blake-d Digest Volume 1996 : Issue 88 Today's Topics: Re: Old and New Testaments Re: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism Re: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism RE: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism Re:Re: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism Blake and Zen -Reply Handwriting, Industrialism, & Cities -Reply Little White Boy: a diversion Re: Re:Re: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism Re:Blake, Jesus, Forgiveness, anti-Semitism Re: Blake and Zen - Reply Re: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism CHISTOPHER CAUDWELL ON BLAKE (SIGHTING) Re: Blake and Zen - Reply -Reply Nature vs Eternity MCGANN ON BLAKE VS. AUTONOMY OF CULTURE, AND MORE Re: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:20:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "C. S. Beauvais"
To: email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Old and New Testaments Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII More on the Old Testament Anyone is entitled to his/her opinion on the Old Testament. But it can not be denied that the Old Testament was a source of inspiration for Blake in many ways. Here are some examples from his visual art: The series on Joseph and his brothers (3 paintings 1785) God Judging Adam (1795) Elijah About to Ascend in the Chariot of Fire (1795) The Body of Abel Discovered by Adam and Eve(1799) Eve Tempted by the Serpent (1799) Creation of Eve (1804) Ezekiel's Wheels (1804) Goliath Cursing David (1804) Jacob's Dream (1805) God Blessing the Seventh Day (1805) The Job Series (22 plates published 1826) Illustrations of Milton's " Paradise Lost" All of this is not to say that the Old Testament should be important to you, but rather that it was important to Blake, and still is important to some people. .chip ---|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|----------|---------|--- -4-|---------|---------|---------|---p-p---|---------|----------|---------|--- ---|-p-------|-p-p-p---|---------|-p-------|-p-------|-p-p-p-p--|-----p---|--- -4-|---p---p-|---------|-p-p-p---|---------|---p---p-|----------|-p-p---p-|--- ---|-----p---|---------|---------|---------|-----p---|----------|---------|-o- .chip URL's HOMEPAGE>http://camel.conncoll.edu/ccother/csbea/ BLAKE>http://camel.conncoll.edu/ccother/csbea/blake/timeline.html ARTS & TECH>http://camel.conncoll.edu/ccother/north/at201/test.html OCEANQUEST>http://camel.conncoll.edu/ccother/csbea/OQ/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:52:18 -0400 From: ted ross To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On 7/15 Carolyn Austin wrote: I hope the list will now continue as it always >has, with its usual decorous and insightful exchange. > Sorry for the frivolity, but my only question is, what list has she been reading?? This one?? With posts referring to the "Last Testicle"?? He who sees the infinite in all things, sees God. He who sees the ratio only, sees himself only. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 18:47:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Darlene Sybert To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Ralph Dumain wrote: > Christopher Hottel has me in stitches. One cannot show enough > contempt for Jehovah and his Old Testicle, known to you as the Old > Testament. > > Can Carolyn Austin and Scott Leonard be seriously accusing me and > Christopher of anti-Semitism? Did I make any scurrilous remarks > about my oppressed Eastern European ancestors? No, I referred to I am not Jewish--in fact, I am of German descent and a Christian. However, I have to agree with Carolyn and Scott that your remarks were anti-semitic and racist... And your defense in this letter--which I erased in the interest of saving space--IS insulting--and what's more you KNEW that both the post in question and this one were. One might consider that before Carolyn and Scott posted, you could have assumed that there were no Jews, Christians nor Islamic believers on the list. But when you wrote this response, you knew better...and you can't have the education you do and not know that all three groups consider the Old Testament an important book. So you knew that your psuedo-clever name for that book would be offensive to a few people on the list, anyway. But, hey, what do you care? Being insulting and offensive is your modus operandi...your signature attitude. And, hey, this is the age of skepticism and no one is supposed to believe any more--or dare to admit it if they do...So why show any respect for the beliefs of and politeness towards such ignorant people? If anyone is offended, let them unsubscribe from the list and leave you to get on with your self-glorification project in peace...right? It never ceases to amaze me that people can go to school for 16 years in a (relatively) free country and never learn any manners... > (Does your mother know you talk this way?) Darlene Sybert http://www.missouri.edu/~c557506/index.htl University of Missouri at Columbia (English) ****************************************************************************** Certain passages in the argument employed by Hegel in defining the relation of master to slave apply much better to the relations of man to woman. -Beauvoir ****************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 23:48:25 -0500 (CDT) From: RPYODER@ualr.edu To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism Message-Id: <email@example.