From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #671 Dead-Flames Digest #671, Volume #48 Tue, 25 Oct 05 15:00:02 PDT Contents: 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") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Ray") Re: I'm So Glad ("BVT") Re: wireless router question (NDC) ("Randy G") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Carlisle") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (JC Martin) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (JC Martin) Re: wireless router question (NDC) ("Dylanstubs") Re: NFL, week 7 ("Rogues Island's finest") Re: NFL, week 7 ("dearmeyer®") Re: cheney = traitor (leftie) Re: NFL, week 7 (Jeff) Five show no B no P offer ("Tony & Beth") Re: Bonus disc question ("Andrew Murawa") Re: Bonus disc question ("Andrew Murawa") Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info (Steve Lenier) Notes from The 5 Fulton ("Dave Kelly") Re: cheney = traitor ("volkfolk") Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info ("Dave Kelly") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Ray") Re: Notes from The 5 Fulton ("Steve Terry") what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) (Steve Lenier) Re: cheney = traitor (leftie) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Ray") Re: Notes from The 5 Fulton ("pookietooth") Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) (Ben) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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? ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 13:00:52 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > > So back to the issue at hand: Carlisle, do you agree that, if Plame was > > a covert operative and the Bush Administration outed her, that that is > > a big deal? > > > All right. It IS a big deal if the law was broken because that means > criminal penalties. Did you read Marcinkowski's testimony that I posted here, Carlisle? He makes a convincing case that the government's outing a covert CIA agent -- criminal or otherwise -- has a serious adverse impact on our national security. Do you agree? If not, why not? > > Also: As I have demonstrated to you, the Wall Streeet Journal grossly > > distorted and lied in the editorial page that you had cited. Doesn't > > that disgust you, and make you less inclined to believe them in the > > future? > > I will be reading between the lines. The facts are still in play as far > as I can read. NO - these facts are NOT "in play". 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. If you disagree, then again: read Wilson's July 2003 NYTimes Op-Ed, which I've posted here. As you can see when you actually read the article, Wilson did NOT accuse the Bush Administration of lying - he instead raised the possibility. If you disagree, please cite from that article where Wilson accused the Bush Adminstration of lying. And also: if you believe that there is substantiative proof that Plame "was surely not undercover" then please provide it. (Good luck there.) Do you now see that the WSJ was LYING here? Or are you going to continue believing that it's all subjective? It's NOT all subjective - the FACT is that the WSJ editorial page lied on these points. Doesn't that disgust you, and make you less inclined to believe them in the future? > This discourse has made the whole leak/Plame/Wilson issue more > interesting for me. What this is really all about is the run-up to the > Iraq War and how it was presented/handled/sold. Wouldn't you agree? No, I don't agree - Marcinkowski's testimony explains why. If you haven't read it yet please do - I'm curious to hear what your thoughts are on it. Ray ------------------------------ From: "BVT" Subject: Re: I'm So Glad Date: 25 Oct 2005 13:05:34 -0700 same set list as the Royal Albert Hall shows with the addition of Tales of Brave Ulysses. Bruce on fire, Baker on fire, Clapton having an "off" night, crowd ON FIRE:) Just like the RAH shows, they were a bit tentative that first night. I'd expect things to wratchet up a notch or 3 tonight and tomorrow night, but keep the setlist the same. ------------------------------ From: "Randy G" Subject: Re: wireless router question (NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 13:08:20 -0700 Dylanstubs wrote: > > So with the encryption key, would I then get some kind of password > prompt on the laptop when trying to connect via the wireless? I belive you will need to go into the properties of the connection (on your laptop) and add it there. There should be an Available networks box with your network name. Click it and press the Configure button. You should see a place to enter the key. Keep in mind there is WEP,WPA and other keys, so choose the same one you entered in your router settings. ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 13:12:17 -0700 Ray, I don't mean to be disrespectful or anything but I'm sitting here wonderin'>>>What are you wearing about right now?? thank you, Carlisle ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:17:48 GMT Carlisle wrote: > Richard Morris wrote: > >>"Carlisle" wrote in message >>news:1130074508.988782.166000@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >>snip >> >> >>>Hey R, >>> Mkay. >>>If any laws were broken even if there is no way that national security >>>and/or anyone's personal safety was at stake, then due punishment >>>should be applied. The perps should take their lumps. The rule of law >>>is the rule of law. How's that for reasonin' y'all?! >>>peace & awe, >>>Carlisle >>> >> >>Okay, now that is just half the pie though. >> >>The other half is, how do you feel about an administration that would use >>these kind of tactics, which appear to be unlawful (we will know after the >>jury makes a decision), in order to discredit someone who was critical of >>their propoganda machine? >> >>Remember, this was about yellow cake uranium, weapons of mass destruction, >>and the reasons we invaded Iraq. Remember that? >> >>Reason that, please. >> >>Richard > > > Well Richard since you want to make me out to be the poster child for > the "vast right-wing conspiracy", I'll answer like this. They got > arrogant and played hardball. It's not just republicans or > conservatives that this happens to. Right, but in this case we're talking about a war launched for false purposes. And all the right can do is blame John Kerry or Joe Wilson (for writing an editorial that turned out to be mostly true BTW). Sorry, but isn't a debate about the corruptibility of politicians and powerful economic players. This is about the future of our nation, and how a bunch of greedy assholes changed the course of this nation for at least several decades. But hey, as long as it's legal for Dick Cheney to make money off of Haliburton (a war profiteering corporation), who needs accountability?!?! ####### -JC ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:20:20 GMT Carlisle wrote: > Richard Morris wrote: > >>"Carlisle" wrote in message >>news:1130091109.084412.193270@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >>snip >> >> >>>Well Richard since you want to make me out to be the poster child for >>>the "vast right-wing conspiracy", I'll answer like this. They got >> >>Eh? I posed a general question. You elected yourself to answer it. So if >>anyone made you a poster child, it was you. >> >> >>>arrogant and played hardball. It's not just republicans or >>>conservatives that this happens to. "Power corrupts, absolute power >>>corrupts absolutely."...You want a scandle?! You're getting it with the >>>weekly casualty lists that come back from Iraq. Did you remember that I >>>was against our invasion and occupation of Iraq?? IMHO, it was/is not >>>in our national interest and it sets a bad precedent. Howard Dean >>>rightly criticized both Kerry and Edwards for voting to give the "Bush >>>propaganda machine" the authorization to do this. But alas at the time, >>>Bush's poll numbers were very high. It's a shame. I hope for the best >>>possible outcome for the Bush dream now, if only for the fallen >>>soldiers and so their sacrifice won't be in vain. >>>Good DAY, sir- >> >>Bush dream? I wonder what that is/was .... >> >>You can divide gummint policy into foreign policy and domestic policy. >> >>Please tell me in which area of the two, Bush is making a positive >>difference, and cite a specific or two. >> >>Otherwise, my question remains ... what does it take for conservative types >>to come to the conclusion that their boy Bush is a disaster? >> >>R. > > > Here are some answers for you, R. > Bush's dream for Iraq?? According to the rhetoric anyway>>the > establishment of a modern constitutional state governed by the rule of > law and opposed to terrorists like al Qaeda. In turn, other despotic > regimes in the region would begin to reform, etc. This is how I > interpret the neo-con/Bush/Cheney dream for Iraq. I think it's a total > crap shoot and I think it sets a dangerous precedent. (I think I said > that already) Problem is, that was an argument formed AFTER the actual invasion of Iraq. The reason for going into Iraq wasn't to stabilize the Middle East. You really don't buy that, do you? -JC ------------------------------ From: "Dylanstubs" Subject: Re: wireless router question (NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 13:26:51 -0700 Thanks very much for the info! Much appreciated. :) ------------------------------ From: "Rogues Island's finest" Subject: Re: NFL, week 7 Date: 25 Oct 2005 13:27:04 -0700 Andrew Murawa wrote: > "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message > news:1130157700.663993.261430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > > New England finally goes a week without losing anyone to injury. > > At least you've already settled on your excuse, right... hehe... No excuses. None. We will be ok come playoff time, thanks in part to a shitty division, thanks in part to Tedy coming back, and thanks in great part to one William Belichick. And if we lose in the first round, we got screwed by the refs. Mark ------------------------------ From: "dearmeyer®" Subject: Re: NFL, week 7 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 05:50:29 -0500 Vikings beat the Packers so I'm good... ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:51:51 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > This leaking business is much ado about nothing, especially as you describe > it. ^^^^^^^ Cheney leaking? No. Conspiracy to obstruct justice? Seems quite likely. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Subject: Re: NFL, week 7 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:49:52 -0600 Rogues Island's finest wrote: > And if we lose in the first round, we got screwed by the refs. Hey now. Don't steal the Jackasses* thunder. ~Jeff *You may know them as the Donkeys.