-Caveat Lector- Dave Hartley http://www.Asheville-Computer.com http://www.Asheville-Computer.com/dave -----Original Message----- From: jean hudon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 11:58 PM To: Dave Kupelian Subject: COULD YOU PLEASE READ THIS AND SEE IF YOU COULD COVER THIS URGENT ISSUE? Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 From: Larry Morningstar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - November, 1999 CONTACT: Bobbie Sandoz Phone: 1-808-524-6775; Fax: 1-808-538-0423 AVAILABLE FOR RADIO AND TV INTERVIEWS BEWARE, THE BEACHED CANARIES What Stranded Dolphins and Whales Have in Common with the Pokemon Craze By Bobbie Sandoz, MSW, Counselor/Columnist/Speaker/Author Listening to Wild Dolphins, Learning their Secrets for Living with Joy (November, 1999) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Will Lethal Levels of LFA Sonar be Allowed to Threaten our Oceans and World? Or will we Stop this Risky Technology in the Nick of time? The Answer could Rest in how you Respond to the Following Article. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are dolphins and whales the Pokemon of the sea, uniting in tears over our hurting so much of the goodness in life and then offering us love in spite of our treatment of them and others? And, why have these gentle beings who come to our shores to make friends with people -- then entertain, rescue, and heal us -- recently become the primary victims of these human attacks? Have you ever wondered why so many dolphins and whales and other marine mammals seem to be stranding on our shores like beached canaries? Have you questioned why their numbers along with those of turtles and fish have suddenly switched from flourishing populations to dying and diminished communities? Could it be that these deaths are a result of human assaults on marine life rather than some mysterious natural phenomenon as biased 'experts' suggest? Is it possible that the remarkably intelligent dolphins and whales are making their way to our beaches before dying to serve as giant canaries alerting us to something amiss in their world beneath the sea and out of our view? And how many more are sinking from our sight to the ocean's floor before making their way to our shores? But the bigger question is whether we will respond to their deaths in time to save their lives and ours as the coal miners did when the canaries they took with them into the mines to test their toxic air returned in still silence? Will we notice the apparent connection between these strandings and their pattern of occurrence in the path of a new and powerful, yet superficially tested, technology called low frequency active sonar (LFAS)? Or will we react with foolish relief and believe in-house 'experts' who prematurely rush their opinions to the media without sufficient exploration or evidence that these deaths are unrelated to their sonar activities? And how long will we behave with paralysis as we did during the holocaust and continue to deny this disquieting prelude to a potentially perilous problem? How long will it take for us to notice this growing fulfillment of predictions made in 1997 by the Marine Mammal Commission when they said that lung and tissue explosion in marine mammals as well as hearing loss and subsequent starvation was likely to happen if LFAS was employed worldwide as proposed? And now that the development of this technology has crept past a slumbering nation and is eminently poised for full deployment, will we respond at long last? I was pondering this globally critical question one day as I swam in a bay near my Hawaiian home amidst 50 dolphins who approached and circled me, then stayed to play for over an hour. They swam near me in twos and threes, showing off their babies, chirping hello, and engaging me in beguiling gazes. One had a white gauze scarf he had found in the ocean debris and used to adorn his fin, then his tail, and finally to wrap around his dorsal. Later he held it in his mouth and dropped it for me to get, but just as I reached for it, he snatched it away, then looked at me with a twinkle in his eye before doing it again. I wondered as he waved his white flag before me if it offered my species a symbol of peace as well as the joy we could have if we found it. While my dolphin friends were swimming with me in Hawaii, a group of large-brained orcas across the Pacific gathered around a boat in the San Juans in time to appreciate a human concert given in their honor. They showed particular interest in "Amazing Grace" -- or forgiveness without merit -- while hundreds of their gray whale cousins washed up dead on North American shores, again drawing our attention to something afoul in their underwater world outside of our view. I was reminded by these cetacean encounters of another one I had enjoyed in the Dominican Republic when a humpback mother graced a group of us swimming in her ocean home by lying on her back with her pectorals outstretched as if to welcome us to her watery domain. She lay composed in this position for almost an hour as we swam above her great presence in teary awe while her young calf peeked at us every so often from beneath her massive body. When it was time for this cordial giant to take her leave, she carefully maneuvered her