User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 20

Hello Fred.

I am very satisfied by the final issue of the case with Zeq but I am a little bit disappointed that due to the climate the heart of the matter has not been discussed. Could you, yourself or ask the ArbCom to vote, precise if the way the following is presented is neutral, scholar and documented enough. Thank you very much :

1. In her book « Eichmann in Jerusalem », Hannah Arendt who was Professor at Princeton University writes : « The Grand Mufti's connections with the Nazis during the war were not secret; he had hoped they would help him in the implementation of some final solution in the Near East » ^[1]

2. In « The Grand Mufti », a biography that is considered paradoxically « as rehabilitating him in emphasing his contribution to the palestinian cause » ^[2], historian Zvi Elpeleg writes: « His many comments show that he was not only delighted that Jews were prevented from emigrating to Palestine, but was very pleased by the Nazi’s final solution. » ^[3]

3. In an interview granted to Haaretz, Dr Walter Reich, Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs, Ethics and Human Behavior ^[4], reports that « In 1941, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, met with a number of Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, hoping to get them to side with the Arab cause and even to extend anti-Jewish measures to the Jews in Palestine. In his meeting with Hitler in November 1941, al-Husseini obtained the statement from Hitler that "Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere." The phrase used by Hitler in this conversation, "Vernichtung des...Judentums," is one that was used in connection with the Holocaust. Moreover, al-Husseini worked to stop the rescue of Jews, engaged in broadcasts for the Germans, and in 1943 helped organize a Bosnian Muslim division of the Waffen SS that was implicated in atrocities against Jews, Serbs and others in the Balkans. » ^[5]

4. On the website of Simon Wiesenthal Center ^[6] , one can read : « Hajj Amin Al Husseini (1895-1974) was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and important Arab leader. He supported the Nazis, and especially their program for the mass murder of the Jews. He visited numerous death camps encouraged Hitler do the extend the "Final Solution" to the Jews of North Africa and Palestine. » ^[7]

5. In an article published in New York Times, journalist Edwin Black, author of « IBM and the Holocaust » ^[8], writes in reporting events of 1941 : « His venomous rhetoric filled the newspapers and radio broadcasts in Tehran. The mufti was a vocal opponent of allowing Jewish refugees to be transported or ransomed into Jewish Palestine. Instead, he wanted them shipped to the gas chambers of Poland. » ^[9]

6. In his book « Mufti of Jerusalem », Moshe Pearlman, historian close to Ben Gurion ^[10] writes : «Arabs...were called upon, in the name of the Koran and the honour of Islam, to sabotage the oil pipelines, blow up bridges and roads along British lines of communications, kill British troops, destroy their dumps and supplies, mislead them by false information, withhold their support. The exhortations usually included the suggestion that they could save their souls by massacring the Jewish infidels in their midst.... » ^[11]

7. In her controversed book ^[12] « From Time Immemorial : the origin of the Arab Jewish conflict over Palestine », Joan Peters, reports that « In 1940, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy. » ^[13]

8. In his book « The Gramsi Factor », Chuck Morse, journalist and Massachusetts candidate for US Congress ^[14] writes : « On 1 March 1944, in a radio Broadcast to the Arab people from Berlin, the Mufti stated : "Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them » ^[15]

9. In « Israel, Islam and the church », Paul Carlson, who taught Scripture classes on Old and New Testaments, ^[16] , refering to Michael Bar Zohar writes : « Blood was what the Mufti demanded in his speeches broadcast from Cairo... (…) And no sooner had the United Nations announced their decision that the Jihad started. The outcome was not difficult to see with 40 millions Arabs fighting against 650,000 Jews. » ^[17]

Generally each reference must be considered in terms of how it is viewed by experts in the field. Fred Bauder 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your answer but I am not sure to understand. Do you mean that each of these references must be validated by another expert ? ie XXX's mind must be referenced by another expert in the field so that it is agreed to be a reference for wikipedia ? How to define an expert ? User:Chris2 10:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Recognized experts tend to use each other as references, write favorable reviews about each others work, etc. They often hold positions at reputable institutions. They tend to use verifiable information from reputable sources themselves. Fred Bauder 23:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fred. Thank you. I understand your point. I just underline that this is of course high quality request and I am not sure this is applied everywhere but this is not the point. This is on the contrary an excellent policy. Here : some are quoted by others (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). They received favorable reviews (1 to 6) or controversial (7) . They hold positions at reputable institutions (1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9) or a profesionnal (ie studied much the field) (4, 5, 6, 7). But I have my answer. Thank you :-) User:Chris2 09:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As you know, I have been sanctioned by your arbitration committee (). This sanction took place in response to my submission of a statement in a preexisting arbitration of other parties. No one has presented a statement of charges against me. I had no opportunity to collect evidence, challenge my accusers, or formulate my defense. If that is how your arbitration committee goes about its business, what is the point of maintaining the appearance of fairness? Why not refer all Wikipedia disputes a dictatorial authority?

