From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

THE MT VOID
05/22/26 -- Vol. 44, No. 47, Whole Number 2433

Editor: Evelyn Leeper, evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
All material is the opinion of the author and is copyrighted by
the author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent or posted will be assumed authorized for
inclusion unless otherwise noted.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
The latest issue is at <http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm>.
An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at <http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm>.

Topics:
Mini Reviews, Part 16 (COMPANION, EDEN, JEZEBEL)
(film reviews by Evelyn C. Leeper)
PALACES OF THE CROW by Ray Nayler (book review
by Joe Karpierz)
Inspired by Becky Chambers? (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
The Guardian's List of 100 Best Novels of All Time
(comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
Proof We Are Living in the 21st Century (comments
by Dale Skran)
Not Just Apes, but Fish and Jumping Spiders (letter of
comment by Andre Kuzniarek)
"Uncleftish Beholding" (letter of comment by Hal Heydt)
This Week's Reading (Pepys's DIARY and THE STRANGE HISTORY
OF SAMUEL PEPYS'S DIARY) (book comments
by Evelyn C. Leeper)

===================================================================

TOPIC: Mini Reviews, Part 16 (film reviews by Evelyn C. Leeper)

COMPANION (2025): In COMPANION, Josh and Iris meet cute in a
supermarket, then the film cuts to later, when they are traveling
to a secluded lake cabin (which turns out to be a bit more than a
cabin) owned by someone who is apparently a wealthy Russian
mobster.

And then twenty-five minutes in, things take a turn. And then they
take another turn. And so on.

(They missed a good bet on the switch to the Gregorian calendar
messing up Stalin's birthday, though.)

"I feel things. Anger, guilt, sadness. I know what pain feels
like." "It's programming."

Released theatrically 31 January 2025.

Film Credits:
<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26584495/reference>

What others are saying:
<https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/companion_2025>


EDEN (2024): It is hard to believe that Ron Howard directed this
film--it is so unlike any of his other films.

Based on a true story, it is in many ways a horror story, albeit
with nothing supernatural or even any psychopaths. Dr. Friedrich
Ritter and Dore Strauch come to Floreana in the Galapagos to get
away from everything and everyone. But newspapers are reporting
about his life there, based on letters he has sent back on the
ships that occasionally come by, although they seem to have been
misrepresented to some extent.

Soon Margaret and Heinz Wittner show up (along with their son),
based on the reports published in the newspapers in Germany, and
disturbing their isolation. Margret discovers she is pregnant, and
then Eloise Bosquet de Wagner Wehrhorn, who claims to be a
Baroness, with two lovers and a servant. The Baroness is a total
disaster, totally self-centered, stealing the supplies of the
others, bathing in their drinking water supply, and planning to
build a luxury hotel on the island. Things soon spiral out of
control.

On the other hand, maybe some of the people are psychotic.

There are some liberties taken with the facts. (For example,
Margret did not deliver her baby alone while fighting off a pack
of wild dogs.)

This film is based on a true story, which was the subject of the
2013 documentary THE GALAPAGOS AFFAIR--SATAN COME TO EDEN. If you
are going to watch only one of these films, choose the documentary.

Released theatrically 22 August 2025.

Film Credits:
<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt23149780/reference>

What others are saying:
<https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eden_2024_2>


JEZEBEL (1938): The whole plot centers around Miss Julie Marsden
scandalizing everyone at a ball. A year later Scarlett O'Hara did
the same thing, though with her it was dancing as a widow rather
than wearing a red dress with uncovered shoulders. (The uncovered
shoulders may have been because the film was in black and white,
which obviously blunted the effect of the color of the dress.)

As with the most of the films of the 1930s. portrayals of
African-Americans and of women and their relationship with men are
fairly offensive. We don't see the happy field hands of GONE WITH
THE WIND, but that is damning with faint praise. It does show the
house slaves as really happy, even when there are no white people
around to see them. We see a smiling African-American woman
selling flowers, but of course she is not the independent vendor
she may seem to people now. Mrs. Kendrick is concerned about her
horses standing in the sun, but tells the African-American
coachman to keep his hat and gloves on and his coat buttoned. The
dialogue of the various African-American characters is truly
offensive ("It's like I was struck dumb in both my ears."). There
is one nod to a more modern attitude. It's very understated, but
when Amy (Pres's Northern bride) is first introduced to the
African-American butler, there is an instant when the expression
on her face gives away her revulsion at the institution of slavery.

This is yet another film in which someone suggests that the
leading man should beat his fiancee with a stick. (The best-known
one is THE QUIET MAN, which was 1952, so some offensive tropes
hung on longer than others.)

They show how Pres gets yellow fever--he slaps at a mosquito, but
thinks nothing of it, because the knowledge of how yellow fever
was spread wasn't known until the beginning of the twentieth
century. The scenes of the carts carrying the dead, and carrying
the living to the leper colony for quarantine, seem to have their
echo in the much vaster scene of the casualties at the railroad-station-turned-hospital in GONE WITH THE WIND.

Released theatrically 26 March 1938.

Film Credits:
<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030287/reference>

What others are saying:
<https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jezebel>


[-ecl]

===================================================================

TOPIC: PALACES OF THE CROW by Ray Nayler (copyright 2026, Farrar,
Straus and Giroux | MCD, publication date May 19th, 2026, ISBN:
9780374620752, $29.00 (USD), 384pp) (book review by Joe Karpierz)

In a way, I didn't see Ray Nayler's latest novel, PALACES OF THE
CROW, coming. In a way, I did. What I didn't see for sure was just
how brilliant of a novel this was going to be. I'd heard him talk
about this novel on a podcast awhile back. He didn't talk about it
much. What he did say was that it was something different for him,
more of a historical novel than a speculative one. Now while
historical novels are not normally in my wheelhouse, this one drew
me in and captivated my attention more than I thought a novel like
this could

The story takes place in the early 1940s in Lithuania. Neriya is
fascinated and enthralled by a group of super intelligent crows.
She meets with them every day, playing games and solving puzzles.
One day, Buster (as she's named one of her favorite crows) leads
her away from her family's summer home, as the war is closing in
around them, with the Russian Red Army on one side and the Nazis
on the other. She flees into the forest under the protection of
the crows. They seem to be intelligent enough to lead her, guide
her, and protect her as she tries to evade the warring factions.
She is eventually joined by a young Roma girl named Kezia whose
family was murdered by the soldiers; Czeslaw, a Polish deserter
from the Russian army; and a nameless young boy who does not speak.

What is the novel actually "about"? Survival, on the surface. Four
young people fleeing from the Russians, Nazis, and anyone else who
would find and slaughter them. Four young people, scrambling
through a torn and destroyed countryside, protected by a band of
crows that warn them when danger is coming, lead them away from
the soldiers, and help them hide when it is necessary to hide.
It's about companionship, friendship, and teamwork. It's about
found family in the face of constant terror and pressure. It's
about four young people coming together to survive, four young
people who just hope to make it to the next day in one piece
without losing each other.

It sounds grim and dark, doesn't it? It is indeed. War is grim,
relentless. Neriya and the rest don't really have time to rest, or
if they do, it's not a very peaceful rest. They are always on the
lookout, always worried that they'll be caught, always worried
that eventually they will die.

If you're looking for a cheerful book this isn't it.

Eventually, the story splits off into segments in the 1970s.
Neriya eventually did survive, make it to university, study crows,
and write a paper about them. But if the reader is anticipating
discovering the contents of that paper, they will be sorely
disappointed. Because this is really not the point of the
exercise. Neriya is contacted by Czeslaw, and agrees to meet him
where they spent so much time hiding in the countryside. There's
another surprise visitor - the boy who wouldn't speak. He still
doesn't speak, but we find out why. And as the 1970s segment goes
along, Nayler flashes back to the mid-1940s, wherein we found out
how the band split up, and why the fourth member of the group is
not at the gathering all those years later.

The crows? They had their part to play, of course, and their
descendants are there with Czeslaw, Neriya, and the boy who does
not speak. But while we don't learn a whole lot about the crows,
we do find out that there is significantly more to them than meets
the eye (I know, you're thinking we already knew that. Believe me,
the revelation about the crows is fascinating). Nayler saved it
for later in the book, of course, and I was surprised by it and in
awe of it.

I earlier said that I saw this book coming. Nayler has been
telling more complex, detailed stories, with the speculative
elements taking more of a back seat (If you haven't read "Where
the Axe Is Buried", you should) as his work has progressed. Sure,
this is historical fiction with a taste of a speculative elements,
but it is, if anything else, a literary novel that is brilliantly
written, with characters that you find yourself caring deeply
about. This is surely Nayler's best novel, and while (as I said
earlier) it's not in my wheelhouse, I loved it from start to
finish. [-jak]

===================================================================

TOPIC: ONE PIECE (Seasons 1 and 2, live action, Netflix) (series
review by Paul S. R. Chisholm)

Manga to anime: Why not? Manga to live action: Why? In the case of
ONE PIECE, because it's true to the source material, looks
visually stunning, is well acted, and runs at a good pace. I'm
enjoying it.

Live action manga adaptations have a poor track record. Series
first successfully made into anime are no exception. Consider: THE
GUYVER (1991). DRAGONBALL EVOLUTION (2009). 2017 saw a trifecta of
failure: FULLMETAL ALCHEMIST, DEATH NOTE, and GHOST IN THE SHELL.

For anyone brave enough to risk the odds, ONE PIECE is a natural
candidate. It's the best-selling series of sequential art (manga,
comics, comic strips) of all time, with 600 million copies sold.
Asterix is a distant second at 393 million. Roughly tied at third
with 300 million copies: Golgo 13, Lucky Luke, and Peanuts.

In the archipelago world of ONE PIECE, a young man named Luffy
grew up during a golden age of piracy. The former King of the
Pirates, a genial buccaneer named Gold Roger, announced at his
execution: "You want my treasure? You can have it! I left
everything I gathered in one place. Now you just have to find it!"
(This treasure is referred to as the "One Piece." The manga's
creator, Eiichiro Oda, has never explained the phrase since his
series began in July 1997.) Luffy vows to find the treasure and
become the new King of the Pirates. He has three things going for
him: irrepressible cheerful optimism, total blindness to what's
impossible, and the power to stretch his body like Reed Richards
of the Fantastic Four.

Luffy gained his ability by eating a "devil fruit." These fruits
bestow superpowers, a unique power for each person, usually one
never seen before in any other work. Many of Luffy's foes, and
perhaps some of his allies, also have supernatural powers. Luffy
acquires a ship and a loyal crew, sets out to find the One Piece
treasure, and has some somewhat goofy adventures.

That's the setup for the manga, the anime, and now the Netflix
live-action series.

ONE PIECE was filmed entirely on practical sets (with some limited
use of blue screens). Some of them are huge. There are two
separate sets for the deck of Luffy's ship. In season two, a three
story sound stage hosts a twelve minute swordplay set piece. Yes,
it's ridiculous and over the top (think Hong Kong martial arts
films), but it's fun to watch and helps develop one of the
characters. Whether we see characters looking down from a crow's
nest, looking up at the ceiling of a giant's cave, or climbing a
mountain, the verticality of the sets makes the series look
gorgeous.

Manga has no cast. Anime has only a voice cast. Live action needs
a great cast, and this series has it, starting with its main
character. I|#aki Godoy's long, wiry arms and legs make him look as
if he's already stretched. The joy he shows in interviews comes
through when portraying Luffy's boundless optimism, and his
Mexican accent somehow enhances how goofy he sounds. Mackenyu, an
American-born Japanese martial artist and actor (and son of
martial arts legend Sonny Chiba), portrays Zoro, the first mate
training to become the world's greatest swordsman. Nami, the
highly skilled navigator played by Emily Rudd, is convincingly
cheerful and taciturn as the plot demands. Taz Skylar is Sanji,
who only fights with his legs to protect the hands he uses as a
master chef. (The actor trained extensively in both cooking and
fighting to prepare for the role.) Jacob Romero Gibson rounds out
the season one cast as Usopp. He's somewhat of a coward, and
rarely tells the truth when a fabulous story will do; still, he's
a sniper who ultimately comes through when the crew needs him.

