Colduglandon
New member
I voted for Keyes. I have never heard him saying anything that I did not agree with. Seems like a good reason to me. Besides he is a Catholic.
Thoughts on the Presidential campaigns.
- Thread starter LawDog
- Start date
Cactus,
C: “The winner in each state is then assigned the total Electoral College
electors for that state.”
D: In winner-take-all-states I agree. Are there not some split states?
Frankly, I don’t know. Help me out here, please.
-----
C: “Only once has the Electoral College vote varied from the popular
vote...”
D: Actually I believe I find two elections (*)
1876: Rutherford B. Hayes 4,034,311 (47.95%) = 185 electoral votes
Samuel J. Tilden: 4,288,546 (50.97%) = 184 electoral votes.
1888: Benjamin Harrison 5,443,892 (47.82%) = 233 electoral votes
Grover Cleveland 5,534,488 (48.62%) = 168 electoral votes
-----
C: “... only once has the election been determined in the House of
Representatives.”
D: Actually, I believe it was twice.(*)
1800: The election was thrown into the House when Jefferson and Burr
received an equal number of electoral votes. (Note: there was NO popular
vote permitted until the 1824 election.)
1824: No candidate won a majority of the electoral vote and the election
was decided in the House, where Speaker Clay’s support gave the victory to
John Q. Adams.
-----
* Figures taken from the 1999 New York Times Almanac pp 104-113. I *DO* hope I'm correct. That fine print is becoming devilishly difficult for me to read.
-----
C: “In some ways it is good that the Electoral vote can be different than
the popular vote. If not, three or four states would determine the election
and the candidates would pay attention only to the largest states. IE: If
New York, California, Texas and Ohio voted 95% Democrat and 5% GOP
while the rest of the states voted 55% GOP and 45% Democrat, the
Democrat would win the popular vote and the election. The Electoral College
insures that the desires of the entire nation must be taken into
consideration, not just the desires of the most populus states.
D: Apparently you do not believe in a “one person-one vote” concept:
- In what ways is it good to disenfranchise voters because they live in a
populous state rather than a less popular state.
- In another example, by giving all electoral votes to what could be a slim
majority in several states, the electoral college can easily elect a President
against a majority of the voters. That smacks of elitism.
-----
C: “It is misleading and disingenuous of you to suggest to people that their
votes do not count in the Presidential election.”
D: *IF* LawDog’s opinion is misleading, I would suggest it honestly so
rather than intentionally lacking in forthrightness.
-----
C: “Make no mistake about it people, your vote does count!”
D: On this point we agree totally. We only disagree on your Republican gun
control agenda.
------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited March 09, 2000).]
C: “The winner in each state is then assigned the total Electoral College
electors for that state.”
D: In winner-take-all-states I agree. Are there not some split states?
Frankly, I don’t know. Help me out here, please.
-----
C: “Only once has the Electoral College vote varied from the popular
vote...”
D: Actually I believe I find two elections (*)
1876: Rutherford B. Hayes 4,034,311 (47.95%) = 185 electoral votes
Samuel J. Tilden: 4,288,546 (50.97%) = 184 electoral votes.
1888: Benjamin Harrison 5,443,892 (47.82%) = 233 electoral votes
Grover Cleveland 5,534,488 (48.62%) = 168 electoral votes
-----
C: “... only once has the election been determined in the House of
Representatives.”
D: Actually, I believe it was twice.(*)
1800: The election was thrown into the House when Jefferson and Burr
received an equal number of electoral votes. (Note: there was NO popular
vote permitted until the 1824 election.)
1824: No candidate won a majority of the electoral vote and the election
was decided in the House, where Speaker Clay’s support gave the victory to
John Q. Adams.
-----
* Figures taken from the 1999 New York Times Almanac pp 104-113. I *DO* hope I'm correct. That fine print is becoming devilishly difficult for me to read.
