XPost: rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: kludge@panix.com   
      
   Keith F. Lynch  wrote:   
   >Scott Dorsey  wrote:   
   >> Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.   
   >   
   >Okay, how about Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus, New Mexico in   
   >March, 1916?   
      
   Was Pancho Villa an authorized representative acting on behalf of the   
   Mexican government?  Or was he acting as a private citizen?   
      
   I seem to recall that Villa had previously been a representaive of the   
   Mexican government but that at some point he had gone out on his own,   
   and I think that was before 1916 but I cannot recall precisely.   
   --scott   
      
      
   --   
   "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)