long fins amidst the swimmers and barely fluttered her great tail to prevent catching us in her strong slipstream as she slowly moved away. In contrast to human insensitivity to the needs of others, dolphins and whales have been coming to our shores in increasing numbers over the past decade to befriend humans in the same way these cetaceans were befriending me with their loving kindness, playful humor, wisdom, and joy. Social psychologist Dr. Jean Houston notes that dolphins have visited our shores throughout history to meet with people in this friendly manner prior to periods of increased enlightenment and cultural renaissance. This idea resonated for me, since my dolphin companions had not only taught me some notably wise lessons during our ten-year friendship, but had shown me specific steps for how our species can also live as our higher selves and manifest a world of our dreams. Although my rational approach to life, two graduate degrees, and status as a published author and community leader caused me to initially resist their communications and teachings, over time the dolphins won my trust and deep respect. When I returned a few weeks later to swim with the Hawaii dolphins and take some photos for a book tour, some of them paused in repose before my camera while others jumped cooperatively into the sight of my lens. I wondered as I photographed them if humans would have the wisdom to allow the sweet grace of these bright and loving beings to serve as mirrors reflecting our need to seek a higher place in ourselves where we might act as kindly toward others as cetaceans do. I also thought of American Indian elders predicting that what happens to 'the great beast' will also happen to humanity, and I wondered which fork in the road of our forecasted futures we would take; the apocalypse or golden age. Then it occurred to me that as humanity stands at the threshold of the millennium, we have the power to direct which road we will travel. We can continue to kill the saints and sages in our midst or change the course of our history by surrendering to their teachings. But before we can claim our higher potential, we must first address what kind of species we want to be and what kind of future we wish to create. We must then commit to becoming and creating whatever we select. I also realized that to succeed in becoming our higher selves we need look no further than to the model the wild dolphins offer or the manifesting tools they revealed to me. Ironically, it's the same model the Pokemon ultimately discovered that our children intuitively understand and would like us to adopt. To begin, we must face the threat LFAS poses to marine life and ourselves. Then, we must awaken and respond to our potent role of silence in this. And if we want to stop this game of roulette that puts our world at risk we must exercise our voices and take gentle but clear action. Some of you will want to insist on extensive autopsies of stranded mammals, including full ear exams, in spite of current resistance to doing this, since such tests could expose possible rupture from sonar blasts. Only by having this information will we know if the sonar technology is, in fact, connected to these deaths as many environmentalists fear. Others will want to request that the National Marine Services halt all forward movement toward premature deployment of this unexamined power and perhaps have this agency dismantled due to their apparent conflict of interest in this matter. It's IMPERATIVE that copies of all correspondence be sent to our president and congressional representatives, since letters to these elected officials constitute the only power we have to influence or reverse government decisions. Still others, including myself, will view this issue as important enough to organize a peacefully powerful march in Washington. Hopefully. investigative and environmentally responsible media will invite a panel of independent experts who have uncovered an abundance of evidence pointing to serious errors and omissions in the process of testing and activating this technology. (See suggested panel on page 5) Teachers may wish to introduce this crucial topic in their classrooms and invite students to discover and implement solutions. The spirits of our youth would further be stimulated by discussions on what might happen if we put more of our money into education and learning to befriend others than into defense programs and wars against our global family. Clergy may be inspired to hold prayers and vigils to bring this matter to safe resolution. (clip - NOT ENOUGH ROOM IN THIS EMAIL - please ask the missing PART TO Larry Morningstar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> if interested) Summary of the Most Current Environmentalist Concerns about LFAS: Although the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) was established to protect marine life, they appear to be ready, if not anxious, to grant premature permission to our government to use potentially lethal low frequency active sonar (LFAS) in 80% the world's oceans on a regular basis in spite of inadequate research on this new and powerful technology. The NMFS appears to have violated their own guidelines for protecting marine life by ignoring reports of serious problems, including