From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #427 Dead-Flames Digest #427, Volume #48 Tue, 27 Sep 05 22:00:02 PDT Contents: Re: Shut Down The War Machine ("pv34pv3p") Re: Shut Down The War Machine (Joe) Re: Shut Down The War Machine ("Everybody's Gonna Be Happy") Re: ndc-Dylan special on PBS tonite (Joe) Re: I hate to wear socks! ("Ray") Re: Shut Down The War Machine (Joe) Re: 33 years old and never been on a date ("Carlisle") Re: Shut Down The War Machine ("Richard Morris") Re: Shut Down The War Machine ("pv34pv3p") Hostage thinks with her stash... (DG) Re: Shut Down The War Machine ("Ray") Re: I hate to wear socks! ("Neil X.") Re: Shut Down The War Machine ("Richard Morris") Re: Shut Down The War Machine ("pv34pv3p") Re: Shut Down The War Machine ("Ray") Re: Collect a Check on U.S. ("pv34pv3p") Re: Shut Down The War Machine ("Ray") Re: Shut Down The War Machine ("DGDevin") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "pv34pv3p" Subject: Re: Shut Down The War Machine Date: 27 Sep 2005 20:24:52 -0700 >Reminds me of a tee shirt "Join the marines, travel to exotic places, >meet interesting people ..... and kill them" Don't forget...we used to screw their cute women too... pv34pv3p(Some of which actually married us....) ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: Shut Down The War Machine Date: 28 Sep 2005 03:27:07 GMT >We shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place, but we are >there, so we have to accept that. NO. We don't have to accept that. We can't except that. Especially if you know that it's wrong. Compounding the mistake can only result in more killings, more corruption, more lies. Enough already. Enough corporate greed, enough dead foreigners who never did anything to us, enough already. From the Clean Skies Initiative that creates pollution to No Child Left Behind which leaves all the children behind, to Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Cheney's secret energy task force, to the deaths in New Orleans...Bush and Cheney have to go. For the sake of the people of the United States, for the sake of the people of the planet, for the sake of the endangered species: ENOUGH ALREADY. Tell Bush and Cheney to go to hell. Retake America from the criminals, from the Ken Lays of the world, from ExxonMobil and from Halliburton. November 2nd. www.worldcantwait.org All we are saying is give peace a chance. Joe ------------------------------ From: "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" Subject: Re: Shut Down The War Machine Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:28:14 -0700 "pv34pv3p" wrote in message news:1127876989.510009.55130@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > >What do you think will happen to Iraq and the innocent >>Iraquis if we leave tomorrow, which you are calling for. Simple >>question, what's the expected effect of what you're protesting for ? >>Do you expect the protest will have any effect ? > > > 'Bout the same shit that happened to the Cambodians at the hand of Pol > Pot...and at the behest of the same bunch of fuckin' idiots (and their > children) that facilitated it then.... > > pv34pv3p(Let's all hope the answere to the 3rd question is no....) You may recall that Pol Pot came to power as a result of the US invading the country in support of the Lon Nol coup; inspiring the Khmer Rouge, with the support of the Chinese, to fight a war of "liberation" against the American puppets. And we supported Pol Pot in his early efforts to drive the Vietnamese from that country. The solution is not to invade countries that don't attack us. Duh. Iraq is not going to be a peaceful democracy no matter what we do. If we withdrew tomorrow a civil war would certainly result in the creation of a fundamentalist Muslim terror state controlled by Iran. The same will happen if we stay, only more Americans will die, and more taxpayers money will be spent. Sure, we should stick around until after the elections so we can save some meager amount of face. We can say we won and point to the "constitutional democracy" in Iraq (assuming the voters approve the constitution, which is not a given). But it won't change the ultimate result. Sadly, we won't withdraw even after a constitution is approved, as the constitution will do nothing to end the Iraqi civil war. The insurgents will fight until they win, period. It matters not if we are still there or not. Its just too late to fix this massive mistake. Not everything can be fixed, and this is one of those things. EGBH ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: ndc-Dylan special on PBS tonite Date: 28 Sep 2005 03:28:53 GMT PLAY FUCKING LOUD ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: I hate to wear socks! Date: 27 Sep 2005 20:28:55 -0700 Neil X. wrote: > > DGDevin wrote: > > > > Ya'll spend a winter in San Francisco and you'll wear the thickest socks you > > can find inside your warmest boots.... > > I spent last winter in San Francisco. When I wasn't at work, I wore > sandals exclusively....... > > Although I admit, eventually the neighbors got together and bought me a > few pairs of boxers. Thank god. When we went pub crawling, before the neighbors finally got him those boxers the women would disappear faster than victims in the "Scream" series. Ray ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: Shut Down The War Machine Date: 28 Sep 2005 03:33:55 GMT pv34pv3p wrote: > And Joe gets a free fuckin' pass??? He started the shit to begin > with... > pv34pv3p(You freakin Joe appologist morons are amazing....) I (me? a hippie Dead Head) started the war in Iraq? Whoa, dude. Take your meds. Quick. Before your brain melts out of your ears. Yow. AMF ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: 33 years old and never been on a date Date: 27 Sep 2005 20:38:40 -0700 Jerry Lobrowski wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > Jerry Lobrowski wrote: > > > Its true. It sucks to be me. > > > > "Cheer up, Palmer- > > You'll soon be dead." > > > > > I have no idea where this quote originated, but I find more comfort > than fear in my own mortality. Here's a link to the whole Phish song- http://www.geocities.com/jure.babnik/lyrics/acdc_bag.txt > > > > So I've heard there are some old hippies out in San Francisco who could > > hook you up right nice, man. ;~} > > At this point I am too drunk to read internet posts coherently so I > hope you aren't offering to set me up with a man from San Francisco, > especially all the way from Kentucky. Relax, JL. That's actually not what I was thinking. I have discovered quite recently that Geraldine is a female plant living out in Marin County. Meanwhile, have you looked into eHarmony.com ?? > > > Stay Grateful > > Always. > peace, Carlisle Landers Grateful Advice Columnist ------------------------------ From: "Richard Morris" Subject: Re: Shut Down The War Machine Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:41:54 -0700 "Ray" wrote in message news:1127876824.722599.107190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Richard Morris wrote: >> "Ray" wrote in message >> news:1127797129.129383.67470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> > Joe wrote: >> >> The day the bombs started falling on Iraq, the streets in San >> >> Francisco >> >> were shut down by those opposed to the war launched solely on the >> >> absurd >> >> lies of Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Powell. >> > >> > And who picked up the tab for that? Not Bush and Co. - it was instead >> > the people of San Francisco. >> > >> >> They lied about everything, and >> >> now it's time for us to shut their fucking war machine down, and to >> >> shut >> >> their fascist country down. >> > >> > Shutting down San Francisco will do no such thing. >> > >> >> The Festival Of Resistance is coming to your town. November 2nd. >> >> >> >> Call in sick. Take to the streets. Let those criminals in DC know that >> >> their gig is up. Fuck them! >> > >> > Bush and Co. are well aware that the people of the San Francisco Bay >> > Area, on balance, are not their political allies. So if anti-Bush >> > protestors shut down San Fransico again Bush and Co. won't know that >> > their 'gig' is up - they will instead laugh that 'friends' of San >> > Francisco shut down the city again. >> > >> >> LET'S TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK! >> > >> > I very much hope that happens in the next election. But shutting down >> > San Francisco will only result in San Francisco taxpayers picking up >> > the tab for a bunch of angry people -- most of whom don't live in SF -- >> > shouting into the ether. Again. >> >> Last I recall, in the constitution of the United States, there was some >> language about the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Does that >> ring a bell to you? > > Why yes. Is the difference between peaceable assembly and illegally > 'shutting down' parts of a city lost on you? And if the peaceable assemble results in shutting down parts of the city, tell me what bothers you about that? R. ------------------------------ From: "pv34pv3p" Subject: Re: Shut Down The War Machine Date: 27 Sep 2005 20:46:47 -0700 >You may recall that Pol Pot came to power as a result of the US invading the >country in support of the Lon Nol coup; inspiring the Khmer Rouge, with the >support of the Chinese, to fight a war of "liberation" against the American >puppets. And we supported Pol Pot in his early efforts to drive the >Vietnamese from that country. You'd have to ask my wife about that...She lived it...you just read