HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lbs@tkmhp4.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de (Lech Borkowski)
Subject: Re: Polish complicity - Jewish complicity 
Reply-To: lbs@tkm.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:34:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.045022.29683@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <n72ntl@lynx.unm.edu> osinski@chtm.eece.unm.edu (Marek Osinski) writes:

>>Perhaps the most telling of these witnesses
>>was one Jan Karski, an erstwhile diplomat and member of the Polish
>>Underground [1]. In October 1942, he had deliberately smuggled 
>>himself into the Belzec camp to be able to later testify that he had
>>seen with his own eyes the ongoing exterminations. Soon thereafter
>>he left on a clandestine mission for the West. In England he saw and
>>talked to Eden, Labor leader Greenwood, H. G. Wells, Arthur Koestler,
>>and the editors of all major newspapers; in the USA, in 1943, he saw
>>and talked to Roosevelt, Cordell Hull, Archbishop Spellman, Rabbi
>>Stephen Wise, Felix Frankfurter, Walter Lippman, the New York Times,
>>the Herald Tribune, and so on; in 1944 he published his book, Story 
>>of a Secret State, which became a bestseller; he gave two hundred
>>speeches; travelled, talked, and implored. His failure was total.
>
>Which means what?  Exactly what would have happened if he'd been
>a success? Exactly what did he say?  

 Couple of weeks ago I quoted here from a book by another of Polish
couriers sent to Poland by the government in exile, Jan Nowak
(his original name was Jan Jezioranski, but he used Nowak during
the war). He spoke to many important British and Jewish officials
in London after he returned from Poland. In all the meetings with
the British he talked about the extermination of Jews in Poland
and about other things he was supposed to report.
Thirty years later, when he was allowed to look to the government
archives he found *no reference* to the extermination of Jews
in the reports written by the people he met with. He asks a simple question:

WHY?

 There was *enough* material available to the Allies about
the extermination process. The information was provided by 
those secret couriers, among them was Szmul Zygielbojm
(I don't have the book with me, I hope I am spelling his
name correctly) - a Jewish courier. The information was
also broadcast from Warsaw by the Polish underground. And it
was not some random talk. They provided a lot of data. 

>And suppose, just suppose, that people simply couldn't believe that
>such atrocities were taking place? All kinds of tall stories do crop
>up during wartime; always have.  People of all countries couldn't believe
>the numbers, the methods, the plans of the Holocaust until they saw them
>with their own eyes.  

 See above about the information available to the British
and American governments. 

 Lech Borkowski
lbs@neptune.phys.ufl.edu
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi camps
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:21:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: Princeto.1992Sep29.222111.22015
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep29.143506.13629@walter.cray.com> aleks@cray.com (Aleksander Mazur) writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.162737.25504@galois.mit.edu> lenivch@minkowski.mit.edu (Witold Biedrzycki) writes:

>>In article <1992Sep28.160512.14104@sarah.albany.edu> pawel@tethys.ph.albany.edu writes:

>>>  If you think about the assimilation as a participation in economical
>>>life of the country there were NO FORMAL obstacles for Jews in pre-IIWW
>>>Poland.  Again, you were free to chose your buisness partners
>>>and for both sides it was often seen as a discrimination (for example
>>>in Warsaw's stock market German was spoken until 1923).

>>Not quite. Numerus clausus was a formal obstacle (after all, one cannot
>>practice law without having a law degree). Also, at one point the
>>kosher butchers were close to being licensed out of existence.

>I do not understand how possibly it can happen anywhere. If somebody
>is a kosher butcher and is licensed as a butcher, how can he be
>licensed out ? Should state license kosher butchers separately ?
>That is above and beyond my imagination.

a) In the US, there *are* civil legal restrictions that define the
word "Kosher."  One may not advertise that one's food is kosher unless
one meets certain requirements.  This varies from state to state, of
course.  It's intended to cut down on advertising fraud.

b) Licensing kosher butchers out of existence is not hard at all.  
Kosher butchery is done according to certain procedures.  If licenses
are given only to those who use *different* procedures, there you go.

