Will Olympia start putting new taxes on us to make up for 695?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Now that 695 has proved to be an intiative that will be completely ignored by our legislators, will our lawmakers propose and pass new taxes to make up for the shortfall 695 caused? For that matter, will our local governments think they have a free hand to raise taxes and fees to make up for this same shortfall?

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 01, 2000

Answers

Yes (to both questions).

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 03, 2000.

I live in an area with a lot of small towns. There is talk in the papers here on how these towns will make up for their budget shortfalls and follow son of 695, if it passes. The city councils claim they will refund the money on the tax increases, cancel the taxes, AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, "readdopt", the tax(or taxes) son of 695 deleted. How is that for following the will of the people for no new taxes? Without the no tax provision without a vote, these local governments are going to "Readdopt" a whole slew of taxes to make up for $30 tabs. It will be as if 695 never existed. Welcome to Democracy. Laws are like solid, iron chains to the poor, and nothing but cobwebs, to the rich...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 03, 2000.

>>How is that for following the will of the people for no new taxes?<<

Because their customers want government to provide services? Local governments don't just adopt new taxes for the heck of it; they do it because their taxpayers have demanded certain levels of service, and that requires $.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.


BB, we have a utility tax on the ballot where I live. If the majority vote for it, great. I have no problem with that. If we vote it down and then the council turns around and readopts it as law, then I would be very upset. The problem is we are pay a very high cost for services and getting a lot of beauracrats who shuffle papers and think up new ways to get our money. I would pay huge taxes, if I thought our legislators were spending it correctly and not wasting it. We need to vote on every tax increase.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 03, 2000.

Rolex wrote, "We need to vote on every tax increase."

I-695 tried to impose that position, and was found to be unconstitutional as an unacceptable transfer of the legislative authority given to the elected representatives, under our adopted form of government. Pay attention. What you want is unconstitutional. This is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.



Db, I look forward to next November. This is just the beginning of the initiative revolt that will hit Olympia. Your, "I am with the Government- I'm here to help you", condenscending attitude , is annoying. We may have lost the war, but we have won the major battle. It is time to regroup for next year.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 04, 2000.

Rolex,

And your, "I don't care if the initiatives are constitutional or not" attitude is annoying. If Eyman and Co. keep proposing these things, we all waste a lot of time and public money. It is November, and across the state no one knows what their local government budgets will be for next year because of I-722. This is not good for the state, local governments, public services, or anyone who lives here.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), November 04, 2000.


as annoying as it is, maybe its a symptom of something more annoying...representative democracy that doesn't represent...what do you tell someone who is not being represented....can't the system be wrong for once and not the citizen..?

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), November 04, 2000.

no chance,

The "system" can make mistakes, no doubt about that. The point is the constitution has rules even for how the people can change the rules, which is the great strength of a consitutional representative democracy. If what you consider a constitutional "wrong" is generally agreed to be a wrong, it can be corrected by a constitutional amendment; but that must be done withing the existing rules for the change to be legitimate. With that process, the people can control anything about the government. Without that process, the only way to make such changes is by revolution. We have existed under our federal constitutional government for over 200 years because amendments are possible.

Speaking of constitutional amendments, what do you think of an amendment to end the electoral college for the Presidential elections? Bush will get the majority of votes on Tuesday, but may actually lose the election because of the electoral college system. If the Republicans win or lose the Presidency, this may be the time to push for a change since it will (or almost will) change the outcome of the election.

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), November 05, 2000.


Rolex:

It will be as if 695 never existed.

695 doesn't exist. :^)

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 05, 2000.



750,000 Washington voters who voted for 695, DO exist. An initiative is just a piece of paper without the power of the voters behind it. Wait till next November- I will have the last laugh....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 06, 2000.

"as annoying as it is, maybe its a symptom of something more annoying...representative democracy that doesn't represent...what do you tell someone who is not being represented..."

