nuremberg files

The NF Guestbook archive VI
March 14 1999 - August 9 1999

Read what others had to say, or put an entry in the Nuremberg Files Mirror Guestbook yourself. Because the guestbook is quite large, I have cut it up into smaller files:

• Archive I: entries Feb 22 - Feb 25 1999 (36k)
• Archive II: entries Feb 25 - Feb 25 1999 (52k)
• Archive III: entries Feb 25 - Feb 27 1999 (37k)
• Archive IV: entries Feb 27 - Mar 1 1999 (39k)
• Archive V: entries Mar 1 - Mar 14 1999 (34k)
• Archive VI: entries Mar 14 - Aug 9 1999 (34k)
• Archive VII: entries Aug 9 - now.

From: vbleedingwolf@hotmail.com [204.140.188.5]
Date: Mon Aug 9 23:29:24 1999

Neal Horsley, you are indeed one sick puppy.

The whole lot of you so-called "pro-lifers" disgust me. How can you argue that all life is sacred when you never upheld that belief in dealing with my people. In addition to disease, "good Christians" took great pleasure in torturing and killing Indians. In fact, the practice of scalping was started by the European invaders - not us!

Randall Terry once said that nothing should be placed above your Ten Commandments. Well, you "good Christians" placed Westward expansion and Manifest destiny above your Ten Commandments. The likes of you people lied to, cheated and stole from my people. Under the B.I.A. and Christian missionaries, the Indian reservations were REAL concentration camps and death mills.

I still recall stories of how "good Christian soldiers" snatched nursing infants away from their mothers' arms and threw them on the ground to be devoured by their dogs - all as their mothers watched in horror.

YOU people were and still are baby-killers as well. As I recall, Donald Spitz once said that he could care less if the child of an abortionist were injured or even killed in an attack. Protecting children huh? Hypocrites!

Any person with half a brain cell can easily see through your deception. Randall Terry once said that the weak link in the abortion chain is the doctor. However, Randy fails to consider this: is the doctor the root of the problem?

If you have ever gardened, you will know that the only way to get rid of weeds is to destroy them at their roots. By attacking doctors and clinic personnel, you are only pruning the leaves of the "abortion plant". To destroy the "abortion plant" you must pull up its roots - promiscuity, rape and incest. Focus on fighting these, and you will also combat abortion.

Victor "Bleeding Wolf" Thompson, Apache shaman

P.S. It is also interesting to note that the very concept of abortion did not even exist on this land until the Europeans stole it from us.

From: npittner@theriver.com [a46.pm3-14.theriver.com]
Date: Sat Jul 10 11:06:44 1999

Karin, just wondering:

1) when a television network shows atrocities in Kosovo, no one attacks the legality of doing so, nor do they attack "the messenger" (the television network) for committing an atrocity. But ...

2) when you subsitute "website" for "television network", people get slightly more uptight. What really drives all kinds of socalled "intelligent, decent, caring, tolerant" folks absolutely berserk, is when you substitute "abortion" for "Kosovo". WHY IS THAT?

3) All this is so because in "Western Culture" of the late 1990's there are TWO SACRED COWS that everyone must bow to, and they are closely related, no make that THREE:
a) abortion on demand  b) unbridled promiscuity  c) making money off a) and b).

It's a very sad and bloody world.

n.p.

From: citysafaris@one.net.au [tin.one.net.au]
Date: Thu Jul 8 04:40:48 1999

karin, you are a woman after my own heart, I am utterly sickened by those men who rave about "killing babies ", who the hell do they think they are ? I reckon that if men don't believe in abortion they should never have one. And leave womens' bodies alone. It is our body and our choice ! You are correct about free speech too.

susanna

From: Eyemsavd@AOL.com [spider-wa054.proxy.aol.com]
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:26:18 1999

Well, Karen, I am ashamed of you.

Seems all these "do-gooder" liberals will scream to the high heavens for their right to do whatever immoral thing they may want to do, but just let some conservative God-fearing person voice his opinions or exhibit some evidence on the WWW, and all blue snarling hades breaks out.

There's an old saying: Throw a stone down a dark alley and if you hear a bunch of howling in the darkness, you sure know you hit something substantial!

I can't turn on my computer without someone trying to stick some filthy porn in my face- Oh, but they got rights... Yeah, well, you know what? So do we.

