From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #398 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, October 18 2001 Volume 10 : Number 398 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Stirring the pot... [Capuchin ] RE: Stirring the pot... ["Poole, R. Edward" ] Re: Stirring the pot... [Eleanore Adams ] RE: Stirring the pot... [Capuchin ] Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" [Capuchin ] RE: Stirring the pot... [Capuchin ] Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" [bayard ] RE: Stirring the pot... ["Poole, R. Edward" ] Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" ["JH3" ] RE: Stirring the pot... [Capuchin ] Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:54:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Stirring the pot... On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, gSs wrote: > I wonder then if we regarded the hourly or salaried activists as hired > soldiers, then wouldn't we then have to reclassify the crime and > therefore the punishment? You seem to be under the impression that there are lots of these. I know MANY activists and some of them are considered leaders in their respective movements and none of them are paid for their activism. > Protest demonstrations and rallies are great unless the participants > become violent. Ah, but the USA Act (which is an afront to freedom and a shame to humanity) says that "intimidation" is the real crime. So blocking a doorway peacefully is terrorism. Ghandi was a terrorist organizer. > We have to be careful about labeling people or organizations as > terrorists. Hooligans and terrorists are not the same. A "terrorist", in the eyes of our government, is anyone who takes action against what our government does or plans. The mask is coming off (and so are the gloves). The government has enough power now AGAINST the people that it can officially declare the people the enemy and move on with whatever plan benefits the rich and powerful. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:11:38 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: Stirring the pot... >> Protest demonstrations and rallies are great unless the participants >> become violent. >Ah, but the USA Act (which is an afront to freedom and a shame to >humanity) says that "intimidation" is the real crime. So blocking a >doorway peacefully is terrorism. Ghandi was a terrorist organizer. Of course, you omit (in this discussion and the last) a critical clause in the bill: "...a person commits the crime of domestic terrorism if within the U.S. they engage in activity that involves acts dangerous to human life **that violate the laws of the United States or any State** and appear to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population..." See, Jeme, you have to: (1) engage in an activity that is ALREADY ILLEGAL; plus (2) have as its purpose one of the enumerated goals (e.g. intimidation). So, no, unless blocking a doorway is illegal (I guess it could be -- and it should have been on "The Amazing Race" last night -- man, that Team Guido just burns me up...), it would not be prescribed by this act. In effect, this provision is no different from hate crime legislation - -- if an ALREADY ILLEGAL act is motivated by animus towards a protected class or group, it is punishable as a hate crime. And, on Gandhi -- he probably wouldn't mind your label. Indeed, his form of civil disobedience (at least in the 1930s & 1940s) was designed to violate Raj statutes and court punishment for those violations. If his actions had not drawn the repression and jail time that the British rewarded him with, his movement would not have been so successful. (In fact, Satygraha ("hold fast to the truth") movements depended upon acceptance of suffering as a way of cleansing the Satyagrhi's soul, while exposing the moral bankruptcy of the Raj's rule and laws.) Perhaps, like Gandhi, if you really believe in your movement, you will seek out the punishments of the regime you find repellant, and accept those blows nobly, without violence, to set an example for your fellow travelers and point out the problems inherent in the forces you oppose. I don't see how spinning out wild theories about how counter-terrorism legislation will be used to quash non-violent protest accomplishes either of these goals. >> We have to be careful about labeling people or organizations as >> terrorists. Hooligans and terrorists are not the same. >A "terrorist", in the eyes of our government, is anyone who takes action >against what our government does or plans. The mask is coming off (and so >are the gloves). The government has enough power now AGAINST the people >that it can officially declare the people the enemy and move on with >whatever plan benefits the rich and powerful. Ummm, OK. I don't see where you get this from (maybe from Nixon's reaction to the anti-Vietnam war protestors? OK, sure, I see that). I have yet to see evidence that the US government labels non-violent, peaceful protest as "terrorism." Maybe you could give an example or two. Even if that were true, I'd advise you to lay down before that tyrannical government and make an example of its injustice by suffering punishments for your expression of opinion in a non-violent way. Oh, the jack booted thugs have never