[Revenirea lui "S"]
Article 5642 of soc.culture.romanian:
Message-ID: <231311Z05011994@anon.penet.fi>
Path: CC.UMontreal.CA!newsflash.concordia.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!
cs.utexas.edu!uunet!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
From: an54723@anon.penet.fi
X-Anonymously-To: soc.culture.romanian
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an54723@anon.penet.fi
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 23:10:02 UTC
Subject: Reply to comments on my postings
Lines: 234
I am replying to Mr. Andrei Tudoran's comments on my postings related to
recent Romanian history, as posted by Mr. Ted Lungu to s.c.r..
( Mr. P. G. Hodor has also commented on my postings as well as Mr. Tudoran's
remarks ).
First, an explanation: My postings are an attempt to apply contemporary
historical methods( i.e. Western ) of analysis to events in Romanian history.
In my oppinion this is currently lacking in the Romanian historiography for
3 reasons: (i) the Romanian history as is commonly perceived was compiled in
the 19th and early 20th centuries, a period that coincided with nationalism,
struggle for independance, unity, teritoriality, improved self-image and
international recognition and acceptance; therefore, it is biased one way or
the other depending on the political interests of the day and place when and
where it was written. (ii) 40 years of communist regime evolved that history
in a completely unscientific and politically biased direction. (iii) current
Romanian historians are, due to the long isolation and intoxication, either
"frozen in time" at the pre-communist traditional history or strongly
influenced by the communist view. They have to catch up with 50 years of
development in both historical method and political science that took place
in the West. One principle, always obvious but nowadays clearly stated by
Western history theorists, is that, no matter how objective the historian
tries to be, his/her biases and the views of his/her time/place will somehow
sip into the writings. Since, of course, I am subject to this principle myself,
I am the first to invite and welcome historic ( not political! ) debate and
critcal analysis of my postings ( not my person or my integrity! ).
Second, a clarification: My recent posting on the Romanian Revolution of 1989
had 3 goals: (i) to provide a version of the events that is both *consistent*
and *credible*. So far, I've heard only disparaged bits and pieces, reminding
of the three blind men that touched the elephant in three different places
and then tried to describe it. The popular version talks about occult forces,
misterious terrorists, sudden appearences of various people at key locations,
sinister conspirations, etc. (ii) to analyse the differences between the
positions of the FSN/FDSN government and the opposition, stressing the mistakes
that the opposition made (and maybe should not repeat ) to explain its
electoral results (iii) to point out that anti-communism does not necessarily
equates with pro-democracy, that political adversaries are not necessarily
evil treacherous enimies, that the will of the electorate must be recognized
and *respected*, even when it results in your defeat or the "wrong" path.
Third, a note of caution: Communism is not only a set of politico-economic
beliefs, but also a way of thinking, acting and arguing points. This includes
dealing in generalities, answering different questions than those asked,
brushing the issues aside, seeing things in black and white only,
stereoptyping, seeing enemies in everyone who thinks differently, etc. My
subjective impression after reading Mr. Tudoran's comments, is that he
showed "revolutionary vigilance" in immediately pointing out a dangerous
anonymous FDSN propagandist, thus making the other netters aware of the
trap they might fall into, if they are to believe my postings.
I would classify Mr. Tudoran's comments as 1) attacks against my
integrity and "discussion stoppers" and 2) criticism of my postings.
1) Attacks against my integrity and discussion stoppers
It is sad to see that 100 years after Titu Maiorescu's call to "criticize the
work, not the author" this principle has not been assimilated by everyone who
wants to engage in historical or political discourse.
a) Although not explicitly stated, the comments seem to imply that the postings
are somehow "affiliated" with FDSN's newspapers and political positions. Thus,
they should be seen as "politically motivated" or "propaganda". The ideea that
the positions can be held in honesty, without ulterior motive, by someone who
thinks independently seems foreign to Mr. Tudoran. The fact that those positions
may coincide at some point with positions held by a political party should not
be reason for "discreditation by association". Also, the fact that some
positions are held by the government newspapers vs. the opposition's newspapers
does not make them automatically wrong ( or right ); each position and deed has
to be looked at independantly. One can notice the asymetry, that my postings
represent propaganda, while my critic's reply is the "truth".
b) The use of the words "outright lie" is an insult. Unlike "inadvertence"
which refers to an incorrectitude due to misinformation, negligence or poor
memory, but true to the author's good faith recollection, "lie" implies a
deliberate attempt to mislead by an author who *knowingly* spreads false
information.("outright lie" was used in the context of my writing that the main
allies of the king in effecting the August 23, 1944 coup were the communists.