-----
C: “In some ways it is good that the Electoral vote can be different than
the popular vote. If not, three or four states would determine the election
and the candidates would pay attention only to the largest states. IE: If
New York, California, Texas and Ohio voted 95% Democrat and 5% GOP
while the rest of the states voted 55% GOP and 45% Democrat, the
Democrat would win the popular vote and the election. The Electoral College
insures that the desires of the entire nation must be taken into
consideration, not just the desires of the most populus states.
D: Apparently you do not believe in a “one person-one vote” concept:
- In what ways is it good to disenfranchise voters because they live in a
populous state rather than a less popular state.
- In another example, by giving all electoral votes to what could be a slim
majority in several states, the electoral college can easily elect a President
against a majority of the voters. That smacks of elitism.
-----
C: “It is misleading and disingenuous of you to suggest to people that their
votes do not count in the Presidential election.”
D: *IF* LawDog’s opinion is misleading, I would suggest it honestly so
rather than intentionally lacking in forthrightness.
-----
C: “Make no mistake about it people, your vote does count!”
D: On this point we agree totally. We only disagree on your Republican gun
control agenda.
------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited March 09, 2000).]
Brett Bellmore
New member
Alan: Exactly right, and that's one reason I'm not half as frightened at the prospect of the Republicans losing their entirely nominal control of Congress as some are. As the "majority" party they have to chose leaders who are acceptable to the most left-wing fringe of their caucus, and who thus are continually working with the Democrats to defeat their own party. As we've seen to our own dismay!
But if they lose that "majority", suddenly Senator Chaffe goes from being a kingmaker to a nobody, and the GOP caucus has solid leadership. What their leaders conspire to pass as a majority, they can effectively block as a minority! At the least, we ought to see all these gun bills Hastert and Lott are pushing effectively filibustered.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
But if they lose that "majority", suddenly Senator Chaffe goes from being a kingmaker to a nobody, and the GOP caucus has solid leadership. What their leaders conspire to pass as a majority, they can effectively block as a minority! At the least, we ought to see all these gun bills Hastert and Lott are pushing effectively filibustered.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
Dennis,
I stand corrected regarding the variation of the Electoral College and popular vote and the House determining the President. Thank you! I guess I should get a copy of that almanac, its been a long time since my American History classes.
As for the one person - one vote principle, I adhere to the principle laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution itself was written to ensure that the more populous states would not be able to run roughshod over the smaller states. This is the reason that each state is allowed only two Senators no matter the population of that state.
Since the President has to represent all states it would not be prudent to have one that was elected by only a few large states. This would cause resentment and a feeling of disenfranchisement within the other states. Larger states already have an advantage over the smaller states. Therefore, I don't see where the Electoral College protections violates Constitutional principles, but serves to strengthens them.
As for the final point, perhaps you could educate me as to what my "Republican gun control agenda" consists of? Imagine my suprise in learning from you that I had a "gun control agenda" at all, whether it be a GOP or a Democrat one!
[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited March 09, 2000).]
I stand corrected regarding the variation of the Electoral College and popular vote and the House determining the President. Thank you! I guess I should get a copy of that almanac, its been a long time since my American History classes.
As for the one person - one vote principle, I adhere to the principle laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution itself was written to ensure that the more populous states would not be able to run roughshod over the smaller states. This is the reason that each state is allowed only two Senators no matter the population of that state.
Since the President has to represent all states it would not be prudent to have one that was elected by only a few large states. This would cause resentment and a feeling of disenfranchisement within the other states. Larger states already have an advantage over the smaller states. Therefore, I don't see where the Electoral College protections violates Constitutional principles, but serves to strengthens them.
As for the final point, perhaps you could educate me as to what my "Republican gun control agenda" consists of? Imagine my suprise in learning from you that I had a "gun control agenda" at all, whether it be a GOP or a Democrat one!
[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited March 09, 2000).]
Munro Williams
New member
I wish I could blithely compare the candidates as "the real thing" versus a couple of "Brand Xes," but the stakes in this election are too high.
In OwlGore we have a border-line psychopath representing psycho-sociopathic sadists, whose concepts of reality are entirely subjunctive.
