From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #677 Dead-Flames Digest #677, Volume #48 Wed, 26 Oct 05 10:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: cheney = traitor (DG) Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) ("Everybody's Gonna Be Happy") Re: OK, They've Gone Too Far Now (NDC) (DG) Re: cheney = traitor (JC Martin) Re: cheney = traitor (DG) Re: cheney = traitor (DG) Re: Why didn't yall tell me about 7-7-81???!!! ("tim_ratdog") Re: cheney = traitor ("Everybody's Gonna Be Happy") Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? ("Everybody's Gonna Be Happy") Re: cheney = traitor ("Everybody's Gonna Be Happy") Re: cheney = traitor ("Everybody's Gonna Be Happy") Re: cheney = traitor (JimK) Re: OK, They've Gone Too Far Now (NDC) (JimK) Re: cheney = traitor ("Everybody's Gonna Be Happy") Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? ("RickNBarbInSD") Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? (memory705@hotmail.com) (NDC) I Think the Chicago White Sox....... ("Neil X.") Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) (BILL_NY@webtv.net) Re: (NDC) I Think the Chicago White Sox....... ("Olompali4") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DG Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:46:21 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > >imsjry wrote > >> Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: >>> DG wrote >>> > >>> > >>> > 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???? > >Are you really that naive? > >The man is the vice president of the United States, he can discuss anything >he wants to with anyone else with a top security clearance. Nobody is debating that. >Welcome to the federal government! > >And if you actually believe that Cheney is going to be ratted out as the >head of a conspiracy by any of his minions, you are REALLY naive. Big jail time has a way of flipping people. Libby is in the hot seat now. Seems that another aide has flipped. Cheney will go down. >There is zero chance of the vice president suffering anything other than >political damage from this episode. What other type of damage could happen? >Is Cheney a liar? Of course. He led the campaign that led up to the war; >and that campaign was based on lies. But sorry folks, this leak of a name >of some Washington desk jockey is small potatoes compared to that. It's treason to out a covert op in a foreign country for good reason. >I >realize some think the two circumstances will be linked as a result of this >investigation, but there is no way a vice president is going down because he >spoke to his chief of staff about the CIA and who works there, no matter >what his motive was. Have you not read the paper? Do you realize they told this to a reporter who was cozy with them? >The leak investigation is a big stretch that will have little if any staying >power, even if a couple of toupe wearing henchmen are indicted. Its a >peripheral issue at best. Peripheral to those who don't understand the significance of trying to bully our diplomats into lying by jeapordizing the lives of their loved ones. F U traitor cheney... ------------------------------ From: "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" Subject: Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:47:13 -0700 "Steve Lenier" wrote in message news:BF83F1BC.332A7%slenier@comcast.net... > 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 None, because my opinions are far superior to any expressed by others. EGBH ------------------------------ From: DG Subject: Re: OK, They've Gone Too Far Now (NDC) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:48:34 -0700 tim_ratdog wrote: > >The Lord of Eltingville wrote: >> Has anyone else noticed how some of BushCo's most vocal buttmonkeys >> (Buck, Chunk, Shelby, and even crazy ol' Marky Williams) have grown >> unusually quiet over the past month or so? > >Bad form. This is like saying (while on the road) "gee my car hasn't >broken down in a while" :-) Maybe those nitwits are waking up and realize this crap is indefensible. ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:51:54 GMT Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > "Richard Morris" wrote in message > news:pvWdnV2hgNGdeMPeRVn-og@comcast.com... > >>"Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" wrote in message >>news:QOt7f.404$EP6.2042@eagle.america.net... >> >>snip >> >> >>>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. > > >>If he was the instigator, don't be too sure that his lackey won't sell him >>out. When faced with a little prison time, these are not necessarily >>stand-up guys. > > > No chance. Libby is going to testify that Cheney ordered him to break the > law? > > LOL. No, Libby would never out his boss. He's a pretty loyal Cheney guy from all I've read and whatever you want to say bad about these right-wingers, they do go to bat for each other. Plus, even if Libby did out Cheney, you would have one word against another. No way to convict on that. You're right on the rest Toad. This