The real truth is, the abortion issue is something which stabbs to the heart of a person's conscience and the kind of in-your face graphics shown on N.F. was just too much to ignore unless you have a heart of stone. But they couldn't stand it. They just have to click on anyway and then try to do away with the site.

Free speech? Open internet? HA! Only for those with whom you dont disagree. YEAH, RIGHT.

OK Karen... Don't preach to us about your rights. You're just another sorry coward out there who should put up or shut up. You're scared and you don't really stand for any cause of truth.

And all you poor pro-death-to-the-babies out there, I'll bet you're glad YOU weren't aborted! Your mother could have done you in when you had no power to do anything about it. But instead she put up with your crying and crapping and idiotic nonsense, went through the pain of childbirth for you, and then LOVED you to boot. You SORRY HIPPOCRITES. You espouse life for yourself and death to your baby. You will answer for it.

Am I mean sounding? Not half as mean as you are.

VERY Sincerely, Dave Black

From: gddk@access1.net [208.225.0.2]
Date: Tue Jun 29 01:21:48 1999

I was walking with my boyfriend and discussing my pregnancy and what we should do. I was asked to consider abortion by Family Planning. They made it easier for me to deal with. Their information was helpfull and I began to feel that what was in me was truly not a human but rather a true fetus. I had the abortion. They convinved me that it was a fetus, so it now was. I am Pro-Choice, I am my own Woman. When they removed the fetus I felt relived that the fetus was gone, and that I would not lose my youth.

TWO YEARS LATTER

I was walking with my husband: we were very excited. We were four months pregnant: we were sure it was to be a girl. We had even started picking out her room designs. She was the greatest of blessings to come we thought. Our baby, now growing inside of me was reminding me everyday that she needed to hear my voice. Her kicking was a joy. Last night a man robed us on our nighly walk he pushed me down and kicked me. My baby died and I almost with her: It was a girl. I cried out loudly My baby, my baby. He murdered my baby, Oh God, my baby. YES YOUR BABY CHILD YOUR SECOND BORN IS NOW DEAD AS WELL.

WHEN IS A FETUS A BABY ONLY WHEN WE WANT IT TO BE NO! HEMANITY DEMANDS THAT A FETUS IS A BABY EVEN WHILE IN THE MOTHER. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE CRIED OUT MY FETUS MY FETUS OR MY BABY MY BABY. YA! I KNOW FOR THE SAKE OF POLITICAL VIEW POINTS YOU WILL CHOOSE MY FETUS. HA! HUMANITY SEES YOU...

From: FreeSpeech@christiangallery.com [KLLNB102-28.splitrock.net]
Date: Thu Jun 24 22:08:08 1999

It's a shame when freedom of speech, either on the internet or in any other form, cannot be guaranteed. What about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?!! Where do they come in anymore? What right does anyone have to censor - or shut down - a website?!!

From: hirrey@aol.com [msk-163-60.mskcc.org]
Date: Fri Jun 11 20:36:26 1999

If men gave birth, abortion would be a sacrament. Men have screwed up the world enough with the power they do have. It's too bad they can't come to terms with the fact that they will NEVER be able to have children. Deal with it. Let it go. Go play war and get off by bombing and maiming people. Leave to women the one thing they can do that you can't

From: hirrey@aol.com [msk-163-60.mskcc.org]
Date: Fri Jun 11 20:35:39 1999

From: mite_bfun@hotmail.com [ip159.nashville3.tn.pub-ip.psi.net]
Date: Sun Jun 6 17:21:45 1999

You people are a fine piece of work as you sit here and spew forth your vile comment. If you were so worried about the abortion issues you would think for a moment and find that if you really wanted more than to get your name in print that you could agree to take these unwanted children into your homes and raise them no matter what the disability it has or just take them because no child should have to be raised in an orphanage , and that would also help the country by taking away some of the tax burden by closing said orphanages.... Personally I think we should give the doctors the right to refuse treatment to anyone they don't see fit and then some of you selfrightous people might go see them and they will refuse to treat you out of the fear that someone might take offense to the fact that he saved you and want him killed ..... then we could get back to the stoneage of medicine that it seems you fools want.........

