Norman Finkelstein versus Alan Dershowitz

[Jim Farmelant <farmelantj@xxxxxxxx>]

Click here to watch the debate:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/1730205


TRANSCRIPT
AMY GOODMAN: Why don't we start with you laying out the thesis of your
latest book The Case for Israel.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I wanted to write a progressive liberal case for the
and the two-state solution, which I think that most Israelis favor and
have favored for a long time. I dedicate the book to professor Aaron
Barak, the president of the Israeli Supreme Court and for a reason.
Because I argue in the book that no country in history faced with
comparable threats both external and internal has ever tried to hard
to comply with the rule of law. I compare Israel favorably to the
United States. In this regard: its court intervened actively in
support of Palestinian rights. Even during fighting in war time during
the Jenin events engaging in certain actions which in its view
violated the rule of law, The Israeli Supreme Court had banned the
kind of rough interrogation techniques that are now being employed by
the United Nations in Guantanamo Bay. Israel is the only country in
modern history that has never deliberately and explicitly retaliated
against those who attack its civilian targets. For example, during the
Six Day war in 1973 war, the 1948 war, it's own residential areas were
bombed by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, 1600 shells lobbed into west
Jerusalem. Israel never bombed Aman, Damascus or Cairo, they bombed
areas of Beirut in the process have killed innocent civilians. That is
deliberately targeting civilians and going after the way the United
States did in Iraq, which I am very critical, but nonetheless with the
United States did going after military targets, knowing that they're
going to kill civilians in the process. And so myself, I oppose the
settlements, always opposed the settlement since 1967 I opposed the
occupation. I think Israel made in my view a terrible view in my view
what it should have done is made border adjustments pursuant to U.N.
resolution 242 which I actually consulted with justice Goldburg, he
was the ambassador to the U.N. was involved in the process of that 242
resolution, which presupposed some territorial adjustments. The
problems Israel should never have occupied people. Land is different
from people. And today I think unilaterally what it ought to do
eventually is if it can't kind the peace partner to make some
unilateral changes, small ones. End the settlements, in fact my peace
proposal is that Israel ought to have schedule for ending settlements.
That is a schedule for saying on so and so date the settlement ends
conditioned on best efforts by the Palestinians to end terrorism. That
would create incentive to ending terrorist acts. By the way you never
condition anything on the end of terrorism, that gives terrorists a
veto. What you condition it is on making good faith efforts and if we
can get Israel to end the settlements and occupation and Palestinian
leadership to stop using terrorism as a tactic, I think finally
something could have happened in 1917, two-state solution, in 1937
when the commission recommended noncontiguous Jewish homeland and
Israelis accepted it and the Arabs rejected it. In 1947 when the U.N.
allocated that portion of Palestine that had majority of Jews in it to
a Jewish state, and the portion of Palestine that had Palestinian
majority in it to an Arab state, could have had a two state solution.
Could have had a two state solution in 2001 and 2000 and Barak and
president Clinton offered to be sure noncontiguous state on 90% of the
west bank and capital and Jerusalem with the 35 billion dollar refugee
package. When Arafat responded by violence, came back to the table
maybe we'll negotiate for more. The two-state solution is inevitable.
It's going to happen. Only question is how long it takes to happen. My
hope is that we can have a reasonable serious debate about the future,
about the rights and wrongs I think the rights and wrongs on both
sides. But I'm nervous because I heard from my debating partner in the
beginning what sounded like it was going to be simply an ad homonym
attack on me as to whether I'm qualified to teach at Harvard. I would
hope we could elevate the discussion keep it on the merits. I won't
attack Mr. Finkelstein on his merits of his position, let people read
his book and judge for themselves. And if he would refrain from
personal attacks on me, let people judge the book on the merits I
think we can move the ball forward have a reasonable serious debate. I
think it would be interesting to know where we agree and disagree.
What facts we share in common, what facts we have different views on
and whether they're empirical and could be subjected to reasonable
resolution, where we have moral disagreements, I really think that in
the end today you read the news about Israel is other good news. There
is a prisoner exchanges between Hezbollah and Israel which Israel
would get back one person, civilian who was captured by Hezbollah in
exchange for Israel giving back 400 or so prisoners. There's movement
forward. Let's not destroy that movement forward by getting involved
in meaningless ad homonym discussion, let's see if we can elevate the
debate see if we can really move forward to the two state solution
that I think virtually everybody in the world today wants.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Alan Dershowitz author of The Case for Israel
Norman Finkelstein, your response.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I appreciate Alan Dershowitz's seriousness at
least in these remarks. I have no intention whatsoever of getting
involved in an ad homonym debate with Mr. Dershowitz. I'm interesting
in the facts. I was asked to come in and discuss his new book. I went
home, purchased one copy, in fact I purchased two copies. I read the
book very carefully. I did what someone serious does with a book. I
read the text, I went through the footnotes. I went through it very
carefully. There's only one conclusion one can reach having read the
book. This is a scholarly judgment, not an ad homonym. Mr. Dershowitz
has concocted a fraud. In fact Mr. Dershowitz has concocted a fraud
which amazingly in large parts, he plagiarized from another fraud. I
found that pretty shocking, shocking coming from a Harvard professor.
I find it shocking coming from any professor.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: We have to cut off I just want to warn everybody here
that although I'm not a litigious person when you make allegations . .
.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I'm proceeded to . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: When you make allegations of plagiarism that's a . .
. It has great legal implications. And I can't obviously sit quietly
by and . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I agree. Well that's Let's look at the evidence.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: . . . of plagiarism . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Let's look at the evidence. In the first two
chapters of your book you extensively reproduce all of Joan Peters'
pages in her book. I read it carefully. In 1984 . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Show me one sentence.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I am going to show you I think I have . . .I made
available the charts to you.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You've shown me nothing. Let's start with that.
That's a categorical lie. What you're hearing now on radio is a claim
that Mr. Finkelstein made available to me certain charts. That is a
lie.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Mr. Dershowitz, I think you had about five
minutes' time I wasn't looking at the clock. If we're going to have a
civil debate you're going to have to remain . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: It's not going to be about me let me be very clear
about that.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I have no interest in you, Mr. Dershowitz. None at
all. I'm interested in the scholarship, I'm interested in the facts,
I'm interested in your book. In 1984 one Joan Peters published a book
called From Time Immemorial the book was universally recognized by
serious scholars to be a fraud. Without wanting to toot my own horn
I'm widely recognized as the person who exposed the fraud. I know that
book inside out. I read it at least four times, I went through all
1854 footnotes. I started to read your book, Mr. Dershowitz, I then
came to chapter one footnotes 10, footnote 11, footnote 12, footnote
13, footnote 14, footnote 15, footnote 16, all of the quotes are from
Joan Peters. They're so from Joan Peters that you have a long quote
here from Mark Twain on pages 23 to 24. I turned to Joan Peters page
159 to 60, identical quote from Twain with the ellipses in the . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Is the Twain quote wrong?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: . . . with the ellipses . . . let me finish sir.
They're in the same places. The identical quote from Twain with the
ellipses in the same places.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: It's been quoted, as you know.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Mr. Dershowitz, I . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: What's your point?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Let me finish . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I would ask you a question. Is it a direct quote? Is
it an accurate quote of Twain? Did Twain say . . .

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Dershowitz the way we can have a civilized
discussion here is that each person will get a chance to make their
point and won't be cut off.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: You have a nearly full page quote from one William
Young a British consul from May 1839.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Is it an accurate quote?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I'm going to finish, sir. On page 18 of your book.
I Turn to Joan Peters page 184, the identical quote with the ellipses
I'm holding it up for the camera perhaps they can see this is the
length of the quote.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Is it an accurate quote?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: It's in the identical place. Last point. I'm not
going to go through chapter two where there are 29 plagiarisms from
Joan Peters.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: To be very clear, it's not plagiarism to quote Mark
Twain correctly.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Except that you cite Mark Twain not Joan Peters.
I'm a professor, sir. I know what plagiarism is.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: And plagiarism is . . . What is your definition of
plagiarism?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: We're not going to get involved dash in that now.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You're using a word you're not going to tell us what
you mean by it?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The documentation, you know what we'll let
everybody else decide for themselves because documentation one last
example. I want to make it very clear, in Joan Peters' book From Time
Immemorial she coins a phrase. The phrase is "turn speak".

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: She borrows it from . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Sir, I'm sorry she coins the phrase, you see you
don't know what you're talking about that's pretty terrible. She coins
the phrase, "turn speak," she says she's using it as a play off of
George Orwell which is all listeners know used the phrase "news
speak". She coined her own phrase, "turn speak". You go to Mr.
Dershowitz's book he got so confused in his massive borrowings from
Joan Peters that on two occasions I'll cite them for those who have a
copy of the book, on page 57 and on page 153 he uses the phrase,
quote, George Orwell's turn speak. Turn speak is not Orwell, Mr.
Dershowitz, you're the Felix Frankfurt chair at Harvard, you must know
that Orwell would never use such a clunky phrase as turn speak.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I like it.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, maybe you like it. Evidently Joan Peters
liked it. But George Orwell never heard of it to the best of my
knowledge.

AMY GOODMAN: We have to break for stations to identify themselves. 60
seconds. When we come back professor Dershowitz can respond. We're
talking to professor Alan Dershowitz author of a new book it's called
The Case for Israel and debate with Norman Finkelstein. You're
listening to Democracy Now! Stay with us.

[Music Break]


AMY GOODMAN: More music here from the late Frank Lowe as we continue
our debate on Alan Dershowitz's new book called The Case for Israel.
Alan Dershowitz is professor of law at Harvard law school. In
discussion with Norman Finkelstein who teaches at Depaul University in
Chicago. His book Image and Reality: Israel Palestinian Conflict
professor Dershowitz your response to this very serious charge of
plagiarism.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: It's a frivolous charge, of course. What happened was
this. Of course I read the Peters book, anybody writing a book on the
Middle East anybody would. I also read The Myths and Facts a book put
out originally by APAC then published separately and independently
probably 30 or 40 other books which use the same quotes, they're very
extensively used quotes by Mark Twain because Mark Twain traveled to
Palestine, Mark Twain is a very prominent American writer. What he saw
in Palestine is very relevant to the debate. He saw barren lands,
didn't see a Palestinian community. He saw empty roads and he writes
extremely vividly and one scholar is entitled to read a book as I did,
Peters' book and to find quotes in the book and check them against the
original quotes. And find them to be accurate and then do what I did,
I don't know whether or not Mr. Finkelstein read footnote 31 that
appears on page 246 which says, the research of French Cartographer
Vital relied on for the I may of mispronounced it.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: You misspelled it.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: See Joan Peters from Time Immemorial then Peters'
conclusions and data have been challenged and then I quote from
Hutchins, I did not in any way rely on them in this book. In other
words, what I did, it's very common for scholars to do that. Is I read
her books, I read Mr. Finkelstein's criticism of them I came away from
enough doubt about the conclusions that although I don't regard the
Peters' book in any way as a fraud, I think it was well intentioned
effort to recreate and very difficult to recreate events that existed
in 1890 and 1900. Did I find her quotes which have been as I said used
extensively by Facts and Myths and other publications, to be quite
compelling. This book and none of my writing, I don't purport to be
independent historian who goes back to the Middle East and reads
original documents. I'm doing what a lawyer would do and what lawyers
do is they find sources, they check the sources, I had a research
staff that obviously checked the sources. I haven't heard a word from
Mr. Finkelstein suggesting that the quote from Mark Twain is not an
accurate quote. If Peters had made up a quote that hadn't existed.
Mark Twain had never written it then somebody borrowed the quote
without going to check back on whether Mark Twain had said that,
obviously that would be a serious charge. I've done nothing like that.
The vast majority of my book deals with current situations. In fact I
start my book by saying there has to be a statute of limitations on
grievances. I don't try to base the case for Israel on the fact that
Jews lived in Palestine before the birth of Jesus or the fact that
Jews were expelled from what is now Israel in 72 A.D. and I argue that
Palestinians can't really make the case against two state solution
based on historic claims that go back 100 years but first couple of
chapters which are quite brief, I recount never purporting to be
creative or original in the recounting, I recount what has been
accepted as traditional history. That includes the fact that the land
particularly what is now what would be western Palestine, what was the
part of Palestinian allocated to Israel in the 1947 division was land
that before the Jews got there in the first 1880 in the beginning of
the 20th century was land that was coming into disuse. Now these are
controversial, by the way, there are some Palestinians who say you
shouldn't trust Mark Twain. Some Palestinians say you shouldn't trust
the various English travelers. Reasonable people could disagree about
that. I quote those sources, I lay them out there for people to read
so that they can evaluate the claims that Israel was established on
the basis of colonialism. I make the following argument which I'd love
to hear from Finkelstein's rebut. You can't be a colonialist country
unless another country sent people there as soldiers to take over that
country. For example, France sent its settlers to Algeria. England
sent settlers to India. Dutch and other countries sent their settlers
to parts of Africa with guns to take over. What did the Jews do during
the first and second? They escaped from countries that were
persecuting them. They escaped from Russia and Poland, Lithuania. They
didn't come at the request of those countries, if you claim people
were colonialist you have to say on whose behalf they were working.
The Jews weren't working on behalf of Russia or Poland or Lithuania.
They came as refugees. Much like American Jews came as refugees to
America. The ones who went to Palestine went with rakes and hoes to
try to build the land, to try to join collectively with the local
population. They did in fact improve the land as the result of work
projects in western Palestine many Arabs from eastern Palestine moved
there, I cite statistics, Peters cites the same statistics in fact
showing in various the fact that I can't remember the exact numbers,
Jews moved there attracted 300 or 400, you may disagree with it. But
those are the data that I presented and we can reasonably disagree
with that. Now I just want to make one point about Mr. Finkelstein's
research. I don't want to get ad homonym into this debate. But for
example I do quote Mr. Finkelstein at one point I think only once in
the book. That is he makes an argument in the collection that to judge
the 1947 partition the only fairway to do it is to look at either all
of Palestine, which I don't know whether he needs to include what
became Jordan, trans-Jordan or not or you have to look at what became
of Israel after the 1948 war. I disagree with that. What I say
respectfully in the book is that when you look at the fairness of the
1947 petition, you only look at the land that was allocated to the
state of Israel. In that land Jews were clearly a majority according
to the U.N. census to be sure once the Arab nations attacked Israel,
once the Palestinians attacked Israel there was a war and Israel
secured more land which was regularized by a crease fire in 1949. What
Mr. Finkelstein does is he counts that land and says, look how much
they got and look at the proportion of Jews and Palestinians that's
not the correct demographic to look at. So we can have reasonable . .
.

AMY GOODMAN: Let's get the response to that.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Stay away from the ad homonyms and get to the merit
of the case.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Professor Dershowitz, I'm not a professor at
Harvard but I do . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You seem to resent that a lot.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I do teach elsewhere. And when we discuss issues
like falsifying information, plagiarizing, lifting whole cloth from
other books I've never heard that called ad homonym for a serious
scholar and a serious academic, those are very fundamental issues.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: But when they're false . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: If they're false then you dispute them. To
characterize them as ad homonym seems really out of court for a
professor . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You said I don't deserve to teach at Harvard that
sounds pretty . . .

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Dershowitz let Norman make his case.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: You raise that issue then I'll address it then
returning to the substantive issues of your book.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: First tell me why I shouldn't be teaching at Harvard.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: On page 207 of your book you say that to
deliberately misinform, miseducate, and misdirect students is a
particularly nasty form of educational malpractice.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Of which I accuse Noam Chomsky and others.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I consider what you have done in the book to be a
paradigmatic illustration of misinforming, miseducating and
misdirecting. Allow me to finish.

AMY GOODMAN: Let him make his point.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Allow me to finish Mr. Dershowitz I've with very
respectful of your time. On page 213 you discussed Holocaust fraud by
Robert Soan and you write, quote, "it was there extensive historical
research" referring to his book.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: That's right.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Instead there was the fraudulent manufacturing of
false anti-history.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: That's right. And Chomsky wrote as you . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Please don't bring in Mr. Chomsky. He can defend
himself. We're talking about you and your book. It was the kind of
deception referring to the book that let me quote clearly, for which
professors are rightly fired.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I stand by that.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Not because their views are controversial, let me
underline this again, but because they are violating the most basic
canons of historical scholarship.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me respond to that. You compare me to . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I didn't ask . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You made up the story that the Holocaust . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I'm referring to your standards. I have no
interested in someone else I'm talking about your standards. To
miseducate, misinform and misdirect to violate the standards of
historical scholarship are grounds for expulsion.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Absolutely.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: It's not an ad homonym argument it's using your
standards.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: No, it's an ad . . .

AMY GOODMAN: I'm going to interrupt here because I want to get to some
of the main points of your book. Also we were intrigued on watching
Scarborough Country when you debated, the offer that you made just
play it for a moment.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Tell you what I will give $10,000 to the P.L.O. in
your name if you can find historical fact in my book that you can
prove to be false. I issue that challenge, I issue it to you, I issue
it to the Palestinian Authority, I issue it to Noam Chomsky to Edward
Said, every word in my book is accurate and you can't just simply say
it's false without documenting it. Tell me one thing in the book now
that is false?