is small stuff and is merely political payback for the bigger lie which was perpetrated in regards to Iraq. However, I'll take what I can get at this stage. -JC ------------------------------ From: DG Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:54:06 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > >The CIA is supposed to under the control of the execustive branch of >government. If the second most powerful man in the executive branch can't >discuss who works there, then the CIA is now officially independent of any >control whatsoever and is free to do whatever it pleases. > >Bush, Cheney, and Goss run that show folks. It isn't operating >independently. No shit... ------------------------------ From: DG Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:56:52 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > >Just a lot of background noise. > >CIA agents are outed in every administration. I remember hundreds being >outed in the past. LOL... Since you remember, name ten... >And this woman sat at a desk in Washington for years before being "outed" >(as if many DC insiders didn't know who she worked for already--her name was >in the phone book!). She was in a foreign country at the time. Her life was jeapordized. >This is just a tawdry little example of typical Washington revenge. So they should ignore the outing of a covert op during wartime? >I certainly don't cheer it on, don't condone it, and hope anyone who >committed a crime does a nationally televised perp walk. > >But just as this was a case of personal revenge, so will be the glee we all >experience if someone goes down. Its all about the personalities, there is >no large governance issue involved here. > >This administration did far worse things in the run up to the war; its just >that this little nothing is all anyone can grab onto legally to exact some >personal satisfaction from. Trying to turn this into Watergate is absurd. >It ain't gonna bring a president or vice president down. In 6 months no one >will even remember what it was all about. > >The big lies that led up to the war are what will be remembered, not some >peripheral, minor aspect of that effort. The outing of a CIA agent is the thread that can be pulled to open up the whole "lies for war" campaign. ------------------------------ From: "tim_ratdog" Subject: Re: Why didn't yall tell me about 7-7-81???!!! Date: 26 Oct 2005 08:59:22 -0700 Steve Lenier wrote: > back on topic, I love 7/7/89, and like 7/4/81, so it stands to reason I'll > like 7/7/81, right? 7/7/81 has a snappy Bertha, not as an opener but as the second song in (not unheard of but as any first setter knows it should always be Bertha then Minglewood). The Bertha has this funky beat that reminds me of some of the earlier versions of TLEO (early 73) which evokes a China Cat kind of thing. -tim ------------------------------ From: "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:02:41 -0700 "DG" wrote in message news:6s8vl19a82suk409ki3beh5b6vgbm408rq@4ax.com... > Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: >> >>imsjry wrote >>>> 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???? >>Are you really that naive? >> >>The man is the vice president of the United States, he can discuss >>anything >>he wants to with anyone else with a top security clearance. > Nobody is debating that. The guy who asked me if I was really that naive is apparently debating that. >>Welcome to the federal government! >> >>And if you actually believe that Cheney is going to be ratted out as the >>head of a conspiracy by any of his minions, you are REALLY naive. > Big jail time has a way of flipping people. Libby is in the hot seat > now. Seems that another aide has flipped. Cheney will go down. LOL. Talk about naive............ Heck, no even ratted out NIXON, even with all those guys going to jail. He would never have resigned if they didn't have him on tape with the smoking gun. >>There is zero chance of the vice president suffering anything other than >>political damage from this episode. > What other type of damage could happen? None. But I get the impression some of you actually believe he will be forced to resign or be indicted or some such nonsense. There is no chance whatsoever of that happening as a result of this leak business. >>Is Cheney a liar? Of course. He led the campaign that led up to the war; >>and that campaign was based on lies. But sorry folks, this leak of a name >>of some Washington desk jockey is small potatoes compared to that. > It's treason to out a covert op in a foreign country for good reason. Too bad Cheney didn't leak anything, too bad he's her boss, too bad he won't be charged with anything, and too bad there is no way any prosecutor can prove malice which is necessary for there to be a crime. And the crime isn't treason, you are very much mistaken. Its a small potatoes crime regarding knowingly leaking a covert agent's name (which she was not--it was no secret what she did---sit behind a Washington desk shuffling papers). The crime isn't treason