Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    The preceding notes were moved at the request of a member of our
    community. 
    
    When someone finds something offensive, or asks us to pay attention,
    it is considered to be extremely rude to attempt to convince them 
    that they shouldn't be offended. In fact, I've heard that in the 
    Westminster plant it became offical policy several years ago that 
    a conversation would end when someone said they were offended. 
    'Nuff said, I hope.
    
    Liz

    Just a few comments of my own:
    
    - I have lived for 25 years of my life in Switzerland and am married
      to a Swiss. I didn't really like the "Nuke the Swiss" thing, but
      didn't want to say anything about it, for fear of being told that
      the Swiss have no sense of humor. If it had been "Nuke the Appala-
      chians" I still wouldn't have liked it.
    
    - I really hate any personal name that includes references to Nazis,
      Hitler, holocausts, pogroms, etc. What makes me queasy is that
      they be referred to in this "casual" way. There is right now a
      contender for the French presidency, Jean-Marie Le Pen, a right-
      wing extremist, who said in a widely published discourse that
      "the gas chambers are a detail of history". There is also a
      Swiss Army instructor, a schoolteacher in civil life, who has
      while teaching, denied the existence of the gas chambers.
      All this tends to show that there has been, in the last years,
      a tendency to "let's forget and be merry", which I find very
      worrying. My motto would be: "Let's NOT forget, but still be
      merry, as there is hope for all of us".
    
    By the way, I do understand that the noter in question was "just
    joking" and obviously did not mean any harm to anybody!
    
    Liz Augustine comments about the rudeness and futility of telling
    people they shouldn't be offended when they are, has also made me think 
    about the discussion we are having regarding Sandy's poem. Though most 
    of us have read the poem and did not find it offensive, maybe we 
    should accept that "somebody" can have found it offensive? The conver-
    sation we are having in that other note regarding censorship, anonymity
    of complaints, etc. is still valid, but the point made by Liz can
    also be considered in that context.
    
    I do apologize for being so long-winded, the previous notes just
    happened to strike a sensitive cord.
    
    Joana                                           

    
    	OK, I'll bite -
    
    >it is considered to be extremely rude to attempt to convince...
    
    	By whom? You?
    
    >Westminster plant it became official policy several years ago that...
    
    	So, If I work in Westminster, I can stop any conversation or
    discussion dead in it's tracks the moment I choose to take offense?
    Now that sounds convienent...
    
    	I wont try and convince you of anything about "taking offense",
    in fact, even *I* do not understand the necessity of messages that
    invoke imagery of horror, pain, disgust and other nasty thoughts.
    However, I find my personal response to such much more interesting 
    than their mere existance. Why am I so afraid?
    
    	Joe Jas 
                     

    In re Westminster....I am not aware of such a policy, tho I have
    worked here for four years.
    
    Bonnie

    Justine,
    
    I did not mean to reply that you should not be offended.  I meant
    only to explain why I thought it was funny.  You found it offensive,
    so I removed it.  Another person found "Surf Nazis must die" offensive,
    so I am changing it.  I do not question that anyone was offended,
    obviously people were, so I shall change it.  Of course, it has
    been changed to something even scarier than the first two...  :-)
    
    Dave
    

    re:.4
    
    "We often use 'humor' to disguise our socially unacceptable
    attitudes behind a smile ..."
    
    Whatchu mean "we", paleface? Or are you just using your standard
    Editorial We?
    
    Many people, myself included, use humor as a means of softening
    the impact of certain serious events/ideas/whatever. I feel that
    there is nothing too sacred that it can't be made the subject of
    humor. The ability to laugh at our ("our" in this context being
    humanity at large, not necessarily each individual) misfortunes
    makes the hardships of life easier to deal with.
    
    There are certain subjects at certain times that should not be
    made the subject of humor simply for reasons of poor taste and/or
    timing. But even then, I would only find the joke to be in poor
    taste, not offensive.
    
    I recognize that this viewpoint is most likely in an overwhelming
    minority, but it no less valid.
    
    --- jerry

    
    I think this issue has a lot in common with the use of ethnic "humor".
    Some people say it's harmless, but I think those kinds of "jokes"
    are one of the ways that racial and ethnic intolerance get passed
    around and on to subsequent generations.  I also believe that the
    sender of such a message may not *intend* to offend, but I think
    intentions are really only important while you're formulating
    the idea.  Once you say it (or post it), the way a message is
    received is at least as important as the sender's intentions.
    