If giving the impression of ruling at will is not the intention of the powers that be, I need an opportunity to appeal your decision to the extent that it affects me. Please let me know how to go about it. Henryuzi 06:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your advice regarding appeal procedures (). I have lodged a request with Jimbo Wales (). I am about to do likewise with ArbCom. Henryuzi 06:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)henryuzi

User_talk:Fadix#What_is_your_problem.3F

He has screwed the Armenian Genocide article, I am considering reopening a new cases requesting a total blocking from anything related to the Armenians, not for months, not for a year but a life ban. Due to the gravity of what he has done I don't believe my request is that much asking. I need your opinion, and I have very strong evidences that both users are the same. Fad (ix) 00:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how checkuser works, but if it uses IP as sole way, it doesn't mean much. Coolcat already in the past said that if he decide to use multiple aliases no one will know it is him, I could if I wanted, use a proxy and there would be no way for anyone to know it by configuring different browser with different proxies. Fred, Coolcat has a proper way of creating chronological tables, he has proper expressions such as 'I demand' etc., various ones shared by both, there is really something wrong there. First Coolcat return in the Armenian genocide article and decide finally to contribute and bring his rhetoric, and then, another user Shelby28 register to support Coolcat, and then this alias stop contributing, and finally when I raises the issue just today few hours ago he answer after over a week of silence soon after Coolcat answers me, and Coolcat answers soon after he answered. I recieved an email from someone claiming to be a Turk(guess what the word cat is in his address), talking about a proposition I have made months ago about creating a specific article and that he said he wanted to work on such an article, I made this proposition during an exchange in which Coolcat was one of the three users involved. And guess what, this article is created by Karabekir soon after. If you don't trust me, I am ready to mail you my Wikipedia email password and you will see what I mean and you will by the same occasion read a users email warning me about discussions on the IRC claiming another user to be my sock poppet and an attempt to my credibility. And finally Karabekir seems to have lost his unability to express himself in English answer in my talk page and accuses me of the same exact things as Coolcat has been accusing me from the beggining. Those are few examples there. Fad (ix) 03:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fred, there can be no doubt it is him, check this up. This was Karabekirs first edit on the page created by Coolcat, the same article that sparked a big controversy. Pay attention of the edit in question. Also, you may first check his first edits.

We have the evidences that he is faking his unability in English, since his first edits were not only OK English, but it was EXACTLLY Coolcat language, Coolcat style, and in the VERY SAME articles in which he participate and from which he somehow was 'kicked' out from, he then later started faking a brocken English and and started creating the multiple color tables he is so good at creating etc. I am bringing this to the arbitration committee in few days with all the evidences and Shelby28 is maybe another of his aliases. This time he has gone too far. Fad (ix) 04:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, I really hope you'll have the courtesy to apologize when you realize that you're wrong. I really don't know whether coolcat/karabekir are the same person - maybe they are - but I know that I'm not either of them. (On a more superficial note, it also bugs me as a young woman to get accused of being a man) Shelby28 07:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I have created an evidence page and will be working on it in the upcoming days, you can view it here. User:Fadix/evidencepage Fad (ix) 02:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Fred, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans. Thanks. --Zero 12:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Fred, You had the opportunity to recomend that Zero will acceopt mediation. Instead you prefer to ban an editor who add what is clearly an NPOV legitimate edit ?

The issue in this case is so focus: To allow IDF response to the Checkpoint watch women to be included in Wikipedia or to surpress it. NPOV policy is clear. If I will be banned, that is another proof on Wikipedia bias. I prefer mediation but as always: ban me if you want. I rally could not care less.

btw, do you still want to enhance our friendship ? If so I am willing to try. Zeq 15:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what is "with prejudse" but maybe when I grow up I'll decide to be an attorny so I will know. Just need to get over this dyslexia that I have - ever woundred how unfair is wikipedia to people with such disbaility ? Zeq 16:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Zero and Ian quote Mattar extensively, despite the clear propaganda agenda he is associated with:

He is considered by many "the academic wing" of the PLO and he wrote the Mufti biography that left out the Mufti's Nazi collaboration. I.e., he can hardly be considered an unbiased academic. Why should ties to Zionist/Israeli orgs discredit an author when Mattar's ties to the PLO don't discredit him? Kriegman 03:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We are considering writings produced by writers affiliated with nations which are at war. Propaganda is a part of war. Mattar's work, if what you say is true, should be viewed with the same scepticism which would be applied to a production of the Israeli government. It should not be viewed a priori as false, but the facts in it need to be checked. We will from time to time be fooled, but we have a duty to try to puzzle these matters out the best we can. Fred Bauder 03:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree completely. Please note that I never tried to use Mattar's ties with the PLO or his obvious bias regarding the Mufti to discredit or remove anything Zero or Ian referenced from him. I just wanted the same degree of lattitude on the other side, i.e., that a statement from some Zionist or someone tied to the Israeli government would not be dismissed because of the assumed bias. Some other basis for dismissing a statement would need to be made.

Instead, in lengthy exchanges Zero (and less often, Ian) would simply say something like "C'mon! You've got to be kidding" [a powerfully convincing argument, indeed], "He's a known propagandist." When asked why he said that---after all, a known propagandist who makes unverifiable statements should not be used as a source---I would get either no answer or eventually he would simply point out the ties to some Zionist/Israeli org. That's not enough to discredit a pro-Israeli source anymore than it would be to discredit Mattar.

So, I agree with your point completely. We need to go beyond assumed biases and look at other aspects of verifiability. Kriegman 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fred, Kreigman is factually incorrect on nearly every point. In fact, Mattar is a highly qualified Palestinian-American academic (PhD from Columbia; taught at Georgetown University, Yale University, and the City College of New York; research fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars). Nobody ever called him "the academic wing" of the PLO; that was what someone once claimed (without providing any evidence, and there is still none) about the organization IPS that Mattar used to head. The Institute of Palestine Studies (now based in Washington, DC) funds and publishes research into (guess) Palestine Studies and has a long list of eminent US, UK and Israeli(!) scholars amongst its authors. Kreigman's worst error is "he wrote the Mufti biography that left out the Mufti's Nazi collaboration". In fact there is a whole chapter on it. Could it be that Kriegman has never seen Mattar's book? There is nobody with anywhere near Mattar's academic credentials that Ian Pitchford or I have been unwilling to accept material from. Instead, Kriegman's sources include Maurice Pearlman, who nobody seems to know anything about except that he was a "Hanagah spokesman", or Joseph Schechtman, who was a leading official of political parties of the Zioinist right-wing for most of his life and never (afaik) held an academic position. That's the story in a nutshell. Regards. --Zero 04:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't just "someone" who said the Institute for Palestine Studies is the academic wing of the PLO: it was the U.S. State Dept. just two years before Mattar became its executive director, a position he still holds, so far as I know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

