Reader dialog to 13 April


Richard Moore

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:46:48 +0200
From: Earl <•••@••.•••>
To:  •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: rkm report on Manchester conference

Hi Richard,

I've also not been visible to you lately, really the last many 
months.  Not for lack of will, but that my activities have morphed a 
bit into action on the 'local' scene.  I've become rather active in 
the SP in the Netherlands (Socialistic Party), and it is a very 
active, and successful, party.  The downside is that I have less time 
for some blogging activities.

That said, what you are doing is of interest to me, and I follow it 
still.  I think you'd like what we're doing here in the Netherlands, 
and the SP is based on being out and among the people on a 
neighborhood level.  From the neighborhood level, we then translate 
needs and actions into 'higher' levels of organization.  This all in 
contrast to standard political parties who work from the top down; 
kind of like Reagan's "Trickle Down" expression.  While there is 
leadership internally from the top down, our actual work is from the 
"bottom upwards".  We've tripled our "House: seats with the last 
election (Nov.2006) and also the "Senate", and are now the third 
largest party in the Netherlands.  And we are challenging the Labor 
Party for second place now.   That said, we are encountering stiff 
resistance from the established political "club" since we are viewed 
as a genuine threat to them.

All this takes a lot of time and energy, and, together with some of 
my other activities, has meant that I am less present in the blogging 
world, although I maintain a politics orientated general blog on 
Stumble Upon, an international blogging community.

If you have the time, the SP does have some English pages, and the 
links (history and publications especially) might be of interest to 

Keep up the good work, Richard.  We may not be in the same 'room' at 
the moment, but we're in the same 'house'.

Earl Duthler


Hi Earl,

Nice to hear from you. Congratulations on your good work! I like SP's 
bottom-up approach. It is good that you're encountering "stiff 
resistance", a sure sign of doing the right thing.

Permit me to suggest two cautions: Avoid coalition at the government 
level, and seek coalition at the grassroots level. Your party's 
strength comes from its connection to the people, and its value comes 
from avoiding co-option. Eyes on the prize, and ears open to the 

From: "GUY L PROUTY" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: rkm report on Manchester conference
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:25:52 -0700

Thanks for your letter Richard and I totally agree with your problem 
about academics.  I teach anthropology/archaeology at a few 
universities here in Oregon (in fact, we met briefly when you were 
here in Eugene last year), and fortunately, I do not do this full 
time or else I would too get sucked up into the system of 
over-specialization.  I prefer to be more of a generalist and see the 
forest rather than the just the pine cones and it keeps my eyes open 
to the general socioeconomic, environmental, and political issues we 
face today.  In fact, I teach a course called "Sustainability and the 
Rise and Fall of Ancient Civilizations."

It is strange that every time I attend a peace rally in Eugene or 
participate in a local activist group or two, I am the only 
"academic" anthropologist participating. I have come to the 
conclusion that when one works full time doing very specialized 
research, guiding graduate students, and trying to obtain grants to 
continue one's research, as well as raise a family and pay the 
mortgage (death pledge), that most academics just don't have the time 
or energy to become involved in modern social issues and activism. 
And this is a great shame because anthropologists are trained to view 
the world with "generalist glasses", but once they start working in 
the real world of academia after graduate school, they get caught in 
this system of arguing over "whether post processualism and middle 
range theory impact the development of the Preclassic Maya", etc etc. 
The language becomes so specialized that only a few other people in 
the world can read it and that's because they are paid to write and 
research this material.  Not that the material isn't good, but we 
need to learn to apply our specialized knowledge to help solve the 
modern challenges we now face with economic debt, global warming, 
peak oil, oligarchies, materialism, and U.S. sponsored terrorism. 
And this will require that professional academics need to simplify 
their lives, consume less, and consequently, work less so that they 
can have the freedom to pursue work that is truer to our hearts and 


Guy Prouty, Ph.D
Eugene, Oregon


Hi Guy,

Did we connect when I was in Eugene in October? If not, a shame! Have 
you read Yofee's, "Myths of the Archaic State"? I'd be interested in 
your take on that somewhat iconoclastic work.


