cj#783> Forwards re/ Iraqi situation


Richard Moore

Dear cj,

This is a long post, including five forwarded reports.  This
table-of-contents can help you pick and choose.  I'm sending my own
comments as cj#784.


(1)     From: "J Herring" <•••@••.•••
        To: "Middle East discussion group with news releases from a number of
        Zionist groups." <•••@••.•••
        Subject: The U.N. Agenda & Israel

        Warning that the sovereignty of the US & Israel are threatened
        by current crisis - (an example of "aggressor mentality").
(2)     From: Institute for Global Communications
        Subject: SF Labor Opposes Bombing Of Iraq

        Resolution opposing bombing by San Francisco Labor Council
(3)     From: •••@••.••• (MAVERICK CHRONICLES)
        Subject: Maverick: The War Comes Home

        Report on Vermont anti-bombing sit-in, the "new activism", and
        the "Big Picture" of the Iraq situation
(4)     Sender: Conspiracy Theory Research List <•••@••.•••>
        Subject:      [CTRL] WAGGING THE DOG FOR REAL? (fwd)

        Dan Rather reports live an attack on Baghdad!
(5)     From:   MID-EAST REALITIES [SMTP:•••@••.•••]
        Sent:   Wednesday, February 25, 1998 2:31 PM
        To:     Multiple recipients of list mer-L
        Subject: Kofi Annan -- transient "victory"?  MER LIE of the WEEK

        About relationship between US and UN, US power and arrogance.

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998
To: •••@••.•••
From: •••@••.••• (John Lowry)
Subject: The U.N. Agenda & Israel
--- forwarded message ---
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998
Sender: •••@••.•••
From: "J Herring" <•••@••.•••
To: "Middle East discussion group with news releases from a number of
Zionist groups." <•••@••.•••
Subject: The U.N. Agenda & Israel

If one watches the news reports, committee studies, and such coming from
the U.N., you see a hidden agenda poking up it's ugly head.  Both the United
States and Israel are going to have to decide if they are going to be/remain
sovereign nations, or are they going to become puppets and whipping posts
for the U.N. and their hidden agenda (which is global domination, loss of
national sovereignty and control extending even to individuals).

The clock is ticking........


How ironic that bully aggressors so often manage to instill fear among
their own populations.  It is of course the US who is destroying everyone's
sovereignty, and it is Israel which was founded by stealing another
nation's land and which continues to occupy portions of Lebanon.  And yet
sincere people actually believe nonsense such as that above.  Freud called
this phenomenon "projection".

When SS thugs were beating up Jews in the streets, average Germans believed
reports that it was Jews who were initiating the attacks.  When police
thugs beat up Rodney King while he was laying on the ground, the jury
decided it was King who was "in control" of the situation.  When the US was
invading tiny Grenada, audiences were watching "Red Dawn", which was based
on the absurd premise of the US being successfully invaded by Cuba and

One can understand the propaganda strategy involved, but the ability of
people to believe it shows the lengths they will go to in lying to
themselves to preserve their sense of self-righteousness.


Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Institute for Global Communications <•••@••.•••> (by way of
Michael Eisenscher <•••@••.•••>)
Subject: SF Labor Opposes Bombing Of Iraq

/* Written 12:01 AM  Feb 25, 1998 by labornews in igc:labr.global */
/* ---------- "SF Labor Opposes Bombing Of Iraq" ---------- */
San Francisco  Labor Council  Opposes The Bombing Of  Iraq

Passed by The San Francisco Labor  Council on Feb. 23, 1998

Whereas:The U.S. government and military have made extensive
preparations to attack and bomb Iraq, and even after the agreement
brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, not only is the "vast
array of U.S. and British high tech weaponry being kept in
place in the Gulf, it is being increase" (BBC,2-23-98); and

Whereas: Secretary Of State Madeline Albright issued a statement on
2-23-98 that the U.S. continued to "reserve the unilateral right to
strike militarily against Iraq at any time we fell our interests are
threatened," highlighting that the danger of war remains high; and

Whereas: Union members and working people do not endorse the bombing of
the Iraqi people and the unnecessary killing and maiming of innocent
people that this would mean; and

