Evidence for the case that the Republican party line these days is a bunch of twaddle are the idiots out there like Clay Higgins blaming liberal "wokeness" for the Ukraine crisis. Add to this the fact that plenty of right-leaning commentators insisted the warnings about a Russian invasion by the Biden administration were a hoax, and now those same people are blaming Biden for this happening at all. If Trump was president, is there any doubt he would be cheering Putin on?

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 9:44:36 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 2/28/2022 12:07 AM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 11:00:38 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Employment "at will" is not a contract.
> >>
> >> It is in the interest of employers
> >> and employees to treat each other
> >> reasonably most of the time.
> >
> > In theory. In practice employers
> > oftentimes try to squeeze as much
> > work as possible from employess
> > for as little pay as possible.
> >
>
> And employees oftentimes try to provide
> as little effort in doing their jobs as possible.
> So what?

In the absense of a formal, written
employment contract, employers
have exclusive power to determine
if employees are doing their job or
not, without any possibility of
independent review. Do you
believe this is right?
> >> The prevalence of employers abusing
> >> employees prevalent in literature and
> >> movies is hyperbolic.
> >
> > I would appreciate if you could share
> > what do you drink, smoke, and inhale,
> > as well as where do you buy or gas.
> > Oh, I forgot, Texas is full of gas!
> >
> > I have been an engineering manager,
> > director, VP and CTO for 3+ decades,
> > and in more than one country. I never
> > saw as much abuse, blatant unfairness,
> > egregious discrimination and harrassment
> > in any country as I saw in the US. And
> > note that I work in high tech software
> > and computer industries, supposedly
> > the most liberal, progressive and
> > enlightened on the planet.
> >
> >> Why would employers fire employees
> >> for no good reason.
> >
> > How would one know if the reasons
> > are good or not absent a contract?
> >
> >> Why does an employer "owe" an
> >> employee a job?
> >
> > Employers do not "owe" jobs. They
> > have a legal obligation to meet the
> > obligations of a contract -- when
> > there is one. Unfortunately, there
> > is no contract when wmployment
> > is "at-will".
> >
>
> This is an over simplification. All large
> firms have employment policies.

Generic employment policies do not
provide enough detailed guidance to
evaluate employees' performanc in
an objective way -- except perhaps
for some low level blue collar jobs.
So stop blowing smoke, and read
this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_(computer_scientist)

> According to state law (in Texas at
> least, an at-will state), firms must
> follow the policies they have set.

And who verifies the policies are
fair and reasonable? No one!

> This is a de facto contract. Federal
> law also factors in. There are also
> unions, though not as powerful as
> they once were. It is an exaggeration
> to hold that employees have no power
> in their relationship with employers.

You are blowing smoke.

> The biggest source of power they
> have is the marketplace, though.
> The ability to quit a job and seek
> another.

Oftentimes that "ability" is exactly
like the ability of a cancer patient
to switch health insurance plans.

I regret to have to say you are
completely delusional about
employment law and about
the labor market.

dk

On 2/28/2022 1:39 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> Evidence for the case that the Republican party line these days is a bunch of twaddle are the idiots out there like Clay Higgins blaming liberal "wokeness" for the Ukraine crisis. Add to this the fact that plenty of right-leaning commentators insisted the warnings about a Russian invasion by the Biden administration were a hoax, and now those same people are blaming Biden for this happening at all. If Trump was president, is there any doubt he would be cheering Putin on?

Yes there is 100% doubt. At no point did Trump praise the invasion. He said that Putin was "smart" and "savvy." That is not praise for Putin's morals, actions or ethics. He then called the invasion appalling and an outrage. He then went on to say that the withdrawal from Afghanistan contributed to Putin's aggression. Is it surprising that a Republican what try to blame Biden for the invasion? Have not the Democrats blamed everything under the sun on Trump? It's all just politics. You can predict what everyone is going to say in every circumstance. Which is why I vote based on what I think candidates will really do, not what the say they will do.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022, Frank Berger wrote:

> On 2/26/2022 10:09 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 13:23:58 UTC+11, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2022 8:33 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 00:30:32 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> When people start talking in extremes they can't be taken seriously.
>>>>
>>>> I wish it were that simple. But we are talking extremes - tyrants going
>>>> beyond what we expected of serious mature politicians. Putin, Trump......
>>>> let's hope we don't have to add more to the list with Xi Jinping. These
>>>> are extremely worrying individuals who have a really bad track record and
>>>> all are in charge of nuclear arsenals as Ray says. Don't you think this
>>>> is serious? Many others do.
>>> When someone says they abhor "everything" the Republican Party stands for
>>> I stop taking them seriously.
>>
>> I never said I abhor the Republican Party. The fact that I don't agree
>> politically with much of what they stand for, does not imply abhorrence. I
>> said that I abhor what Putin is carrying out in the Ukraine. There is a
>> difference.
>>
>> The Republican Party lost me completely 100% when they adopted Trump and
>> the acceptance of his obvious lies. They jumped on the fact that being
>> popular with the gun-crazies, the extreme right loonies, and the QAnon mob,
>> was a free ticket at the polling stations.
>>
>> Ray Hall, Taree
>
>
> You don't need to explain.
>
> And I was referring to Andy's comment, which was precisely:
>
> "What I don't like is the Republican Party and all it stands for..."
>
> It's not enough to object to the party supporting Trump, or disagreeing with
> its general approach, or disagreeing with 50, 60 or 70 percent of it's policy
> preferences. He has to disagree with "all that it stands for."
>
> And if he was asked to specify exactly what he things the RP "stands for" it
> would be an amalgam of distortions and hyperbole.
>
> Like I said, not to be taken seriously.

The Republican party used to stand for things, but by 2020 it seems to
have replaced the concept of an issue-oriented party platform by just a
"do whatever Trump wants". And it has only gotten worse since then,
now apparently extending to automatically adopting all of his lies and
those of his most extreme followers. Even Qanon is not out of bounds.

In light of that, and not just for the sake of arguing, do the percentages
you list make any sense? In terms of "the party" in its official sense,
it seems to be either all or nothing. So maybe Andy's 100% is really the
only option left for a rational person.
--
Al Eisner

On 2/28/2022 5:28 PM, Al Eisner wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022, Frank Berger wrote:
>
>> On 2/26/2022 10:09 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 13:23:58 UTC+11, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2022 8:33 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 00:30:32 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>> When people start talking in extremes they can't be taken seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish it were that simple. But we are talking extremes - tyrants going beyond what we expected of serious mature politicians. Putin, Trump...... let's hope we don't have to add more to the list with Xi Jinping. These are extremely worrying individuals who have a really bad track record and all are in charge of nuclear arsenals as Ray says. Don't you think this is serious? Many others do.
>>>> When someone says they abhor "everything" the Republican Party stands for I stop taking them seriously.
>>>
>>> I never said I abhor the Republican Party. The fact that I don't agree politically with much of what they stand for, does not imply abhorrence. I said that I abhor what Putin is carrying out in the Ukraine. There is a difference.
>>>
>>> The Republican Party lost me completely 100% when they adopted Trump and the acceptance of his obvious lies. They jumped on the fact that being popular with the gun-crazies, the extreme right loonies, and the QAnon mob, was a free ticket at the polling stations.
>>>
>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>
>>
>> You don't need to explain.
>>
>> And I was referring to Andy's comment, which was precisely:
>>
>> "What I don't like is the Republican Party and all it stands for..."
>>
>> It's not enough to object to the party supporting Trump, or disagreeing with its general approach, or disagreeing with 50, 60 or 70 percent of it's policy preferences.  He has to disagree with "all that it stands for."
>>
>> And if he was asked to specify exactly what he things the RP "stands for" it would be an amalgam of distortions and hyperbole.
>>
>> Like I said, not to be taken seriously.
>
> The Republican party used to stand for things, but by 2020 it seems to
> have replaced the concept of an issue-oriented party platform by just a
> "do whatever Trump wants".  And it has only gotten worse since then,
> now apparently extending to automatically adopting all of his lies and
> those of his most extreme followers.  Even Qanon is not out of bounds.
>
> In light of that, and not just for the sake of arguing, do the percentages
> you list make any sense?  In terms of "the party" in its official sense,
> it seems to be either all or nothing.  So maybe Andy's 100% is really the
> only option left for a rational person.

I will certainly agree that in the Trump era, the RP has become cultish. It wants to win elections, so has chosen this course because of Trump's (inexplicable) appeal to a lot of voters. But I recognize hyperbole when I see it. To imply that Trump actually supports Putin's invasion of Ukraine is dishonest and despicable. Akin to claims of election fraud and Obama's citizenship.

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 5:37:11 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> I will certainly agree that in the Trump era,
> the RP has become cultish. It wants to win
> elections, so has chosen this course because
> of Trump's (inexplicable) appeal to a lot of voters.

Do you also believe Mussolini's, Hitler's
and Mao's appeals are/were "inxplicable"?

dk

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 5:37:11 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> I will certainly agree that in the Trump era,
> the RP has become cultish. It wants to win
> elections, so has chosen this course because
> of Trump's (inexplicable) appeal to a lot of voters.

Do you also believe Mussolini's, Hitler's and
Mao's appeals are/were "inexplicable"?

dk

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-8, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 5:37:11 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >
> > I will certainly agree that in the Trump era,
> > the RP has become cultish. It wants to win
> > elections, so has chosen this course because
> > of Trump's (inexplicable) appeal to a lot of voters.
> Do you also believe Mussolini's, Hitler's and
> Mao's appeals are/were "inexplicable"?
>
> dk

(Y. upload):

Why People Follow a Trump (or a Hitler): Malignant Narcissism & Simplicity - FRANK YEOMANS

On 2/28/2022 5:45 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 5:37:11 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>
>> I will certainly agree that in the Trump era,
>> the RP has become cultish. It wants to win
>> elections, so has chosen this course because
>> of Trump's (inexplicable) appeal to a lot of voters.
>
> Do you also believe Mussolini's, Hitler's
> and Mao's appeals are/were "inxplicable"?
>
> dk

What is the motivation of the question? Rather than pointlessly argue about yet another thing, I retract the "inexplicable."

On 2/28/2022 5:58 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 5:37:11 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>
>> I will certainly agree that in the Trump era,
>> the RP has become cultish. It wants to win
>> elections, so has chosen this course because
>> of Trump's (inexplicable) appeal to a lot of voters.
>
> Do you also believe Mussolini's, Hitler's and
> Mao's appeals are/were "inexplicable"?
>
> dk

Same answer as the first time. You have a lot of duplicate posts.

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 3:58:07 PM UTC-8, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-8, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 5:37:11 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >
> > > I will certainly agree that in the Trump era,
> > > the RP has become cultish. It wants to win
> > > elections, so has chosen this course because
> > > of Trump's (inexplicable) appeal to a lot of voters.
> > Do you also believe Mussolini's, Hitler's and
> > Mao's appeals are/were "inexplicable"?
> >
> > dk
> (Y. upload):
>
> Why People Follow a Trump (or a Hitler): Malignant Narcissism & Simplicity - FRANK YEOMANS

Title of movie about Trump's appeal:

"Rebel Without a Pause"

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 7:04:47 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 2/28/2022 5:45 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 5:37:11 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>
> >> I will certainly agree that in the Trump era,
> >> the RP has become cultish. It wants to win
> >> elections, so has chosen this course because
> >> of Trump's (inexplicable) appeal to a lot of voters.
> >
> > Do you also believe Mussolini's, Hitler's
> > and Mao's appeals are/were "inexplicable"?
>
> What is the motivation of the question? Rather
> than pointlessly argue about yet another thing,
> I retract the "inexplicable."

Then I retract the question! ;-)

dk

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 7:05:37 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 2/28/2022 5:58 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 5:37:11 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>
> >> I will certainly agree that in the Trump era,
> >> the RP has become cultish. It wants to win
> >> elections, so has chosen this course because
> >> of Trump's (inexplicable) appeal to a lot of voters.
> >
> > Do you also believe Mussolini's, Hitler's and
> > Mao's appeals are/were "inexplicable"?
>
> Same answer as the first time.
> You have a lot of duplicate posts.

Google Groups bug.

dk

On 2/27/22 7:06 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:45:55 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
>> In other words, when it becomes the Democratic Socialist Party of Bernie
>> and AOC, right?
>
> Was this just "something to say"? Universal healthcare does not make a country socialist, nor would any of those other things. I can't help but look down on Republicans who scream about socialism and seem to have no idea what it is. But that's what they do. None of them have any idea what "critical race theory" is, either, but it has its uses when you want something to yell about.

