posted April 24, 2004 05:07 PM            

I like to see...

1. How FOX is controlled by the Democrats and I gather you meaning that when the time comes during THAT time of when The District of Columbia is being dominated by such,like say "House,Senate,Congress,etc" and if THAT'S the case, then I guess it's the Republicans that is NOW doing all the "taring down" on our current president(as much,thus far)!

2. You explain to me why it's ok for the state of Florida to issue false FELONY CRIMINAL RECORDS to the Majority of Demorcrats "White,Black or Hispanic", every four years,during the election years of the United States and those records are FACTUAL to the criminals that(in truth) reside in other states?

posted April 24, 2004 05:18 PM            

Neither the Governor or Katherine Harris struck anyone from the voter rolls. As almost all states do, the voter rolls were turned over to a private company with the proper database to scan them for felons who had registered in violation of Florida law and for persons who are dead and for those who for whatever reason had moved either from the state or within the state and not reregistered to vote as required by Florida law.

Felons in Florida DO NOT have the right to vote, unless their voting rights have been restored through application to the state and going through a process. Those stricken from the voter rolls HAD NOT applied to have their voting rights restored.

The proof can be found in the excerpts posted below which prove that at the time of the last Presidential election, felons were prohibited from voting in Florida elections---unless they instituted reinstatement proceedings.

One interesting fact did emerge from the election results. Some felons did vote---in violation of Florida law and of those who voted, 87% voted for Algore. Something for the Democrat Party to be proud of---they have the felon vote locked up. Lots of dead people also vote Democrat.

Now, note the dateline on this story---note it is well AFTER the 2000 election and a suit is in progress now TO RESTORE felons voting rights.

Posted on Fri, Dec. 19, 2003
Trial ordered in Florida felon voting lawsuit

MIAMI -
A federal appeals court Friday ordered a trial in a lawsuit which claims that Florida's law barring felons from voting is unconstitutional because it discriminates against blacks.

Roughly 600,000 Floridians are banned from voting for the rest of their lives because of felony convictions, according to the Florida Equal Rights Voting Project.

Florida's law denies ex-felons the right to vote unless they take steps to have their civil rights restored by the state. Six other states have similar laws.

Under Florida law, the governor and Cabinet serving as the state's Clemency Board have the discretion to restore voting rights to ex-felons who apply after finishing their prison time and parole.

The defendants - Gov. Jeb Bush and former Secretary of State Katherine Harris, among others - argued that any discriminatory intent was eliminated when it law was re-enacted in the 1968 state constitution.

Prohibiting felons from voting in Florida had nothing to do with George W Bush, nothing to do with Jeb Bush and nothing to do with Katherine Harris. The prohibition is enshrined in the Florida Constitution. In fact there's nothing Bush or Harris could have done to PERMIT felons to vote. Your guy is full of it up to his eyeballs.

Give it up Ozone, the facts and the law are against your absurd allegation the President stole the election----no matter how many lying whacko's columns you choose to post.

Now if you want a really good conspiracy theory involving the President, rumor has it that he caused the sinking of Atlantis, The Potato Famine and the Great Wall of China to fall.
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/7534037.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

This jerk gets his facts wrong and then whines that neither the American Press or the networks would run his story. Has to be a liberal.

jwhop

posted April 24, 2004 05:23 PM            

However, I saw no such indignation when Clinton hurriedly approved a mass drive to push through citizenship applications for Mexicans in the southwest and CA to add voters to his roster in '96.

"...investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its 'Citizenship USA ' program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states -- California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas -- that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election. The program was placed under the direction of Vice President Al Gore." [Page 37-38]

Schipper goes on to recount how the INS boldly and arrogantly broke the law in order to grant citizenship to over 5 million voters of primarily Hispanic immigrants that they believed would vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat candidates of all races. The INS broke the law in ignoring FBI fingerprint reports, shortening the time required to process the citizenship papers, and even to aiding these illegal immigrants in passing their citizenship 'test'."

