HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: More Notes from the Decline
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:55:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.211114.11767@oracorp.com> harper@oracorp.com (Douglas Harper) writes:
> . . .
>But it's not a disproof---people can be hypocrites, after all.
>Remember Carl Rowan?
>
>For those of you who missed it, Carl Rowan is a Democrat who has often
>written in opposition to the private ownership of guns in his
>syndicated column, but who owned a gun and pulled it on an intruder.

"Hypocrisy" seems to be a common charge these days, but one should be
careful to get it right.  Did Mr. Rowen say that it was immoral to own
and use guns, or merely that it should be illegal?  If the latter,
then he isn't necessarily a hypocrite.  (I am just asking the question;
I have never read his column although I did see him once on one of those
television programs where people shout and interrupt each other.)

A rich liberal might believe that taxes on the rich should be raised
sky-high, and still (non-hypocritically) keep his money for himself,
choosing not to voluntarily donate it to society until the law imposes
this obligation on others as well.  There was another recent example
of an unsubstantiated charge of hypocrisy involving Dan Quayle and abortion.
From: jzimm@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Joann Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Talk Of The Town
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:16:59 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <2554@ceylon.gte.com> vks0@bunny.gte.com (Vijay Samalam) writes:
>
>A good friend of ours whom we have known 
>for a long time writes to us more in 
>sorrow than in anger :
>
>"The latest issue of The New Yorker blew into
>our house the other day, all tarted up, fat and
>frowzy, reeking of cheap perfume.
>[Much comment, more in sorrow than in anger, deleted here for
considerations of space]
  I am afraid the future does not look good. "

That makes two reviews I've seen, and they would seem to contradict
each other. I'd love to be able to form a personal opinion, but we
canceled our subscription after the Infamous Perfume Ad, and I've
spent the last week trying to find a newsstand copy of the New Yorker,
with no luck. I've checked university bookstores, general bookstores,
and even supermarkets, but to no avail. Should I head over to the
airport, driven by forlorn hope?

(I am, by the way, informed that one may now subscribe and request a
fragrance-free edition. Perhaps this would mollify your friends
somewhat.) 


-- 
"Every passion borders on the chaotic, but the collector's passion
borders on the chaos of memories" 
                                                -- Walter Benjamin
 ...!cs.utexas.edu!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!jzimm   
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Once I put this book down, I could not pick it up again.
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:39:32 GMT

In article <8OCT199218393487@venus.tamu.edu> spb0457@venus.tamu.edu (SubGenius) writes:

>About the worst first-time experiences I've had with books are:
>_Finnegan's Wake_:  First time I tried this monster I was about 15 and
>	woefully ill-equipped to deal with it.

It's much easier to read if you skip over that apostrophe.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: john@slinky.bsd.uchicago.edu (John Lodder)
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prize
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:59:12 GMT

In article <ld8pl8INN3l5@news.bbn.com> ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)  
writes:
> ccsdgdc@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Douglas Clark) writes:
> >Derek Walcott is generally acknowledged to be the finest poet currently
> >writing in English. 
> 
> Excuse me?
> 
> By whom?
> 
> >In English he is a bigger talent than Brodsky.
> 
> I'm willing to grant you that.


In some (mostly continental European) circles isn't Charles Bukowski  
considered the "finest poet" writing in English?  Dunno.  Is there a  
"finest poet" and would they call themselves that?
From: tdlg9831@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tracey Dianne Layng)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Once I put this book down, I could not pick it up again.
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:31:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvrCGL.12B
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

I have two books I could not pick up again. One is _Wuthering Heights_ (I
really detest that book.  The other was _The Dwarf_ by Par Lagerkvist.

Tracey
UIUC
From: chgs02@vaxa.strath.ac.uk (By learning and courtesy)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: RE: Fictitious Fiction
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:46:20 GMT
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster

> 
> Author                  Title                     Fictitious Work
D.E.Stevenson     Miss Buncle's Book                  ?

I think it was something like the Golden Boy, but I'm not sure.
It led to her meeting the nice publisher Mr Abbot, and thence to
books like Miss Buncle Married, and The Two Mrs Abbots.

It is gentle and amusing.

Ann
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: Well Met in Austin!
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:23:03 GMT

Joann Zimmerman writes:

	The Austin cell of the raberati held a meeting on Saturday, October
	10, at 10 a.m. with all current active members (Katherine Catmull and
	myself) in attendance, supplemented by Austin raberatus emeritus Mike
	Godwin, who was in town on (mostly) business.

	[stuff]

	Francis will be disgusted to know that we didn't mention him at all. 

In fact, the Zimmermanic, Catatonic, Godwitless Silence was music to the
Fiducial Ear.

						Fido
From: cruz@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Nancy Cruz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:26:51 GMT
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab

In article <JMC.92Oct7113942@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Surely it is projecting to say that Shakespeare had a vision of
>capitalism.


