Hi Joe >Hi Keith; > >So much to say. This thread is really where the rubber hits the >road isn't it? You have raised so many good points I don't want to >snip anything! So I'll use the same technique injecting my comments >here and there although I am not always a fan of what that does to >the archives if it goes back and forth a bit which I think this >thread might.
Yes, it'll get messy, never mind. >Keith Addison wrote: > >>Hi Joe >> >>Thanks for this. >> >>You're so right that this "is definitely a question about >>sustainability". Or the question about sustainability maybe. >> >>Your message continues a thread that's been weaving through the >>discussions here for years and years. Just about everything you touch >>on echoes most interestingly in the archives, and the echoes ripple >>out to touch other echoes. It's all there, it's a whole body of work >>by now, vastly bigger than any book, more depth, more scope, and it's >>hyperlinked, you can grep it. >> >> >Ripples and echoes are exactly the mechanics of what I am talking >about. It is those that got us into this predicament ironically >albeit slowly, but those carrot and stick measures which Roberto >Verzola (in your link) says the corporations have used to >domesticate the human species, used (without really knowing it) I think they know it pretty well. Bernays gave them that. >a form of networking capitalizing on human weaknesses, some of the >vices like envy, pride, laziness, greed ( the corp's own worst >character trait) etc. This was a form of networking in the sense >that when a new product is marketed, as soon as someone sees their >neighbour enjoying something, they want to get one too, and the >ripples spread. That's part of it, it won't work on its own though. >The networking was orchestrated through advertising And the rest! >and it didn't have organic roots but it operated according to the >same mechanics. It's more like the factory farming approach if you >will allow the analogy. All unhealthy and with no eye to the future. Sure I'll allow the analogy, it's a good one. At any rate it's exactly the opposite of what I was referring to, opposite but not equal in any way. The effect is not systemic, it's just an add-on, a coat of paint, we're still there underneath, just as we always were. We can shuck it off any time, as millions and millions are now doing. >>There are a lot of people who spend a lot of their time doing just >>that in the list archives, and they're not trying to find out where >>to get their methanol, they're plotting ways out of this mess, and >>putting them into action, and not just for themselves. >> >But these people have organic roots because they are motivated by >health and sustainability. They seem to be all sorts of people with all kinds of backgrounds and a lot of different motivations, it's hard to type them. But they're active. >But even if it was just for themselves, their drives are self >preservation and environment preservation for the future >generations. Selfish motivations can be virtuous and this is a >truth which is heavily suppressed. I don't think it's suppressed. It's the philosophical underpinning of Thatcherism, Reaganomics, trickle-down Friedmanism, neo-liberalism. Ayn Rand and so on. Of course there's a kernel of truth to it, which is easily purloined and misdirected, by institutions and individuals both. On the other hand, MLK said the end is implicit in the means, there's more than just a kernel of truth to that, and maybe means and intentions aren't that different in effect, when it comes to paving the road to Hell (or, more usually, to other people's Hells). It's certainly true though that people can do the right thing for the wrong reasons with good effect rather than ill. But I don't think there's a true conflict between self-interest and doing the right thing for the right reasons - because it's the right thing to do. >It is so dangerous to centralized power. I can do things for purely >my own reasons which can be beneficial to many which is doublegood ( >in newspeak lol) But this gets into the concept of comonality which >is the cornerstone of Multitude in which diversity rules. No >actually diversity IS, and comonality is the emergent rule. Those are just words to me Joe. No need to explain, I get your meaning, but I'll stick to the archives. >>This is one of many good places to start, essential reading - how to >>kill a mammoth, from Roberto Verzola, secretary-general of the >>Philippine Greens: >><http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg30628.h >>tml>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg30628. >>html >> >>Roberto's talking of evil corporations, but it applies as well to >>what lies behind the evil corporations and the mad empire builders >>and the rest of the usual suspects - those with power. It's the story >>of the last 10,000 years. We lose all the battles, yet it's a story >>of unstoppable progress - in a way the battles and who "wins" them >>hardly matter. >> >> >But why did corporations rise and we lost? It ONLY worked because >collectively we chased the carrot. Oh no, it's been going on MUCH longer than that. See, eg: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg32878.html Re: [biofuel] The Oil we eat (Harper's) 15 Mar 2004 >There are places