From: •••@••.•••
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:30:15 EDT
Subject: Re: rkm report on Manchester conference
To: •••@••.•••

Happy Easter to you too. ah yes the academics.- "A donkey with a load 
of books is still a donkey" is my favorite Sufi saying about them.

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:04:20 -0400
To: •••@••.•••
From: Ed Goertzen <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: "The Academic Problem

Hi Richard:

Here's one that may help.

A number of years ago I was in contact with an Amerindian by name of 
Ray Harrell, the founder of Magic Circle Theater, who wrote that, 
"There are three Golden Triads that we ignore while following Poor 
Intellectual Productivity. They are Context, Content and Process. 
There are also three golden triads that are caused by a Structural 
Incompetency Virus. They are Perception, Logic, and Intuition.

The virus, or cancer, assures that: "no matter what talent a person 
has, no matter what intelligent action a person might bring to a 
problematic situation, no matter what insights could be applied to 
resolving crises, the individual is precluded from exercising those 
talents and insights by virtue of the organizational structure in 
which the individual is embedded."

Ed G


Hi Ed,

Very interesting; thanks for sharing. Harrell seems to have developed 
a useful model of 'understanding', bringing in the primary dynamic 
elements. I  suspect that you perhaps summarize the model in an 
unduly negative way. He is analyzing the means by which we can be 
'precluded from exercising...', but not everyone is precluded all the 
time, and Harrell's insights themselves may help us find ways to 
'break free'.


From: "John Lowry" <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re:academia
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:15:50 -0700

First, from Gurdjieff:

       ... It is possible to think for a thousand years; it is
         possible to write whole libraries of books, to create
         theeories by the million, and all this in sleep, without any
         possibility of awakening.  On the contrary, these books and
         these theories, written and created in sleep, will merely
         send other people to sleep.  And so on. ...  What is
         necessary to wake a sleeping man?  A good shock is
         necessary.  But when a man is fast asleep one shock is not
         enough.  A long period of continual shocks is needed. ...
        --The Morning of the Magicians
         Paules & Bergier (Eds)
         Dorset Press, N.Y. 1988
         Copyright 1960 Editions Gallimard

Second, we equate intelligence with language facility, which makes 
the fast talkers chosen as "best and brightest."

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:05:26 -0700
Subject: Re: rkm report on Manchester conference
From: Radical Press <•••@••.•••>
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>

Dear Richard.

Good to hear that you're clearly cognizant of the dichotomy that 
exists within academia and the real world of everyday events and 
experiences which the bulk of people are a living part of.

When I read your analysis, in particular the statement, "People are 
channeled into studying smaller and smaller parts of problems, until 
they see only the leaf instead of the tree, not to mention the 
forest." my ongoing debate with you regarding the subterranean 
machinations of the Jewish/Zionist/Banking cartel immediately sprang 
to mind.

Then, to my sudden surprise and due appreciation, I saw that you were 
finally willing to consent to such a debate on this issue; one, I 
might add, that is as crucial to and integral a part of our global 
dilemma as the A is in Pythagoras' Theorem.

Hopefully, during the course of such a debate, erroneous notions such 
as "anti-Semitism", "race", and so on will receive their due 
attention and the various smoke-drenched myths will yield somewhat to 
the clear light of both factual analysis and the attendant wisdom 
contained therein.

It's sure to be a hot topic of discussion that will undoubtedly add 
to the already obvious global warming discussions. :-)

Peace and Justice,

Arthur Topham
The Radical Press


Hi Arthur,

My primary problem with the phrase "Jewish conspiracy" is the fact 
that when we talk about the Rockefeller Dynasty, we don't speak of a 
"Protestant conspiracy". Because of that discrepancy, I see in the 
use of "Jewish conspiracy" an element of anti-semitism, or at least 
of undue preoccupation with Jewishness, either conscious or 