You know, it's clear that for you saying anything that doesn't fit the
Democratic Party's agenda puts one beyond the pale. Well, it doesn't.
BTW, I do know what CRT is and I think what Dorothy Parker said about
'Atlas Shrugged' should apply to CRT and to the '1619 Project'.

Bob Harper

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 4:47:54 PM UTC-8, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 2/27/22 7:06 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:45:55 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
> >> In other words, when it becomes the Democratic Socialist Party of Bernie
> >> and AOC, right?
> >
> > Was this just "something to say"? Universal healthcare does not make a country socialist, nor would any of those other things. I can't help but look down on Republicans who scream about socialism and seem to have no idea what it is. But that's what they do. None of them have any idea what "critical race theory" is, either, but it has its uses when you want something to yell about.
>
> You know, it's clear that for you saying anything that doesn't fit the
> Democratic Party's agenda puts one beyond the pale. Well, it doesn't.
> BTW, I do know what CRT is and I think what Dorothy Parker said about
> 'Atlas Shrugged' should apply to CRT and to the '1619 Project'.
>
> Bob Harper

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/26/great-force/

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 4:26:52 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> Yes there is 100% doubt. At no point did Trump praise the invasion. He said that Putin was "smart" and "savvy." That is not praise for Putin's morals, actions or ethics. He then called the invasion appalling and an outrage. He then went on to say that the withdrawal from Afghanistan contributed to Putin's aggression. Is it surprising that a Republican what try to blame Biden for the invasion? Have not the Democrats blamed everything under the sun on Trump? It's all just politics. You can predict what everyone is going to say in every circumstance. Which is why I vote based on what I think candidates will really do, not what the say they will do.

Waiting for a retraction.

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius!” Trump said. “Putin declares a big portion of Ukraine … as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.. So Putin is now saying it’s independent — a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s going to go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s the strongest peace force. We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace, all right.”

He is “pretty smart,” Mr. Trump said on Wednesday at a Florida fund-raiser, assessing the impending invasion like a real estate deal. “He’s taken over a country for $2 worth of sanctions,” he said, “taking over a country — really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people — and just walking right in.”

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 4:37:11 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> I will certainly agree that in the Trump era, the RP has become cultish. It wants to win elections, so has chosen this course because of Trump's (inexplicable) appeal to a lot of voters. But I recognize hyperbole when I see it. To imply that Trump actually supports Putin's invasion of Ukraine is dishonest and despicable. Akin to claims of election fraud and Obama's citizenship.

Trump's initial statements about the invasion were outrageous. That he is recalibrating since nobody will stand with him in his praise for Putin on that is not surprising. You cross the line in claiming anyone concerned by Trump's regard for Putin is "dishonest and despicable." You are delusional and you've embarrassed yourself.

Trump has repeatedly defended Putin against claims that his government murders journalists and dissidents. Do you deny that the Russian government routinely does this? Do you deny that Donald Trumps defense of Putin against these "unproven" claims is deeply troubling? Anyone else who wanted to be diplomatic would sidestep these issues. Trump has defended Putin and taken pride in their relationship for years.

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 6:47:54 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 2/27/22 7:06 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:45:55 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:
> >> In other words, when it becomes the Democratic Socialist Party of Bernie
> >> and AOC, right?
> >
> > Was this just "something to say"? Universal healthcare does not make a country socialist, nor would any of those other things. I can't help but look down on Republicans who scream about socialism and seem to have no idea what it is. But that's what they do. None of them have any idea what "critical race theory" is, either, but it has its uses when you want something to yell about.
>
> You know, it's clear that for you saying anything that doesn't fit the
> Democratic Party's agenda puts one beyond the pale. Well, it doesn't.
> BTW, I do know what CRT is and I think what Dorothy Parker said about
> 'Atlas Shrugged' should apply to CRT and to the '1619 Project'.
>
> Bob Harper

Let's get back on track. You don't seem to know what socialism is. Or you choose to talk about it in a a markedly ignorant way. But in that you carry on the long tradition of the Republican party, which has been far more interested in the potential of "socialism" as a negative PR tool than in any facts about it. Republicans have always opposed nearly every social program that could help people by claiming the programs were socialist and that they would make the country socialist. Social security, Medicare, you name it. They said the same thing about the Affordable Care Act, ignoring its market basis. Did we become socialist? No. We remain one of the least socialist advanced economies in the world, if I'm not mistaken.