From: sbroddy@netscape.net [d10-xv102h1-vanc-pdi.attcanada.net]
Date: Sat Jun 5 11:13:00 1999

I appreciated your former site. I will shortly be looking at your new site. Nothing in your old site signified a codoning of violence against abortion providers. Your site simply was a statement of hope that eventually all these doctors would have to answer to the law of the land for their deeds if the law ever straightens itself out. Evidence is needed to administer justice, which is what you were gathering. Another similiar incredulous case is developing in Calgary, Alberta. There lawyers for a hospital which forces nurses to not tend to babies unintentionally born so they will die ave so far received the protection of the courts to stop dissemination of information, i.e. EVIDENCE, to a magazine publisher. In Canada, these babies are persons, are outside of the womb, and deserve full protection under the Canadian Constitution. However, in Canada the wheels of investigation turn much slower now, as they are lubricated by the epoxy of political correctness.

Scott Broddy, Surrey BC, Canada

From: tasterrenberg@hotmail.com [209.174.48.2]
Date: Mon May 24 17:14:54 1999

I beleive abortion should be legal only in the case of rape or incest.

From: nospam@aol.com [ABD6063E.ipt.aol.com]
Date: Sat May 1 12:58:20 1999

To those of you who are writing here implying/assuming that pro-lifers ALL think like the sick individual who originated the Nuremburg Files: that man is NOT representative of us.

Many of us have spoken out against the violence. For example, look at http://www.gargaro.com/noabort.html, which has numerous links to anti-violence pro-life articles, or the pro-lifers at http://www.insidetheweb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb232229

There are violent radicals in every movement, pro-choice, pro-life, and on other issues as well. Most pro-lifers are peaceful people. The acts of violence that do occur receive so much news coverage because they are the exception! Do not ENCOURAGE these violent nuts by making them think they have the support of pro-lifers in general when they don't.

From: xxx@xxx.com [proxy1.disney.com]
Date: Wed Apr 21 00:48:13 1999

You pro-lifers are pathetic! In all this controversy, I don't see any of you opening your homes and wallets to thousands of unwanted children!! You preach that murder is wrong, yet you people murder Doctors, and terrorize wives, and innocent children; the very lives of people you claim to save.

Do you see the thousands of unwanted children, in their homes; starving, beaten, and unloved? Is that what you want for these children? Do you want more incidences of young teens disposing of their newborns in trash cans? Do you see the possibilities of your stupid cause? Look into the profiles of serial killers and rapists. The facts will tell you that most or all of those monsters were once abused and unwanted children. Now I'm not saying that all abused children grow up to be killers (not unless you're a pro-lifer), but it surely increases the chances. Children should be brought into this world wanted and loved. Every child deserves that.

If you people believe that it is justified to kill a (so-called) "murderer" to stop murder, than you give anyone permission to murder you!

Until you walk in the shoes of a young teenage girl, who has no where to go and no one to take care of her, not to mention a baby, I suggest you turn your pistols at yourselves and pull the trigger.

You will never stop freedom of Choice, so give up you scumbag hypocrites!

From: VermiliaCrieon@hotmail.com [209.77.142.175]
Date: Tue Apr 20 06:56:36 1999

Is it your right to declare that doctors should die.....? I thought you were trying to influence life.... Your just a hypocrate, an evil one at that... one that has cost lives. Personaly I would never get an abortion.. but the choice is mine!! Not every one belives in god... I belive that as a woman having a baby that I couldn't take care of would be so horrible... I can relate with those women... And it's not fair of you to advertise something they probably feel horribly guilty about in the first place.. NO ONE hops up first thing in the morning yawns and declares what a beautiful day it is to have an abortion.... and unless your willing to take care of those women and thier children. Stop whining... because alls your doing is causing good men who went to college to get a degree, to be killed..... personaly . There should be more doctors in the world... If you want to stop abortion, listen to my Idea.... teach your children, that abortions are bad! And that sex is bad when you can't cope with the results... but if they ever do get into trouble, they have a loving family to care for them....

Trust me... If every one did that, there wouldn't be many abortions. You owe an appology to all the families you hurt with this site. And in my opinion, your the hitler of abortion.

