From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #561 Dead-Flames Digest #561, Volume #48 Wed, 12 Oct 05 15:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: Hard ttimes in NE ("Andrew Murawa") Re: Hard ttimes in NE ("Rogues Island's finest") netflix ("Roxanne McDaniel") Re: (NDC) Attention Yankee fans ("Rogues Island's finest") Re: netflix ("Dave Kelly") Re: most you've driven in one day (AP) Re: netflix ("Rogues Island's finest") Re: most you've driven in one day (rforman61@msn.com) Re: netflix ("Dave Kelly") Re: (NDC) Attention Yankee fans (Andy Gefen) Re: Feedback on my new music site? ("Carl Sparndan") Re: (ndc) Ever Wonder.... (JC Martin) Re: Schadenfreude Alert! (NDC) (Andy Gefen) Re: "Presidential" fidgeting (NDC) ("dwolf") Re: who on rmgd would you like to meet? (Gladys) Re: "Presidential" fidgeting (NDC) ("tim_ratdog") Re: most you've driven in one day (Gladys) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Murawa" Subject: Re: Hard ttimes in NE Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:36:08 -0700 "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message news:1129148758.010268.66240@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Andrew Murawa wrote: >> "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message >> news:1129145271.410957.197060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Andrew Murawa wrote: >> >> "Neil X." wrote in message >> >> news:1129090446.955419.168030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> >> > >> >> >> Andrew Murawa wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Don't start whining about a few injuries now after >> >> >> having been left relatively unscathed during the past two >> >> >> seasons... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Damn man, last year we lost our 5-time All-Pro cornerback Ty >> >> > Law. >> >> > We >> >> > also played more than half the season without Super Bowl MVP >> >> > Deion >> >> > Branch and All-Pro tackle Matt Light. We lost All-Pro defensive >> >> > tackle >> >> > Richard Seymour for both AFC playoff games. The year before, we >> >> > lost >> >> > All-Pro linebackers Rosevelt Colvin and Ted Johnson. Don't get >> >> > me >> >> > started. Was anyone else in the league forced to play wide >> >> > receivers >> >> > in their defensive secondary last year?? >> >> >> >> Wow, so you lost one guy for the season, a couple guys for half >> >> the >> >> season, and another guy for two games, and you had injury >> >> problems? >> >> Talk >> >> to the Panthers or the Titans, each of whom had at least half of >> >> their >> >> starters lost to season-ending injuries... Injuries are a part of >> >> the >> >> game, certainly, but by and large, the Pats escaped major injury >> >> problems each of the last two seasons... >> > >> > Holy shit, you weren't kidding! Let me put it this way: you have >> > *got* >> > be fucking kidding! Neil listed only the high(low)lites, the >> > Patriots >> > had HUGE injury issues, on par or more so than anyone but Carolina. >> > They had so many guys missing from the defensive backfield that >> > they >> > played a wide receiver at DB. And they went 14-2. And won the >> > title. >> > >> > In 2003, the Patriots started 45, yes, that's 45! different >> > players. >> > And went 14-2 and won the title. That has to be some kind of >> > record. >> >> Just going over the history of the 2003 team, they lost exactly three >> players for the season due to injury, Roosevelt Colvin, David Patten >> and >> Mike Compton... Other players on the team, such as Kevin Faulk, >> McGinest, Branch, Givens, Graham and others were listed as >> questionable >> for most of the season, but rarely actually missed games, and by the >> end >> of the season, had most of their starters intact... Given that they >> started three different guys at RB, six at WR, three at punter, etc, >> the >> # of different "starters" on a team that prides itself on having >> interchangeable players is a nice number, but doesn't mean a whole >> lot, >> compared with say the Panthers last year who lost something like 13 >> players for the season to injury, including 4 pro-bowlers, or the >> Titans >> who by the end of last season had 14 missing starters... > > I have to ask, where the hell do you find these names and numbers? I > was wracking my brain trying to remember the specific guys who went > out > and when, and for how long, but you seem to have them at your > fingertips...do you