Whereas:  The Iraqi people have already suffered incomparably from
seven years of U.S./U.N. blockade, which according to United Nations
figures has caused dire shortages of food and medicine and contributed
to the deaths of 1,500,00 Iraqis including over
700,000 children since the end of the 1991 Gulf War; and

Whereas:  The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions issued a
statement in Brussels on February 12, 1998 opposing the bombing of Iraq,
stating the ICFTU's belief "that the current crisis can only be resolved
through diplomatic means... that an other armed conflict leading to
further loss of civilian lives and suffering of the Iraqi people cannot
be regarded as valid and lasting alternative," and further that "the
ICFTU calls on the UN member countries concerned to show maximum
restraint and t o use all the appropriate channels to find a negotiated
solution..."; and

Whereas: Wasting billions of dollars on the Gulf war buildup translates
into cutbacks of essential and job-producing social programs at home,
resulting in loss of jobs; therefore be it

Resolved: That the San Francisco Labor Council call on the AFL-CIO and
all local unions, international unions, state federations of labor and
central labor bodies to publicly oppose the bombing of Iraq, and demand
an immediate halt to the U.S. military  build-up in the Gulf, and the
lifting of the deadly sanctions against Iraq; and be it further

Resolved: That the Council encourage the trade union movement at all
levels to urgently contact congressional representatives and the Clinton
Administration to bring this military madness to a halt; and be it

Resolved: That the Council endorse the national "Stop The War"
demonstrations being held on Saturday, February 28, 1998 in San
Francisco and New York and ensure a broad labor participation in this
national effort to prevent the bombing of Iraq

Walter Johnson
San Francisco  Labor Council
1188 Franklin St. Suite 203
San Francisco,CA 94109
Fax     (415)440-9297

From: •••@••.•••
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998
To: •••@••.••• <and others>
Subject: Maverick: The War Comes Home

February 25, 1998
Vermont Times

The War Comes Home

Plans to bomb Iraq may be on hold -- for awhile. But the anti-war
activists who took over Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's office on Monday Feb. 23
don't trust the government any more than Bill Clinton trusts Saddam
Hussein. Thus, even after learning that UN chief Kofi Annan's
eleventh hour agreement had been cautiously accepted, 18 people
refused to leave until the governor endorsed their peace program.
Even if Dean hadn't been in Washington, DC, with other state leaders,
however, that wasn't in the cards. Fortunately, both the protesters and
the cops opted for nonviolence, and no one got hurt.

This was a very different "direct action" than the one which culminated
in a showdown on College Street in Burlington just a week earlier. For
one thing, there was a clear objective: to secure Dean's support for a
resolution in the Vermont House of Representatives opposing war with
Iraq, along with a statement condemning continued sanctions and
backing UN peacekeeping. It was also a lot more disciplined,
escalating in stages from a mild-mannered rally to a full-fledged sit-in.

Once a small delegation had presented the group's demands to Dean's
counsel, Janet Ancel, others gradually joined them in the waiting room.
By 2 p.m., as 70 people camped out, they were already thinking about
what to do next. A hand-written statement expressing their
disappointment with Dean's failure to take a stand was drafted. Later,
affinity groups discussed how to handle any attempt to remove them.
When State Troopers finally stepped in at 4:30, everyone knew what
to do. In contrast with the chaos of the previous week, activists
demonstrated both their commitment and their unity. Some sang
"Solidarity Forever" as they stepped aside, while those risking arrest
joined arms in a circle.

Although it didn't turn out as they'd hoped, the group did leave with an
offer from Dean to meet with a few representatives on Wednesday Feb. 25,
plus the feeling that they'd been part of an effective nationwide mobilization
against the war. Once outside, there was some initial disappointment that no
one was arrested. But this passed quickly. All in all, peace prevailed.

A Movement Divided

By now, anyone who's been paying attention knows that showering
Iraq with bombs wouldn't reduce the threat of chemical warfare,
liberate the Iraqi people, or promote the implementation of UN
resolutions, What it would spark, however, is the most militant anti-
government reaction this country has seen in almost 30 years.

As events in Burlington last week demonstrated, a new generation of
activists has seized the leadership of what used to be called the peace
movement. No longer willing to be limited by long-standing definitions
of "appropriate" nonviolent behavior, they see themselves in a
righteous confrontation with a lawless superpower. As a result, they
feel justified in opposing government violence and policies such as
sending plutonium into space "by any means necessary."

