homophobic, as I understand the word
(I think it is not useful to define as homophobic anyone who does
not adopt the full legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle).  But,
apart from what is above, I am homophobic, and openly so.  It
is related to AIDS and the notirous prison violence (i know that
both are irrational, but that is the essence of a phobia, right?).

I might suggest that there are few people who would be so honest.
But I expect the future debate to be as personal as the exchanges
that amycat and I have had.

So, in sum, I think that people who engage in the homosexual lifestyle
are giving into a sinful temptation, which is wrong and should be
changed.  I know you don't want this, and that it is somewhat insulting
to offer it, but I would hope that you are someday able to resist these
sinful urges.  Until that time, I think society should be tollerant of your
actions, but not encourage them.

Also, let me say that the views of Carl and a few others who
have spoken against the homosexual lifestyle are not my
views, nor are my views theirs.  Do not lump us together, as
I disagree with Carl and some others here as well.

Thanks, let me thank rufus for trying to explain my position without
actually defending it.  Such is the act of a brave person and I appreciate
it, even more because I don't think you agree.  At least one person is
actually reading.

Well, with the thank yous out of the way, let me address the posts:

>From: GU091DCF@ITHACA.BITNET

>        First, you mention the movie Basic Instinct. I have seen the movie
>and yes, I was upset at it. Not because the movie was homophobic, but
>because Hollywood is. Everytime a gay and/or lesbian is portrayed in a
>film, it is in a negative light.

Well, I have not seen the film (but I wonder about the tremendous
furor by the homosexual community over the film before ANY of them
saw it).

Many people have made this argument.  I believe it to be patently false.
At best, I would suggest that you are (for obivous reasons) oversensitive
which precludes a balanced assessment.

I do not se many movies, but my experience about hollywood is exactly
opposite.  My wife watches several TV shows faithfully, and I
wonder if there is a good guy who is NOT homosexual.  On shows like
LA Law, Murphy Brown, Designing Women, Northern Exposure, Life Goes
On, and just about every other drama and sitcom, society is force-fed a
plethora of homosexuals who are the good guys.  I cannot think
of a homosexual bad guy on TV.

Further, I understand that the above are among TV's best shows.

The claim that hollywood is anti-homosexual is not only a false one, it is
counter-productive, since this is probably the most supportive industry
there is.

In terms of movies, I tend to stick to the classics, which don't
view homosexuality at all.  I saw one movie, the January Man,
where the "tonto" character was homosexual, independent, nice,
intelligent, brave, an all-around good guy. I do not claim that
this is a representitive sample (it is not), but I cannot and
do not believe that hollywood is hostile to anything except
conservative and traditional values.

I challange you to list the recent movies that portray christians
as the good guys or that uphold the conservative view.  When
I see a religous person in a movie, it is either a left-leaning
pacifist priest (good guy) or a closed-minded, facist jerk who
likes to make people miserable (bad guy).

Further, given the list below, why was this one movie singled out?
I have to think it is because, as I assert, homosexuals insist on
preferentail treatment.

>One only needs to look at such recent
>movies as JFK,

I have refused to see this on political grounds.  Who was the homosexual
villan?  Was it the claim that Oswald was an unstable homosexual?

>The Silence of the Lambs,

This I saw.  If I were to claim the villian of this movie was a homosexual,
the members of the list would be all over me.  He was a frustrated
trans-sexual (? - i get the flavors mixed up) which is very different
than homosexual (i am told).  In fact, the movie itself rejects the idea
that the villian is a homosexual, citing the fact that the vast
majority of homosexuals are non-violent people.

>and The Prince of Tides.

I am not into ego trips, certainly not hers.  Again, what was the
angle?

>In JFK, there are scenes of an almost orgy-like gay party where several
>men are dressed in drag. What does this have to do with Clay Shaw being
>innocent or guilty? What insight does it give us to a possible motive
>for Clay Shaw wanting to kill the President?

no response - havem't seen it

>In the Prince of Tides,
>George Carlin is used as a gay man strictly for comic relief.

So, in addition to never being villians, homosexuals can never be a
jester?  They are not funny people?

>We are
>never portrayed as average people.

I think the limited view I gave of TV refutes this.  I can think of
5 homosexual characters who are either heros or normal
people on LA Law alone.

>If we were shown in a positive light
>more often, we could accept the occasional movie that has as murderers
>and comic relief, but not every time. It provides society with a false
>image of us that is grossly unfair.

This I believe.  But, I think your "more often" standard is unreasonable,
given the reality of hollywood.