I will reply to the content of the statement in the second part of this posting) ).
c) Perverted logic:
"By claiming that "Ceausescu deviated from all the percepts of communism
except totalitarian tyranical control" the author wants to revive the idea
that actually "true" communism is not bad".
The way I read the statement, it implies that "totalitarian tyranical
control" *is* one of the percepts of communism. Since the word "tyranical"
has clearly a negative conotation, I do not see how this can be construed
as an endorsement for communism.
My comments on the monarchy were directed toward establishing its *relevancy*,
not its *responsibility*. Thus, Mr. Tudoran trying to dicredit my postings by
claiming that I blame the monarchy for the evils of the world is absurd.
d) Mixing comments on my statements with positions that I never advocated or
wrote about ( such as a political position on the monarchy; the (il)legitimacy
of the communist rule in Romania and such ).
e) My critical observations on the *name* ( not policies or history! ) of PNTCD
were construed as "outrage". Mr. P. G. Hodor already answered this claim with
a posting with a lot of common sense.
f) Responding to different issues. While I was showing that the *name* PNTCD
might have some problems, Mr. Tudoran was talking about its historical merits
and sufferings under communism.
g) Phrases like "comments are useless", "outright lie", "no need for comments"
and such, who are meant to stop the critical thinking process immediately after
the author enunciates his own position; it allows him to stay general without
elaboration, play on generally held stereotypes and quickly change to a
different topic.
h) Misrepresenting my positions:
"The view expressed in the message about this issue [ the "mini civil war"]
( a result of inner strugle for power between communist factions ) might be
fairly accurate... "
Reading this phrase, one can conclude that my critic and I are in ( at least
partial ) agreement that the "mini civil war" was the result of a power play
between communist factions. However, this is not at all what I wrote: my
point was that the army, taking orders from Ceausescu, first shot the people
and then, taking orders from the FSN government fought the Securitate forces;
while the Securitate forces stayed put at the beginning allowing or
facilitating the success of the Revolution and then took arms against it when
it became apparent that the anger of the people turned against them, once
Ceausescu was gone. At no point did I claim that those two organizations
(army and the Securitate forces ) fought each other because of some political
affiliation to different communist sects.
2) Criticism of my postings.
This is based on very subtle differences in interpretations and choice of
words.
a) I stated that the August 23, 1944 coup against Antonescu was organized by
the king in aliance "mainly with the communists, seen as the representatives of
the Soviets". Mr. Tudoran took exception and stated (i) that the communists
forged the history books and ascribed to themselves the major part in the play,
(ii) the king worked with the traditional parties bringing in the communists,
to satisfy the Soviets, whose semi-official agents they were. The difference
here is of subtle interpretation. The king consulted with the traditional
parties and agreed that Romania should change governments and shift aliances.
To make a new government acceptable to the Soviets, who were already in parts
of the country and advancing, the communists had to be given a major role.
Note that after the coup, Antonescu was turned over to the communists and not
to the army ( whose nominal head the king was ), to PNL, PNT or other party.
Until this development is satisfactorily explained otherwise, I stand by my
statement that *after* the king, the communists played the most important role.
What would have happened if the king had replaced Antonescu's government with
a Bratianu and Maniu government, without communists, and the Soviets (
remembering years of political hostility and the unofficial support that those
parties gave to Antonescu's military "crusade against bolshevism" ) had refused
to accept the request for armistice and aliance and keep advancing ?
b) Mr. Tudoran claimed that Iliescu and Brucan were not "ideologically
meaningful communists" but "political meaningful Soviet representatives".
