--------------------------------------------------------------------- T H E G A R Y N U M A N D I G E S T (by subscription only - to unsubscribe, see bottom of this message) --------------------------------------------------------------------- (#2001-217) - Topics This Issue: 1) In case anyone was wondering... 2) Digest (09/18/2001 18:01) (#2001-216) 3) More of this stuff 4) Little Invitro 5) Lets move on 6) No More TWC 7) Whistling On Broadway 8) Just this, then I'll drop the subject 9) In defence of debate 10) Off-Topic as of Monday 11) More (1 of 2) 12) More (2 of 2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:35:22 -0500 From: "Craig Stenseth" Subject: In case anyone was wondering... ... I didn't ask for anyone's opinion on the WTC/Pentagon tragedy. Can't we discuss religion or something? Craig ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 22:01:28 -0700 (PDT) From: DEATH INCARNATE Subject: Re: Digest (09/18/2001 18:01) (#2001-216) No offense to any one, including those directly effected by the 11th's events. But isn't this the Numan digest? Everywhere I go I see people arguing pro military action, pro peace non action. The terrorists have succeeded in making everyone on edge, they have succeeded in bringing everyone fear. I for one am tired of it all and would much rather put on my favorite Numan disc and forget about it for just a moment or two. Thats why I am a member of this digest, because I share a love for Gary Numans musical genius with the rest of you wonderful human beings. So can we please get back to Gary, and give it a rest? I would be so great full if there was just one place that I could go and escape the news and bickering for just a little while. Please help make this that place.... Ejja in a black berette ===== I was standing outside your door Waiting for the grey men to go When my mind turned on me With a vengeance I had never known My own Gary Numan/The Machman __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 07:55:47 +0000 From: "Tim Houtby" Subject: More of this stuff Personally, I've kept away from commenting on all this stuff, and to be honest, I don't know what to think or what to say about it most of the time. But I have to agree with Mike Tresslers last mail. Well said. This is now the real world. Reality hurts, but it won't go away. Whoever, and wherever, alive or dead.... we will all be the casualties of war. I hate fighting, war, loss of life, and everything that comes with it, but.....this is war. And in war, you have to protect and defend, and minimise the threat. Tim. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 02:00:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Jill lincoln Subject: Little Invitro After reading all the items about the disaster, I agree the subject should be lightened up on in the digest. But I was listening to Little Invitro this morning in the car on the way to work, and the lyrics (although about another subject) are very much in tune with how the families will be feeling over the loss of their loved ones. Does anyone else see this or is it just me? Possibly it could be released as a charity single to help the disaster fund. Has anyone any thoughts on this - or do we think it is such a personal song to Gary and Gemma that they would have difficulty with this? Thoughts please Jill L __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:20:47 +0100 From: "Artemis" Subject: Lets move on I agree with Tom - it's time to move the digest on or change its name and focus. As a Brit I share your outrage at the terrorism you've witnessed. In Britain we're used to attacks on our home soil. We have defended the people of Northern Ireland and seen thousands of innocent people die going about their daily business for the last 40 years. Who in their right mind would support those terrorist responsible - the IRA - who freely claim responsibility? As I said, let's move on... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:22:00 -0700 From: "Chris Campbell" Subject: No More TWC In the last digest Tom said: >Would anyone be terribly offended if we dropped the whole thing about >the >WTC and America and suitable music for bombings? I second that motion, and I'm an American. Start your own TWC Bombing digest if you wish. Then you can debate about it all you want to. Chris Campbell "I need my treatment it's tomorrow they send me singing I am an American." _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 19:43:39 +0100 From: "Gary Perkins" Subject: Whistling On Broadway A couple of minor things. Those in the UK may have been watching The Old Grey Whistle Test @ 30 each evening on BBC2. I notice that the tracks shown are all included on the recently released DVD. They are shown in the same order, though one or two are missed out. As 'Are Friends' is included on the DVD, I am guessing that there is a good chance that it might be included on Thursday or Fridays edition. I think this was Gary's first TV appearance? Anyway, it may be a good opportunity to video this historic clip for those not in a position to buy the DVD, or the player to play it on. Like me! Apologies if you stay up for the show and they leave Gary off. 'Whispering' Bob does not strike me as a Numan fan, but you never know. Showing my age again, I was watching TOTP 2 today and on came the Drifters from the early 70s singing 'On Broadway'. Any idea why Gary chose to include this in his stage set back in 1980? It seems a really odd choice, though I think it works well. Which I guess is the answer to my question. Nothing else to report. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:29:03 -0400 From: Michael Tressler Subject: Just this, then I'll drop the subject This was just too good not to pass along. Feel free to forward it to friends. September 16, 2001 First Battle By Jim Quinn Quinn in the Morning www.warroom.com As we sift through football fields of rubble with cement dust clogging our eyes and throats it may hardly seem that there is victory anywhere in this landscape of catastrophe, but there is. The first battle of the war has been fought and it was a decisive victory for America. It didn't happen on the ground, it just ended up there. It happened sometime between 10:00 AM and 10:37 AM in the sky over Somerset County, Pennsylvania, on United Flight 93. This was not just a symbolic victory; it was a win for the practical utility of freedom versus the robotic behavior of programmed fanaticism. In other words, it was a test of who we are versus who they are, and we won! While there is some evidence that our military may have been forced to make a terrible choice last Tuesday it's clear that with or without an "assist" from one of our flyers, whom we shall hold blameless, the other members of our military on board the plane had already made their decision. The contents of cell phone calls from the plane bear witness to this. "But military?” what in the world are you talking about, Quinn? Allow me to explain. These people weren't in the military when they boarded the plane. They enlisted in flight. They did it without a recruiter. There was no paperwork and no promise of a college education or a career skill to secure their future. They signed up knowing their future would be less than 15 minutes. The significance of the outcome of this battle will be lost on these over funded, over educated, oil saturated former Nomads. It should make them drop to their knees and make them pray to Allah for forgiveness, but it won't. Here's why: The Battle of Fight 93 was a short but decisive encounter where the fanatic met the free. Where a group of people who have been programmed from birth to believe in the sanctity of self destruction and mass murder in the name of a god who does not exist as they envision him, came face to face with something they never understood; free people who are used to thinking for themselves. It took decades of preparation, training and pseudo religious indoctrination to prepare these men to sacrifice their lives for their twisted purpose. It took a bunch of free Americans about two minutes to prepare to sacrifice theirs. These men and women who began their day with a toothbrush and a plane ticket and nothing more on their plate than the expectation of a business meeting and dinner at Fisherman's Wharf; these people with husbands, wives and children to consider, unhesitatingly chose to give their lives for their fellow Americans in less time than it takes to boil an egg. Advantage: Freedom! As I write this, God is probably hearing from a vast number of people He hasn't heard from in a while. In times of difficulty we are moved to turn back to that which we have neglected. Freedom will be the tool of victory in all battles as it was in this one. It is of desperate importance that we understand from whence the tool of victory emanates. You'll find it in the writings of the Framers of our Constitution. Faith and Freedom will triumph over fanaticism. In those few dreadful seconds over Somerset, the template for the coming battles emerged from the fires in which they were forged. Free Americans fought the first battle "on the fly" and "by the seats of their pants". They did it with the only tool they had: the resourcefulness of people who can still think for themselves. They earned victory and the admiration of the Free World. The fanatics earned a smoking hole in the ground. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 21:21:56 +0100 From: "Stephen Cunningham" Subject: In defence of debate Some more drivel from me... I really hope this debate isn't dropped from the list, simply because it's not musical in general or Numan in particular. The events of last Tuesday clearly affected many, many people in many different ways. We are all very luck to be able to sit at our respective keyboards and discuss this freely (that alone would be worth fighting for, from my point of view). I suspect that others here have, like myself, found this forum for debate a cathartic exercise. Hell, for me it helped just to be able to tell an American how upset I was about what happened, and that our thoughts were with them. Personally, I'm extremely pleased that we people, drawn together by the creative output of one man, can get things in perspective, take an interest in the real world, treat the situation with the gravity it deserves, and put the music on hold for a while. In the most part, intelligent, rational opinions have been aired here, though we don't necessarily agree on everything. Anyone under the impression that there are better forums for this kind of debate can't have visited the various newsgroups of late! For over a week now I've been waiting for a single decent, intelligent thread to open up. The closest I got was the post that I mailed here recently. The thread of course began and ended with that single post. Too clever for most. Astounding "opinions" through to outright hatred is the order of the day. I had to turn off the chat-room that comes with World Chess Network due to the abuse being bandied about - anyone who thinks chess is a game for intellectuals should drop by. Daily Mail readers to a man. One