Further, as I agrued, if you decry the villian of basic instinct as
representing homosexuals, you make the argument that Dahmer represents
them, a wholly untrue agrument.  By raising the issue, you
invite the idea that a society of people can be viewed based upon one
person.

>       Secondly, I have numerous gay friends and associates, none of
>whom belong or want to belong to the Men/Boy Love Association. If I'm
>not mistaken, that is an organization for pediphiles, not gays and
>lesbians.

This is true, although I think that a pervert male who wants sex
with a male child is both a pervet and a homosexual.

Furthermore, the distinction between "healty" homosexual and a pervert
"pediphile" homosexual is a narrow one for many people.  Sexual
abberance is easy to lump together.  This is one reason why,
in my mind, I combine homosexuality, beastiality, and necrophelia.
The last two do not involve consenting adults, but that distinction
means little to my moral beliefs.  (and the members of this list spent
a week trying to decide if a corpse can or needs to consent  :)   )

>        Jeffery Dahmer is a bit extreme, don't you think. If you think
>he's a typical gay male, then there is no point in discussion. You've
>made up your mind.

I am not making this argument.  I charge that you and others are.

---

I wonder what rights a homosexual would like?

>        What rights would I like?

Thanks for answering!

>        1) The right to LEGALLY marry a man, and recieve all the
>           benefits of marriage. (ie: tax breaks, insurance rights,
>           being allowed access to visit my lover in a hospital,
>           not having a will contested because my lover left things
>           to me and not his brothers, sisters, etc...)

There are three aspects to a marrage in society: religous, legal, and
societal.  The religous is a personal matter of course.  Some people
consider there to be no religous content to their marrage.  In my
religon, a homosexual marrage is a sacrelige, like a holy commitment to
lifelong adultry done in a church.

There are some churches taht consider homosexual marrages to be OK.
Since I believe in religous tollerance, I will not say anything
about them, but I will tell you that I am trying to convince my
(hetrosexual) friends who belong to such a church to leave.

The second component of a marrage is the legal benefits.  These are
purely a matter of planning.  If two people have enough forethouht
and commitment to get married (and here I eschew the notion that
homosexual "marrages" are transitory, flighty things) then it is wholly
irresponsibile for them to not make the legal arrangements between each
other.

When I hear of a homosexual couple who are "caught" in a problem like
a will, access in a hospital, etc, I always have the same question:
Why didn't they take care of it before the tragedy?

The marrage-related rights that are legal in nature are wholly conferable
in every state by a simple contract between the two.  Given the seriousness
of marrage, I have little sympathy for people who consider it too
bothersome to arrange the legal details.

The societal rights are where we disagree most.  I could build all kinds of
complicated arguments, comparing married couples with single parents
and the benefits given both, talking about poligamy, and lots of other
tricks.  The simple fact is that I don't think that society should legitimise
homosexuality and that these benefits would do so.

Our tax code is designed to elicit certain behavior.  A family unit is
a good thing.  Tax code that encourages family units is good.

The United Staes, as a whole, is not ready for a society where there is
no distinction between homosexual marages and hertosexual marages.
Furthermore, such a society is an infringement of *MY* rights.

If a local area, such a San Fransisco or Massachuttes, wants to confer
the kind of rights you want, that is fine.  I don't plan to live there
and, I suspect, neither would most people who would find homosexual marages
objectionable.

But, if you think that the entire country must be reduced to the least
common denominator, according only the societal values that can gain
acceptance from every single person, we soon become a society without values,
not evel the value of tolleration.  I know that some see such as an idea
society; I don't.

We are a multi-cultured country, one of the best, IMHO.  We need
to work on our tolleration, I think.  But, the advocates of some rights
seek to replace multi-culture with no culture.

You want me to accept you and your rights.  I do.  But, can't you accept
me and my rights?   One of my rights is to not participate in a system
that supports things I find religously objectionable.  If my tax dollars
are used to encourage, or legitimise homosexuality, you tax me for a
purpose I find objectionable.  If you make me hire homosexuals, you remove
my right to association.

I know that these arguments have been used before, as a basis for
continuing Seperate but Equal, for example.  The court and society
rejected them.  I find their application here to be different.  Why?
Substitute "adultry" for "homosexual" in your demands.  Should I be
taxed to encourage or legitimse adulters?  Should I be forced
to hire them?

Can you give me a reason why there is a difference between homosexuals
and adulters that is important.  Don't make a moral argument, as I suspect
we have different moral structuers.  Besides, morality should not be a basis
for law.


>        2) The opportunity to serve in the military if I so choose
>           (even though I have absolutely no desire to do so)

I disagree with the Army's rationale.  I think there is a better one.
In the military 1) homosexuals would be the target of special violence and
2) their presence will reduce the functionality of the unit.

