From kcarlyle at main.nc.us Sun Nov 2 18:23:19 2003 From: kcarlyle at main.nc.us (Kim Carlyle) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 17:23:19 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] SAF Message-ID: <001201c3a190$1476d300$b76dc0d1@qew> Dear Friends, The latest edition of the Southern Appalachian Friend has been sent to a meeting or an e-mail-box near you. If you are not on the e-mail distribution list and would like to be, please send a message including your name and monthly meeting or worship group to SAFeditor at SAYMA.org Thanks, SAF eds. From bright_crow at mindspring.com Fri Nov 7 08:58:49 2003 From: bright_crow at mindspring.com (Mike Shell) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:58:49 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: NYTimes.com Article: Blueprint for a Mess Message-ID: <21816860.1068209930204.JavaMail.root@wamui08.slb.atl.earthlink.net> Friends, I strongly recommend you read and share this article from the NY TIMES MAGAZINE of November 2nd. The pivotal piece of information for me was early on (p.30), when I read that Ahmae Chalabi, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz have been planning the Iraq invasion and occupation since the early 1990s. Not at all a surprise: I'd figured this was probably so. Still, it's distressing to find such suspicions confirmed in the press. Blessed Be, Mike Shell. Blueprint for a Mess November 2, 2003 By DAVID RIEFF How the Bush administration’s prewar planners bungled postwar Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/magazine/02IRAQ.html?ex=1069209414&ei=1&en=d0894e4175ccce4a Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company From tlamm at chpl.net Tue Nov 18 10:29:16 2003 From: tlamm at chpl.net (Tim Lamm) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:29:16 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] YM2003 Minutes Message-ID: <010401c3ade0$cb347c80$15a8a8c0@BRADBURY1> Friends in SAYMA, I have posted the YM2003 Minutes on our web site under "Online Documents". ---Tim Lamm, Web Manager Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association www.sayma.org From freepolazzo at comcast.net Mon Nov 17 10:58:20 2003 From: freepolazzo at comcast.net (free polazzo) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:58:20 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Message to US Soldiers in Iraq from a Vietnam Veteran Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031117094554.03249548@mail.comcast.net> > >Some people learn about the evils of war by fighting in one. I like to >hear from people who have "been there" whenever I can. The following >link will bring you to an article by a US soldier who fought in Vietnam >and speaks to US Soldiers who are now in Iraq. Very powerful stuff. > >http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/111703D.shtml > Free Polazzo Anneewakee Creek Worship Group PS: I highly recommend truthout.org's daily reports as an alternate method of news gathering. PS: If you get more than one copy of this message it is because you are in more than one of my lists. From moriah at preferred.com Wed Nov 19 22:40:00 2003 From: moriah at preferred.com (Mary Calhoun) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:40:00 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] IMP^o^ 162 Rep Meeting "e-registration" Message-ID: <03c001c3af0f$ee3f4540$b872fea9@Mary> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IMP ^o^ Bulletin 162 information needed to register electronically for Winter Rep Meeting ... .......................................................... but you still need to see registration materials! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <|> You can register by phone or e-mail for the Winter Rep Meeting scheduled for Dec 6th in Atlanta GA. (Main session: 10:00 am Eastern time) <|> Please register by November 24. Everyone coming must be registered. The person to register with is: <|> Carol Gray -- 404-288-8749, chezgray at mindspring.com <|> You will need to see registration materials even if you register by e-mail or phone: maps, directions, agendas, and other important information. <|> If you don't have a registration packet, please -- -- check IMP^o^ 161, to see if one was mailed to you, or ... -- contact a person who was listed in IMP 161, or ... -- contact your meeting clerk, or ... -- visit www.sayma.org to download and print the materials, or ... -- contact the SAYMA office at 276-628-5852, AdminAsst at sayma.org <|> Meanwhile, IMP^o^ bulletins 160 and 161 will give you partial information. <|> Info needed for Rep Meeting registration: 1. If you need childcare please notify Carol Gray right away. Childcare is very limited. 2. Your name and address 3. Purpose for attending: (a) Rep Meeting, M&N, Yearly Mtg Planning, other (b) child; please give name(s), age(s) and special needs of child(ren) requiring care. 4. Meeting or Worship Group name 5. Your contact info: area code + phone number (& e-mail address if you have one). If giving both, please indicate the preferred means of communication 6. Hospitality needed (place to sleep & light breakfast provided by local f/Friend): (a) Please indicate people who can share a room... (b) ...& those who can share a bed. (c) Friday night for (#) ____ people. Expected time of arrival: ______ (d) Saturday night for (#) ____ people. Expected time of arrival: ____ (e) Please say who is arriving when, if the folks above are not all traveling together. (f) Any special needs? (Vegetarian, vegan, special diet, house without stairs, hills, wood smoke, pets, or a child-proof house, etc. ...?) 7. If you ask for hospitality, and your request hasn't been acknowledged by Dec 2, you can contact Carol Gray (404-288-8749, chezgray at mindspring.com) if you want reassurance! 8. Cancellation: after registering, if you are unable to attend for any reason, please notify Carol Gray as soon as possible at 404-288-8749, chezgray at mindspring.com. ~~~~~~ end ^o^ ~~~~~~ postdate 111903 ~~~~~~ ________________________________ IMP ^o^ ... "Information Made Present" is a bulletin service of the SAYMA office to provide practical details to our geographically-challenged Yearly Meeting via our free list-server: semi-official information, bulletins that you can print, post, announce, publish, or pass around. Please address questions, corrections and additions to AdminAsst at sayma.org, or 276-628-5852 (machine; in-person Tu/Th 5-7:30p). Thank you! ^o^ ----------------------------------------------------- To receive IMP^o^ bulletins, subscribe to the free list server, sayma at kitenet.net. You can also subscribe on the web at http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma. ------------------------------------------------------ From moriah at preferred.com Wed Nov 19 22:39:24 2003 From: moriah at preferred.com (Mary Calhoun) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:39:24 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] IMP^o^ 161 Rep Mtg ...mailbox near you! Message-ID: <03bf01c3af0f$ecc4da40$b872fea9@Mary> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IMP ^o^ Bulletin 161 Coming to a mailbox near you! Rep Meeting registration packets for -- ............................................................. -- Dec 6, hosted by Atlanta FM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <|> Registration packets have been mailed to the f/Friends listed below for the Dec 6th Rep Meeting in Atlanta, GA. (Main session: 10:00 am Eastern time) <|> If you need a packet and aren't on the list, please -- -- contact one of the people below (4 people can register on one form), or ... -- visit our web-site www.sayma.org to download and print the packet materials, or ... -- contact the SAYMA office at 276-628-5852, AdminAsst at sayma.org <|> The due date for registering is November 24; you may register by mail, phone, or e-mail. The person to register with is: <|> Carol Gray 58 Wiltshire Drive, Avondale Estates GA 30002 chezgray at mindspring.com 404/ 288-8749 <|> Please see IMP^o^ 162 to find out what information to supply by phone or e-mail in order to register. <|> You will need the packet materials even if you register by e-mail or phone: directions, map, agendas, and other important information. <|> If you could use some help organizing a ride-share for Rep Mtg, you can contact Bill Reynolds, cisland at aol.com, 423-624-6821. <|> If you should have been on the list below -- and aren't -- please let the SAYMA office know (AdminAsst at sayma.org, PO Box 2191, Abingdon VA 24212). <|> If you're on this list and don't need to be, please let the office know that too! <|> Mailed to, in meeting order ... Michael Allison . . . . . . . . . . . Anneewakee Creek Free Polazzo . . . . . . . . . . . Anneewakee Creek Barbara Esther . . . . . . . . . . . Asheville Margaret Farmer . . . . . . . . . . . Asheville Steve Livingston . . . . . . . . . . . Asheville Lauren Mitchell . . . . . . . . . . . Asheville George Oldham . . . . . . . . . . . Asheville Evan Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . Asheville Betsey Collins . . . . . . . . . . . Athens Ellen Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . Athens Janice Pulliam . . . . . . . . . . . Athens Deb Weiler . . . . . . . . . . . Athens Kathy Burke . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta Susan Cozzens . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta Carol Gray . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta Kathy Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta Loretta Lucy Miller . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta Martha Tate . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta Joe Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta Perry Treadwell . . . . . . . . . . . Atlanta Tom Brawner . . . . . . . . . . . Auburn Brian Boggs . . . . . . . . . . . Berea Therese Hildebrand . . . . . . . . . . . Berea David Kennedy . . . . . . . . . . . Berea Carol Lamm . . . . . . . . . . . Berea Tim Lamm . . . . . . . . . . . Berea Beth Myers . . . . . . . . . . . Berea Wendy Satterthwaite . . . . . . . . . . . Berea Mark Gooch . . . . . . . . . . . Birmingham Jane Hiles . . . . . . . . . . . Birmingham Connie LaMonte . . . . . . . . . . . Birmingham John Geary . . . . . . . . . . . Boone Kathy Staley . . . . . . . . . . . Boone Bob French . . . . . . . . . . . Brevard Lee Scott . . . . . . . . . . . Brevard Joyce Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . Celo Bob McGahey . . . . . . . . . . . Celo Geeta McGahey . . . . . . . . . . . Celo Colin Sugioka . . . . . . . . . . . Celo Marmon Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . Celo Rachel Weir . . . . . . . . . . . Celo Ray Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . Charleston Steve Mininger . . . . . . . . . . . Charleston Charles Schade . . . . . . . . . . . Charleston Nancy Beecher . . . . . . . . . . . Chattanooga Becky Ingle . . . . . . . . . . . Chattanooga Larry Ingle . . . . . . . . . . . Chattanooga Bill Reynolds . . . . . . . . . . . Chattanooga Peggy Bonnington . . . . . . . . . . . Clarksville Nancy Winfrey . . . . . . . . . . . Clemson John Spraker . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland Stan Spraker . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland Sallie Prugh . . . . . . . . . . . Columbia Julia Sibley-Jones . . . . . . . . . . . Columbia Alice Wald . . . . . . . . . . . Columbia Annie Black . . . . . . . . . . . Cookeville Hector Black . . . . . . . . . . . Cookeville Deanna Nipp . . . . . . . . . . . Cookeville Hazel Hall . . . . . . . . . . . Cookeville Gladys Draudt . . . . . . . . . . . Crossville Dennis Gregg . . . . . . . . . . . Crossville Mary Calhoun . . . . . . . . . . . Foxfire Beth Keiter . . . . . . . . . . . Foxfire Bob Keiter . . . . . . . . . . . Foxfire Edie Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . Foxfire Christopher Berg . . . . . . . . . . . Greenville Norman Goerlich . . . . . . . . . . . Greenville Judy Guerry . . . . . . . . . . . Huntsville Susan Phelan . . . . . . . . . . . Huntsville David Ciscel . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis Kristi Estes . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis Debra Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis Larry Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis Neena Ledbetter . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis Jonah McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis Ron McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . Memphis Wib Smith . . . . . . . . . . . Murfreesboro Dick Houghton . . . . . . . . . . . Nashville Kit Potter . . . . . . . . . . . Nashville Geoffrey Pratt . . . . . . . . . . . Nashville Joyce Rouse . . . . . . . . . . . Nashville Penelope Wright . . . . . . . . . . . Nashville Kim Carlyle . . . . . . . . . . . New Moon Susan Carlyle . . . . . . . . . . . New Moon Nan Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . Oxford Daryl Bergquist . . . . . . . . . . . Royal Jane Price . . . . . . . . . . . Sevier County Lyn Hutchinson . . . . . . . . . . . Sewanee Suzanne Gernandt . . . . . . . . . . . Swannanoa Valley Kathryn Parke . . . . . . . . . . . Swannanoa Valley Bob Welsh . . . . . . . . . . . Swannanoa Valley Sharon Annis . . . . . . . . . . . West Knoxville Barbara Conant . . . . . . . . . . . West Knoxville Lee Hoefer . . . . . . . . . . . West Knoxville Missy Ivie . . . . . . . . . . . West Knoxville Turtle MacDermott . . . . . . . . . . . West Knoxville Carol Nickle . . . . . . . . . . . West Knoxville Lee Ann Swarm . . . . . . . . . . . West Knoxville ~~~~~~ end ^o^ ~~~~~~ postdate 111903 ~~~~~~ _____________________________ IMP ^o^ ... "Information Made Present" is a bulletin service of the SAYMA office to provide practical details to our geographically-challenged Yearly Meeting via our free list-server: semi-official information, bulletins that you can print, post, announce, publish, or pass around. Please address questions, corrections and additions to AdminAsst at sayma.org, or 276-628-5852 (machine; in-person Tu/Th 5-7:30p). Thank you! ^o^ ----------------------------------------------------- To receive IMP^o^ bulletins, subscribe to the free list server, sayma at kitenet.net. You can also subscribe on the web at http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma. ------------------------------------------------------ From moriah at preferred.com Wed Nov 19 23:14:07 2003 From: moriah at preferred.com (Mary Calhoun) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:14:07 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: A membership matter Message-ID: <043701c3af16$c8cfaaa0$b872fea9@Mary> Dear Friends, Bessie White, Clerk to Brentford and Isleworth Meeting (in Britain) is looking for someone you might know... ^o^ \_/ Mary AdminAsst at sayma.org 276-628-5852 POB 2191, Abingdon VA 24212-2191 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bessie White" Subject: A membership matter > Dear Friend, > > I wonder if you could help me with information about two of our members > who moved from the UK to the United States. Their names are Dennis and > Heather Crawford. He was working finance and moved to America for his > work. For a time they were living in Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97035, but I > believe they are no longer at this address. > > We were wondering if they had made contact with Friends in your area and > if so If you had their present address or could ask them to email me? > We would just like to ask them if they would like to transfer their > membership. As I think they are likely to settle in the States it is not > very helpful for their membership to remain with us. > > Thank you very much for your time > > Yours in friendship > > Bessie White > Clerk to Brentford and Isleworth Meeting > Westminster Monthly Meeting > Britain Yearly Meeting > -- > -- > bessie > From moriah at preferred.com Thu Nov 20 01:36:50 2003 From: moriah at preferred.com (Mary Calhoun) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:36:50 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: ESR Access January Courses Message-ID: <06fa01c3af37$c58e3840$b872fea9@Mary> ----- Original Message ----- From: Gail Bingham To: axtelsu at earlham.edu Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 8:06 AM Subject: ESR Access January Courses Hello from Earlham School of Religion! We would like to get the following information to your Yearly/Monthly Meeting members for the upcoming ESR Access January courses: The ESR Access program offers three courses at regional sites Jan. 5-16, 2004. Course/site(s): Christian Reconciliation: Conflict Resolution in Church and World- Hartsford, CT & Marshalltown, IA, Ministry Among Unprogrammed Friends - Pasadena, CA, Old Testament Exegesis: Post-Exilic Prophets - Greensboro, NC. Courses are graduate level and can be taken for credit either within the full-time ESR Access program or as an occasional student. Tuition is $795 per course plus fees ($35 application, $80 registration & $50 technology). Qualified applicants, who are not interested in taking the course for credit but want the education, may audit the course for only $200 plus fees. The number of auditing students may be limited. Class times are M-F 5:30 - 9 pm. Deadline for admission is Dec. 8th. For more information or to apply or call Sue Axtell, ESR Admissions at (800)432-1377. From moriah at preferred.com Thu Nov 20 01:44:59 2003 From: moriah at preferred.com (Mary Calhoun) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:44:59 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: [GLODEM] Peace Studies in Austria (in English) Message-ID: <06fb01c3af37$c64e7b00$b872fea9@Mary> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dietrich Fischer" <102464.1110 at compuserve.com> To: "Dietrich Fischer" Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 5:48 PM Subject: [GLODEM] Peace Studies in Austria (in English) this excellent program, which still has about 20 > openings for the spring. The deadline for applications is > November 30. Many thanks and best regards, Dietrich > > **************************************************************** > COURSES IN PEACE AND CONFLICT STUDIES (IN ENGLISH) > AT THE EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR PEACE STUDIES > STADTSCHLAINING, AUSTRIA > **************************************************************** > > Come join 40 participants from around the world in an intensive > 3-month course in peace and conflict studies, taught by leading > specialists in their field, including Johan Galtung, founder of > the field of peace research. The Program, established in 1991, > received the 1995 UNESCO Prize for Peace Education. > > TOPICS INCLUDE: Introduction to Peace Studies, Peace Culture, > Peace Education, Nonviolent Communication, Peace and the Media, > Reconciliation after Violence, Peacebuilding and Development, > Peaceful Conflict Transformation, and Deep Culture. > > DATES: 29 February - 21 May, 2004 > > LOCATION: Stadtschlaining, a beautiful, small and quiet medieval > town with a 700 year old castle hosting a peace museum, in the > foothills of the Alps, between Vienna and Graz. Classrooms and > 40 single rooms with private bath are located in a new building. > > COSTS: Euro 2500 tuition + Euro 1200 room rent per semester > > WHO SHOULD APPLY: Students from any dsicipline interested in > peace and conflict resolution, young diplomats, government > officials, NGO members, teachers, journalists, lawyers, social > workers, psychologists, officers, and anyone interested in > solving conflicts by peaceful means. A first university degree > or some professional experience is required. > > DEGREES: Those who complete one semester obtain an advanced > certificate. You can also extend your studies for another 3 > months and obtain a Master of Arts in Peace and Conflict Studies. > > FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO APPLY: see www.aspr.ac.at, then click > on "European University Center for Peace Studies" on the left or > contact Anita Flasch at , Tel +43-3355-2498-515. > > APPLICATION DEADLINE FOR THE SPRING TERM: November 30, 2003 > > **************************************************************** > PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH ANYONE WHO MAY BE INTERESTED! THANK YOU. > **************************************************************** > > From moriah at preferred.com Thu Nov 20 02:30:58 2003 From: moriah at preferred.com (Mary Calhoun) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 01:30:58 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Fw: FGC Gathering Flyer on the Web Message-ID: <06fe01c3af37$ca12d600$b872fea9@Mary> From: "Liz Perch" Subject: Gathering Flyer on the Web Take a look: http://www.fgcquaker.org/gathering/index.html And pass it on! LIZ Liz Perch Conference Coordinator Friends General Conference 1216 Arch Street, #2B Philadelphia, PA 19107 215/561-1700 x3005 Fax: 215/561-0759 lizp at fgcquaker.org www.fgcquaker.org "Science has progressed. It has contributed to the welfare of humanity, but its misuse has tragically left in its wide wake devastation and desolation, fear and moral deprivation." - Swami Sivananda Geeta Jyothi McGahey 300 Dharma Way Burnsville, NC 28714 828-675-5535 mcgahey at yancey.main.nc.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From freepolazzo at comcast.net Thu Nov 20 19:01:07 2003 From: freepolazzo at comcast.net (free polazzo) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:01:07 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Peaceable Kin?dom wallpaper Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031120175759.00b04760@mail.comcast.net> Hi Friends, Here is a BMP file for wallpaper that you might like. Happy Every Day!! Free -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: peaceablekindom.bmp Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1300854 bytes Desc: not available URL: From listener at bellsouth.net Sat Nov 22 15:04:35 2003 From: listener at bellsouth.net (Kit Potter) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:04:35 -0600 Subject: [saymaListserv] Miami truth Message-ID: <006701c3b12b$7842a710$6501a8c0@heyoka> Arresting The Future http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17246 By Tom Hayden, AlterNet November 21, 2003 Editor's Note: Tom Hayden is reporting for AlterNet from the Free Trade Area of the Americas conference in Miami. MIAMI, Friday 8:21pm EST – The police force continued operating with the brains and appetite of a carnivorous shark today as city officials kept demonstrating "the Miami model" of suppression even as protestors and trade ministers were leaving the city in droves. At a Friday afternoon press conference, Thea Lee, the chief international economist of the AFL-CIO, spoke of feeling terrified Thursday as police fired pepper gas and plastic bullets at peaceful marchers. Other labor leaders, including AFL-CIO president John Sweeney expressed "outrage" over