Put down the potato chips, get off yer ass, and do a bit more than just voting and pushing initiatives. Become part of a campaign; work in a phone bank; Hell, RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF!! (good advice for Timmy). At the lower levels (city councils, seats, administration), the low voter turnout can be used to your advantage: getting your friends and your friends-friends to the polls to vote for you will probably get you in! The same goes for PAC's and the like: You believe that PAC's have too much influence? JOIN A PAC!! LEAD A PAC!! The same goes for those loony-lefties and greeny-weenies: Dont like the media? BECOME THE MEDIA!! (it worked for KVI and Fox news, didnt it?).

So here's your other alternatives: 1.) Status quo, sit on your couch and continue to complain (on the pc, at the TV, or at the walls) or 2.) Git yer SKS and head for the bunker.

-- Merciful Nate (pieinyereye@yahoo.com), November 06, 2000.


Merciful Nate seems to have a fixation on weapons/bunkers and the like.

I think it is Merciful Nate who needs some advice. He sounds too dangerous to be roaming around loose.

Perhaps Zowie can guide him to someplace that can help him.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 06, 2000.


Apparently, Marsh-brain has misunderstood my statement. I am making an argument for representative democracy. My advice to others is to GET INVOLVED in such a democracy. The alternatives are unacceptable: a lazy electorate pretending to be disenfranchized, and the eventual concequences: armed revolt, bunkers, blood in the streets.

Do I have a "fixation"? Yeah mabye. I have Croatian relatives who have witnessed the results of the alternatives. If you want a government run by true majority-rule with NO minority protection, then I suggest you pay them a visit.

Until then, please respond to the above statement re: getting involved (Running for office, PACs, Media, Parties, etc.) Have you even thought about the possibilities? Remember: KVI (and others nationwide) and Fox news are success stories for such involvement. (that is, TAKING the initiative -- not making an initiative.) If the Permanent Offensive bunch would put just half of their efforts into PAC, Party, and Representative involvement (instead of this initiative BS) you would see real change. "Sending 'them' a message" will only go so far. Try BECOMING "them".

God Bless America (a Representative Republic)... Love it or Leave it.

-- Merciful Nate (pieinyereye@yahoo.com), November 06, 2000.


Sure, join a pac, become a Senator, run for office. "Make a Difference". Hahaha. Absolute power corrupts Absolutely. I will stick with endless unconstitutional initiatives and my 30$ tabs, thank you.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 06, 2000.


dbvz....eliminate the electoral college....very strange, I find myself agreeing with and clapping loudly with dbvz on this wonderful idea. We have the technology, if not eliminate, make it truly representative, not this winner take all stuff, your electoral votes should be in proportion to the popular votes you recieve. Truly a way to give third parties a chance.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), November 06, 2000.

I am involved, in the way I want to be. Maybe the involvement model your thinking of is outdated, or maybe others like myself aren't interested in the traditional way. I personally feel that to have any chance at having some effect under the old system, you must compromise your beliefs, make yourself beholden to one of the traditional two (R or D), and live a lie...I may be wrong, thats just the way I see it. Since doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insane, I choose a different route...you don't have to like it...but that doesn't mean it isn't valid or effestive...in fact you could argue the opposite....

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), November 06, 2000.

damn keyboard....effective....

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), November 06, 2000.

Issues Nate?

What issues would those be? Will I be voting for Tim Eyman's current 2 initiatives? Yes. Do I want the State of Washington to be a direct democracy? No. Do I think the amount of support that an initiative gets MAY help elected officials make the right choices? You damn well better believe it! There is no I-695. It is gone. But so is the MVET. (and alot of transit money back in pockets, where it belongs)

Do I want to vote on every tax increase? Not really. If Tim Eyman's initiatives force elected officials (state and local) to examine their spending habits and priorities, (out of fear if necessary), then I support the initiative process.