last thing, on the subject of an appropriate response to last weeks attacks; all I'll say is that you've got to know when to stick and when to twist, and we have a very, very bad hand. Take care everyone. Steve UK "And if you think peace is a common goal, that goes to show how little you know..." - Morrissey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:38:26 -0600 From: "Joey Lindstrom" Subject: Off-Topic as of Monday Some good points have been raised recently regarding folks suggesting that we move the "terrorism" thread elsewhere due to it being completely off-topic. Normally I would agree unequivocally, and indeed I do agree "somewhat". However, the events that have taken place are unique in human history and it's all everybody's talking about. Certainly I think there's room in this forum to discuss some Numan-related things side-by-side with this new thread, such as the fact that he's told Eagle Records to go piss up a rope and is now without a label again. But I think we should make a special dispensation in this case. The events of last week have affected us all, and we are all, justifiably I think, interested in how the people in our little community (fans of Gary Numan) and the friends we have in this community are reacting to it. I think, therefore, that some leeway is in order. So what I'd like to suggest is this: those who are unhappy with this thread, please either disregard those messages or, if you must, unsubscribe TEMPORARILY. Resubscribe again starting next Monday. And I would then suggest that those of us (including myself) who wish to discuss this thread may continue to do so UNTIL PUBLICATION OF THE SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 23RD 2001 EDITION of the Digest. After that, this thread is declared "off-topic" and no further posts should be submitted. By this time, the remaining threads of the debate can be taken up directly with the people you're debating, through email or some other mutually-agreeable forum, and we will return this forum to its original topic: Gary Numan. Is this satisfactory to everybody? Hope so. :-) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / As long as the body is warm and the bowels move regularly no problem / can be other than minor and temporary. / -- Maureen Johnson, "To Sail Beyond The Sunset" / (Robert Heinlein) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:41:26 -0600 From: "Joey Lindstrom" Subject: More (1 of 2) On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:01:22 -0600, Val & Ben Iglar-Mobley wrote: >> Think about WWII. > >The difference is then the US was attacked by another state. These were >terrorists, not a government. There were no Afghani fighter planes firing >missiles into the twin towers. I agree that this adds a different dimension to things, but it's still a state of war we find ourselves in. We face an enemy capable of wreaking great destruction upon us. The fight will, for the most part, be "small-scale". We're going after specific individuals, and you don't capture a guy hiding in the hills by sending in tanks. A cruise missile, maybe. :-) On the other hand, there are nations that knowingly aid and abet terrorists. This must stop, and if this means attacking those nations in a more-traditional "war", then so be it. But assuming this means we attack Afghanistan... well, I agree that we should make a serious effort to limit our attacks to military targets (and "military" includes the terrorists and their interests), not carpet-bombing villages. Because while I disagree with much of what Ben is saying, we must never lose sight of the fact that ANY military involvement is likely going to result in death, on some scale. I know this'll piss some folks off, but let me toss in a Rush Limbaugh quotation that illustrates this: "The purpose of a military is to kill people and break things." People will very likely die (I can't see these terrorists willingly surrendering). The thorny problem is limiting the death and destruction to just what is needed and no more. Because as others have pointed out as well, if we just go in there half-cocked and start killing innocent people, this would very likely provoke strong anti-American resentment all over the world. >Going to war against Afghanistan is not justified. Invading their country >in a ground confrontation to apprehend bin Laden will cause a higher death >toll-- on both sides of the conflict-- than not, so we have to ask if we >would really "save lives" by taking such a step. There are 291 million people in the USA. All of them, including you, are considered valid targets. Even Tim McVeigh stated that the women and children that he killed in Oklahoma City were "collateral damage" and that this was a regrettable side effect of his mission. But these people consider women and children to be legitimate targets. And that's just the USA. Many other countries have also been targetted. I remain thankful that my nation, Canada, has yet to see any of this (though we had our own homegrown terrorists, the FLQ, have a bit of fun back in 1971). But I am every bit as much at risk as you are. Billions of lives, any of which could be snuffed out at a moment's notice. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DEFENDING. By taking no action, we tell the terrorists that they have our permission to repeat what they've done. In the LONG RUN, I disagree with you completely: going in and cutting out this cancer, even including the inevitable retaliation that will come from other anti-American groups, will cost fewer lives than by doing nothing. >A more practical measure would be to tighten security in our air traffic, >and consider the underlying hostility extremists like this have and where >it's coming from. If we actively worked toward a lasting peace between >Israel and the Palestinians, I think that would go a long way toward >undercutting anti-US hatred. Establishing an independent Palestinian state >would be an excellent first step. Last week, it was airplanes crashing into buildings. Next week it could easily be a suitcase full of anthrax germs left in a shopping mall. Or, and this isn't all that far-fetched, a suitcase loaded with a nuclear weapon. Air traffic is only one facet, and it is foolish to think that, even if the air-traffic system could be made absolutely "terrorist-proof", that this would end the problem. As for the Israeli-Palestinian situation, I'm not quite as up-to-speed on this as I probably should be to comment with any sort of authority, so I won't delve into the issues. But from what I've seen, I'm starting to think that maybe the USA should partner up with some other important nations, including Russia and DEFINITELY some Arabic nations, and form some sort of tribunal, charged with imposing a solution and making it stick. Each side would have to be made to accept some sort of compromise, and this should be backed up by (joint) military force. Neither the Israelis nor Palestinians would like this, and would likely resent it, but if it were handled right, they'd eventually ACCEPT it, and terrorism could be vastly reduced. And before anyone tells me that I'm putting all the blame on the "darkies", let me say that I favour the same approach to the Irish problem (along with executing a few of these IRA murderers). The USA seems to have inherited the role of the world's policeman, but it must be careful in how it approaches its job. We have seen, in places like LA, what can happen when the populace (or a significant portion of it) loses its respect for the neighbourhood cops. The USA must earn the respect not only of its allies, but of those who have traditionally opposed it. This is not done by appeasement - it's much tougher than that. But it CAN and SHOULD be done. Because it's the only way we can then combat such worldwide problems as terrorism in any meaningful and LASTING way. >> True enough. But when you're walking down the street and >> some guy walking past you hauls off and socks you in the face, >> and then taunts you with threats of more punches while you're >> busy picking yourself up off the ground, do you really think the >> correct response is to just walk away? > >No, I think I would call the police and have him arrested. I don't think I >would pull a gun on him. Suppose there isn't a cop. Suppose *YOU* are the cop. As somebody else pointed out, what you are saying is that YOU will not use force but will not hesitate to call somebody else and have THEM use force. That seems awfully darned hypocritical to me. You sound like the man who loves to eat steak, but casts a critical eye upon the butcher. It sounds to me like you are one of the proponents of this idea that "violence never solved anything". Well, open your eyes. Violence has solved EVERY major human conflict in history. It is never pretty, but it is often necessary - just as jolting the cow with 10,000 volts is necessary to allow you to grab a Big Mac from the drive-thru on your way to work. And a final point to consider, something you don't seem to get: it's one thing to work towards convincing your neighbours and your government to back off on the violent approach, to preach a "why can't we all be friends?" message. Don't get me wrong, I agree - if we would all look for solutions to our mutual problems, instead of just whipping out the gun and blowing each other away, the world would be a much, much better place. But who exactly is going to take this message to the terrorists? And how likely do you think it is that they're going to succeed? These people are BENT on violence. Their minds are closed to non-violent solutions. In most cases, they would rather die than make peace with the devil. Given this situation, well... sure, go ahead and continue trying to get through to them... hell, you might even succeed. But while we're doing that, we'll be back here cleaning our guns and getting ready to do what needs to be done. >> Well, we've been waiting 10 years in the case of Iraq. > >Saddam Hussein has no incentive to negotiate, because the US has stated the >sanctions will not be lifted until he is out of office. However much we >might like to see him removed from power, there is no mechanism in place for >democratic elections nor are there any other factions in Iraq that could >oust him in a coup, so what is he to do? If we agree that he's a bloody >dictator with little or no concern for his people, what is his incentive to >cooperate if he wishes to remain in power? Then he needs to be removed from power. Certainly to do so would be to violate the soveignty of Iraq, and that's something not to be done lightly. But "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", and it is in the best interests of the entire world (including Iraq) to see this man removed from power. If he should happen to accidentally die during his ouster, I won't shed many tears - this guy has his hand in a lot of terrorist activities and could VERY likely have had something to do with this most recent attack. What stopped the US from doing this in 1991 was the executive order prohibiting the US from assassinating foreign leaders. But: 1) Congress