Bush seeks to "bring us all together," which means he necessarily must accomodate people living at psychotic levels of denial.
The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum,
and Bush will necessarily compromise where confrontation is called for. It's a lot like negotiating with Hitler. No modus vivendi can exist.
America resembles nothing so much as Weimar Germany right now. We're basically waiting for the Fuhrer. The Destroyer loose on the land. We must go on the offensive.
The only one who represents the hard rationality and morality that made America the freest and strongest nation in history is Alan Keyes.
Alan Keyes is the only person with the intelligence and maturity to blast the Democrats back to the Age of Reason.
An OwlGore victory is a bucket of gasoline on the national funeral pyre. A Bush victory merely allows honorary citizens of Red China time to regroup and position themselves in place for the kill.
The next few years will be crucial. If either Bush or Gore win, you can bet the farm that Hitlery will be well placed to become President in 2008, with a total police state in effect by 2009.
We cannot reach accomodation with our destroyers. There is no "center" anymore. Ten years ago folks considered me a moderate conservative because of my views on the Declaration and the Constitution. My thoughts have not changed in those ten years, but now non-political types consider me a right wing lunatic.
Every time we sought compromise and moved to the center, the Left kept moving the center further Left.
It's like playing a football game where the goalposts keep moving: every down is fourth and ninety-nine.
C'mon people. These days we're merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic otherwise.
------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!
In OwlGore we have a border-line psychopath representing psycho-sociopathic sadists, whose concepts of reality are entirely subjunctive.
Bush seeks to "bring us all together," which means he necessarily must accomodate people living at psychotic levels of denial.
The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum,
and Bush will necessarily compromise where confrontation is called for. It's a lot like negotiating with Hitler. No modus vivendi can exist.
America resembles nothing so much as Weimar Germany right now. We're basically waiting for the Fuhrer. The Destroyer loose on the land. We must go on the offensive.
The only one who represents the hard rationality and morality that made America the freest and strongest nation in history is Alan Keyes.
Alan Keyes is the only person with the intelligence and maturity to blast the Democrats back to the Age of Reason.
An OwlGore victory is a bucket of gasoline on the national funeral pyre. A Bush victory merely allows honorary citizens of Red China time to regroup and position themselves in place for the kill.
The next few years will be crucial. If either Bush or Gore win, you can bet the farm that Hitlery will be well placed to become President in 2008, with a total police state in effect by 2009.
We cannot reach accomodation with our destroyers. There is no "center" anymore. Ten years ago folks considered me a moderate conservative because of my views on the Declaration and the Constitution. My thoughts have not changed in those ten years, but now non-political types consider me a right wing lunatic.
Every time we sought compromise and moved to the center, the Left kept moving the center further Left.
It's like playing a football game where the goalposts keep moving: every down is fourth and ninety-nine.
C'mon people. These days we're merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic otherwise.
------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!
Munro Williams
New member
BTW, Ala Dan, you obviously haven't seen any pictures of Mrs. Keyes. She's starkly beautiful with an IQ of at least 145.
All in all, the most engaging First Family I could imagine.
------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!
All in all, the most engaging First Family I could imagine.
------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!
David Roberson
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Munro Williams:
The next few years will be crucial. If either Bush or Gore win, you can bet the farm that Hitlery will be well placed to become President in 2008, with a total police state in effect by 2009.
[/quote]
If The Evil Al Gore wins the presidency and Hillary wins the Senate in NY, then I believe you're right. However, while I have no illusions about Bush really being on our side, I think his election and Hillary's defeat would be the end of Hillary. Without holding an office, she won't have the profile to position herself for another race in 2004, and her loathsome husband is going to continue to gather more bad press once he leaves office, because he's going to have to continue prostituting himself to raise money for his legal expenses. Plus, there's every possibility that he'll incur more charges once he's out of the White House.
