From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #670 Dead-Flames Digest #670, Volume #48 Tue, 25 Oct 05 13:00:02 PDT Contents: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("RickNBarbInSD") Re: cheney = traitor (Brad Greer) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Ray") Re: RIP Wellington Mara (Brad Greer) Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info ("Dave Kelly") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (kpnnews@yahoo.com) Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info ("frndthdevl") Re: Rosa Parks, Thank You and Rest In Peace ("frndthdevl") Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info ("Olompali4") Re: Why didn't yall tell me about 7-7-81???!!! (JimK) Re: Why didn't yall tell me about 7-7-81???!!! (pbuzby2002@yahoo.com) Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info (Jeff) Re: cheney = traitor ("Stuknot") Re: cheney = traitor (JimK) Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info ("frndthdevl") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Ray") wireless router question (NDC) ("Dylanstubs") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Ray") Re: wireless router question (NDC) ("Randy G") Re: wireless router question (NDC) (Brad Greer) Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info ("frndthdevl") Re: wireless router question (NDC) ("Dylanstubs") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "RickNBarbInSD" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 11:42:54 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > The law is there to enforce the ethics.. It sounds as though you're suggesting here that anything, as long as it's legal, is ethical. You're not, are you? :0 Rick ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:48:16 -0400 On 25 Oct 2005 11:30:43 -0700, "imsjry" wrote: > >Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: >> "DG" wrote in message >> news:ltlsl15r1t7joov9ju5ihlfpkbv0ga6nsd@4ax.com... >> > >> > >> > So this prick leaked the name to the man who told the times. Time for >> > these guys to be charged, tried and let justice take it's course. >> >> >> This leaking business is much ado about nothing, especially as you describe >> it. >> >> Cheney isn't being accused of leaking anything, the Vice President of the >> United States is being accused of talking about a CIA agent with his chief >> of staff. If they can't discuss the CIA, who can? > >Are you really that naive???? I don't think EGBH is being naive. You may well believe that Cheney discussed the agent's identy with his chief of staff and told him to leak it to the press, Cheney may well have done that. But proving it is a whole different ball of wax. Going after Cheney's chief of staff is easy, going after Cheney is not. Now it's possible that the chief of staff of the vice president of the United States doesn't have a security clearance to discuss the real identities of agents. If that's the case, then you have something on Cheney. But if the guy is cleared to have the conversation then what, exactly, did Cheney do wrong that you can prove in a court of law? ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 11:48:40 -0700 Ray wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > "Carlisle - you're being playing played." It's true that I get alot of > > my print news from the WSJ. > > So do I - except from their editorial page. > > > And yes, the Editorial page is biased > > pro-business conservative. > > The WSJ Editorial page is a rag - they routinely grossly distort and > lie. Just as they did in their editorial that you cited here. > > > Although we will continue to disagree. I > > will say it's a reputable source for information..Ray will say it's a > > "rag". I overlooked last this part in my first reading. Yes, obviously I will (and did) say "it" (the WSJ editorial page - *not* the WSJ in general) is a "rag". Because it is. And again: NOT BECAUSE THE WSJ EDITORIAL PAGE HAS A CONSERVATIVE BIAS, BUT BECAUSE IT ROUTINELY GROSSLY DISTORTS AND LIES. See the difference? That difference is key, whether you see it of not. And that they routinly grossly distorts and lies is NOT SUBJECTIVE. When you read the WSJ editorial page you are regularly being fed lies Carlisle - as I demonstrated to you in the editorial page that you cited here. Do you not agree, at least, that the WSJ editorial page that you cited here contained gross distortions and lies? Wilson did NOT, as the WSJ editorial you cited stated, in July 2003 accuse the Bush Administration of lying. And it is NOT TRUE, as the WSJ editorial you cited stated, that Plame "was surely not undercover" - this is another WSJ editorial page LIE. These are WSJ editorial page LIES, Carlisle. And this is a FACT - it's NOT subjective. And the Plame "was surely not undercover" LIE is a big one - since of course if Plame was in FACT "surely not undercover" then the federal investigation into would have been much ado about merely "political hardball", but not a criminal actvity. Now, it *may* be that Plame was not undercover - unlikely, but that may, possibly be true (though why the CIA would have requested a federal invesigation into her outing, and why the invesitgation then proceeded, would then be a mystery). But *at this time* it is NOT "surely" known to be the case that she was not undercover - THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIATION FOR THIS CLAIM. It's a LIE. Carlisle: in earlier in this thread that you stated "I still