11/17   What some of you are rooting for and siding with:
        http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/decision2000/lat_dems001117.htm
        From the LA Times, that bastion of right wing conservatism. ;) ;) ;) ;)
        \_ Um, what crack are you smoking? LA Times is hard left.
           \_ He's being sarcastic.
                \_ Yes.  I was being sarcastic.  I keep forgetting how low the
                   Cal's standards are these days.  There was once a time long
                   long ago in a place right here in Berkeley where you could
                   make an obviously sarcastic remark and everyone clearly
                   understood and appreciated it.  Next time I'll use idiotic
                   <sarcasm> text </sarcasm> markings for people who read html
                   better than English.
                \_ Yes.  I was being sarcastic.  I keep forgetting how
                   low the Cal's standards are these days.  There was
                   once a time long long ago in a place right here in
                   Berkeley where you could make an obviously
                   sarcastic remark and everyone clearly understood
                   and appreciated it.  Next time I'll use idiotic
                   <sarcasm> text </sarcasm> markings for people who
                   read html better than English.
                   \_ Uh, <sarcasm> isn't a valid HTML 4.0 tag. ;-)
                        \_ I think it's being discussed for the next version
                           of the spec, but you're right about current html
                           'standards'.  Use your CSUA Motd Browser.  It reads
        (reference implementation in /csua/bin/motdbrowser) _/
                                \_ /csua/bin/motdbrowser
                           the newer tags.
                           \_ Assume that all motd posts are sarcastic
                              unless told otherwise.