Conference tallis::celt

>	Remarkable that in sensitive areas such as BERLIN, British 
>	soldiers never seem to slip up. 


	In Berlin, of course, the considerate officials of the German 
Democratic Republic have thoughtfully provided a large wall around 
their border to help guide perplexed foreign troops.  The fact that 
this has seriously inconvenienced certain members of the population of 
the Workers' Paradise has not swerved the East Germans from their 
public-spirited act.

    according to a friend of mine, you can still be on the "safe" side
    of the wall, and yet be in the east zone in a few places...sometimes
    you don't find out until it's kind of late...

    A wall may stop people walking across, but helicopters could still
    pass over that is if a map reading error occurred. Strange that
    any error map reading or otherwise can usually be seen as providing
    an advantage and rarely the contrary. How many people have suddenly
    been abducted in the Republic only to find themselves mysteriously
    dumped in the north just before a "passing" police patrol arrests
    them? Maybe Charlie H. will not be so tolerent of cross-border
    intrusions!    

    Fergal is right. The Brits often stray across the border and claim
    they made a mistake. I don't know if anybody remembers the time
    when 11 S.A.S. men were cought by the Irish Army and allowed to
    return under armed escort back to N.I. At the time as my father
    and I said "Let them walk back". I wonder what would have happened
    them. Of course Garret, the Brit was in power so they lived to fight
    another day. They should have died. They were not in the Republic
   for nothing. Long live Charlie and I hope he helps the boys.
    
    
    Slan agus beannacht
    
    Rene an buachail o Eireann

    Some incredible revelations of covert Brit activity in the '70s
    have come into the news in the past week.  Two ex-members of Brit
    military intelligence have alleged:
    
    	infiltration of the Gardai
    
    	collaboration with certain members of the Gardai
    
    	abduction and assasination of known Republicans
    
    	Brit involvement in the Dublin bombings (26 people killed)
    
    None of this has of yet been substatiated, but it fits a pattern
    which has been unravelling over the past year.  
    
    /Dermot

    Ref .5
    
 >    None of this has of yet been substatiated, but it fits a pattern
 >    which has been unravelling over the past year.  

    It would fit the pattern wouldn't it - most unsubstantiated rumours
    do or there's not much point repeating them.
    
    Put up or shut up
    
    Jay

    re: .6
    
    You are exhibiting patterns of the Brit Bully Boy (BBB).  The BBB
    has attempted to quash and muffle all information which exposes
    their dirty war in Ireland during the past 20 years.  Their ruthless
    attempt at a military victory has been unsuccessful and now that the
    climate of opinion has changed in England, more and more of the
    real truth will come out.
    
    The Birmingham Six
    
    The Guildford Four
    
    The Maguire Family
    
    The Stalker Affair
    
    Strip Searching
    
    Plastic-bullet murders
    
    Shoot-to-kill policy
    
    All of these entail human tragedy for the victims.
    
    /Dermot

    Ref .6
    
    11 S.A.S. men catured in the Republic. They should have been shot.
    The Brits cross the border regularly. Remember Captain Nirak or
    something like that. He got what he deserved.
    
    Cross and they shall be executed.
    
    Slan agus leabhair Geilge mar se do thoil e. Sasanach
    
    Rene

re .8:    "Cross and they shall be executed."

Whew!  Do most of the Irish feel this way?  I'd had the impression that, 
even in wartime, captured enemy soldiers are not generally executed.  In 
fact, I had a distinct impression that doing so would constitute a war crime.
Does anyone care about war crimes, anymore?  Or does a noble cause justify
any act?

	Larry Seiler

PS:  Note that I'm not defending anything the British do in or around Ireland.

    re .9. Larry, the difference is that they come across to assinate
    and abduct people to N.I. This is a violation of soveirgn terrority
    and therfore this is the reason for my attitude.
    
    They do treat "Irish prisioners of war" in a kind way, they shoot
    on sight and to kill.
    
    If they cross they know what they are letting themselves in for
    and they know what their fate is.
    
    
    Rene

    Come on Rene', give it a break, there's poetic licence and there's
    poetic licence, let's try and not get carried away by it all. Apart
    from it all if the INLA continue with their "in-fighting" there
    won't be anyone left to be "Irish prisoners of war".
    
    Drew
    

    I'll second that!!!
    