That message came through loud and clear at a planning session held
last Saturday at the Peace and Justice Center in Burlington. Over 70
people squeezed into the Center's resource room to evaluate the near-
riot outside the doors of the Burlington Free Press and unify the local
anti-war movement for its next moves. But calls to respect diverse
strategies gave way to tense exchanges about tactics that revealed
significant divisions. Older activists, many of them past leaders of
Vermont's peace movement, found their commitment to pacifism and
concept of nonviolence challenged by a new wave who argued that
the only way to stop a war is to bring it back home.

The division was encapsulated in comments by Hank Lambert and
Martin Wiley, representing the two generations and viewpoints.
Lambert talked about Gandhi, doing no harm to others, and accepting
the consequences of breaking laws. "I understand the anger about the
machinery of war," he said, "but I urge us to express it respectfully and
take on the suffering if we have to."

"We're already at war," replied Wiley, who was charged with
impeding a police officer after last week's events, "and the only way to
stop it is to scare the government. The issue is power. If you don't have
it, nothing you can do is violent."

As extreme as that sounds, it's not without precedent. In his book on
the Weather Underground, The Way the Wind Blew, local author Ron
Jacobs describes how opposition to US aggression in Vietnam led to a
similar conclusion in the late 1960s. The turning point, he explained,
came just 30 years ago, after a San Francisco protest turned into a
police assault. Afterward, many activists concluded that "the only
effective protest was one not permitted by those in power." As
philosopher Herbert Marcuse defined it, demonstrations permitted by
the authorities were actually a form of "repressive tolerance," allowing
the state to pursue brutal goals while providing a "safety valve" for
dissenters. "This safety valve," wrote Jacobs, who was on hand at the
Burlington protest, "placated the opposition without challenging the
power of the state."

This thinking was clearly a factor for some of those who blocked traffic
and police cars last week. Their object, reaffirmed over the weekend,
was to "stop business as usual." Thus, there was talk about closing
down Church Street and the local arms plant, General Dynamics. But
others expressed reservations. Despite their equally strong opposition
to war, this mainly older group warned that they couldn't participate in
actions pitting them against local businesses or even the police.

According to Native Forest Network organizer Ann Peterman, who
also faces criminal charges stemming from the Free Press protest, it
was the police who lost control. "They made mistakes," she explained,
"and the media twisted things around." Certainly, the use of pepper
spray on protester Steve Christianson went over the line. Though not a
"weapon of mass destruction," it's been implicated in the deaths of at
least 25 people in California. In New Jersey, the brother of a man who
died after being excessively sprayed is currently suing three police
officers and the manufacturer, Mace Securities International, based in

However, the argument made by Native Forest's Orin Langelle that
recent arrests are part of a larger police plot to "intimidate the
movement by going after perceived leaders" stretches credulity. The
last thing Police Chief (and potential mayoral candidate) Kevin Scully
wants is the charge that he's targeting activists. During the Burlington
protest, police kept their distance for over a hour, even though dozens
of people were blocking streets. The confrontation escalated only
when the cops were surrounded by people aggressively attempting to
prevent the removal of those who'd been arrested. While a few
officers might have used more restraint, the same could be said about
some protesters.

Beyond the Law

Oddly enough, some arguments made recently by militant activists and
the US government are similar. For example, both claim that
lawlessness justifies extreme, unilateral measures. Of course, the
government would use overwhelming firepower likely to kill
thousands of innocent people, while the most that protesters threaten at
the moment is to close down some businesses and occupy government
offices. Nevertheless, they do have something in common: neither side
seems willing to work within existing laws.

The US claims that the goal of a unilateral attack would be to force
Iraqi compliance with UN Resolution 687. But the resolution itself
doesn't permit the use of force. Only the Security Council can approve
that, an unlikely development given the opposition of permanent
members Russia, China, and France, and most others on the Council.
Therefore, if the US eventually does attack without UN approval, it
will be violating international law.