I'm sorry, what I mean is the values that were evolving that later
became the backbone of capitalism.  I did not mean to imply that
Shakespeare was aware that this was the case, rather that his insight
showed a keen intuitiveness into what was occurring and what was to occuur
(whether he realized it or not).

Nancy


-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Nancy Cruz - a.k.a. "Tensha, the Icewoman" |   New York University    |
|      cruz@lab.ultra.nyu.edu                |Ultracomputer Research lab|
+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Oct6.185617.7585@pbhyc.PacBell.COM>
	<1992Oct7.171638.21954@cmcl2.nyu.edu>
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:39:42

Surely it is projecting to say that Shakespeare had a vision of
capitalism.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The White Man's Burden of Proof - New words!!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<12743@optilink.UUCP> <1bj440INNcu6@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:40:48

How can a post to a newsgroup reek of cowardice?  Since no courage
is required to post, how can a post reek of cowardice.  I suppose
one can fear to offend, but Cramer doesn't seem to suffer from that.

By the way is everyone from Perth given to calling people who disagree
with him fools and worse?  There's a guy, Gil Hardwick, who posts from
Perth on sci.environment, and he also has an arrogant denunciatory
style?  If so, maybe Michael Zeleny would be happier in Perth.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 12 Oct 1992 10:52:53 CDT
From: Cole Kendall <U48073@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Ted Williams (was Re: Baseball etc. etc.)

In article <9OCT92.21292555@vax.clarku.edu>, hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu says:
>
>From: mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto):
>
>>there are a lot of books which discuss the Red Sox.  One of my
>>favorites is THE SUMMER OF '49 -- which discusses the rivalry between the
>>Yankees and the Red Sox.  It concentrates on Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams.
>>Ted Williams was always one of my favorites (and remains the best hitter
>>whom I've ever seen play <thought I'd throw that in to make some of you
>>jealous>).
>
>I am.  Ted is God.  (Or one of them, anyway.)

I had heard much about the career of Ted Williams (being somewhat
younger than Mark, I never saw him play), but I have a hard time
accepting the divinity of the Ted Williams described by Jim Bouton
in _Ball Four_ (which also changed the way I viewed sports and many
other baseball players).

Cole Kendall

P.S. But I was at both the game in which a Mets fan threw a whiskey bottle
at Pete Rose during the playoffs as well as the legendary Disco Demolition
game in Chicago during which a semi-riot occurred.
From: ath@linkoping.trab.se (Anders Thulin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Mervyn Peake's _Titus Alone_
Date: 11 Oct 92 08:58:26 GMT
Organization: Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden

In article <1992Oct4.225739.10864@klaava.Helsinki.FI> amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
>Somebody mentioned Mervyn Peake recently.  Does anybody else think that
>the third part of the Titus Groan series was absolute rubbish? 

It was certainly different from the other two - but that's not
rubbish.  (Ironical, isn't it? Mody Dick was once considered rubbish -
it wasn't at all like Typee or Omoo ...)

Anyway, it seems like the original publisher did some unjustifiable
editing of TA: some very important passages were emendated or simply
removed.

Note: Some passages. Not all. TA *is* different.

-- 
Anders Thulin       ath@linkoping.trab.se 	013-23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
From: wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Only Connect
Date: 15 Oct 1992 06:26:14 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au

mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto) writes:


>wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (John Wojdylo) writes:
> 
>> Mark Taranto writes:
> 
>>> wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (John Wojdylo) writes:
> 
>>>> Does "being connected" in the sense of Forster entail one has to be as
>>>> scatterbrained as Margaret?
> 
>>>> Stupid bitch.
> 
>>> Margaret scatterbrained?  I don't think so.  Perhaps John could point
>>> out some passages which make him believe that she is scatterbrained.
> 
>> Kate was broadminded enough to recognize immediately that I meant Helen,
>> not Margaret.
> 
>> Why weren't you? The scent of blood lead you astray ? Or is it that
>> familiarity (with a novel, with anything) narrows your mind?
> 
>Kate works with politicians, and therefore has experience at understanding
>what people mean when they say something else.  I, on the other hand, usually
>assume that people mean what they say.

So much the worse for them, in cases where a trivial mistake
engages Mark's pedantic leanings to produce screens full of hogwash. 

I.
From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Oates (was: Re: Literature Students/Small World)
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:06:58 GMT
Organization: Clark University


>Vance:
>>
>>Now of course I realize I was being extreme, but I think it's worth
>>our while as readers to ask, "So how accomplished a storyteller can
>>she really be, if she doesn't make me want to read to the end of
>>her stories?"
Barbara:
>Can't we just call this a matter of taste?  I don't share Joyce Carol
>Oates' obsessions, and I find her sensibilities actually repellent at
>times.  At least this is true on the scale of her novels; she has
>written some short stories I quite like.