From: N/A [1Cust205.tnt3.dfw2.da.uu.net]
Date: Sat Apr 17 22:08:29 1999

I found this page neither physically or mentally disturbing. I just found it repulsive that you would trample of the rights of privacy to those women you infringed upon. By publishing the pictures that consisted of names of women that have had abortions..you broke the law and that should be punished. I am sorry that you can not seem to realize that the constitution gave EVERYONE the right to make their own choices..as did our God. And you should read both the Bible and the constitution..and then you should post an apology to all of the women that you imposed upon their freedoms and rights as American citizens.

From: vi@earthlink.net [1Cust155.tnt20.sfo3.da.uu.net]
Date: Thu Apr 8 22:21:26 1999

Free speech vs. Murder....I applaud free speech in all it's forms, but when that speech leads to the murder of people who by the laws of the land (The USA) are breaking no law, then that speech should be curtailed. If a person wants to get up on a soapbox and preach about the evils of abortion, more power to them, it's a free country. BUT when a person begins to call for the death of of persons who are no in any way violating the laws, then that person has ALREADY chosen to no longer be protected by the Constitution! If you cannot follow the law, then you are not allowed the full freedoms the rest of us have, prisoners are regulated because they have proven they cannot obey the laws, the only difference is that the prisoner has already been convicted. As far as freedom of speech on the web, it is a murky issue still, but an ISP is in no way required to supply space to a site they find offensive. All people are protected by that freedom.

I'd love to get a reply on this one, if you could.

Thanks, Greg Hopper

From: Skinner41@webtv.net [proxy-338.public.rwc.webtv.net]
Date: Fri Apr 2 10:10:47 1999

Dear Karin,

I applaud your arguments in favor of free speech. They are virtually my own so I needn't be redundant here.

I am disappointed that you elected to take down your mirror site, however. I was interested in determining for myself what content the site held and what intent was perceptibly behind it.

In my opinion, you lost points on your argument when you reneged on the promise to provide this material. I'm not sure you acquitted yourself adequately on your reasons for taking down the mirror. I suspect there is more going on here than meets the eye.

Sincerely Yours, Brian K. Mitchell

From: bratsman1998@hotmail.com [166.66.34.66]
Date: Wed Mar 31 18:07:17 1999

Freedom of speech is okay. Murder is not. And that is what you people are soliciting with this site. I hope each and every one of you goes to hell for your part in the death of so many doctors.

Louie

From: curtiss@redrose.net [c3-35.pm4-1.lancaster.desupernet.net]
Date: Tue Mar 30 18:35:06 1999

I am unsure that you will receive this as I was unable to locate your email address on your sight, but I felt compelled to make the attempt.

Just wanted to say that I applaud your open minded approach to free speech.

I am as opposed to your position as I am that of anti-abortion terrorism, but to control free speech for any supposed purpose is still just another form of control and manipulation; propaganda far worse than that forced on the people of the USSR is now festering in the US. While you might think our First Amendment rights are immutable the truth is that most of our rights in the US are under serious attack these days, and it all starts when any of us endorses a close minded attitude that attempts to criminalize any act of moral issue.

Curtiss H. Pemberton

From: Camaro81J@hotmail.com [dt080n8b.maine.rr.com]
Date: Thu Mar 25 02:40:49 1999

Freedom of speech and the murder of innocent physicians are two unrelated subjects. You need to get your head examined because you are a very sick individual.

Jared McKenna

From: Internet Freedom <campaign@netfreedom.org> [hubbard.xs4all.nl]
Date: Mon Mar 22 01:49:46 1999

PRESS RELEASE-IMMEDIATE 22 March 1999

'PRO-CHOICE' GIVES INTERNET FREEDOM NO CHOICE

Internet Freedom's US and UK sites are now back online after being forced to close following continuing efforts to censor the 'Nuremberg Files' by some pro-choice lobbyists.

Last week, Internet Freedom's US site was suspended temporarily when the hosting Internet Service Provider (ISP) decided to abandon its sponsorship deal because of the link to the UK located 'Nuremberg Files'. The ISP, which remains committed to free speech, agreed to re-establish the site after alternative funding was arranged.

At about the same time, Internet Freedom's UK sponsors were forced to close a mirror of the 'Nuremberg Files' site following threats from two apparently pro-choice networks. The organisations requested that the 'Nuremberg Files' be shut down, otherwise they would circulate company telephone numbers to 'pro-choice' groups for them to register their protest. As a business with limited resources, the hosting company was forced to take down the site to maintain a full service to their customers.