is now considering whether or not to lift that restriction, and 2) If the USA is formally at war, the restriction ceases to apply. (continued) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that / magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is / drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. / What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his / children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a / matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the / only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And / is it 'right'? / / As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged / themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never / unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of / patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human / rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be / cheap and is never free of cost. / -- Colonel Dubois, "Starship Troopers" / (Robert Heinlein) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:42:02 -0600 From: "Joey Lindstrom" Subject: More (2 of 2) On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:01:22 -0600, Val & Ben Iglar-Mobley wrote: >> 1) The doctrine of economic sanctions, like the doctrine of >> appeasement, has been discredited. > >Also not true. Even before the Persian Gulf war, high level US officials >operating out of Saudi Arabia released communiques from Iraqi diplomats that >offered to withdraw from Kuwait in return for US consideration of UN >resolutions condemning Israeli occupation of the Gaza strip, the west bank, >and the Syrian Golan Hieghts. Our officials described this offer as >"serious and negotiable," and this before a single shot had been fired, >though economic sanctions had been put into effect. To have acceded to this would have resulted in FAR more terrorism in the ensuing ten years, because doing this would have been to give terrorists, in this case the government of Iraq, what they want, and thus proving that their approach is valid and will likely work again in the future. In that conflict, Iraq was no different from the man who walks into a bank, takes a teller hostage and puts a gun to her hand, and then makes demands - threatening to kill the teller if the demands are not met. Iraq took an entire nation hostage, and killed many Kuwaiti citizens in the process (and also enjoyed the obligatory raping and pillaging along the way). Do you REALLY believe that NEGOTIATIONS with these people, giving them something to persuade them to return something they'd taken that was not rightfully theirs, is the correct approach to take? >It suggests that the >sanctions had worked to bring them to the bargaining table (though, >unfortunately, to no avail, since Bush sr. said throughout "there will be no >negotiations" effectively ending any hope for a peaceful resolution). Bush was absolutely correct. Specifically he said that he would not negotiate as long as Iraqi forces remained in Kuwait, which leaves the door open for negotiations AFTER a voluntary Iraqi withdrawal. That never happened, and the Gulf War was the result. And the Iraqis got stomped like a narc at a biker rally. I'd also like to repeat something somebody else said (sorry for not crediting you): economic sanctions led directly to Pearl Harbour. They probably also led to this attack. This doctrine is completely discredited. >Sanctions can have a tremendous effect. > >> 2) By not following through and hitting back, you do only one >> thing: embolden the terrorists and invite them to do it to you >> again. > >That's not all such a stance accomplishes. It also demonstrates a refusal >to practice the same methods of violence as terrorists. It retains the >moral high ground. No. Practicing the same methods of violence as terrorists would be to initiate sneak attacks, to bomb buildings and buses and cars and kill women and children. The USA isn't doing that, at least not in this case. They're saying to the terrorists, "look man... we're gonna come find you, no matter where you're hiding. And when we find you, we're going to look you directly in the eye and we're going to kick your ass. And when we're done, we won't go running off into the bushes to hide from your friends. We'll stand our ground and take them on." The chief difference is that terrorists, by definition, are cowards. Hell, when you see film footage of them, they've usually got their faces covered (and yes, I do mean to imply that our own homegrown groups like the KKK are also terrorists and cowards and should be treated no differently). The USA is NOT going to take a cowardly approach here. ONLY IF THEY DO, do they lose the moral high ground. >Right now we have the world's sympathies. If we abandon that moral high >ground and resort to violence in response-- carrying out bombing runs >against Afghanistan and killing innocent Afghani civilians-- we risk losing >that sympathy and further alienating extremists. This much I agree with. There has to be VALID reasons for each action the USA and its allies take, or the support crumbles. And that support IS needed. >> They see nothing wrong with what they're doing, >> they will not listen to any sort of reason... > >I think that's too demonizing. Painful as it is for us to acknowledge, the >terrorists did have their reasons why they acted as they did. They're not >insane. They don't act randomly. There was a purpose they had in mind. Right. To "teach us a lesson". Do you feel like you've been taught a lesson today? The only lesson I've learned is