don't know why this is as big of a scandle as it's turned out to be." The disconnect here, the reason why you "still don't know" why this is a big deal is because you continue to believe the LIES of WSJ editorial page, the National Review, and others who are saying that Plame wasn't covert. Your are being disinformed, and you are believing that disinformation to be truth - this is why you "still don't know". You are keeping yourself from knowing. > We will go around and around in circles. As long as you continue to evade recognizing and acknowledging LIES for what they are, yes. Ray ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: RIP Wellington Mara Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:51:04 -0400 On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:04:10 -0400, "Don Bean" wrote: >Im a Jets fan but I know what the Giants are all about... They are an old >school organazation and there fans have been with them for a long time. Its >like a big family.. And It all started at the top.. Football fans everywhere >and especially NY fans were all sad today when they heard the news... RIP Mr >Mara > Giants fans are known for never giving up their season tickets (which is why they estimate it will take you 150 years to get tickets if you join their waiting list now). The Mara family has been good to the fans overall (we'll set aside the '70s, when internal feuding between Wellington and Jack put the team into a deep funk) and we'll miss Wellington's presence a lot. I'm sure there will be a few banners at Giants Stadium this Sunday, as well as some sort of tribute to one of the last "old school" owners. ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:28:18 GMT "frndthdevl" wrote in message > Kind of astounding no representation from this here group of self > admitted afficionados of good music have regaled us with reports of the > current killer Yonder tour. * I have no patience....NO patience for 3rd string hippie jam grass bands. none....NONE! ------------------------------ From: kpnnews@yahoo.com Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 11:57:46 -0700 Ray wrote: > Ray wrote: > > Carlisle wrote: > > > "Carlisle - you're being playing played." It's true that I get alot of > > > my print news from the WSJ. > > > > So do I - except from their editorial page. > > > > > And yes, the Editorial page is biased > > > pro-business conservative. > > > > The WSJ Editorial page is a rag - they routinely grossly distort and > > lie. Just as they did in their editorial that you cited here. > > > > > Although we will continue to disagree. I > > > will say it's a reputable source for information..Ray will say it's a > > > "rag". > > I overlooked last this part in my first reading. Yes, obviously I will > (and did) say "it" (the WSJ editorial page - *not* the WSJ in general) > is a "rag". Because it is. And again: NOT BECAUSE THE WSJ EDITORIAL > PAGE HAS A CONSERVATIVE BIAS, BUT BECAUSE IT ROUTINELY GROSSLY DISTORTS > AND LIES. See the difference? That difference is key, whether you see > it of not. And that they routinly grossly distorts and lies is NOT > SUBJECTIVE. When you read the WSJ editorial page you are regularly > being fed lies Carlisle - as I demonstrated to you in the editorial > page that you cited here. Do you not agree, at least, that the WSJ > editorial page that you cited here contained gross distortions and > lies? Wilson did NOT, as the WSJ editorial you cited stated, in July > 2003 accuse the Bush Administration of lying. And it is NOT TRUE, as > the WSJ editorial you cited stated, that Plame "was surely not > undercover" - this is another WSJ editorial page LIE. > > These are WSJ editorial page LIES, Carlisle. And this is a FACT - it's > NOT subjective. > > And the Plame "was surely not undercover" LIE is a big one - since of > course if Plame was in FACT "surely not undercover" then the federal > investigation into would have been much ado about merely "political > hardball", but not a criminal actvity. Now, it *may* be that Plame was > not undercover - unlikely, but that may, possibly be true (though why > the CIA would have requested a federal invesigation into her outing, > and why the invesitgation then proceeded, would then be a mystery). They hate the Whitehouse? Kurt ------------------------------ From: "frndthdevl" Subject: Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info Date: 25 Oct 2005 12:00:04 -0700 Dave Kelly wrote: > "frndthdevl" wrote in message > > Kind of astounding no representation from this here group of self > > admitted afficionados of good music have regaled us with reports of the > > current killer Yonder tour. > > * I have no patience....NO patience for 3rd string hippie jam grass bands. > none....NONE! You had no patience for that FREE offer to see MOFRO either. LOL Freee beer and a ticket and you can't get yer Sherpa and cane to get you there? WTF? LOL Of course perhaps that was before you knew MOFRO's good buddy Robert Walter was playing with the dude you prostrate yerself to. LOL Yonder is at least second string ------------------------------ From: "frndthdevl" Subject: Re: Rosa Parks, Thank You and Rest In Peace Date: 25 Oct 2005 12:02:57 -0700 Sister Rosa by the Nevilles on KPIG NOW ------------------------------ From: "Olompali4" Subject: Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info Date: 25 Oct 2005 12:05:48 -0700 > 2 nights in Chicago? Nobody there? Still guilty. ; ( ------------------------------ From: JimK Subject: Re: Why didn't yall tell me about 7-7-81???!!! Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:06:00 -0400 Reply-To: jkezwind@comcast.net On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:01:06 GMT, "Bill" wrote: > >"JimK" wrote >> >> "al haig" wrote: >> >> >Just listened to the first set of 7-7-81 and YIKES is that a barn burner >of >> >a show!!! >> > >> >What Garcia does on that Bertha is just unreal. It's just insane at how >> >great it is. Garcia is just brilliant on it. From there it goes into >... >> > >> >Dancin - oh my, oh-fuckin-my. This Dancin belongs on any list of the >> >greatest Dancins ever. By '85, the song was dead (so to speak) but not >in >> >'81 because this version is just INSANE (I know I already used that word >but >> >just calling it like it is). The jam on this version is just soooooooooo >> >killer. This is the best I've ever heard Brent jam. It's a soundboard >tape >> >so you can hear everybody excellently. Weir and Lesh play killer stuff >too. >> > >> >Shit even the El Paso is excellent. >> > >> >Later in the set is a version of Lazy Lightnin > Supplication that >belongs >> >on any list of the greatest versions ever. Just unbelievable at how good >> >they did that version that night. If you've got this show and you've >been >> >ignoring the first set - BIG MISTAKE! You're blowing it! >> > >> >Hopefully the second set is also this good. >> > >> >I also listened to 12-31-77, specifically the Jack Straw. > >Another song that I listened to from that show (12-31-77) that I forgot to >mention was Tennessee Jed - that one deserves a big Wow too. The jam is >epic - especially how Garcia ends it. Definitely one of the best versions >I've heard of this song. > >I'm looking forward to hearing more from that show (and the second set of >7-7-81). > >Bill > > > >WOW! God were >> >the Grateful Dead one killer band! God was Mr. Jerry Garcia playing >> >unbelievable shit then! You got a certain jc fool here who says that a >Bill >> >Frissell is better than Garcia, then you hear the brilliance of Garcia's >> >playing on shows like 12-31-77 or 7-7-81 or hundreds of other shows and >you >> >laugh at the musical cluelessness of such a fool. >> > >> >Anyway, 7-7-81 is gold. >> > >> >Bill >> > >> And you didn't even give a mention to the smokin' version of Big RR >> Blues. > >I skipped it - the structure of the song kinda bores me. But on that night >I'm sure it smoked. > > >May through August of '81 was definitely one of the better >> periods during the '80's. > >I'd extend it to September based on the Sept '81 Greek shows. > >> >> As far as Garcia v. Frisell, I'd love to have'em both in the same >> band. > >Not me. Weir was perfect for Garcia. Frisell would be noise to Garcia's >playing like Clarence Clemmons was in the JGB. > >Bill > Can't agree there. Actually, I find a lot of similarities in the styles of Weir and Frisell. Both play a lot of those jagged, edgy chords. I can't imagine calling Frisell's playing "noise" no matter what the context. And comparing him to Clarence Clemons has to be a joke, right? JimK ------------------------------ From: pbuzby2002@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Why didn't yall tell me about 7-7-81???!!! Date: 25 Oct 2005 12:13:08 -0700 JimK wrote: > I can't imagine calling Frisell's playing "noise" no matter > what the context. And comparing him to Clarence Clemons has to be a > joke, right? I imagine Bruce Springsteen would be a bit confused if Frisell replaced Clemons. Pat Buzby Chicago, IL ------------------------------ From: Jeff Subject: Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:05:12 -0600 Dave Kelly wrote: > "frndthdevl" wrote in message > >>Kind of astounding no representation from this here group of self >>admitted afficionados of good music have regaled us with reports of the >>current killer Yonder tour. > > > * I have no patience....NO patience for 3rd string hippie jam grass bands. > none....NONE! Ok...If Yonder is a 3rd string hippie jam grass band, who are your first and second string hippie jam grass bands? ------------------------------ From: "Stuknot" Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: 25 Oct 2005 12:15:13 -0700 Brad Greer wrote: > > I don't think EGBH is being naive. You may well believe that Cheney > discussed the agent's identy with his chief of staff and told him to > leak it to the press, Cheney may well have done that. But proving it > is a whole different ball of wax. Going after Cheney's chief of staff > is easy, going after Cheney is not. > > Now it's possible that the chief of staff of the vice president of the > United States doesn't have a security clearance to discuss the real > identities of agents. If that's the case, then you have something on > Cheney. But if the guy is cleared to have the conversation then what, > exactly, did Cheney do wrong that you can prove in a court of law? I don't think Toad is being naive either, but Cheney having the conversation could qualify as an overt act in futherance of a conspiracy to divulge the name of a covert agent to persons without the necessary clearance. Given that Cheney denied knowing who Wilson was a month or so after the conversation, there's circumstantial evidence of an improper motive and consciousness of guilt. Enough to convict a sitting V.P.? Nah. Enough to indict a sitting V.P.? Doubtful. John H. ------------------------------ From: JimK Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:23:18 -0400 Reply-To: jkezwind@comcast.net On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:19:42 -0700, "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" wrote: > >"DG" wrote in message >news:ltlsl15r1t7joov9ju5ihlfpkbv0ga6nsd@4ax.com... >> >> >> So this prick leaked the name to the man who told the times. Time for >> these guys to be charged, tried and let justice take it's course. > > >This leaking business is much ado about nothing, especially as you describe >it. > >Cheney isn't being accused of leaking anything, the Vice President of the >United States is being accused of talking about a CIA agent with his chief >of staff. If they can't discuss the CIA, who can? > >That's not leaking. Libby may have leaked the info to a reporter, and he >may have lied about it to the investigators. That's the potential crime >here, not the 2nd most powerful man in the government discussing secrets. >Of course Cheney can discuss CIA business with others with top security >clearances. Or is the CIA supposed to operate without anyone, even the >Veep, knowing who they are and what they do? > >If somebody leaked the name and if somebody lied they should be called to >account, tried, and punished accordingly. > >But this is such small potatoes compared to the other things this >administration has done. Its fun to watch them squirm, and its gonna be fun >to watch one or more of them face a judge and maybe even a jury. But there >is no serious damage done to the CIA by any of this, certainly not by Cheney >discussing it with his chief of staff. The minor damage done came after >that, and was perpetrated by Libby or whoever. Cheney is off the hook >unless someone is willing to testify to a conspiracy to leak the name led by >Cheney. > >I can't imagine that happening, even as prosecutors try to flip Libby or >whoever with threats of jail time. Those guys aren't gonna rat out Cheney >even if he was the instigator. And we have no evidence that he was. > >EGBH > You'd be surprised who people will rat out if it'll save them a few years of jail time. As far as Cheney goes, I doubt that he instigated the leak, but I also find it hard to believe that he didn't at least know about it and condone it. What still puzzles me is what the purpose of the leak was. All the news reports and commentaries seem to point to an attempt to discredit Wilson after he went public on the administration's use of bad intelligence to support the war. But I can't figure out how revealing Plame's identity as a CIA operative would discredit Wilson. I guess, maybe, that they were trying to make a connection between the friction between the rank and file CIA people and the administration. The argument would then be that Wilson's wife got him the gig in Niger so that he could embarass the Bushies. The only other reason I can think of for the leak is simple revenge. JimK ------------------------------ From: "frndthdevl" Subject: Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info Date: 25 Oct 2005 12:27:20 -0700 Jeff wrote: > Dave Kelly wrote: > > "frndthdevl" wrote in message > > > >>Kind of astounding no representation from this here group of self > >>admitted afficionados of good music have regaled us with reports of the > >>current killer Yonder tour. > > > > > > * I have no patience....NO patience for 3rd string hippie jam grass bands. > > none....NONE! > > Ok...If Yonder is a 3rd string hippie jam grass band, who are your first and second string > hippie jam grass bands? Of course John Hartford was one of the first hippie bluegrass fellers. And I am sure Dave thinks he sucks too. LOL ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 12:36:37 -0700 kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: > > And the Plame "was surely not undercover" LIE is a big one - since of > > course if Plame was in FACT "surely not undercover" then the federal > > investigation into would have been much ado about merely "political > > hardball", but not a criminal actvity. Now, it *may* be that Plame was > > not undercover - unlikely, but that may, possibly be true (though why > > the CIA would have requested a federal invesigation into her outing, > > and why the invesitgation then proceeded, would then be a mystery). > > They hate the Whitehouse? Why would Fitzgerald -- a Bush appointee -- hate the White House to the point of leading and proceeding with an investigation that is at its core based on nothing? Doesn't add up. Ray ------------------------------ From: "Dylanstubs" Subject: wireless router question (NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 12:40:03 -0700 I want to replace my wired D-Link router with a wireless version (DI-624) that also supports wired connections. I want to use the wireless function only with my work laptop, and I can't really install any software on it. Will the wireless router broadcast to the laptop without installing the included software? Also, should my download speeds be the same on my existing wired connections? Thanks for any info. :) ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 12:44:21 -0700 Ray wrote: > kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: > > > And the Plame "was surely not undercover" LIE is a big one - since of > > > course if Plame was in FACT "surely not undercover" then the federal > > > investigation into would have been much ado about merely "political > > > hardball", but not a criminal actvity. Now, it *may* be that Plame was > > > not undercover - unlikely, but that