That you respond to my comments by taking gratuitous swipes at CRT and the "1619 Project" - neither of which can turn you into a socialist - suggests to me that your chief interest isn't facts, or information, but doing your part for the culture war. And that is what has set me off in the past with your posts: the simple, damning swipes. I can't even imagine being able to talk that way, to be so quickly and strongly judgmental.

I don't think you know much about CRT, either. It is absolutely not a narrative about white people being bad and black people being good. In fact, there is a lot in it that suggest the limits of any political movement that aspires to be transformational. CRT might instead inspire the realistic, inch-by-inch steps toward progress and equality that would appeal to everyone. In this, conservatives might find a lot the embrace if they weren't so eager to mischaracterize CRT and slaughter it for their political profit. Perhaps I'm missing how difficult it might be for some conservatives. Myself, I don't really think that anyone is going to be hurt much by hearing a variety of voices, even if some leaders act like white people are fragile and in need of protection. Here's a good story about some of that:
https://mississippitoday.org/2022/02/02/mississippi-only-critical-race-theory/

Me, personally, I'm listening to _lots_ of Svetlanov, and also Leonid Kogan.

On Tuesday, 1 March 2022 at 00:18:03 UTC, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> > I retract the "inexplicable."
> Then I retract the question! ;-)
> > dk

Could you guys speak to Putin and show him how to retract his invasion?

On Tuesday, 1 March 2022 at 10:27:05 UTC, Oscar wrote:
> Me, personally, I'm listening to _lots_ of Svetlanov, and also Leonid Kogan.

I thought you had a dog in the fight, but I applaud you for not crossing the frontier into this thread.

On 2/28/2022 11:45 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 4:26:52 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Yes there is 100% doubt. At no point did Trump praise the invasion. He said that Putin was "smart" and "savvy." That is not praise for Putin's morals, actions or ethics. He then called the invasion appalling and an outrage. He then went on to say that the withdrawal from Afghanistan contributed to Putin's aggression. Is it surprising that a Republican what try to blame Biden for the invasion? Have not the Democrats blamed everything under the sun on Trump? It's all just politics. You can predict what everyone is going to say in every circumstance. Which is why I vote based on what I think candidates will really do, not what the say they will do.
>
> Waiting for a retraction.
>
> “I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius!” Trump said. “Putin declares a big portion of Ukraine … as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. So Putin is now saying it’s independent — a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s going to go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s the strongest peace force. We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace, all right.”
>
> He is “pretty smart,” Mr. Trump said on Wednesday at a Florida fund-raiser, assessing the impending invasion like a real estate deal. “He’s taken over a country for $2 worth of sanctions,” he said, “taking over a country — really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people — and just walking right in.”
>
>

I see no need for a retraction.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 6:00:45 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 2/28/2022 11:45 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 4:26:52 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> Yes there is 100% doubt. At no point did Trump praise the invasion. He said that Putin was "smart" and "savvy." That is not praise for Putin's morals, actions or ethics. He then called the invasion appalling and an outrage. He then went on to say that the withdrawal from Afghanistan contributed to Putin's aggression. Is it surprising that a Republican what try to blame Biden for the invasion? Have not the Democrats blamed everything under the sun on Trump? It's all just politics. You can predict what everyone is going to say in every circumstance. Which is why I vote based on what I think candidates will really do, not what the say they will do.
> >
> > Waiting for a retraction.
> >
> > “I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius!” Trump said. “Putin declares a big portion of Ukraine … as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. So Putin is now saying it’s independent — a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s going to go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s the strongest peace force. We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace, all right.”
> >
> > He is “pretty smart,” Mr. Trump said on Wednesday at a Florida fund-raiser, assessing the impending invasion like a real estate deal. “He’s taken over a country for $2 worth of sanctions,” he said, “taking over a country — really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people — and just walking right in.”
> >
> >
> I see no need for a retraction.

Lie down with dogs...

On 2/28/22 10:39 AM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
(snip) If Trump was president, is there any doubt he would be cheering
Putin on?

Do you mean that as a serious comment? If you do, I think you'rre nuts.

Bob Harper

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 5:27:05 AM UTC-5, Oscar wrote:
>
> Me, personally, I'm listening to _lots_
> of Svetlanov, and also Leonid Kogan.

A definite improvement over Boskovsky
and his Vienna brass band. Heil Oscar!

dk