beaten you to an inch of your life and hauled your off to a holding cell, without respect for constitution protections and due process? Huh. Are you sure you are getting their attention? Maybe you need to use some foul language with the men in blue. I'm sure, if you try hard enough, you can become the martyr you are longing to be. ============================================================================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: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:17:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: Stirring the pot... What is very cool with this thread is that right now i am writing a paper for school on search and seizure laws, and this propsed new legislation will be part of the research for my paper. The feelings broadcated here are helping form my mindset going into this. What fun! eleanore - --- "Thomas, Ferris" wrote: > Regarding the new anti-terrorism act in Congress and > from the ACLU website > (http://www.aclu.org/congress/l100801d.html) > <-snip-> > Under federal law there are already three > definitions of terrorism - > international terrorism, terrorism transcending > national borders and federal > terrorism. The September 11th attacks triggered all > three of these > definitions. > Under Section 803 of the USA Act, a person commits > the crime of domestic > terrorism if within the U.S. they engage in activity > that involves acts > dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the > United States or any > State and appear to be intended to: (i) intimidate > or coerce a civilian > population; (ii) to influence the policy of a > government by intimidation or > coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a > government by mass > destruction, assassination or kidnapping. > The Administration has not adequately explained why > this new crime should be > created or why the definitions in existing > anti-terrorism laws are > insufficient. This over-broad terrorism definition > would sweep in people who > engage in acts of political protest if those acts > were dangerous to human > life. People associated with organizations such as > Operation Rescue and the > Environmental Liberation Front, and the World Trade > Organization (WTO) > protesters, have engaged in activities at that could > subject them to > prosecution as terrorists. > <-snip-> > > WTO protesters prosecuted as terrorists? Great > idea! > > <-snip-> > The ACLU does not oppose the criminal prosecution of > people who commit acts > of civil disobedience if those acts result in > property damage or place > people in danger. That type of behavior is already > illegal and perpetrators > of these crimes can be prosecuted and subjected to > serious penalties. > However, such crimes often are not "terrorism." > <-snip-> > Agree whole-heartedly with all but the last bit. BS > it's not terrorism. > Their actions (WTO protesters) are meant entirely to > intimidate. If they > were interested in getting opinions aired then > looting, burning, and > vandalizing isn't the way to do it. > ______________________________________ > Ferris Scott Thomas > programmer > > McGraw-Hill Education > 860.409.2612 > ferris_thomas@mcgraw-hill.com (email) > > "We are all worms, but I do believe that I am a > glow-worm." > -Winston Churchill Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:35:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Stirring the pot... On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Poole, R. Edward wrote: > Of course, you omit (in this discussion and the last) a critical clause in > the bill: "...a person commits the crime of domestic terrorism if within the > U.S. they engage in activity that involves acts dangerous to human life > **that violate the laws of the United States or any > State** and appear to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian > population..." > > See, Jeme, you have to: (1) engage in an activity that is ALREADY ILLEGAL; > plus (2) have as its purpose one of the enumerated goals (e.g. > intimidation). So, no, unless blocking a doorway is illegal (I guess it > could be -- and it should have been on "The Amazing Race" last night -- man, > that Team Guido just burns me up...), it would not be prescribed by this > act. In effect, this provision is no different from hate crime legislation > -- if an ALREADY ILLEGAL act is motivated by animus towards a protected > class or group, it is punishable as a hate crime. I have no idea what this "Amazing Race" reference is all about. As for the act already being illegal, I guess that's just an exemption for the cops. So, you're right. Martial law can't be terrorism. Riot cops can't be terrorism. But the simple act of gathering in the street, if performed by a significant number of people, can be considered intimidation and if someone so much as jay-walks, then they are being intimidating while breaking the law so they're a terrorist. It's just another charge to lay on folks to get their bail up high so they can't get out of jail until they're harmless. It's a round'em up law. Yes, blocking a doorway can be illegal. In fact, it oftentimes is. > Ummm, OK. I don't see where you get this from (maybe from Nixon's > reaction to the anti-Vietnam war protestors? OK, sure, I see that). > I