    Gerry

    enough!
    

    < Note 140.9 by RGB::SEILER "Larry Seiler" >

>Whew!  Do most of the Irish feel this way?  I'd had the impression that, 
>even in wartime, captured enemy soldiers are not generally executed.  In 
>fact, I had a distinct impression that doing so would constitute a war crime.

 Larry,
    	Several IRA volunteers have been summarily executed by undercover
    hit-squads up to very recently.  This is a fact.  An inquest has
    been going on in Strabane for several weeks now where it is quiet
    obvious that the British have concocted a series of ludicrous lies
    to cover up their dirty work. 

    re: would-be censors

    I would suggest that if you have anything to add in the way of argument
    or debate then please use that method rather than  one-line and
    one-sided useless comments.

    			--Dermot

    
    This topic is exhibiting quite a lot of patriotic feelings towards
    Ireland and making a lot of accusations against the British.
    
    I am English.
    
    If the accusations made are true, I think we are generally unaware of
    them here, certainly they do not get reported in the press. I vote in
    the elections and so want to see a government carrying out my wishes,
    and that does not include illegal assassinations of foreigners ( <set
    irrational outburst/on> even if those foreigners do come to my country,
    claim unemployment and bomb us - <set irrational outburst/off>). 
    
    So, how about a few substantiated FACTS. I see lots of fervour, "...it
    is quite obvious that..." etc. These I can provide in plenty from the
    other view (see my brackets above). However they do not convince the
    people who want to make up their own minds, they only reinforce the
    views of the converted. Maybe that is your purpose, maybe you feel
    indignant and want to let off steam. However, be aware that you are
    unlikely to convince the reasoning people by this technique, and if you
    object to these supposed acts (and let's assume them to be true for the
    purpose of my point), surely the way to stop them is by getting
    reasoning English voters on your side by reasoned arguement. The
    bombings and "propoganda" propogated by the Nazis in the 2nd world war
    did not change the British peoples/governments mind, will you? 

    I happen to think that some of the things you accuse the British of may
    be happening, that is how the army has worked in the past and I see no
    reason why it MAY not be continuing. Is it proven? I think not. Is it
    happening at the level you insinuate? I do not know. I do think you are
    encouraging a viewpoint which says it is ok to kill people of another
    nationality under certain circumstances. That I do not subscribe to. 

    Jay

    re .15:
    
    Ok.
    
    What I have to add is this: I have travelled in Europe and the USA
    and lived in the UK and Canada, and been exposed to all sorts of
    half-baked notions as to what the situation is, and what problems
    exist, in Ireland. I have seen 16-year-olds from Dumfermline who
    were willing to "go over and die for Ireland". I have seen American
    Irish who were willing to start a fight with myself and my colleagues
    because we did not subscribe to their idea of what
    nationalism/patriotism is. It saddens me to see those situations.
    And when I see the same thing beginning to happen here, I am prompted
    to voice my opinion which, being a democratic forum, I believe I
    am entitled to do. If that is not the case, enlighten me, and I
    will speak no more.
    
    As to onesided.....Is that not what much of the discussion has been
    so far?
    
    Yours etc,
    Mike
    

Those who are passionately attacking the British in this note missed
(or ignored) a question I asked in .15.  I guess I was too subtle, so
I'll try again.

Every reply in this note that advocates atrocities against the British 
(eg shooting British soldiers without warning when Ireland is not at war
with Britain) starts and ends with the statement that the British are also
committing atrocities.  

Now, I'm not denying that the British are committing atrocities - I'm
convinced that some are (if not the British soldiers, then at least
groups of private citizens).  And I'm not denying that the Catholic
minority in the north are being denied economic and political power
(even a TV show produced by the BBC said so).  

But here's my question: Do you really believe that atrocities committed 
against you justify atrocities in return?  And if you do, do you think this 
is a path likely to bring peaceful co-existence between people of Irish 
and people of English background in Northern Ireland?  Or if you don't care 
about peaceful co-existence, do you think it likely that atrocities in 
return are going to reduce the number of atrocities committed against you?

	Larry, neither English nor Irish, nor descended from either

PS - I for one would appreciate hearing from the patriots just what their
long range goals are (presumably reuniting Northern Ireland with Ireland),
what actions they support with respect to their goals, and how they expect
those actions to achieve their goals.  That could be a constructive debate,
and would hopefully keep us away from accusations and personal insult.  

    re: 16 
    
	Britain has no right to be in any part of Ireland.  Full stop.
    That's all you need to know.
    
    re: .17
    
    	Your experiences are irrelevant to the point raised here.  There
    are at least as many anti-republican arguments as others in this
    forum.  Ireland's major problem is the partition of the country
    and the British military presence.
    
    re: .18
    
    	Peaceful coexistence between Ireland and England is to be welcomed.
    However it will not come about before the demilitarization of Ireland.
    I look forward to that day.
    
    --Dermot

re: .19
    
>    	Peaceful coexistence between Ireland and England is to be welcomed.
>    However it will not come about before the demilitarization of Ireland.

I believe you.  But that wasn't my question.  There are now people of both
Irish and English BACKGROUND in Northern Ireland.  Unless you plan to either
wipe out, force out, or oppress the people of English background in Northern
Ireland, then you have got to co-exist with THEM, as well as with England.

How do you propose to do this?  

	Larry

    There are people of English background all over the world,
    we even have a few left here and most are doing just fine.

    Ref .19
    
>   re: 16 
>   
>   Britain has no right to be in any part of Ireland.  Full stop.
>   That's all you need to know.

    Not a lot of point trying to discuss anything with Dermot is there?
    
    Jay

    Leaprechauns will discuss it, discussion involves LISTENING.
    
    Re .18 and one since,
    The voice of reason from a neutral party. 
    Let me try to point out some political realities with regard to
    Ireland, by way of setting the backcloth for discussion.
    1. Ireland is a small island that was/is ruled and influenced for
       seven centuries by its very powerful neighbour. This influence
       will always be present in terms of language, economy, social
       & cultural movements etc. Today though, that influence includes
       political control of a part of that island, a control that HAS
       TO MAINTAINED by the force of arms.
    
    2. Ireland has always resisted and fought against the political
       control of its affairs by its nearest neighbour right down through
       the centuries. Britain has always felt hurt and betrayed by this
       lack of co-operation and by our willingness to enlist any enemy
       of Britain to help us remove their influence. The British response
       has always been to militarise the situation to supress the political
       desires of the Irish. There was one other important method used
       to "pacify" the Irish and that was to run them out and supplant
       them with those of the pro-British persuasion. THis is what almost
       succeeded in Northern Ireland, (you probably knew that).
    
    3. Since the American & French revolutions the Irish have adopted
       the republican ideal and those ideals are reflected in the Irish
       constitution. The republican ideal in at the very HEART of
       Democracy. (Some people think that Democracy is the basis of
       republicanism, whereas it is actually the other way around)
       Republicanism is a word that is now mis-used in Ireland to describe
       the militant anit-British movement, and the word set up against
       "republicanism" is DEMOCRACY, a total abuse of the two terms
       in my opinion.
    
    4. Today the popular phrase is that "the Unionist (pro British)
       people of Northern Ireland do not wish to be part of the republic
       and that is their stated democratically expressed wishes."
       That phrase and one like is peddled around the globe by the
       Unionists and by their British government. THAT PHRASE AND ONE
       LIKE IT IS AN ABUSE, AND A LIE.
       My justification for that accusation is clear : Ireland is an
       island and a small one. IT IS A GEOGRAPHICAL AND A POLITICAL
       WHOLE. Democracy is something that when applied, MUST be applied
       to the island not to a contrived majority in a small corner thereof.
       Any other use of the word "democracy" is an ABUSE, and a political
       lie. The statelet of Northern Ireland is a political contrivance
       or an ARTIFICE, so created to have a large majority in favour
       of the British connection in that corner of the country. That
       contrived majority (and its shrinking rapidly, even there), is
       but 19-20% of the entire island population.
    
    5. The abuses of Democracy perpetrated by the Unionists in their
       corner of Ireland on those who disputed their use of those abuses
       is well documented, and it is those very crimes against democracy
       that has recalled the British military presence into Northern
       Ireland. British justice and sense of fair play was receiving
       bad international press. Britain went back in, but decided to
       stay and to PROP UP with guns and armour, their (British) form
       of democracy, something which was unacceptable to most Irish
       people in the first place. The British think that Northern Ireland
       is a BRITISH problem with an Irish dimension, whereas it is an
       IRISH problem with a Britsh dimension. Britain consistently refuses
       take that approach. In other words BRITAIN IS NOT THE ARBITRER
       OF AN IRISH PEACE AS SHE PORTRAYS HERSELF. The Irish are the
       arbitrers of the Irish peace and Britain is but a participant.
       Sooner or later this political reality will dawn in Whitehall.
    