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Duh, I think Carolyn was being ironic. You know, irony, that 18th century thing. rpy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 03:06:19 -0400 From: WaHu@aol.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re:Re: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism Message-Id: <email@example.com> In a message dated 96-07-16 21:15:37 EDT, you write: << So why show any respect for the beliefs of and politeness towards such ignorant people? >> Really one is at a loss to know why one should. And be wary of manners. Manners are a function of income. Only the most violent and calculating people have manners. The better the manners, the higher the income, and the more concealed violence by the manner-er toward the manner-ee. (For example: is there more violent action in all of literature than when Miss Cardew gives her guest cake and puts sugar in her tea?) Of course manners are necessary, because we are all to a degree violent & calculating and earn tens of thousands of dollars. But our manners should not be confused with Real Manners. Consult the Protocol Officer at the State Department. "Did you see that?" "Yes, Mr. Secretary." "He crossed his legs and smiled." "Yes, Mr. Secretary." "This means War." Be Wary of Manners. Have a nice day, Ms. Sybert. It's been a pleasure conversing with you. Hugh Walthall firstname.lastname@example.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 10:29:28 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Blake and Zen -Reply Message-Id: In relation to letting each moment slide by into the new in Zen, how do you like Blake's: He who beds (or binds) to himself a joy Doth the winged life destroy; But he who kisses it as it flies Lives in Eternity's Sunrise ? Pam van Schaik ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 10:44:31 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Handwriting, Industrialism, & Cities -Reply Message-Id: To answer fully the question raised re the human form of London, I think it is again necessary to invoke the whole spectrum of unfallen and fallen light. In Eternity, when all Nations were one with God in Innocence, all the Nations and Cities had human, divine forms. When Albion falls into the sluggish `Sleep' which overwhelms his faculties, they can no longer expand into God's humanising light, and he can no longer assimilate with Jerusalem, the beautiful `Bride' of Jesus. Thus, Blake sees London in the state of Experience as aged and bent and as being led by Babylon who gains pre-eminence when Jerusalem is cast out of ALbion's bosom by Urizen. The street names are surely actual names of those in London and simply convey the breadth of the area devastated by Urizen's distorted visions of good and evil? Pam. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 12:43:23 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Little White Boy: a diversion Message-Id: Someone asked me the other day if there was a Contrary to Blake's Little Black Boy. I couldn't think of one but the following words came to mind quite readily so I thought I'd share them with you - just for fun: The Little White Boy My mother bore me on a cold, dark night And though I'm white, my soul is black, Black as a coal-sack, Bereaved of all light. At Church I was told To be good as gold So God would give me grace And in heaven a place. But, wherever I go I give as good as I get - A punch on the nose, or blow My enemies will never forget. That's what the Bible says, if rightly read - Dismay those who disobey God's laws And on their sinful heads tread Like a tiger with bloody paws. Make them pay who me and my God gainsay And live to regret their every defect. Show no mercy, but prod them every day So they will aspire to be as I, in every way. Pam van Schaik ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 08:41:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "Avery F. Gaskins" To: Subject: Re: Re:Re: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism Message-Id: Hugh, your post on manners went completely over my head. Could you (as Byron asked of Coleridge) "explain your explanation"? Avery Gaskins ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 10:18:20 -0400 From: email@example.com (R.H. Albright) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re:Blake, Jesus, Forgiveness, anti-Semitism Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hugh Walthall writes: >>>>>>>>... be wary of manners. Manners are a function of income. Only the >>>>>>>>most violent and calculating people have manners. The better the >>>>>>>>manners, the higher the income, and the more concealed violence by >>>>>>>>the manner-er toward the manner-ee.>>>>>>>> Yes. Be wary of manners. The English (talk about a generalization!) used them very well, while hypocritically doing the exact opposite of what they said as they were busily conquering the world. Also be wary of flawed correlations with "class struggle" and blatantly insulting members (of any class, race, religion, or simply as a personal attack) on this list. Netiquette (which Albion.Com provides online, in case any of you want to review it) doesn't have anything to do with class or income level. I've actually had this "discussion" in other groups, which got more lewd and mean-hearted than the level currently displayed. Here are examples of the flaws in your logic: 1) Camille Paglia doesn't have "manners" in the common sense of the word. But you'll find her criticism of Susan Sontag in _Vamps and Tramps_ to be articulate, not merely derogatory, DESPITE having grown up in a lower middle class Italian household. 