From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #678 Dead-Flames Digest #678, Volume #48 Wed, 26 Oct 05 11:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: cheney = traitor (leftie) rhino fillmore compilation ("mr rapidan") Re: moe. mule-- a micro review ("Andrew Murawa") Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? ("RickNBarbInSD") Re: Why didn't yall tell me about 7-7-81???!!! ("Carlisle") Re: cheney = traitor ("Ray") Re: cheney = traitor (Brad Greer) Re: moe. mule-- a micro review (Brad Greer) Re: My 10-22-2005 Steve Kimock experience. (leftie) Re: A Conservative viewpoint.... (Seth Jackson) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (Seth Jackson) Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? (JC Martin) Re: cheney = traitor (JimK) Re: cheney = traitor (Brad Greer) Re: moe. mule-- a micro review ("Andrew Murawa") cream bt ("frndthdevl") Re: New SKB SBD 10/22/05cm LMA ("Dave Kelly") Re: cheney = traitor (JC Martin) Re: OK, They've Gone Too Far Now (NDC) (leftie) Re: (NDC) I Think the Chicago White Sox....... (JimK) Re: cheney = traitor (Seth Jackson) Re: moe. mule-- a micro review (JC Martin) Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? ("Ray") Re: cheney = traitor (JC Martin) Re: India CDRs? ("Dave Kelly") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: leftie Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:52:27 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > 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). You keep repeating the Republican contention that Plame was not a covert agent, but if it was true the CIA wouldn't have demanded the investigation and/or the grand jury would have been disbanded ages ago. ------------------------------ From: "mr rapidan" Subject: rhino fillmore compilation Date: 26 Oct 2005 09:52:42 -0700 I've looked on deaddisc, I've looked at the dead store, I've searched the rmgd archives, and I just can't find the show sources for the 3 disc rhino compilation. I know I've seen it! Could someone please help!? Thanks! ------------------------------ From: "Andrew Murawa" Subject: Re: moe. mule-- a micro review Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:53:30 -0700 "Neil X." wrote in message news:1130297841.168156.9010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> joker4153@comcast.net wrote: >> >> I've been seeing moe. since 1997 and have >> never seen a moe. gig I didn't like...a lot. > > > Amazing. I've never seen a .moe show that wasn't, IMO, numbingly bad. > When it comes to jambands, I'm pretty much a bottom feeder, I can find > something of value in most of them. But Rusted Root and .moe, I just > don't get it. > > Different Strokes, > Neil X. I'm with you on Rusted Root, but moe. is moe. or less the only "jamband" that I can listen to on a consistent basis without wanting to bash my head repeatedly onto a nearby hard surface... Hell, just typing the words Rusted Root made me want to do that... ------------------------------ From: "RickNBarbInSD" Subject: Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? Date: 26 Oct 2005 10:02:40 -0700 Small grammatical correction from the grammar police: You Sparky are not "evading honest answers", you are evading direct questions and avoiding giving honest answers. This is what would qualify you for that Bush administration position. I hope this clarifies things. Thank you, Rick ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: Why didn't yall tell me about 7-7-81???!!! Date: 26 Oct 2005 10:02:57 -0700 tim_ratdog wrote: > 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 ....a Scarlet Begonias/Franklin's Tower kind of uptempo happy tune. ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: 26 Oct 2005 10:03:26 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > "Ray" wrote: > > Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > >> 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. Really. If this is true, which covert CIA agent(s) were outed by the Clinton and Bush Sr. Administrations? > I remember hundreds being > outed in the past. By the US government? Please elaborate. The only instance I know where 'hundreds' of CIA agents have been outed in the past where when ex-CIA agent Philip Agee turned traitor in the mid-late 70s - he then proceeded to out hundreds (thousands?) of CIA agents. This is what lead to the passage of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act int he early 80s, which was promoted and lobbied for by then-VP Bush Sr. > And this woman sat at a desk in Washington for years before being "outed" Intelligence sources Plame associated with overseas have been compromised. And as Marcinkowski explained: "[T]he real issues before this Congress and this country today is not partisan politics, not even the loss of secrets. The secrets of Valerie Plame's cover are long gone. What has suffered perhaps irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince our overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us. How are our case officers supposed to build and maintain that confidence when their own government cannot even guarantee the personal protection of the home team?" How anyone can believe that the outing of a covert US agent by the US government is a non-issue is beyond