Internet Freedom originally posted a UK mirror copy of the notorious 'Nuremberg Files' site with an accompanying statement entitled 'Why We Must Defend This Repugnant Site' on 8th March. The 'Nuremberg Files' provoked legal action against its originators in the US where defendants were found liable for $108 million by a federal judge. Internet Freedom posted a copy of the site as a mark of commitment to free speech and despite its vocal opposition to its content.

In an effort to return the Nuremberg Files site to the Net once again, Internet Freedom posted a second mirror on web space provided by one of the new free UK ISPs. This was closed by the ISP within 12 hours without explanation.

Internet Freedom has now secured a third UK home for the 'Nuremberg Files' from the ISP IED who decided to assist the Campaign. The company issued the following statement:

"An ISP cannot be held responsible for the content placed on its systems. No-one is hounding AT&T for providing these bigots with a telephone, or Bic for selling them biros, so why should someone who provides Internet services be targeted? Before we know it ISPs will be held responsible for the content of their client's Web sites, and this revolutionary new medium will grind to a halt in red-tape. IED feels that Internet Freedom are addressing issues with which all ISPs should be concerned."

The site is now accessible via: http://www.netfreedom.org

Internet Freedom founder Chris Ellison commented on the events:

"It is an indication of the strength of pro-censorship sentiment today that our UK and US sponsors were forced to withdraw their support. Both companies remain committed to free speech and I am disappointed that they have been put in a position that they feel is untenable. It is a sad day when civil rights supporters resort to censorship to silence their opponents."

Ellison added: "It has always been easier to defend free speech for people you agree with; less so for those you see as your enemies. However free speech must be defended as a democratic right for all. It cannot become a privilege granted to those with particular beliefs, and denied to others. Nor can freedom of speech be offset against women's rights as if they were opposing entries in a balance book."

NOTES

1. The US court ruling was on February 2, 1999, when an Oregon jury in a civil case awarded two women's clinics and four abortion providers $108 million against 12 anti- abortionists and two anti-abortion organisations. They were ruled to have made unlawful threats of physical harm by publishing the names and addresses of four doctors on two 'wanted' posters and an anti-abortion web site: 'The Nuremberg Files'. The website was not involved in the action. Its anti-abortionist creator Neal Horsley was not one of the defendants, but published information supplied by them. His site was closed by service provider 'Mindspring' under its 'appropriate use' policy, after the trial.

2. The mirror site is accompanied by a number of other articles from writers and professionals opposed to the anti-abortionists but in support of free speech. The Nuremberg Files mirror and the accompanying articles can be found from http://www.netfreedom.org

3. Opponents of the censorship of the Nuremberg Files site include free speech advocate Jonathan Wallace, who publishes The Ethical Spectacle (http://www.spectacle.org); Karin Spaink, writer, Amsterdam, Holland (http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink); John Fitzpatrick, lecturer in Law at the University of Kent at Canterbury; Ann Bradley, columnist, LM Magazine.; and Mike and Margarita Lacabe, Derechos Human Rights organisation (http://www.derechos.org).

4. Internet Freedom is one of the leading cyber liberties campaigns in the UK. Their web site is at http://www.netfreedom.org. They can be contacted at campaign@netfreedom.org.

From: Katz001@aol.com [mnet01-84.dallas.texas.net]
Date: Sun Mar 21 04:00:48 1999

To Dave Amis: You defend internet hitlists, Dave. Fine. Put up or shut up. Just forward to me your address, phone number, place of employment, a recent photo, and any other personal information, along with similar information about your family and closest friends, and I will create a website just for you, complete with dripping blood and a bizarre rationale that it is imperative that you be killed for the good of the world, and then I will spam or otherwise publicize it all over the internet. OK? When can I expect your compliance with this request? (Think about it.)

From: abp3@1s.net [channel4.1s.net]
Date: Sat Mar 20 22:49:58 1999

Though i am against murder, in any form. I was all for the site. Doctors are fearing for their lives,and it to me seems to be poetic justice. The lives they take each and every day know no fear or have any understanding of the cruelties they are to face. These doctors know what a life is and chose to ignore the facts and coninue to murder for the vanity or convenience of the women who choose to have these procedures performed.I think it is only fitting that these doctors wake up each morning and have to ask "Is today MY day to DIE?"