>>Perhaps someone might have data on government contracts, but I wouldn't
>>be surprised if Gentile businesses were favored (incidentally, this wouldn't
>>be that different from the practices of some US city governments, or
>>the government of Quebec - not that I approfe of eiither).

>I heard about complaints from Jewish community in the US that
>state does not intervene when somebody advertises himself
>as a kosher butcher and it is not completely true. But still

Not true here in New Jersey, I'll tell you that.  The state *does*
intervene.  New York, too.

>it seems to me that state cannot be involved so deeply 
>in those details since there is separation between the state
>and religions. Simply government offices cannot become
>experts in problems of religious nature. I noticed some

Heck, in New York, half of them *are* experts already!  8-)

And why shouldn't there be a few experts on the standards of a large
sector of business?  There are experts in all kinds of fraud at the
State Attorney General's office; why not kosher procedure?

And, no, it has nothing to do with religion per se.  It has to do
with advertising.  The word "kosher" has a specific meaning, just like
the words "orange juice drink."  Why should the state enforce one and
not the other?

Roger
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish
From: aleks@cray.com (Aleksander Mazur)
Subject: Re: Sprawy gospodarcze - prywatny i panstwowy
Date: 28 Sep 92 08:50:55 CDT


In article <90491@netnews.upenn.edu> kkniaz@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Krzysztof W. Kniaz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.150435.28819@walter.cray.com> aleks@cray.com (Aleksander Mazur) writes:
>
>>
>>A. Pindor does not seem to see any difference between words "accusation"
>>and "guilty". Without possibility of accusation nobody would ever be
>>pronounced guilty.So I think before evaluating somebody's posts it is
>>always a good idea to look at own thoughts. As well as before teaching
>>anybody it is always better to learn something. "Do not teach others if you do
>>not want to be taught. Do not judge others if you do not want to be
>>judged" - those maxims should be written above Mr. Pindor's bed to
>>remind him everyday about acceptable norms and standards of modern
>>social behaviour.
>>
>>A. Mazur
>
>A. Mazur exercises his usual meanness. I don't believe he's so
>naive not to see a difference between accusation in the court of law
>and purely political action aimed to destroy someone's credibility.

Someone's credibility rarely is destroyed by accusations, it can be
destroyed however easily by his own procedures. In this particular case
I did not see fair play on the part of the Polish president which because
of the highest office in the state should be expected to play always
fair. On the other hand accusations did not come from drunk bums and 
should be examined with full attention instead 
of blackmail and political revenge. If any evidence however existed
Olszewski and his associates had duty to come forward with them.
Instead of proper actions unconstitutional moves were undertaken
which are dangerous signs on the road to democracy.

>I remember Alek was complaining about bad manners of Poland-L netters,
>who allegedly attack because they don't have arguments. I don't see
>even a trace of discussion (even your favorite genre the meta-) in
>your text, but rather some futile attempt to vindicate - futile because
>I'm sure Andrzej has you in his KILL file anyway.

On the contrary, I pointed out that Mr. Pindor's argument was baseless
because there are always accusations before considering anybody guilty.
If we do not allow accusations to be spelled out its the end of any
order - nobody would be ever guilty, nobody would ever be punished.
In this particular case talking even about any guilt did not seem to be
apropriate because probably it would be highly difficult
to prosecute case of collaboration with secret police. It is
matter of standards expected from the highest office
and president in this particular case aparently failed.
I  have no comment about placing anybody in kill file as it is clearly
personal and rightful decision.-
>
>Krzysztof Kniaz, University of Pennsylvania |Due to circumstances beyond
>Lab for Research on the Structure of Matter |your control, you're master of 
>Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA                |your fate and captain of your soul

A. Mazur
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: On Polish Anti-semitism
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:56:15 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: liver ---> spleen

In article <BvIEvr.HJD@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:

>3. What criteria are you suggesting yourself for deciding  whether someone
>   is a Pole, a Jew  etc.?
>(My personal criterion is that you are what you feel you are).