Injustice For All, David Schippers, Regenery Publishing, Inc., 2000

(Schippers served as chief investigative counsel for the United States House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary during 1998. From April to September he handled the investigative issues and investigations relating to the committee’s oversight investigation of the U.S. Department of Justice and all of its sub-agencies. From September to December 1998, he was charged with reviewing and reporting on the Referral of the Office of Independent Counsel concerning possible impeachment offenses committed by President Clinton. He was then responsible for conducting the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives and reporting the results to the Committee on the Judiciary.)

posted April 24, 2004 05:54 PM            

Do you really believe that I would even buy that garbage?

YEAH,and on the "daze" of the Presidential Election,all the former felons( from sea to shining sea),all decided to go down in Florida(because they all knew that George was gonna win)to vote for Al Gore instead,because they had nothing better to do with themselves then just to waste ALL of they're precious time! I guess I was wrong,maybe those barricades wasn't suppose to keep the felons out of the voting booths,maybe it was suppose to keep them in Florida!

I like the fact that you seemed to reminisce over that "Kennedy Mafia Election Dead Votes Theory",but their's only one problem with that,their's hardly any Mafia left(for they used up all of they're usefulness) and that they wouldn't make the same mistake twice(even if that WAS true,because of Bobby Kennedy anyway)for any politician(s)! Maybe if you would link it to "Bush's CIA and FBI",yeah,then I would believe you!

posted April 24, 2004 06:46 PM            

NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 8:28 p.m. ET Jan. 07, 2004WASHINGTON - President Bush called for a major overhaul of America’s immigration system Wednesday to grant legal status to millions of undocumented workers in the United States, saying the current program was not working.

“Out of common sense and fairness, our laws should allow willing workers to enter our country and fill jobs that Americans are not filling,” the president said in an address in the East Room to members of Congress, his Cabinet and immigrant advocacy groups.

Critics of the plan said it amounted to an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Bush’s election-year proposal is designed to help meet the needs of U.S. employers and to woo Latino voters.

“As a nation that values immigrants and depends on immigrants, we should have immigration laws that work and make us proud,” the president said. “Yet today we do not. Instead we see many employers turning to the illegal labor market. We see millions of hard-working men and women condemned to fear and insecurity in a massive undocumented economy."

“Illegal entry across our borders makes more difficult the urgent task of securing the homeland,” he said.

Bush said his proposals, if enacted by Congress, would provide a more compassionate system for immigrants who now live in the shadows of U.S. society.

“Decent, hard-working people will now be protected by labor laws with the right to change jobs, earn fair wages and enjoy the same working conditions that the law requires for American workers,” the president said.

The plan would, he said:

Make America safer by giving the government a better idea of who was crossing U.S. borders.
Bolster the economy by meeting employers’ needs for willing low-wage workers.
Fulfill a mandate for compassion by guaranteeing the rights and legitimacy of illegal workers. Employers would have to pay them the minimum wage and their Social Security taxes.
Provide incentives to entice those workers to go back to their homelands — a nod to conservatives who oppose any reward to those who enter the United States illegally. The incentives include allowing them to collect retirement benefits in their home countries based on Social Security taxes paid in the United States.
Related story
Wary reaction to plan along border

For instance, Bush wants to increase the nation’s yearly allotment of green cards, which allow for permanent U.S. residency, but did not say by how much. About 1 million green cards a year are issued now, although just 140,000 of them are employment-based.

Bush also wants the workers’ first three-year term in the program to be renewable, but he has not said for how long. Nor has he set the amount workers should pay to apply for the program or specify how to enforce the requirement that no U.S. worker want the job the foreign worker is taking.

Perhaps the biggest unresolved question is how the plan would allow illegal immigrants access, which they do not now have, to the process of applying for green cards, or permanent U.S. residency.

Sensitive to the opposition of many conservatives in his own party to any reward for those who broke the law when they entered the United States, Bush stated flatly, “I oppose amnesty.” But he also said workers accepted into the temporary program could immediately, with an employer’s sponsorship, begin applying for a green card.

Although these workers would get no advantage over other applicants, an illegal immigrant who tried to apply now would simply be deported.

If permanent residency were not granted before the worker’s term was up — a likely outcome given the long backlog of applicants and the relatively small percentage of applicants who receive green cards every year — the person would have to return home to apply from there.