As far as I am concerned, the current system works well, thank you. Initiatives are only part of the process. It would appear that some of you seem to think it is hazardous to democracy and a threat to National Security by your responses.(Armed are we?) Fortunatly for the rest of us, you have no more say on the issue than anyone else.

It all boils down to the voters. I am very sympathetic to Rolex's cause. I just don't believe voters will be supporting the tax issue next year. If there is any hot issue, I expect it will still be traffic/transportation related.

I trust the voters judgement far more than you, apparently.

As far as your suggestions about being more involved or running for office, it is baloney. You have no idea how politically involved Rolex is, or myself. All we have the right to expect from anyone is that they pay attention to the issues, research/read everything they need to, to make an informed choice, and then vote. Opinions differ. Since when was yours the only "right" one?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 06, 2000.


It amazes me when all these people say Eyeman is a larger than life demon to our legislators, and wish he would just go away. Then his enemys say, "please run for office, be one of us". This translates to: Join us, don't Rock The Boat, and we will make it worth your while. Please do not stir up the electorate with any false hopes that we will be accountable to the common voter. Heaven forbid.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 06, 2000.

"I trust the voters judgement far more than you, apparently."

Oh not just me Marsha,...Try the FOUNDING FATHERS of the US. Do you even know why we have gov. bodies like a Supreme Court and an Electoral College? Thats right: as a check on majority despotism.

"Opinions differ. Since when was yours the only 'right' one?"

Where did I claim that mine was right? You and Rolex just sit there on the ol' keyboards and bitch about everything, and then act like the initiative process is some sort of cure-all. I was simply demonstrating other ways to get your voice heard. As I mentioned twice already (please dont make me again), the folks in charge of KVI (& others nationwide) and Fox news didnt get into those positions by sitting around and bitching online about some sort of rampant liberal media conspiracy. They became the media (remember, this goes for the lefties and greenies, too). Rolex contends that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Rush Limbaugh claims to VERY powerful (ie the most listeners and serious impact on government issues). Has this corrupted him? Have we been forced to pass initiatives to slap him into line?

"We have the technology, if not eliminate, make it truly representative, not this winner take all stuff, your electoral votes should be in proportion to the popular votes you recieve."

A representative electoral college, eh no chance? Fat chance (Carlson has a better chance). It takes 2/3rds of both houses and the States to ammend the Constitution. Do you think that the big swing states would ever give-up the winner-take-all system? Think again. Perfect example this year with WA: How many times have both candidates visited our state this year? How much money has this put into our economy? Better yet, how much money have our local radio and TV stations made off of targeted political adds? Can you say "Gravy"?

"Show me the money!" and then we'll talk about electoral college reform.

-- Merciful Nate (pieinyereye@yahoo.com), November 07, 2000.


You are ranting and raving. You can't even direct a proper response. Why would you include electoral college rhetoric towards me? I don't happen to want any change to the current system.

Please show me where I said initiatives are a cure all? Your making unfounded assumptions, again. My concern with your postings have very little to do with the topic and more about your tone/bad attitude/violent tendencies. But I guess you missed it....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 07, 2000.


I believe that was to me, and your right, why would California or New York go representative instead of winner take all. I don't have an answer to that....gotta start some place, 2 states already are why no a few more and a few more and so on...

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@uahoo.com), November 07, 2000.

I took the following statement "Oh not just me Marsha,...Try the FOUNDING FATHERS of the US. Do you even know why we have gov. bodies like a Supreme Court and an Electoral College? Thats right: as a check on majority despotism." to be directed at me.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 07, 2000.

Sorry Marsha and No Chance. Didnt mean it to look like a rant; I should have put those items in 2 posts. Electoral college stuff went to No Chance, the rest was in response to Marsha. I guess I linked the two because of the founding fathers' implicit fear of mob rule in creating bodies like the electoral college and the Supreme Court. My point was that I am not the only one who distrusts the Voter's judgement.