have a good source or a better memory than me? Heh... Uh, the NFL has a pretty good website... > Anyway, I stand by my statement: the Patiots lost players, both all > pro > and non all pro, in serious numbers continuously throughout the year. > Some were gone for good (Ty Law, Rosie Colvin) and some were gone for > key periods of time (Tedy Washington for 8 games, Seymour for the > playoffs), etc. Carolina had it worse, but they finished what, 7-9? > To say the the Patriots were not affected by the injuries is ludacris: > they were hit by injuries more than probably all but 2 teams in the > league. And they won it all, both years, which is truly remarkable. I agree it is remarkable. I guess my point is that neither I nor any other NFL fan wants to hear Patriot fans start using a few injuries as an excuse when by and large they have avoided key injuries in their runs the past two years... And I will stand by my statement that for the most part, the Patriots were largely unscathed injury-wise in the last two years... ------------------------------ From: "Rogues Island's finest" Subject: Re: Hard ttimes in NE Date: 12 Oct 2005 13:49:30 -0700 Andrew Murawa wrote: > "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message > news:1129148758.010268.66240@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > Andrew Murawa wrote: > >> "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message > >> news:1129145271.410957.197060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > >> > > >> > Andrew Murawa wrote: > >> >> "Neil X." wrote in message > >> >> news:1129090446.955419.168030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> >> Andrew Murawa wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Don't start whining about a few injuries now after > >> >> >> having been left relatively unscathed during the past two > >> >> >> seasons... > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Damn man, last year we lost our 5-time All-Pro cornerback Ty > >> >> > Law. > >> >> > We > >> >> > also played more than half the season without Super Bowl MVP > >> >> > Deion > >> >> > Branch and All-Pro tackle Matt Light. We lost All-Pro defensive > >> >> > tackle > >> >> > Richard Seymour for both AFC playoff games. The year before, we > >> >> > lost > >> >> > All-Pro linebackers Rosevelt Colvin and Ted Johnson. Don't get > >> >> > me > >> >> > started. Was anyone else in the league forced to play wide > >> >> > receivers > >> >> > in their defensive secondary last year?? > >> >> > >> >> Wow, so you lost one guy for the season, a couple guys for half > >> >> the > >> >> season, and another guy for two games, and you had injury > >> >> problems? > >> >> Talk > >> >> to the Panthers or the Titans, each of whom had at least half of > >> >> their > >> >> starters lost to season-ending injuries... Injuries are a part of > >> >> the > >> >> game, certainly, but by and large, the Pats escaped major injury > >> >> problems each of the last two seasons... > >> > > >> > Holy shit, you weren't kidding! Let me put it this way: you have > >> > *got* > >> > be fucking kidding! Neil listed only the high(low)lites, the > >> > Patriots > >> > had HUGE injury issues, on par or more so than anyone but Carolina. > >> > They had so many guys missing from the defensive backfield that > >> > they > >> > played a wide receiver at DB. And they went 14-2. And won the > >> > title. > >> > > >> > In 2003, the Patriots started 45, yes, that's 45! different > >> > players. > >> > And went 14-2 and won the title. That has to be some kind of > >> > record. > >> > >> Just going over the history of the 2003 team, they lost exactly three > >> players for the season due to injury, Roosevelt Colvin, David Patten > >> and > >> Mike Compton... Other players on the team, such as Kevin Faulk, > >> McGinest, Branch, Givens, Graham and others were listed as > >> questionable > >> for most of the season, but rarely actually missed games, and by the > >> end > >> of the season, had most of their starters intact... Given that they > >> started three different guys at RB, six at WR, three at punter, etc, > >> the > >> # of different "starters" on a team that prides itself on having > >> interchangeable players is a nice number, but doesn't mean a whole > >> lot, > >> compared with say the Panthers last year who lost something like 13 > >> players for the season to injury, including 4 pro-bowlers, or the > >> Titans > >> who by the end of last