    When I first told Dave that I was offended by the personal name,
    I was convinced that he had not intended to offend and that once
    he understood that his message was being received in a way that
    did not match his intentions, he would choose to change it.  It's 
    hard not to be embarrassed when someone tells you that your choice 
    of imagery is offensive (to him or her), but I think open discussion 
    is much better than censorship, and every time I'm exposed to such 
    a confrontation, I usually learn something about my own (classist, 
    racist, ethnic, etc) assumptions.  I really think that this file
    is enough of a "community" to be able to take those (sometimes
    painful) risks with each other.
                                   
    Justine
    
    

    Re .7: Then we're a minority of two, Jerry...
    
    Although the difference between "in poor taste" and "offensive"
    does rather escape me. Isn't "in poor taste" pretty much defined
    as meaning "offensive to my sensibilities" or "the sensibilities
    of this group"?
    
    The gist of the whole topic here is courtesy, I think. I tend to find
    "Nuke the foo" comments amusing, especially if the "foo" is something
    really outlandish, but if it really rankles someone (and if they ask
    nicely) then I'd change it.

    I *would* mind if somebody began taking advantage of this policy and
    started claiming violent reactions to anything even remotely
    off-center, though. Please, please, if something offends *you*, comment
    on it; but don't try the "it's for your own good" tack, or the "it
    might offend somebody, so don't do it." (I'm not aiming at anybody
    here, but I've seen it elsewhere; someone claiming to be protecting
    others' sensibilities as an excuse for wielding power over a
    discussion.) 

    -b

    RE: .6
    
    >   "Reagan in '92"
    
    Gee, Dave, that one offends ME! :-)
    
      Alan

       re .10 (re .6):
       
       Maybe it's a typo and should read "Reagan is 92".
       
       --Mr Topaz

    RE: .11
    
    I think you're being overly charitable in hinting that Reagan's
    IQ could possibly be as high as 92.
    
    I presumed that Ronbo fell into the negative range. (On the z-axis,
    approaching infinity.) :-)
    
      Alan

    Humor can be a vehicle for several different perspectives
    simultaneously.  As was pointed out by the remarks about
    Reagan.  It is absurd, ridiculous, funny and simultaneously
    a seriously realistic perspective.
    
    Poems also offer these vehicles of perspective.  Sandy's
    poem pointed out the very real view from a women's perspective.
    At the same time the position of the voice of the narrator pointed
    to another perspective.  Poetry can be a powerful vehicle of discussion
    for a long time.

    Let's dwell on images of life instead.

    Re: .13  "Humor is too childish and manipulative to belong here"
    
    Eagle, 
    
    What's wrong with humor in a notesfile?  Some of the best notes
    use humor to make a point.  Humor can brighten people's days and
    cool a "hot" subject.  Humor is also one of the best ways to make
    poeple feel at ease in a tense situation.  It's obvious from your
    notes that you don't intend to add humor to this conference, but
    others may not share your view.
    
    I suggest that the use of humor can foster a "better" climate
    in which to note.  
    
    Dave
    

From:	...
To:	ISTG::MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE
Subj:	RE: WMO policy

Liz,
I have no objection to your printing my reply.  I left the plant
in '83 and the policy was in effect then, but that was before SDC
moved into the plant from Northboro.  I cannont remember who was the
plant manager when I left, but he was part of Lou Gaviglia's CSM
staff and other CSM plants might have a similar policy in effect still.
I will have to paraphrase from what I remember:  If an employee
objects to humor on the grounds that he/she finds it offensive, then
there will be no discussion (such as "the employee is too sensitive" or
"it wasn't meant to offend") - the offensive humor will stop.

That's the best I can do, ...

    First off, I think Dave and Justine have dealt with this quite nicely,
    in a wonderfully civilized way - thanks to both of you.
    
    re .16 Dave
    
�    What's wrong with humor in a notesfile?  
    
    Humor is pretty tricky, even when you are speaking face-to-face.
    Humor is still more difficult to get across when it is written to
    a notes file.  The smiley-face icon does not work very well in
    explaining the humorous aspect of a comment (though it _does_ show
    that the writer _intended_ humor).
    