have yet to see evidence that the US government labels non-violent, > peaceful protest as "terrorism." Maybe you could give an example or > two. WTO in Seattle. RNC in Philadelphia. > Oh, the jack booted thugs have never beaten you to an inch of your > life and hauled your off to a holding cell, without respect for > constitution protections and due process? Huh. Not me, personally, but it's happened. And what does "due process" have to do with hauling someone off to a cell? In Philadelphia hundreds of people were arrested on artificial charges that were dismissed at arraignment. The arrests were simply to get the people off the streets (or out of the warehouses, where one group was arrested for making puppets... but the cops claimed they were making bombs because they had PVC pipe). And many of those that were arrested and had the charges dismissed still have to pay for their jail time. > I'm sure, if you try hard enough, you can become the martyr you are > longing to be. What the fuck are you babbling about, Ed? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:38:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, John McIntyre wrote: > Viv Lyon wrote: > > .But, apropos of nothing, let's please address the fact that the true hero > > of the book is Sam, faithful diligent courageous Sam. Not Frodo. Sam. > And where have we seen that before? Cervantes, anyone? Actually, when I finished reading Lord of the Rings I was absolutely positive that Sam was the hero and surprised that anyone thought otherwise. Frodo was just a bit of misdirection. Sam is the halfling of prophecy. Frodo doesn't fulfill the prophecy and Sam does. Why is this not obvious to everyone? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:56:55 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: Stirring the pot... Jeme: >I have no idea what this "Amazing Race" reference is all about. It's a really good "reality TV" show. I admit it -- I like "reality TV" (but I do have standards -- I don't watch "Temptation Island" or "Love Cruise" for example.) >As for the act already being illegal, I guess that's just an exemption for >the cops. So, you're right. Martial law can't be terrorism. Riot cops >can't be terrorism. But the simple act of gathering in the street, if >performed by a significant number of people, can be considered >intimidation and if someone so much as jay-walks, then they are being >intimidating while breaking the law so they're a terrorist. >It's just another charge to lay on folks to get their bail up high so they >can't get out of jail until they're harmless. It's a round'em up law. I know you want to see conspiracy in everything, but you are just wrong, here (not to mention paranoid and ill-informed). The act already being illegal is the key to the whole thing, not some "exemption" for the jackbooted thugs. The hate crimes analogy should make it perfectly clear, but let me explain again. Lawmakers have concluded that certain already illegal acts are "worse" when certain motivations are behind them. For example, spray-painting "Def Leppard Rules" on the side of a public school is criminal trespass and destruction of property. It's illegal. But, spray-painting "Death to all Hebes" on the side of a synagogue is different - -- it's not just trespass, it's a hate crime. Because anti-Semitic animus motivates the latter, it has been judged to be worse for society and deserving of stiffer punishment. (Some civil libertarians -- and Justice Scalia -- have denounced such laws as unconstitutional because they mete out punishment based on the content of speech, purportedly in violation of the 1st Amendment. I think that is an interesting discussion, but not the one we are having right now). Similarly, throwing a molotov coctail through that school window is arson (and, if the school is occupied, it may be homicide or assault with a deadly weapon). Throwing that molotov coctail into your local Middle Eastern restaurant, while shouting "Go home to the desert" is, yes, a hate crime, but may also be "terrorism" under this new definition. It's the same "act," but the motivation is far uglier and, thus, more dangerous to society. So, it is punished differently. The problem? ============================================================================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: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:17:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Stirring the pot... On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Poole, R. Edward wrote: > Similarly, throwing a molotov coctail through that school window is > arson (and, if the school is occupied, it may be homicide or assault > with a deadly weapon). Throwing that molotov coctail into your local > Middle Eastern restaurant, while shouting "Go home to the desert" is, > yes, a hate crime, but may also be "terrorism" under this new > definition. It's the same "act," but the motivation is far uglier > and, thus, more dangerous to society. So, it is punished differently. > The problem? So the argument is that random violence isn't as bad for society as reasoned violence. If you have a reason for doing something illegal and hope that your action will effect change, then you're a terrorist and that's worse than just breaking the law for your own selfish personal gain. Pardon me for disagreeing and utterly failing to see how anyone believes this is true. J. PS to Ed: do try to modify your headers. You've been replying to both the list and my address directly, so I've been getting two copies. This is unnecessary as I am obviously on the list. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:30:37 -0700 (PDT) From: bayard Subject: Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Capuchin wrote: > Sam is the halfling of prophecy. Frodo doesn't fulfill the prophecy and > Sam does. how's that? LOtR link of the day: http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/32052.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:37:03 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: Stirring the pot... Me: > Similarly, throwing a molotov coctail through that school window is > arson (and, if the school is occupied, it may be homicide or assault > with a deadly weapon). Throwing that molotov coctail into your local > Middle Eastern restaurant, while shouting "Go home to the desert" is, > yes, a hate crime, but may also be "terrorism" under this new > definition. It's the same "act," but the motivation is far uglier > and, thus, more dangerous to society. So, it is punished differently. > The problem? Jeme: >So the argument is that random violence isn't as bad for society as >reasoned violence. anti-Semitism isn't "reasoned" anything. Hatred of a group based on race, religion, ethnicity -- these are the very opposite of "reasoned." >If you have a reason for doing something illegal and hope that your action >will effect change, then you're a terrorist and that's worse than just >breaking the law for your own selfish personal gain. "hope that your action will effect change" is VERY different from "intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Indeed, if you are trying to get the US government to repeal a law or stop a war, you are not "intimidating" them, nor is a "civilian population" your target. If you attack Middle Easterners because of what happened 9/11, that neither a "reasoned" action (the restaurateur didn't mastermind 9/11), nor are you "hoping your action will effect change" -- unless you count "fleeing" or "hiding" as "change." Your "reasoning" just doesn't hold up, Jeme. As for hate crimes -- simple destruction of property is decidedly NOT as bad as destruction of property accompanied by hateful (and, potentially, violence-provoking) sloganeering. Even a terrorist or a bigot would probably agree that their actions are "worse," at least in the sense that they are directed to more than just the individual victims -- they are intended to send a "message" to others in the same class/group/race/etc as the primary victim. This secondary "message" or intimidation is the "plus factor" that makes the hate crime, or the terrorist act, more serious. >Pardon me for disagreeing and utterly failing to see how anyone believes >this is true. Feel free to disagree (I wouldn't expect less), but do try to see how someone believes this is true. I, for one, believe it is true -- and if you deny my beliefs, you are (surprise surprise!) showing precious little respect for contrary opinions. >PS to Ed: do try to modify your headers. You've been replying to both the >list and my address directly, so I've been getting two copies. This is >unnecessary as I am obviously on the list. Yeah, whatever -- that was careless. But now that I know it annoys you, I doubt I'll stop any time soon. ============================================================================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: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:44:31 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" > Sam is the halfling of prophecy. Frodo doesn't fulfill > the prophecy and Sam does. > Why is this not obvious to everyone? Because "Sam" just isn't as sexy-sounding a name as "Frodo"? John "tha Hamma" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:10:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Stirring the pot... On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Poole, R. Edward wrote: > Jeme: > >So the argument is that random violence isn't as bad for society as > >reasoned violence. > anti-Semitism isn't "reasoned" anything. Hatred of a group based on > race, religion, ethnicity -- these are the very opposite of > "reasoned." We're talking about terrorism, not "hate crimes". Although my tendency is to agree that content based speech restrictions are both unconstitutional and wrong. > >If you have a reason for doing something illegal and hope that your > >action will effect change, then you're a terrorist and that's worse > >than just breaking the law for your own selfish personal gain. > > "hope that your action will effect change" is VERY different from > "intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Coerce, Ed, coerce. To compel to an act or choice. It doesn't require violence. There are other compelling forces. Hell, advertising is an attempt to coerce a civilian population. So is illegal acts of advertising terrorism? And as for the other verb, how many people need to feel intimidated in order for it to be terrorism? There was something her in Portland called the "X-Ray Riot". It