Trying to separate the two is like distinguishing between religion and
religious faith; real life communism is so linked to the Soviet system
that ideology and Soviet political interest cannot be always clearly
separated. If I understand correctly, the question is whether they were
an internal force that wanted change, agents of a foreign ( Soviet ) power,
or both. In fairness, I do not have an answer. My concern here though, is about
automatic discreditation based on assumption of Soviet interest. Although
the Soviet interest has been overwhelmingly harmful to Romania's interest,
there were cases when the two coincided ( such as Ceausescu's removal ) or
arguably, when the Soviet interest ( such as stronger participation in
COMECON a.k.a. CAER ) would have been more beneficial to Romania, although
it was not recognized at the time ( see Bulgaria vs. Romania in economic and
political terms ). Therefore, there is nothing wrong for politicians to hold
same political views as some foreign powers, as long as they act in good
faith, know were the community of interests starts and ends, and submit
themselves to the ultimate political arbiter, the electorate. Why is it
fair to call Iliescu a "Soviet representative" and not Bratianu and Maniu
"French and English representatives" or Antonescu a "German representative" ?
Would my critic bother to give me a specific definition that would allow me
to distinguish between "a foreign representative" and "a legitimate political
leader that just promotes the aliance of the country with a foreign power" ?
How about the possibility that people might evolve and change their political
affiliations? If I recall correctly, Antonescu was considered "filo-English"
in World War 1, but ended up declaring war on England 25 years later, as an
ally of Germany.
c) Mr. Tudoran takes issue with Iliescu's role in the "popular uprising"
and his personal risk had the Revolution failed. First, I've never ascribed
any role for Iliescu in the "popular uprising". As I explained, the popular
uprising was only one part of the Revolution: there were others, such as
the army, the Securitate forces ( on both sides ), the FSN government; Iliescu
had enough name recognition with the public and was perceived as having enough
following and experience by the army, Securitate and the bureaucracy, that he
provided a point of focus. Mr. Tudoran points out that the people were shouting
"Without communists!", which is very nice, but the real question was not
"without what?", but "with what?". The people were indicating who they did NOT
want there, not who they wanted. Without an alternative government, it is
unclear what might have happened: chaos, disintegration, Ceausescu come-back,
civil war, military dictatorship, foreign intervention ? Second, although
I cannot prove it, I stand by my original assesment that should the Revolution
failed and Ceausescu regained power, Iliescu, Brucan, Roman, etc. would have
been executed. I submit that my critic cannot prove his claim either, that
"the only risk" to Iliescu would have been losing power.
d) My critic takes issue with my analysis of the PNTCD name. I want to point out
to him what I believe is the opposition finally seeing the light: the new
political names of the opposition are the "Democratic Convention" , "Civic
Aliance", etc. thus seeming to get the point that I made in my posting:
the electorate is interested in the capacity to improve things today and
tomorrow, rather than historic merit or martirdom under communism.
e) Mr. Tudoran seems to use the *current* economic situation to disprove my
point that in two consecutive *past* elections FSN/FDSN were more in touch with
the people than the opposition. So how come they won and the opposition lost ?
In an election the issue is not who is right/wrong, but whom does the people
believe that has a better approach ( i.e. who's more "in touch" ). One can
only note that the economic situation is not fundamentally any better in
neighboring countries, in terms relative to their point of departure on the
road to reform. Moreover, countries that chose the non-communists to lead
during the reform, returned the reformed communists to power in fair and free
elections ( Poland, Lithuania ). Today, the strikes against the Romanian
government are explained as workers protesting the conditions under an
inept and/or evil government. How many people doubt, that if the current
opposition were the government, the very same strikes would be interpreted
as the habitual communist technique to use the unions and workers to
destabilize a democratically elected government ?
** S. **
From: Dan-Razvan Ghica (ghica@odie.cs.mun.ca)
Subject: Antonescu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-05 10:10:17 PST
About **S** 's comments: the affirmation that the current Romanian
government wants to rehabilitate Antonescu in order to somehow hurt the
monarchists is at least speculative. As a matter of fact Iliescu himself
pronounced as against the rehabilitation of the Marshall, seen by him as
an uprise of the antisemitism in Romania. Maybe in Part II S will endorse
his comment with some pertinent arguments.
I have to say that this last posting of S lacks the objectivity I was used
to and that I expect from him, his view of the facts being very biased
by the incompleteness of the facts presented, which incompleteness puts
the actions of the Marchall in a light much worse than they really were. I
have read the transcripts of his trial and that trial was a typical
bolshevic set-up. No charges were really proved, which makes me wonder why
S is throwing those figures which are if not totally immaginary at least
strongly augmented by communist propaganda. As far as the continuation of
the war on the Soviet territory, let's say only that a war is completed
when the enemy surrenders. Stalin hadn't surrender to Hitler and
Antonescu, if he did maybe Antonescu would not have crossed the Nisru. As
a matter of fact the Allies themselves didn't stop at the German border and
that seemed natural to everyone.
To conclude my comments, I would never stand for a person who commited any
kind of crimes against innocent people, but there is no reason to make the
"bad guys" worse than they really are. At least the Marshall payed for his
crimes, while the war criminals on the other side of the front are still
praised as heroes.
Razvan.
--
Razvan Ghica @ Memorial University of Newfoundland
ghica@cs.mun.ca
From: Dan-Razvan Ghica (ghica@odie.cs.mun.ca)
Subject: Re: Antonescu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-06 13:43:00 PST
In article <2j1898$8me@morrow.stanford.edu> mihai@sep.Stanford.EDU (Alexander Mihai Popovici) writes:
>
>I wondered for a while about *S*'s identity, and my belief is that he/she
>is a person from the Romanian Embassy. That doesn't minimize
>the content of the articles, I personally think there is a lot of good
>stuff in them, but in my opinion explains a certain slant given to
>the events.
>
>Cheers
>Mihai
I don't think their quality is bad at all, I really think they are very
good and very well documented. Mostly, I admire S's usual objectivity and
his crisp style (although sometimes cruel in its briefness) and maybe I am
not objective because I personally consider Antonescu one of Romania's
bright hystorical figures. That's why I would have liked some more
emphasis on the details, on the circumstances, that are sometimes crucial
in correctly judging a figure of such anvergure like Antonescu.
Cheers,
R.
From: Dan-Razvan Ghica (ghica@odie.cs.mun.ca)
Subject: **S**'s Objectivity
This is the only article in this thread
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-08 10:46:24 PST
I have re-read his posting about post-89 Romania and although I find it
critical towards Iliescu's opponents I could not find anything pro-Iliescu
in it. Iliescu just won a couple of elections and S's just try to explain
why. To blame Iliescu for winning his elections (what opposition likes to
complain best) does not make lots of sense.
In accepting demagogy as an electoral tool, S might be morally wrong but,
however, it's hard to win against a person who has less political and
moral taboos than you have.
Anyway, I would not classify it as an Iliescu yes-man attitude.
Cheers,
R.
From: Liviu Iordache (U58246@uicvm.uic.edu)
Subject: **S** doesn't stand for objectivty (Part I)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-11 10:42:14 PST
I will count myself between those who disliked **S**'s analysis of
post-revolutionary Romania. The facts are selectively presented,
and the information is biased. Overall, I found the presentation
intentionally lacks objectivity and, with subtility, represents FSN
propaganda.
**S** has listed some of the factors contributing to the opposition's
electoral failure but discounted the most important ones as minors or
normally present in any democratic society. It is an attempt to
cover-up Front's non-democratic election strategy, of obvious communist
extraction, by emphasizing the opposition's flaws.
**S** stirs confusion by mixing true with false and important
with trivial. What **S** doesn't mention is that the Front's election
strategy did more than weaken the position of Iliescu's political
opponents. It also hurt Romania's image abroad and slowed down the
transition toward democracy inside the country. >> In December 1989,
Romania gained the world's affection as never before. It soon lost it.
The power of former Communists, the shadowy presence of the security
police, the political and ethnic violence, the rough treatment of the
opposition, and the governmentcontrol of the radio and television all
combined to undermine the post-revolutionary leadership's credibility
aboard, especially in the West. In a few months, the precious capital
of goodwill was mindlessly dissipated.<< (Ratesh, 1991).
Iliescu and his FSN won the elections (especially in May 1990) for
the following reasons (Almond, 1992; Fischer, 1992):
#### FSN was the inheritor of a system based on intimidation and
deceit. Most people were used to go along with the power. They
were grateful to the new leaders for the overthrowing of Ceusescu.
Romanians insinctively looked for a leader who shared the "Epoch
of Light" with them, that is someone at least as guilty as the
majority of people for allowing so many years of humiliation. For
most Romanians this was sufficient cause to vote for Iliescu and
his Front. Moreover, Iliescu had a great card against his critics
blaming him for his past. Iliescu has shot Ceasusescu and this was
one huge political advantage.
#### The FSN campaign played on the fears of the population: fear
of chaos, fear of foreigners and foreign investment, fear of
unemployment, fear of the past (that crimes under Ceausescu would
be revealed) and fear of the future (of the uncertainties of the
market economy).
#### Whatever was left from Ceausescu after paying back Romania's
debts was quickly spent in the pre-election period when the Front
had imported a lot of goods to create the impresion of rapid
improvement in the standard of living.
#### According to Silviu Brucan they tried to encourage Ilie Verdet
to re-establish the Communist Party soon after the revolution just
to dispel any public perception of themselves as new-style old
communists. How could the Front be accused of being the Communist
Party under a new name, if the old Party was still alive and
kicking ? Last hour political developments in Romania proves that
now is the pay back time.
#### By holding "democratic" elections only five months after
Ceausescu's execution, Iliescu gave his opponents little time to
organize and coordinate themselves, let alone to make themselves
known to the people. They denigrated the dissidents, many of whom
were unknown to the public after years of censorship.
#### The front kept the most important propaganda media - television
and radio - under its strict control. They hindered attempts by
Western organizations to supply office equipment or even newsprint
to the opposition parties. Of course, the Front had acces to all the
facilities of the government, which were vastly superior to the
combined facilities of the opposition.
#### The FSN's experienced agitators, like Brucan, who played
an important role in 1946 elections, knew how to exploit the
opposition's confusions and divisions. Some of the new parties were
set up by the Front's supporters to disorientate the public. Some
of these were genuine, if eccentric, organizations, but others were
merely extensions of the Front, a tactic used in the period after
1944 by the Communists. The Front also infiltrated its own supporters,
often former Securitate agents, into the parties. Influential
Liberals were offered posts in the government if they defected.
#### Government leaders went so far as to pit the workers against
intellectuals and students. They repress the political opposition
with bands of civilians serving as surrogate forces of orders.
Liviu Iordache
From: Marius Hancu (hancu@crim.ca)
Subject: Re: **S** doesn't stand for objectivty (Part I)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-11 22:17:59 PST
>>>In article <94042.124214U58246@uicvm.uic.edu>, Liviu Iordache writes:
>> **S** stirs confusion by mixing true with false and important
>> with trivial.
No one is perfect. What I see in this series of discussions on the
revolution is a lack of documentation and information on all sides.
**S** was not better in this respect. I was only impressed by some
details by Ioan Rosca. For the rest, everyone comes up not with
documented facts, but with essays. Thanks, but no thanks.
I want to learn things, not to be explained things. This we can do by
ourselves. Thus, I would appreciate if everyone in this debate would
replay some of the events more clearly.
I am going to indicate clearly what I feel is true in Liviu's
assertions.
What **S** doesn't mention is that the Front's election
>> strategy did more than weaken the position of Iliescu's political
>> opponents. It also hurt Romania's image abroad and slowed down the
>> transition toward democracy inside the country. >> In December 1989,
>> Romania gained the world's affection as never before. It soon lost it.
Correct, I was in Canada and Japan at that time, and the switch of
sympathy was very fast indeed.
>> Iliescu and his FSN won the elections (especially in May 1990) for
>> the following reasons (Almond, 1992; Fischer, 1992):
I would have appreciated Liviu quoting much more strictly these
historians, to know who said what.
>> #### FSN was the inheritor of a system based on intimidation and
>> deceit. Most people were used to go along with the power. They
>> were grateful to the new leaders for the overthrowing of Ceusescu.
>> Romanians insinctively looked for a leader who shared the "Epoch
>> of Light" with them, that is someone at least as guilty as the
>> majority of people for allowing so many years of humiliation.
I feel this is a absolutely sick explanation.
Iliescu has shot Ceasusescu and this was
>> one huge political advantage.
Probably, even from the outside, on the 25 of December 1989, no one
related the execution of Ceausescu to Iliescu's name.
>> #### The FSN campaign played on the fears of the population: fear
>> of chaos, fear of foreigners and foreign investment, fear of
>> unemployment, fear of the past (that crimes under Ceausescu would
>> be revealed) and fear of the future (of the uncertainties of the
>> market economy).
True.
>> #### Whatever was left from Ceausescu after paying back Romania's
>> debts was quickly spent in the pre-election period when the Front
>> had imported a lot of goods to create the impresion of rapid
>> improvement in the standard of living.
True.
>> #### According to Silviu Brucan
One of the most self-serving politicians of post-war Romania. I am
surprised any arguments could be based on his assertions. See later.
>> #### The front kept the most important propaganda media - television
>> and radio - under its strict control. They hindered attempts by
>> Western organizations to supply office equipment or even newsprint
>> to the opposition parties. Of course, the Front had acces to all the
>> facilities of the government, which were vastly superior to the
>> combined facilities of the opposition.
True.
>> #### The FSN's experienced agitators, like Brucan, who played
>> an important role in 1946 elections
See above about Brucan.
>> #### Government leaders went so far as to pit the workers against
>> intellectuals and students. They repress the political opposition
>> with bands of civilians serving as surrogate forces of orders.
Very true.
OK, several pretty good points. Once again, I would have like to learn
more facts.
Marius
--
Marius Hancu, Parallel Architectures Group
Centre de Recherche Informatique de Montreal (CRIM)
1801, avenue McGill College, Bureau 800, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2N4, Canada
phone: (514) 398-5561, fax: 514-398-1244, email: hancu@crim.ca
--
SIG
Dan-Razvan Ghica
13.02.1994
**S** is objective.
Traduceţi mesajul în română
I won't attempt to actually proof **S**'s objectivity; it is almost
impossible to ever prove someone's objectivity. I will merely state it: S
is objective. If objectivity is defined as the fight for a better world
and against the evil, maybe he is not, maybe he is really not objective at
all. The crisp and plain way he puts the facts hurts all the parts engaged
in the politic battle in Romania, a bit more the oposition because they
are more or less accustomed with the inane judgements of the
he-did-not-eat-soya-with-us kind, but not at all with some intelligent,
objective and alas! critical remarks.
My personal oppinion is that on the way of objectivism the first step is
to forget a bit about the pathetic side of the stories and give, from the
start, to both parties the same benefit of the doubt and the same
presumptions of innocence. Maybe it is hard to do it, maybe is really
senseless to play fair against Iliescu, but don't blame somebody who made
this effort. It is too rudimentary to think that if someone judges the
facts in a slightly different light then he either is a complete idiot
(see the Dima Odyssey) or a pervert and subtle legionnaire of the Romanian
Embassy Special Information and Dis-Information Service (like **S**). How
many of the people who disagreed to **S** have ever not agreed, but merely
listened and appreciated comments depicting a different point of view? None!
Because if you can not appreciate **S** at all, you will hardly ever
appreciate anything that is politically different, whatever its value.
I say all that not only because the reactions against **S** really piss me
off, but also because I think this problem of people failing to
communicate in a civilized and tolerant way is bigger in the Romanian
media than in others. In Romania this gap between "intelectuals" and the
rest of the people is large and real and can be seen easily in culture and
in politics, and this gap can be hardly seen in other societies, which are
more homogeneous. It is a pitty that the Romanian wise-men, the
Intellectuals, are obtuse enough to expect the other party to close that
gap. This will never ever happen. And the saddest proof of that gap was
the Opposition's reaction after learning the bad news of their defeat in
the last elections, after a campaign whose banner was "tolerance". Their
reaction could be concentrated in the following main idea : " They
did not vote for us because THEY are stupid."
To conclude, I think **S**s' contributions to s.c.r. were valuable,
superior, a joy to read, well-documented and objective. I am sorry his
attempt to a civilized dialogue is close to a failure, and I am also sorry
you people really find it hard to leave aside your political passions and
to cool down the zeal of your fight for or against whatever you love or
hate and simply relax, enjoy this privilege of communication we have and
just discuss things for the hell of it.
I can hardly wait the new reports about the thrilling success of linux in the
northern parts of Moldova, or to have my eyes wet in ecstasy at the news
that the janitor of ICI himself was granted a net account and he is now a
member of the cyberworld. This will never create any harmfull stress, any
unpleasant debates and it will also enhance the spirit of the unanimity we
all love so much but I don't know why when asked we say we hate it.
Regards,
Razvan