Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Orphaned Response (Who killed Co
Message-ID: <7800869@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Dec-85 23:55:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800869
Posted: Tue Dec  3 23:55:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Dec-85 20:51:57 EST
References: <685@spar.UUCP>
Lines: 18
Nf-ID: #R:spar:-68500:inmet:7800869:000:767
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Dec  3 23:55:00 1985


[baba@spar]	
RE: Contadora. Specific formulas come and go. Discussing them  is
part  of  the  Contadora  process  we  are  speaking of .  If USA
government *rejected* (a binary word !) the  Contadora  *process*
(this year or last), I'll eat my hat. One of the reasons I'm sure
is that its severest critics keep accusing it of  being  cold  or
insincere in its support for the process.
Rejection would be a peal of thunder; it couldn't be missed.

		Jan Wasilewsky

P.S. OK, I checked: see Foreign Affairs, fall issue, article
"Contadora Process Demystified". You may put your doubts to rest:
USA still supports the Contadora process. In fact, everyone 
does. 
However, your spoof of the typographical superfluities of my
article was both clever, and, I think, right.