From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #348 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, September 14 2001 Volume 10 : Number 348 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: hmm... [Christopher Gross ] keepin' it brief [Christopher Gross ] RE: hmm... [Christopher Gross ] Re: Forward from Rufus W. and then Mannlist [Christopher Gross ] RE: hmm... ["Poole, R. Edward" ] RE: militarization takes coordination ["Poole, R. Edward" ] Another long rant. [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] deni bonet news [strange little woj ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:38:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: RE: hmm... On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Poole, R. Edward wrote: >(p.s. that sinclair drivel was genuinely offensive, first >thing that's pissed me off in ages, nearly unsubscribed on the spot) Not just exaggerated or one-sided but actually offensive? How so? Elucidate, please. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:02:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: keepin' it brief On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Colonel of Truth wrote: > we bombed a sudanese pharmaceutical facility in that one, recall, taking > with it half the country's pharmaceuticals. One that we at least thought was making chemical weapons. Wrong, sure, stupid too, but not "indiscriminate," which was my point. [bombing Iraq:] > because, he claimed, we were using unscom as a cover for spying > operations. > the claim was denied, the bombs were dropped, and the claim was > substantiated a few months later. The fact remains, justified or not, he wasn't cooperating with the weapons inspectors. Again, it wasn't a pointless or random attack, which was the original claim I was responding to. > Chilean coup would count. Other than that, I'm hard pressed to think of any > even vaguely democratic countries that we've been in conflict with.> > > mossadegh, arbenz, aristide, sukarno, ortega, lumumba come to mind off the > top of the head. Okay, Arbenz (though Michael's post specified the last 20 years). I don't know enough about Mossadegh or Lumumba to decide how democratic they were, though I'd agree the US did wrong in each case. OOn the other hand, Ortega was no democrat (though I would never have admitted that as a teen age radical; and hopefully he's changed by now). Sukarno neither, nor the Grenada regime in 1983. And Aristide -- I seem to recall us overthrowing a military junta and putting him back into power. You're right about Vietnam though.... Anyway my point is not that America has always been right, but that it has not always been wrong either; and that not all of our enemies have been democrats, or even minimally good. > we can guess that cuba would have been *at least* > "vaguely democratic" had it not been under attack, by us, for forty years. > and so on. I certainly wouldn't guess that, since democratic revolutionaries were already being squeezed out of the government in the spring of 1959, and Castro had rejected the idea of elections by June 1959 -- before the US embargo, before the CIA's dirty tricks, before VP Nixon called Castro a Communist. The summary execution of hundreds of members of the old regime, while perhaps understandable, was another early sign that the new Cuban government might not be too democratic. > give some historical examples of what you consider justified use of u.s. > military force. Me personally? Offhand, definitely WWII and Korea, probably Kosovo (ignoring pre-WWII for brevity's sake). There are many other cases I'd consider ambiguous, or where i jsut haven't decided yet. (Out of curiosity, are there any leftist anti-American movements that you don't support, or, in past cases, do not think were good at the time?) > if, by radicals, you mean hamas, et al., then, okay. but note also that the > radical israeli fundamentalists (a hefty percentage of them living in the > u.s.) are equally intent upon destroying the palestinian people (and happen > to be backed by mega u.s.-bucks). "israel is where the israelis live, not > where some little line is drawn on a map," as golda meir once put it. That IS who I meant by radicals; though unfortunately a lot of ordinary Arabs share this goal with them. (And I could offer a lot of Arab quotes to match your Meir quote.) I am well aware of radical Israelis, yes. Why do you bring them up? Just a side note, or do you think they justify Hamas et al.? > i suppose i'm going to get flamed to kingdom come for this. but the more i > think about it, the more plausible it seems to me. "it" being that the > events of tuesday morning could well have been initiated and/or facilitated > by the state department as a pretext for a.) [etc.] I'm not going to flame you. I *do* think this sounds plausible to you only because you hate the US government so much that you'll believe *anything* about them, no matter how unlikely. Indeed, you seem reluctant to believe that *any* evil anywhere in the world can ever be the fault of anyone but the US. BTW, are you really willing to suspect anyone who, in your opinion, might have a motive? Because it seems to me that leftists who hope to use this incident to change US policy have an obvious motive. Now, I DO NOT suspect these leftists at all; but if I was as free with my suspicions as you're being, I might. Ironic that so many comments from the left are demeaning to the