This does not mean (and I do not believe) that we all need some sort of big brother/ guardian/ parental government. But i do believe (as the founding fathers did) that there must be some counter-balance to popular will, built into the system. As with other checks and balances (judicial vs. legislative, legis. vs. executive, etc.) one of the purposes of these bodies (electoral college, supreme court, house of representatives) was to keep the will of the mob in check, and thus keep any one group from obtaining too much power.

It is my opinion that the overuse of initiative process upsets that balance -- although one might argue that our state supreme court made sure that this wouldnt happen.

Its not about destroying our democracy, its about achieving a balance between democracy and mob rule.

-- Merciful Nate (pieinyereye@yahoo.com), November 07, 2000.


Nate,

Your attacks on initiatives need to be directed then, only towards those initiatives that you believe to be unwise. Generalized attacks about the initiative process tells me you are uninformed.

Founding fathers were not only concerned about protecting a minority from mob rule, they also were protecting the people from it's own government. Intiatives and Referendums are part of those checks and balances. Legislative power, executive power and judicial power (The Goverment) is granted by consent of the people.

ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1, POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

If you haven't done so recently, read your Washington State Constitution. Pay particular attention to the power of the people. I would bet my life, that the Founding Fathers of the State Constitution would never have permitted some of the amendments made. The level of taxation and social programs would never have been tolerated back then. Our Founding Fathers would be sad indeed if they saw how close we are to "socialism" and the loss of "individual rights" or "individual responsibility".

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 07, 2000.


Well Put, Marsha. "The government shall be ruled by the CONSENT of the governed". These words should be written in stone. I hope the legislators would get this message through our use of initiatives and their overwhelming support of the washington voters. I fear without a contract to back up our "consent to govern", it will be back to business as usual. Tax the hell out of the little guy and blame the next crop of incoming legislators.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 07, 2000.

Marsha and Rolex,

I suggest you take a look at the following passage from the Washington Supreme Court's opinion throwing out 695.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/opindisp.cfm?docid=694338MAJ

>>As to the argument that the people have the inherent authority to approve legislation, while all political sovereignty initially resided with the people in this state, they expressly surrendered much of that sovereignty to the state government when they adopted the constitution. 'Under our form of government, ultimate sovereignty, so far as the state is concerned, rests in its people, and so long as the government established by them exists, that sovereignty remains with them, except in so far as they have expressly surrendered it to a higher sovereignty.' Love v. King County, 181 Wash. 462, 467, 44 P.2d 175 (1935) (also citing and quoting art. I, sec. 1) (emphasis added). When the people adopted the constitution, they vested legislative power in the Legislature under art. II, sec. 1. Later, when the Seventh Amendment was adopted, the people reserved to themselves the initiative and referendum powers, specifically setting forth the manner in which those powers may be exercised. However, '{t}he right to act directly through either the initiative or referendum is not an inherent right of the people. In fact, that right was nonexistent under our state constitution until Amendment 7 was adopted in 1912.' Ruano v. Spellman, 81 Wn.2d 820, 823, 505 P.2d 447 (1973).

Having surrendered legislative power with adoption of the constitution, the people did not retain inherent authority to approve state legislation, and the initiative and referendum powers are not the source of inherent authority either. Contrary to the position of the State and the Campaign, the people do not possess the inherent authority to approve state legislation.<<

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), November 08, 2000.


BB, every time you lose an intiative, you have to trot out some obscure supreme court ruling. I do have "inherent authority" as to how my tax dollars are spent. If the majority votes in favor of a tax increase, then so be it. If not, then Olympia better abide by it.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 08, 2000.

Next, BB will tell us the Supreme Court has never been wrong....

Hey Rolex, hasn't this whole election been a blast?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 08, 2000.


>>BB, every time you lose an intiative, you have to trot out some obscure supreme court ruling.<<

Obscure?!?! Geez, and here I thought that the ruling on 695 was a pretty big deal. You know, it was on the news, in all the papers, being discussed on the streets, getting the coverage that the average Supreme Court decision never comes close to getting.