season had 14 missing starters... > > > > I have to ask, where the hell do you find these names and numbers? I > > was wracking my brain trying to remember the specific guys who went > > out > > and when, and for how long, but you seem to have them at your > > fingertips...do you have a good source or a better memory than me? > > Heh... Uh, the NFL has a pretty good website... > > > Anyway, I stand by my statement: the Patiots lost players, both all > > pro > > and non all pro, in serious numbers continuously throughout the year. > > Some were gone for good (Ty Law, Rosie Colvin) and some were gone for > > key periods of time (Tedy Washington for 8 games, Seymour for the > > playoffs), etc. Carolina had it worse, but they finished what, 7-9? > > To say the the Patriots were not affected by the injuries is ludacris: > > they were hit by injuries more than probably all but 2 teams in the > > league. And they won it all, both years, which is truly remarkable. > > I agree it is remarkable. I guess my point is that neither I nor any > other NFL fan wants to hear Patriot fans start using a few injuries as > an excuse when by and large they have avoided key injuries in their runs > the past two years... And I will stand by my statement that for the most > part, the Patriots were largely unscathed injury-wise in the last two > years... I still don't know how you can say that, given the number and significance of the players injured throughout the year. They most certainly *were* affected more than most teams by injuries. As for "whining" (there's that fucking word again), I was reponding directly to someones claim that we beat a "Vickless" Falcons team, despite the fact that we were "Bruschiless", "Harrisonless", "Seymourless", "Pooleless", "Faulkless", "Gayless", "Lightless", "Chathamless", and probably a few more I forgot. If that's whining, then I'm Joe Kohn. Mark ------------------------------ From: "Roxanne McDaniel" Subject: netflix Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:52:54 GMT Sometime back, somebody suggested, "The Sea" for the que.... uh, thanks### ------------------------------ From: "Rogues Island's finest" Subject: Re: (NDC) Attention Yankee fans Date: 12 Oct 2005 13:53:49 -0700 Top Ten New York Yankees Excuses 10. "The Angels have developed a secret pitch that curves" 9. "Players left logy by clubhouse paella" 8. "Aren't used to rat-free outfield" 7. "Average player age is 52" 6. "Didn't know if they were playing California Angels, Anaheim Angels, or Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" 5. "Acid reflux" 4. "How are you supposed to field a competitive team on $200 million?" 3. "Due to typo in latest memo, Steinbrenner demanded players give 10%" 2. "Giambi lost his lucky syringe" (my personal favorite) 1. "Who can concentrate on Baseball when Hockey is back?" Heh. Mark ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Re: netflix Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:54:20 GMT "Roxanne McDaniel" wrote in message news:GIe3f.20$RI2.4@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... > Sometime back, somebody suggested, "The Sea" for the que.... uh, thanks### NO problemo, tiger....I've heard good things about "Ishtar" ------------------------------ From: AP Crossposted-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films,rec.music.beatles,rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s Subject: Re: most you've driven in one day Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:03:43 +0200 On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:38:02 GMT, Dream Dancing wrote: > alejandro de tacobell wrote: > >> one time, i drove for 7 hrs straight. top that. >> > Nothing. You're kidding right? > > Rode from Indianapolis to Denver non stop on a Harley. Drove from Ft > Lauderdale to Indy non stop - Gas and eats. That was 24 hours alone. > I think the bike ride was the hardest though. Easily 24 hours. Took an > hour to get the road grease off. we don't have those distances here, I drove Milano to bruxelles, one night, many times on my Guzzi, 12 hours. I used to have a friend up there, and a couple times I found snow, starting from luxembourg. -- Boris: I cattivi, per inciso, sono gli uni e gli altri. ------------------------------ From: "Rogues Island's finest" Subject: Re: netflix Date: 12 Oct 2005 14:03:52 -0700 Dave Kelly wrote: > "Roxanne McDaniel" wrote in message > news:GIe3f.20$RI2.4@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... > > Sometime