He left the IPS in 2001. I'll reply to your other comment below. --Zero 06:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely some opinion that goes that way, see , but that opinion is itself on a site that might be considered propagandistic CAMERA Fred Bauder 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The State Dept. quote was published in the New Republic, May 19, 1982, according to several sources, though I haven't seen it myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Googling finds this too . But is it reliable? Fred Bauder 05:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Apparently copied from this. Fred Bauder 05:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the State Department, it was some unnamed "State Department official" (as far I as my searches have found). I think the claim first appeared in Commentary (no surprise). If someone notices the reference, I'll look it up. If the organization was actually funded by the PLO or something like that, we wouldn't be hearing about vague unspecified "links". Then again, so what? The US government gives billions each year to academics to do research, so we should discount everything they write. Israeli academics get their salaries and most of their research funds from the Israeli government, so we should throw away their work too. --Zero 06:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice that Slim had identified New Republic as the source. I'll try to find that issue and then I'll tell you what it says. --Zero 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a Steven Emerson article in the New Republic on that date (May 19, 1982) called "The ARAMCO Connection," pp. 11-16. The quote may very well be in there, because I believe ARAMCO is one of the backers of the Institute for Palestine Studies. If it was Emerson who quoted the State Dept official, it was likely someone senior and knowledgable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen Emerson mentioned in this context, but then I couldn't find it again. If this article is typical, he won't give sources at all. But I'll look. --Zero 07:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. He said that four US companies (Exxon, SoCal, Mobil and Texaco) are conducting a "surreptitious multimillion-dollar campaign to manipulate American public opinion on the Middle East". Aramco is just their front. (He says that those four companies own all of Aramco's stock, that's in 1982; I can't seem to reconcile that with our article on Aramco.) Through Aramco, these companies established subversive groups like the "Arab Women's Information Committee" (shriek!). The IPS claim is worded as we knew already: "Yet, as one State Department official said, it is known as 'the unofficial academic wing of the PLO'". He then says "It is rigidly hostile to Israel and is a major organ of PLO thinking and propaganda. Its quarterly, Journal of Palestine Studies, is widely read at the Department of State and in U.S. universities." (That's because it is a peer-reviewed academic journal; in the three 1982 issues, half or more of the authors are US academics; I guess that proves Emerson's theory that this conspiracy is led by US companies.) Then he says "Company records and sources indicate that Aramco has contributed at least $75,000 to IPS". Emerson is lucky that New Republic doesn't have Wikipedia's standards, as there is no citation and hardly a single verifiable claim in the whole article. Was this conspiracy theory supported by anyone since Emerson? Can't say I've ever heard of it. --Zero 10:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which part of it you're calling a "conspiracy theory." Standard Oil of New Jersey (which became Exxon) and Socony-Vacuum Oil (which became Mobil) became the owners of Aramco in 1948, along with Socal and Texaco, and in 1980, the Saudi govt purchased almost all of Aramco's assets. So at the time of writing in 1982, Emerson's claim that these companies were using their assets to manipulate public opinion against Israel is perfectly plausible. Emerson's sources tend to be good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm calling it a conspiracy theory because it has all the usual hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. The whole thing relies on trusting Emerson. You do, I don't, c'est la vie. --Zero 03:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It actually doesn't have any of the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. He claims that Aramco has used its assets to turn public opinion in American against Israel, and why wouldn't it, given that it's owned by the Saudis? As for Emerson, that takes us back to my earlier point. You dismiss information from sources because you don't share their POV, but you're sometimes willing to accept very poor sources because you agree with them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Emerson doesn't say that Aramco/Saudis are the prime movers behind it. He gives that role to 4 American oil companies. He says that right in the first sentence of the article. As for my alleged inconsistency with sources, are you saying that I should also accept pro-Arab activists who claim to make revelations based on documents they won't show and sources they won't name? You sure as hell wouldn't. Who does that make the more consistent? Your criticism would be better received if you got your own house in order. --Zero 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero, I think the issue is that you sometimes dismiss Israeli sources as propaganda for no obvious reason (that I have ever seen), while wanting to allow Palestinian sources that seem equally or even more biased. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I try to be consistent, but everyone has biases (you too). Can you tell me of an Israeli or pro-Israeli source that I dismiss as propaganda written by someone whose academic credentials are as good as Philip Mattar's? --Zero 06:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through my 25,000 or your 6,000 edits looking for diffs, but I remember several times editing with you, or watching you edit, where you've been scathing about Israeli or right-wing sources who seemed fine to me, yet willing to accept sources of equal or lower quality if they confirmed your POV. As for Mattar, I'm not saying he shouldn't be accepted as a source. I only chimed in to confirm there had been a suspicion of a link between the Institute he heads and the PLO. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

IPS's own description of their funding sources is here. --Zero 06:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

They don't actually give any information though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as much as any other large organisation gives (or more). And there's the IRS looking over their shoulder. --Zero 06:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Many research organizations give details of their major supporters precisely so that people can see what the main biases are likely to be. For example, an Israeli organization I have seen you dismiss as a source is the Jewish Virtual Library run by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. They list their board of directors and many of their sponsors. The Institute for Palestine Studies, on the other hand, says precisely nothing about who runs and pays for it that I could find. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To get back to the point. Kriegman is wrong. I haven't quoted Mattar at all, let alone "extensively"; his book is a peer-reviewed publication from Columbia University Press and it doesn't leave out the mufti's Nazi collaboration; in fact Chapter 8 has the title 'The Nazi Years' and as the book just happens to be in front of me now I'll make my first ever quotation from the opening paragraph:

No period in the Mufti's life is more controversial and subject to distortion than the years of World War II. Zionists were so eager to prove him guilty that they exaggerated his connection with the Nazis. The Mufti and other Arabs, on the other hand, were so busy justifying his statements and actions in the Axis countries that they ignored the obvious and overwhelming fact that the mufti had collaborated with the most barbaric regime in modern times.