This is nothing new, of course. The US frequently disregards UN
decisions, even those it endorses. Take the case of Indonesia,
mentioned recently at a CNN "town meeting" that revealed skepticism
about Gulf War II from both the Left and Right. In 1975, the Security
Council unanimously ordered Indonesia to withdraw from East Timor,
demanding respect for its territorial integrity and "the inalienable right
of its people to self-determination." Instead, the US secretly increased
arms shipments to the aggressors, ignored the resulting genocide, and
participated in the robbery of East Timor's oil. Its immoral complicity
with Indonesian aggression has never been officially reconsidered.

Although the analogy to Iraq and Kuwait is strong, there's a major
difference: US-backed atrocities in East Timor are vastly greater than
anything attributed to Saddam in Kuwait. In short, the US frequently
favors the rule of force and ignores the rule of law. UN resolutions are
respected only if they conform to US national or business interests.

What about the protesters? Although they claim to be "nonviolent,"
their new definition differs sharply with what many people would
expect. As Joy Braunstein, who facilitated last weekend's meeting, put
it, "Nonviolence means not recognizing the power of the state." This
takes the old "necessity defense," used frequently by those who
commit civil disobedience, to a new level. The logic goes this way:
since the government itself is illegitimate, actions far beyond existing
law are justified. Thus, anyone arrested during a protest is actually a
"political prisoner," and any representative of the state is an accomplice
in the repression of a revolutionary movement in the making.

So, where does that leave us? A government prepared to violate the
very laws it claims to be defending has helped give birth to an anti-war
movement which apparently believes it's justified in declaring a war of
its own. Even with a pause in the US-Iraq confrontation, the signs
aren't that promising. If Dean declines to accept their demands or hold
a public forum, for instance, the protesters waiting outside may not take
no for an answer.

The Big Picture

Let's not forget how we got here. Up to the day Iraq invaded Kuwait,
the US considered Saddam an attractive partner. As Reagan's National
Security chief for the Middle East put it, "We knew he was an SOB,
but he was our SOB." Thus, the US prevented UN action against Iraq's
war with Iran, supporting it for eight years. Reagan removed Iraq from
the list of terror states, advancing export credits and increasing oil
imports. In 1986, strains of anthrax and botulinum were shipped to the
University of Baghdad with US Commerce Department approval.

Both Reagan and Bush also blocked congressional censure of Iraq's
human rights abuses, opposing anything that would interfere with
business deals or its military buildup. Bush approved billions in loan
guarantees, even though they were obviously being used on missile
projects. US ballistic missile technology was secretly provided, along
with export licenses for "dual-use items," raw materials for mustard
gas, and chemicals needed for weapons. Computers were supplied for
the Saad 16 research center, later bombed as a rocket and poison gas
development site. The favors continued up to the day Bush declared
Saddam our new Hitler.

So, the US and others not only supported Iraq but armed it, providing
precisely the weapons now used as the justification for war. Even after
Gulf War I, the US watched quietly as rebelling Kurds were
slaughtered. The continued regime of a brutal dictator was apparently
preferable to a popular revolution. After all, the region might be
"destabilized" if the Kurds won their autonomy, inspiring Kurdish
communities in Turkey and Syria.

Now, of course, the US is hot to inspect every nook and cranny of Iraq
for signs of the weapons it helped create. Meanwhile, however,
Congress considers legislation to prevent similar inspection of its own
chemical weapons stockpiles. The idea is to let the president deny
access to "sensitive" sites and inspectors from hostile countries. When
the same argument was used by Baghdad, it was considered an
outrage. Many US officials also consider the Chemical Weapons
Treaty, which the US has yet to sign, an intrusion on national

After a war, however, inspection could be a moot point. Once stealth
fighters, B-1 bombers, F-16s, and so on fired their "weapons of mass
destruction" for several days, there'd be little left to inspect. Ironically,
US officials now admit that the presidential palaces which Saddam
once put off limits to inspectors probably don't house any biological
and chemical stocks after all. But they probably do contain records the
UN can use to reconstruct the Iraqi weapons program. Bombing would
eliminate that possibility. Also gone would be UN cameras in place at
key locations throughout the country, making future monitoring more

One final point: Although much has been made of Iraq's deadly
potential, the US clearly holds the record for mass destruction. It began
with the nuclear weapons used on Japan, and continued in 1991 with
the first-time use of more than 300 tons of depleted uranium shells. In
all, over 140,000 tons of explosives, the equivalent to seven nuclear
bombs, were used to destroy Iraq's environment and infrastructure.
Since then, a suffocating blockade has claimed the lives of over a
million civilians, including about 750,000 children. According to UN
agencies, more than two million kids suffer from severe malnutrition.
So, Saddam may be a dictator, but the US has done far more damage
over the years.