While I care about 1), 2) is my major concern.  I don't care about
equality, women's rights, or anything else if pandering
to it needlessly costs the lives of US soldiers.

I am in favor of women being in the military, if they meet the exact
same standards as men, because the actually increase the unit's capability.
The presence of homosexuals, in 1992, would lessen their ability.  mabye
in time, as homosexuals are more accepted, that will change.  The problem
is not in the Pentagon, whom I suspect would rather be rid of a political
problem and let you in.  The problem is that you cannot fiat the attitudes of
people like me.  And there are a lot of people like me (who can spell to
boot) in the military.  And others who are not, but it is the ones like
me that are the problem.

Ask yourself this:  would you ask that handicaped people be allowed to
serve?  (I know that some do, but they are in specialized areas.  I would be
in favor of homosexuals being let into non-combat and non-field units,
such as administration.)  The handicapped would 1) get themselves hurt
and 2) hurt the unit.  This is too high a price to pay for some abstract
notion of equality.  People who choose to be homosexuals have rejected that
standard themselves.


>        3) To be portrayed fairly and accurately by the media

Boy do we disagree here.

From my point of view, it is religion taht is never treated fairly by the media.

Homosexuals are the darlings of the press.  No homosexual can do
anything wrong.  You don't want the press to fairly protray homosexuals;
you won't like the result.

Some examples?  Sure.  Take the Barney Frank - Government bordello issue.
If that had happened to a hetrosexual, especially a republican, there
would have been hell to pay.  Neither the ethics committee nor the media was
willing to fairly or accurately portray the issue.

Another example is the riot that homosexuals held in San Fransisco a
few montsh ago.  If some christians symbolically link arms in front of
an abortion clinic, it is a national event, many go to jail, and
the national media is all over it.  Let just one Klansman walk
dwn the street and it is a major crisis.  But thosands of homosexuals, angry
that California would not pass a redundant law, riot for two hours,
destroying hundreds of thousands dollars worth of public and private
property, endangering the lives of others, and creating mass chaos.

The police didn't lift a finger.  The media completely ignored it.

If they had been hatians demonstrating about anything, and only
1/10th the number, the press would have been all over it.

The press, a liberal group themselves, are sympathetic to homosexuals.
They don't want to generate anti-homosexuals attitudes.  So they
fail to report negative things about homosexuals.

Be careful what you ask for; you might get it.

>        4) To be able to walk hand in hand with my lover down a street

When I was an ungergrad, my girlfriend attended North Georgia
College, where we were not allowed to hold hands either.

When I travel to New York, I often go to the village, because that
is where the good resturants are.  I usually stay at the world trade
center.  So, I see a lot of homosexuals (for those who do not know,
there is an area of new york where homosexuals are in the majority)
holding hands and doing much more, in public.

I know that there is some violence there, but there are also vigalantee
groups and New York is a violent place.

I have been through this area many times.  My reaction is always the
same: revulsion.  Imagine how you would feel if you were innocently
traveling in public and saw an act of beastiality.  The reaction
is the same for me.

I guess my answer to your request is to stay in the areas where
homosexuality is openly accepted.  If you were to travel to my
hometown, I hope that there would be no violence, but I suspect that
it would be made clear to you that we do not want our children
exposed to such activity, we don't want to see it ourselves, and
in the sense that we are a community, not a municipality, you are not
welcome.

In this wish, you ask that everyone accept your behavior as normal
and acceptable.  Many of us do not and will not.  Do you ask
that we disregard our religion?

>        5) To not be persecuted by my church simply because I love a man

A church is a body of people who share certain values.  The values of my
church do not tollerate the homosexual lifestyle.  You might as well
ask that we accept people who worship Ra.

There are churches that would accept you.  I know of one that (I hope)
will soon have some openings.

If you suggest that all churches should accept you, then you are asking for
superior rights.  What other group can demand to be accepted into
a religous group regardless of their nature.  This doesn't even
address the 1st ammendment issue.

I believe that one central tennant of Christianity is tolleration.
If you are not a member, and a church comes after you, then I generally
think they are betraying their faith (something many churchs often do).
I can think of exceptions; if you arrive at my hometwon, and insist
that we teach homosexual lifestyles in the school, then I think the church
has a role, as you are trying to affect the morality of the community.

>        6) To not lose my job, housing, etc... because I am gay

Should an adulteror be granted such rights? Certainly not.  Why?
Because the law should not force me to violate my religous beliefs.

