At 10:02 AM 9/21/98 +0200, you wrote:
>To the histchildfam readers:
>
>Normally it's not done for listmembers to say that one finds the subject
>matter of a discussion thread irrelevant, and even irritating. May I, for
>once, violate this rule?
>
>I happen to be not interested in Clinton's unhappy childhood or family
>background, nor in his state of mind, nor in the psychological or
>political motives of those who feel they have to publish the details of
>the man's sex habits.

And in general, even while I understand that Bill Clinton may well be
>history soon, I still completely fail to see the relevance of this whole
>affair to this list's subject matter of the **history of childhood**. I
>would like to suggest that a discussion of all this does not belong in
>this list, and ought to be continued elsewhere.
>
>Maybe it's a good idea to just get back to work now??????
>
>Dr. Henk van Setten -

In other words, "The facts, Ma'am. and just the facts"? And
only certain facts at that? 

Is unexamined history worth living or studying?

Julienne



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%