Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

In article
<[email hidden]
groups.com>,

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

Dans le message denews:[email hidden],
[email hidden] <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et
puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

On Jan 14, 10:17 am, "Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> I babbled.

Quoted message said:

Then we agree.

That was like doing an appendectomy to save the appendix.

In this case, it was the only part worth saving.

All the way up to this point I gave you credit for
above average probity and good will, but have now
revised my estimate downward. Anyone who disagrees
with you is automatically a rightwingnut. Do you
know what you are doing?

A long time ago I decided I could learn from anybody,
and it has been a good decision. Looking forward to
hearing from you.

--
Michael Press

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A long time ago I decided I could learn from anybody,
and it has been a good decision. Looking forward to
hearing from you.

Learning from Chung is like reading the little red book.

Tom Kunich said:

Learning from Chung is like reading the little red book.

My powertap manual isn't red, perhaps the left wing
Ergomo's is.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

I've pretty much always figured ANYTHING coming out of the Pentagon
was either an outright lie, or suspect at best, this administration,
and the anti-war/MoveOn folks are in the same boat too.

So what about the JDL? Or HonestReporting.com? You seem to swallow what they say
without a hint of question, Bill.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A long time ago I decided I could learn from anybody,
and it has been a good decision. Looking forward to
hearing from you.

Learning from Chung is like reading the little red book.

His politics don't effect his ability and knowledge of his field. They
just aren't related, and besides that I'm not sure what they are.
There're issues we've disagreed on, but those have been on technical
points, not to any support he's stated for political positions.
Questioning something, on a professional basis, isn't a political
statement. I appreciate his, and others here, providing their
expertise, and suggestions so I can re-evaluate, and follow up, on my
current position.
You can never have too much solid information to form beliefs with.
Following up on just about everything he's said, has proven his
arguments out, or at least made it clear that there are serious
questions.
I don't know if he's as rigorous and critical of professional work
coming from other political viewpoints. I would bet that he is, he
just doesn't say it publicly.
He seems, to me, to be a real pro's pro but I don't have the real in
depth knowledge to evaluate his skills, and I'd doubt many others here
do either. Stats 101 isn't gonna do it.
My opinion is formed on following up on our conversations, and
finding him to be very credible, and from his displayed skills, and
attitude towards his field.
Bill C

Bill C said:

I've made a reasoned and researched judgement that the support for
Israel and all things Jewish, here in the post ww2 West has seriously
declined. That significant, incredibly vocal sections of the West have
embraced "Revolutionary groups", "Freedom Fighters", etc as a concept,
since the 60s.  Despite their actions which are always excused for the
most part. IE Castros human rights record and his prisons. We've had
this coversation repeatedly about the selective indignation and I
still don't buy your position.
  My opinion, again formed from experience and research is that this,
along with a new generation of overwhelmingly 60s mindset graduates
moved into these jobs and editorial chairs and moved the information
we get to support their political beliefs.
 These have become increasingly anti-Israel/Anit- Jewish as the large
increase in anti-semitic acts, especially throughout Europe document.
 Does that concern you in any way?

<snip>

Dumbass -

There was a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WW2
because of the Holocaust (as you know). We made a huge mistake in
trying to give the Jewish refugees a country. Should have taken them
in as refugees to the US. Probably didn't do that due to anti-Semitism
in the US (you reap what you sow). In 1920, only 11% of the population
of the area now known as Israel was composed of Jews. The numbers grew
before and during WW2 because of an influx of Jewish refugees from
Europe.

The reason it was a mistake for us is that in order to make a coherent
state for them (Israel), another group of people had to be
dispossessed, just as the Jews had been. Not only that, in order to
protect the fragile existence of this new state, we had to insert
ourselves into a cultural struggle between religions. Israel is a
religious state. It is not a secular democracy. It discriminates based
upon religion.

