arachne-digest Tuesday, January 21 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2029
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:20:29 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Not unfair, just outdated?...[was Re: Legal Logic??? On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:58:51 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: <snip> > Children HAVE to have a legal father whenever it is possible. The way > our systems are set up, fathers are responsible for caring for their > children. If a husband could simply say "Hey, they're not MY kids" then > who would support the children? You & Me -- the taxpayers!! <snip> Your opinion on this matter is very anti-husband. In cases where the biological father cannot be tracked down, then the taxpayers should pick up the tab for supporting the children if the mother cannot afford to do so herself, or if it appears that the mother had conceived as a result of having been raped by an unknown attacker. Also the taxpayers should pick up the tab if it turns out that the father is an unemployable indigent who cannot pay child support. Most citizens would agree that it most unfair to make a man to pay for the consequences of something he didn't do, especially nowadays when he can absolutely prove by DNA testing that he didn't do it. Also most citizens will agree that it is the duty of the entire society to provide for the welfare and well-being of children whose mothers cannot do so on their own and whose fathers cannot be identified or whose fathers cannot be made to pay child support for reasons of the father's unemployability and/or lack of sufficient net worth. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 23:58:10 +0300 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[2]: Can't connect via cellular phone Hello Samuel, Monday, January 20, 2003, 6:15:25 PM, you wrote: >> I have Ericsson R520m cellular phone. >> It have modem. I connect it via COM1 >> It connet god under W9X but I can't connect under arachne. >> Dialer write "Connected" and "no PPP installed" >> Why it all goes like this? >> I can send INF for this modem. >> If I wrote unclear ask me all you need. SWH> With my cellular phone, a Nokia model 7160, I can hook it up to a SWH> COM port and I can connect and get on the internet with Arachne or SWH> even with a Windows browser or with any other internet application SWH> running under Windows, DOS, or linux. I know-I know... I already subscribed for GPRS data transfer service, I have login\pass, all setting in my phone, I know DNS and all other stuff. My phone work perfectly under WIN89, But it dn't goes to inet under DOS\Arachne. It start connect and continues endless. In Win98 it all goes in 2-3 seconds. - -- Best regards, nick-kun mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:13:38 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Can't connect via cellular phone On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 23:58:10 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello Samuel, > Monday, January 20, 2003, 6:15:25 PM, you wrote: >>> I have Ericsson R520m cellular phone. >>> It have modem. I connect it via COM1 >>> It connet god under W9X but I can't connect under arachne. >>> Dialer write "Connected" and "no PPP installed" >>> Why it all goes like this? >>> I can send INF for this modem. >>> If I wrote unclear ask me all you need. > SWH> With my cellular phone, a Nokia model 7160, I can hook it up to a > SWH> COM port and I can connect and get on the internet with Arachne or > SWH> even with a Windows browser or with any other internet application > SWH> running under Windows, DOS, or linux. > I know-I know... I already subscribed for GPRS data transfer service, > I have login\pass, all setting in my phone, I know DNS and all other > stuff. My phone work perfectly under WIN89, But it dn't goes to inet > under DOS\Arachne. > It start connect and continues endless. In Win98 it all goes in 2-3 > seconds. In some respects it would seem that your Ericson cell phone were acting as though it might be an external WinModem. If this were the case I am surprised that it would even dial at all or repond in any way to any AT commands. I would suggest that you look at your baud rate and your modem initialization string for your Windows setup. Try using the same with your DOS setup and see if it makes any difference. If your Ericson cell phone requires any kind of special modem driver to be installed for operating under Windows, then it might be some kind of external WinModem. My Nokia cell phone requires no drivers to be installed for connecting to the internet. Under Windows I configure my cell phone to be used as a modem simply by specifying "Standard modem on COM1". I use a modem initialization string of "ATZ". Several other modem init strings I have tried will not work with my cell phone, even though the same init strings will work fine for most other modems. Another thing I could suggest is that you boot up your machine to Windows and then select START > SHUT DOWN > RESTART IN MS-DOS MODE. I manage a machine that has an internal Action-Tec modem that will run Arachne in a Windows machine only after it has been "restarted" in MS-DOS mode. It will not work if I boot the machine directly to DOS and it will not work if I try to run Arachne in a "DOS box". I know this kind of modem behavior seems very strange, but that is the way it behaves, and I don't know why. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:23:38 -0400 From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Not unfair, just outdated?...[was Re: Legal Logic??? I find it interesting that you had no response whatsoever to all the historical and modern reasons for declaring a legal father, nor for the reasons why other options were not -- and still are not always -- viable. Instead you pick out two sentences and claim they make me "anti-husband." That type of response would appear to make YOU "anti-responsible," anti-children... Your solution -- "taxpayers should pick up the tab" -- is no longer an option with welfare reform. Despite your wistfull thinking, most citizens DO NOT AGREE that it is society's job to care for children who have no other recourse. The powers that be these days would rather remove the children from the mother who could not care for them, and sell them on the adoption market ... [oops, fees aren't "sales price," right?] ==== On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:20:29 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:58:51 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > <snip> >> Children HAVE to have a legal father whenever it is possible. The way >> our systems are set up, fathers are responsible for caring for their >> children. If a husband could simply say "Hey, they're not MY kids" then >> who would support the children? You & Me -- the taxpayers!! > <snip> > Your opinion on this matter is very anti-husband. > In cases where the biological father cannot be tracked down, then the > taxpayers should pick up the tab for supporting the children if the > mother cannot afford to do so herself, or if it appears that the mother > had conceived as a result of having been raped by an unknown attacker. <snip> > Also most > citizens will agree that it is the duty of the entire society to provide > for the welfare and well-being of children whose mothers cannot do so on > their own and whose fathers cannot be identified or whose fathers cannot > be made to pay child support for reasons of the father's unemployability > and/or lack of sufficient net worth. - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:45:15 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: Iraq vs. N Korea Hi Samuel! 17 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But what do we do if the US doesn't follow them. >> THIS is the question. >> As long as they are following it, nobody will be dragged to court. SH> The US law will not allow a US servicemember to get dragged into SH> an international court. The US law protects them from that. It is SH> for American courts to determine whether US servicemembers are SH> following the UCMJ. International courts do not have the authority to SH> make rulings on such matters. Even if they were to be so high-handed SH> as to assert such authority, their rulings would not count because SH> they could not enforce them. SAM ... you _still_ haven't got the point. The UCMJ is irrelevant for the world. The UCMJ is AMERICAN law. If Iraq has ICMJ, than it is OK for Iraq to march into Kuwait ? If yes, than we have a HUGE problem, because this means that everybody can do everything, as long as he makes a national law first, which allows it. If no, than US's UCMJ is absolutely irrelevant, and law breakings have to be punished by an authority standing above any single country. And the secons case is the true. >> SH> Just because someone is in the military and has been issued a >> SH> weapon does not mean that he has been given the right to kill >> SH> anybody he wants. >> Sure not ... >> but what do we do if those person kills Fidel Castro with this >> weapon. This is a murder, and has to be punished. SH> There is a current executive order prohibiting the assassination of SH> political leaders. Anyone violating this order will be punished SH> accordingly. don't make me laugh. (PS: killing non political leaders is OK ??) Bush himself expressed how much he would like if somebody managed to kill Saddam. >> And what do we do if the Country which gave him the weapon told him >> (breaking law and UCMJ) to kill the person ?? SH> It is an unlawful order. Which has been given many times in the US. (Castro, Saddam, .......) SH> The person receiving the order has the duty to disobey it. yes, but many soldiers are too well indoctrinated to do so. Maybe they received home schooling ?? (sorry ... just a joke ... but here you have the general problem of why I prefer public schools much, much, much more) SH> If he obeys an unlawful order he will be subject to prosecution and SH> punishment under the UCMJ. When he does a crime in another country, than the AMERICAN UCMJ IS IRRELEVANT. You can't extend american laws to the whole world. >> But what if Bush illegally starts war ?? >> Will he than be punished by american law ?? SH> Yes. soon we will see. >>>> Why would any civilized country want to commit crimes ... >>>> and it is clear that AMERICA WANTS TO COMMIT CRIMES ... >>>> than otherwise it wouldn't need that act ... >> SH> The US needs that act in order to insure that the accused are >> SH> given a fair trial in accordance with the standards prescribed >> SH> in the UCMJ. >> This is the *PUREST* NONSENS I have ever heared. SH> Well, you have said yourself that Austrian soldiers should be tried in SH> their own military courts for alleged violations of their military SH> laws, and I agree with that. only if they commit crimes on where no third party (country) is involved. a ... austria, b ... belgium a kills a (an intra austrian crime ... austrian law) a kills b in country of b (NO !!! austrian law is to be applied) SH> What is wrong with my thinking that US soldiers should be tried in SH> their military courts for alleged violations of their military laws? The problem is not the violation of military laws, but the violation of international law. International law (law of nations, "V�lkerrecht") stands above the law of any single country. >> So you think that US Congress will protect Iraqi people from america >> illegally hitting them ?? DREAM ON !!!!!!!!! SH> Hitting an illegal target is prohibited by US law. I know ... but this doesn't mean anything. Steve has already pointed out how often this happens, and if Saddam doesn't go to exile, than it will happen again. Simply listen to the "speech"es of W. >> Iraq may has mass destruction weapons. >> UN sent inspectors to find and destroy them. >> US says they know where they are. >> Hans Blix (boss of the insepctors) said that this information would >> tremendously help. >> US does *NOT* say where they are, because they *WANT* to shoot. SH> No, the US, for security-related reasons (see above), just wants Hans SH> Blix to find them himself. this is ridicolous. Your above "arguments" are soooooo false. They want a reason why they attacked. And if Hans Blix et al find no, they can still say ... hey WE know where they are, so it's OK to start a war. But if they tell him, hey, we haven't any proofs, we just want the OIL, than this doesn't look good. >> Somebody points a gun at you, police comes and wants to take away >> the gun from tha attacker, but you don't tell the police where the >> gun is, because you want to shoot the attacker, and take his >> pointing the gun at you as an alibi. SH> Not "alibi". "Excuse" or "justifiction" is the word you should use SH> here. exactly. >> THIS is the current situation. SH> This is not the current situation. The current situation has evolved SH> from a very long history of warmongering behaviors on the part of the SH> perpetrator. No. The history is not relevant. If you see somebody on the street, and he is followed by the police because he has been to jail 3 times, and there is the possibility (but no proof, or any evidence) that he may commit yet another crime. Is that OK ? He is an innocent person, as long as nobody proofs otherwise. And as long as he is innocent, you can't do anything about it. >>>> There are no arguments for starting a war ... >> SH> A war to prevent a war from getting started is a good argument. >> A war can't prevent the starting of a war. >> Because in order to prevent the war you have to START one. >> QED. SH> Who starts a war is just a matter of opinion in many cases. SH> Most cases aren't so simple and cut-and-dried. WHO starts is _very_ simple. The one who's troops go to the other countries terretory, or whos bombs hit the other countries ground. The question is why they started it. >> Hitler lets kill millions of jews. >> German court says OK ... so for you this is OK ??? >> Or what ? SH> No. This is not OK. The US and its allies put the Nazi leaders SH> on trial, found most all of them guilty, and hanged them. But according to your reasoning, the US and its allies has no right to do so ! It would suffice if the germans follow their UCMJ, and if the UCMJ says it's OK to kill jews, than Hitler is free. As you mentioned this was not the case. >> The international law describes also policies, not following them >> will lead to prosecution of the international comunity. SH> Unless a nation gives its permission to be prosecuted by the SH> international community, there will be no such prosecutions except SH> against those nations that lose wars. I know that is not fair, but SH> that is the reality. If Germany in WW2 said, no prosecution by the int. community. Would the allies than have said, oh sorry, you are right, bye ?? I hope not. >>>> But if america starts wars, than this is not americas thing ... >>>> but a WORLD ISSUE ... >> SH> America doesn't go to war without reasons that are justifiable >> SH> to the great majority of Americans. >> I DON NOT CARE ANYTHING ABOUT THE GREAT MAJORITY OF AMERICANS. >> Hitler asked "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg". And Germans said YES >> Do you want the total war. >> Germans said yes. >> So the majority of germans agreed, so it was OK to start WW2. SH> No