Let me make another example.  I am not arguing that homosexuals and racists
are the same thing, so please do not misunderstand me.

I rent space in my father-in-law's house.  I found out that the tennant
was a racist.  I threw him out.

I would not allow a racist to work for me, either.

Should the law prohibit me from discriminating on this basis?  Once again,
I ask you what important distinction there is between homosexuals
and racists that would make the case for homosexuals different?

One last point?  Would you favor a law that required an employer to hire
and provide insurance for someone who is more probable of having
an expensive disease?  From a financial standpoint, the higher
occurance of AIDS among the homosexual community than among the
hertosexual community is an issue that cannot be wished away.

Before you respond that I am steriotyping or that I am wrong,
read the last sentence again.  It is true, regadless of the
direction the disease may take in the future.

>        I see none of these things as superior rights, only rights that
>heterosexuals currently enjoy.

With the exception of forcing a church to accept you, neither do I see
these as superior rights.  The superiortity comes from the expectation
that the media report nothing wrong and that hollywood not show
homosexual villians.

They are, however, a list of ways to "legitimise" or I would say "encourage"
homosexuality.  There are reasons why this should not be done.  They include
the reproductive issue, the importance of family units, the religous
beliefs of the majority of people, and a host of other factors.

>I would expect society's current standards
>of morality concerning affairs, promiscuity, etc... to apply to our
>community just as much, but not more, as it does to the heterosexual
>community.

And I would not.  What is the difference between homosexuality and
promiscuity?  If we tollerate one, as I believe we must, why should
we not tollerate another?

Promescuity is another moral consideration.  In your personal moral
structure, you may value homosexuality and hetrosexuality as equal and
promiscity by either as bad.  That is fine.  But, another
may view homosexuality as bad, but hetrosexual promescuity perfectly
fine. If society should tollerate homosexuals, why shouldn't it tollerate
promescuity?

I think that society should tollerate both, but encourage or
legitimise neither.

>        If you disagree with any of these things, I would be happy to
>discuss them with you. The only thing I ask is that we keep the
>conversation on a calm, rational level.

I hope I have.  If a certain feline member of this list demonstrates that
I have actually said that I love Nazis, i want slavery back, and night
is day, i may vent a little, well-deserved anger at him.

Let me close your post, Derrick, by telling a short story about amycat.
She related a personal note about how reading my posts made her feel.
I wasn't a good feeling.

I told her and I tell you that I do not intentionally cause such pain
but I am aware of how this affects you.  I can argue that I am more
persecuted than you, especially in the academic community where
enlightened & academic seem to conflict with christian & conservative.

My personal hope is that you and others realise the error of your
ways and adopt my religous values on your own accord.  I realise that
you find such a wish derogatory.

But, perhaps I am one of the few people who hold such beliefs,
are capable of articulating them, and are not afraid of the taboo
(again, especially in the academic Politically Correct community)
against speaking ill of homosexuals.

I also see that we have not addressed the issue of violence.
No matter, as we both agree that people who inflict violence
on homosexuals are largely cowards and that they should be
punished strongly.  We might disagree about what causes such violence.
I cannot and do not believe that the things I have said here cause
such violence and should be restricted.  Nevertheless, much of what I
have said here is a violation of my school's speech code.

Another example of how there is no tolleration for my views.

---

From: K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

We don't seem to be communicating ver well. Here are some examples:

>> I was trying to make a point about the elitist standard that homosexuals
>> and some of their supporters try to apply.  My point is that homosexuals
>> don't want equality, they want superiority.

>That might have been a point you *wanted* to make but you miserably
>failed.  The point that you did make was that Dahmer is a role model
>for    homosexuals.  This is absolute nonsense and you did not offer
>any evidence supporting this assertion.

Well, thanks for crawling inside my head and discovering what I was
thinking.  The point I did make is that Dahmer is a homosexual, and
the nonsense about the movie was tantamount to saying that Dahmer
represented homosexuals.

If I wanted to say that Damer was a role model, then why did I
even bring up the movie?

>So you knew that "KAT, you have no sense of humor" answer wouldn't
>work any more and came up with this one.

Don't you think this is a little childish?

>Wrong again!  YOUR God has already punished them with AIDS.

1) He is your God too.
2) God was punishing drug users - homosexuals just got in the way.   :)

[ if you found the last joke in bad taste, then isn't that another example
  of the double standard?  We make jokes about everyone but homosexuals.  ]

3) My God does not punish people in this way.  People are aflicted for a
variety of reasons and people are judged based upon what they do.  Their
punishment is not in this world.
4) KAT, are you steriotyping AIDS as a homosexual-only disease?