Because of the dispossessed people, the Palestinians, Israel has come
to be seen as an oppressor, ironic since the Jews themselves had
previously been the oppressed. Hence the conditions for the rise in
anti-Semitism.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Bill C said:

I've made a reasoned and researched judgement that the support for
Israel and all things Jewish, here in the post ww2 West has seriously
declined. That significant, incredibly vocal sections of the West have
embraced "Revolutionary groups", "Freedom Fighters", etc as a concept,
since the 60s.  Despite their actions which are always excused for the
most part. IE Castros human rights record and his prisons. We've had
this coversation repeatedly about the selective indignation and I
still don't buy your position.
  My opinion, again formed from experience and research is that this,
along with a new generation of overwhelmingly 60s mindset graduates
moved into these jobs and editorial chairs and moved the information
we get to support their political beliefs.
 These have become increasingly anti-Israel/Anit- Jewish as the large
increase in anti-semitic acts, especially throughout Europe document.
 Does that concern you in any way?

<snip>

Dumbass -

There was a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WW2
because of the Holocaust (as you know). We made a huge mistake in
trying to give the Jewish refugees a country. Should have taken them
in as refugees to the US. Probably didn't do that due to anti-Semitism
in the US (you reap what you sow). In 1920, only 11% of the population
of the area now known as Israel was composed of Jews. The numbers grew
before and during WW2 because of an influx of Jewish refugees from
Europe.

The reason it was a mistake for us is that in order to make a coherent
state for them (Israel), another group of people had to be
dispossessed, just as the Jews had been. Not only that, in order to
protect the fragile existence of this new state, we had to insert
ourselves into a cultural struggle between religions. Israel is a
religious state. It is not a secular democracy. It discriminates based
upon religion.

Because of the dispossessed people, the Palestinians, Israel has come
to be seen as an oppressor, ironic since the Jews themselves had
previously been the oppressed. Hence the conditions for the rise in
anti-Semitism.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Yep, lots of truth in that, but the reason there weren't many Jews in
their historical homeland area is the same there aren't tons in Saudi
Arabia, and other Arab countries, centuries of discrimination,
slavery, and extermination.
There were well over a hundred thousand Jews in displaced persons
camps in Europe. Europe could've reabsorbed them, but why would they
want to stay there where historically they'd been the punching bag,
and designated sacrifice. We should've taken them here, but instead we
tried to give them some justice by sending them to a place they had a
historical claim to, and had been an enemy territory for centuries.
Not much different than all the Euro border rewrites, just long
distance with very good intentions, and getting rid of a problem in
mind.
I'd still argue that an Arab in Israel has more rights and freedoms
than a Jew in Saudi, or Syria, or Egypt, etc...
Someone's always going to get stepped on. The Israelis aren't
committed to extermination, huge chunks of the Arabs still are. They
drop that then we have a different discussion. That's enough for me.
If you don't think the Israelis could physically depopulate the
disputed territories and drive everyone off then you are sadly
mistaken. Politically they can't do it, and don't want to do it. They
are demanding reasonable treatment, freedom, and a safe place in
repayment for centuries of oppression and slaughter, not much more
than that.
Bill C

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

His politics don't effect his ability and knowledge of his field.

They nevertheless color a lot of what he writes. That's unfortunate since he
otherwise seems a highly intelligent person. It must be that he hangs around
with people who are likely to automatically say something like, "Bush and
his 'weapons of mass destruction' ruse was for his own profit" and ignore
the fact that every single word and policy decision was muttered 5 years
before by Clinton and virtually the entire Democrat party.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There was a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WW2
because of the Holocaust (as you know). We made a huge mistake in
trying to give the Jewish refugees a country. Should have taken them
in as refugees to the US. Probably didn't do that due to anti-Semitism
in the US (you reap what you sow). In 1920, only 11% of the population
of the area now known as Israel was composed of Jews. The numbers grew
before and during WW2 because of an influx of Jewish refugees from
Europe.

I think you should spend more time here demonstrating your almost total lack
of knowledge of the conditions in Israel before WW II and after. Just so
that you understand - there was NO Palestine before WW II. Before WW I that
was a territory of Turkey and after WW I until WW II it was an very thinly
populated territory of Syria. Palastine was in fact an invention of the UN
after WW II. The Jews already OWNED most of the area that became Israel.
They took NOTHING AT ALL. They even offered to give special rights to Syrian
Arabs that were living in the area. The West Bank and the Gaza strip was
where most of the arabs were living and the UN called that Palastine and
handed it to them.

All of this is public knowledge but as usual you don't actually want to know
what you're talking about.

Quoted message said:

Because of the dispossessed people, the Palestinians, Israel has come
to be seen as an oppressor, ironic since the Jews themselves had
previously been the oppressed. Hence the conditions for the rise in
anti-Semitism.

If you had actually known what had happened you'd have known that Israel
more than bent over backwards to allow Arabs to keep their land and that it
was the Arabs themselves who deserted that land.

I suggest you learn something before shooting your ignorance off.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kurgan Gringioni said:

There was a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WW2
because of the Holocaust (as you know). We made a huge mistake in
trying to give the Jewish refugees a country. Should have taken them
in as refugees to the US. Probably didn't do that due to anti-Semitism
in the US (you reap what you sow). In 1920, only 11% of the population
of the area now known as Israel was composed of Jews. The numbers grew
before and during WW2 because of an influx of Jewish refugees from
Europe.

The reason it was a mistake for us is that in order to make a coherent
state for them (Israel), another group of people had to be
dispossessed, just as the Jews had been. Not only that, in order to
protect the fragile existence of this new state, we had to insert
ourselves into a cultural struggle between religions. Israel is a
religious state. It is not a secular democracy. It discriminates based
upon religion.

Because of the dispossessed people, the Palestinians, Israel has come
to be seen as an oppressor, ironic since the Jews themselves had
previously been the oppressed. Hence the conditions for the rise in
anti-Semitism.

It's interesting that there is some discussion going on in Jewish circles about
precisely that: whether it was a good idea to set up Israel where it is. And,
unsurprisingly, the (Jewish) people who are trying to get the discussion started are
being hammered as "anti-semitic".

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Howard Kveck said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

I've pretty much always figured ANYTHING coming out of the Pentagon
was either an outright lie, or suspect at best, this administration,
and the anti-war/MoveOn folks are in the same boat too.

So what about the JDL? Or HonestReporting.com? You seem to swallow what
they say without a hint of question, Bill.

Quoted message said:

How about MediaMatters Howard? You take them unquestioned.

Have you spent much time looking at MM's stuff? The typical piece involves them
quoting some media source (be it newspaper, magazine, broadcast, etc.) and then
showing where the source is factually in error. It's not subjective. The articles
that are more opinion in nature are still overwhelmingly fact driven, mostly culled
from the week's regular articles. On the other hand, HonestReporting.com is filled
with extremely subjective complaints, most of which can be shot down with a few
minutes of research: http://tinyurl.com/2ksfyy

Quoted message said:

It's pretty damned simple in reality Howard.
I've made a reasoned and researched judgement that the support for
Israel and all things Jewish, here in the post ww2 West has seriously
declined.

(snipper)

I hate to say it, Bill, but you do have a seriously kneejerk reaction to anything
Israel related and, from my perspective, you vigorously work to shift responsibility
for all sorts of things onto everyone but Israel. You don't want to acknowledge that
*all* of the countries/people in the area are doing things that have consequences
(for example(s) lobbing missiles into settlements or building those settlements in
that take away the water for the people who were originally there)

My point wasn't to get started on a discussion of Arab/Israeli relations (and this
ends it on my part) but to point out to you that you sseem to like to condemn people
for the sources of their info but you don't seem critical enough of your own sources.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck said:

   My point wasn't to get started on a discussion of Arab/Israeli relations (and this
ends it on my part) but to point out to you that you sseem to like to condemn people
for the sources of their info but you don't seem critical enough of your own sources.