it was not OK. So it is not OK if germans majority justifies war. But it is OK if american majority justifies war ?? WHY ? >> America has no right to install anything outside america !!!!!! SH> The US has been setting up governments in trouble spots all over SH> the world for well over a century. EXACTLY this is the problem. And exactly this is why america has sooooo many terrorism problems. SH> When the situation stabilizes the people will choose their own leaders So it is OK, if I intervene into most inner american things, by kicking out Bush, and setting up another person ? Hey after this silly bubbling about war has ended, than you can vote another president ?? I think not. I don't have the right to do so. SH> See above. I described the case as a "hypothetical" scenario SH> involving nations at war. we are nor speaking about war scenarios. Until now no war has been declared to anybody. >>>> Basically what you say is that AMERICAN LAW can be applied to the >>>> whole world. And this is ENORMOUSLY wrong. American law is for >>>> america. >> SH> I did not say that. >> You did, and you did it again. SH> I said, and as you have quoted me below, US policy is to respect the SH> local culture and their laws and religious taboos. US policy is irrelevant, if they break the international law. SH> Sam Heywood CU, Ricsi - -- |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP) |~\|(__\| -=> Trek excuse#1: The Prime Directive clearly forbids it <=- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:23:32 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: Iraq vs. N Korea Hi Samuel! 17 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [Cultureal differences] >> Some minor points ... >> I did not mean to include the charta word by word. >> It would be enough to include the most vital things. >> Like that _every_ human being has indeniable rights. SH> The US Declaration of Independence says something very similar . . . SH> "That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable SH> rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of SH> happiness." How does this go together with people in Guantanamo ? They are treated worse than animals. >> IMO american social/health system is total crap. SH> Bush fixed that problem yesterday. This problem is sooooooooooo HUGE that you can't "fix" it simply. But hopefully he imporved the situation. SH> Bush in his speech called for legislation to correct this problem. SH> Among other measures he proposes, he is seeking a reasonable max on SH> the awards that can be given for medical malpractice suits. The question is how can that happened the first place. Some examples: Person buys coffee at McDonalds. Person spills coffee over hand ... person sues McDonalds because they did not tell her that the coffee is hot. No problem until now ... BUT Person _WINS_ law suit, and gets really much $$$ for it. Person B buys new microwave oven. Person B has a cat which was out in the rain. Person B decides that he dries the cat in the oven. Cat doesn't survive. Person B sues microwave oven maker, and gets huge amount of $$$. For european thinking these cases are ridicolous. And judge would give the other party right. >> (eductation) >> There is no "don't agree". >> There are facts. If somebody teaches something wrong, you can >> intervene. For me this is the best system available. And it saves >> the children from misguided parents. In America it is possible that >> children grow up with the thought that black/white/purple whatever >> people are inferior. In Europe the child would at least hear >> something different in school. SH> The best solution for many parents is to take their children out of SH> public schools. If the parents tell the teachers they are teaching SH> things wrong the teachers won't change their ways, no matter how good SH> a job the parents do at proving that the teachers are wrong. This is not the problem of public schooling, but about bad american school system. In europe any teacher teaching not the truth will be immediately fired. >> For example a german family left germany, because the children were >> taught that there is evolution, and that the world was not created >> in 6 (7) days. SH> This is the reason why many parents take their children out of public SH> schools in the US. What ?? That teachers teach them facts ?? If yes than these parents have serious problems. SH> I don't think that is a good reason because I believe that evolution SH> occurs and I don't believe the world was created in 6 days. Believes are irrelevant for school. (facts are relevant) Believing is not knowing. (german proverb) And what you do not know has not to be taught in school. People have found millions of proofs for evolution. (dinosaurs which are more than a million years old [measured with C14], embrios which have a tale in the early development, .....................) If somebody manages to collect enough true evidence that the world was indeed created in 6 days, than he will get the nobel prize and his theory will be taught in school. But until than he should not speak nonsens. SH> In the US parents have