In a country in which simply being a Jew was enough for others (not all)
to attack you, this personal opinion is about as useless as a toilet-paper
raincoat in Hurricane Andrew.
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
From: wlodek@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Wlodzimierz Kasprzak)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Oplata za Studia: SONDAZ: REPEATED
Summary: Jak jest w Niemczech
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:16:26 GMT
Organization: Regionales Rechenzentrum Erlangen

wilanowski@rsbs0.anu.edu.au writes:
>Wieki temu zamiescilem na sieci artykul konczacy sie pytaniem:
>> JAK WYGLADA SPRAWA ODPLATNOSCI ZA STUDIA I OPIEKE MEDYCZNA W INNYCH KRAJACH?
>  [tj. poza Australia]
>Nadeszly w sumie dwie odpowiedzi na temat, obie z Australii. Dziekuje za nie,
>CZY NAPRAWDE NIE MA W SIECI NIKOGO SPOZA AUSTRALII? A MOZE CI SPOZA AUSTRALII
>NIE UMIEJA PISAC O NICZYM TYLKO O ZYDACH, OBOZACH KONCENTRACYJNYCH ITP.?
>Tomek Wilanowski

Na tak wyrazne zyczenie trzeba cos odpowiedziec. Nie jestem wielkim specjalista
w sprawach studenckich, wiec moge dostarczyc tylko kilku podstawowych 
informacji o sytuacji w Niemczech w tej dziedzinie. 

1. Studia sa bezplatne. Oplaca sie jedynie semestralnie na samorzad studencki.
2. Student jest zobowiazany do ubezpieczenia sie zdrowotnego. Jednolita stawka
w kazdej ubezpieczalni. Jezeli student pobiera tzw. BAFOG, czyli stypendium
od panstwa, to jest mu doplacana skladka ubezpieczenia. Student do 24 roku
zycia moze byc ubezpieczony w ramach ubezpieczenia rodzicow.
3. Student moze uzyskac stypendium (BAFOG). Jego wysokosc uzalezniona jest od
dochodu rodzicow. Stypendium nalezy splacic po studiach. Mozna je splacic
w jednej racie, wtedy uzyskuje sie duza ulge. Jesli nie, to splacanie
rozpoczyna sie w 5 lat po skonczeniu studiow, chyba ze sie jest bezrobotnym.
Kwota kredytu jest nisko oprocentowana.

Ogolnie o opiece medycznej. Kazdy zatrudniony osiagajacy dochody ponizej
pewnego poziomu musi byc ubezpieczony zdrowotnie. Wysokosc skladki waha sie
w zaleznosci od kasy chorych. Najnizsza jest zwykle w zakladowych kasach.
Ubezpieczony oplaca efektywnie tylko polowe skladki, gdyz polowe zwraca mu
pracodawca.

wk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish
From: lenivch@maclaurin.mit.edu (Witold Biedrzycki)
Subject: Re: Danzig
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 13:49:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.145705.11546@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>One of the highlights of the book "The Tin Drum" is the tragicomic
>scene of the battle over the central post-office (or somehting
>like that) in Danzig.
>
>The battle doesn't seem to be between Germans and Poles, but between
>two rival Polish forces. What exactly happened there? I would be
>gratefull for a short explanation.
>
>-Danny Keren.
>
Poland operated its own post office in the Free City of Danzig. There was
a battle between Germans and Poles on September 1, 1939 and Poles were
later on executed in violation of Geneva convention. More on that
execution can be found in "Crimes on POWs" by Szymon Datner (Polish
title: "Zbrodnie Wehrmachtu na jencach wojennych w czasie drugiej wojny
swiatowej"). A very interesting book, devoted entirely to crimes committed
by Wehrmacht; it seems to be popular nowadays to blame SS only and present
Wehrmacht as the good guys. By the way, Datner is Jewish.