where it didn't catch on and some of them are right >outside my door in the local mennonite communities, but there the >fire did not spread because the tinder was dampened with religious >fervor ( lmao the semantics are so backwards it is laughingly >appropriate). Maybe "anchor" would be better than fervour. Not the only sort of anchor. >Ok but it proves the point and also demonstrates that resistance is >NOT futile. Definitely not futile, otherwise whence the "unstoppable progress" of the last 10,000 years? And that's a fact. >Resistance by the many is not futile but it is futile for the >powermongers to try to resist the multitude. Mostly it's not necessary. "Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship." (William Blum, "Rogue State", on how governments control their citizens.) What I've said before is what all rulers know, that there's no need to fool all of the people all of the time as long as you can fool enough of them enough of the time, which isn't very difficult, especially not if you control the required resources (media etc). Mass consent is easily manufactured. >Perhaps resistance is not a good term. Maybe indifference is what is >needed. Indifference to the carrot. Hard to be indifferent when you >can't sustain yourself otherwise, but change that card and it's >suddenly a different game. An indifferent game lol. That's been said here a few times before - just build "them" out of your system, go round them. It's also what I talked about later in this message, about how things get "suitably out of control". >>Might is right? Right is might? Wrong questions, surely - what we >>have to do is dump the might altogether. Only madmen need it. >> >>What is it exactly that's progressed through the last 10,000 years? I >>think it's the idea that right is right. >> >> >Right has always been there. Hard to call that progress. Try reading it again. You might say that right had always been there too in Stalin's USSR, or Hitler's Germany or whatever. When you're drowning it's not much use trying to console yourself with the knowledge that there's lots of oxygen dissolved in the water. "Progress" would mean substituting the water for a burst of pure fresh air. There's been steady progress in forcing the powers-that-be to acknowledge right, and rights, no matter how much they didn't like it. Right has increasingly become a tangible social force rather than an ineffable for philosophers and priests to argue about. The USSR, once again, had some of the best information and rulings on safety levels for toxins in food and hazwaste exposure and so on, much more realistic than the watered down rules in the US, for instance. The Soviets could afford that, there were none of the corporate pressures at work and no intention of applying the rules anyway, nor the means to do so. The Americans were in a far better position, they were able to demand realistic rules and that they be enforced. That they didn't do so effectively was because they were spun silly - enough of the people fooled enough of the time. Which brings us back to the context. >Right doesn't mind if you choose the wrong path it just keeps on >shining it's rightness and when you turn around you have a chance to >see it. Like the sun. Problem is people think they know what is >right even when they are wrong because they think their own shining >light is brighter but they are behind the darkness of their own >brightness so to speak. It may be only when that light starts to >fade or some really dark clouds result that they discover the error. Well, whatever, that's just definitionalising really. How do you defend this right you talk of when it stands in the way of those more powerful than you are? Again you have to look at the overall pattern of it and not just isolated cases or exceptions, but in the here and now of things, there's an awful lot more that oppression has to go against in order to impose itself these days than there has been previously. Right and rights are part of a solid foundation that's been painfully contructed over millennia by the human community at large, as opposed to its rulers and institutions. It all gets steamrollered nonetheless, as if been saying, but not if we wake up, which has already happened, and I don't think it can be stopped now. >>Roberto's comments clarify some important issues. One is that >>mammoths are not human, and neither is what we're facing today even >>remotely human. Another is that there's only one way to deal with a >>mad dog, every community knows that, and it's not seen as an issue of >>violence vs non-violence. >> >Are you sure? Or is there another way? Not with a mad dog, no. It's a metaphor, how to apply it to current circumstances? My point is that people have to wake up to the fact that what we're dealing with is a bunch of mad dogs (or Roberto's mammoth). Corporations and the other institutions we're talking of are not just an assemblage of the individuals who work for them, they're not human at all. The individuals concerned are a different type of problem - you might be able to work with them, but you can't work with the corporations themselves. Or not with the predatory ones anyway. http://journeytoforever.org/fyi_previous5.html#creed Feel No Remorse -- The Corporate Creed >Just as non violent