In Northern Ireland, people talk about "Catholic" and "Protestant" 
factions, and there religion has indeed been a major factor in the 
divisiveness. But in geopolitics religion is not a real issue, it is 
a phony issue. The all-pervasive demonization campaign against 
Muslims, which infects the whole Western world, is a totally baseless 
charade, designed to create the conditions for Huntington's 
mythological "Clash of Civilizations". The scepter of anti-semitism 
is kept alive by the media, as a way of reducing opposition to 
objectionable US and Israeli policies and actions. As I see it, 
religion is a tool of control more than a source of conspiracies. 
Even in Northern Ireland, if you trace the history, we find that 
Britain set things up to encourage what they like to call 'tribal 
conflict' in the former colonies -- a standard ploy of theirs, not 
the least of which in the Middle East.


From: •••@••.•••
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:45:00 EDT
Subject: Re: rkm report on Manchester conference
To: •••@••.•••

       rkm> As with most things there's some element of truth [in
         Jewish conspiracies], but there's also some unconscious
         anti-semitism at work.

Richard, I really hope that this doesn't indicate that you're about 
to join the Zionist hit squads.  Please say it ain't so, Joe.



Hi Bill,

If the US is the world's bully policeman, Israel is his viscous 
attack dog in the Middle East. That's simply geopolitical and 
military fact. The scepter of anti-semitism is kept alive by 
countless TV reruns of the Nazi era (which was a project of 
Anglo-American elites), and that scepter is used to systematically 
defuse opposition to Israel's heinous behavior, against the 
Palestinians everyday, and against Lebanon in Israel's recent illegal 
and devastating bombing campaign. Again, it's not about religion but 
about imperialism and propaganda.

Another aspect of this is that US elites, instead of being controlled 
by a Zionist cabal, would probably let Israel 'take the hit' if a 
regional war erupted in the Middle East. Iran has some pretty potent 
missiles, and Israel is one of the main targets of opportunity. In 
any kind of all-out exchange, Israeli civilian casualties could be 
significant, and Washington would cry crocodile tears and would be 
glad to have those atrocities to stir up public support for war.


Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 14:27:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: •••@••.•••
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: rkm report on Manchester conference

       rkm> One thing we can be happy about this week is that there
         was no attack on Iran, as was predicted in the Israeli

The fortuitous phrase "in the Israeli press" seems to me to be an 
example of unconscious anti-semitism (or anti-Israeli). The sentence 
could have ended with the word "predicted" and fully made sense. 
Moreover, it seems to me the prediction itself came from Russia. 
Media in scads of countries picked it up, of course.



Hi Nick,

Here we see the scepter at work, trying to conflate anti-semitism 
with disapproval of Israeli policies. Yes the prediction came from a 
Russian source, but it was an Israeli account that I most recently 
ran across and posted to newslog, so that's what I cited.


Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 01:18:18 -0700
From: anita sands <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: * If you are on AOL, it's time to get off *

Takes 20 seconds to fix it.

I get blocked all the time but I can get out of being blocked.

I DO THE POWER RECYCLE gambit that Earthlink and all servers 
recommend to give myself a new DNS number.

There's a button on back of DSL modem. IN my case, I use tip of 
hairpin, reach in thru a hole, hold it DOWN l0 seconds.


Hi Anita,

DNS blocking may be another trick of AOL's censorship, but it's not 
what was operating in the case of I sent two 
identical messages to several people, one with in the 
text of the message, and the other without. Both were sent with the 
same From, same Subject, and the same DNS number, etc., and only the 
one with was blocked. So it is simply a case of 
search for string and block. Here's a bounce message I got back from 
AOL, which was polite of them to send, and which seems to confirm 
what I observed, when it says 'text':

         From: •••@••.••• <•••@••.•••>
         Date: Apr 9, 2007 5:56 PM
         Subject: Undeliverable mail: Re: want to know
         To: •••@••.•••
         Failed to deliver to '•••@••.•••'
         SMTP module(domain reports:
         message text rejected by


From: "Claudia Woodward-Rice" <•••@••.•••>
To: "'Rkm'" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re:  AOL Undeliverable Mail
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:55:23 -1000

Here is an answer I finally got from the AOL postmaster after a 
similar episode last December.  They routinely block political 
opinion and it takes url owners to effectively complain.