To paraphrase old saying: those who live in glass houses shouldn't start

Greg Guma is the editor of Toward Freedom. To contact him,
send e-mail to •••@••.•••.

From: •••@••.•••
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998
CC: US foreign policy discussion group <•••@••.•••>, •••@••.•••,
        •••@••.•••, <and others>
Subject: [Fwd: [CTRL] WAGGING THE DOG FOR REAL? (fwd)]
--- forwarded message ---
Date:         Mon, 23 Feb 1998
Sender: Conspiracy Theory Research List <•••@••.•••>
From: Kite-a-holic <•••@••.•••>
Subject:      [CTRL] WAGGING THE DOG FOR REAL? (fwd)
To: •••@••.•••

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 14:23:07 -0700
From: Freedom of Thought Foundation <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••



This in from a DRUDGE REPORT reader:

Yesterday afternoon I happened to be scanning my satellite dish when I
came across Dan Rather reporting live on an attack on BAGHDAD.  As I work
in the financial business I immediately called numerous friends in the
financial business and told them The WAR had started.

They checked all other networks and they were reporting nothing about
this event.  I watched for about 15 minutes as they went into very
detailed information about the attack.  CBS had excellent 3D graphics
showing cruise missiles and their routes and targets as well as other
various attack methods.  CBS also showed LIVE footage of attacks on
BAGHDAD which was quite convincing.

I telephoned CBS in NY and contacted their International News department.
The woman I spoke to was quite surprised at my story.  I told her that
I was from Canada and she asked me if I was calling from the CBC.  I
explained that I was watching from my home and she sounded quite surprised.
I told her that I had taped the whole event and that I wanted an explanation
of what was going on.  I gave her my phone number and asked if someone could
call me and explain what was going on.  After 10 minutes no one had called
me so I called back.  I asked why no one had called me and she said that
high level execs were reviewing the matter.  She stated that I was only one
of two callers that had called them, the other residing in New Hampshire.

I gave her my name, address and phone number and suggested someone
contact me.  I also explained that because I had contacted people in the
financial industry a lot of money could be lost reacting to this news
never mind the great embarrassment caused.  The details of the report are
too long to explain here so I suggest you get a copy of the tape....
The tape ended with Rather saying they had to return to what I believe he
said what was the GRAMMYS and that they would be back with a report later.
BY the way the broadcast was available on Satellite G4.  The so-called
attack [was? is?] supposed to happen on FEB 25...



CBS NEWS hit total embarrassment Friday afternoon when anchor Dan
Rather, in full pancake makeup, and Pentagon correspondent David Martin
were caught rehearsing coverage of a U.S. bombing run on Iraq -- a
rehearsal that was mistakenly beamed to television affiliates via

For 20 minutes, Rather could be seen on the satellite going through the
motions of a bombing.

According to one viewer who witnessed the spectacle, Rather at one point
described how it was not known how many casualties were caused by the

"It felt like WAG THE DOG," a senior news producer at a major-market
affiliate tells the DRUDGE REPORT. "I bet the network is living in fear
that someone on the receiving end of the transmission had tape rolling."

"It looked like a real broadcast of what was going on," Bill McClure,
master control operator at WTAP-TV in Parkersburg, W.Va., an NBC
affiliate, told the ASSOCIATED PRESS.

The network wanted to test new graphics and theme music that would be
used to cover the story, according to CBS NEWS spokeswoman Kerri
Weitzberg.  No word on testing camera angles that would work best during
February sweeps.