Manga creator Eiichiro Oda is heavily involved in the Netflix
production. He approved every member of the main cast and, as an
executive producer of the show, advises the cast and crew members.
His association with the series keeps it true to the original
source; everyone involved enjoys his presence.

Some manga and anime series seemingly take forever to advance the
plot. The Netflix production moves much faster. The sixteen
episodes across two seasons cover the same material as 91 anime
episodes and 154 chapters of the manga.

The live action ONE PIECE is not aimed at children. There's a lot
of violence and killing, though very little gore. The language can
get salty. In the first live action episode, one male character is
shown naked from behind; I think they wanted to throw in the
"nudity" keyword and discourage parents of very young children.

It's a lot of fun. I'm looking forward to season 3. [-psrc]

===================================================================

TOPIC: Inspired by Becky Chambers? (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

As reported by The Guardian, a humanoid robot was initiated as a
Buddhist monk.

The story (by Raphael Rahsid) says in part:

I, robe-ot: the android monk working to reboot the faith of South
Korea's Buddhists

Amid rows of colourful lanterns strung across the courtyard of
Jogyesa temple in Seoul, an unusual ceremony unfolded this week:
monks held a Buddhist initiation for a humanoid robot draped in
saffron robe.

They placed a string of 108 prayer beads around the robot's neck
and affixed a lantern festival sticker to its mechanical arm in
place of the traditional yeonbi ritual, in which burning incense
is lightly pressed against the skin.

The robot was then presented with a formal certificate listing its
manufacture date, 3 March 2026, where a human initiate's birth
date would normally appear.

"At first we discussed it casually," Venerable Sungwon, the
order's cultural affairs director, says about the robot ceremony's
origins. "It began almost as a joke. But the more we thought about
it, the more serious it became.

...

During the ceremony on 6 May, Gabi walked before an assembly of
monks and worshippers, bowed towards the temple and received five
Buddhist precepts.

Precepts - the ethical rules governing Buddhist practice - were
specially adapted for Gabi. Four prohibited harming life, damaging
other robots or objects, engaging in deceptive behaviour or acting disrespectfully towards people.

The fifth rule - not to overcharge - proved the trickiest.

"Humans drink alcohol and overdo things, right? So what's the
robot equivalent?" Ven Sungwon says. "People might think the
overcharging rule is just about batteries, but really it's about
excess."

Full story at <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/08/ jogyesa-temple-south-korea-humanoid-ai-robot-gabi>

What I want to know is whether any of the monks was familiar with
Becky Chambers's "Monk & Robot" duology (A PSALM FOR THE
WILD-BUILT and A PRAYER FOR THE CROWN-SHY). A search doesn't turn
up anything that references both of them, but Gabi's story is only
a day old as I write this. [-ecl]

===================================================================

TOPIC: The Guardian's List of 100 Best Novels of All Time
(comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

Well, I'll just list the science fiction/fantasy novels here. And
I suppose it's not their list, but the results of a poll of "172
authors, critics and academics".

The full list is at <https://www.theguardian.com/books/ ng-interactive/2026/may/12/the-100-best-novels-of-all-time>

Here are the SF/F novels:

98 The Road
93 Invisible Cities
89 The Left Hand of Darkness
86 The Turn of the Screw
76 Dracula
71 Kindred
66 The Master and Margarita
59 Never Let Me Go
54 Orlando
48 The Metamorphosis
36 The Handmaid's Tale
30 Frankenstein
27 The Trial
20 Wuthering Heights
16 Nineteen Eighty-Four

(One of the illustrations for the article has the unfortunate
alternate text of "Headshot of Salman Rushdie".)

[-ecl]

===================================================================

TOPIC: Proof We Are Living in the 21st Century (comments by Dale
Skran)

I am editing the hardback version of "A Dream Renewed" and I found
this sentence:

"Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield memorably played his guitar
aboard the International Space Station, performing and recording
his rendition of David BowierCOs 'Space Oddity' in a widely viewed
YouTube performance."

A 20th century person would ask:

1 - There is an International Space Station?
2 - There are Canadian astronauts?
3 - What is this "YouTube" thing?