about it... >The solution is not to invade countries that don't attack us. Duh. Like Germany, Korea, Viet Nam, Bosnia.... >Iraq is not going to be a peaceful democracy no matter what we do. If we >withdrew tomorrow a civil war would certainly result in the creation of a >fundamentalist Muslim terror state controlled by Iran. Yep...except for the no matter what we do part... >The same will happen if we stay, only more Americans will die, and more >taxpayers money will be spent. Except this time they're all voluntary...and happy to risk their life proving that your wrong... >Sure, we should stick around until after the elections so we can save some >meager amount of face. We can say we won and point to the "constitutional >democracy" in Iraq (assuming the voters approve the constitution, which is >not a given). But it won't change the ultimate result. Like it would lower the number of homicides in Detroit, or DC either..OK...fuck it...let's give up and see what happens...Ooops...forgot...already been tried in NOLA.... >Sadly, we won't withdraw even after a constitution is approved, as the >constitution will do nothing to end the Iraqi civil war. The insurgents >will fight until they win, period. It matters not if we are still there or >not. Sadly true from your prospective...Guess it don't matter... Fight 'em there or fight 'em here...But your ultimately right...they're gonna fight... pv34pv3p ------------------------------ From: DG Subject: Hostage thinks with her stash... Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:52:43 -0700 Turns out this chick had a meth stash that she gave to the killer. >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050928/ap_on_re_us/courthouse_hostage_book;_ylt=AtI4sV5nTA3F0yHo0Kpz9Yys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY- ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: Shut Down The War Machine Date: 27 Sep 2005 20:59:55 -0700 Richard Morris wrote: > "Ray" wrote in message > news:1127876824.722599.107190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Richard Morris wrote: > >> "Ray" wrote in message > >> news:1127797129.129383.67470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > >> > Joe wrote: > >> >> The day the bombs started falling on Iraq, the streets in San > >> >> Francisco > >> >> were shut down by those opposed to the war launched solely on the > >> >> absurd > >> >> lies of Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Powell. > >> > > >> > And who picked up the tab for that? Not Bush and Co. - it was instead > >> > the people of San Francisco. > >> > > >> >> They lied about everything, and > >> >> now it's time for us to shut their fucking war machine down, and to > >> >> shut > >> >> their fascist country down. > >> > > >> > Shutting down San Francisco will do no such thing. > >> > > >> >> The Festival Of Resistance is coming to your town. November 2nd. > >> >> > >> >> Call in sick. Take to the streets. Let those criminals in DC know that > >> >> their gig is up. Fuck them! > >> > > >> > Bush and Co. are well aware that the people of the San Francisco Bay > >> > Area, on balance, are not their political allies. So if anti-Bush > >> > protestors shut down San Fransico again Bush and Co. won't know that > >> > their 'gig' is up - they will instead laugh that 'friends' of San > >> > Francisco shut down the city again. > >> > > >> >> LET'S TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK! > >> > > >> > I very much hope that happens in the next election. But shutting down > >> > San Francisco will only result in San Francisco taxpayers picking up > >> > the tab for a bunch of angry people -- most of whom don't live in SF -- > >> > shouting into the ether. Again. > >> > >> Last I recall, in the constitution of the United States, there was some > >> language about the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Does that > >> ring a bell to you? > > > > Why yes. Is the difference between peaceable assembly and illegally > > 'shutting down' parts of a city lost on you? > > And if the peaceable assemble results in shutting down parts of the city, > tell me what bothers you about that? Provided that the assembly has the proper permits, nothing. Indeed I believe such assemblies are sometimes necessary for an effectively functioning democracy. If the assembly does not have the proper permits, however, it costs the government -- that is, the people -- considerable additional expenditures to maintain public order. Moreover the potential for anarchy leading to violence and destruction is increased - it's exactly the kind of environment that the lets-smash-windows-and-attack-cops so-called 'anarchists' types thrive in and love to exploit. And whether that sort of thing bothers you too or not, the Constitutional right of the people to peacably assemble is not infringed upon by requiring that large assemblies have permits - that's a red herring. Ray ------------------------------ From: "Neil X." Subject: Re: I hate to wear socks! Date: 27 Sep 2005 21:06:31 -0700 > Ray wrote: > > When we went pub crawling, before the neighbors finally got > him those boxers the women would disappear faster than victims in the > "Scream" series. Uh, they weren't "disappearing," Ray; what they were doing is called "swooning." HTH, Neil X. ------------------------------ From: "Richard Morris" Subject: Re: Shut Down The War Machine Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:07:54 -0700 "Ray" wrote in message news:1127879995.437582.102220@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Richard Morris wrote: >> "Ray" wrote in message >> news:1127876824.722599.107190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > Richard Morris wrote: >> >> "Ray" wrote in message >> >> news:1127797129.129383.67470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Joe wrote: >> >> >> The day the bombs started falling on Iraq, the streets in San >> >> >> Francisco >> >> >> were shut down by those opposed to the war launched solely on the >> >> >> absurd >> >> >> lies of Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Powell. >> >> > >> >> > And who picked up the tab for that? Not Bush and Co. - it was >> >> > instead >> >> > the people of San Francisco. >> >> > >> >> >> They lied about everything, and >> >> >> now it's time for us to shut their fucking war machine down, and to >> >> >> shut >> >> >> their fascist country down. >> >> > >> >> > Shutting down San Francisco will do no such thing. >> >> > >> >> >> The Festival Of Resistance is coming to your town. November 2nd. >> >> >> >> >> >> Call in sick. Take to the streets. Let those criminals in DC know >> >> >> that >> >> >> their gig is up. Fuck them! >> >> > >> >> > Bush and Co. are well aware that the people of the San Francisco Bay >> >> > Area, on balance, are not their political allies. So if anti-Bush >> >> > protestors shut down San Fransico again Bush and Co. won't know that >> >> > their 'gig' is up - they will instead laugh that 'friends' of San >> >> > Francisco shut down the city again. >> >> > >> >> >> LET'S TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK! >> >> > >> >> > I very much hope that happens in the next election. But shutting >> >> > down >> >> > San Francisco will only result in San Francisco taxpayers picking up >> >> > the tab for a bunch of angry people -- most of whom don't live in >> >> > SF -- >> >> > shouting into the ether. Again. >> >> >> >> Last I recall, in the constitution of the United States, there was >> >> some >> >> language about the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Does >> >> that >> >> ring a bell to you? >> > >> > Why yes. Is the difference between peaceable assembly and illegally >> > 'shutting down' parts of a city lost on you? >> >> And if the peaceable assemble results in shutting down parts of the city, >> tell me what bothers you about that? > > Provided that the assembly has the proper permits, nothing. Indeed I > believe such assemblies are sometimes necessary for an effectively > functioning democracy. > > If the assembly does not have the proper permits, however, it costs the > government -- that is, the people -- considerable additional > expenditures to maintain public order. Moreover the potential for > anarchy leading to violence and destruction is increased - it's exactly > the kind of environment that the lets-smash-windows-and-attack-cops > so-called 'anarchists' types thrive in and love to exploit. I am missing something here. How is it that permits reduce the necessary expenditures to maintain public order, and lack of permits increases the necessary expenditures to maintain public order? Also, what does the possession of permits do, one way or the other, to reduce or increase the potential for anarchist types to exploit a public gathering to promulgate disorder? Doesn't any public gathering carry that potential? > And whether that sort of thing bothers you too or not, the > Constitutional right of the people to peacably assemble is not > infringed upon by requiring that large assemblies have permits - that's > a red herring. So if they have permits, you are okay, if they are peacable (which we stipulated from the get-go, and which by definition excludes the actions of anarchist types) ... even if it results in parts of the city "shutting down" (which I take to mean becoming inaccessible). To restate: a gathering is okay with you, provided there are permits. Even if it results in the closing of streets or neighborhoods temporarily--say for the purposes of a march or parade? R. ------------------------------ From: "pv34pv3p" Subject: Re: Shut Down The War Machine Date: 27 Sep 2005 21:15:05 -0700 >I am missing something here Now that you've properly framed a question...Hows this for a direct answer...YES ya freakin' moron... pv34pv3p(And way more than yer capable of comprehending...) ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: Shut Down The War Machine Date: 27 Sep 2005 21:30:52 -0700 Richard Morris wrote: > "Ray" wrote in message > news:1127879995.437582.102220@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Richard Morris wrote: > >> "Ray" wrote in message > >> news:1127876824.722599.107190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > Richard Morris wrote: > >> >> "Ray" wrote: > >> >> > I very much hope that happens in the next election. But shutting > >> >> > down > >> >> > San Francisco will only result in San Francisco taxpayers picking up > >> >> > the tab for a bunch of angry people -- most of whom don't live in > >> >> > SF -- > >> >> > shouting into the ether. Again. > >> >> > >> >> Last I recall, in the constitution of the United States, there was > >> >> some > >> >> language about the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Does > >> >> that > >> >> ring a bell to you? > >> > > >> > Why yes. Is the difference between peaceable assembly and illegally > >> > 'shutting down' parts of a city lost on you? > >> > >> And if the peaceable assemble results in shutting down parts of the city, > >> tell me what bothers you about that? > > > > Provided that the assembly has the proper permits, nothing. Indeed I > > believe such assemblies are sometimes necessary for an effectively > > functioning democracy. > > > > If the assembly does not have the proper permits, however, it costs the > > government -- that is, the people -- considerable additional > > expenditures to maintain public order. Moreover the potential for > > anarchy leading to violence and destruction is increased - it's exactly > > the kind of environment that the lets-smash-windows-and-attack-cops > > so-called 'anarchists' types thrive in and love to exploit. > > I am missing something here. How is it that permits reduce the necessary > expenditures to maintain public order, and lack of permits increases the > necessary expenditures to maintain public order? If the assembly is large and you don't know where it's going to go, the government has to employ significantly more resources to be able to handle all possible scenarios. Also, remember that the stated goal of some of these protestors is to "shut down" the city - which, in addition to increased govt resource expenditures to address such "shut down" agendas - also adversely impacts local businesses as well. And there's no need for those sorts of adverse impacts to get one's voice heard. > Also, what does the possession of permits do, one way or the other, to > reduce or increase the potential for anarchist types to exploit a public > gathering to promulgate disorder? Doesn't any public gathering carry > that potential? Sure. However the potential for anarchy leading to violence and destruction is *increased* when a large assembly is mobile and you don't know where it is going to go. > > And whether that sort of thing bothers you too or not, the > > Constitutional right of the people to peacably assemble is not > > infringed upon by requiring that large assemblies have permits - that's > > a red herring. > > So if they have permits, you are okay, if they are peacable (which we > stipulated from the get-go, and which by definition excludes the actions of > anarchist types) ... even if it results in parts of the city "shutting down" > (which I take to mean becoming inaccessible). > > To restate: a gathering is okay with you, provided there are permits. Even > if it results in the closing of streets or neighborhoods temporarily--say > for the purposes of a march or parade? When we are talking about large assemblies, yes. (At what point an assembly becomes sufficently 'large' so as to require permits is of course a gray area and debatable.) Ray ------------------------------ From: "pv34pv3p" Subject: Re: Collect a Check on U.S. Date: 27 Sep 2005 21:31:36 -0700 And finally back to Sean... >So, what is it hot shot, what "job" do you hold at the behest of the >taxpayers? Physician's Assistant...but you'll be happy to know the GI Bill is supporting my efforts towards an MD...I won't achieve it before my wife or daughter ..but the leapfrog thing's working for us...Anyway...someones gotta help 'em with their homework... >I'm glad to know that the taxpayers put your daughter through school and >supported your sorry ass for 22 years. And we're glad stupid fuckers like you need your right to be stupid defended... pv34pv3p(Not much chance of unemployment....) ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: Shut Down The War Machine Date: 27 Sep 2005 21:35:37 -0700 Ray wrote: > Richard Morris wrote: > > "Ray" wrote in message > > news:1127879995.437582.102220@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > Richard Morris wrote: > > >> "Ray" wrote in message > > >> news:1127876824.722599.107190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > >> > Richard Morris wrote: > > >> >> "Ray" wrote: > > >> >> > I very much hope that happens in the next election. But shutting > > >> >> > down > > >> >> > San Francisco will only result in San Francisco taxpayers picking up > > >> >> > the tab for a bunch of angry people -- most of whom don't live in > > >> >> > SF -- > > >> >> > shouting into the ether. Again. > > >> >> > > >> >> Last I recall, in the constitution of the United States, there was > > >> >> some > > >> >> language about the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Does > > >> >> that > > >> >> ring a bell to you? > > >> > > > >> > Why yes. Is the difference between peaceable assembly and illegally > > >> > 'shutting down' parts of a city lost on you? > > >> > > >> And if the peaceable assemble results in shutting down parts of the city, > > >> tell me what bothers you about that? > > > > > > Provided that the assembly has the proper permits, nothing. Indeed I > > > believe such assemblies are sometimes necessary for an effectively > > > functioning democracy. > > > > > > If the assembly does not have the proper permits, however, it costs the > > > government -- that is, the people -- considerable additional > > > expenditures to maintain public order. Moreover the potential for > > > anarchy leading to violence and destruction is increased - it's exactly > > > the kind of environment that the lets-smash-windows-and-attack-cops > > > so-called 'anarchists' types thrive in and love to exploit. > > > > I am missing something here. How is it that permits reduce the necessary > > expenditures to maintain public order, and lack of permits increases the > > necessary expenditures to maintain public order? > > If the assembly is large and you don't know where it's going to go, the > government has to employ significantly more resources to be able to > handle all possible scenarios. > > Also, remember that the stated goal of some of these protestors is to > "shut down" the city - which, in addition to increased govt resource > expenditures to address such "shut down" agendas - also adversely > impacts local businesses as well. > > And there's no need for those sorts of adverse impacts to get one's > voice heard. > > > Also, what does the possession of permits do, one way or the other, to > > reduce or increase the potential for anarchist types to exploit a public > > gathering to promulgate disorder? Doesn't any public gathering carry > > that potential? > > Sure. However the potential for anarchy leading to violence and > destruction is *increased* when a large assembly is mobile and you > don't know where it is going to go. > > > > And whether that sort of thing bothers you too or not, the > > > Constitutional right of the people to peacably assemble is not > > > infringed upon by requiring that large assemblies have permits - that's > > > a red herring. > > > > So if they have permits, you are okay, if they are peacable (which we > > stipulated from the get-go, and which by definition excludes the actions of > > anarchist types) ... even if it results in parts of the city "shutting down" > > (which I take to mean becoming inaccessible). > > > > To restate: a gathering is okay with you, provided there are permits. Even > > if it results in the closing of streets or neighborhoods temporarily--say > > for the purposes of a march or parade? > > When we are talking about large assemblies, yes. (At what point an > assembly becomes sufficently 'large' so as to require permits is of > course a gray area and debatable.) I forgot to add: With permitted assemblies (whereby the assembly honors its agreement under the permit) traffic can be re-routed in predictable ways, thus lessening the adverse impact on traffic patterns. Which is especially important when one takes into account emergency services. Ray ------------------------------ From: "DGDevin" Subject: Re: Shut Down The War Machine Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 04:37:18 GMT "JC Martin" wrote in message news:Tcf_e.450$Aw.6803@typhoon.sonic.net... > Bullhorns??? LOL Okay, sure. Why is that funny? I've watched organizers and crowd marshalls use them to distribute info and steer the crowd and get chants going, not something you've ever seen? Doesn't strike me as a fantastic thing for people organizing a demo to have with them.... ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .