2000 From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #660 Dead-Flames Digest #660, Volume #48 Mon, 24 Oct 05 14:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: If payment is accepted for pre-orders isn't that an interest free loan? ("Sparky the Wonder Dog") Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (Brad Greer) Re: If payment is accepted for pre-orders isn't that an interest free loan? (Kirk McElhearn) Kimock on TV! ("Rogues Island's finest") Re: Halloween Music (The Lord of Eltingville) Re: I'm So Glad ("BVT") Re: (NDC) Album/Box Set Review - Miles Davis - The Cellar Door Sessions (John Metzger) Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (The Lord of Eltingville) Re: Kimock on TV! (The Lord of Eltingville) Re: (NDC) Album/Box Set Review - Miles Davis - The Cellar Door Sessions (John Metzger) Re: (NDC) Album/Box Set Review - Miles Davis - The Cellar Door Sessions (John Metzger) Re: ANyone now why The Dead didn't tour last Spring or Summer? ("BVT") Re: Listen to the new Garcia plays Dylan disc here! ("Rick Wolfish") Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (JimK) Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? ("Everybody's Gonna Be Happy") Re: I'm So Glad ("Rick Wolfish") Re: ANyone now why The Dead didn't tour last Spring or Summer? (The Lord of Eltingville) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (JimK) Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? ("Ray") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sparky the Wonder Dog" Subject: Re: If payment is accepted for pre-orders isn't that an interest free loan? Date: 24 Oct 2005 11:28:48 -0700 I think a business can even do an up-front electronic debit from a personal paper check. Not sure though or how they handle the mechanics. ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:28:33 -0400 On 24 Oct 2005 11:18:59 -0700, "Effty" wrote: > >Brad Greer wrote: >> On 20 Oct 2005 22:36:28 -0700, "Effty" >> wrote: >> >> >Work to live, or live to work? >> > >> >This whole thread really highlights a problem unique to our modern >> >society. Why do we tolerate employers owning the biggest portions of >> >our souls? >> > >> I don't know this is unique to modern society. Early generations had >> slavery, indentured servants and feudal lords. > >All the same, it's not something we should aspire toward. Deferring >the human element of life to something inhumane like a giant >corporation is one way that we allow ourselves to be oppressed by the >modern world. We should aspire to be more than the employee in cubicle >Z. Likewise, employers should have more respect for their employees. >The drug testing issue does not highlight this as well as the recent >symptom of large companies ending benefits to retirees. Any which way, >I've never seen an example of a large company suddenly INCREASING it's >appreciation of it's employees. I won't hold my breath. I agree that we should aspire to more, but when someone says that corporations "owning the biggest portions of our souls" is a modern condition I think a little perspective is in order. Pissing into a jar is lame, it's demeaning, it's an invasion of privacy. But things have been worse in the past. There are some companies that value their employees. They are few and far between, especially when you talk about larger companies, but they are out there. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: If payment is accepted for pre-orders isn't that an interest free loan? From: kirk@mcelhearn.com (Kirk McElhearn) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:37:03 +0200 Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: > DG: I responded to your question "Then why do it?". The big deal (or > medium or small) is whether it is ethical or unethical or just smart > for a business to shift its sales into pre-orders and take the money > up-front. On a mark-by-mark basis, its a small grift and, sure, agreed > to. No, because they clearly said that they would not bill credit cards until the set shipped, and they billed immediately; hence, they lied. When I questioned them about this by email, they replied saying they hadn't billed- when I pointed out that they had, they didn't reply. Kirk ------------------------------ From: "Rogues Island's finest" Subject: Kimock on TV! Date: 24 Oct 2005 11:41:04 -0700 http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/mark33/stfu7.jpg ------------------------------ From: The Lord of Eltingville Subject: Re: Halloween Music Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:34:00 -0400 imsjry wrote: > > Phish-Wolfman's Brother/Story of the Ghost > BOC-Don't fear the Reaper > Sonic Youth-Halloween The Shaggs - It's Halloween > Metallica-The Thing that Should not Be > AC/DC-Hells Bells > Ministry-Every Day is Halloween > Bauhaus-Entire Catalog! Especially Bela Lagosi's Dead > David Bowie-Scary Monsters and Super Creeps > Slayer-Reign in Blood > Dead-Dark Star(10-31-91) ------------------------------ From: "BVT" Subject: Re: I'm So Glad Date: 24 Oct 2005 12:07:14 -0700 I loved Susie Cream