No, I think that if we could get rid of Hillary this fall, she'd be gone for good. Unfortunately, I see no evidence that there are enough intelligent people in NY to deny her the Senate seat, and it is with great sadness that I expect both her and The Evil Al Gore to be elected. Please, God, let me be wrong.
The next few years will be crucial. If either Bush or Gore win, you can bet the farm that Hitlery will be well placed to become President in 2008, with a total police state in effect by 2009.
[/quote]
If The Evil Al Gore wins the presidency and Hillary wins the Senate in NY, then I believe you're right. However, while I have no illusions about Bush really being on our side, I think his election and Hillary's defeat would be the end of Hillary. Without holding an office, she won't have the profile to position herself for another race in 2004, and her loathsome husband is going to continue to gather more bad press once he leaves office, because he's going to have to continue prostituting himself to raise money for his legal expenses. Plus, there's every possibility that he'll incur more charges once he's out of the White House.
No, I think that if we could get rid of Hillary this fall, she'd be gone for good. Unfortunately, I see no evidence that there are enough intelligent people in NY to deny her the Senate seat, and it is with great sadness that I expect both her and The Evil Al Gore to be elected. Please, God, let me be wrong.
Cactus,
( ) It’s been 40+ years since my Am. History classes (and I *hated*
them!
) so I assuredly understand. BTW, I recommend the annual almanac.
It has so many interesting (but frequently distracting) entries and costs less
than $10.
I also adhere to the principleS laid out in the Constitution. While you
seem to be a fan of the Senate (little states = big states and citizens’ votes
don’t count), I am a fan of the House (representatives derived from
population). I do not believe (and I would not accuse *you* of believing)
that the 9.5 million voters in Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut should
have equal say with some 62.8 million voters in CA, NY, and TX. NO
republic should permit one vote to equal SIX votes!
Also, I believe the President represents the "People" of the United States - not the States of the United States.
-----
The assumption of the Electoral College is to protect the government from
the unreasoning ignorance of the masses. It is a gimmick at best and an
abomination at worst.
-----
As for “your Republican gun control agenda”, “your” modifies “Repubican” -
the second biggest gun control political party in America. The following is
an excerpt - the entire article is available by e-mail upon request:
Bush backing gun measures
Bush now endorsing “reasonable” gun control measures
by Terry Neal and Ben White, Washington Post
Atlanta - Texas Gov. George W. Bush said Friday he supported “reasonable”
gun control measures like those backed by Republicans in Congress this
year.
The GOP presidential candidate said he supports
- raising the age for gun ownership from 18 to 21,
- banning certain high-caliber ammunition clips(sic),
- closing the loophole allowing unlicensed dealers to sell guns at gun shows
without background checks for purchasers, and
- supports instant background checks.
Bush said “When we find someone illegally selling a gun, there should be a
consequence.” Remember the definition of “illegal” changes with the stroke
of the legislative or judicial pen. Note also that virtually ALL gun laws
violate the Constitutional principles - IF you believe the Second Amendment
means what it says, what the Founders said it means, etc.
Bush signed juvenile “crime” bill making it a crime to allow minors access to
guns. Note that is mere “access”!
Bush also signed a bill making jail time mandatory for juveniles caught with
firearms - even kids in the country caught plinking on their own land.
“I support them all; they all are reasonable measures,” Bush said.
====================
So we still disagree on your unconstitutional, Republican gun control
agenda.
------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited March 10, 2000).]
(
) It’s been 40+ years since my Am. History classes (and I *hated*them!
) so I assuredly understand. BTW, I recommend the annual almanac. It has so many interesting (but frequently distracting) entries and costs less
than $10.
I also adhere to the principleS laid out in the Constitution. While you
seem to be a fan of the Senate (little states = big states and citizens’ votes
don’t count), I am a fan of the House (representatives derived from
population). I do not believe (and I would not accuse *you* of believing)
that the 9.5 million voters in Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut should
have equal say with some 62.8 million voters in CA, NY, and TX. NO
republic should permit one vote to equal SIX votes!
Also, I believe the President represents the "People" of the United States - not the States of the United States.