even if Cheney was behind the leak. >>I >>realize some think the two circumstances will be linked as a result of >>this >>investigation, but there is no way a vice president is going down because >>he >>spoke to his chief of staff about the CIA and who works there, no matter >>what his motive was. > Have you not read the paper? Do you realize they told this to a > reporter who was cozy with them? I hear that's the case, yes. Of course that has no bearing on Cheney not going anywhere and suffering only temporary political damage. Reality check? >>The leak investigation is a big stretch that will have little if any >>staying >>power, even if a couple of toupe wearing henchmen are indicted. Its a >>peripheral issue at best. > Peripheral to those who don't understand the significance of trying to > bully our diplomats into lying by jeapordizing the lives of their > loved ones. No, its just peripheral, period. Nobody bullied anyone. Wilson had already said what he wanted to say when the wife's name was revealed for the entire nation (as opposed to everyone in DC who already knew she worked for the CIA as a desk jockey). It was personal revenge. That happens every day in Washington, so despite all your emotions regarding this, it will fade away. The lies that led to the war will not. > F U traitor cheney... Take a pill. EGBH ------------------------------ From: "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:05:04 -0700 wrote in message news:1130340819.108824.276380@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > And what does not being married have to do with it? The primitive religionists will interpret that as being a lesbian. A black lesbian with a fancy college education. That pretty much rules her out as a Republican presidential candidate. > Priests are > unmarried and they're the most religious. And if she's a feminist, why > isn't she a Democrat, and what does being a feminist have to do with > religion anyway? Are religious people supposed to be AGAINST women > having any kind of success? In the Republican Party, unless you loudly support the American Taliban you have no chance. EGBH ------------------------------ From: "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:07:46 -0700 "JC Martin" wrote in message news:uCN7f.1001$te3.16430@typhoon.sonic.net... > Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: >> "Richard Morris" wrote in message >> news:pvWdnV2hgNGdeMPeRVn-og@comcast.com... >> >>>"Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" wrote in >>>message news:QOt7f.404$EP6.2042@eagle.america.net... >>> >>>snip >>> >>> >>>>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. >> >> >>>If he was the instigator, don't be too sure that his lackey won't sell >>>him out. When faced with a little prison time, these are not necessarily >>>stand-up guys. >> >> >> No chance. Libby is going to testify that Cheney ordered him to break >> the law? >> >> LOL. > No, Libby would never out his boss. He's a pretty loyal Cheney guy from > all I've read and whatever you want to say bad about these right-wingers, > they do go to bat for each other. Plus, even if Libby did out Cheney, you > would have one word against another. No way to convict on that. > > You're right on the rest Toad. This is small stuff and is merely > political payback for the bigger lie which was perpetrated in regards to > Iraq. However, I'll take what I can get at this stage. Oh yeah, I find it rather amusing myself. It will be even more amusing if someone actually goes to jail. Unfortunately things that personally amuse me rarely have a major impact on our federal government. The Delay thing could be one of those rare moments, but not this. EGBH ------------------------------ From: "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:09:39 -0700 "DG" wrote in message news:7k9vl15c59rou34r39obbafe9nv2ksapli@4ax.com... > Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: >> >>The CIA is supposed to under the control of the execustive branch of >>government. If the second most powerful man in the executive branch can't >>discuss who works there, then the CIA is now officially independent of any >>control whatsoever and is free to do whatever it pleases. >> >>Bush, Cheney, and Goss run that show folks. It isn't operating >>independently. > No shit... Then obviously Cheney has to be able to discuss who works at the CIA, right? Can't you imagine this as a potential defense? Don't you think its already being used???? Of course it is. And its a good one. EGBH ------------------------------ From: JimK Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:08:25 -0400 Reply-To: jkezwind@comcast.net On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:44:24 -0700, "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" wrote: > >"Ray" wrote in message >news:1130277767.820525.291770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> 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? >> >> Merely talking about a CIA agent is not a crime. However as I >> understand it conspiracy to