Witold Biedrzycki
From: hemur@gruc11.nor.chevron.com (Michael Murat)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Bogurodzica (The Mother of God)  ca. 1407
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:25:27 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Oct3.215939.17468@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>, amlsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Andrew Smith) writes:
|> 
|> Greetings,
|> 
|> I was hoping that someone out there could help me. I am searching for
|> the music and words to Bogurodzica (The Mother of God). I am told that
|> it is a Polish war hymn from about 1407. I have a poor photocopy of the
|> doccument from "Outline History Poland", but nothing more. 
|> 
|> Can anyone help!
|> 
|> 
|> Andrew Smith
|> amlsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca

Modernised version of Bogurodzica:

Bogurodzica

Bogurodzica dziewica, Bogiem slawiena Maryja,
U twego syna Gospodzina matko zwolena, Maryja!
Zyszczy nam, spusci nam.
Kyrieleison.

Twego dziela Krzciciela, bozycze,
Uslysz glosy, napeln mysli czlowiecze.
Slysz modlitwe, jaz nosimy,
A dac raczy, jegoz prosimy:
A na swiecie zbozny pobyt,
Po zywocie rajski przebyt.
Kyrieleison.

translation by David Welsh (Monumenta Polonica,1989) :

Mother of God

O Mother of God, Virgin blessed by God, Maria!
With your son, our Lord, O mother chosen, Maria!
Intercede for us, send Him to us.
Kyrie Eleison.

For the sake of thy Baptist, O Son of God,
Hear our voices, grant the wishes of men
Hear the prayer which we offer
And deign to give what we ask,
On earth a happy sojourn,
And after life to reside in paradise.
Kyrie Eleison.


Sorry I don't have the music available to accompany this text.
This version is based on the Cracow text dating from 1407.
According to the Polish historian Jan Dlugosz, the Bogurodzica was
sung at the Battle of Grunwald in 1410.  Later during the Jagellonian
period it was sung at official events as a 'national anthem'.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish
From: stoer@hal.nta.no (Stoer Mechthild FNT)
Subject: Re: Mniejszosci
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 16:03:28 GMT

W swoim artykule <BvDz9p.Ev4@epix.rrze.uni-erlangen.de> o niemieckiej prasie
Wlodzimierz Kasprzak porusza tez sprawy azylanckie w Niemczech.
Jesli go dobrze rozumiem, oskarza on politykow o to,
ze dyskutuja nad zmiana zapisu w konstytucji 
o indywidualnym prawie czlowieka do azylu
i o instrumentalne traktowanie tego tematu.

Tu mam nieco inne zdanie.
Wedlug naszej konstytucji 
"kazdy politycznie scigany (sp?) ma prawo na azyl."
Tak to stoi w konstytucji bez zadnych zastrzezen rodzaju
"detali sa regulowane przez kodeks xxx".
To prowadzilo do sytuacji, ze kazdy wynoszacy slowo "azyl"
mogl zostac w kraju, dostal mieszkanie 
(nedzne, w 4-6 w jednym pokoju) i pieniadze (bardzo malo),
i mogl (albo musial) czekac na rostrzygniecie jego proszenia.
Ponadto mial prawo odwolac sie do wyzszych instancji,
kiedy od razu nie otrzymal azylu.
Piekny system, ale przy stale rosnacej liczby proszacych o azyl
czekanie i odwolanie do 2-3 sadow zajmowalo przecietnie dwa lata,
tak ze nie mozna bylo potem nieszczesliwych petentow wracac do ich krajow. 

Juz dlugo przed zjednoczeniem Niemiec stalo sie jasne, ze ten system musial
byc poprawiany, tak ze juz na granicy byloby mozna odprawiac
niektorych z powrotem.
(Bylo nawet troche polskich petentow o azyl w 1990 roku!
Czemu ich nie zaraz wracac do Polski?)
Tak koszary sie pelnily, powstaly swoiste getta,
petenci nie mieli prawa pracowac i wloczyli sie po miasta,
spreciw sasiedzstwa rosl, a politycy nic a nic nie robili.
Tylko kiedy powstala partia skrajnie prawicowa,
inne partie tez zajmowaly sie tym tematem, ale bez hasla
"precz z obcokrajowcami".