-----
The assumption of the Electoral College is to protect the government from
the unreasoning ignorance of the masses. It is a gimmick at best and an
abomination at worst.
-----
As for “your Republican gun control agenda”, “your” modifies “Repubican” -
the second biggest gun control political party in America. The following is
an excerpt - the entire article is available by e-mail upon request:
Bush backing gun measures
Bush now endorsing “reasonable” gun control measures
by Terry Neal and Ben White, Washington Post
Atlanta - Texas Gov. George W. Bush said Friday he supported “reasonable”
gun control measures like those backed by Republicans in Congress this
year.
The GOP presidential candidate said he supports
- raising the age for gun ownership from 18 to 21,
- banning certain high-caliber ammunition clips(sic),
- closing the loophole allowing unlicensed dealers to sell guns at gun shows
without background checks for purchasers, and
- supports instant background checks.
Bush said “When we find someone illegally selling a gun, there should be a
consequence.” Remember the definition of “illegal” changes with the stroke
of the legislative or judicial pen. Note also that virtually ALL gun laws
violate the Constitutional principles - IF you believe the Second Amendment
means what it says, what the Founders said it means, etc.
Bush signed juvenile “crime” bill making it a crime to allow minors access to
guns. Note that is mere “access”!
Bush also signed a bill making jail time mandatory for juveniles caught with
firearms - even kids in the country caught plinking on their own land.
“I support them all; they all are reasonable measures,” Bush said.
====================
So we still disagree on your unconstitutional, Republican gun control
agenda.
------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited March 10, 2000).]
Dennis,
Thanks for the Almanac recomendation, I ordered the year 2000 edition from Amazon last night.
The duties of the President are clearly outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution. Simply put, he is to serve as the executive officer of the United States government. As such, the President represents the best interests of the United States, which is comprised of all citizens of the nation. When I stated that the President represented all states, my meaning was of the citizens making up those states. My understanding of the Constitution is that the President should represent the best interests of the United States as a whole, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, not any individual citizen or small group of citizens.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 and 3 clearly spells out the establisment and rules of the Electoral College. I do not feel that these clauses are in any way meant to protect the "government from the ignorance of the masses" as you state, but were meant to protect the smaller states, and their citizens, from the oppression of the larger, more powerful states. The United States Constitution is a remarkable document that recognizes that the people are the government and have wide ranging rights. It was written to protect citizens rights from the government. It would seem entirely inconsistant then for the founding fathers to wish to protect the Federal government from its citizens.
You must remember that at the time of the writing of the Constitution and its ratification, the smaller states were reluctant to sign because of the fear of the larger states overpowering them. This is the reason that the Senate is comprised of two Senators from each state, the smaller states would not have signed without this guarentee of sharing representation. This also seems, to me, to be a plausable explaination for the Electoral College.
Now it is true enough that the Constitutional principles originally intended by the founders have been bastardized many times over. My seeming to be a "fan of the Senate" as you put it is correct in so much that I am a fan of States Rights. I am a follower of the "weak Federal goverment, strong States" belief. I beleave that the states, and their people, should be left alone to do as they please as long as they do not violate the United States Constitution and its protections.
I feel that we as gun owners make a serious tactical error in declaring ANY gun law unconstitutional. The Second Amendment states that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". While I disagree with the wisdom of many gun laws, and oppose them, they are not necessarily unconstitutional. Gun registration, per se, does not infringe upon an individuals right to keep and bear arms, it only requires that one notify the government of ownership. Now, I think that we are all insightful enough to realize that this is not the true reason that gun control advocates want registration. Someday these lists can or will be used to confiscate firearms, which IS a violation of the Second Amendment. For this reason, I strongly oppose registration.
Personally, I have no problem with the concept of instant backround checks. If these checks are truely instant, 5 or 10 minutes at most, and no record is kept of the purchase, I can not see that this violates the Second Amendment. No Constitutional Amendment is absolute. People who have yet to attain a certain age and convicted criminals are not allowed the full priviledges of citizenship. Therefore, the idea of an instant backround check to prevent criminals from purchasing guns in a retail store does not bother me. Nor do gun laws that ban the ownership, and proscribe punishments for such ownership, of guns by convicted criminals.