The Numbers:
There are an estimated 9 million Mexicans living in the United States and about 4 million are believed to be in the country illegally. Before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration was weighing an immigration overhaul that would have granted legal status to many “illegals.” The drive was halted after the terrorist attacks.
Mexican legal migration to the U.S.
1901-1910 49,642
1911-1920 219,004
1921-1930 459,287
1931-1940 22,319
1941-1950 60,589
1951-1960 299,811
1961-1970 459,987
1971-1980 640,294
1981-1990 1,655,843
1991-1998 1,931,237



Timeline of Mexican-U.S. migration
1917: U.S. Immigration Act mandates a literacy test for immigrants.
1918: Under pressure from farming groups, the INS commissioner waives the immigration act requirements for Mexican laborers.

1924: U.S. Border Patrol established.

1929: Amid Great Depression, U.S. deports thousands of Mexicans by enforcing laws that were previously waived. By 1932, 345,000 Mexicans were sent back to their homeland.

1942: The Bracero Treaty between the United States and Mexico establishes a guest worker program, partly to counter a labor shortage during World War II. An estimated 5 million Mexicans entered the country under the program.

1954: Amid growing anti-immigrant sentiment, the border patrol launches a massive roundup of Mexicans in the southwestern states, known as "Operation Wetback." Up to one million undocumented Mexicans are sent back over the border in 1954, the peak year for the program.

1963: Congress allows Bracero program to expire under pressure from civil rights groups and unions concerned about the working conditions of migrant workers.

1965: The Immigration and Naturalization Act changes the criteria for immigration from national quotas to a system based on family reunification and job skills requirements.

1986: The Immigration Reform and Control Act offers an amnesty program for aliens in the country before 1982, imposes fines on employers who knowingly hire undocumented aliens and establishes a temporary resident category for agricultural workers.

1994: The North American Free Trade Agreement goes into effect. As tariffs are lifted on imports to Mexico, prices on produce drop sharply for Mexican farmers, sparking widespread migration from the land.

1994: U.S. Border Patrol launches Operation Gatekeeper, aimed at stopping illegal immigration along the traditional border crossing routes near San Diego. Over the next six years, the security clampdown is extended eastward, forcing migrants to cross inhospitable terrain.

1996: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act is passed. Aimed in particular at the flood of illegal immigration from Mexico that followed NAFTA, the bill allocates more money for border security and increased penalties for illegal entry.

2000-2001: President Bush signals a willingness to work with Mexico on new immigration laws that would make it easier for Mexicans to work in the United States. The drive is halted after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

2004: President Bush proposes a major overhaul of the immigration system to grant legal status to millions of undocumented workers in the United States.





Apprehensions
The Border Patrol, a unit of the Department for Homeland Security, is charged with is charged with protecting the nation's 8,000 miles of border, and the vast majority of its agents are stationed on the country’s southwest frontier with Mexico. Since 1994, the number of agents has more than doubled to around 9,500 along the frontier – and the number of apprehensions jumped sharply to a high of 1.6 million in fiscal year 2001. U.S. officials attribute a subsequent drop in apprehensions to improved enforcement although advocacy groups say migrants are still streaming across the border, noting the increase in remittances. Mexicans sent home more than $12 billion in 2003, up from $10 billion a year earlier.
U.S. apprehensions on the border*:
1994 979,101
1995 1,271,390
1996 1,507,020
1997 1,368,707
1998 1,516,680
1999 1,537,000
2000 1,643,679
2001 1,235,685

*Fiscal year. The figures include other nationalities, but vast majority are Mexicans.





Deaths
There has been a dramatic rise in the number of border-crossing deaths, and human rights groups have blamed the U.S. Border Patrol’s stepped-up enforcement. In 1994, the patrol launched Operation Gatekeeper on the border near San Diego, where the majority of illegal entries occur. The strategy -- which has been expanded eastward -- involves increased manpower, the installation of fencing, high-density lighting and underground sensors. As a result, migrants have been forced to traverse more inhospitable terrain to get into the United States. Drowning and heat stroke are the major causes of death along the frontier between San Diego and Yuma, Ariz., according to the California Rural Assistance Foundation.
Deaths of Mexicans on the border:
1997 129
1998 297
1999 358
2000 311
2001 491
2002 371
2003 371 (to November)

Mexico did not compile statistics before 1997.