2) Michael Harper has alot of anger. He dropped out of high school, came from a poor family. Maybe, anti-Semites and haters of individuals of all kinds, you can take a tip from a title to one of Harper's most famous poems "Nightmare Begins Responsibility." When you make a post, derogatory statements need to be re-thought at a higher level of "what am I _really_ angry about" before being posted. There's a responsibility to think as well as feel (left and right brains, fused) before you click "SEND". And if you DON'T think? Well... it reflects on you more than anyone else. There is a permanent archive of what is said in this group. So you go down on record. 3) I have personally been the victim of vicious verbal attacks by Mr. Dumain since I joined this list. They have ranged from derisive to clever, with a heavy emphasis on the former, which "peaked" during his Memorial Day weekend double-assault. This was so ostentatious that he was told to chill out, bigtime, or face list removal. When I critiqued his original series of July 7-8 posts, nothing was said at a personal level. And why should it? At least he finally was saying stuff of high enough quality to critique. To his reply of Gloudina Bouwer's post, I pulled out a paragraph of his that I thought stood up well as his view on Blake. It has little to do with mine. Is forgiveness a sign of my "class"? 4) If you want a funny, class-conscious view of the original Gospels versus the Book of Revelation, I recommend D.H. Lawrence's (he came from the WORKING class, Hugh!) _Apocalypse_, in which he theorizes that Christ and Buddha are elite, able-to-afford-generosity (i.e. upper class) people and St. John the Divine (or John of Patmos, as Lawrence calls him) brings up the working-class people's revenge with this "Well, don't worry! There's going to be an apocalypse that will blow all of you unbelievers to smitherings." Lawrence said it all with a level of articulation that made me laugh. 5) We're all on the same ship, Mr. Walthall... even if it's a Titanic. A dialectic can challenge you. An insult can be excused. And apologies are always welcome. I've enjoyed your wit, even in this post which tried to brush off egregious other posts. I look forward to you employing that wit, and intelligence, in more productive posts in the future. -R.H. Albright http://world.std.com/~albright/blake.html ......where no one is advised to drink from standing water ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 10:30:39 -0400 From: email@example.com (R.H. Albright) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Blake and Zen - Reply Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >In relation to letting each moment slide by into the new in Zen, how do >you like Blake's: > He who beds (or binds) to himself a joy > Doth the winged life destroy; > But he who kisses it as it flies > Lives in Eternity's Sunrise ? Pam van Schaik Very good one, Pam. In Zen practice, you let things flow in and out. So if a beautiful thought alights in your head while meditating, neither do you try to capture it nor deny it. But when it passes, you return to your practice in peace. This is very different than the practice of art or science, however. While you need to keep open to new possibilities (the Post-It Yellow Stickie was an accident, for example), you also need to keep your eyes on the prize, so to speak. Another Blake poem that lends itself very well to Zen: "To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. ---opening to "Auguries of Innocence" This is perhaps where I begin to disagree with your view of the fallen and unfallen worlds, Pam, as seen by Blake, or certainly as seen by me. In Zen, the mindfulness in actions, so that you feel like you're treading the sharp edge of a sword, or running over the steep ridge of an iceberg, (to paraphrase Katsuki Sekida), it's important to feel that every step you make matters, and is part of Eternity (at least until you get out of this cycle of re-births). You can see a glimmer of what that Eternity is in a grain of sand, or feel something like an expression of Heaven (Nirvana) in a wild flower. Another good one by Blake for correlation with Zen: "Morning" by William Blake "To find the Western path, Right thro' the Gates of Wrath I urge my way. Sweet Mercy leads me on With soft repentant moan; I see the break of day. "The war of swords & spears Melted by dewy tears Exhales on high; The Sun is freed from fears And with soft grateful tears Ascends the sky." Zen doesn't talk about repentance much (to my knowledge), but its reliance on the word "love" basically does the same thing. It also talks about overcoming fear, and remembering that you contain the Buddha within you... which ties into that famous Blake quote about Jesus being the real God, and so am I and so are you. -Randall Albright ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 21:27:18 -0400 From: WaHu@aol.com To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> In a message dated 96-07-17 11:57:22 EDT, you write: << Hugh, your post on manners went completely over my head. Could you (as Byron asked of Coleridge) "explain your explanation"? Avery Gaskins >> The beautiful wooden floors of the Imperial Japanese Palace were waxed and polished to the Nth degree. They were powerfully slippery. This was because the various Shoguns refused to surrender their weapons, even in the palace. So. They had to wear silk pantaloons that were seven feet too long. If anyone drew a weapon in the palace, The guards had only to step on the pantaloons to send the offending one flying. Hugh Walthall email@example.