    I'd agree with Eagle that humor can be used for petty manipulative
    means, and I'd add that in Notes it's practically impossible to tell
    the difference between genuine attempts at humor and genuine attempts
    at needling someone (with the needle disguised as humor).
    
    Recently there was a note, apparently thought funny by the author,
    which was a thinly veiled, all-out attack on me.  Some noticed
    the attack, some others did not notice it.  I did not find it the
    slightest bit funny, though perhaps some did.  It may have been
    funny if I had not known the author had reason to attack me.
    
    When I see jokes by people I know to be angry, I wonder who they
    are attacking with the jokes, and how that person feels about being
    publicly attacked, what they're going to do about it, if anything.
    
    Another aspect of jokes is that they typically make light of someone
    else's pain.  I would not be comfortable writing here if there was
    a high likelihood that I would be overtly mocked for what I think
    and feel.
    
    Lee

    RE: .17
    
    Liz, does that (former) policy mean that a staunch Repuublican
    who found jokes about Ronald Reagan "not humorous" (offensive),
    could stop Ronbo jokes from being told?
    
    Sounds a bit scary.
    
      Alan

    
    Whilst we're on the subject, how do you add those little quotes
    to your notes anyway ? I've often wondered.
    
    I've thought about this before 'cos some of the quotes are really
    good, others I don't understand. But my favourite at the moment
    is "Singing for Our Lives", everytime I read it it brings to mind
    a real vivid image.
    
    	Sarah.
    

    Alan,
    I guess so... (though in my mind there's a difference between "not
    humorous" and "offensive". The former doesn't tickle my funny bone,
    while the latter hurts me.)
    
    But really, my point is not about the talmudic interpretation of the
    policy. I'm trying to say that when someone says "I'm offended", we
    should take that response seriously. We shouldn't sit around trying to
    convince them otherwise. In at least one Digital plant, management has
    taken this seriously enough to implement a policy about it. 
    
    As I've said before, this all revolves around trust. We need to
    make an effort NOT to offend others, and we need to say we're offended
    only when we really are. 
    
        
    Liz

    
    I would hate to see the use of humor disappear all together, but
    I suspect we're all capable of drawing some limits.  For example,
    thinly veiled attacks on people ought to be eliminated.  But for
    the other stuff, what it we all tried to be sensitive to the fact
    that sometimes our words offend others (regardless of our intentions)
    and what if we all felt safe enough to stand up and say when we
    were offended?  That way, we could assume that everything was fine
    unless we heard otherwise.  
    
    As for a more general test, you might consider how your words would 
    sound without the humor.  For example if I said "Lets drop a nuclear 
    bomb on a group of peace-living people, so that those who don't die 
    instantly suffer a terrible, lingering death. blah, blah, blah"  
    Pretty offensive and not too funny, right?  But (in response to
    .17's suggestion that this policy would outlaw political humor)
    if you were to apply that same test to the "Reagan in '92" remark, 
    what's the worst image you could conjure up there?. .. "Gee, I'm glad 
    Reagan's not eligible to run again in '92" <== just an opinion, not a 
    description of violence, no racial or ethnic slurs implied.  
                                                               
    Justine

    Re: .13
    
    >We say "disguise socially unacceptable attitude" and you would
    >"soften the impact" and most likely we mean the same thing.
    
    I don't think so.  "Disguise socially unacceptable attitude" is
    done for the benefit of others, while "soften the impact" is often
    done for one's own benefit.  Humor is a way of dealing with something
    that is a little overwhelming.
    
    Re: stereotypes
    
    I had a feeling they would crop up.  It's odd, but reasonably
    'enlightened' people can actually enjoy humor based on stereotype.
    It involves making a distinction between reality and the "humor-verse".
    A stereotype in the "humor-verse" is an artificial contrivance with
    no bearing on reality and the label assigned to the behaviors is
    used by convention.  The humor-verse distinction doesn't really
    work unless you're dealing with someone who approaches the situation
    in much the same way.  If I hear, say, an ethnic joke and I get the
    impression that the jokester really doesn't like the ethnic group,
    the jokester's apparent belief in the stereotype means that I can't
    say there's a separation from reality here.  The joke isn't being
    told simply for it's humor value.  There's an intent to do damage,
    and *that* isn't funny.

    To put one of those little quotes next to your net address, enter
    
    MODIFY PROFILE/PERSONAL_NAME="Your witticism here."
    