me. > (as if many DC insiders didn't know who she worked for already--her name was > in the phone book!). What phone book are you talking about? > This administration did far worse things in the run up to the war Agreed. But that doesn't lessen the adverse impact that Plame's outing -- if in fact it was an outing by the goverment -- has had on our national security. > 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. If there are no indictments then I agree. However if there are indictments of Rove and/or Libby then 6 months from now this will still be in the news - big time. And in the unlikely scenario Cheney is indicted as a central and significant figure in a conspiracy to out a CIA agent then this may well be as big as Watergate, if not bigger. Ray _________________ "[W]e need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country... I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - George H. W. Bush, April 26, 1999, at the dedication ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:04:38 -0400 On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:36:46 -0700, "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" wrote: > >"Brad Greer" wrote in message >news:k9vsl1d9tu3tlumc28km2fh9hvslls41a5@4ax.com... >> On 25 Oct 2005 11:30:43 -0700, "imsjry" 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. > >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. I'm not saying Cheney doesn't have the right to discuss CIA issues, I'm just not sure if his chief of staff has security clearance to be given the names of undercover operatives. He might, I have no idea what the rules are regarding who has clearance to what information. Given that I haven't read about Libby not having clearance for this information I'm assuming that discussing the identities of agents wasn't in and of itself a crime. Cheney cannot discuss the identity of agents with me, for instance. I quite properly have zero security clearance, for him to tell me the identity of an agent would be a crime. That doesn't mean the agency is being run without control by the executive branch, just that the executive branch can only discuss certain aspects with those who have a high enough security clearance (which is how it should be, after all). >Bush, Cheney, and Goss run that show folks. It isn't operating >independently. > >EGBH > ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: moe. mule-- a micro review Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:08:17 -0400 On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:53:30 -0700, "Andrew Murawa" wrote: >"Neil X." wrote in message >news:1130297841.168156.9010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >>> joker4153@comcast.net wrote: >>> >>> I've been seeing moe. since 1997 and have >>> never seen a moe. gig I didn't like...a lot. >> >> >> Amazing. I've never seen a .moe show that wasn't, IMO, numbingly bad. >> When it comes to jambands, I'm pretty much a bottom feeder, I can find >> something of value in most of them. But Rusted Root and .moe, I just >> don't get it. >> >> Different Strokes, >> Neil X. > >I'm with you on Rusted Root, but moe. is moe. or less the only "jamband" >that I can listen to on a consistent basis without wanting to bash my >head repeatedly onto a nearby hard surface... > >Hell, just typing the words Rusted Root made me want to do that... > I'm with you on this, Andrew. I never understood the appeal of Rusted Root, and for the most part "jam bands" leave me cold. But for whatever reason I kind of like .moe even though they suffer from many of the afflictions of other jam bands - especially the dopey lyric part. ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: My 10-22-2005 Steve Kimock experience. Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:10:11 -0700 ba ba booie wrote: > All the time I was thinking if this guy might have slipped someting in > my drink. That was going through my mind for a bit. > > I mean seriously, if somone offers you a beer that you never met before > and he goes and gets the beer with out you seeing him, do you drink the > beer? > > I mean, it is one of the chances that I rarely take. Why did I take the > chance? > > The guy was set up right next to me. > We were talking for a bit. I was studying his character. He seemed like > a nice fellow. But you never know. > > Are people still sliping *Mickeys* in drinks these days. I hear of > things happening like this. It just makes me concerned thats all. This from a guy who once reported having followed a pretty gal into a stall in the women's room and snorted a fat line of... he has no idea what... without asking first! ;-) ------------------------------ From: Seth Jackson Subject: Re: A Conservative viewpoint.... Reply-To: hitmeister .at. mindspring .dot. com Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:10:56 GMT On 26 Oct 2005 08:33:55 -0700, "Sparky the Wonder Dog" wrote: >btw Seth todays news about Cheney's attempts to provide a permanent >exemption for the CIA from international anti-torture treaties are >related to the whole issue. It's disgusting. ------------------------------ From: Seth Jackson Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Reply-To: hitmeister .at. mindspring .dot. com Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:13:53 GMT On 26 Oct 2005 06:42:43 -0700, "Carlisle" wrote: >In order to remove any appearance of impropriety, Cheney should have >severed all ties with Halliburton. This sentence can be corrected by deleting the words "any appearance of". ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:15:56 GMT memory705@hotmail.com wrote: > 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? *LOL* Why bother? -JC ------------------------------ From: JimK Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:14:09 -0400 Reply-To: jkezwind@comcast.net On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:09:39 -0700, "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" wrote: > >"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 > As far as I know, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Cheney would be in hot water merely for discussing Plame with Libby, his chief of staff. The question is why did the discussions take place and did they lead to Cheney either initiating or authorizing the outing of Plame, assuming Libby is implicated in the outing at all. If so, then Cheney would be indictable. As you say, whether he could be convicted is another story and would probably require that Libby, or someone else with personal knowledge of Cheney's involvement, is persuaded to testify against him. You believe there ain't no way that's gonna happen, but I wouldn't be so sure. As others have pointed out, you never know who's going to squeal when their ass is on the line. Another possibility is that there may be some written evidence of Cheney's involvement that would be sufficient to convict him even without Libby's testimony. One would think these guys wouldn't be dumb enough to make written records of that sort of thing, but we've already seen that Libby kept written notes of discussions that could support perjury charges against him. JimK ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:16:01 -0400 On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:02:41 -0700, "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" wrote: > >"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. > You might be referring to me here, and if so I'm not debating whether Cheney had the authority to discuss the identity of CIA operatives with anyone who has the proper security clearance. I did question whether his chief of staff has that clearance, but said I don't know (and if the chief of staff doesn't have that clearance than Cheney has committed a crime). I highly suspect that Cheney was in the clear in talking about the identity of agents with Libby, but I don't know that for a fact. I really have very little knowledge outside of reading a Tom Clancy book or two about what the various levels of security clearance are in the government and who has what access. ------------------------------ From: "Andrew Murawa" Subject: Re: moe. mule-- a micro review Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:14:00 -0700 "Brad Greer" wrote in message news:9tdvl1di55a2e30herfo27lkncj4q64d9l@4ax.com... > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:53:30 -0700, "Andrew Murawa" > wrote: > >>"Neil X." wrote in message >>news:1130297841.168156.9010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> >>>> joker4153@comcast.net wrote: >>>> >>>> I've been seeing moe. since 1997 and have >>>> never seen a moe. gig I didn't like...a lot. >>> >>> >>> Amazing. I've never seen a .moe show that wasn't, IMO, numbingly >>> bad. >>> When it comes to jambands, I'm pretty much a bottom feeder, I can >>> find >>> something of value in most of them. But Rusted Root and .moe, I >>> just >>> don't get it. >>> >>> Different Strokes, >>> Neil X. >> >>I'm with you on Rusted Root, but moe. is moe. or less the only >>"jamband" >>that I can listen to on a consistent basis without wanting to bash my >>head repeatedly onto a nearby hard surface... >> >>Hell, just typing the words Rusted Root made me want to do that... >> > I'm with you on this, Andrew. I never understood the appeal of Rusted > Root, and for the most part "jam bands" leave me cold. But for > whatever reason I kind of like .moe even though they suffer from many > of the afflictions of other jam bands - especially the dopey lyric > part. Yeah, exactly. I'm not quite sure why I like moe., but most times when I make time to listen to them I enjoy them... There is a complete and total lack of any coherency in their lyrics that for some reason I've just always overlooked for some reason... ------------------------------ From: "frndthdevl" Subject: cream bt Date: 26 Oct 2005 10:18:59 -0700 http://www.dimeadozen.org/torrents-details.php?id=65772 ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Re: New SKB SBD 10/22/05cm LMA Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:20:31 GMT Well shut my mouth! I'm ALL over this one! thanks Oly ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:21:44 GMT leftie wrote: > Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > > > 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). > > > You keep repeating the Republican contention that Plame was not a covert > agent, but if it was true the CIA wouldn't have demanded the > investigation and/or the grand jury would have been disbanded ages ago. I think