The report is moved when circumstances warrant

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] •••@••.•••

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] •••@••.•••

 From: Carolyn Ballard <•••@••.•••>
 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998

-----Original Message-----
From:   MID-EAST REALITIES [SMTP:•••@••.•••]
Sent:   Wednesday, February 25, 1998 2:31 PM
To:     Multiple recipients of list mer-L
Subject:        Kofi Annan -- transient "victory"?  MER LIE of the WEEK

-       _______   ____   ______
       /  |/  /  /___/  / /_ //    M I D - E A S T   R E A L I T I E S
      / /|_/ /  /_/_   / /\         Making Sense of the Middle East
     /_/  /_/  /___/  /_/  \
        www.MiddleEast.Org              LIE of the WEEK:
                                   Perfect U.N. PeaceKeepers?
                 M I D - E A S T   R E A L I T I E S
    News, Information, & Analysis That Governments, Interest Groups,
            and the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know.



        "I will start by thanking President Clinton
        and Prime Minister Blair for being perfect
        U.N. peacekeepers.  U.N. peacekeepers in the
        sense that we taught our peacekeepers that
        the best way to use force is to show it in
        order not to have to use it."
                                   Kofi Annan

                 MIDDLE EAST AND AT THE U.N.

MER - Washington - 25 February:
   The maneuver and counter-manuevering have been underway
for months actually; the current "crisis" goes back at least
to last November when the Americans first declared their
intent to further prostrate and disarm Iraq with missiles and
bombs.  Now the "Clinton Doctrine" is upon us -- the U.S. will
unilaterally decide who can arm and who cannot in this Pax-
Americana "new world order".
   France and the Soviet Union -- with a few other countries
including China and India playing minor supportive roles --
are attempting to gently and carefully stand-up to US behemoth.
The United Nations and the Security Council are now the main
forums for diplomatic wrangling; the U.N. having mistakenly
allowed itself to be all but taken over by the Americans since
the end of the Cold War.  All in all it's quite a diplomatic
two-step that's going on -- and its hardly over, indeed it's
only beginning.
   Secretary-General Kofi Annan is trying mightily; and for
that he should be applauded and supported -- so far anyway.
He's been dealt a rather bad hand; but he's playing it well --
so far anyway.
   Even so, if the Secretary-General thinks some sweet-talking
diplomatic lies about Bill and Tony are going to rule the day,
he's probably heading for quite a rude awaken down the road
a bit.  The words above -- his first when he reentered the U.N.
building from his "sacred mission" -- may have been his way of
letting us all know who really is pulling the strings.  After all,
the institution Annan heads has been badly tarnished and battered
in recent years; and thus his overall position is quite precarious,
his "victory" of sorts in recent days may yet prove quite transient.
    Everyone is well aware that Annan was put in place by
Washington when the Americans decided to abort Boutros-Ghali.
Fewer are aware that Annan has been coming to Washington
regularly, hat in hand since the American's have stiffed the
U.N. about $1 billion in recent years.  Annan has literally been
reduced to beggar on his frequent visits to the American capital;
even accepting the unenviable, and undignified, job of conducting
personal negotiations with the Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Jesse Helms.
    The Americans remain cocked, their bombers fueled, their
missiles and smart-bombs targeted.  The next chance they get,
the next opportunity that get to further manipulate and deceive,
they are quite likely to strike, harshly and quickly.
    It is when that end-game comes into sight that we're going to
really find out what Kofi Annan and today's U.N. are really made of.
    And anyone placing bets against the U.S. in the short run
better be able to afford to lose it all.  American might, technology
and duplicity rule for the moment; however arrogant, however
bullying, however duplicitous -- and however genocidal to the
people of Iraq.

                                   - - -

   MID-EAST REALITIES is published a number of times weekly and the
              MERTV Program shows weekly on Cable TV.
    Email to •••@••.••• to receive MER regularly.
      For past MER articles go to: http://WWW.MiddleEast.Org.

  M  I  D  -  E  A  S  T      R  E  A  L  I  T  I  E  S
                     (c) Copyright 1998
    MER may be freely distributed by email and on the Internet so
       long as there is no editing of any kind.  For any print
           publication, permission in writing is required.
    •••@••.••• / Fax: 202 362-6965 / Phone: 202 362-5266


     Posted by: Richard K. Moore | PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland
         •••@••.••• | www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal
    * Non-commercial republication encouraged - with this sig *

To leave cyberjournal, simply send (from the account at which you're
        To: •••@••.•••
        Subject: (ignored)
        unsub cyberjournal

To join cyberjournal, simply send:
        To: •••@••.•••
        Subject: (ignored)
        sub cyberjournal John Q. Doe          <-- your name there