suspected terrorists and their culture. Either they aren't capable of it (Moore), or they're the simple victims of US provocation, with no volition of their own (various Fegs). > i have never in my life been more afraid of what this country might do than > i am expecting it to do in the coming weeks and months. I'm afraid of what we *might* do, too, in my own way. I'm also afraid of what might still be done to us. - --Chris (the buck private of truth) ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:06:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: RE: hmm... On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Poole, R. Edward wrote: > For the record, I was *responding* to the quote above, made by Jim Davies. Ooops! My apologies. I was typing hastily and deleted the wrong name. - --chastened Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:09:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Forward from Rufus W. and then Mannlist On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, steve wrote: > > http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=692&sd=09/14/01 > > > > Jerry Falwell blames gays for terrorist attacks As a coworker of mine just pointed out, it sounds like Falwell is on bin Laden's side! They both hate gays, abortion, alcohol, pop music, American secular culture, etc., and they both think this attack shows God's wrath against America. An inspiring lesson in cross-cultural brotherhood. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 08:12:24 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: militarization takes coordination > From: "Colonel of Truth" > i suppose i'm going to get flamed to kingdom come for this. but the more i > think about it, the more plausible it seems to me. "it" being that the > events of tuesday morning could well have been initiated and/or facilitated > by the state department as a pretext for a.) massively increased military > spending to jump-start the economy (after, what, seven fed reductions this > year couldn't even cause a blip), and b.) a big-assed crackdown on civil > liberties to cut the legs out from under the burgeoning anti-globalisation > movement (which had already planned large actions for both this month and > next in d.c., and which will now probably both be scrapped -- for starters). This possibility seemed ridiculously far-fetched and improbable to me up until yesterday, when we began talking about the following: - - the use of old footage of Palestinians cheering to make it seem like they were glorying over our losses - - the fact that we had known about the attack on Pearl Harbor before it happened, and that it was allowed to take place in order to get us into the war (before my friend told me this last night I really had not been aware of it -- I have no idea how true it is, but if so...) - - the fact that no one has come forward to claim responsibility for the attacks without later denying it - - the alarming swiftness with which we've all been encouraged to volunteer to give up civil liberties - - the convenience with which we've found Arabs with flight training manuals and the like - - the fact that we trained bin Laden ourselves and used to use him to do our dirty work - - the fact that the wing of the Pentagon that was destroyed was being renovated (true?) - - supposedly the SF mayor received a warning not to travel to NYC on Monday night -- that there was an "advisory" in effect et cetera. Obviously this is not a "case." It just has me taking more seriously the possibility that this attack, whether we were involved or not, was known about and will be used as a pretext for a lot of things. I don't really know what to think now. - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:18:10 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: hmm... - -----Original Message----- From: Poole, R. Edward [mailto:PooleR@dsmo.com] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 10:23 AM To: 'Jim Davies'; fegmaniax@smoe.org Subject: RE: hmm... Jim Davies: >>microcosm (p.s. that sinclair drivel was genuinely offensive, first >>thing that's pissed me off in ages, nearly unsubscribed on the spot) >Go ahead and unsubscribe then! So, you are incensed that someone on a >call-in show was shouted down for saying that the US brought this attack on >itself, and you express hope that those with divergent views will be allowed >to express their opinions, but you are "offended" and "pissed off" by the >circulation of pro-American sentiment? (which, BTW, I forwarded because I >expected to see several of the edited & misleading versions that have been >widely circulated end up on the list). How is this not a valid contribution >to the discussion that we are having? I, for one, have expressed my >revulsion with the inappropriately-timed, and unfairly damning of the >victims, expression of the "you got what was coming to you" viewpoints. So >be it -- you hold your opinions and I'll hold mine. However, anyone who has >the temerity to say anything pro-American is labeled a warmongering >jingoist. As an American, I take pride in my country and its >accomplishments. Even though I agree that the U.S. should be justly >criticized for actions it has taken and, in particular, the way it uses its >military supremacy, I'm sickened by the 100% negative reaction that my >country receives around the world (and also within its own borders, by >many). Whatever flaws this country has -- and there are