Thanks for setting me straight Rolex; thanks to you I'm now aware that all that coverage and public discussion in fact never happened, and the 695 opinion was obscure.

>>Next, BB will tell us the Supreme Court has never been wrong....<<

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, Marsha, but I wouldn't do such a thing.

The problem is that you all have been provided important language from the State Supreme Court's decision regarding 695 that pretty much decimates your arguments regarding the people granting soverignty to the government. You can choose to ignore the Supreme Court's opinion, but they're the ones that decide the law, not you, and their argument is backed up by almost a century of caselaw.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), November 08, 2000.


I love it when things are taken out of context, don't you?

And about nine paragraphs below that:

This does not mean, however, that the people lack the authority to approve or disapprove legislation under the reserved initiative and referendum powers. They do. However, that right must be exercised in conformity with the constitutionally mandated procedures, including the four percent voter signature requirement each time the people petition for a referendum on a piece of legislation the Legislature has passed. Nor does it mean that the Legislature cannot refer a measure to the people for a statewide vote. Plainly it can do so, not, however, as conditional legislation, but rather through the referendum process set forth in art. II, sec. 1(b).

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 08, 2000.


to Rolex: According to your logic, then, if Gore wins the popular vote, but Bush wins the Electoral College, then Gore should be president. Otherwise, according to you, the government (i.e., the Supreme Court) would be "ignoring the will of the people".

So, tell me Rolex, which is the lesser of evils: Gore as president or; I-695 and I-722 being unconstitutional?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 08, 2000.


>>This does not mean, however, that the people lack the authority to approve or disapprove legislation under the reserved initiative and referendum powers. They do. However, that right must be exercised in conformity with the constitutionally mandated procedures, including the four percent voter signature requirement each time the people petition for a referendum on a piece of legislation the Legislature has passed. Nor does it mean that the Legislature cannot refer a measure to the people for a statewide vote. Plainly it can do so, not, however, as conditional legislation, but rather through the referendum process set forth in art. II, sec. 1(b).<<

This quote essentially repeats what the section of the opinion that I quoted said: the people don't have inherent authority to approve or disprove legislation via initiative, as you were claiming. That power was granted to the people an amendment to the constitution, and must be exercised under the requirements of the constitution.

What is your point, exactly?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), November 08, 2000.


Uh, gee, BB, I guess my point is, the "people" still have the authority of initiatives and referendums, as much as it bothers you and Nate!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 08, 2000.

>>Uh, gee, BB, I guess my point is, the "people" still have the authority of initiatives and referendums, as much as it bothers you and Nate!<<

The people having the ability to write initiatives doesn't bother me at all. Poorly written, unconstitutional initiatives bother me quite a bit. There's a big difference between the two.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), November 08, 2000.


I have no doubt that Eyman's crew will get better at writing those intiatives. I expect the future ones will pass constitutional muster. Then you can just complain about the "bad" policy! You know, "bad" as in you don't "agree"!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 08, 2000.

Marsha, I have not had this much fun in years. I feel great BB- "It was an honor to set you straight". As for Gore: Gore wants my guns and to misinterpret the second ammendment. Gore will never get my guns, therefor he will not be President.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 08, 2000.

"Uh, gee, BB, I guess my point is, the "people" still have the authority of initiatives and referendums, as much as it bothers you and Nate!"

Uh, gee Marsh-for-brains, I guess your going to put words in my mouth again! Thanks a bunch.