out a CIA agent as political payback is. I >> strongly doubt they'll have the goods on Cheney however - that'd be a >> very hard one to proove. But that said it is a possilibity. >> >>> If somebody leaked the name and if somebody lied they should be called to >>> account, tried, and punished accordingly. >> >> Agree. >> >>> 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 >> >> Disgree. If Plame was outed by the government then this has >> substantial adverse impact on our national security. Former CIA case >> officer and prosecutor James Marcinkowski explains why: > >Just a lot of background noise. > >CIA agents are outed in every administration. I remember hundreds being >outed in the past. Really? If they were, did high level executive branch officials do the outing?? > >And this woman sat at a desk in Washington for years before being "outed" >(as if many DC insiders didn't know who she worked for already--her name was >in the phone book!). I didn't know that phone books included occupations and employers along with the names. And it really doesn't matter whether she was an active covert agent at the time of the outing,or how long she may have been inactive. If any operation that she had been involved in as a covert agent is still ongoing, the revelation that she is a CIA agent would effectively end that operation and potentially jeopardize the safety of any current operatives. It also makes it impossible for the CIA to ever again utilize Plame as an active covert agent. > >This is just a tawdry little example of typical Washington revenge. I'm sure revenge or retribution played a big part, but the motive for the outing is pretty much irrelevant other than as a factor in proving the case. > >I certainly don't cheer it on, don't condone it, and hope anyone who >committed a crime does a nationally televised perp walk. > >But just as this was a case of personal revenge, so will be the glee we all >experience if someone goes down. Its all about the personalities, there is >no large governance issue involved here. No large governance issue involved? Surely it's an issue when high level government officials deliberately perform acts that are against the best interests of our national security, isn't it? Not to mention the possibility of perjury and obstruction of justice by those same officials. What would you consider a large governance issue? > >This administration did far worse things in the run up to the war; its just >that this little nothing is all anyone can grab onto legally to exact some >personal satisfaction from. Trying to turn this into Watergate is absurd. >It ain't gonna bring a president or vice president down. In 6 months no one >will even remember what it was all about. We'll see. > >The big lies that led up to the war are what will be remembered, not some >peripheral, minor aspect of that effort. > But it's this issue that will keep those big lies in the spotlight. I think you're underestimating the potential fallout that could result from this tawdry affair. And let's not forget that no matter how grand in scale the crime may be, it's always the cover up that leads to the downfall of the perps. JimK ------------------------------ From: JimK Subject: Re: OK, They've Gone Too Far Now (NDC) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:10:23 -0400 Reply-To: jkezwind@comcast.net On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:59:32 -0400, The Lord of Eltingville wrote: >"scarletbgonias@hotmail.com" wrote: >> >> Now the Bush Administration is attacking a valuable "news source". They >> must be stopped. >> >> Theresa >> -------------------------------------------- >> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/business/24onion.html?incamp=article_popular_1 >> >> Protecting the Presidential Seal. No Joke. >> KATHARINE Q. SEELYE >> Published: October 24, 2005 >> >> You might have thought that the White House had enough on its plate >> late last month, what with its search for a new Supreme Court nominee, >> the continuing war in Iraq and the C.I.A. leak investigation. But it >> found time to add another item to its agenda - stopping The Onion, the >> satirical newspaper, from using the presidential seal. >> >> [...] > >Has anyone else noticed how some of BushCo's most vocal buttmonkeys >(Buck, Chunk, Shelby, and even crazy ol' Marky Williams) have grown >unusually quiet over the past month or so? > >I guess it must be pretty embarrassing to be a republican these days... You mean those guys aren't all the same person? JimK ------------------------------ From: "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:13:40 -0700 "DG" wrote in message news:6l9vl154kulul5bf9brv3emh5n8dtkoha6@4ax.com... > Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: >> >>Just a lot of background noise. >> >>CIA agents are outed in every administration. I remember hundreds being >>outed in the past. > LOL... Since you remember, name ten... I have to remember their names and regurgitate them here for outings to be commonplace? Ever heard of Frank Church? >>And