Cheese...so there! ------------------------------ From: John Metzger Subject: Re: (NDC) Album/Box Set Review - Miles Davis - The Cellar Door Sessions Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:08:59 GMT JC Martin wrote: > Holland is probably one of the top > 5 jazz bassists in the musical form's history. Henderson isn't much a > jazz player at all. Yeah, I agree with you there. ------------------------------ From: The Lord of Eltingville Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:44:58 -0400 Brad Greer wrote: > > On 24 Oct 2005 11:18:59 -0700, "Effty" > wrote: > > > > >Brad Greer wrote: > >> On 20 Oct 2005 22:36:28 -0700, "Effty" > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Work to live, or live to work? > >> > > >> >This whole thread really highlights a problem unique to our modern > >> >society. Why do we tolerate employers owning the biggest portions of > >> >our souls? > >> > > >> I don't know this is unique to modern society. Early generations had > >> slavery, indentured servants and feudal lords. > > > >All the same, it's not something we should aspire toward. Deferring > >the human element of life to something inhumane like a giant > >corporation is one way that we allow ourselves to be oppressed by the > >modern world. We should aspire to be more than the employee in cubicle > >Z. Likewise, employers should have more respect for their employees. > >The drug testing issue does not highlight this as well as the recent > >symptom of large companies ending benefits to retirees. Any which way, > >I've never seen an example of a large company suddenly INCREASING it's > >appreciation of it's employees. I won't hold my breath. > > I agree that we should aspire to more, but when someone says that > corporations "owning the biggest portions of our souls" is a modern > condition I think a little perspective is in order. Pissing into a > jar is lame, it's demeaning, it's an invasion of privacy. But things > have been worse in the past. > > There are some companies that value their employees. They are few and > far between, especially when you talk about larger companies, but they > are out there. And like with everything else, it comes down to people having to decide what's acceptable for them. While, IIRC, Neil stated that he'd never work for a company that would require a drug test, I'd most likely drop trou and give them a cup if the prospective job was something I really wanted (outstanding pay, excellent benefits, etc). Would I submit to a blood test for the same job? 2000 Maybe not, but that's because I really hate needles, not because I have anything to hide or that I want to make a statement. Perhaps I could have my doctor give me a valium or two to relax enough for the test, but that'd kind of defeat the point of taking one in the first place... ;-> ~Ted ------------------------------ From: The Lord of Eltingville Subject: Re: Kimock on TV! Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:48:06 -0400 Rogues Island's finest wrote: > > http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/mark33/stfu7.jpg You can pick up one of the current tour shirts here: http://www.jinx.com/scripts/details.asp?affid=-1&productID=221 ------------------------------ From: John Metzger Subject: Re: (NDC) Album/Box Set Review - Miles Davis - The Cellar Door Sessions Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:11:37 GMT JC Martin wrote: > John Metzger wrote: > > No, but Pat makes the logical point. Holland is probably one of the top > 5 jazz bassists in the musical form's history. Henderson isn't much a > jazz player at all. And comparing Holland to Lesh is just plain dumb. Yeah, that I agree with. ------------------------------ From: John Metzger Subject: Re: (NDC) Album/Box Set Review - Miles Davis - The Cellar Door Sessions Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:11:37 GMT JC Martin wrote: >> >> >> I agree with the first half of your statement; I don't agree with the >> latter half -- at least not at this point of the collaboration between >> Henderson and Davis. There's a lot of jazz to be found on The Cellar >> Door Sessions, even as it moves further away from "tradition." > > > > > No, but Pat makes the logical point. Holland is probably one of the top > 5 jazz bassists in the musical form's history. Henderson isn't much a > jazz player at all. Yeah, I agree with ya there. ------------------------------ From: "BVT" Subject: Re: ANyone now why The Dead didn't tour last Spring or Summer? Date: 24 Oct 2005 12:14:38 -0700 no Don...that was you...and the sign read "line forms at rear"..now get back to sucking up to Latvala's corpse you crusty old fool! ------------------------------ From: "Rick Wolfish" Subject: Re: Listen to the new Garcia plays Dylan disc here! Date: 24 Oct 2005 12:40:17 -0700 I'm listening to it now, thanks. ------------------------------ From: JimK Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:55:47 -0400 Reply-To: jkezwind@comcast.net On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:26:00 -0400, Brad Greer wrote: >On 22 Oct 2005 22:47:21 -0700, "grtflmark" wrote: > >>>Frankly, there are some jobs that I think SHOULD require drug testing: >> >>>Even though drug testing is used to detect past use and not >current intoxication? >> >>........ ahhhh, newsflash sparky: those breathalyzer tests identify >>people's blood alcohol level - which means is detects people who ARE >>drunk - as well as people who were very recently drunk..... the same >>thing is true of the blood tests - ifyou smoked a joint before you came >>to work in the morning, they'll catch it.... >> >>so - your point is not only dumb - it's flat wrong....... > >Mark - a standard urine test for drug use doesn't tell the users >current status - under the influence or not. Please, don't embarass >yourself by maintaing a urine test (standard pre-employment drug >screening method) and a breathalizer are the same. If Hateful Narc was worried about embarassing himself, he'd have stopped posting here a long time ago. JimK ------------------------------ From: "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:59:40 -0700 "JC Martin" wrote in message news:eg77f.589$te3.9908@typhoon.sonic.net... > Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: >> Kurt--why do you think she is so unelectable? Too left-wing for the >> country? Too right-wing for Democrats? > > > She doesn't have a warm personality and isn't very convincing as a > salesperson. And she's seen by moderates as slippery. Without moderates, > the Democrats can't win a national election. Heck, Hillary is the most > divisive Democrat out there. Kurt is right. > > Condi can't win the Republican nomination at this point either. A near > agnostic, single, black woman who acted as Bush's lap dog? No way. Why > do people take Dick Morris seriously anyway? There isn't a single person alive who isn't already a committed Hillary supporter that could ever be convinced to vote for her. That's not to say she couldn't win the Democrat nomination.............. Condi would have no chance at the Repub nomination. Black, not a religious zealot, no experience with any domestic issue, no husband to help her when she cries........ Since Morris is making wild predictions, here's mine: Mike Huckaby vs. Tom Vilsack. EGBH ------------------------------ From: "Rick Wolfish" Subject: Re: I'm So Glad Date: 24 Oct 2005 13:03:09 -0700 All you glad people, please post a set list and review after the show! ------------------------------ From: The Lord of Eltingville Subject: Re: ANyone now why The Dead didn't tour last Spring or Summer? Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:41:32 -0400 BVT wrote: > > no Don...that was you...and the sign read "line forms at rear"..now get WIIAAHSWYP? > back to sucking up to Latvala's corpse you crusty old fool! ------------------------------ From: JimK Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:11:18 -0400 Reply-To: jkezwind@comcast.net On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:33:57 GMT, JC Martin wrote: >kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: >> JC Martin wrote: >> >>>Carlisle wrote: >>> >>>>JC Martin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>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. "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 t 2000 his. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No, Dean was playing politics at the time, and frankly he's just another >>>>>in a long line of political opportunists. Both Kerry and Edwards voted >>>>>to give the President of the U.S. the ability to take out Saddam IF he >>>>>did not comply with UN inspections and under the conditions put forth by >>>>>a hyperbolic and lying executive branch. Let's not resort to Limbaugh >>>>>spin again. All parties abuse power. But very few administrations >>>>>create a national security red alert out of thin air and use the >>>>>resulting fear created to launch an occupation of foreign territory. >>>>>And to blame Democrats who voted to give Bush the authority to take out >>>>>Saddam under the conditions I gave above (I would have voted the same >>>>>way myself given the circumstances)? Come on now. Wrong target. >>>>>There's no political moral equivalency here. There are vast degrees of >>>>>separation between the neo-cons and the rest of the politicians out there. >>>>> >>>>>-JC >>>> >>>> >>>>Here's a new one WIIWRLAYP,aka: What Is It With Rush Limbaugh And You >>>>People? >>> >>> >>>Rush is usually the source of most of the spin you hear from the right. >>> That's a fact. He's a very powerful Republican point man and a master >>>spinner supreme. The dittohead tag Limbaugh made up isn't just for fun. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>As long as Bush was popular, the Democrats that you are >>>>defending wanted to look strong and belligerent on national defense. >>>>They wanted to have it both ways. They had to know good and well that >>>>Saddam Hussein would not comply properly with UN mandates. They helped >>>>set us up for war. The *intel* was the same that was given by the CIA >>>>of the Clinton years, btw. The Bush Administration played them like >>>>fiddles. Now they want to come off as all anti-war. >>> >>> >>>Liberals by and large are a consortium of pacifists and and >>>non-pacifists, most who aren't so quick to invade other countries. >>>Liberals are also by and large more wholistic and see mono-solutions as >>>ineffective long-term. Kerry and Edwards voted their conscience on this >>>issue (well, maybe not Kerry), as I would have. If Saddam did indeed >>>force inspectors out a second time, if indeed he was involved in >>>acquiring nuclear weapons and if indeed he was in cahoots with Bin >>>Laden---all those conditions combined would warrant a decision by the >>>president to invade Iraq (though certainly many liberal pacifists >>>wouldn't agree). Those were the conditions Kerry and Edwards were >>>presented. >> >> >> You forgot 9/11 and the fact that Saddam subsidized the same type of >> terrorism against Israel, and he was sympathetic to anti-American >> sentiment >> (duh!). > > > >We support other Arab countries that fund the Palestinians and Hamas, so >this argument holds no weight at all. No connection between 9/11 and >Iraq is deal here. Bush made an argument that Saddam was producing >nuclear weapons and was also involved with Bin Laden. Under those >conditions, I too would have given Bush the authority to invade Iraq IF >the UN inspectors were forced out a second time. As it stands, the Bush >administration FORCED the UN inspectors out. So how Kerry and Edwards >become the fall guys for this escapes me. > >-JC Let's not forget the mindset of much of the country at the time that vote took place. Bush took full advantage of post-9/11 hysteria, creating an atmosphere of fear and a thirst for revenge by misrepresenting or outright lying about the situation in Iraq. By also playing the patriotism card, Bush put the Democrats in a politically untenable situation. If they voted against giving Bush the authorization to invade Iraq, at best they would have been portrayed as weak, liberal doves; at worst, they would have been painted as traitors. Does it suck that politics had so much to do with the voting? Sure, but it wasn't all just politics. Let's face it, it was also a caseof elected representatives of the people doing what, at the time, the majority of people wanted them to do. JimK ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? Date: 24 Oct 2005 13:27:52 -0700 Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: > Ray, Labor Party officials (Beillin is now in Meretz) have reaffirmed > that they are for Israel holding onto settlement blocs (not just a few > settlements). This is what I said. Sparky, the Isreali majority supports a two-state solution - which as a practical matter means that most of the West Bank would be under Palestian control. Again, everyone knows that some West Bank settlements will remain - at issue is how much. This is what I said. ________________________ "A majority of Israelis are fighting a war for the right of a Jewish state to exist in the Middle East, roughly along the pre-1967 borders. But a minority in Israel today want a Jewish state within the pre-1967 lines and a Jewish state in the West Bank and Gaza. This was amply demonstrated by Bibi Netanyahu's stunt at the recent Likud Party convention, where he tried to advance his political career and embarrass Ariel Sharon by getting the lunatic core of the Likud to reject any Palestinian state ever in the West Bank. These Israeli rightists and settlers deliberately label any Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as "terrorism" in order to rope the U.S. into supporting Israel's continued hold on the occupied territories as part of America's global war on terrorism. Beware. - Thomas Friedman (New York Times, May 15, 2002) ________________________ > If you disagree with this try to > find any survey that shows Israeli citizens wishing to abandon close-in > settlement in East Jerusalem (the Western Wall is in East Jerusalem, > incidentally) or the Etzion bloc or Maaleh Adumim itself or Arel, etc. ________________________ 09/06/2003 Poll: Rising majority backs removing settlements By Haaretz Service A new opinion poll shows that a rising majority of Israelis favors removing large numbers of settlements in the context of a future peace accord with the Palestinians... Asked if they would support a unilateral withdrawal from the territories in the context of a peace accord, even if that meant ceding all settlements, 56 percent said that they would. ________________________ http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/haaretz0906.htm The poll was conducted by Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Institute for Strategic Studies, is from 2003. If you disagree with it then find a more recent one that contradicts it. > There is NO agreement on this between Israel and the Palestinians and > you are overly optimistic if you believe that the Palestinians are > reconciled at all to the degree of West Bank retention currently I think no such thing. In fact