the right to take their children out of public SH> schools, even if they don't have a good reason in my opinion for doing SH> so. As I already wrote every system has pros and cons. But the advantages for me are much bigger than the disadvantages. Imagine a family where the children are taught that all black people are evil, and should be shot. And than they learn that the US const. and the UN charta says that every human being has undeniable rights. this will get them thinking, and asking. And THIS is a HUGE advantage for public schools. SH> Some parents do have some good reasons in my opinion for taking SH> their children out of public schools. I wouldn't know any reason. But there are some reasons to change the school, eg go to another one. >> For me the education is a safeguard that young people get to know a >> diversity of oppinions. SH> This should be one of the main purposes of education in the US. But how to achieve this, if any rassist has the right to take his children out of school, and "teach" them himself ? SH> In most of the private schools in the US the schools seek to protect SH> the children from learning of any opinions and points of view that the SH> teaching staff thinks are wrong. IMO a big mistake. In Europe it is believed that these points are more important to learn. In order that wrong things do not happen again. Nazi regime, apartheit (S Africa) .......... >> SH> The UN aspires for unlimited World Government and very limited >> SH> world languages and cultures and religions. >> What is the UN. >> It is an organization formed by the world governments. >> So, no you couldn't be more wrong. >> Because the world's governments can never form a world government. SH> True, but the world's governments ATTEMPT to form a world government. Anyways it is important that no single government can do as it wants. And I don't see any better insurance for this than the UN. SH> Also they ATTEMPTED to establish a world language which they called SH> Esperanto. This is nonsens IMO. The world would loose so much cultural detail. And IMO english has very much made it to an international second language. SH> History repeated itself in the story about how the UN tried to SH> establish Esperanto. These 2 things have nothing in common. NOTHING. SH> Sam Heywood CU, Ricsi - -- |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP) |~\|(__\| -=> I can resist everything except temptation <=- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:21:38 -0500 (EST) From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Facts vs. Opinion On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Richard Menedetter wrote: > Some examples: > Person buys coffee at McDonalds. True. > Person spills coffee over hand ... Not the hand. > person sues McDonalds because they did not tell her that > the coffee is hot. Not the reason. > No problem until now ... BUT Person _WINS_ law suit, Yes. > and gets really much $$$ for it. No. Though in actuality, we will never know the exact amount. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm Please check your facts before posting such "common knowledge." > Person B buys new microwave oven. > Person B has a cat which was out in the rain. > Person B decides that he dries the cat in the oven. > Cat doesn't survive. > Person B sues microwave oven maker, and gets huge amount of $$$. Could you please provide a reference for this? I can't find it anywhere using Google. Maybe my search terms are wrong: "microwave cat woman sued manufacturer" What search terms should I use to make it at least come up on the first two pages or so? > For european thinking these cases are ridicolous. > And judge would give the other party right. The cat one sounds like an urban legend to me, but I'm naturally skeptical anyway. > And than they learn that the US const. and the UN charta says that every human > being has undeniable rights. I can not find it in my copy of the UN Charter. Please enlighten me as to which section and paragraph of the UN Charter recognizes "undeniable rights." - -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:12:19 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Carbon14 testing and Arachne On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) writes: (previous subject: Iraq vs. N Korea) > > People have found millions of proofs for evolution. > (dinosaurs which are more than a million years old [measured with > C14], embrios > which have a tale in the early development, .....................) Hi Ricsi, Actually, Carbon 14 results have an 'error swing'. This has been discovered by comparing dendochronology (tree ring dating) with C14 dating. Starting from the modern era and working backward, the error is slightly off -showing earlier or later than actual dates (but I can't remember at the moment on which side the error starts) - then coming back to coincidence with dendochronology, then swinging the other way. The error starts slightly (with an error of a few years), but grows larger with each swing. We don't know why and our best 'actual dating' only goes back 6000 or 7000 years. Unfortunately, we don't have tree