this woman sat at a desk in Washington for years before being "outed" >>(as if many DC insiders didn't know who she worked for already--her name >>was >>in the phone book!). > She was in a foreign country at the time. Her life was jeapordized. Utter nonsense. >>This is just a tawdry little example of typical Washington revenge. > So they should ignore the outing of a covert op during wartime? No, they should pusure it, which I gather is being done right now. >>I certainly don't cheer it on, don't condone it, and hope anyone who >>committed a crime does a nationally televised perp walk. >> >>But just as this was a case of personal revenge, so will be the glee we >>all >>experience if someone goes down. Its all about the personalities, there >>is >>no large governance issue involved here. >>This administration did far worse things in the run up to the war; its >>just >>that this little nothing is all anyone can grab onto legally to exact some >>personal satisfaction from. Trying to turn this into Watergate is >>absurd. >>It ain't gonna bring a president or vice president down. In 6 months no >>one >>will even remember what it was all about. >> >>The big lies that led up to the war are what will be remembered, not some >>peripheral, minor aspect of that effort. > The outing of a CIA agent is the thread that can be pulled to open up > the whole "lies for war" campaign. No one in the world outside left wing blogs will believe it or care about it. Its way too small an issue to have any such traction in and of itself. You're dreaming. The hurricanes have done more damage to Bush than this, even that woman Miers has done more damage. The country doesn't understand this and never will. Its Washington business as usual. No one likes it, but only left wing true believers care about this little deal. EGBH ------------------------------ From: "RickNBarbInSD" Subject: Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? Date: 26 Oct 2005 09:26:04 -0700 Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: > Rick you trolling sack of scumbag shit. I don't argue with > anti-Semites. As it turns out Sparky, I am neither a troll nor an anti-Semite. In the process of reading this thread however, I couldn't help but notice you conspicuously avoiding answering the very simple and very direct question which Ray repeatedly posed (this by the way is one clear hallmark of a troll). With this penchant for evading honest answers to direct questions, perhaps you should seek a position in the Bush administration. Rick ------------------------------ From: memory705@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: 26 Oct 2005 09:32:43 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > wrote in message > news:1130340819.108824.276380@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > And what does not being married have to do with it? > > The primitive religionists will interpret that as being a lesbian. > > A black lesbian with a fancy college education. > > That pretty much rules her out as a Republican presidential candidate. I don't think they would mind her having an advanced degree. George W. Bush not only has an advanced degree, but an Ivy League advanced degree, and not just any Ivy League advanced degree, but a Harvard MBA. But instead of arguing about whether or not Condi could get elected or reading Dick Moris' book, why not just look at the polls? ------------------------------ From: "Neil X." Subject: (NDC) I Think the Chicago White Sox....... Date: 26 Oct 2005 09:41:43 -0700 ......are trying to kill me. Please pass the coffee. When I was an undergrad at the University of Chicago, I probably spent more time at Comiskey Park than in class. And the Sox were terrible then, losing 100+ games every year. We only went to sit (usually completely alone) in the center field stands, drink beer, and heckle the opposing center fielders. (And we were very good at heckling, but that's a story for another day. Suffice to say we were directly responsible for at least one White Sox win when an Indians center fielder was too busy flipping us the bird to catch the fly ball coming at him.) It's truly unreal that they are one win away from a World Series Championship. Cubs fans have got to be torn--their usual hatred of the Sox has to be tempered by a desire to see some Chicago baseball team finally win it all. Peace, Neil X. ------------------------------ From: BILL_NY@webtv.net Subject: Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:30:20 -0400 RMGD Bill http://www.angelfire.com/ny3/BILLNY/index.html ------------------------------ From: "Olompali4" Subject: Re: (NDC) I Think the Chicago White Sox....... Date: 26 Oct 2005 09:47:28 -0700 > Cubs fans have got to be torn--their usual hatred of the Sox has to be tempered by a desire to see some Chicago baseball team finally win it all. Bittersweet defines it. Still..... Go Men in Black, The Southside Hitmen! Bring it home. ------------------------------ ** 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 ****************************** .