that's exactly the point: as US presidents spanning the political spectrum from Reagan to Carter have observed, the West Bank settlements, and Israel's ongoing expansion of them (which has accelerated during and after the Gaza withdrawal - which also flouts the "Road Map"), undermine the chances for peace in Israel/Palestine. ________________________ "[T]he immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these [peace] talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated." - President Ronald Reagan (Sept 1, 1982) "An underlying reason that years of U.S. diplomacy have failed and violence in the Middle East persists is that some Israeli leaders continue to "create facts" by building settlements in occupied territory... there are many questions as we continue to seek an end to violence in the Middle East, but there is no way to escape the vital one: Land or peace?" - Jimm 130a y Carter (Nov 26, 2000) ________________________ > As for your tax dollars--write your Congressman. I have. Everyone, IMO, should do so as well - otherwise the status quo of the US bankrolling the settlements and their expansion will remain. > It comes to about > $50-100 per taxpayer. I know, $100 here, $100 there, before long you're > talking real dough. It not just that the billions of taxpayer dollars that the US gives to Israel each year would be better spent on projects other than Israeli settlement expansion into the West Bank (to say the least). The far more important issue is that the U.S.' bankrolling of West Bank settlement expansion undermines U.S. security interests - and I put U.S. security interests before that of any other nation. Stopping our bankrolling of West Bank settlements and their expansion would go a long way towards demonstrating to the general Muslim world that we are serious about democracy and human rights, as well as U.N. resolutions -- the settlements and their expansion are in violation of UN resolutions. Until we do this the Islamists will continue use it as anti-U.S. propaganda that will continue to undermine our efforts towards peace not just in Israel/Palestine but also elsewhere in the middle east. And as Thomas Friedman explained in a 2003 NYTimes essay: ________________________ The biggest factor [why Bush and the U.S. are so intensely disliked in the Arab world] remains the Bush team's seeming indifference to making any serious effort to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when so much killing is going on. The administration's refusal to apply any creative imagination to defusing this conflict, and even belittling it while calling Ariel Sharon "a man of peace," has embittered the Arab public. This now clouds everything we do here: Invading Iraq is cast as a war to protect Israel. Democratization is cast as a way to punish the Arabs. Yes, official Arab newspapers and TV have nourished Arab anger toward America and Israel for decades - and still do. And one regime after another has exploited this conflict for political purposes. But when you sit in a room at the U.S. ambassador's house with 30 bright young Egyptian entrepreneurs, mostly U.S.-educated, and this issue is practically all they want to talk about - or you meet with American studies students at Cairo University and they tell you that many students in their class refused to play a simulation game of the U.S. Congress for fear of being tainted - you feel that there has to be something authentic in their anger about this open wound. Until it is sealed, it will remain a well for the "thoughts of mass destruction" that will energize every radical anti-American group out here... I am not talking about what is right, or what is fair, or even what is rational. I am talking about what is. ____________________ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/12FRIE.html Do you put the security interests of the United States before that of any other nation, Sparky? Ray _____________________ "It was only after... the rise of Israel's first right-wing Likud governments, led by Menachem Begin from 1977 to 1983, that settlement policy was extended... Gush Emunim supporters believed that the lands conquered in 1967 [West Bank and Gaza] had been returned to its rightful owners as promised to their biblical ancestors by God. Hence, they were not interested in such practical problems as demography, security or the political rights of another people. And they set out to make it as difficult as possible for any government to relinquish the land in a future political agreement... "Early in the development of the settlements, settlers argued that their towns contributed to Israel's security. That is not accepted by most Israelis now, and in fact the settlements are seen for what they are, namely a security burden." - David Newman, Chairman of the Department of Politics and Government at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, and editor of the International Journal of Geopolitics. ------------------------------ ** 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 ****************************** . 0