was a bunch of kids in the street. The police heard that "a bunch of anarchists were coming to town" and showed up at the X-Ray Cafe in riot gear. There were so many kids around that they were flooded out into the street. The kids decided to hold a little unsanctioned parade. The cops freaked. The claim was made that the group was going to march and make your average person afraid to go outside. Were these kids terrorists? Well, if it happened after the USA Act became law (which looks inevitable at this point), they would be. > Indeed, if you are trying to get the US government to repeal a law or > stop a war, you are not "intimidating" them, nor is a "civilian > population" your target. The government is, theoretically, the agency of the public. The public opnion is what needs changing. And any illegal act that might be used to coerce the public into making a choice is called "terrorism". > If you attack Middle Easterners because of what happened 9/11, that > neither a "reasoned" action (the restaurateur didn't mastermind 9/11), > nor are you "hoping your action will effect change" -- unless you > count "fleeing" or "hiding" as "change." Your "reasoning" just > doesn't hold up, Jeme. That's not terrorism. That's hate crime. If you're trying to make a statement and coerce a population, then you're a terrorist. > As for hate crimes -- simple destruction of property is decidedly NOT > as bad as destruction of property accompanied by hateful (and, > potentially, violence-provoking) sloganeering. So-called "hate crime" doesn't require sloganeering. > Even a terrorist or a bigot would probably agree that their actions > are "worse," at least in the sense that they are directed to more than > just the individual victims -- they are intended to send a "message" > to others in the same class/group/race/etc as the primary victim. Isn't sending a message BETTER than just randomly destroying? Certainly assassinating a political leader that has little public support isn't quite as bad as picking off a random person from a clock tower. > This secondary "message" or intimidation is the "plus factor" that > makes the hate crime, or the terrorist act, more serious. Right... you're saying it's worse if you have a message. Random acts aren't as bad as acts with intended consequences outside the act itself. I don't buy it. > Feel free to disagree (I wouldn't expect less), but do try to see how > someone believes this is true. I, for one, believe it is true -- and > if you deny my beliefs, you are (surprise surprise!) showing precious > little respect for contrary opinions. I don't see it. And it's not for lack of respect for contrary opinions (though your response to my PS and your use of the phrase "reality TV" both do quite a bit of damage to my respect for you personally). I guess I could understand a person who is a member of the ruling class and existing power structure believing that a society wherein opinions contrary to the status quo are repressed and actions that carry messages contrary to the standing party line were more heavily punished than random actions. But clearly those people are acting only selfishly and those message-carrying acts are not worse for society, but worse for those individuals. > >PS to Ed: do try to modify your headers. You've been replying to both the > >list and my address directly, so I've been getting two copies. This is > >unnecessary as I am obviously on the list. > > Yeah, whatever -- that was careless. But now that I know it annoys > you, I doubt I'll stop any time soon. Well, I'm glad we're all grown-ups here. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:13:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Hey, what about a David Lynch "Ring?" On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, bayard wrote: > On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Capuchin wrote: > > Sam is the halfling of prophecy. Frodo doesn't fulfill the prophecy and > > Sam does. > > how's that? Well, Sam is the halfling that wears the ring and is not overcome by it (granted he wears it for the least amount of time). But now that I stop and remember more clearly, Gollum is the halfling that fulfills the prophecy by destroying the ring in the fire's of Mordor. I just don't understand Frodo being a hero. Sam is the heart of the fellowship and responsible for much of the heroism. Frodo's just a figurehead. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:28:45 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: sounds from hell >and of course, there's the "sounds from hell" > >http://amightywind.com/hell/audiofilelinks.htm Feh. That sounds like most of my Nurse With Wound albums, or a sped-up recording of A Chud Convention. One of the creepiest things I've ever heard is a recording of Jim Jones lecturing his minions -- it's on the b-side of a German Shepherds 7-inch I have. Here are my Halloween song suggestions: 1. "Breakdown and Cry" by Alien Sex Fiend -- the entire Acid Bath album would work, too. 2. "A Short Dip in the Glory Hole" by Nurse With Wound -- one of the few recordings which actually terrify me 3. I've always found real old Severed Heads recordings to make people very uncomfortable, too. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #398 ********************************