many, as there is >.anywhere -- there is also generosity, compassion, respect for human rights, >and civic virtue. While the US throws its weight around on the world stage >to accomplish its own objectives (which, no doubt, you would deplore, and in >some cases be right for doing so), it also uses its wealth, technology, and >human resources to assist other nations and other people live a safer and >freer life. I'm no simple-minded, flag-waving, "love it or leave it"-type >Patriot, but when my country is attacked (and, for the love of God, Eddie, >to spin the offensive tripe about the CIA or whatever bombing the WTC for >the sake of the military's budget... You don't think Bush was going to give >them everything they wanted -- and more -- without resorting to slaughtering >its own citizens?) I will stand up for it, as a whole, warts and all. Right on Eb! I was totally against the war in Vietnam from 1968 (I am 2 months older than Robyn) onwards. When this country is attacked, you better believe that I'll stand up for it as well. However, as stated before, the whole free world was attacked. Numerours nations lost people in the WTC crashes. Most of the free world will be united with us when we hunt down and exterminate with extreme prejudice the terrorists and their supporters. The world will be a better place without them, and I justify my beliefs because I don't consider them to be human. We are in a total war with them, they will not stop and therefore we can't either until they are no more. My hope is that the nations that support the terrorists quickly give up all the terrorists after the initial strikes. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:54:56 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: hmm... On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Poole, R. Edward wrote: >>(p.s. that sinclair drivel was genuinely offensive, first >>thing that's pissed me off in ages, nearly unsubscribed on the spot) Chris Gross: >Not just exaggerated or one-sided but actually offensive? How >so? Elucidate, please. For the record, I was *responding* to the quote above, made by Jim Davies. Although it may be exaggerated or one-sided, I'm all for that -- there are plenty of exaggerated and one-sided ANTI-American sentiments floating around. ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:32:23 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: militarization takes coordination > From: "Colonel of Truth" > i suppose i'm going to get flamed to kingdom come for this. but the more i > think about it, the more plausible it seems to me. "it" being that the > events of tuesday morning could well have been initiated and/or facilitated > by the state department as a pretext for a.) massively increased military > spending to jump-start the economy (after, what, seven fed reductions this > year couldn't even cause a blip), and b.) a big-assed crackdown on civil > liberties to cut the legs out from under the burgeoning anti-globalisation > movement (which had already planned large actions for both this month and > next in d.c., and which will now probably both be scrapped -- for starters). Drew: >This possibility seemed ridiculously far-fetched and improbable to me up >until yesterday, when we began talking about the following: [snip] >- the fact that we had known about the attack on Pearl Harbor before it >happened, and that it was allowed to take place in order to get us into >the war (before my friend told me this last night I really had not been >aware of it -- I have no idea how true it is, but if so...) We did know and we did use it to mobilize American pro-war sentiment (which had been building, but was still losing out to isolationism at the time of Pearl Harbor). A Faustian bargain to be sure, but one which got us to support a just cause. >- the fact that no one has come forward to claim responsibility for the >attacks without later denying it Which seems at odds with the goals of terrorists, who can be expected to identify themselves in order to secure compliance with the demands that motivated the acts in the first place. Of course, it is not strange at all, if: (1) the perpetrators had no agenda other than to hurt the US, its citizens, its economy; and (2) they made the calculation that standing up = annihilation, which likely will prove to be the US's aim in the next several months or years. [snip] >- the fact that the wing of the Pentagon that was destroyed was being >renovated (true?) True. And??? It hardly seems consistent to say that the Pentagon attack was intended to minimize casualties, when the WTC casualties will be so vast. >- supposedly the SF mayor received a warning not to travel to NYC on Monday >night -- that there was an "advisory" in effect Haven't heard this one. I suspect that more will come out about how much the intelligence community knew prior to the attack, and we will add one more to the list of alarming and atrocious failures of the US law enforcement/security/intelligence community (Ames, Hanssen, McVeigh files, Wen Ho Lee, etc). Ineptitude does not equal intent, however. I have no doubt that this attack will be "used" to whip up public sentiment for massive military force to be used against America's enemies. I also have little doubt that Americans, on the whole, need a lot of "whipping up" at this point. Moreover, it is the perpetrators -- not the victims or their government -- that will be responsible for America's