Pol roku temu obiecano przyspieszyc azylanckie sadownictwo,
ale brakowalo urzedownikow, i kolejna fala petentow
(tym razem z Rumunii) uniemozliwila przyspieszenie.

Wedlug mnie politycy calkiem slusznie zajmuja sie zmiana konstytucji
(albo raczej wprowadzeniem zastrzezen). Tylko bardzo pozno to robia.
I teraz, na tle wydarzen w Rostockie i indziej,
wyglada na to, jakby przyznawaja racje uzywaniu przemocy.
Ja w zmianie konstytucji calkowicie nie widze 
"instrumentalnego traktowania" obcokrajowcow.
Juz w imie niebezpieczenstwa azylantow
ten system musi byc zmieniony.
Moze sposob argumentowania nie pasuje do sytuacji.
Tu Wlodzimierz moze miec racje.

Jeszcze inna sprawa:
To nie jest tak, ze niemiecka demokracja nie panuje nad wybuchami nienawisci.
Specjalne policyjne akcje sa przeprowadzone we wszystkich landach
(w ramach istniejacego bardzo miekkiego prawa);
Sachsen-Anhalt kierowal wniosek o zaostrzenie prawa
zatrzymania demonstrantow do Bonn przy zezwoleniu tamtejszej socjaldemokracji;
zaczynaja tajne akcje przeciwko grupowaniom neonazistoskim
(znow w ramach za miekkiego prawa).
Rzady landow reaguja ostro. Tylko bardzo pozno.
Wcale nie siedza cicho i ciesza sie wydarzeniami.

Matylda

Mechthild.Stoer@nta.no


Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish
From: matthew@stats.mu.oz.au (Maciek Blasikiewicz)
Subject: Re: Oplata za Studia: SONDAZ
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:38:38 GMT

wilanowski@rsbs0.anu.edu.au writes:

>nauka na
>wszystkich poziomach jest dla obywateli Australii bezplatna, czesnego tutaj nikt
>nie placi.

Nie tak. Za kazdy kurs na uniwersytecie panstwo zapisuje danej osobie
dlug (nazywa sie to Higher Education Contribution Scheme), ktory moze
byc splacony natychmiastowo przez dana osobe (zacheta na co jest znizka
20% (czy cos w tym rodzaju), lub ktory bedzie sciagany od danej osoby
pozniej (jak zacznie pracowac) droga podatkowa: jezeli dana osoba ma
taki dlug, i jej zarobki przekraczaja srednia krajowa, to dana osoba
musi placic o 1% czy 2% (czy cos w tym rodzaju) wiekszy podatek, az
splaci calosc dlugu.  Oczywiscie, dlug jest oprocentowany, ale w
wysokosci inflacji.

Dlug za dany kurs przewaznie nie pokrywa kosztow kursu (za caly czwarty
rok inzynierii w 1989 panstwo uznalo, ze student powinien splacic okolo
$A 2500, co jest mala czescia kosztow).

Niektorzy studenci dostaja ulgi i dlugu nie maja: panstwo daje iles ulg
uniwersytetowi, a ten wybiera studentow (na przyklad, postgraduate by
research), ktorzy te ulgi dostana.

Calkiem mi sie taki system podoba. Jezeli sie slabo zarabia, to nic sie
nie placi, a jak sie zarabia duzo, bo sie ma wyzsze wyksztalcenie za
koszty ktorego zaplacilo panstwo, to sie placi troche wiekszy podatek -
wcale nie niesprawiedliwie. Ludzie mysla zanim sie zapisuja tu i tam,
po pare razy, i dbaja wiecej o to aby nie powtarzac. Po prostu, mniej
sie lekcewazy cos, za co trzeba (kiedys) zaplacic.