protest was discovered to be quite a powerful >tool ( and yes it can backfire unfortunately) perhaps there is a non >violent way to kill a mammoth. What if you starve it or freeze it >out? What if you leave it in the dust and it goes extinct? Okay, that's a good direction. Unlike many, you're not proposing we all sit down for a nice cup of tea and discuss it man to man like reasonable people (with a mad dog). >>Less cause for alarm you say, in some ways yes, maybe, especially >>regarding the Internet as a network enabler. But I'm alarmed just the >>same, have been for awhile. I'm a bit startled to find myself sharing >>some of the views of the abhorrent End Times nutters, but I also tend >>to think that this is it, if for altogether different reasons. This >>is what the last 10,000 years have been leading to. This is the >>crunch. If we screw up this time there might not be a next time. >> >Well you might say that 'this' has always been it. Which would then become rather meaningless, in the current context. >I mean each moment in time is both the end and beginning. You >referenced The Matrix, and I have a poster from the theatrical >release hanging on the wall of my office. It has a line of text >which reads " Everything that has a beginning has an end" And in every end is a new beginning born. >I'm not trying to be cute or downplay what you are saying but really >every moment offers the opportunity for change. Naturally. However, though it might seem at first that there might not be too much difference between trying to discuss habeas corpus with say Alberto Gonzales or with Attila the Hun, in fact there's a huge difference. >It is Tai Chi. The wheel of events. And yes my comment about alarm >was more in the sense that so long as the connectivity grows there >is great hope. Even if the network wires are being layed by the >devil himself it may actually be he is unwittingly sowing the seeds >of his own destruction. Lao Tzu says " From small seeds grow great >trees" How fitting that this organic metaphor applies to the >downfall of the corporatistas who are so anti everything organic. >Everything becomes it's opposite. The play may be a tragic comedy >but the buddha laughs at it just the same. Of course, each step is the whole journey. On the other hand you might get run over by a truck. No more steps, no more journey, no more spots of time that are a whole universe. And this is it. A truck careering out of control and a street filled with people in the way. No second chance. We solve this ancient problem of power and its abuse now, this time round, or maybe never. IMHO. >>This is one of the things that worries me: >> >>>>We'll win in the end, but as Chomsky just wrote in the Guardian, "A >>>>predator becomes more dangerous when wounded". So does a rat in a >>>>corner. >> >>The problem with killing this particular mammoth is just that - if we >>drive it into a corner it's not going to say, "Hey guys, fair enough, >>you win, we'll just collect our gold Rolexes at the door and spend >>the rest of our days playing golf." A more likely outcome would be >>something like the Matrix, or Terminator (I've been thinking that for >>a lot longer than those movies have been around). Everybody loses. >> >>There must be another way of doing this. >> >> >Well funny that chapter 10 of the I Ching came up for me this >weekend. It was in regard to a different question but interesting >just the same. It is "Lu" or 'conduct' and the image refers to how >to be in a dangerous situation. The guidance says step softly when >treading on the tail of a tiger. As you point out below the grass >roots movement happens below the radar. If the tiger ever awakens >to this it will be quite a show but so far as you correctly pointed >out the great beast is too distracted with it's own carnivorous >thoughts. So what happens when the tiger's prey evolves into >subteranean creatures or tree dwellers? This can happen right under >the tiger's nose without twitching his tail. Did exxon notice the >frost creeping in around the edges of its maket when biofuel began >to get suitably out of control? Are they still drueling over the >prospects of the incipient supply vs. demand gap of their industry? >Is the food industry worried about you growing your own veggies yet? >And even if they are beginning to, can they stop you? There's no >law against it but compare with the growing of pot which is almost >universally illegal. Even then it cannot be stopped. And so has >google or MSN payed any attention to the hinternet? So far the >frost is only in the low lying areas ( like my basement rofl) but >winter is comming, though the sun feels warm in the boardroom today. This is not a time for "Keeping Still" though, which doesn't mean not moving, it means going with the flow and not initiating anything. Nor just for surviving dangers. It's time for an immense collective creative effort. The creative minority has already shown the way and opened the doors, and people are waking up and coming to their senses on huge swathes and droves, well beyond the critical threshold, IMHO again. >>>In the mean time the googles and the you tubes >>>and cisco's of the world >> >>Well, don't give them too much credit, it's just the Internet growing >>really (still a baby). >> >>>have been building the very infrastructure that >>>the multitude requires to grow and take shape into the entity Noam >>>Chomsky refers to as 'The other world superpower". >> >>Chomsky refers to the global grass-roots movement against corporate >>globalisation as "the other superpower", but it was the New York >>Times that put the idea on the map, in an article by Patrick Tyler on >>February 17, 2003, following the largest anti-war rally in history >>two days earlier: "... the huge anti-war demonstrations around the >>world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two >>superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public >>opinion." >> >Ok thanks for clarifying that. I am only familiar with it in >Chomsky's writings. > >>>Well that entity may >>>exist but so far it has been fairly toothless. But people are using this >>>infrastructure just the same and the interconnectedness, expression and >>>sharing is happening. Networks of connections between people with >>>common interests are forming as a result of the investments these >>>agencies are making in the infrastructure. >>> >>> >> >>A lot of people are bothered by its apparent toothlessness, and so am >>I, but I think it could be an illusion. Maybe we're looking in the >>wrong place. >> >> >Yes maybe. The ocean is toothless as well but it can still uproot >you and it can carry you away and drown you. Your most important >fixation with something on the shore is irrelevant to the tide and I >like to think the tide is turning. So what of the toothiness? >Surely you can lash out at the sea in your vexation about your >treasure in the sand but inevitably you can only put up walls to >fight the sea and the sea will still have it's way. The network >cannot be dismantled anymore! Myself and others like me are working >to ensure this. The power in a network is it's connectivity see my >comment below. > >> >>I recall saying here maybe three years ago or something like that >>that the global DIY biodiesel movement was by then "suitably out of >>control". That was in response to one of the list's periodic bouts of >>angst that the Big Guys would step on us any time now and put a stop >>to it. I think that was true then, and it's even more true now, it's >>not something that can be stopped. >> >>At that time, and now, nobody had any real idea of how many people >>were brewing their own good fuel and how much of it they were >>brewing, but it was certainly many millions of gallons a year, and >>many millions of dollar-equivalents being lost to Big Oil and the >>taxman, and it was spreading like a weed. >> >>Nobody noticed this happening, it was completely under the radar. >>Even now, with biofuels a major headliner, still very few people have >>noticed it. When they do they think it's insignificant and dismiss >>it. But it's the backbone of the future of biofuels development, and >>it's too late to do anything about it. >> >> >That's exactly the beauty of a network. It is composed of nodes >which are individually insignificant. Not a new idea exactly, ask any Communist or revolutionary. >The power is in the collective and even then it is only in the >COMMONALITY of the collective. We face so many common threats now that, though perceptions vary, commonality is almost a given, it easily overrides any perceived differences of race or culture or religion or whatever. Again, see Greenspan and Shanker: http://journeytoforever.org/rrlib/greenspan.html Toward a Psychology of Interdependency >I live in a country with a lot of ethnic diversity but when I go to >the ethnic regions within a city I see people who have more in >common than the differences that they like to express and celebrate. >The common needs of people are global and a network of concerned >people with common needs can be at least as powerful as the sea. >People are just not concerned enough because of the ages of hypnosis >and carrot chasing, but they are becoming concerned. Some sooner >than others but it is happening. I see it. Yes, since August 11, 2005. >>Decentralised energy and energy self-reliance for individuals and >>communities is sheer anathema to the powers-that-be, and yet here we >>are. >> >>The people doing this, whoever they might be, are most often not only >>concerned about what they put in their tanks, it usually goes much >>further than that. >> >Just as my friends who eat organic are concerned about much more >than what they "put in their tanks". Beautiful people. > >>I don't think it could have happened without Internet networking. >> >>Would you call that "toothless"? Would you say it's the only such >>example? Would you say it might be a better way of "fighting" >>ExxonMobil? There wasn't a fight. (Yet.) >> >No but it's more like being gummed to death or enveloped and >digested. I meant toothless in the sense of force against force. Why are you insisting on force? It's obsolete, and I've tried to show that it's not at all required. Look at what you said above: "Maybe indifference is what is needed." Or this: "Just as non violent protest was discovered to be quite a powerful tool ( and yes it can backfire unfortunately) perhaps there is a non violent way to kill a mammoth. What if you starve it or freeze it out? What if you leave it in the dust and it goes extinct?" So why do you want to