    6. The framework of peace in Ireland will be found in the very basis
       of constitutional republicanism. For protections for minorities
       are the essence of republicanism. Unionists are BIG fish in an
       Irish constitutional arrangement, but they are SPRATS in the
       pond of British feudalism. THe Irish balance of power will alter
       dramatically with the advent of the north of Ireland into the
       republic. Something that will not suit the more avid supporters
       of a united Ireland politically. POWER is the lever that has
       for many centuries lain in the firm grasp of the Unionists and
       their like-minded British comrades, The Unionist fear that when
       the power that they wielded will pass to the other side, that
       it will be used on them in the same way that used in the past
       on others. It would seem that the outwardly devout and religious
       moguls of Unionism never learned the well known tenet from the
       Bible they constantly thump, "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE
       THEM DO UNTO YOU".
    
    Snake was long-winded, but I hope reasoned.
    

    re: .23
    
    Hi Snakoid (I'll bet you slither well too),
    						while I doubt if you
    could be cast as a 'neutral party', I read your points with
    interest and am disappointed on some counts. While you and I may
    agree to disagree on the overall scenario of the tragic happenings
    in Ireland, your points seem to follow the same path as many that
    have gone before. Much emphasis on past historical events which
    come to the unrevokable conclusion that Ireland will be united under
    republican constitution. But HOW CAN IT BE ACHEIVED PEACEFABLY and
    without detriment to any Irishman and woman and to the social,
    economic and cultural prospects of island as whole. 'Troops/Brits
    out' and 'No Pope' (not quotations from Snake) are not the answer.
    
    Finally, most disappionting of all were the two sentences in your
    last point beginning 'POWER is the lever....', which did not
    seem to me to be the 'voice of reason from a neutral party', more
    a thinly veiled threat that when unification comes Unionists 
    (and perhaps Protestants) will get what's coming to them.
    
    As Topol remarked if you all go for 'an eye for an eye, a tooth
    for a tooth' you'll all soon be blind and toothless!
    
    Don H.           

    leaprechaun is misread once more.
    
    Re .-1
    When I refferred at the beginning of -2 to the neutral party, I
    did not refer to meself but to the author odf .18.
    I of course am not neutral, but I hope reasoned. I realise that
    you misinterpreted the start of that note, what I don't know
    is HOW.  :-) :-)
    
    Snake does not use veiled threats only real ones.
    

I'm posting the offline response I've given to Larry's queries on 
this topic.


Larry,
	Here are some answers to the questions raised in your 
mail.

>I believe you.  But that wasn't my question.  There are now people of both
>Irish and English BACKGROUND in Northern Ireland.  Unless you plan to either
>wipe out, force out, or oppress the people of English background in Northern
>Ireland, then you have got to co-exist with THEM, as well as with England.

Yes, all the peoples of Ireland will have to learn to co-exist.   
Any future administration or political set-up which does not take 
that into account is doomed to failure.  I would say that just as 
the existence of discrimination and privilege helped to bolster 
up the six-county state by setting off Irishmen against Irishmen, 
so will the absence of those evils help in the reconciliation of 
all the people on this island.  The real hard work starts the day 
Britain disengages her forces.

There are people of several racial and religious backgrounds in 
Ireland and all should be treated equally.  For instance, should 
the Irish, or British, or Germans in the U.S. be allowed to set 
up statelets which are subservient to the European country of
origin? I think you will agree that the idea is ridiculous.

One important aspect of this conflict which should be in the 
foreground is Britain's role in all this.  I will ask two simple 
questions:

Has the division between Irishmen benefited the Irish people?
Has that division helped the British retain her influence in Ireland?

>How do you propose to do this?  To me, that is the key question regarding
>Northern Ireland, since a united Ireland that includes a protestant version
>of the IRA, fighting for their own "freedom", seems to me the inevitable
>result of failing to answer this question.  From the point of view of an
>outsider, that hardly seems like an improvement.