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 22:30:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Dumain To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, tomdill@stephenscol Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: CHISTOPHER CAUDWELL ON BLAKE (SIGHTING) Message-Id: <199607180530.WAA13600@igc6.igc.apc.org> "Blake begins by being 18th century, rapidly revolts to Elizabethan Gothicism, moves on to Godwinism, and eventually can find no satisfaction until he reaches a sort of super-Protestantism, a complete individualism of mysticism which is almost psychotic. The most genuine revolutionary, his tragedy is the outcome of an age when, as for Donne, there were no social forces making for the real release of individualism. He was caught in the bourgeois circle. His interest in Milton and Job needs no explanation." from: Caudwell, Christopher. ROMANCE AND REALISM: A STUDY IN ENGLISH BOURGEOIS LITERATURE, edited by Samuel Hynes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970, p. 66. This must be the single most idiotic paragraph Caudwell wrote in his entire career. Caudwell was a brilliant autodidact, but this passage illustrates what is most disturbing about this book, which is at the same time an intellectually fertile tour de force and a galling example of obtuseness to real works of literature. Caudwell's strength lies in generalities, his talent lies in the tying in of the various historical phases of capitalism with the historical development and especially failures of literature, but there is far too much generalizing and far too little particularizing. Caudwell was in a rush to synthesize the entire universe of knowledge. Perhaps had he not felt such urgency (impossible in the mid-1930s), and had he not been killed on his first day of combat in the Spanish Civil War, he could have returned to his literary study to make the necessary refinements. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:17:27 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Blake and Zen - Reply -Reply Message-Id: Randall, I very much enjoyed the parallels between Blake and Zen which you adduced. You say that, in Zen, `every step you take matters' and I think this is also implicit in BLake's "No Bird soars too high if it soars with its own wings" and even in "Everything that lives is holy". In such an interactive universe, every action and choice would be significant and one would indeed `become what one beholds' or what one endorses spiritually. To resist that which can draw the spirit downwards is one of Blake's central themes in my opinion - as dramatised in Los, consistently, in the longer poems. I think your quoting Morning is apt, but in this poem, I also see that Blake , having abjured the spiritual path of Urizen which leads through `the Gates of Wrath', and led on by `Sweet Mercy' (of whom he sees Jesus as representative) foresees the end of the `Night' of Experience. This, surely, is why the dark, fallen Sun of this world is seen as becoming rehumanised? I'm not sure why you say you disagree with my reading of Blake. Apologies for the typo in `He who bends to himself a joy ...' made in my posting. Pam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:33:49 +0200 From: P Van Schaik To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Nature vs Eternity Message-Id: In a recent posting to me personally, Randall described Blake as seeing Nature as something which had to be endured rather than enjoyed. I don't think this necessarily follows from his view of this world as a fallen one. Although he sees the realms of Innocence in Eternity as the fullest expression of the divine humanity of all things, and this world as a distorted shadow of that world, he nevertheless champions Energy, Delight, Joy, and Mutual Love in which even sexual love is an expression of recognition of the divinity in another and is freed from the `mental chains' of social and religious mores. Pam van Schaik ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 00:46:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Dumain To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: MCGANN ON BLAKE VS. AUTONOMY OF CULTURE, AND MORE Message-Id: <199607180746.AAA23200@igc4.igc.apc.org> Today I stumbled upon an essay, which is not only interesting in its own right, but has passages in it confirming my hypothesis about Blake's divergence from Culture-worshippers. Instead of summarizing the article, permit me to cite a couple of paragraphs. In Re: McGann, Jerome J. "Blake and the Aesthetics of Deliberate Engagement (To the New Historicists)," in: SOCIAL VALUES AND POETIC ACTS: THE HISTORICAL JUDGMENT OF LITERARY WORK, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988, pp. 32-49. Blake is distinguished from Kant and Coleridge in his aesthetics and its relation to the status quo on p. 43. Then: "In the first place, the separation of 'subjective' and 'objective' artistic orders is canceled at the level of artistic practice. The point is that, insofar as 'meaning' is involved in his work, the poetry does not deploy a set of 'images' which 'have reference to' a secondary order of ideas. The Kantian idea of a disinterested art standing apart from social practice, within