The urls that bounced were:          and


-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Stiles [mailto:•••@••.•••]
Sent: 12/11/2006 10:16 AM
To: 'Claudia Woodward-Rice'
Subject: RE: Undeliverable Mail

Hi Claudia,

I must respectfully disagree with your assumption.  Please provide me 
with the URL causing the problem.  You may eliminate the periods 
separating the www and the organizational unit to prevent it from 
being interpreted as a URL.  I will gladly have an investigator look 
into it upon receipt.

From: "Global Network" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: * If you are on AOL, it's time to get off *
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 09:29:24 -0400

AOL is also blocking my emails to our list.  So is Hotmail and 
MSN.....the list of email servers doing censorship, disguised as spam 
blocking, is growing.


From: •••@••.•••
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:05:29 EDT
Subject: Re: * If you are on AOL, it's time to get off *
To: •••@••.•••

I just sent myself an email with Want To Know. info in the subject 
box and in the email.  It arrived immediately.


Hi Bill,

Yes, the censorship only happened on email coming into AOL's world 
from the outside. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, this 
particular case of censorship has been halted, for the time being, 
due to customer complaints. But just because one hole in a ship has 
been patched, that doesn't make it a safe ship to stay in.


From: "Robert Periano" <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Similar problems.
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:30:10 -0400

Hi Richard,     Thanks for the hi quality news. You are a smart and 
hardworking individual. I have have similar problems. I could go back 
to Bellsouth in 2006. I signed petitions anti-merge with ATT. 
Harassment; returned forwards; #554 return to senders; was on dial up 
and they made me dial up every 10 minutes. Dumped them after they and 
a wild aggressive web female pal possibly messed with turning in 
complaints against free speech (no cussing) fwds. Never know what 
some do with your mailings. But, just before the 06Nov elections my 
mail dropped from 60 newsletters to 4. Bellsouth did merge and wanted 
to raise rates and I dumped them. Monopolies are never good. I 
noticed recently with my pretty good and expensive server that google 
has cut way back on the amount of pages of free info on myself and 
other topics. Who put them on a severe diet? I used to tell writers 
to do a google since before they would get a total run down of ALL my 
100s of petitions signed and letters to editors. All gone. No more in 
local paper either. No more free education on left/populist/anti-war 
subjects. Thanks for your sharp mind on the news. Send more surveys 
and petitions. Thanks again.


Hi Robert,

Yes, best to stay with smaller providers whenever possible. That's 
why I like all the small shops in Wexford. I don't circulate 
petitions. Not my thing. MoveOn-type people are doing plenty of that. 
It's a publicity game. Makes sense at a local level however.


From: •••@••.•••
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 12:57:55 EDT
Subject: Re: * If you are on AOL, it's time to get off *
To: •••@••.•••

Just got an email from you which did, indeed, 'bounce' and disappear. 
I have been on aol for so long, I would have to figure out what I 
want to do next.

Evelyn Goodman


Hi Evelyn,

One good email provider is They provide a good spam 
filter and they are totally independent. They also are good when 
you're travelling, as they can act as your SMTP server from Eudora 
and other POP-based email packages. I route my mail through GMail, 
then on to aliencamel, and finally to Eudora. GMail has a very good 
spam filter that gets things aliencamel misses. I don't think I've 
ever had an email blocked. The Google folks (who run GMail) also seem 
to have some censorship issues, but so far GMail seems like an open 
channel. We need to stay alert however.


Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 01:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: GS Chandy <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: * If you are on AOL, it's time to get off *
To: •••@••.•••

Is this censorship an initiative of the GW Bush administration?  Is 
there nothing to be done about it??

GS Chandy


Hi GS,

One can make too much of the Bush administration per se. He is only a 
pawn in their game. He was chosen for his stupidity, so that people 
would find false hope in devoting their efforts toward replacing him, 
leaving the oppressive system intact. Notice how our Democratic 
majority in Congress has made no difference in Iraq, no difference 
with the Patriot Acts or Guantanamo, and no difference of any 
significant kind. Just wind and backroom deals.


