Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!amdcad!decwrl!spar!baba
From: baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response (Who killed Contadora?)
Message-ID: <685@spar.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Dec-85 00:54:42 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.685
Posted: Mon Dec  2 00:54:42 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Dec-85 20:21:43 EST
References: <7559@ucla-cs.UUCP> <7800809@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: The Institute of Impure Science
Lines: 37

> Jim : Your argument with Nat, is, of course, none of my business(:-)),
> but one part arrested my attention. It was your very impressive list
> of sources which you read on Nicaragua. A veritable MOUNTAIN of
> material. This puts some of your past *misstatements of fact*
> in a quite *new* perspective. As:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >The fact is that it is the U.S. ... that rejects the Contadora process.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Now that is a BASIC non-fact, like Nicaragua bordering China.
> I responded to it mildly before, because I thought you were
> ignorant of the situation. Of course you shouldn't have said
> emphatically =The fact is= ; but all you owed us was an apology
> and a retraction. Now that I know HOW MUCH you know, -
> *what am I to think* ? 
> 
> Now someone with your *prosecutorial* cast of mind would
> have launched an investigation: how much did J. B. know,
> and when did he know it ?
> 
> 		Jan Wasilewsky

I'm really puzzled, Jan.  I mean, with all those CAPITAL LETTERS
and =typographical flourishes=, and *wounded self-righteousness*
you =*MUST*= be right.  But your statements are directly in 
contradiction to what information I have on the situation in Central 
America, something I pay attention to because I have friends in
Honduras who are directly affected.  The Nicaraguans rejected the
Contadora formula to begin with, but in the face of their economic
and military situation, they accepted it about a year ago.  The
U.S. state department, clearly unprepared for this eventuality,
then backed off *its* support for the Contadora formula, arguing
that it was "too vague" and full of "loopholes" after all.  I
don't remember the date, but at the time it was commented on as a 
remarkable example of heavy-footedness at the state department.
What happened after that?

					Baba