cetacean death, given by boat captains, researchers, swimmers, and citizens during cursory testing of this powerful force. In addition, they have failed to adequately or clearly provide the public with information regarding the forward movement of this technology. The NMFS again exposed their apparent conflict of interest in assessing the safety of this uncharted technology by their involvement in the writing of the US Navy's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and their request to work in partnership with the US Navy, rather than in their assigned role of overseeing the Navy's activities. Yet, in spite of their apparent conflict of interest, NMFS holds the power to approve this potentially lethal technology to be deployed on a regular basis in 80% of the worlds oceans at alarmingly loud levels (a billion times more intense than the ones tested) that travel for thousands of kilometers. This force is so far-reaching and powerful that it is considered by many environmentalists to be a threat to all marine life as well as the oceans and very probably human life as well. Moreover, even before the Navy's EIS has cleared, an application for 'taking' or killing whales over the next five years has been prematurely filed with NMFS in an apparent effort to get this operation launched ahead of increasing public becomes awareness of the dire pitfalls of this technology, including a pattern of cetacean corpses left in its path. Once underway, this program will be highly classified and out of the public's view. *****Now, there is a brief window for the public to respond. You can do so by immediately asking President Clinton and your congressional representatives to stop all forward movement of the sonar programs, then focus intently on this being fulfilled. **For more information on LFAS and forms for responding, consult: www.nrdc.org; www.oceanmammalinst.com; and www.angelfire.com **SEND YOUR CONCERNS TO the following people: You can briefly ask that all LFAS be halted in all oceans or offer more reasons and opinion. Email with a promise to send the hardcopy will get the word out fast, while also providing a signature.) See websites above for additional help and guidance in this. Your Specific Congressional Representatives who are listed in the front of your phone directory under Congress in the Federal Government section U.S. Capitol switchboard - 203-224-3121 can help with other listings President Bill Clinton White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington,D.C. 20500 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Congresswoman Patsy Mink of Hawaii has been very responsive to this issue. Please provide her with letters to support her efforts. Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink (D-HI) 300 Ala Moana Blvd. Room 5-104 Honolulu, HI 96850 Website: www.house.gov/writerep U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20510 Email: www.house.gov U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510 Email: www.senate.gov Vice President Al Gore: 202-456-1414; Fax: 202-456-2461 Address: White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Bradley c/o Bill Bradley for President 395 Pleasant Valley Way West Orange, NJ 07052 973-731-2100 ; 888-643-9799 All other Presidential Candidates you believe might respond Donna Wieting, Chief National Marine Fisheries Service 1315 East-West Hwy. Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mail List "Stop Navy Sonar LFAS ATOK Testing and Deployment" Updates and Alerts about efforts to end the Navy's use of these technologies which are exceedingly dangerous to all marine animals, especially whales and dolphins with their super-sensitive hearing (low volume) To (un)subscribe to this list: just send a message with the words: "(un)subscribe: Stop Navy Sonar LFAS ATOK Testing and Deployment Mailing List" Send to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMPORTANT COMPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 From: "Cheryl A. Magill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [stoplfas] text file response to NMFS I have posted this message on the Internet. You can read it and see copies of the presentation file at this URL: http://manyrooms.com/GoTellNMFS.html Thanks, Cheryl A. Magill November 20, 1999 Cheryl A. Magill Broker Associate Re/Max Silicon Valley 12124 Saratoga-Sunnyale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Donna Wieting, Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division Office of Protected Resources National Marine Fisheries Service 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226. Dear Ms. Wieting, This regards the Navy's permit application with National Marine Fisheries Service: REQUEST FOR LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FOR THE INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EMPLOYMENT OF SURVEILLANCE TOWED ARRAY SENSOR SYSTEM LOW FREQUENCY ACTIVE (SURTASS LAF) SONAR First, I will speak to the matter of process. Usually, a process reflects a methodology. Either it is a workable process with well considered methods or it is a process which fails in its function. I suggest that the National Marine Fisheries Service would do well to begin the new millenium with some in-service days whereby its staff members may learn how to achieve the former instead of the later. I find the following matters to be ill considered in the methods/processes, which have been employed by NMFS. A person who has contact with the public should be adept in communication, reasoning and have bright skill levels, and should convey the attributes of knowledge and service. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Mr. Hollingshead was a weak link. I would rather call him a missing link because he never seemed to be there. I have learned that some people were able to reach Mr. Kenneth R. Hollingshead by telephone. I failed to do so even though I made numerous attempts to contact him. I dialed his number during normal business hours back east. I left messages. He did not return his calls so I wasn't able to speak with him personally. However, I have learned from a couple of people who talked to Mr. Hollingshead over the telephone that they were left with the impression that the National Marine Fisheries Service planned to ignore most sensible arguments. So long as the Navy wanted to have something, the Navy would likely get it because they were the U.S. Navy and common sense could not possibly prevail. Upon further inquiry, I learned that Mr. Hollingshead's conversations left people feeling depressed. It seems they discovered there were very few arguments which might have the unlikely chance of even being considered by the NMFS as slightly valid against the US Navy's application for "the incidental taking" of our most fragile marine legacy. They were given a sense of appreciation for the futility of their endeavors. I became happy to know I had failed in my attempts to contact this man and vowed only to speak to him if he returned one of my calls. Which he, gratefully, never did. My acquaintances were told that arguments against the Navy's "take" application and against continued testing and deployment of Low Frequency Active Sonar which the National Marine Fisheries Service might even consider listening to, must demonstrate that the harassment, maiming and killing of protected marine life is "impractical." Well, of course it's impractical! So it would seem that the burden we carry is overstatement of the obvious. I am reminded that this information comes from someone who failed to report information to the Federal Register correctly. I really don't mean to pick on Mr. Hollingshead. But his errors are self-compiling and it's difficult to put much weight on the merits of his consultation. I am sorry if it appears that I am picking on him. However, I must adhere to my best judgement when it comes to responding in matters that involve public notice. If our burden is to overstate the obvious and to site matters of practicality; then surely one can not find the posting in the Federal Register to be in any way practical or in any manner of service to the public. Here's why: 1. It was too little too late. Someone sat on this information. Who was it and why were they so self-serving? There was no prompt effort made to notify the general public. The Navy filed this application back on August 12th, 1999 but it wasn't offered for the scrutiny of public notice through posting in the Federal Register until late October. Now that's what I call "sitting on it." 2. The information once it reached the Federal Register was wrong. Mr. Hollingshead told at least one person over the phone that it was his error which caused the following statement to occur: "However, the RL for serious injury would be much higher, and the marine mammal would have to be much closer to the array than the 2 km (1.1 nm) radius around the vertical array delineating the 180 dB sound field." Now, this doesn't compute. Those who worked on the Navy's Draft Environmental Impact Statement had based their calculations on 1 km instead of 2 kms. But just try straightening it out with a guy who doesn't answer his phone for one whole week out of a four-week response period! I know for instance that Dr. Lee Tepley sent a written response in to the NMFS right away. He was very concerned about the 2 km distance sited in the Federal Register and contacted others who invested their time and effort to calculate this new figure. Dr. Tepley also called requesting a copy of the original application. Weeks passed. No one had bothered to inform Dr. Tepley or any of us of a miscalculation or an error in the reporting of information to the Federal Register. And I know for a fact that Dr. Tepley still hadn't received the copy of the Navy's "KILL" application he'd originally ordered. Just a few days ago, he was still trying to obtain a copy. No effort was made to contact anyone who had responded to this so far as I am aware. (I understand that the NMFS ran out of applications and had to try to print some more up in a hurry. Was this more evidence of doing too little too late?) 3. The more far-reaching aspect of public notification can not be simply swept under the rug. We had two processes going on side by side; one being the response to the US Navy's DEIS and the other being the response to the NMFS for the Navy's application. Had public notice in the Federal Register for the NMFS been given promptly, there would have been a greater potential for public response to the DEIS. Certainly, it would have served to highlight the potential impact of this highly controversial technology in the public's perception. The delay in posting the NMFS notice coincides with end of the DEIS response period which was also at the end of October. How very coincidental! How very "impractical" of the NMFS to involve the least number of interested parties possible! 4. If Mr. Hollingshead was responsible for the error regarding 2 km when 1 km should be used, might it also have been his error which created the following unsupported statement? " While research conducted to date is sufficient to assess impacts on marine mammals, it is prudent to continue research over the course of the first 5 years of the Navy's operations of SURTASS LFA sonar." How was this "sufficiency" determined and under what standard or criteria? Could it have been determined on the "bread always lands butter-side up" method of evaluation? Where is this research which is deemed to be sufficient? Would that "sufficient research" be located in an unfinished draft report which the US Navy was still having reviewed? How-by was this statement determined and whereby does the public receive such reassurance? I for one would be deeply appreciative of someone who could relieve me of this conscientious burden. So kindly point me in that direction or admit please that another error was made in the Federal Register. 5. The Federal Register refers to a five-year program, which would become part of an interdepartmental review between the Navy and the NMFS. It implies therefore that the Navy's role with NMFS is a cooperative one. If this review were on the up and up, isn't it possible that it could be an adversarial relationship because NMFS might tell the Navy to go back to the drawing board? So isn't the public disclosure a little misleading or were you intending to steer public opinions in the direction of inter-agency cooperation? 6. Mr. Lanny Sinkin wrote an article called " NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE DECEIVING PUBLIC" and in it he states: "NMFS has now joined in this charade. Why is the NMFS spending public resources processing an application, sending copies of the application out to the public, publicizing the permit process and inviting comments, if the Navy is still considering the No Action Alternative? If the Navy decided not to deploy the system, all the money being spent by NMFS would be wasted." So how is it practical to post a public notice implying cooperation with the Navy on a proposed five year plan, while at the same time bearing the responsibility of examining the Navy's efforts towards the feasibility of a "No Action Alternative?" If you were involved in private business undertakings, I believed this would be considered to be a conflict of interest. It may well be a waste of the public's resources and is impractical and premature while engaged in the initial evaluation process of the draft report and its many conflicting responses. Is there some kind of cash-back policy that you can get from the Navy's budget if their project goes belly-up? If not, why are you wasting your precious resources on this instead of taking things one step at a time, as a frugal businessperson would do? 7. To imply that the DEIS is "sufficient" in some way is pre-evaluative. This sends a mixed message to the public about an incomplete process. What was the intent of this word choice? 8. I have learned that Mr. Hollingshead would much prefer not to have to supervise the activities of the Navy on a yearly basis. I am told he would prefer a five year plan because it means less paperwork for a department that's already overworked. Is it likely therefore that the Federal Register posting was constructed in a manner so as to facilitate this interdepartmental preference? Now I will move away from method/process and into content. And of course, I will begin with the content of a cover letter, which was composed by Mr. Hollingshead. In the cover letter, Mr. Hollingshead identifies the LFA sonar system as "long-range." However, he only identifies the potential for damage being related to those marine mammals and other sea life, which are in close proximity. Now why do these two statements strike me as being self-contradicting? Let's review. Long range system. Deep water. SOFAR layer. Endangered marine life. Would the Navy have us believe that only the marine life that's close to the Navy ship would be adversely influenced in the deployment of a long range system? I guess I really must state the obvious in saying this is an ill-drawn conclusion. And the deployment of LFAS with 18 speakers is seldom sufficiently addressed in the DEIS. Rather, the Navy tends to scope out the influences of one speaker and pass that off as an example of what all 18 can do. This is a much-contested flaw of the Navy's report. At first, some of the people who were checking out this system kept playing with power. Force. Amplitude or some such thing to represent dB. What they kept missing in their evaluations was timing. Timing is everything when you've got 18 speakers and you're focusing for the distance. But the DEIS didn't reveal much about timing. For this reason, I am inserting a copy of a magazine, American Scientific, Fall Issue 1999. This magazine contains an article which just came out and which shows what