he's saying that she wasn't in the field necessarily. I contend that there would be no investigation if she wasn't classified as a covert agent though. It's really up to the CIA to decide this, not political spinsters. And given that Plame's neighbors apparently didn't know what her job was, it seems she was indeed keeping her status confidential. -JC ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: OK, They've Gone Too Far Now (NDC) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:21:47 -0700 JimK wrote: >>scarletbegonias wrote: >>>-------------------------------------------- >>>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. > Aw, it's just another fake Onion story. Don't you read rmgd, Jim? The NY Times is biased in the same way Rush Limbaugh and the National Review are biased, so this is clearly just a fabricated story designed to discredit the president. ------------------------------ From: JimK Subject: Re: (NDC) I Think the Chicago White Sox....... Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:20:06 -0400 Reply-To: jkezwind@comcast.net On 26 Oct 2005 09:41:43 -0700, "Neil X." wrote: >.....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. Wonder what odds you could have gotten a couple of years ago on a bet that the Red Sox and White Sox would win the World Series in consecutive years? Over a 160 years of combined frustration, and then this. Who'da thunk? JimK ------------------------------ From: Seth Jackson Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Reply-To: hitmeister .at. mindspring .dot. com Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:23:03 GMT On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:13:40 -0700, "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" wrote: > >> 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. You're joking, right? If the Vice President were to be indicted, you honestly believe the nation wouldn't sit up and take notice? ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: moe. mule-- a micro review Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:27:24 GMT Andrew Murawa wrote: > "Brad Greer" wrote in message > news:9tdvl1di55a2e30herfo27lkncj4q64d9l@4ax.com... > >>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:53:30 -0700, "Andrew Murawa" >> wrote: >> >> >>>"Neil X." wrote in message >>>news:1130297841.168156.9010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> >>>>>joker4153@comcast.net wrote: >>>>> >>>>>I've been seeing moe. since 1997 and have >>>>>never seen a moe. gig I didn't like...a lot. >>>> >>>> >>>>Amazing. I've never seen a .moe show that wasn't, IMO, numbingly >>>>bad. >>>>When it comes to jambands, I'm pretty much a bottom feeder, I can >>>>find >>>>something of value in most of them. But Rusted Root and .moe, I >>>>just >>>>don't get it. >>>> >>>>Different Strokes, >>>>Neil X. >>> >>>I'm with you on Rusted Root, but moe. is moe. or less the only >>>"jamband" >>>that I can listen to on a consistent basis without wanting to bash my >>>head repeatedly onto a nearby hard surface... >>> >>>Hell, just typing the words Rusted Root made me want to do that... >>> >> >>I'm with you on this, Andrew. I never understood the appeal of Rusted >>Root, and for the most part "jam bands" leave me cold. But for >>whatever reason I kind of like .moe even though they suffer from many >>of the afflictions of other jam bands - especially the dopey lyric >>part. > > > Yeah, exactly. I'm not quite sure why I like moe., but most times when I > make time to listen to them I enjoy them... There is a complete and > total lack of any coherency in their lyrics that for some reason I've > just always overlooked for some reason... Personally, I'd rather listen to nonsense lyrics than hearing a band try to write legitimate songs without the talent to do so. SCI is one of those bands. Truly awful stuff IMO. Their recent blatant attempts to make pop albums sound worse than Phish's. -JC ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? Date: 26 Oct 2005 10:28:20 -0700 Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: > Rick you trolling sack of scumbag shit. I don't argue with > anti-Semites. So asking you a question that you refuse to answer now makes the person who asks the question an 'anti-Semite'?!? Keep digging your hole, Sparky. Ray ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:29:31 GMT Seth Jackson wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:13:40 -0700, "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" > wrote: > > >>>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. > > > You're joking, right? If the Vice President were to be indicted, you > honestly believe the nation wouldn't sit up and take notice? I'd put large sums of money up to bet that Cheney won't be indicted. It's a left wing pipe dream, let's face it. Many of us would love to see it, but it ain't gonna happen. -JC ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Re: India CDRs? Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:29:06 GMT Hmmm....as someone who is now having problems extracting music from cheap discs ( Imation ) I wouldn't mess with anything but Jap Fujis ------------------------------ ** 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 ****************************** .