    (or any valid abbreviation thereof) at the Notes> prompt.
    
    							Ann B.

    Re: .22
    
    >I'm trying to say that when someone says "I'm offended", we should
    >take that response seriously. We shouldn't sit around trying to
    >convince them otherwise.
    
    Usually a waste of time.  Taking offense is largely an emotional
    reaction, so explanations and other appeals to 'reason' are not
    going to be too effective.  On the other hand, shutting off the
    conversation entirely sounds short-sighted.  If you're going to
    take offense at something I say, so be it, but I'd like to know
    that you're taking offense at something I *said* rather than something
    you *think* I said.  The conversation should continue long enough
    to determine the cause of offense and address any misunderstandings.
    
    Re: (I forget the number, but the point is to consider the point
    of your words without the humor)
    
    That's why humor often uses stereotypes and other shorthand
    conventions.  Since it's largely intuitive, longhand explanations
    just don't work.

RE: .22

Liz, but that's what this discussion seems to be all about: One
person's humor is another person's offense, no matter how innocuous
the comment might be. And the person's offense is real, not feigned.
Does that mean I must stop making comments on Ronald Reagan, soley
because a die-hard Republican is legitimately offended?

Indeed, many remarks made in this, and other Conferences, are always
going to offend somebody (or a bunch of somebodies).  

And, perhaps, some talmudic interpretations of the policy need(ed)
to be made. 

Let's take some recent events in the Conference:

  - Sandy wrote (what she, and most others perceived to be) a 
    humorous poem. A person took offense, and the poem was
    ultimately deleted. By the way, I thought the poem was funny.

  - In the Note dealing with the drug which could eliminate many
    C-Sec's, the discussion, once again, turned to the subject of
    abortion. Some pro-lifers came in, stating that abortion was
    murder. Was this offensive to some? I suspect it was.

  - Some writers here have stated that they consider the gay/lesbian
    lifestyle to be wrong -  an abomination, as it were. Were some
    people offended? Again, I bet they were.

I'm Jewish. In the real world (or within DEC, itself), I'm sometimes approached 
by "born-agains" telling me "don't I know that unless I accept Jesus, I'll
never be saved, and I'll burn in everlasting hell?".

Am I offended? Yes. Should I be? Who knows? They're only spouting what
they truly believe.

My way of dealing with them, when they tell me that Jesus saves: "Oh
really, and where does He do His banking, at the Bank of New England?" This 
seems humorous enough to me. Are they offended by my remark? Most likely.

Somebody is always going to piss-off someone else. Such is life.

  Alan
                                                      

    I must agree with whomever said that this situation was handled
    so well by all concerned. After the recent hoo-hah in this here
    file, as soon as I saw the basenote, I thought "Omigod! Here we
    go again! This oughta be good for a few dozen insults, 3
    moderator interventions, and at least one deletion from a notebook!"
    
    BUT: NO-O-O-O-O-O!! WE handled it like intelligent, respectful
    adult people! In the words of the venerable Dorothy Parker
    "Who'd'a thunk it?!?!?"
    
    
    
    RE: humor
    
    Seems to me that humor, and senses thereof, have such a wide range
    that if someone is offended by something, enough other witticisms
    can be tried until almost anyone can find one funny and not offensive.
    
    So why offend someone if we don't *have* to?
    
    Gee, what a great bunch we are, huh? <soft thud> (sound of pat on
    back)
    
    --DE
    

    RE: .0 and others who attended
    
    I'm curious. What did the lecturer say is the correlation between
    sex crimes and nuclear imagery? Was this one of the W.I.T.C.H.
    lectures? (see 735)
    

    WW	

    re:.9
    
    �Although the difference between "in poor taste" and "offensive"
    does rather escape me.�
    
    I'm not sure I can describe the difference; I suspect it's an
    intuitive one. An example might be that shortly after Challenger
    exploded, I started hearing a few "shuttle tragedy" jokes. Since
    the tragedy deeply affected so many people, and at the time, the
    country was mourning, I felt that such jokes were in poor taste.
    I didn't find them inherently offensive, though.
    
    It might also be worth pointing out that I consider a joke's
    "funniness quotient" to be independent of what attitude or
    concept they represent. I've heard at least one joke that makes
    a humourous allusion to child abuse. I found the joke funny,
    but that (very definitely) doesn't mean that I think the
    idea of child abuse is funny. In fact, if anything, prevention
    of child abuse is my personal *cause celebr�*.
    
    re:.13
    
    You say tom-ay-to, I say to-mah-to.
    