Reaction from interest groups
As a result, even though program participants would be allowed to have dependents with them and be able to move freely between their country and the United States, activists on both sides of the immigrant issue said the president’s proposal was lacking.

“The president's proposal rewards people who have broken the law,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus. “That's bad policy.”

“It is dangerous to offer additional incentives and rewards for illegal immigration while giving only lip service to border security,” Tancredo added.

Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., a member of the International Relations Committee, predicted that Bush would have trouble winning approval in Congress.

It is clearly is an amnesty. It provides not only amnesty but a reward for people who committed a felony by coming here illegally,” Gallegly told Reuters.

“There will be substantial opposition from Republicans, Democrats and millions of ordinary Americans once they realize what’s involved,” he said.

Pro-immigrant advocates, on the other hand, said the proposal fell short of comprehensive reform.

“Extremely disappointing,” said Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic immigrant advocacy group.

“It’s a serious backtracking to where the president was two years ago when the administration was prepared to provide some kind of path to legal status,” she said. “They’re proposing to invite people to be guest workers without providing any meaningful opportunity to remain in the United States to become legal permanent residents. It appears to be all about rewarding employers who have been hiring undocumented immigrants while offering almost nothing to the workers themselves.”

Even some who might benefit from the proposal questioned Bush‘s announcement.

“I have to relate it to something about the campaign,” said Mahonrry Hidalgo, a day laborer in Freehold, N.J. “It’s going to help, but it’s not the solution we want.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for its part, supports providing more stability for illegal immigrants.

“We have 10.5 million illegal workers in the United States right now," Chamber President Thomas Donohue said. "If they went home, we’d have to shut down the country.”

And Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, welcomed the proposal, saying, “I commend President Bush for this constructive step toward important and, frankly, overdue immigration reform.”

Political, diplomatic benefits
Left unsaid during the president’s speech were the political dividends White House advisers hoped the proposal would pay.

By dangling the prospect of legal status to 8 million illegal immigrants now estimated to be in this country, about half of them Mexican, Bush was granting a top priority of the business community while making his most aggressive move yet to court Latino voters. He won just more than a third of that constituency in 2000 but wants to expand his support in the community to better his chances for re-election in November.

Polls have shown support for allowing illegal immigrants to obtain legal status. In a 2002 survey by the Pew Hispanic Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation, 69 percent of all respondents and 90 percent of Latinos said they would favor such a program, while 28 percent of all respondents and 8 percent of Latinos opposed it.

Announcement of the plan also came just before Bush was scheduled to meet with Mexican President Vicente Fox on Monday at the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico. Bush briefed Fox on Wednesday shortly before announcing his proposal.

Relations between the two leaders grew frosty as immigration reforms sought by Fox stalled after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, but Fox welcomed Bush’s plan Wednesday, saying it would recognize the contribution Mexican workers made to the United States.

The temporary worker program would mean Mexican workers “can have all the rights that any other worker in that country has even though they do not have American citizenship or documents at the moment,” Fox said at a school ceremony in Mexico City to mark the start of a new education term.

NBC’s David Gregory and Tracie Potts, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
--------------------------------------------

"YES, I AM!"

Yep, I'm one those "big boys" that Pidaua loves to boast about! Tell me Pidaua,are you sure your on the "right" side?

posted April 25, 2004 06:54 AM            

*Edit
Err, in rereading that statement, I would like to point out that these are my standards for myself based on what I believe ... I can only judge myself by my standards, etc.

posted April 25, 2004 08:40 PM            

And I say bless your Mars in Libra!

Then again, I have Mars in Capricorn, and Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto all in Libra, so perhaps that's why I think of it as a blessing.

posted April 26, 2004 01:03 AM              

hopefully technology and increased travel abroad will start to bring down the walls of communism in china that outside forces haven't been able to shatter. comparing china and india is really interesting and i for one would rather send jobs oversees to bangalore than guandong. what are your thoughts on US business relations with the chinese government? do you think we shouldn't do business with them? is doing business with a communist country a legitimate way to try and influence them politically? china definitely knows how to play the game...