its own sphere of autonomy, is the antithesis of everything Blake believed and made." (p. 44) Later: "Blake's position on poetics -- it has much in common with Shelley's and Byron's -- was not to prevail over that of Kant and Coleridge. The complex of ideas which holds that poetry neither affirms nor denies anything, that it erects a virtual and autonomous world of its own -- in short, that art is not among the ideologies -- came to dominate cultural thinking until late in the twentieth century. Blake's work itself was eventually interpreted within the general Kantian/Coleridgean framework. But there is no question that Blake saw poetry very differently. He believed, for example, that poetry's world is not a virtual reality separated from the quotidian order; on the contrary, it is engaged with that order -- engaged in an adverse and critical relationship." (p. 46) And now I'll cite the entire final paragraph of the essay: "In a framework where everything is as it is perceived -- and all modern theories of artistic work rest on such a premise -- the problem of art becomes that of the relation between artistic perception and social engagement. Criticism formulates that problem in the question: how does 'interpretation' acquire its social meaning or significance? Marx expressed the same problem, for philosophy, in his famous eleventh thesis on Feuerbach: 'the philosophers have only _interpreted_ the world in various ways; the point, however, is to _change_ it.' What Blake showed, however, was that there could be an ideological production, even in the modern world of capitalized productive fragmentation, where gaps would not be fostered within an artistic interpretation and its social reproduction. In a capitalized world, all work may be abstracted and objectified. But some works resist the process more vigorously than others, and may offer positive alternative forms of communicative action, may suggest these forms even to criticism." (p. 49) You might think I would be ecstatic to see Blake tied in with Feuerbach and Marx in the same paragraph. Instead I am perturbed, for I feel I have been left hanging. McGann knows that Blake's engagement with society was not Marx's, and though Blake sought to change it, he did so by interpreting it. Marx's thesis 11 says that the point is to change the world, but he doesn't say that the point _of philosophy_ is to change the world or that _it_ can do so. If we wanted to pursue this call to activism seriously we could wring our hands like Jack Lindsay over Blake's failure to engage in any political action or organizing of any sort. McGann suggests the more modest notion of the artist's critical engagement of society in his work. I won't argue with that, but the invocation of Marx's thesis 11 is posits a question, not an answer. The question is, what does the unity of theory and practice mean for intellectual and cultural work in itself? The relationship between the categories of the intrinsic characteristics of an activity and its utilitarian, instrumental deployment has been flubbed many a time, not least by invocation of this Marxian quip. I have no fear that McGann has a Stalinist view of art; I just don't understand the implications for artistic practice of his specifically 'Marxian' conclusion. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 08:11:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "Avery F. Gaskins" To: Subject: Re: Blake, Jesus, Forgivemess, anti-Semitism Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: Text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hugh, ignoring the question is not a suitable rhetorical reply. As I saw it, your earlier post had little relationship to the debate at hand. At best, it seemed to be arguing the equivalent of "black is white, red is green." Avery Gaskins ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 11:08:19 -0400 From: email@example.com (R.H. Albright) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hugh Walthall's post on the stealth used in taking over a palace... is that what they were doing, Hugh?... reminds me of one of the many campy Revolutionary Operas in China which the current fascist regime has seen fit to ban. I actually only saw a few fragments of these operas, although I thought they had a certain style which I rather enjoyed. But Brian Eno used the title to one of them, "Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy", for his least successful album, commercially. (It took him years for him to find a new label for _Before and After Science_ after that debacle.) And that title reminds me of the stealth involved for the Just Man in Plate 1 of "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell": how he makes the path, then abandons it for the higher climes (pun intended). And what is "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" about, really? Well, uh... revolution is one. Just like "Taking Tiger Mountain By Stategy", no doubt. And I'm sure Blake wanted the just to be victorious, as did the creators of "Tiger Mountain..." The problem in real life was, in both cases, that eventually the Villain(s) got the upper hand. Blake, as many have noted in their particularly brilliant posts here, used stealth extensively in his writing. Nice post, Hugh. -Randall Albright http://world.std.com/~albright/ Reality isn't that bad... as long as it protects your dreams. -------------------------------- End of blake-d Digest V1996 Issue #88 *************************************