Have you read "American Appetites"?  I actually *enjoyed* that one,
while I can't claim to have done the same with some of her other
stuff, good as I think it is.  In terms of satire, it reminded me
of "Bonfire of the Vanities".  There were some laughs in it.
Surprised me.

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu
From: wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: letter about writing style (interesting and amusing)
Date: 10 Oct 1992 09:29:56 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au

joan@med.unc.edu (Joan Shields) writes:


>From _Selected Letters of Raymond Chandler_ edited by Frank MacShane

>from a letter to Edward Weeks from RC, January 18, 1943, in regards to an
>article RC wrote for the ATLANTIC MONTHLY (March 1948) called "Oscar Night
>in Hollywood"

>"By the way, would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your
>proofs and tell him or her that I write in a sort of broken-down patois
>which is something like the way a Swiss waiter talks, and that when I
>split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split, and
>when I interrupt the velvety smoothnes of my more or less literate syntax
>with a few sudden words of barroom vernacular, this is done with the eyes
>wide open and the mind relaxed but attentive.  The method may not be
>perfect, but it is all I have.  I think your proofreader is kindly
>attempting to steady me on my feet, but much as I appreciate the
>solicitude, I am really able to steer a fairly clear course, provided I
>get both sidewalks and the street between."

>Thought this was interesting and amusing and just thought I'd share it
>with y'all.

>Joan
>"I could feel her smile in my hip pocket."


Dear Joan,

If your past effort at intellectual sex was such an abject failure, 
what possesses you to try again ?

JW


Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Subject: Re: The White Man's Burd
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 10:36:04 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <515.555.uupcb@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us> ken.mason@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us (Ken Mason)  writes:
>
>        I'm interested to know if there are any other fans of Philip
>        Wylie here.
>

	Question:  Is this the same PW who wrote _An Essay on Morals_.
	This was (~1947-51) an interesting intro to Jung for the layman,
	but what irritated me about the book was that while the guy seemed
	to be consciously imitating Nietzsche style, The Master's name
	is never mentioned once, nor does PW carry it off besides.
	Other than that, I liked this (short) work;  lots of name calling
	and ranting at priests (ala let's see, Genealogy of Morals?).

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: kamorgan@athena.mit.edu (Keith Morgan)
Subject: Re: Once I put this book down, I could not pick it up again.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:54:29 GMT

	Tracey Dianne Layng writes:

>I have two books I could not pick up again. One is _Wuthering Heights_ (I
>really detest that book.  The other was _The Dwarf_ by Par Lagerkvist.

	I read _The Dwarf_ on the recommendation of a friend who
suggested some interesting parallels with Machiavelli's _Prince_. I
can't say it stands on it's own but it's an eerie commentary on
Machiavelli. I would recommend it as a follow-up from _The Prince_.

Keith 
--
Keith Morgan		 |I've always had a secret desire to harangue
kamorgan@athena.mit.edu  |a crowd of people for 10 hours in the
		         |sweltering heat. It's the origin of my
		         |fascination with public language.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Attractiveness (was: Re: She's baaaaack.....Camille Paglia)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 10 OCT 92 00:12:56 GMT


From: kate@cactus.org (Katherine M. Catmull)

In article <3OCT92.15052290@vax.clarku.edu> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>This is not just a "male thing".  If I had to choose between two
>>equally qualified candidates, each with perfectly pleasant personalities,
>>and one of them looked like Mel Gibson and the other like Pete Rose,
>>I would choose the Mel lookalike.  Who wants to spend 8 hours a day
>>working with (and looking at) someone who looks like Pete Rose?
>
>There
>are no two "equally qualified candidates" for anything; there are
>no clones or doppelgangers running around out there.

Don't tell me this!  I have a perfectly nice hypothetical situation
going, and you have to walk in and screw it up!  Thanks a lot.

>To concsiously allow good-looks/non-good looks to be one of the
>deciding factors in hiring an employee seems to me shameful in any
>real-world situation.

Ah yes, the Jockey people behaved so shamefully when they hired Jim
Palmer to pose in his underwear.  

Be careful getting down off the soapbox.

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu
From: janines@novell.com (Janine Schenone)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Literature Students/Small World
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:20:51 GMT
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, California

Michael Wise considers other categories of books:

>Works you liked when you were younger, but don't like now.
>
>Works you didn't appreciate until a professor explained them to you.

Or how about:

I can see this is good, and I like it, and my pleasure is perversely
doubled when I realize that few people would enjoy this:

_Ulysses_

I can see this is one of the best novels ever written, and if
other people don't like it, they are disadvantaged fools (or Republicans):

_A Confederacy of Dunces_
_David Copperfield_
_Bleak House_

Lido


>
>
>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,alt.activism.d,soc.history,soc.culture.indian
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: World culture
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 10 Oct 92 13:49:01

Headline in Moscow News: "Russians Cry over Castro" about a visit
by Castro to Moscow.