TINK - i read way more than i post but i always enjoy your attitude and style - in this forum and others. i'll try and write more so we can have some chats - we have a lot in common.

the rest of this dramatically long post is for JW when he has time ------

hey, jw. i have a couple of things i'd like to discuss with you in relation to the topic isis brought up in this thread, but first a few other things to clear up - i've meant to ask you this question for a while now...

do you really know a lot of people in this country who are communists?

you use that term often in referring to the "left" and it baffles me. the only communists that i personally know live in china. [and since Deng declared "free enterprise" - aka capitalism - to be a modern pillar of communism, i always wonder how they still qualify economically (as opposed to politically) as communist anyway!]

i'm a "liberal" and so are most of my fiends, but i've never met a communist at a political rally or human rights meeting. (maybe i don't mingle enough). so i'm amazed every time you bring up communists as if those of us who aren't "conservative" ARE communists - is that by association?

yes they exist (they have their own websites at least), but i would bet money that the number of active communists ("party members") in this country is very small. they have their agenda and of course they're going to get on the bandwagon if they feel the wind blowing in the right direction. communists attend anti-war rallies, but how does that discredit a protest for eveyone else that who was there for their own reasons? what's this about a "Marxist dominated anti-war movement"? you are labeling a huge group with an incendiary term in order to discredit something you do not agree with. it's not a rational assertion - in most other instances i can see your logic, but this Marxist/Communist thing baffles me. (even CPUSA can't explain coherently how communism has benefited North Korea, Cuba, or the former Soviet Union - do you really care if they don't like Bush!?!)

and anyway... if chinese communists are okay to do business with - Wal-Mart being one example of an american company benefiting from the alliance - why is it so irritating to you if people in this country hold similar beliefs?

ELEANORE, I often find myself agreeing with you, and i admire your efforts to remain, as you put it, "detached and rational," but I wasn't sure how you came to the conclusion that jw's first comments to Raine6 were "clear and to the point." usually he is but this time i forcefully disagree. i'm echoing harpyr, but i think it bears repeating - it is incorrect (and unfair) to imply that individuals who do not support the invasion of iraq were not concerned about iraqis living under hussein's regime ("In as much as you lack any sympathy and compassion for the million or more Muslims Saddam killed...") - you know that's not the case and more to the point it's not the issue either - this government did NOT go to war with iraq because of saddam's poor treatment of his people. you're twisting words to make a heated point.

and as for conservatives' alleged concern about the iraqi people under hussein's rule, why do iraq's abuses all of a sudden rank higher for conservatives than china's or north koreas's? (or sudan, or haiti, or sierra leone...). you said "the leftists of the world who were willing to look the other way while he oppressed and murdered his people" - as if the conservatives were all waiting in line to get on a plane and go fight injustice in baghdad? i don't remember a national effort on the part of conservatives in the years before 9/11 to help the iraqi people (i must have missed that one while watching the lewinsky trials).

you've posed similar questions (in other threads) about liberal stances on human rights issues, but not about your own constituency. do you consider Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to be right-wing organizations?

so, are liberals depressed because saddam is gone? no, of course not. perhaps we don't express "joy" (are you joyful about war?), but relief - most definitely. i just don't like being lied to by the men in charge of my government. you bring up the issue of saddam's reign to add emotion to your "argument" - and it's just not valid.

you also must be aware of hussein's ties to the US government - and that when you say "the average of more than 30,000 per year that Saddam killed over 30 years" this country supported his government throughout much of the time?

jw, you also imply (here and elsewhere) that liberals dissent because they hate the U.S. - and not because they love this country and what America stands for. i know i won the jackpot being born here, and just because i disagree with the way politicians do business doesn't make me hate my home. the world isn't that black and white.

one more - it's libel to "badmouth" GW but out-and-out trashing Clinton for 8 years (STILL the national Republican pastime) isn't? how does that rationale work?

to get back to this thread again...

just wondering - what makes you label the National Lawyers Guild a marxist group? just because the NLG was "once targeted for alleged ties to communism in the 1950s" - does this mean they're communists in 2004? seems like a looooong stretch... and one active communist member in 2004 wouldn't qualify it as a communist organization. would it? if so don't you think that's a bit scary?