    �Shall we discuss rape or child abuse which may be touchy subjects
    in their own right, or shall we "soften the impact" with a few
    jokes about rapists or child molesters?�
    
    Why do you assume that it's an either/or proposition? Certainly,
    if we're in the middle of a discussion about child abuse, a joke
    may be out of place. But that's it --- it's out of place. That
    doesn't make it offensive. It depends on the context.
    
    If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that humor has no
    place in this file whatsoever. I disagree vehemently.
    
    re:.23
    
    �As for a more general test, you might consider how your words would 
    sound without the humor.  For example if I said "Lets drop a nuclear 
    bomb on a group of peace-living people, so that those who don't die 
    instantly suffer a terrible, lingering death. blah, blah, blah"  
    Pretty offensive and not too funny, right?�
    
    Not too funny, yes. Offensive, no. Is this any different than the
    concept of profanity? Why is "feces" an acceptable word while "shit"
    is unacceptable? They describe the same thing, don't they?

    re:.24
    
    I don't find ethnic (or similar) humor particularly offensive. Most
    people of my acquaintance don't either. In fact, most people I know
    that tell jokes aimed at a particular group are of the particular
    group being put down. I know Jews that tell Jewish jokes, Poles that
    tell Polish jokes, Gays that tell AIDS jokes, etc.
    
    Woody Allen, in at least three of his movies that come to mind,
    uses Armenian ethnic jokes. Not only am I not offended, I rather
    get a kick out of them. In fact, when you look at it, you'll notice
    that probably 90% of ethnic jokes are so generic that you can
    substitute one ethnic group for another without changing the joke.
    At least one friend of mine tells real Ethnic jokes --- what I
    mean is that she uses the term "ethnic", as in "Did you hear about
    the Ethnic who..."
    
    --- jerry

    Re: .31
    
    >In fact, when you look at it, you'll notice that probably 90% of
    >ethnic jokes are so generic that you can substitute one ethnic
    >group for another without changing the joke.
    
    Yup.  Labels are a convention; the label you use depends on geography
    and what label was used when you first heard the joke.  I could
    tell Aggie jokes, but they might go over too well.  If I told Polack
    jokes instead, people would catch on with no problems.
    
    >At least one friend of mine tells real Ethnic jokes --- what I
    >mean is that she uses the term "ethnic", as in "Did you hear about
    >the Ethnic who..."
    
    They were doing that in net.jokes (old, I know, it's been a while)
    as well (actually, they used "<generic ethnic>").

    The s-word is likely less acceptable than feces because of old cultural
    biases ... feces has a Latin root, isn't s*** Anglo-Saxon related?
    
    At any rate, this has gotten enmired somewhere away from its central
    issue, which was, I believe, about jokes of war and violence, and how
    such jokes aren't funny to some of us.  Just as many women find
    that jokes about rape seem to go together with an attitude that
    rape is an act to do to women, many find that jokes about nuclear
    war may have similar ties--you wouldn't want it to happen to a friend
    but.  A rapist or child abuser may only affect a limited number
    of victims, however a nuclear war will affect all of us.
    
    There are, after all, other things less troubling to joke about. 

    This discussion brings to mind when I worked with retarded kids
    years ago. It's a pretty burn-out type of job, and it was
    "Black Humor" that got us through. J. Random Person hearing some
    of the things we said would've been shocked and offended, but
    we *needed* that kind of release. Every single one of *cared*
    about those kids. I'd've been more concerned about someone who
    DIDN'T care enough to need the emotional <whatever> one gets
    from laughing about a serious situation.
    
    And it's really the serious times that make us want to laugh
    all the more - remember laughing in church? 
    
    I think we have a real need for humor - the trick is to satisfy
    it with sensitivity toward ideas and others' feelings.
    
    --DE
    

    Dawn, I experienced a similar thing as a teacher...
    
    The people I worked with were very kind, idealistic, and cared deeply
    about the kids for the most part.  Occasionally in the middle of
    a mega-stressful day the only alternative to walking out and throwing
    one's letter of resignation at the vice-prinicpal on the way by
    his/her office was to go into the teachers' room and discharge a
    little.  It was not at the expense of the kids, and it wasn't nasty.
    Still, it would not have been understood if overheard.
    
    For some odd reason, 5 minutes of discharging the tension through
    humor gave us the energy to go back and face the trampling herds
    yet again.  By the way, it was only done with colleagues, and never
    in front of someone who might misunderstand.  
    
    I do remember thinking "There must be a better way".
                                                        
    
    Holly

    I agree with Papa Bird, one person's cute innuendo can be another's
    sexual harassment. The trouble here is that the notes community
    is far wider and more diverse than Holly's example of a small
    group of teachers in one school, facing the same situation.
    Maybe 'valueing differences' should explicitly make allowances for
    different senses of humor. 
    
    Everybody has a sensitive topic, a place where they can't see any
    humor possible at all. A reaction of "that's not funny, that's sick"
    is inevitable if a joke is told to a wide enough audience. But I
    don't see banning jokes as a solution. Tolerance should suffice.
    
    Dana

    

    Well, gee, Eagle, isn't the point HOW we deal with the situation
    when it comes up? Like it was dealt with in this situation?
    
    Surely, there's enuff funny stuff in the world so we can agree
    on something that's still amusing but not outright offensive?
    I mean, not EVERYONE's going to think something's funny anyway,
    regrdless of whether or not they're actually offended.
    
    The only risk we're taking is not in offending someone, but in
    PERSISTING in it when the person says they're offended. ("I'm gonna
    keep my personal name whether you like it or not, you <insert favorite
    insults here> - if you can't take a joke, you're obviously...etc."
    
    ...as opposed to "Oh. Sorry, I didn't realize anyone would find
    it offensive."
    
    Good heavens, if we get so paranoid, we'll all gag ourselves and
    then mumph mooop nfff.
    
    --DE
    

    
    	A topic entered into another conference invoked some of the
    most emotional replies I've ever read, some of which were definately
    a "release" or "discharge" of sorts...
    	I've heard somewhere that a Phd in Psychotherapy was awarded
    to one grad student with a big frame. He participated in the BIG
    TIME WRESTLING that you see on TV as an antagonistic figure, for
    his thesis. It was his claim that he could administer mass therapy
    - the emotional release and discharge - to those watching by 
    deliberately being the bad guy.
    	Now if this and all the other notes conferences were all spic
    'n span "clean" - we'd all miss out on the wonderful therapeutic
    benefits of rhetorical sparring with one another.
    	Some may think there is no "benifit" to a person having an
    emotional release. Some may think there is no benefit to having
    notes conferences at all. Some may think "how *they'd* do it" would
    be best for all. Well, I think some people are wrong. Wrong because
    they dont look at the whole picture, or cant see beyond their own
    perspective.
    	In a casual random conversation someone mentioned "He playes
    those people like a musical instrument"...As absurd as it sounds,
    "He's" probably helping us all.          
    
    	Joe Jas
                                                 

    I have a "possible" answer to why some people seem to enjoy 
    bizarre humour. But, since it is more generic to the "Human" side,
    I'll start it there:
    
    "Bizarre Humours and Obscene Tragedies" Planned or self defence?
    
    Bob
    

    Bizarre humour is often easier to understand "in person", rather
    than through notes.  Of course, most inter-personal communication
    is easier in person...
    
    Dave
    

    
    re -.1 
    
    a true nugget of wisdom..
    

    Just re-read this whole topic, some deletions have made hash out
    of the continuity. Are we agreed to be 
    a) humorous
    b) somber
    c) cautiously humorous
    d) slow to take offense
    e) none of the above ?
    
    For those who enjoy stinging wit, MUNICH::REPARTEE might be a
    better place to go. For the blunt, SOAPBOX is guaranteed to
    test your bullet-proof ego. Something to think about.
    
    (Surprised nobody called me on my last Personal_name - "JAFO"
    - maybe nobody saw the movie. Identify the new one and win a
    prize :-)  )

    Dana

    re:.46  your last personal name.
    
      I saw the movie but I figured it was none of my business to comment
      on the name.
    
    P.

    re:.47 re:.46
    
    Ditto. Silence does not mean ignorance.
    
    --- jerry

>        < Note 751.49 by YODA::BARANSKI "Words have too little bandwidth..." >
>                        -< I'm with Beth & Jerry :-) >-
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
        I'll buy that - their ice cream is good!
        
        Andy