>Read our keyboards Jay:  WE ARE NOT STUPID!

Could have fooled me.  In fact, you usually do.

---

From: "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>

>Since I'm now out of irony mode, I'll just observe how neatly Jay
>distorts a complaint about a slander into a reinforcement of that
>slander.

Facts = Slander?

Peter, do you not think I mean what I say?

The homosexuals who complain about this movie are the ones slandering.
The rest is your opinion, provided without explanation.

---

From: doodyhead extraordinaire <GU091AED@ITHACA.BITNET>

>yay, Jay is back.

Good to be missed.

>Here is the deal: Movies like Fried Green Tomatoes, which contains positive
 les-
>   bian characters has those same characters end up on the cutting room floor,
>   so
>that people who have not read  the novel have  no clue there are lesbians  in
>the movie.

haven't seen the movie, haven't read the novel.

See the above list about hollywood's homosexual support.

>The  simple fact is- you  cango  to a movie and see fair representation  of
 your
>   self--I can not.

Name three good-guy conservative Christians in recent movies?

>Jay, you said you wanted to  learn about this issue.   I'm teaching, are you
>there?

Yes, just busy.  Sorry.

---

From: Angela E Taylor <EL406013@BROWNVM.BITNET>

Hi Jay,

>I'm a real lesbian--the existence of which I have heard you have
>doubted in the past. (I'm also Carolyn's partner....& have been
>known to read Politics.)

You are mistaken.  I never denied the existance of homosexuals.
I simply didn't know that there were any among the regular
posters to the list.  I don't know if there are any
black people who regulary post to the list (there may be;
its none of my business and I don't care).  That fact does
not cast doubt on the existance of blacks.

Also none of my business ... does "partner" mean friend
or girlfriend/mate (can I say girlfirnd without upsetting
someone?). I am curious because you seemed to want me
to know.

>Everyone deserves their spot in the psychotic/criminal spotlight,
>however, I think what many find appalling about the nefarious depictions
>of lesbigay folk, is that the sexuality, however, coded is used as
>justification or motivation for the whatever evil said characters do.

I address this above.  I can list a number of hollywood homosexual heros.
How many villians can you name?

>      In "The Homosexual Villain," a tract written in 1954, Norman
>    Mailer acknowledged that in the 40s he himself had equated
>    homosexuality with evil. Mr. Mailer confirmed that a few charac-
>    ters in his early novels were homsexual stereotypes; back then,
>    he said, he believed "that there was an intrinsic relation btwn
>    homosexuality and 'evil.'" It was a time when homsexuality could
>    be used as a plot device to reduce exposition and simplify moti-
>    vation. To contemporary screenwriters and movie makers, who have
>    much less time for exposition than most novelists, the device
>    still works.

The same was true about communists, irish, jews, short people,
and just about any group.

Now it is religion that is a hollywood device to convey evil.

The press release yo then enclosed seems to be a critism of
1) anti-homosexual attitudes and 2) the movie, from a variety of reasons,
such as the fact that it is a rip-off of sea of live.

It primarily makes the argument that many others made (and I have not
repeated), that hollywood lacks positive role models.  This idea is
untrue, as I think I demonstrate in response to Derrick above.

>but with even more sexual titillation (of course, lesbian sex scenes are a
>staple of heterosexual porn, where they are used to titillate straight
>men).

This is true.  I wonder why.

Also, did the homosexual community really give the film a chance?  The furor
was raised by people who had not seen the movie.  It seems suspicious.

---

From: doodyhead extraordinaire <GU091AED@ITHACA.BITNET>

>Really, sometimes I wonder how those of you on the net with anti-gay ideas
>imagine me.  I would love to know.

Let me again remind you that I am not anti-gay.  I am against the
homosexual lifestyle.

Do you really want to know?  Since I don't know you, I can only fill in
with steriotypes, which mainly revolve around the women of Brown
(which is not Ithica, I know).  I am trying to resist froming an opinion
about such things, as I try to remain open-mided.

So, if you like, I can descrive the steriotypes I hold of either Brown women
or homosexuals.  I don't know what value they hold, but if you really
want them (mabye to understand how others see homosexuals...)

I wonder how you see me.

---

At 700 lines, this was a long post, which I guess most people simply
ignored.  The few people who read it alkl are either bored with
the real world or truly interested.  Let me suggest that you take
the necessary time to respond.  It took me a few weeks
to get everything together.

I hope that some knowledge or understanding was passed.  I hope that more
can be exchanged.






Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Type faster."    - Issac Asimov (?-1992), when asked what he would do if he
                    knew he only had six months to live.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU