EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU writes: | Abraham Lincoln is one reason I _don't_ use the above definition; by mine, | he'd be a separatist (wanted to move Blacks to Liberia, if I recall correctly). | I trust that everyone involved in this discussion (with the exception of the | neo-Nazi) would agree that Abraham Lincoln was better than those in the South | who wanted to keep blacks enslaved? Do we have a neo-Nazi in this discussion?? Are you implying that any sceptic of a few Holocaust `facts' is a neo-Nazi?? Do you infer that all pro-lifers are Republicans?? It is because of such baseless inferences, I have to remain anonymous. I would dearly love to debate under my real name, but am prevented from doing so by the neo-Nazi name-calling. Yes you are correct, I disagree that Abraham Lincoln was better than those in the South, not for racial reasons (remember, the Civil War was *not* about slavery, because the slavery issue only arised *after* the war started), but because I believe that a diverse set of countries is `better' than one. I believe that countries that want independence (such as Chechnya) should have it. (Yes, I am likening Abe Lincoln to Boris Yeltsin). [ You may also like to consider that blacks as well as whites fought for the South. ] --- ``The believer is happy. The doubter is wise''. - Hungarian proverb