From: "Lawrence Gillett" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: * If you are on AOL, it's time to get off *
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 08:28:34 -0400

Rove and cohorts are now in control of the internet. So much for progress!

Peggy Conroy in upstate NY


Hi Peggy,

I haven't heard about the Rove angle, but I've been surprised at how 
long they've let the Internet go on mostly unfettered. The net is 
perhaps the most subversive institution that has ever existed, from 
the perspective of elites. Just compare 'TV consciousness' with 
'Online consciousness. As for progress, that is an illusion, part of 
the Matrix, as elucidated in Guy Debord's classic, "The Society of 
the Spectacle".


Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:55:34 -0400
From: Anthony <•••@••.•••>
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Global Warming and Government

       rkm> "What I'm trying to get you to think about is how this
         issue is being used to control our minds, to gain support
         for measures that will make things worse, and to make us
         think governments are on our side."

I agree with this statement 100% bonus plus.

This behaviour is status quo as is the case with most government 
policy and has been in throughout history. The Canadian government is 
a prime example. The problem they face is how to make it look like 
they are actually "taking action" whilst doing nothing there by 
allowing their industrialist supporters to continue supporting them.

  Government and their industrial counterparts don't actually 
consciously  persuade, propagandize and manipulate the population. 
They do this as normal everyday behaviour much like breathing. We on 
the other hand are more than willing to believe what we are being 
told for to think otherwise requires requires us to think for 
ourselves and change thinking and behaviour. In the same way a drunk 
who finds themselves and behind the drivers wheel will most likely 
attempt to make the rest of the trip home despite the fact that they 
know that what they are doing will eventually end up in the ditch, or 

The government is us. We wouldn't be the fist civilization to burn 
the candle at both ends.

Anthony Sinn


Hi Anthony,

I'm not sure I can go along with all your thinking here. When I 
compare what goes down in the mainstream, with what I know from other 
sources, I see quite a bit of "consciously  persuade, propagandize 
and manipulate". 911 is of course the grand-daddy of all such 
manipulations. But yes, the mass of government or media officials are 
just doing "everyday behaviour" -- they get their world from the same 
media as everyone else.

I agree with you that facing the reality of elite power, and the 
extent to which we are powerless within the system, is difficult at a 
deep level. For some people it may be 'fear of thinking for 
themselves', for others it might be 'fear of society falling apart', 
or 'inability to modify old programming', or 'not wanting to admit we 
got fooled', or 'fear of taking responsibility for seeking a way 
out', etc. When these deeper reasons remain unconscious, we see that 
kind of irrationality that we call 'denial'--the refusal to look 
through the telescope.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the government is us'. At face value, 
you'd be saying that we live in a democracy, but I doubt if that's 
what you're implying. Based on your second paragraph, perhaps you 
mean the government is the shadow of our own shirking of 
responsibility. In either case, I can't go along with you. Our 
'democratic societies' have evolved over the past two centuries as 
the most efficient systems of controlling populations that have ever 
existed. Instead of secret police we have propaganda, the monetary 
system, and the myth of democracy. We are born into this system and 
all apparent avenues of change are carefully managed against us. The 
prisoner is not the warden; we are not the government.

At a deeper level we are shirking, in that we haven't replaced the 
system. We're in one of those apocalyptic sci-fi films, where the 
world needs saving, and we're the only available heroes. We shouldn't 
be too hard on ourselves, as we have little experience in the role.


From: "Steve Feast" <•••@••.•••>
Cc: •••@••.•••
Subject: RE: Climate change and mind control
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:46:22 +0800

Dear Richard,

I fully agree with your comment that the science is not settled, but 
is completely irrelevant anyway.  I've thought this for a while now 
and this was the first time I've seen the view in print.  I would 
love for humanity to live sustainably on the planet, and think that 
the greatest impediment is the mindset that the earth is at our 
disposal.  As Daniel Quinn, Derrick Jensen and others point out most 
of us don't even realise that we think this way because it is caught 
up in the ambient culture of which we are consciously unaware.  I 
feel that the spectre of global warming / human influenced climate 
change is bringing this to our attention, however the specifics 
(technology will fix it, we just have to recycle more, carbon trading 
/ offsets) draw our attention from the real problem, which is 
attitudinal but also systemic - ie everyone should be educated and 
change, but the societal / governmental structure makes true change 
impossible to achieve in a meaningful way (see Derrick Jensen).