outgun them? Why fight on their homeground instead of our own? Why fight at all? Chomsky says the same: "The victory of the non-violent resistance in Iraq, which compelled the occupying forces to allow elections, that's a major victory. That's one of the major triumphs of non-violent resistance that I know of. It wasn't the insurgents that did it - the US doesn't care about violence, they have more violence. What it can't control is non-violence and the non-violent movements in Iraq..." http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg59092.html [Biofuel] On the Iraq Election - Noam Chomsky interview >Sigh a lifetime of conditioning is hard to break (speaking of >myself). But will the fight really be more of a sideshow while the >rest become more and more enabled and just go on without them >(exxon). I'm not suggesting that the exxonmobils will just fade out >with a whimper, that whole scene is waaaay too entrenched but I >think that it has no choice but to just kind of implode and the >vacuum that is created will naturally be filled by what exists >without that scene. And we know that there are lots of alternatives >to fill the void although it will not be filled to the brim >obviously. What will happen to the likes of ExxonMobil, and indeed to world trade and neo-liberal economics itself, when true carbon costs start hitting the bottom line? If anyone thinks it won't happen, just ask the insurance industry. >>Much or most of what "the other superpower" is actually doing with >>itself might be under the radar in a similar way. Maybe from the >>outside it just looks like some folks growing their own veggies in >>their gardens or something, like they've always done, there's no sign >>on the gate saying "Dig for Victory" (or rather "No-dig for Victory", >>LOL!). >> >>None of these things could ever be "enough" on their own, and they're >>easily dismissed as insignificant when you deal with them piecemeal. >>But not when you see the pattern of it. I think very few people do >>see that, but does that matter? >> >It could matter if they start to see it and start to see the power >and beauty of it and become proactive. Active will do. As I said about local food, many of the people who're minimizing their "foodshed" to local scales think they're innovators and leaders, trendsetters. They're not, that's all long since been done. But it really doesn't matter just as long as they do it, which they will, whether they see the "big picture" or not. By the way, I'm not being patronising about this, I don't see the creative minority as an elite and the followers as sheep, it just isn't that way, it doesn't work that way. Horses for courses. >That may not be necessary but it could sure catalyze things. I think it has already done that. >It is that awareness which has been driving people on this list I >think but the critical mass is not reached yet. I strongly disagree. >>Now, for the last month or so, the media are full of stories about >>local food. Local food is probably as big a threat to the system as >>local fuel is. Frankly I think most of the so-called leaders in the >>"new" movement who're getting the publicity are a bunch of >>lightweights, but it doesn't matter, any more than it mattered that >>Al Gore's movie was such a lightweight effort (and indeed cowardly, >>as Bill Blum called it), it pressed the right buttons at the right >>time. In both these cases, local food and global warming, the >>apparently sudden popularisation could never have happened without >>the groundwork laid for years and years by unsung heroes working away >>quietly, under the radar. >> >> >And were those unsung heroes real philanthropists working like the >tireless underdog, taking one for the team, or were they just some >feral humans who couldn't be broken and wanted to be free and ended >up being recognized from the outside as visionaries while they had >their head down digging the soil completely oblivious? Why does it matter? Though I think many of them knew exactly what they were doing and why. >>I don't think the other superpower can be stopped, it's effectively >>invisible to those who'd want to stop it, until it's too late. It's >>the only superpower really. >> >>But the rat-in-the-corner problem bothers me. >> >> >Well we shall see what we shall see. It's anyone's guess I suppose >but there are plenty of reasons for optimism in "the end times" I >wouldn't want to corner a rat either but perhaps we can quietly >sneak the door closed on him while he's basking in his glory >outside. Even he has to play by his own ratly rules. We just won't >tell him we have changed the game without asking permission. One >thing is for sure, Mr. Rat would never imagine in his wildest dreams >we could be so bold. I think they remember the sixties though. Much may it help them, LOL! Damn, I sure wouldn't want to share an acid trip with Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld!!! Aarghh! >>Interesting times indeed, perhaps the most interesting ever. I'd >>probably agree that it's a curse, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere >>else than here and now, would you? >> >Um. I'm still living in the burbs Keith. lol. :-) If you live in a global village it doesn't matter where you live. >>Best >> >>Keith >> >> >And best wishes