Let's not prevaricate. We all know perfectly well why editors cite propaganda websites and other self-published material: because they can't find any scholarly source to back up the claim they want to include in an article. --Ian Pitchford 11:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly slim hit the nail on the head with these words:

:Zero, I think the issue is that you sometimes dismiss Israeli sources as propaganda for no obvious reason (that I have ever seen), while wanting to allow Palestinian sources that seem equally or even more biased. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq 22:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, I think this discussion is an example of the Zero's M.O. He appears to have "sandbagged" me here, as can be seen if we go back to the RfArb. (See "Other uses" in sandbag.) In that RfArb, I wrote a statement that I believe was written shortly after Zero's statement. The statement sat in the RfArb for quite a long time before Fred removed most of it to make it conform to the length limits. I then edited my shorter statement in the RfArb and put a link in to my longer statement so the entire thing has been available for quite some time. Given that I responded directly to Zero's points in my statement that was posted almost immediately following his, it seems highly likely that Zero read it.

In my statement I made it quite clear that I had NOT read Mattar's biography of the Mufti and that I did NOT know if the characterization of it as leaving out the Mufti's Nazi collaboration was true. Furthermore, I suggested that Ian and Zero probably do have access to the biography and probably do know the truth about this:

"Indeed, I would cite Mattar's biography of the Mufti as another source, of sorts. I do not have access to it (though I am pretty sure Ian and Zero do). I have read that Mattar's scholarly biography of the Mufti left out what everyone in this debate has conceded: The nature and extent of the Mufti's Nazi collaboration. If this is so, we know that Mattar is not above biasing the view of the Mufti that he presents. (And I am not suggesting that this should discredit Mattar as a source; I have repeatedly noted that all sources are biased.) If Mattar is presenting a somewhat whitewashed version of the Mufti---and I believe we can safely assume Mattar knows about the widespread claims about the Mufti's calls for genocide---how is it possible that he does not mention these false claims in his biography of the Mufti?"

In the ongoing debate, on more than one ocassion, rather than responding as he has here with substantive evidence from a source like the Mufti bio, Zero just repeatedly called me names. Yes, it is true that since I was pretty sure that Ian and/or Zero had access to the bio and since they didn't refute the claim that I referred to above (and I referred to it in that manner more than once), I began to believe the claim was simply true. Now it seems it is either false or not so simple.

Whether Mattar fully acknowledged the Mufti's fairly well-documented murderous collaboration (i.e., that the Mufti was a truly nasty fellow in his own right) or wrote an apologetic after admitting that the Mufti had collaborated with murderous folks (i.e., that his crime was allowing himself to be seen as or inadvertently helping bad people) is something I still do not know. The quotation Zero presented could be consistent with either and the latter view may be what the stuff I read was referring to.

In any case, that is not the point here. The point here is that I was sandbagged by Zero. Kriegman 06:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Only two days ago you wrote on this page "he wrote the Mufti biography that left out the Mufti's Nazi collaboration". Now, having been soundly proven wrong, you are saying that it's my fault for not realising that you meant something different. Cool. --Zero 12:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Zero, your command of English (or lack thereof) is surprising. This is the second time we have actually engaged in a direct exchange in which your interpretation of the words that anyone can view shows you misinterpret what you read to support your view. How often does that occur when only you have viewed and selectively presented material from a source?

I never said I meant anything different. I ADMITTED that I had come to believe what I had read:

"Yes, it is true that … I began to believe the claim was simply true."

I tried to explain why I came to speak as though it was established. But when I admitted ("Yes, it is true …") I was also trying to acknowledge that I began to write as if it had been established. My bad. I made a mistake. You are right about that point. It was an error to make such a categorical statement. The true characterization of Mattar's presentation of the Mufti's Nazi collaboration may come out now that Fred has bought the book. (But why, if you [and Ian?] have access to the book, did Fred have to get involved in this way?)

However, I never criticized you for not realizing anything. I criticized you here (and on the 48 War Talk page) for FULLY realizing things and NOT saying them or holding back crucial information, i.e., for sandbagging me. (On the 48 War talk page, you critiqued a misunderstanding I had and implied there was nothing of validity in the info I referred to when you almost surely knew that the essential info was valid though the presentation was inaccurate.) Kriegman 16:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have finally broken down and spent my $20 on a used copy of this book, as you have paid me the compliment of carrying this discussion on here. I suggest that all who wish to discuss this book further either buy or check the book out. If you buy it and find it not worthwhile you can always resell it on Amazon Marketplace. Fred Bauder 13:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)