It's not exactly what most us would conjecture.  Veronica Castro
is a star in Mexican TV soap operas, especially one called "The Rich
also Cry" which is a hit in Russia.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: Once I put this book down, I could not pick it up again.
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:38:33 GMT

rachel@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us (Rachel M. Kadel) writes:
>My nominee:  _The Scarlet Letter_ by Nathaniel Hawthorne.   

   Try it again after reading D. H. Lawrence's comments on it in Studies
in Classic American Literature.  Might open your eyes.
From: tdlg9831@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tracey Dianne Layng)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Once I put this book down, I could not pick it up.
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:54:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bvtx6M.55u
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

fuller@athena.cs.uga.edu (James P. H. Fuller) writes:

>amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:

>>Well, surely the most unreadable `good' book in English (if one can call
>>it English) is _Finnegans Wake_, right?  Or else _Beowulf_.

>     The greatest interest in this thread is seeing that there *really* 
>is no accounting for taste.  I was about to defend _A Confederacy of
>Dunces_, which I thought was very funny, but I'd rather save that and
>speak up for the Bear-guy.  I LOVE _Beowulf_.  The range of emotional colors
>in _Beowulf_ is exactly the same as in Robert E. Howard's Conan novels,
>which I also love for precisely the same low, bestial reasons.  Beowulf
>and Conan alike transport you back to the days when you *could* solve all
>your major problems with a grunt and a bludgeon.   So sue me.....

>                                             -- jf
I, too, liked _Beowulf_. Especially Grendel's mother. 

Tracey
UIUC
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: kamorgan@athena.mit.edu (Keith Morgan)
Subject: Re: Literature Students/Small World
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 15:20:41 GMT

Ron Nadel writes:

>And that brings me to the other question of my earlier post.  Some of us
>(maybe all of us at one time or another) make the intellectual portion
>a necessary qualification before benediction is passed over a work (the
>Snob Requirement, some might say).  Even though we all appreciate and
>indulge in the "light read" (or is it "lite"?), those books keep that label, 
>and never rise in our esteem to the title "Great".  So for those with the
>Snob Requirement (and I include myself in this category), where does this
>heightened need for the "intellectual" come from?  Why isn't the pleasure
>in its more immediate "gut level" enough?  To the point that we may
>condescend someone else who unabashedly says "I don't know what's good, but
>I know what I like".

	Ron, isn't there a hierarchy of pleasures that has some
relation to the amount of *effort* expended? For example, I gain
pleasure from a bracing walk in the woods; however, were I to climb
Mount McKinley (ha, ha) then my pleasure would be greater due to the
commensurately greater amount of effort involved in attaining that
end. So, because of those greater efforts involved in the mountain
climb, I can put a "benediction" over it that places it in a higher
level of pleasure and of accomplishment. Books are much the same
aren't they? i.e. I gain some pleasure (and diversion) from "lite"
reading but I gain a sense of accomplishment from finishing something
difficult. Perhaps the so-called "canon" is really just that
collection of difficult works, the reading of which we can point to as
evidence of our accomplishment. After all, don't we usually display
these books, somewhat like trophies, as evidence of the feat? As to
the "snob requirement" I view that as an exceedingly natural human
tendency, i.e., differentiating and elevating our accomplishments from
those who haven't the same experience. The nobler aspect of this is
(often) found in r.a.b. where we try to share those experiences with
others. The perverse aspect of this is to recommend long, boring, and
badly written books to others in order to gain some revenge on the
author for writting them.

Keith
 

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Morgan		 	|In literature, as in love, we are 
kamorgan@athena.mit.edu  	|astonished at what is chosen by others.
		         	|	        Andre Maurois
From: wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The White Man's Burden of Proof - New words!!
Date: 7 Oct 1992 05:33:08 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au

Dug Cunt-storm writes:

>In rec.arts.books, wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:

>> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>> 
>> >In rec.arts.books, wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
>> 
>> >> No, that should be "who".  And not `"what."' either.  Mr. Tits-Pronto 
>> >> even gets the definition of catachresis wrong here: had "who" been
>> >> used in place of "whom", the case would have constituted an example of
>> >> "grammatical error", not "catachresis". Lamentable imprecision on the part of 
>> >> Mr. Tits-Pronto.
>> >      ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> >Ooooh, this is awfully clever.
>> 
>> >doug
>> 
>> Oh Dougie, that's so nice of you to say so. Now will you suck my dick?


>Yaaawn.


Hey Duggie, keep your mouth in that position and close your eyes for a
little while.

And don't bite.

I.



Newsgroups: rec.arts.books