MB
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish
From: aleks@cray.com (Aleksander Mazur)
Subject: Hipoteza o relacjach zbiorow
Date: 29 Sep 92 08:35:54 CDT



Po przeczytaniu roznych wzajemno-przedwojennych reportazy historycznych
zastanawialem sie, skad sie wziela taka rozbieznosc dokonanych ocen.
Niewatpliwa przyczyna tego byly rozbiezne punkty widzenia, ktore
musialy prowadzic do niezupelnej zbieznosci konkluzji. Ale to jeszcze
nie tlumaczy rozbieznosci ocen. Przeciez istnieje zasadnicza roznica
pomiedzy niezupelna zbieznoscia konkluzji a zupelna rozbieznoscia ocen.
I wowczas zrozumialem, ze badacze tych wydarzen nie przeprowadzili
odpowiednich badan naukowych nad relacjami zbiorow, co stalo sie
zasadniczym zrodlem ich rozbieznosci. W tych badaniach najbardziej
zaskakujace rezultaty zostaly uzyskane z bardzo prostego doswiadczenia
naukowego. Otoz obok siebie ustawiono dwa zbiory A i B. Kiedy zbior A
hurmem zakrzyknal "I hate you", wowczas zbior B odpowiedzial "I hate you
too". Nastepnie zbior A sie wyrazil "I hate you more" na co uslyszal
choralna odpowiedz "I hate you more too". I te wlasnie wyniki badan
pozwolily na ostateczne sformulowanie mojej Naukowej Hipotezy. Glosi
ona, ze w dwustronnych relacjach obie strony osiagaja optymalny poziom
wzajemnej nienawisci, ktory najbardziej obu stronom odpowiada i w ktorym
obie strony czuja sie najbardziej komfortowo. I dlatego tak trudno jest
cokolwiek zmienic poniewaz na ogol niezwykle trudno jest znalezc
cokolwiek lepszego od optimum.
Dlugo sie zastanawialem, czy napisac Kolezenstwu z jakim przyjeciem
spotkala sie moja Hipoteza. A to dlatego, ze bedac z natury skromnym
nie moge pisac o sukcesach bez zazenowania. Taki juz jestem i nic
na to nie poradze. Ale w koncu pomyslalem sobie, ze co tam, a niech
tam, moze moja radosc jeszcze na innych splynie i jeszcze bardziej
ich oswieci. Ale mimo wszystko pisze to z najwyzszym zazenowaniem
i skrepowaniem. Otoz przez caly czas dostaje coraz wiecej niezwykle
entuzjastycznych recenzji od tych wszystkich osrodkow badawczych,
ktore zdazyly sie juz z moja Hipoteza zapoznac. I chcialbym nadmienic,
ze do najbardziej skromnych ocen naleza sformulowania o unikalnym
a zarazem ponadczasowym znaczeniu tej Hipotezy. Wiecej nie moge
napisac poniewaz sie wzruszylem.


Aleksander Mazur
From: michals@fuw.edu.pl (Michal Szleper)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish
Subject: To Roman Budzianowski
Date: 6 Oct 92 08:55:09 GMT
Organization: Warsaw University Physics Dept.

Roman Budzianowski writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.095857.12587@fuw.edu.pl>, michals@fuw.edu.pl (Michal Szleper) writes:
>
>> >I certainly hope that this is not representative of the Polish
>> >viewpoint on this issue.
>
>> I'm affraid it is.
>
>Since when Michal, you represent Polish point of view ? This was a rethorical question which
>doesn't have to be answered. 

First, I don't see any *question* in the above.  I have just expressed
my opinion based on my 25 years of contacts with different Poles.  To
your information, I am also a Pole, so any single point of view of mine is
also a Polish one.  And I certainly have the right to answer to anything
I want without having to ask your permission.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|     My opinions are my opinions.   But facts are those of everyone.     |
+------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|     Michal~ Szleper                |     "All you need is love, love,   |
|     (michals@fuw.edu.pl)           |      Love is all you need..."      |
+------------------------------------+------------------------------------+