ring samples to build a historical file that could be compared to your million-year-old dinosaurs (the generally accepted age is actually 65 million years ago), so there is no way to establish what the C14 error might be that far back in history. As for Arachne ... This would an excellent way to use Arachne for a positive, community benefit. Even a young student could assemble a collection of text, photos, and graphics (or, theoretically, even sound waves) to be used to make their case for what they believed. This would be much more scientific than even the best *I believe* argument, counter arguments would (by default) also need to be more factually based, and outside observers to the dialog would have the benefit of the evidence and references presented. Of course, the best forum for that would probably be a separate web site set up specifically for that dialog. I'm not proposing that we start that thread on this list. I was only trying to present some positive uses for Arachne in the public arena. Warm regards from the southwest USA, Bob Dohse - - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:55:53 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: Facts vs. Opinion Hi Steve! 21 Jan 2003, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [McDonald's coffee case] S> No. Though in actuality, we will never know the exact amount. S> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm S> Please check your facts before posting such "common knowledge." Thanx for the clarification. [microwave oven] >> For european thinking these cases are ridicolous. >> And judge would give the other party right. S> The cat one sounds like an urban legend to me, but I'm S> naturally skeptical anyway. you are right. http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/micropet.htm (PS no problem to find it in google though :) microwave cat sued) Anyways my examples had been terribly wrongly chosen (because 20.000 $ for 3rd grade burning which the mcdonalds lady wanted is absolutely OK) the point behind it is still true. REAL example: woman's doctor doesn't do childbirth's, because the insurrance would be unpayable. (29.000$ vs 107.000 for insurrance if she did births) (have forgotten the name, but it was on very credible 2. german television) There are 2 possibilities: 1) american doctors are soooo bad, that they very often do something wrong (very low propability) 2) american's too often sue and want to much money Signs point to 2) When the terrible accident happened in Kaprun, Ed Fagan (a slimy cobra) tried everything to drag the case to an US court, because there he would have made real $. >> And than they learn that the US const. and the UN charta says that >> every human being has undeniable rights. S> I can not find it in my copy of the UN Charter. Please S> enlighten me as to which section and paragraph of the UN S> Charter recognizes "undeniable rights." Indirectly in the preamble: "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small" Which refers (among other points) to: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" I (as not being a native speaker) thought that inalienable and undeniable were roughly the same, but anyways I ment inalienable. PS: as for Guantanamo: Art. 5 "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Thanx for your clarifications about the above 2 cases. S> Steve Ackman CU, Ricsi - -- |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP) |~\|(__\| -=> Fishing rod: a hook at one end, a fool at the other <=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:09:07 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Newsletters & HTML Hi List, often I receive 'newsletters' by e-mail... nothing unusual. But sometimes those newsletters in HTML contain images and displayed in Arachne there appear 'red boxes'. Red boxes because the images are NOT present. The HTML newsletter is an attachment and the images ought to be attachments too... but they are not there. Since most users use M$ to handle their e-mail I suppose M$ Outlook users can view the images in the HTML message... Are the immages someway concealed into the HTML file? Or are the images not downloaded from the provider by Arachne. If the latter is true than my mailbox would be some day be filled with not downloaded images and that is not the case. ??? Any explanations? CU, Bastiaan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:06:48 -0400 From: "Clarence Verge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Do you want to unsubscribe ? I have been given permission to collect the email address of all those who want off this list and manually delete their names from a copy of the subscriber list. Michael will then attempt to overwrite - he says it may not be as easy as it sounds - the existing list with the new version. If you want off, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the address you wish deleted before this weekend. Don't send your request to the list. - - Clarence Verge - - Using Arachne V1.71 because I hate Windows crap a lot more... ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #2029 ******************************