there are multiple sides to every story and i appreciate that you make me think more clearly about why i hold the beliefs i do. in fact i have you, jw, to thank for introducing me to newsmax – that bastion of fair and non-partisan reporting - now i can keep up with THAT side, too!

posted April 26, 2004 02:09 AM            

I can't tell if you quoted jwhop's words as if they were mine, so I will say that I did not express those sentiments myself, and as I've stated many times before already, I am well aware that on many levels the war effort in Iraq was not begun out of only a genuine compassion for the people. I never tried arguing that it was. I was trying to express my feelings that, since we are already in this situation, we cannot just back out now half way through our efforts. I do think, in the long run, the people of Iraq will have the opportunities for better lives without Hussein, regardless of our reasons for getting involved in the first place. I was not pro-war from the beginning of this conflict at all, but can see the need to follow it through to achieve something better.

posted April 26, 2004 11:01 AM            

quote:

---

if chinese communists are okay to do business with - Wal-Mart being one example of an american company benefiting from the alliance - why is it so irritating to you if people in this country hold similar beliefs?

---

and then..

quote:

---

just because the NLG was "once targeted for alleged ties to communism in the 1950s" - does this mean they're communists in 2004? seems like a looooong stretch..

---

posted April 26, 2004 01:58 PM            

From what I can tell, we aren't encouraging Taiwan to declare independance because we are obliged to defend them, and we don't want to do that right now, we've got other things going on (Iraq, Afganistan, etc).

posted April 26, 2004 07:22 PM              

remember genderless "pat" from saturday night live?

it is tempting to withhold that information, and see how much gender-identification our culture has, inasmuch as the age thing has clued out [it is refreshing to find myself thought of as a youth, though--where is a "skipping-over-the-meadows" icon when ya need one?]

actually, a step back from the emotional intensity around here was necessary, to try and regain my own equilibrium

feelings of anger and resentment were welling up inside at choking on the vilest of words that had been placed in my mouth--and those "nonattacks" at the words i did utter

others' actions do not normally determine how i will react, but here the words of others WERE having that effect. the real key was the feeling of being knocked off my feet by my OWN response to the "heartfelt criticism" of my posts

i felt swept along with the group energies, but in the future, maybe we each can maintain an individual accountability with our conduct here. we need to remember that we are all on the same team, and our goal is global unity

also, i wish to apologize to those who felt my words were somehow robbing them of their own freedom to think. i do not see that, but if i did indeed come across that way, perhaps someone would kindly enlighten me, so i can avoid it in the future

or could there simply have been a reaction from within on readers' parts that struck a responsive chord that "maybe i haven't been as loving as i could be" and "maybe i could look around and see if perhaps there are some kids in my own neighborhood who have no health insurance"

to answer someone's earlier post, i will guarantee you will find them if you look. and is not even one kid without health care is too many in this land of plenty? and would you feel the same way if YOUR kid was the one without? we are a global family and we need to look out for one another, that is all i have been trying to say. is that so wrong?

it was unsettling to see how easily my own commitment to listening to others and maintaining a learn-learn atmosphere had eroded so, and i would encourage us all to not try to change the other guy's point of view so much as to look at our own motives and values and polish them and know why we believe what we do

then we would not feel the need to attack when confronted with opposing viewpoints [and yes, they were attacks, without question--filled with emotion, claims of total objectivity notwithstanding]

we all have room for improvement, and while we are busy judging others, we are not spending the time working on what we do have control over

and by the way, who or what is "btw" anyway? being the new kid on the block isn't easy, so yes, please be patient with me as i try to retrofit the computer into my "aged" programming system

peace

posted April 26, 2004 07:34 PM            

I really don't know what to say, raine6. I see that you have found a comfortable perspective on the whole, and particularly in regard to your posts. I hope you manage to keep your "equilibrium" in balance, and are happy.

posted April 26, 2004 09:08 PM              

it is great to experience such enlightenment!

btw...hm...and i even used that in concluding my post asking about it

and yes, eleanor, i am happy, thank you. and i could tell it was not a "catty" wish, but it came across as genuine. i appreciate the conciliatory tone