to you Keith. Strength to your arm and boldness to your web. Why thankyou Joe, and the very same to you. All best Keith >Joe > > >> >> >> >> >>>Hi Keith; >>> >>>I agree with you about the discussion around handguns in the US. It >>>will not be a productive rant/argument anywhere and will quickly >>>degenerate into a shouting match. But can we have a more general >>>discussion on the concept of force because it is a very important issue >>>to me in a more general sense. I would consider myself a pacifist >>>(funny how that word contains 'fist') and I would also defend myself or >>>someone who needed help but I would prefer the world worked by >>>communication and care and consideration for each other. I have offered >>>my opinion here before that if ANYONE is to have nukes for example, that >>>everyone should have them, just out of a desire for everyone to have >>>equal consideration at the bargaining table. I'd rather they were >>>banished from existence on the planet and maybe one day we will. The >>>book I have been harping on called Multitude offers a shining ray of >>>hope for that world to exist through a new directly democratic social >>>order based on networking. I'd like to discuss the problem of how we get >>> > >>>from a world which is ruled by bullies where one could argue that you >>> >>> >>>better have might or get crushed, to the more advanced and mature >>>society which is based on things like compassion, consideration of >>>others, fairness for all, open communication, etc etc? This is >>>definitely a question about sustainability. >>> >>>John Seed came to town recently on his global tour offering hope for >>>people needing motivation from dispair. We talked about many global >>>issues both social and environmental and I didn't come away from that >>>meeting feeling particularly inspired or that some really practical >>>information was offered on how to adress these issues in ways that have >>>real tangible results like today. My expectation did not match with the >>>reality of what was being offered there. There have been some cases >>>where groups have organized in the style outlined in Multitude to >>>achieve a common purpose and in many cases it did unfortunately due to >>>the circumstances involve some violence. There are many challenges that >>>face such a reorganization not the least of which is the presence of the >>>party which carries the big stick (and hasn't been walking so softly). >>>To my way of thinking in order for a more peaceful model to come about >>>and reach some sustainable steady state, one of the biggest hurdles >>>that has to be overcome is how to deal with the power which is based in >>>violence. It seems like having to get over the crest of a hill before >>>you can get to easy sailing on the way down the other side. There are >>>many many challenges that we face on this planet as a species right >>>now. These are the 'interesting times' refered to in that ancient >>>chinese curse I guess. I feel quite confident that all of these issues >>>can be sorted out democratically on a global scale but before that can >>>happen power needs to be wrested away from those who hate the idea of >>>distributed power. Is there a non violent way to do this? Perhaps it is >>>the economic power of the consumer which is the ultimate weapon against >>>this hierarchical power structure afterall it is this very collective >>>force which has been the tool, or rather the pawn of the power brokers >>>in the first place, and that which has allowed them to seize such an >>>inordinate measure of might. >>> >>>If the hope for the future hinges on networking large numbers of >>>concerned and motivated individuals, then this ( the web) is an obvious >>>place for the power to grow. There have been discussions about some >>>centralized groups aligning to seize control of information and the >>>network backbones. I have been uneasy about this but lately I have been >>>having other thoughts. In the mean time the googles and the you tubes >>>and cisco's of the world have been building the very infrastructure that >>>the multitude requires to grow and take shape into the entity Noam >>>Chomsky refers to as 'The other world superpower". Well that entity may >>>exist but so far it has been fairly toothless. But people are using this >>>infrastructure just the same and the interconnectedness, expression and >>>sharing is happening. Networks of connections between people with >>>common interests are forming as a result of the investments these >>>agencies are making in the infrastructure. I am wondering if there is >>>less cause for alarm? If a monopoly was to come about trying to control >>>the information network what would be the result? If it became >>>unreasonably expensive or information was somehow censored or >>>restricted, would the multitude allow it? Concerned hackers have >>>already shown there are ways around any effort to centrally control the >>>e-world. Is it possible that the greedy efforts of these corporations >>>are building a system which will inevitably defeat thier aims of total >>>control? I hope so. The mightiest power of all is the power of the >>>collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. LOL >>>Thoughts? >>> >>>Joe _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