AMY GOODMAN: Okay. Let's go to the book. The Case for Israel $10,000.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me tell you what he came up with this is really
fascinating if you show the rest of the clip. He came up he said on
television, I saw a photograph or a videotape of Israeli soldiers
aiming their guns at that, whatever 12-year-old boy who was caught in
the cross fire and killed and I actually upped the offer to $25,000 if
he could produce a photograph or if he could produce proof that he had
seen that. Why was I so confident? Because German television did a
very thorough study of that one particular incident. Let's just spend
one minute on that. What happened is when that child was killed in his
father's arms, the nation of Israel went into almost universal
mourning, it was as if they were sitting Chiva on one of their own
children. A child had died it looked as if possibly Israeli soldier
might have shot him. When you contrast that to how Palestinians
respond to a child dying in Israel from terrorism dancing in the
streets, it's a very striking comparison. Then German television did a
study they found out that the Israeli soldiers were positioned in a
way that it was physically impossible for the bullet from Israeli
soldier to have hit that Palestinian child and it was virtually
certain that the bullet had come from a Palestinian gun. In my view
that's not particularly relevant when a child is caught in cross fire
it's a tragic death resulting from the crossfire. Which bullet
actually hit I am was not relevant. But that was the answer that he
came up with.

AMY GOODMAN: Norman Finkelstein.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, first of all I want to clarify the monetary
issue. Is it now $25,000?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: $25,000 on that issue.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Just on that issue. In general $10,000.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me be clear

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: We just saw the tape. I think it's clear.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I made it very clear I said afterward a material
willful . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I don't want afterwards. Professor Dershowitz it's
on tape. We just saw it. We're not talking about a spelling mistake.
We're not talking about a minor . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: All right. Let's talk about . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Serious material. Let's start. Number one, I'm
going to first deal with just concrete facts which are not
particularly controversial, which can easily be confirmed. On page 80
of your book you write, according to Benny Morris between . . .

AMY GOODMAN: Benny Morris is an Israeli historian.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I have a copy of his book here, which I'll hold
up. 2,000 to 3,000 Palestinians were made refugees during the second
stage of the flight. Here is the book. Page 256, do you read what the
sentence says.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me read you what I say, in some areas Arab . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Please don't read the whole paragraph.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me put in the context. Chomsky says that Morris
does not believe that any Arab leaders told the Palestinians to leave.
I say, in some areas I quote from Morris, in some areas Arab
commanders ordered . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I'm not pursuing that.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: . . . to clear the ground for military purposes to
prevent surrender. More than half dozen villages, et cetera, were
abandoned during these months as result of such orders. Elsewhere in
east Jerusalem in many villages, the Arab commanders ordered women,
old people and children to be sent away out of harm's way. Indeed
psychological preparation for the removal of the dependents had begin
in 1947-48 and Arab League periodically endorsed such a move. And I
say therefore, Chomsky is simply wrong when he says that there's no
evidence, he says again in another point, nobody today believes that
any of the refugees were told to leave. I dispute that by quoting
Morris himself.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: You seem to have obsession with Mr. Chomsky but
he's not here. I'm here. Let's look at . . .

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I was surprised . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Let's be serious.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I agree with you.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Read the next sentence. Morris estimates in your
book I have right in front of me. Next sentence.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: That between 2,000 and 3,000 Arabs fled their homes.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Can you please what Mr. Morris wrote.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You're talking about . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Please read what he wrote.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: If I have the whole book I will find for you if you
want to take time. Norm Finkelstein if you want the . . .

AMY GOODMAN: I'm looking at page 256 of Morris book.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Phase two now same one as you. You're talking
about . . .

AMY GOODMAN: About 2,000 to 3,000 Arabs fled their homes.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The difference between 2,000 and 3,000 and 200,000
and 300,000. You could check this many times, Mr. Dershowitz. But you
are really going to have to pay the $10,000. I hope you allow me to
earmark it for Jenin.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: We're talking about a variety of . . .

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: It is not the O.J. trial. This is not the O.J.
trial. We're not going to play a game.

AMY GOODMAN: Is your point that you're citing that Norm Finkelstein is
in Alan Dershowitz's book he says 2,000 to 3,000.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: It's 200,000 to 300,000.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.