that, eventually, you reach a point where dialogue no longer works, and you either have to give up, or go out fighting. >I may be a pacifist, I may disagree with people advocating for war, but I do >stand with the rest of my country. I held a candle at my village square >this past Friday evening. I'm proud of my country and my people. But I'm >trying to make a deeper point: that before we're American or Canadian or >British or Israeli or Palestinian or Afghani... we're all human beings >first. Tuesday was the worst day in American history for several reasons. But the ensuing days have been among the best days in American history, for completely different reasons. Y'know, sometimes I read negative stories and newspaper articles etc., in which the writer opines that mankind is essentially an animal with only a thin veneer of civilization separating him from the jungle - and that when we say we are "better" than animals, we are only fooling ourselves. But all of this is wiped out by the example we see. Firefighters and policemen rushing INTO a burning building, when their own instincts tell them "flee! flee!". And then after the collapse, thousands of people rushing *TO* the scene, desperate to try to help. And today, eight days later, there are still thousands of volunteers on the scene, working against the odds in the faint hope of rescuing ANYBODY that still lives beneath the rubble. Thousands more people, more removed from the scene, rushing down to make blood donations and/or making cash donations to the American Red Cross and/or other aid agencies. Not because somebody told them to. Not because they thought they'd look better in the eyes of their neighbours, or any other "selfish" reason. They did it for "selfless" reasons: because they knew they *HAD* to do it. They *HAD* to help, and some laid down their lives in giving that help. We are a moral people, and the proof is in our actions and in our hearts - grab a dictionary and look up the word "moral". And all of us, and Americans in particular, should take one moment away from their mourning, and feel proud... if only for that one moment. I don't know about you, but MY feelings of optimism about the entire human race have actually gone UP in the aftermath of this thing. >This was not a Muslim or Arab act. It was a terrorist act. We shouldn't >use it to demonize Arabs or Muslims in the same way the Oklahoma City >bombing didn't teach us to demonize all white people or Americans. I don't have anything to add to this. I just feel it's such an important thing that it needs to be said again. >> Please God, we are closer to the >> universal peace treaty which Baha'u'llah >> urged the rulers of the nineteenth >> century to bring about, and which has >> been delayed for far too long. > >I'm an atheist, Paddy, but I'll join you in that prayer. Amen. >If anyone else feels similarly, I've heard a suggestion I'd like to pass >along here. Now, while Arab-Americans (and Arab-Canadians, apparently) are >fearful of suffering hatred and random violence because of their religion or >countries of origin, those of us who are opposed to that hatred can show our >support for our countryfolk-- ALL of them-- by patronizing Arab >immigrant-owned businesses. For example, we can make an effort to eat out >at middle-eastern restaurants. Not a bad idea - not a bad idea at all. Think I'll do that - thanks for the suggestion. I also like to think that it counts that my fave pizza joint, "Famous Pizza" on 14th St., is Arab-owned and operated and I've been there a couple of times since. Ali makes a fabulous pepperoni, mushroom and ham. :-) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / If toast always lands butter-side down, and cats always land on their / feet, what happen if you strap toast on the back of a cat and drop it? / --Steven Wright ------------------------------ End numan@garynumanfan.nu Digest [09/19/2001 18:01] --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- T H E G A R Y N U M A N D I G E S T is produced, moderated, and distributed by Derek Langsford, Dave Datta, and Joey Lindstrom dlangs@sunstroke.sdsu.edu, datta@cs.uwp.edu, Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU ------------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to the messages in this list, email: numan@GaryNumanFan.NU If you want to be removed, or someone wants to be added, email: listserv@GaryNumanFan.NU and include this line as the first line of your message body: SUBSCRIBE numan@garynumanfan.nu (email address) or UNSUBSCRIBE numan@garynumanfan.nu (email address) (email address is optional but useful if you have multiple addresses) If you want to switch between receiving Digests or individual posts, again send to listserv@GaryNumanFan.NU and include either of these in your message body: NORMAL numan@garynumanfan.nu or DIGEST numan@garynumanfan.nu ------------------------------------------------------------------ Please note: this mailing list is configured to automatically unsubscribe you if mail to your mailbox goes undeliverable for any reason. If you suddenly stop receiving this list, you should assume you've been automatically unsubscribed and should then manually resubscribe. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Gary Numan Digest is brought to you via Joey Lindstrom and the GaryNUmanFan server (Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU) All of the opinions in this digest belong to the respective authors and do not necessarily agree with those of the Digest Producers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------