+ +Some people call them the Broncos. ------------------------------ From: "Tony & Beth" Subject: Five show no B no P offer Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:00:03 GMT With huge thanks to Richard, I'm continuing his offer and will send this one dvd with 5/3/72, 2/23/71, 2/19/71 matrix, 5/28/77 Bertha, and 12/30/77 leftovers to the first person who emails me his or her postal mailing address and a promise to reoffer it back to rmgd in the same manner: no b, no p. These shows are in shn or flac format, so you must have a dvd drive on your computer and the ability to decode the shn and flac files to wave files. You will need to alter my email address a bit. Thank you again, Richard! NFA, Tony ------------------------------ From: "Andrew Murawa" Subject: Re: Bonus disc question Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:58:20 -0700 "Steve Terry" wrote in message news:djhbre$pv5$1@news.iquest.net... > Is it okay to freely trade or share the bonus discs that come with GD > official releases? They say "not for resale" on them but these are > essentially limited edition cd's that aren't commercially available > once the preorder date has passed. What's the consensus? Sure... I believe that anything that is no longer commercially available is up for trade... On a completely unrelated note, I was unable to get the new Fillmore box set.... Hmmm.... ------------------------------ From: "Andrew Murawa" Subject: Re: Bonus disc question Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:00:03 -0700 "frndthdevl" wrote in message news:1130119551.728365.88570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Rogues Island's finest wrote: >> Steve Terry wrote: >> >> What's the consensus? >> >> The Colts have a tit schedule. >> >> Mark > > > Don't quite understand how the colts have such a cushy schedule,I > thought better finishing teams had tougher schedules? > Manning love again. ; ) > The Chargers schedule was slightly unreal, playing 4 teams off byes, > KC > lucks into an extra bye esentially,making 5. Ouch! Andy reid 10 and ) > coming off Byes. Here is your cue Andrew...... Marty sucks! outcoached > again. Yes, Marty does indeed suck... He has no business coaching football at any level higher than Pop Warner, and even then, he would still require several dozens clueless parents to rain down curse-laden tirades upon his feeble ears... Was that good enough? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:10:40 -0700 Subject: Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info From: Steve Lenier in article djlohm$1bu2$1@agate.berkeley.edu, leftie at no@spam.com wrote on 10/25/05 10:03 AM: > This was a really fun set to be at! :-) Bay Area Bastard! ;) Thanks for the info! Steve > > > Railroad Earth > 7/6/03 (late night) > Tulsa E. Scott Bldg. > High Sierra Music Festival > Quincy, CA > > Disc 1: > Lordy Lordy > Butterfly & the Tree > Mighty River > Head > Ragtime Annie Lee > Where Songs Begin > Whole Lot More of Jesus > > Disc 2: > Old Plank Road > Luxury Liner > Pack a Day > Birds of America > Moonshiner > Warhead Boogie > Any Road > Fire on the Mountain ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Notes from The 5 Fulton Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:11:58 GMT Well, ever since my car has been in the shop, I've had to endure a week of public transportation. It's been a long....LONG time. Am I the ONLY one wearing a suit/tie these days? Yesterday, I stepped in a puddle of fresh vomit/bile as I was making my way towards a seat. I just BOUGHT these Bruno Maglis' goddammit! And is it just me, or does EVERY motherfucker in a wheel chair take public transportation? When I was growing up, people in wheelchairs were housebound...watching "The Price is Right"....NOT extending the allready tedious commute downtown even LONGER...look, I'm sorry you're handicapped, but I HAVE to get to work...this bus if FULL, goddamitt, are you blind TOO? I get my wheels back tomorrow. Not a MOMENT too soon. I need a drink. ------------------------------ From: "volkfolk" Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:12:16 -0400 "leftie" wrote in message news:djm5t8$1g2l$1@agate.berkeley.edu... > Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > >> This leaking business is much ado about nothing, especially as you >> describe it. ^^^^^^^ > > Cheney leaking? No. Conspiracy to obstruct justice? Seems quite likely. Inside the Beltway politics as usual IMO. Toad's right IMO, much ado about nothing Scot ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:15:39 GMT "frndthdevl" wrote in message news:1130266804.374422.70300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > You had no patience for that FREE offer to see MOFRO either. LOL > Freee beer and a ticket * what "Free" offer...you wanted me to waste a saturday night with a promise you were going to send me reimbursement to check out you favourite jam band? I WENT to the gig....where's my $27? ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 14:22:30 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > > > Ray, I don't mean to be disrespectful or anything but I'm sitting here > wonderin'>>>What are you wearing about right now?? Heated political discourse gets you hot? And you're into the Dead too... Wow - you're my dream woman. :-p Seriously, care to continue the discussion and answer my questions? I'm really curious about whether you still think that the WSJ's lies are really "in play", and also what you think about Marcinkowski's testimony - do you agree with Marcinkowski or not, and if not why not? Ray ------------------------------ From: "Steve Terry" Subject: Re: Notes from The 5 Fulton Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:23:07 -0500 "Dave Kelly" wrote in message: > Well, ever since my car has been in the shop... How'd ya find a mechanic to work on a '73 Big Wheel? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:29:17 -0700 Subject: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) From: Steve Lenier Sooooo much is going on right now. And the bloggers are all over it. So I'm curious as to what you guys read, why you find certain ones interesting, etc. Some of you know what former rmgd'er is now a MAJOR blogger, that site is a good one (smirking chimp). For full disclosure purposes, I need to mention that Teri and I market her drawing "Statue of Limitations" (http://www.statueoflimitations.us) on blogs, and I may use your responses to help determine where to advertise, but frankly I'm interested in the question even without this aspect. Steve ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:35:32 -0700 volkfolk wrote: > "leftie" wrote in message > news:djm5t8$1g2l$1@agate.berkeley.edu... > >>Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: >> >> >>>This leaking business is much ado about nothing, especially as you >>>describe it. ^^^^^^^ >> >>Cheney leaking? No. Conspiracy to obstruct justice? Seems quite likely. > > > Inside the Beltway politics as usual IMO. > > Toad's right IMO, much ado about nothing The same exact crew of people that brought you Watergate and Iran Contra are again caught absolutely unable to follow the law and/or tell the truth. And many people, even intelligent people like yourself, don't care a whit. I guess you're right, it's politics as usual. ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 14:45:47 -0700 JC Martin wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > Bush's dream for Iraq?? According to the rhetoric anyway>>the > > establishment of a modern constitutional state governed by the rule of > > law and opposed to terrorists like al Qaeda. In turn, other despotic > > regimes in the region would begin to reform, etc. This is how I > > interpret the neo-con/Bush/Cheney dream for Iraq. I think it's a total > > crap shoot and I think it sets a dangerous precedent. (I think I said > > that already) > > Problem is, that was an argument formed AFTER the actual invasion of > Iraq. The reason for going into Iraq wasn't to stabilize the Middle > East. You really don't buy that, do you? FWIW I buy that - *in part*. Since Bush Administration's story shifts and changes with the political winds and the need to be in at least some sort of agreement with reality, so we don't really know for sure what we attacked Iraq. (Strange, isn't it? We attacked and are now fighting a war in another country, and we don't even know for sure why.) That said, I believe that the Bush Administration attacked Iraq for primarily these reasons (not in any particular order): * Oil * A belief that we had to deal with Saddam at some point, and a related belief that Saddam had WMDs or a WMD program. (I don't think that said belief was based on bad intelligence, however - I think that they just assumed as much based on their reading of Saddam and his past history.) * The neocon dream of bringing democracy to the Arab states, and thereby "popping the terrorist bubble". * Saddam tried to kill Bush Jr's dad. (I think that's part of Bush Jr's motivations, anyway.) Of course they didn't sell it to the public that way - I think they believed (probably correctly) that the public wouldn've never gone for it if they were honest about their motives. So instead they lied and went for the Let's-Scare-The-Bejeezus-Out-Of-Everyone (aka "terrorize") / Saddam-has-WMDs-And-He's-Going-To-Use-Them-On-Us-Tomorrow -type hype. Which of course worked beautifully... to get us into Iraq, anyway. Ray ------------------------------ From: "pookietooth" Subject: Re: Notes from The 5 Fulton Date: 25 Oct 2005 14:54:19 -0700 Dave Kelly wrote: > Well, ever since my car has been in the shop, I've > had to endure a week of public transportation. > It's been a long....LONG time. > Am I the ONLY one wearing a suit/tie these days? > Yesterday, I stepped in a puddle of fresh vomit/bile > as I was making my way towards a seat. > I just BOUGHT these Bruno Maglis' goddammit! Ahh, it wouldn't be SF in the fall without every possible body fluid on the buses, streets and BART. And sometimes running across the occasional corpse. And sometimes a gang member chasing a bus down the street firing his Mac 10. ------------------------------ From: Ben Subject: Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:56:23 -0700 On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:29:17 -0700, Steve Lenier wrote: >Sooooo much is going on right now. And the bloggers are all over it. So I'm >curious as to what you guys read, why you find certain ones interesting, >etc. Some of you know what former rmgd'er is now a MAJOR blogger, that site >is a good one (smirking chimp). I don't read any - mainly because they are all too partisan and extreme. While Bush is deserving of criticism, too many left-wing blogs just want to call him a chimp, and too many right-wing blogs just want to call those who disagree with anything Bush does terrorists. It's ridiculous. If there are any somewhat objective ones, I'd be interested in hearing about 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 ****************************** .