the DEIS failed to mention. The NATO ship ALLIANCE is discussed in this article for sound experiments in TIME-REVERSED ACOUSTICS. The fact that all mention of Time-Reversed Acoustics is missing in the DEIS creates a question of omission. How is it possible that Italy, NATO and "American Scientific" know more about LFAS than the publishers of the DEIS? Is it practical to suppose that magazine publishers and foreign powers know more about the particulars of this process than do those folks serving in the US Navy? This magazine came out after the response period for the DEIS had concluded. However, I am glad to forward a copy to NMFS. In the DEIS, the Navy says there will be no economic impact due to the deployment of LFAS. Just where are they getting off on that conclusion? Is there so much as one appraisal determining projected trend analysis and potential economic impact? Wasn't this merely a sloughing-off on the fiscal responsibilities of completing a true evaluation of economic impact? Are we now to believe that it is not necessary to compare economic impacts when approving or disapproving an environmental impact report? I happen to know that it cost the city of Vallejo, California $6,000 to have a dead Gray Whale towed back out to sea so it's remains could decay without stinking up the beach. Please see enclosed, recent articles sent to me from people who live in St. Croix. The second article was published on November 10th and its headline reads, "Scientists Say Whale Deaths May be Linked to Navy." Look at the picture in the first article which shows a community of people standing on their shoreline wondering what caused this animal to strand. This is an island which relies on tourism. Divers who were in the water that day heard the sonar. Imagine what this does to the potential future worth of a shoreline which is subject to repeated exposures of Navy sonars? (And from what people are telling me who work with Earth Island Institute this is not exclusive to active sonars in their potential to cause harm.) So how practical is it to accept the Navy's disregard of economic impact? How can anyone look at the picture of a community gathered around a dying whale and not question how this event and events like this might influence oceanside communities? To expect acceptance of this disregard for the economic dependence of people in ocean-based communities is lazy and self-serving on the Navy's part. A real appraisal must be objective. The Navy doesn't want an objective evaluation or they wouldn't have Navy people prepare the DEIS. The requirements for appraisal are very specific to the lending and economic communities. The Navy may not retain sufficient control over an independent review. Therefore all methods of economic evaluation are disregarded. My my my! Isn't the Navy very practical! Gee, that sure is smart fiscal responsibility. What a relief to know that such a careful look at our economics has been maintained. I sure am glad we have the Navy controlling our future financial prospects along the coastline with such general statements as "it doesn't matter." How PRACTICAL of the US Navy! I am a licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of California, and this is anything BUT a sensible evaluation process. A database for some influences in real estate can be very slow to develop. Coastal influences are especially tricky because the environmental influences are changing almost as rapidly as the legal influences. But you're the National Marine Fisheries Service. You should know that much already! Please take a careful look at these articles sent from the US Virgin Islands. People there sent the articles to me. They cut out these articles from their newspaper and forwarded them to me because everyone heard the sonar that day. People all around St. Croix heard the sonar just before the strandings occurred. Five groups have all asked for auditory extractions of the stranded whales who died that day. Who pays for stuff like this? What is the long term social impact of a community which feels victimized by Navy choices? I am sure the Navy has that data. I doubt the answer truly is "it doesn't matter." I am also including in your packet of information a copy of the Hawaiian Senate Resolution which identifies some economic impact. This resolution is something I handed to Joe Johnson's aid upon Joe Johnson's request. So I know he has a copy. So too now do you. Did the Navy ever once mention that a resolution was made urging Congress to ban LFAS from Hawaiian waters? Too, please know that I personally presented the document to the California Coastal Commission and read a portion of it aloud into the public record; urging that they not let Hawaii stand alone, but that California should create a similar ban. (clip - NOT ENOUGH ROOM IN THIS EMAIL - please go to http://manyrooms.com/GoTellNMFS.html to read the missing part) Just knowing the results of this technology doesn't tell us how it will marry in with other forms of exposure; possibly acoustic noise pollution or electromagnetic field exposures. All must be weighed in when the process of prolonged exposure over a period of time is considered. Sincerely, Cheryl A. Magill Cc: Stop LFAS Worldwide E-mail Group DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