I never said that I had a problem with popular rule! only that it must be kept (and is kept, thankyou WA Supreme Court) from moving into MOB RULE. YES, the people of Washington state DO have the authority of referendums and initiatives (BTW, most east coast states do not), BUT these referendums and initiatives MUST COMPLY WITH THE STATE CONSTITUTION. Otherwise, ANY passed initiative would become law! Imagine if you will INITIATIVE 666: provides a Turkey in every pot, an SUV in every driveway, the elimination of all stupid people, and a death sentence for Tim Eyeman! (hell we dont have to obey no BS single-subject law no more)

Marsha, Do you honestly believe that ANY popularly initiative should become law? If not, then why in the hell should anyone be INFLUENCED (politicians and otherwise) by a constitutionally moot initiative?

If Timmy wants to keep running his head into a wall (WA state Constitution), he can be my guest. It certainly couldnt make him any more numb between the ears.

-- Merciful Nate (pieinyereye@yahoo.com), November 08, 2000.


"As for Gore: Gore wants my guns and to misinterpret the second ammendment. Gore will never get my guns, therefor he will not be President."

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 08, 2000.

"Merciful Nate seems to have a fixation on weapons/bunkers and the like. I think it is Merciful Nate who needs some advice. He sounds too dangerous to be roaming around loose. Perhaps Zowie can guide him to someplace that can help him."

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 06, 2000.

Uhhh.... Whose got the scary fixation now Marsha? Should Rolex be roaming around loose?

Uhhh... who's got the fixation now Marsha

-- Merciful Nate (pieinyereye@yahoo.com), November 08, 2000.


oops. missed a little scraggler in that last post.

-- Merciful Nate (pieinyereye@yahoo.com), November 08, 2000.

Nate,

His comment wasn't in the same context and you know it. However, I do try to be consistant AND fair!

Shame on you Rolex! You better be up to date on those NRA dues!

All better Nate?

Now, for the record, I am not a pacifist, or anti-gun. No, I don't own an AK-47....We are, never the less, a well armed household, and no, Al Gore can't have our guns.

While you Nate, have a fear of mob rule, I have a fear of unnecessary violence. Violence should be used only as a last resort, and we aren't anywhere near that, (I hope) so I felt you were over reacting on the violence theme especially considering the topic we were discussing. I felt your tone was threatening. Forgive me, I am a mom and it runs very deep!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 08, 2000.


"Marsha, Do you honestly believe that ANY popularly initiative should become law?"

Sure Nate, if it's one I approve of!

Seriously Nate, I already told you I voted for I-695 and I-745 knowing they were unconstitutional. Why do you insist on missing the point? Did I know beyond a reasonable doubt that they would not become law? Uh huh. Did I wait to see how elected officials reacted to I-695 to gauge their response? Yeah.....Am I ready to attempt to over throw the government if they don't react the way I want this time? LOL! Not a chance. The pendulum swings left, then it swings right. I will just keep up pressure with communication, money, votes, all those "normal" things.

I like the shake up and change. I hate to see business as usual, status quo in the goverment. Keeps them on their toes. Good practice for the Supreme Court Justices too!

As far as Timmy, I might even give him some credit for sparking interest (hey, pro or con, I don't care!) in some voters and helping to get out the vote!

Now, let's seperate fact from fiction. You may not have liked Tim Eyman, or his initiatives, or the fallout of $30 tabs. This is OK. However, you cannot deny that we who supported him didn't get at least half of what we were seeking in I-695.

I wish to caution you here.....your assuming again. Do not for a minute believe that I will support every initiative. Tim Eyman's or anybody elses. He happened to pick some topics that were close to home, per se...I can and do change my mind. Ask dbvz!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 08, 2000.


My statement on guns, is my personal belief on why I would not vote for gore. It has nothing to do with building a bunker to fight off an imaginary, hysterical, dangerous mob.(Like some people I know...). This last statement is in no way describing some posters in this forum, whether they be real or imaginary. I hope that clears things up. Hell, this post is so obtuse; I should run for office. I could spread the BS around so deep, you'd need wings to stay above it. Just kidding. I possess honor and dignity. Two things today, politicians sorely lack. God. I am Good at Rambling...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 08, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