may, possibly be true (though why > > > the CIA would have requested a federal invesigation into her outing, > > > and why the invesitgation then proceeded, would then be a mystery). > > > > They hate the Whitehouse? > > Why would Fitzgerald -- a Bush appointee -- hate the White House to the > point of leading and proceeding with an investigation that is at its > core based on nothing? > > Doesn't add up. And this is key: whether Plame was in fact undercover or not, the WSJ editorial's claim that Plame "was surely not undercover" is disinformation - at this point there is no public substantiation for this claim. The WSJ editorial page is a major source for right-wing propaganda disinformation and lies - it amazes me that anyone would take it seriously. Ray ------------------------------ From: "Randy G" Subject: Re: wireless router question (NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 12:50:11 -0700 Dylanstubs wrote: > I want to replace my wired D-Link router with a wireless version > (DI-624) that also supports wired connections. I want to use the > wireless function only with my work laptop, and I can't really install > any software on it. Will the wireless router broadcast to the laptop > without installing the included software? > > Also, should my download speeds be the same on my existing wired > connections? Thanks for any info. :) You do not need to install any software on your laptop as long as your wireless card is already working. If your router is broadcasting, the card will recognize it as long as the protocols are supported (802.11b,g, etc.). I suggest you configure your router, then turn off the broadcast -along with setting up an encryption key for security reasons. You don't want some Deadhead using your bandwidth downloading bittorrents :) Your Internet speed won't be affecyed, but moving files between computers will. If it is wireless g, you get up to 54 Mbps, compared to 100 Mbps for wired ethernet. ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: wireless router question (NDC) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:56:21 -0400 On 25 Oct 2005 12:40:03 -0700, "Dylanstubs" wrote: >I want to replace my wired D-Link router with a wireless version >(DI-624) that also supports wired connections. I want to use the >wireless function only with my work laptop, and I can't really install >any software on it. Will the wireless router broadcast to the laptop >without installing the included software? By default the Linksys wireless router will broadcast it's identity to your laptop (and any other 802.11 devices within range). You shouldn't have to add any software on your laptop to connect to the wireless router although you'll probably want to use whatever wireless connection manager your laptop uses to automatically connect you to your wireless router when you're in your home (XP has a native facility for doing this, I personally use the Intel ProSet wireless tool that came on my laptop because I think it's better, other wireless cards often have their own connection managers). The software included with your router is probably a setup wizard to help you set up the router itself, not software that runs on your laptop. Since you configure routers through a browser I've never really understood what the setup software is all about. >Also, should my download speeds be the same on my existing wired >connections? Thanks for any info. :) The wireless link is at least 11 Mbps (if you're using 802.11b, faster if you're using 802.11a, g or n) while your internet connection is probably less than that (unless you've got fiber installed to your home). Now, there is some overhead associated with WiFi, so figure your effective throughput is 5.5 Mbps. Compared to a typical maximum download pipe of 2 Mbps for home broadband (again, assuming you don't have fiber optic and a 15 Mbps pipe) you shouldn't see any difference in speed. Even if you have a faster pipe coming into your house odds are whatever you're downloading from won't exceed the speed of the wireless card. ------------------------------ From: "frndthdevl" Subject: Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info Date: 25 Oct 2005 12:56:55 -0700 Olompali4 wrote: > > 2 nights in Chicago? Nobody there? > > Still guilty. > ; ( yeah,but I know you would not have turned downa free ticket. ; ) Plus being a Mr. Mom is tougher(i know from experience) than being a Sherpa packer(i don't know from experience). ------------------------------ From: "Dylanstubs" Subject: Re: wireless router question (NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 12:58:39 -0700 > Randy G wrote: > You do not need to install any software on your laptop as long as your > wireless card is already working. If your router is broadcasting, the > card will recognize it as long as the protocols are supported > (802.11b,g, etc.). I suggest you configure your router, then turn off > the broadcast -along with setting up an encryption key for security > reasons. You don't want some Deadhead using your bandwidth downloading > bittorrents :) > > Your Internet speed won't be affecyed, but moving files between > computers will. If it is wireless g, you get up to 54 Mbps, compared to > 100 Mbps for wired ethernet. So with the encryption key, would I then get some kind of password prompt on the laptop when trying to connect via the wireless? ------------------------------ ** 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 ****************************** .