There are gun laws that do violate the Second Amendment. Laws outlawing "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines seem to be in direct conflict with the Second Amendment and Supreme Court rulings such as Miller vs. United States. These laws should be contested in the courts and hopefully in a Supreme Court not made up of AlGore appointments.
Although I now understand your intent of the statement "your Republican gun control agenda", it still raises my hackles a bit. It would do my blood pressure wonders if you would say THE Republican gun control agenda.
________________________
Better a sister in a whorehouse, than AlGore in the White House.
[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited March 11, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited March 12, 2000).]
Thanks for the Almanac recomendation, I ordered the year 2000 edition from Amazon last night.
The duties of the President are clearly outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution. Simply put, he is to serve as the executive officer of the United States government. As such, the President represents the best interests of the United States, which is comprised of all citizens of the nation. When I stated that the President represented all states, my meaning was of the citizens making up those states. My understanding of the Constitution is that the President should represent the best interests of the United States as a whole, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, not any individual citizen or small group of citizens.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 and 3 clearly spells out the establisment and rules of the Electoral College. I do not feel that these clauses are in any way meant to protect the "government from the ignorance of the masses" as you state, but were meant to protect the smaller states, and their citizens, from the oppression of the larger, more powerful states. The United States Constitution is a remarkable document that recognizes that the people are the government and have wide ranging rights. It was written to protect citizens rights from the government. It would seem entirely inconsistant then for the founding fathers to wish to protect the Federal government from its citizens.
You must remember that at the time of the writing of the Constitution and its ratification, the smaller states were reluctant to sign because of the fear of the larger states overpowering them. This is the reason that the Senate is comprised of two Senators from each state, the smaller states would not have signed without this guarentee of sharing representation. This also seems, to me, to be a plausable explaination for the Electoral College.
Now it is true enough that the Constitutional principles originally intended by the founders have been bastardized many times over. My seeming to be a "fan of the Senate" as you put it is correct in so much that I am a fan of States Rights. I am a follower of the "weak Federal goverment, strong States" belief. I beleave that the states, and their people, should be left alone to do as they please as long as they do not violate the United States Constitution and its protections.
I feel that we as gun owners make a serious tactical error in declaring ANY gun law unconstitutional. The Second Amendment states that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". While I disagree with the wisdom of many gun laws, and oppose them, they are not necessarily unconstitutional. Gun registration, per se, does not infringe upon an individuals right to keep and bear arms, it only requires that one notify the government of ownership. Now, I think that we are all insightful enough to realize that this is not the true reason that gun control advocates want registration. Someday these lists can or will be used to confiscate firearms, which IS a violation of the Second Amendment. For this reason, I strongly oppose registration.
Personally, I have no problem with the concept of instant backround checks. If these checks are truely instant, 5 or 10 minutes at most, and no record is kept of the purchase, I can not see that this violates the Second Amendment. No Constitutional Amendment is absolute. People who have yet to attain a certain age and convicted criminals are not allowed the full priviledges of citizenship. Therefore, the idea of an instant backround check to prevent criminals from purchasing guns in a retail store does not bother me. Nor do gun laws that ban the ownership, and proscribe punishments for such ownership, of guns by convicted criminals.
There are gun laws that do violate the Second Amendment. Laws outlawing "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines seem to be in direct conflict with the Second Amendment and Supreme Court rulings such as Miller vs. United States. These laws should be contested in the courts and hopefully in a Supreme Court not made up of AlGore appointments.
Although I now understand your intent of the statement "your Republican gun control agenda", it still raises my hackles a bit. It would do my blood pressure wonders if you would say THE Republican gun control agenda.
________________________
Better a sister in a whorehouse, than AlGore in the White House.
[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited March 11, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited March 12, 2000).]