The one question a 20th century person would probably not ask is
"Who is David Bowie?" [-dls]

===================================================================

TOPIC: Not Just Apes, but Fish and Jumping Spiders (letter of
comment by Andre Kuzniarek)

In response to Evelyn's comments on apes in the 05/15/26 issue of
the MT VOID, Andre Kuzniarek writes:

[Evelyn wrote,] "Apes Are More Like Us Than We Ever Thought".
[-ecl]

And fish apparently pass the mirror test:

<https://www.sciencealert.com/this-tiny-fish-passed-an- intelligence-test-that-once-distinguished-great-apes>

Which I coincidentally ran across in my YouTube feed last night
[21 minutes, "We've Been Testing For Consciousness Wrong"]:

<https://youtu.be/s_aNH4hXz8I>

Jumping spiders are also really smart, something I've experienced
personally many years ago [39 minutes, "Jumping Spiders ShouldnrCOt
Be This Smart"]:

<https://youtu.be/kRQMOF5c2Z8>

They are certainly rather charming for spiders--on the surface
anyway, and as long as they remain tiny compared to us. ;-) [-ak]

Evelyn adds:

Jumping spiders are featured in the film EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS.
[-ecl]

===================================================================

TOPIC: "Uncleftish Beholding" (letter of comment by Hal Heydt)

In response to Evelyn's comments on "Uncleftish Beholding" in the
05/15/26 issue of the MT VOID, Hal Heydt writes:

[Evelyn wrote,] "Wikipedia points out that at least four of the
words used in the story are not from Anglo-Saxon: 'around' is from
Old French, and 'rest', 'ordinary', and 'sort' are from French."
[-ecl]

They missed a word (Dorothy spotted it in our copy). Anderson
used "time" where the Anglo-Saxon rooted word would be "tide".
[-hh]

Evelyn responds:

Where is this? I can't find it. [-ecl]

Hal replies:

Our copy (it was a NESFA edition put out as part of his being a
Guest of Honor) isn't on the shelf. IIRC, the line is "Soothly,
we live in a mighty [time]." [-hh]

Evelyn responds:

The online version I found says, "Soothly we live in mighty
years!" which is also what my copy of Anderson's 1996 collection
ALL ONE UNIVERSE has. The story originally appeared in ANALOG in
1989.

However ...

Poul Anderson was a Guest of Honor at Boskone in 1976. The NESFA
book for that year was HOME BREW, and it contained an essay by
Anderson titled "Uncleavish Truethinking", which was later revised
to become "Uncleftish Beholding". Although Michael Siemon said in
Usenet's talk.origins (22 Nov 2011) that "a quick scan of the text
seems to show it as unchanged from the original," apparently there
was at least one change, probably because someone pointed this
out. [-ecl]

Hal then writes:

It may have been Dorothy who pointed it out to Poul. [-hh]

And in a bizarre coincidence (unless it was actually triggered by
the comments in last week's MT VOID), James Davis Nicoll's review
column on 05/19/26 is about "Uncleavish Truethinking"/"Uncleftish
Beholding":

<https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/uncleavish-truethinking>

A comment to it by Dave Siegel notes, "In the intro to the reprint
of 'Uncleftish Beholding' in his collection ALL ONE UNIVERSE
Anderson challenges the reader to translate 'undrunkstuff' which
was not used in the original article."

[-ecl]

===================================================================

TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

Back in 2016 I wrote seven columns about THE DIARY OF SAMUEL
PEPYS. Now I've read THE STRANGE HISTORY OF SAMUEL PEPYS'S DIARY
by Kate Loveman (Cambridge University Press, ISBN
978-1-009-55411-4) and I have comments on what I wrote as well as
what she wrote.

I read THE DIARY primarily from the Project Gutenberg site, which
used the 1893 H. B. Wheatley edition (which was in public domain).
Even though the Wheatley was more complete than the previous
Braybrooke edition (see below), Wheatley had bowdlerized it in a
couple of ways. First, he replaced isolated "naughty" words with
(bracketed) replacements (e.g., replaced "pissed" with
"[dirtied]"). And second, he also deleted all the most salacious
bits, replacing them with ellipses. These excised portions had
been written in "code" (basically a combination of French,
Spanish, and Latin, with what Pepys appears to have thought were
oblique references to his "thing" and other fairly obvious
meanings); some can be found at
<http://www.pepys.info/bits2.html>. It seemed clear to me that
Pepys thought the code in which he wrote his diary was secure, but
Loveman thinks it had a more narrow purpose (e.g., that his wife
not be able to read it). The whole diary, in fact, is written in
shorthand, but it was a well-known shorthand system, so that could
not have been intended to conceal the entire contents.

The hard-copy edition (from Harper Collins) includes all these
passages, but neither translates nor footnotes them, so you can
read, "After dinner I found occasion of sending him abroad; and
then alone avec elle je tentoy a faire ce que je voudrais, et
contre sa force je la faisoy, bien que pas a mon contentment."
(It is like reading the Dover editions of Sir Richard Francis
Burton, where the salacious bits are in Latin, and Dover provides
no translations or footnotes either. Of course with Google
translate, this is not as much of a problem as it used to be.
Dover's excuse is that they are reproducing the book as printed,
either from original plates or photocopies of text.)

I suppose I should digress a bit here about the various editions
of Pepys's diary. I had learned from A. Edward Newton's A
MAGNIFICENT FARCE was that "in the first edition, only about half
of the [Pepys's] Diary was published, and this was edited and
expurgated by Lord Braybrooke to an extent which became apparent
by degrees. ... Finally, and not until 1893, there appeared an
edition, edited by H. B. Wheatley, which gave the Diary complete,
with the exception of a few passages, amounting in all to about
one page of text, which, he says, cannot possibly be printed."
Loveman goes into much greater detail, but alas, does not provide
a table showing all the editions and what they included and
exclused.

And this was particularly interesting to me because in 84 CHARING
CROSS ROAD, Helene Hanff writes (on October 15, 1951), "WHAT KIND
OF A PEPYS'S DIARY DO YOU CALL THIS? this is not a pepys' diary,
this is some busybody editor's miserable collection of EXCERPTS
from pepys' diary may he rot. I could just spit. where is jan
12, 1668, where his wife chased him out of bed and round the
bedroom with a red-hot poker?" [all sic] And Frank Doel replies,
"First of all, let me apologize for the Pepys. I was honestly
under the impression what it was the complete Braybrooke
edition...." Well, Doel was almost definitely right in this,
because this episode with the poker is not in the (much abridged)
Braybrooke edition, at least according to the version I have found
on line (archived independently in two different places, so there
is a bit of validation there). It is in the Wheatley edition.

But to return to Loveman... She begins by summarizing Pepys' life
and career to help understand the contents of the diary, and what
various eras thought was important. Pepys apparently wrote a lot
more, both published and unpublished, and many people thought his
writings on the creation of the modern English Navy would be his
lasting legacy. Yet it is his descriptions of the Restoration,
Charles II's court, and especially the Great Plague of London and
the Great Fire of London that have captured people's imaginations.
During World War I, Robert Massie Freeman wrote "A Diary of the
Great Warr By Saml Pepys, Jnr., Sometime of Magdalene College in
Cambridge and of His Majesty's Navy Office... With Effigies by M. Watson-Willaims", in the style of (the original) Pepys, and this
was so popular it was followed by a second volume. During and
after the Second Great Fire of London (December 29-30, 1940),
people turned to Pepys as well.

And more people also came to keep diaries themselves, perhaps
hoping to become famous, or perhaps just hoping to let future
generations know how the lived.

One reason for all the various editions which gradually were
"un-bowdlerized" was that the original would certainly have been
declared as obscene by the various boards controlling
publications, and only as mores changed could more of the excised
passages be restored. Gradually the various tests became applied
to the work as a whole, so an individual obscenity was not in
itself grounds for banning the work, and the question of whether
the publication of the work served the public good became more
important.

The last chapter addresses Pepys's less desirable characteristics,
to wit, that he was a rapist and an enslaver (in addition to
taking bribes and in general being dishonest). Some of the
evidence Loveman quotes is from documents other than the diary,
but much of it is in the (now complete) edition. [-ecl]

===================================================================

Evelyn C. Leeper
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com


Delay is the deadliest form of denial.
--C. Northcote Parkinson
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2