From: kam76@dial.pipex.com [usera872.uk.uudial.com]
Date: Sat Mar 20 14:03:00 1999

The Nuremberg Files is undoubtedly one of the most despicable Web sites I have seen in a long time. While not actually advocating violence, the tactic of publishing the names and addresses of doctors undertaking abortions is clearly intended to intimidate. As someone who is opposed to any restrictions on the rights of women to terminate their pregnancies, the fanatically righteous and threatening tone of the Nuremberg Files is something I find disturbing.

Yet despite my loathing of everything the Nuremberg Files represents, I was profoundly uneasy when the site was taken down by its original host. This unease intensified when mirror sites of the Nuremberg Files were, for various reasons, also being taken down. As much as I can understand the anger of pro-choice activists at the tactics of the pro-life movement, I cannot see that anything is to be gained by removing the Nuremberg Files Web site or any of its mirrors.

There two reasons for this. Firstly, there is a worrying assumption that the emotive content of a Web site such as the Nuremberg Files will drive people to acts of violence. So when a doctor carrying out abortions is attacked, it will be the Nuremberg Files that will have been deemed responsible for triggering an act of violence, rather than the individual who carried out the attack.

I say this in clear recognition that any idea is an incitement to action. The Nuremberg Files is intended to incite pro-life supporters to take whatever form of action they deem to be appropriate. Yet however, inflammatory the content of the message, any individual who takes action does so after having weighed up the consequences of their actions. I have yet to hear a case of someone being assaulted, maimed or murdered by a Web site. People carry out assaults and murder, not Web sites.

To directly implicate the Nuremberg Files as being responsible for any act of violence carried out against a doctor is to absolve the individual carrying out that act of any responsibility for their actions. It implies that people will unthinkingly react to an emotive call to arms without consideration of the consequences. If we accept that notion, then we will have to accept the need to be protected from exposure to any inflammatory or emotive content in case we are driven to commit acts of violence. If this is the case, we will all be reduced to the level of children in need of constant protection.

Secondly, if we reject the notion that we will be swayed by emotive content, as autonomous thinking individuals we should be allowed to make our own judgements about Internet content rather than allow others to presume to decide for us. The fear of the pro-choice lobby is that the Nuremberg Files will influence people who may not have had a strong opinion either way into supporting pro-life activists. Again this implicitly assumes that people cannot judge for themselves. It may well be the case that anyone viewing the Nuremberg Files will find themselves motivated to support the pro-choice lobby.

It is on the basis that people should be trusted to judge for themselves that the Nuremberg Files should remain on the Net. As someone who supports the rights of women to terminate their pregnancies, I am happy for the Nuremberg Files to be in the public domain. This is so that people can see for themselves the despicable tactics of the pro-life movement and can mobilise their resources to win the argument for pro-choice.

Dave Amis, Internet Freedom

From: concernedciti83@hotmail.com [203-36-131.ipt.aol.com]
Date: Wed Mar 17 21:40:27 1999

Matthew 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

From: decade@torpilla.bme.hu [torpilla.eik.bme.hu]
Date: Tue Mar 16 18:10:33 1999

We do not think superciliousness or self-absorbedness is a bad thing, but we can understand if Mr. Katz001 does. Still, it's hard to figure out what our superciliousness and self-absorbedness has to do with the quality of our argumentation. If the reasoning seems to be defective to Mr. Katz001 then take time by the forelock and refute it! The ambiguity and inscrutability of our reasoning is a worse problem. But if you don't tell what exactly ambiguous in the reasoning we can not respond, so it's detracting the conversation to our mental deseases which has nothing to do with the our topic, hopefully. Please, try to keep the task! (If Mr. Katz001 can't stand superciliousness etc. then why conversating with anyone who is supercilious etc.?(

By the way, Mr. Katz001's psychotic analysis is detracted as well: DECADES is not a person but an organisation, it can not be supercilious etc. DECADES is Dinamic Evaluational Calculus for 'Alternate DEcisions' Systems, and the members are five girls, who would like to introduce themselves: Emese Tovary, Ildiko Temesi, Fanni Gardos, Agnes Feleky, Eva Szabo.

We take the conversation to be finished.

Good Bye! The Decade