back, somebody suggested, "The Sea" for the que.... uh, thanks### > > NO problemo, tiger....I've heard good things about "Ishtar" "Best movie ever!" - Harriet Miers Mark ------------------------------ From: rforman61@msn.com Crossposted-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films,rec.music.beatles,rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s Subject: Re: most you've driven in one day Date: 12 Oct 2005 14:11:55 -0700 I've driven from Long Island to South Florida and back, about 21 or 22 hours each way, trailering a waverunner. richforman ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Re: netflix Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:13:50 GMT "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message > "Best movie ever!" - Harriet Miers > > Mark At LEAST I dint recommend the "Teddy Brewski Story" dont GET me started talking field hockey! Marv Sweetbac ------------------------------ From: Andy Gefen Subject: Re: (NDC) Attention Yankee fans Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:21:17 -0400 On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:09:46 -0700, Kelly Humphries wrote: > >Too bad. So sad. Tell it to Jeffrey Maier. I loathe that child (yes, I know he's not a child anymore). ------------------------------ From: "Carl Sparndan" Subject: Re: Feedback on my new music site? Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:27:30 GMT "christian and gospel" but no reggae? oy vey! ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: (ndc) Ever Wonder.... Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:28:53 GMT Ray wrote: > JC Martin wrote: > >>Ray wrote: >> >>>JC Martin wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Ray wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>JC Martin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Walter Karmazyn wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>What 2,000 dead soldiers look like? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/b7vp4 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This is like a 9 meg download, modems be forewarned. Music by Pink >>>>>>>Floyd, lies by Bush & Co. >>>>>> >>>>>>No offense to you Walter, but there may be 40k dead in Pakistan due to a >>>>>>natural disaster. We all die, and necessarily so...not always within >>>>>>nature's calmest waters. But death doesn't warrant fear. If a cause is >>>>>>worthy, sacrifice of life may indeed be necessary for the better >>>>>>survival of mankind. This war in Iraq stinks not one bit because 2000 >>>>>>soldiers are dead. It stinks because it was the wrong action for this >>>>>>country to take, and it obviously to the sane person decreases Islamic >>>>>>terrorism not one bit. But it's a cheap tactic IMO to use fear to >>>>>>influence or change minds. And in this case, it doesn't work. >>>>> >>>>>My take is that the primary intent of this presentation is not to use >>>>>fear to influence or change minds, but instead to drive home the point >>>>>that 2000 soldiers have died so far in a war that was sold to the >>>>>American people under false pretenses. Hence the repeated >>>>>juxtiposition in this presentation of dead soldiers against Bush >>>>>Administration lies about Iraq's purported WMDs and ties to al Qaeda. >>>> >>>>Yeah, I understand, which is why I prefaced with my not wanting to >>>>offend Walter's motives. Either way though, it plays to the general >>>>public as a cheap tactic, just as using adjectives like "unjust" and >>>>"illegal" does. >>> >>> >>>I don't see juxtiposing images of dead US soldiers against Bush >>>Administration lies that were used to put these soldiers into harm's >>>way as being cheap. >> >>Well, we disagree. It's a type of advertising that won't play today. > > > Whether it 'plays' or not is one thing - you may be right there, dunno. > Whether it's cheap or not is another. By cheap, I mean it doesn't have much sway with people who think through their positions. It's not an argument worthy of persuading really. People die in war. That's pretty much a given, right? If you were arguing for an overall pacifist world or lifestyle and not highlighting one war or one government, then yes, one would have a point. I mean, the only good wars with some of the extreme left folks are wars against fascist Europeans. If it's an Arab fascist or any other race, it's a bad war. I see hypocrisy and inconsistencies in that line of reasoning. As