--
                              tanx,
                               Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
                     But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

I guess we agree. I feel the same way about you, and a lot of yours,
and your kneejerk support for anyone anti-Israel, anti-US.
Bill C

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Howard Kveck said:

? ?My point wasn't to get started on a discussion of Arab/Israeli relations
(and this ends it on my part) but to point out to you that you sseem to like to
condemn people for the sources of their info but you don't seem critical enough
of your own sources.

Quoted message said:

I guess we agree. I feel the same way about you, and a lot of yours,
and your kneejerk support for anyone anti-Israel, anti-US.

Would you mind telling me exactly who these "anti-Israel, anti-US" people are that
you think I'm supportive of?

Bill, the fact that I think you have a kneejerk level of support for certain
things does not mean that I have the same level of support for the opposite things.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On 1/15/08 6:59 AM, in article
[email hidden], "Bill C"

Quoted message said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Bill C said:

I've made a reasoned and researched judgement that the support for
Israel and all things Jewish, here in the post ww2 West has seriously
declined. That significant, incredibly vocal sections of the West have
embraced "Revolutionary groups", "Freedom Fighters", etc as a concept,
since the 60s.  Despite their actions which are always excused for the
most part. IE Castros human rights record and his prisons. We've had
this coversation repeatedly about the selective indignation and I
still don't buy your position.
  My opinion, again formed from experience and research is that this,
along with a new generation of overwhelmingly 60s mindset graduates
moved into these jobs and editorial chairs and moved the information
we get to support their political beliefs.
 These have become increasingly anti-Israel/Anit- Jewish as the large
increase in anti-semitic acts, especially throughout Europe document.
 Does that concern you in any way?

<snip>

Dumbass -

There was a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WW2
because of the Holocaust (as you know). We made a huge mistake in
trying to give the Jewish refugees a country. Should have taken them
in as refugees to the US. Probably didn't do that due to anti-Semitism
in the US (you reap what you sow). In 1920, only 11% of the population
of the area now known as Israel was composed of Jews. The numbers grew
before and during WW2 because of an influx of Jewish refugees from
Europe.

The reason it was a mistake for us is that in order to make a coherent
state for them (Israel), another group of people had to be
dispossessed, just as the Jews had been. Not only that, in order to
protect the fragile existence of this new state, we had to insert
ourselves into a cultural struggle between religions. Israel is a
religious state. It is not a secular democracy. It discriminates based
upon religion.

Because of the dispossessed people, the Palestinians, Israel has come
to be seen as an oppressor, ironic since the Jews themselves had
previously been the oppressed. Hence the conditions for the rise in
anti-Semitism.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Yep, lots of truth in that, but the reason there weren't many Jews in
their historical homeland area is the same there aren't tons in Saudi
Arabia, and other Arab countries, centuries of discrimination,
slavery, and extermination.
There were well over a hundred thousand Jews in displaced persons
camps in Europe. Europe could've reabsorbed them, but why would they
want to stay there where historically they'd been the punching bag,
and designated sacrifice. We should've taken them here, but instead we
tried to give them some justice by sending them to a place they had a
historical claim to, and had been an enemy territory for centuries.
Not much different than all the Euro border rewrites, just long
distance with very good intentions, and getting rid of a problem in
mind.
I'd still argue that an Arab in Israel has more rights and freedoms
than a Jew in Saudi, or Syria, or Egypt, etc...
Someone's always going to get stepped on. The Israelis aren't
committed to extermination, huge chunks of the Arabs still are. They
drop that then we have a different discussion. That's enough for me.
If you don't think the Israelis could physically depopulate the
disputed territories and drive everyone off then you are sadly
mistaken. Politically they can't do it, and don't want to do it. They
are demanding reasonable treatment, freedom, and a safe place in
repayment for centuries of oppression and slaughter, not much more
than that.
Bill C

How about........

"An Arab in Israel probably has MORE rights than they do in an Arab
country!"

Without a doubt if they are female!

If it was not for oil in the early last century the Middle East would be
much more like African nations in the GDP department.......

What is a positive aspect of Islamic countries?? Their decision to run their
governments and societies on religious doctrine holds their citizens to a
higher level of personal responsibility, even overboard and violating
rights.

Personal responsibility is something we have given up and replaced by
coddling feelings and blaming anyone else but our own actions & behaviors.

Howard Kveck said:

   Would you mind telling me exactly who these "anti-Israel, anti-US" people are that
you think I'm supportive of?

It's not worth the effort. It'd end up like the Castro discussion,
where you wouldn't say he's ever done anything wrong, but wouldn't say
you support him, but did say you "support the Cuban people".
Which I should've answered with "Which ones? The ones basically
summarily executed by him and Gueverra, the ones in prisons that make
Gitmo look like a 5 star resort, or the ones here in the US that had
everything taken from them, and left before they were summarily shot,
well maybe tortured for a while first."
Tom focuses on one or two tiny details and sticks with them to the
exclusion of the big picture. You keep the target moving.

Quoted message said:

Bill, the fact that I think you have a kneejerk level of support

for certain

Quoted message said:

things does not mean that I have the same level of support for the opposite things.

--
                              tanx,
                               Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
                     But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard I don't see it as knee jerk. I see my positions as well
founded, researched, and constantly re-evaluated. The evidence and my
thinking is here for everyone to see, complete with many links, and
references over the past years.
You do the name calling thing, keep moving the argument,
etc...without making your case for us to see. I've repeatedly asked
you to provide the background on your positions, the thinking behind
them, and the resources you use. None of which has been forthcoming,
except for a few articles and links you've sent me in the past to
pretty obscure stuff.
That I appreciated, because that's stuff, even I, would never
normally stumble upon, except for the Salon stuff.
You accuse me of things, but then I can lay out my argument, and you
either can't, or won't shoot it down based on the merits. You resort
to genteel name calling.
It amounts to everything I read is wrong, Fox is biased and evil, any
publication owned by a corporation is part of the vast right wing
conspiracy, etc...
That's not the reality, at least not to most people. Some are pretty
middle of the road, some are biased one way or the other, that's why I
have sources from all points of view that I read.
It's fascinating to see how differently incidents are reported in
each source. Over time this gives a person a real good feel for where
there editorial slant is.
A really good example is the BBC. AFP is easily the most middle of
the road stright up news service out there. The BBC is incredible, but
has moderate to severe problems in it's Middle East coverage as
compared to AFP. It's amazing the number of relevant details that
don't appear in their coverage that do in AFP, and how it's
structured.
I could go on and on, but until you actually put something other than
accusations, and names on the board it's useless.
Bill C

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Bill C said:

I've made a reasoned and researched judgement that the support for
Israel and all things Jewish, here in the post ww2 West has seriously
declined. That significant, incredibly vocal sections of the West have
embraced "Revolutionary groups", "Freedom Fighters", etc as a concept,
since the 60s. Despite their actions which are always excused for the
most part. IE Castros human rights record and his prisons. We've had
this coversation repeatedly about the selective indignation and I
still don't buy your position.
My opinion, again formed from experience and research is that this,
along with a new generation of overwhelmingly 60s mindset graduates
moved into these jobs and editorial chairs and moved the information
we get to support their political beliefs.
These have become increasingly anti-Israel/Anit- Jewish as the large
increase in anti-semitic acts, especially throughout Europe document.
Does that concern you in any way?

<snip>

Dumbass -

There was a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WW2
because of the Holocaust (as you know). We made a huge mistake in
trying to give the Jewish refugees a country. Should have taken them
in as refugees to the US. Probably didn't do that due to anti-Semitism
in the US (you reap what you sow). In 1920, only 11% of the population
of the area now known as Israel was composed of Jews. The numbers grew
before and during WW2 because of an influx of Jewish refugees from
Europe.

I don't have the information before me, but you are right. After the
liberation of the camps there were plenty of displaced people--not only
Jews but gypsies and others "undesirables" to the Nazis. Problem was,
the western countries didn't want a flood of these "undesirables"
either, and finding a homeland for them was a handy way out. The The
doors to mass immigration to the US pretty much closed in the 1920s.
The fact that the Zionists were already in place merely made things
easier for the allies. And yes, the eastern European countries whose
Jewish populations were decimated weren't exactly unhappy either to have
their particular "Jewish problems" solved this way.
It wasn't all that cold--yes there was humanitarian need, and that
angle was played up--esp. for the benefit of the Jews in the U.S. (for
political purposes) but to deny the economic and perceived social
advantages to Europe is to deny the reason why things played out the way
they did.

Steve

Quoted message said:

The reason it was a mistake for us is that in order to make a coherent
state for them (Israel), another group of people had to be
dispossessed, just as the Jews had been. Not only that, in order to
protect the fragile existence of this new state, we had to insert
ourselves into a cultural struggle between religions. Israel is a
religious state. It is not a secular democracy. It discriminates based
upon religion.

Because of the dispossessed people, the Palestinians, Israel has come
to be seen as an oppressor, ironic since the Jews themselves had
previously been the oppressed. Hence the conditions for the rise in
anti-Semitism.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ACJjj.10442$ac7.3112@trndny03...

Quoted message said:

I don't have the information before me, but you are right. After the
liberation of the camps there were plenty of displaced people--not only
Jews but gypsies and others "undesirables" to the Nazis. Problem was, the
western countries didn't want a flood of these "undesirables" either, and
finding a homeland for them was a handy way out.

It would be nice if you were to know what you were talking about before you
said it.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:ACJjj.10442$ac7.3112@trndny03...

Quoted message said:

I don't have the information before me, but you are right.  After the
liberation of the camps there were plenty of displaced people--not only
Jews but gypsies and others "undesirables" to the Nazis.  Problem was,the
western countries didn't want a flood of these "undesirables" either, and
finding a homeland for them was a handy way out.

It would be nice if you were to know what you were talking about before you
said it.

Tom what's inaccurate in Steve's statement? There was seriously
selective immigration of people we could use, primarily scientists,
but noone really wanted the masses as far as everything I've seen.
Founding the State of Israel was the perfect soultion, from Europe and
America's point of view to a mass of long standing problems, and it
fit their prejudices well too.
Guilt wasn't a small factor either.
If I missed something please point me to some new reading.
Bill C

Tom Kunich said:

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ACJjj.10442$ac7.3112@trndny03...

Quoted message said:

I don't have the information before me, but you are right. After the
liberation of the camps there were plenty of displaced people--not
only Jews but gypsies and others "undesirables" to the Nazis. Problem
was, the western countries didn't want a flood of these "undesirables"
either, and finding a homeland for them was a handy way out.

It would be nice if you were to know what you were talking about before
you said it.

Wouldnt it be nice if we were older
Then we wouldnt have to wait so long
And wouldnt it be nice to live together
In the kind of world where we belong

You know its gonna make it that much better
When we can say goodnight and stay together

Wouldnt it be nice if we could wake up
In the morning when the day is new
And after having spent the day together
Hold each other close the whole night through

Happy times together weve been spending
I wish that every kiss was neverending
Wouldnt it be nice

Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true
Baby then there wouldnt be a single thing we couldnt do
We could be married
And then wed be happy

Wouldnt it be nice

You know it seems the more we talk about it
It only makes it worse to live without it
But lets talk about it
Wouldnt it be nice

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001