And it wouldn't be an improvement.  As I've stated above the 
new political system has to be devised and agreed by all the 
inhabitants of this island.  Britain's only honourable role here 
is to declare her intention of withdrawing militarily and 
politically from Ireland and facilitating the process of 
de-colonisation.

>By the way, the Anglo-Irish accord does give Ireland some control over
>Northern Ireland, and opens the door for Ireland getting complete control
>at some future time, if Ireland can only get 50% of the people of Northern
>Ireland to want to be part of Ireland.  But oddly enough, militants on
>both sides oppose this treaty.  Could it be that the militants have no
>interest in peaceful co-existance?  Could it be that the IRA and INLA,
>just as much as Rev. Ian Paisley, want their own group to be in control
>and don't care about the rights of the others who share their land?

The agreement is open to several interpretations, only one of
which you mention above.  The accord legitimizes a basic 
injustice, namely the partition of the country and the British 
presence.  Any agreement based on that fundamental injustice does 
not tackle the real problem.  It remains to be seen how 
successful this accord proves to be.

regards,

--Dermot

re .23:

Thanks for your compliment.  I try hard to be so.

>    3. Since the American & French revolutions the Irish have adopted
>       the republican ideal and those ideals are reflected in the Irish
>       constitution. The republican ideal in at the very HEART of
>       Democracy. (Some people think that Democracy is the basis of
>       republicanism, whereas it is actually the other way around)
    
Could you please explain the difference?  My dictionary (American Heritage,
not very good although standard DEC issue over here) doesn't really
distinguish the two terms.

>       Ireland ... IS A GEOGRAPHICAL AND A POLITICAL
>       WHOLE. Democracy is something that when applied, MUST be applied
>       to the island not to a contrived majority in a small corner thereof.

Well, this seems a dubious claim.  Ireland has not been a geographical or
political whole for 70 years?  While I am now convinced that the island
should be re-united into one country, you *don't* just toss aside a
70 year separation at the drop of a hat, certainly not when there's so much
bad blood between partisans of the two sides.  According to a southern
friend of mine, it is only in recent times that the South really felt itself
part of our Union again, and the Civil War was in the 1860's!  To peacefully
join NI and Ireland is going to take a long time.  The choices are either
to join them by some form of conquest, and then work on making things
peaceful (don't expect it in your lifetime), or to take a more gradual
approach that may leave NI outside of Ireland for a longer time, but
more quickly achieves the goal of producing a united people, rather than
a country consisting of Ireland and NI.  But more on this in my next note.

>    6. The framework of peace in Ireland will be found in the very basis
>       of constitutional republicanism. For protections for minorities
>       are the essence of republicanism. Unionists are BIG fish in an
>       Irish constitutional arrangement, but they are SPRATS in the
>       pond of British feudalism. 

Now this is interesting.  The part I left out in note 74.11 told about
the leader of the biggest trade union in NI that has both Protestant and
Catholic membership.  He was commenting about the many occasions when the
Provos and the UDA have attacked his organization (bombing the headquarters,
etc.)  In the particular situation described, the Provos were threatening
to kill a lot of his membership - and the UDA responded by threatening to 
kill even more members of his union.  Seems pretty stupid, doesn't it?
This union is the biggest organization in NI that has both Protestants
and Catholics as members, and the Provos, representatives of an Ireland that
defends minorities and honors unionists, attack not only its members but
the organization itself.  Note that I am not defending the UDA, nor 
suggesting that either organization is responsible for creating the
situation of murders and destruction in NI.  But both are responsible
for continuing it.  

In conclusion, I feel that a true united Ireland can only be achieved
by uniting the people, which means (in part) encouraging organizations
that mix people of the different backgrounds.  Isolating the groups by
attacking anyone of the wrong type who comes into a neighborhood (which
I understand is fairly common in some areas) or by murdering civilians
for one reason or another (as I know both sides do), serves only to
separate the people, not unite them.  Now, I'm sure an Irish patriot
would say that the British military and paramilitary groups do this 
because they want to maintain the existing divisions in the country.
So tell me why the Provos do it, and why Irish republicans support
them at it?


>    Snake was long-winded, but I hope reasoned.

Absolutely.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

Dermot, 

I'm sorry that I never answered your mail message (until now): your message
arrived shortly after a stupendous work crunch, that only just let up.
So I'm gradually digging out of a great pile of stuff that accumulated
during the interval.