far as the 'illegal' or 'immoral' tag, that's just rhetoric which ties one to a leftist political agenda. You know it and I know it. That has no play whatsoever. Ask an Independent like Scot aka volkfolk if he responds to that. Peas, JC ------------------------------ From: Andy Gefen Subject: Re: Schadenfreude Alert! (NDC) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:31:14 -0400 On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:26:47 -0400, John Doherty wrote: >There are rumors that a certain Vice President of the US may be a target >of the Fitzgerald investigation...! > >Also, it appears that a the unnecessary war in Iraq has made this VP $10 >billion richer, despite his denials to the contrary. Yikes!! (see note >below) > >But first, the big picture from talkingpointsmemo.com: In the interests of accuracy, the article states that the company he used to work for (Halliburton) was enriched to the tune of $10 billion. The article states that Cheney personally has profited to the tune of approximately $8 million (not billion). ------------------------------ From: "dwolf" Subject: Re: "Presidential" fidgeting (NDC) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:12:37 -0400 video video..... I need the video... So George Bush is just informed that two Brazilian people have been killed in Iraq... Oh my god.... that terrible... Dubya say's By the way, How many is a brazillion... ? "Don Bean" wrote in message news:kY93f.3834$Hm3.226@fe09.lga... > this reminds me alot of the guy who does Bush on SNL... > A missirable bush saying 'its a hard job'.. > > "band beyond description" <123@456.com> wrote in message > news:3r3kslFh5fv0U1@individual.net... >> bc-bush-sketch >> (wap) (ATTN: National editors) >> //For President Under Duress, Body Language Speaks Volumes// (Washn) >> By Dana Milbank >> (c) 2005, The Washington Post >> >> >> WASHINGTON It's only 6:17 a.m. Central time, and President Bush is >> already facing his second question of the day about Karl Rove's legal >> troubles. >> >> ``Does it worry you,'' NBC's Matt Lauer is asking him at a >> construction-site interview in Louisiana, that prosecutors ``seem to have >> such an interest in Mr. Rove?'' >> >> Bush blinks twice. He touches his tongue to his lips. He blinks twice >> more. He starts to answer, but he stops himself. >> >> ``I'm not going to talk about the case,'' Bush finally says after a >> three-second pause that, in television time, feels like a commercial >> break. >> >> Only the president's closest friends and family know (if anybody does) >> what he's really thinking these days, during Katrina woes, Iraq violence, >> conservative anger over Harriet Miers, and legal trouble for >> Bush's top political aide and two congressional GOP leaders. Bush has not >> been viewed up close; as he took his eighth post-Katrina trip to the Gulf >> Coast Tuesday, the press corps has accompanied him only once, >> because the White House says logistics won't permit it. Even the >> interview >> on the ``Today'' show was labeled ``closed press.'' >> >> But this much could be seen watching the tape of NBC's broadcast during >> Bush's 14-minute pre-sunrise interview, in which he stood unprotected by >> the >> usual lectern. The president was a blur of blinks, >> taps, jiggles, pivots and shifts. Bush has always been an active man, but >> standing with Lauer and the serene, steady first lady, he had the body >> language of a man wishing urgently to be elsewhere. >> >> The fidgeting clearly corresponded to the questioning. When Lauer asked >> if Bush, after a slow response to Katrina, was ``trying to get a second >> chance to make a good first impression,'' Bush blinked 24 times >> in his answer. When asked why Gulf War residents would have to pay back >> funds but Iraqis would not, Bush blinked 23 times and hitched his >> trousers >> up by the belt. >> >> When the questioning turned to Miers, Bush blinked 37 times in a single >> answer along with a lick of the lips, three weight shifts and some >> serious >> foot jiggling. Laura Bush, by contrast, delivered only three blinks and >> stood still through her entire answer about encouraging volunteerism. >> >> Perhaps the set itself made Bush uncomfortable. He and his wife stood >> in >> casual attire, wearing tool belts, in front of a wall frame and some >> Habitat >> for Humanity volunteers in hard hats. ABC News noted cheekily of its >> rival >> network's exclusive: ``He did allow himself to