reaction. - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 08:48:41 -0700 From: "Kenneth Johnson" Subject: Re: blues for allah speaking of lyrics and music related to these terrible events.... I dusted off my old vinyl copy of THE THE - Mind Bomb. Many of the songs, esp. Armageddon Days, resonated strongly with the past few days. I thought about printing out some lyrics, but I am way too busy at work and otherwise to bother. Anyone know a good lyric link? One line from "The Beat(en) Generation" really sticks out: "When I cast my eyes upon the skyline of this once proud nation, I see the fear and the hatred growing in the hearts of its population." I have been checking in with my friends and family back East and elsewhere. One of my best friends is over in Europe and due to take the trip back home through NY. I havent heard a thing from her yet. I have heard from everyone else I know out there, including my uncle who works four blocks from the WTC and saw the entire thing happen, and all are safe. Glad to be hearing positive reports from everyone on this list as well, esp. those near the crash sights. My deepest sympathy to everyone touched by this tragedy. I have some pretty strong feelings regarding the potential response of our nation's government and its citizens, and i dont wish to upset anyone further.... All I will say to Hawks and Doves alike is that I see little hope in finding a constructive solution to international terroism. The cycle of violence will live on and our actions in future days to come will only fuel it more. It is so sad. When I think of those 5000+ potentially dead, who basically died for nothing, for some extremist fundamental religious fervor, I am sickened to the core. This holy jihad shit has been going on for thousands of years, Christian v. Muslim. I had so little respect for religion as it was, but now it frightens me more than ever. I got into a serious argument with my Catholic (anti-death) penalty mother who wanted to strike back with extreme vengence right away. She'd light a candle for Tim McVeigh, but those Arab mothers can fry in hell. When I hear our so-called leader quoting the bible of all things in his "we're gonna whoop some butt" pep talks, my blood runs cold. The nationalistic flag waving fervor and outbreaks of fanatical bigotry make me ashamed to be a part of the human race and this country. Don't get me wrong, I love my country, but some of these people are being as evil and wrongheaded as the 18 religious psychos that jacked those planes. Armageddon Days are here....again May whatever god your worship Bless you and keep you safe from hatred and harm in these dark days. Peace >Kenneth ******* "What have we achieved in mowing down mountain ranges, harnessing the energy of mighty rivers, or moving whole populations about like chess pieces, if we ourselves remain the same restless, miserable, frustrated creatures we were before? To call such activity progress is utter delusion." -- Henry Miller ********* _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 03:51:19 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Another long rant. hm. I write a scathing reply to something pro-American and I don't get flamed. In fact, most of the list's comments seem to support the same views as me to some extent or another. I know that this list is hardly your typical cross-section of the US, but that is intriguing nonetheless. >i have never in my life been more afraid of what this country might do than >i am expecting it to do in the coming weeks and months. You'll be overjoyed at the news carried on the BBC half an hour ago that massive fuel supplies are heading for Diego Garcia (?) and other top US bases within easy reach of the Middle-East, then. As to striking Afghanistan because that's where he is, fine. He probably is. But where are his reputed training camps? All we know of them is several sketchy videos which show somewhere which could be Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Or Chechnya. Or Nevada. That is, if it's Bin Laden who's behind all this, which is still only conjecture. Perhaps I'm terminally naive in the following, and I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but one person who could seriously help the US right now is Louis Farrakhan. If he spoke out, representing the US's Moslem population, and said loud and clear for the world to hear that (as is true) the killing of innocent people is a heinous sin against Allah, and whoever did this will have to answer to His mightly vengeance, then it would probably do as much good to the US as any number of bombing raids on the Afghan desert. In a bizarre twist, I could also imagine the US doing a deal with the Taleban. They are clearly scared of what the Afghanis will do to them if they hand ObL over to the US. The US has propped up disreputable regimes for its own good in the past... Having said that... R. Ed. P. states boldly: >So, you are incensed that someone on a >call-in show was shouted down for saying that the US brought this attack on >itself, and you express hope that those with divergent views will be allowed >to express their opinions, but you are "offended" and "pissed off" by the >circulation of pro-American sentiment? It's a free country, for now. You are free to make your comment. Similarly, Jim is free to say he's offended by its sentiments. >I, for one, have expressed my >revulsion with the inappropriately-timed, and unfairly damning of the >victims, expression of the "you got what was coming to you" viewpoints. So >be it -- you hold your opinions and I'll hold mine. However, anyone who has >the temerity to say anything pro-American is labeled a warmongering >jingoist. I don't remember anyone saying that. Jim didn't, and I didn't either, and ours were the two main attacks on the article. >Whatever flaws this country has -- and there are many, as there is >anywhere -- there is also generosity, compassion, respect for human rights, >and civic virtue. Hm. Is Mr Buckalew still on this list? ISTR he has first nation ancestry, and could probably tell you a thing or two about your nation's respect for their rights. Similarly, those countries that have been mentioned that were wanting a particular type of ("un-American") government but were forced to 'mend their evil ways' by the US probably don't think much of that either. Generosity, I'll grant you. And compassion, to a limited extent (how much compassion is being shown to Middle Eastern nationals living in the US at the moment? Do they feel it's safe for them to venture onto the streets?). As to civic virtue, every country can claim that. And every oen of them will have their own definition of what being virtuous means. Can you honestly say that the US government feels more virtuous in their views that the stringently moral Taleban do in theirs? >While the US throws its weight around on the world stage >to accomplish its own objectives (which, no doubt, you would deplore, and in >some cases be right for doing so), it also uses its wealth, technology, and >human resources to assist other nations and other people live a safer and >freer life. True. But the article you posted made it clear that the writer thought the US was the only country to do that. It does so more than many, sure, because it is richer. But many nations help out, even nations who are least equipped to do so. A couple of weeks back there was a shipload of refugees stranded off the coast of Australia. Who offered to help them? The rich, powerful US? No. Struggling Nauru, population several families and a dog. You might not hear about other countries being generous, compassionate and virtuous, but many give far more in proportionate terms than the US does. And if I remember the Biblical parable of the widow's mite, that is supposed to be more improtant. And certainly more impotant than trumpeting it for the world to hear. >I'm no simple-minded, flag-waving, "love it or leave it"-type >Patriot and I'm no flag-burning anti-American. America is a great country. And this last week it has suffered terribly. I support a lot of the things your country does, and far more that it says it stands for. But to claim that it is somehow unique and is only ever a force for good in the world is a mountainous pile of crap that not only not worthy of a leading world nation, but is also insulting to many other countries. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic: >The acts I mentioned were all claimed by the Provisional IRA. The pIRA >have been around for as long as I've been remembering, and as the main >direct-action group, are synonymous with the IRA. Splinter groups, like >the ones responsible for the Omagh bomb, still operate under the IRA(tm) >brand. now hold on there. The IRA and the provos are NOT in any way the same organisation! The IRA themselves have little if anything to do with the modern situation in N.I., and are pretty much a spent force anyway. And ISTR that the Omagh group is the group calling itself "The Real IRA" even though they are no such thing. Just another faction trying to claim the recognised brand to further their cause. >I just realized how eerily inappropriate "My Favourite Buildings" is now. I'm trying to avoid playing songs like "Living through another Cuba" and "This world over" by XTC. > Jerry Falwell blames gays for terrorist attacks I though we'd agreed that the attack was caused by that Grateful Dead guy re-starting his web diary! Peace, shalom, salaam, James PS - I'm housesitting for my PhD supervisor at the moment. He's due home on Sunday. Home from Boston. Flying U.A. via Los Angeles. I suspect that (a) I may be housesitting a little longer than I expected, and (b) he will have a very nervous flight. James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- You talk to me as if from a distance -.-=-.- And I reply with impressions chosen from another time =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:58:54 -0400 From: strange little woj Subject: deni bonet news - ----- Forwarded message from Deni Bonet ----- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 08:16:02 -0700 From: "Deni Bonet" To: woj@smoe.org Subject: Just checking in... I would like to tell you all that I am safe, as are those I love and work and play with. I want to express my deepest sympathy to those who have lost family and friends in this horrible tragedy. And I also want to thank the many, many people who have contacted me over the past few days to see if we are OK. I live in New York City, and have been here in the midst of all the weirdness during this catastrophe. I can only say that I have experienced first hand the amazing human spirit of New York City, and the outpouring of love from the rest of the world. Thank you all I send you all my love and support, Deni - ----- End forwarded message ----- ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #348 ********************************