I think the best way I can respond to what you say is through an analogy.
Let's compare the British leaving NI to the Americans leaving Viet Nam.
The US should not have entered the war in Viet Nam.  The government we
were supporting was corrupt and oppressed many of its citizens.  It was
a war that, in the long run, simply could not be won.  So we finally left,
abruptly and as a result of increasing military losses, but as part of
a peace proposal that involved a certain amount of face-saving.

There are some interesting prallels to NI.  The British (let us agree)
should never have tried to keep Ireland partitioned into two pieces.
The government there opresses many of the people of NI by denying them
jobs, education, and the political representation to do something about it.
In the long run, it is an untenable situation - the Irish will never rest
until NI is again part of Ireland.  

When the US left Viet Nam, we left a great many supporters hanging out to
dry.  They had committed themselves to us, and trusted us to protect them,
and we left them behind.  There were widespread predictions that there
would be a blood bath, as North Viet Nam purged our supporters.  North
Viet Nam denied that this would happen, but in fact it did, although not
as quickly as some expected.  

For North Viet Nam, read the IRA and INLA.  They are already engaged in
killing civilians who they feel are supporting the British military 
(they've announced that intent many times, which makes them terrorists by 
my definition).  If I were a person of British background in NI (or even if
I were not), I would not trust any commitment by the IRA not to continue
if the British military left - I would expect them to continue with even
more ferocity.  Nor would I expect that the government of Ireland could
stop them.  Perhaps in that I wrong the government of Ireland.  But I
think that if I lived as a protestant in NI, I would reasonably fear a
blood bath if Great Britain abruptly pulled out.

So although I quite agree that sub-pieces of a country should not be
allowed to set themselves up as separate countries just because of a
difference in background or opinion (the US Civil War was fought on
just that principal), we are dealing with a situation where they are
already seprate countries and have been for some time - and it's pretty 
hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.  An abrupt pull-out by
Britain would not bring peace in NI - it would only change the balance
of who are the victims.  I don't consider that a great improvement.

So if they are not going to sign over NI all in a moment, what is the
altrnative?  Answer: some kind of agreement between Ireland and Great
Britain that takes the first careful steps along that path.

> >By the way, the Anglo-Irish accord does give Ireland some control over
> >Northern Ireland, and opens the door for Ireland getting complete control
> >at some future time, if Ireland can only get 50% of the people of Northern
> >Ireland to want to be part of Ireland.  But oddly enough, militants on
> >both sides oppose this treaty.  Could it be that the militants have no
> >interest in peaceful co-existance?  Could it be that the IRA and INLA,
> >just as much as Rev. Ian Paisley, want their own group to be in control
> >and don't care about the rights of the others who share their land?
> 
> The agreement is open to several interpretations, only one of
> which you mention above.  The accord legitimizes a basic 
> injustice, namely the partition of the country and the British 
> presence.  Any agreement based on that fundamental injustice does 
> not tackle the real problem.  It remains to be seen how 
> successful this accord proves to be.

Any agreement that is not based on reality cannot tackle the real problem,
either.  The British *are* in NI; the question to me is not whether to
"legitimize" that or not; the question is how to ease them out.  Refusing
to "recognize" a government that is clearly in power is a kind of
posturing that doesn't seem to me to do much good.

As for how the Anglo-Irish accord should be or can be interpreted,
Pres. Reagan feels free to try to re-interpret treaties in the
light he wants, why can't the Irish do the same with this accord?
Especially since, at least as it was reported in Boston, the above is a
very reasonable interpretation.  If the percentage who want to remain
British is, as Snake says, constantly decreasing in NI, then it's just
a matter of time until NI can be re-united with Ireland.  My main point
is that unification of the people into a whole is (surely) much more
important than being able to mark NI as a district of Ireland on a map;
the latter could be done tomorrow if the British pulled out; the former
will take a long time either way.  And as far as I can tell, the terrorist 
actions of the IRA, INLA, UDA, etc. (yes, and the British military, if I 
believe accounts in this notes file) are actively putting off the day
when NI can be truely said to be a part of Ireland.


	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS - As Oscar Wilde once said, "I apologize for the length of this note;
I did not have time to write a shorter one."