be shown hammering >> purposefully, with a jejune combination of cowboy swagger and yuppie >> self-consciousness.'' >> >> Perhaps, too, the president's body language said nothing about his true >> state of mind. But the White House gave little other information that >> might >> shed light on this. A White House spokesman, Trent Duffy, >> entered the press cabin on Air Force One to brief reporters at 1:58 p.m. >> He >> left two minutes later, after answering the only question by saying, ``We >> don't have anything to announce.'' >> >> The one newspaper reporter allowed to travel with Bush as part of the >> White House's ``pool'' system reported back to her colleagues after the >> ``Today'' event: ``we were at a distance and could not hear what was >> being >> said (a theme of the day).'' Other than the ``Today'' appearance, >> Bush delivered a one-minute talk to military recovery workers (``I'm >> incredibly proud of the job you have done'') and a two-minute statement >> outside a school (``out of the rubble here on the Gulf Coast of >> Mississippi is a rebuilding''). >> >> Certainly, Bush retained many of the gestures that work well for him: >> the >> purposeful but restrained hand gestures, the head-tilted smile of >> amusement >> and the easy laugh. But he seemed to lose control of the >> timing. He smiled after observing that Iraqis are ``paying a serious >> price'' >> because of terrorism. >> >> As Lauer went through his introduction, the presidential eyes zoomed >> left, then right, then left and right again, then center, down and up at >> the >> interviewer. The presidential fidgeting spiked when Lauer mentioned >> the Democratic accusation that Bush was performing a ``photo op.'' Bush >> pushed out his lower front lip, then licked the right corner of his >> mouth. >> Lauer's query about whether conservatives ``are feeling let down >> by you'' appeared to provoke furious jiggling of the right leg. >> >> Bush joked about his state of mind when Lauer asked Laura Bush about >> the >> strain on her husband. ``He can barely stand!'' the president said, >> interrupting. ``He's about to drop on the spot.'' But the first lady had >> a calming influence on the presidential wiggles. When Laura Bush spoke >> about >> her husband's ``broad shoulders,'' the president put his arm around her >> and >> the swaying and shifting subsided. >> >> The president, now on more comfortable terrain, delivered a brief >> homily >> about ``the decency of others'' and ``how blessed we are to be an >> American.'' Through the entire passage, he blinked only 12 times. >> >> >> > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:44:01 -0600 From: Gladys Subject: Re: who on rmgd would you like to meet? RickNBarbInSD wrote: > > > Not really certain about Ken Fortenberry. If he's half the dick he > pretends to be around here then certainly not, but somethin' tells me > it' may all be a front in his case an' he jus' might be OK in person. > I ran into this guy a few weeks ago at a campground in southern Colorado who was an extreme asshole. He insulted my 70 year old mother for no reason, then the next day he gave me completely unprovoked shit for fly fishing with a nymph and a strike indicator. I thought to myself - I wonder if that's Ken Fortenberry. Anyway, whoever the twit was, he had New York license plates and a pansy dog - and I just about kicked his sorry ass halfway back to NY - and I think I could've. But really, I think Ken is OK. Sometimes he's funny as hell. But Ken, if that was you at the campground in colorado - fuck off. ;-) Gladys. ------------------------------ From: "tim_ratdog" Subject: Re: "Presidential" fidgeting (NDC) Date: 12 Oct 2005 14:50:17 -0700 dwolf wrote: > video video..... I need the video... http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/11.html#a5323 -tim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:52:17 -0600 From: Gladys Crossposted-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films,rec.music.beatles,rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s Subject: Re: most you've driven in one day Denver to San Fransciso -> Grateful Dead concert at the Warfield Theater -> back to Denver. Nonstop. No Sleep - not even at the concert. I'll be damned if I can remember how long it took. It was 25 years ago and I'm still sleeping it off. ;-) Gladys. ------------------------------ ** 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 ****************************** .