One of the problems with this view is that the "right" say that it is 
another example of the "left" (I know you don't exactly see things 
this way) changing it's mind on the problem whilst keeping the same 
old solution - be it regulation or whatever it takes...

So thanks again, I just wanted to offer you some more encouragement 
in your efforts. 

All the best,

Steven Feast


Hi Steven,

You mention the myth that 'the earth is at our disposal', and you 
talk about 'true change', and 'drawing our attention from the real 
problem'. Those are the key points!  Beyond sustainability, we need 
to live in harmony with the Earth, our Mother. The regime of 
capitalism and economic growth is in total contradiction to 
sustainability. This is worrisome to think about, because the system 
seems so unchangeable. The government knows we are in need of hope, 
and is providing trinkets painted to look like hope. Many will take 
the bait, as a way to stop worrying. But they know inside they're 
selling out, and this leads to defensiveness.

I agree with you that those on the right would see all this as the 
doings of the 'liberal establishment'. The irony of course is that 
the liberals are always complaining about right-wing government 
policies, and about too much corporate-right influence. Left and 
right each see one another as 'the  problem'. If they talked to one 
another more often, they'd realize that neither 'side' is happy with 
the government, and that both 'sides' have sensible things to say. 
Right-left divisiveness is actively encouraged by the establishment, 
and its worst effect is that the two 'sides' refuse to listen to what 
the 'other' has to say.


From: "T K Wilson" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Climate change and mind control
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 19:57:31 -0500

Well Richard,

You seem to be pissing plenty of people off, so maybe you're on to 
something. Certainly, as to the mind control stuff.
I'm not having any trouble hearing you say that the sudden focus on 
global warming by the elites (either pro or con) is simply a ruse to 
allow the system to continue along its merry way; and that no how no 
way is the global corporatist "government" (sic) going to do a 
freeping thing about it.

It's always "Qui Bono". Even if the US turns into the Dust Basket, 
and millions of us die (which some factions of the eco left see as 
advantageous anyway) the assholes on top will stay on top or at least 
firmly believe they will (same difference), and of course those 
beliefs are what determine their actions.

It does not help that so many left/progressives are every bit as 
contemptuous of Joe Sixpack as are his neo con pimps on the right.

I really think the object is to scare us into not thinking and not 
talking to each other.

Soon as MLK started saying it was class and not race; that it was 
all us niggers against the elites, he got whacked.

Can't have us talking to each other or letting go of our 
racial/cultural prejudices either.

[well said! -rkm]

Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:13:43 -0700
From: marc bombois <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Climate change and mind control
To: •••@••.•••

Hi Richard,

The debate over climate change is diversionary. The perception 
management techniques of the corporate media and the pr firms are 
very effective and successful. We waste so much time and energy on 
peripherals, serious though they be, while the root cause of them 
goes largely unexamined and therefore unchecked. I agree with you, we 
can make all the little lifestyle changes we want and our world will 
still go to hell as long as the elite are free to rape and pillage. 
For that is what they do, and that is who they are.



[again, well said - rkm]

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:20:57 +0700
From: "Dave Patterson" <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: interesting summary

hi Richard, don't know if you've seen this one - an interesting 
summary and overview of a number of things, sort of a dot-connecting 
exercise in less-than-book-length form, well done, I think -

[FYI - haven't had time to read yet - thanks dave - rkm]

Escaping the Matrix website:  
cyberjournal website:             
Community Democracy Framework:
Subscribe cyberjournal list:            •••@••.••• 
(send blank message)
Posting archives:
Moderator:                                         •••@••.••• 
(comments welcome)