the police blocking of a permitted gathering, and cited specific abuses such as a union retiree being denied necessary medication after an arbitrary arrest. Global Exchange co-founder Medea Benjamin and others were pulled over Thursday night by a dozen officers who pointed guns at them. The Sierra Club's Washington D.C. advocate, Dan Seligman, also described officers holding a weapon to his head and that of another colleague. Mark Rand, coordinator of a group of foundation funders, displayed a large bluish bruise on his back leg from a rubber bullet. When 100 protestors ventured to the Dade County jail today to speak out against yesterday's arrests and detentions of some 145 people, a third on felonies, the same cycle of avoidable suppression they were describing unfolded yet again. David Solnit, one of the founders of the Seattle movement, attributed the harsh police measures to Miami's character as a center of "vulgar capitalism." Unlike other cities, where authorities may appear to assimilate dissent for political reasons, he said, Miami has attempted to sweep it away as a foreign curse. AFL-CIO leader Ron Judd speculated that the police suppression deflected public attention from working-class trade issues, while Medea Benjamin accused authorities of "trying to get the people of this city and county used to this militaristic model" instead of the relatively benign model of policing used at Cancun only two months ago. I came to Miami with eight students from Harvard University, where I have been teaching a study group on social movements this semester. They carried with them questionnaires to sample the opinions of this new generation of protestors, and received a first-hand education in police suppression today. After the press conference outside the county jail, about 200 young people marched 100 yards, stopping in a parking lot across a street from several hundred heavily equipped police officers. Negotiations between a police commander and activist lawyers produced peaceful coexistence for an hour late in the afternoon. There were high spirits, even humor, among the protestors who invented chants like "There ain't no riot here, take off that stupid gear" and songs like "We all live in a failed democracy." The protest could easily have been contained by a handful of officers, or might have simply faded as the day ended. Instead, at approximately 5pm, the commanding officer summoned the activist lawyers to announce that those milling, waiting or sitting in the parking lot had become an "unlawful assembly" with three minutes to disperse. In addition, he said with a straight face, there was "intelligence" that some in the crowd had rocks. There was no evidence shared with regard to this secret intelligence and no rocks were seen in the events that followed. Instead of resisting, the crowd began dispersing along 14th Street, the only egress route available. With the Harvard students, I was among the last to leave, along with camerawoman Ana Nogueria and reporter Jeremy Scahill from Democracy Now! Crossing a driveway I met David Solnit again, who had decided not to take it any more. "Come on, Tom, here's your historical moment," he said. "We need civil disobedience to say no to all this." I replied with words to the effect that I was writing about this, not leading it, feeling slight pangs of nostalgia and guilt. But there was no more time for talk. The police were advancing only a few feet behind us. I stayed with my Harvard students, having warned them earlier that they might be caught up or hurt in the unpredictable police sweep. Solnit and six others sat down suddenly on the sidewalk, holding their hands up in V-signs. A phalanx of 25 police closed in on them as we took photographs and notes from a few feet away. In moments the seven on the sidewalk were handcuffed and led away. More police were swarming everywhere now, overwhelming the remaining protestors by 10-to-one. One block away, the dispersing crowd was walking backwards as more police marched on them with helmet visors down and guns and clubs drawn. By now five of my students had joined this retreating witness, all holding their hands over their heads and chanting "We are dispersing" again and again. How could the police not notice how young they were, how utterly unthreatening, how innocent? I moved alongside the advancing and retreating lines to take a photograph when I noticed that a policeman was aiming a shotgun straight at my chest. Fear leaped in me, then he pointed the weapon down. But a moment later he was looking down the barrel at me again. I was holding a camera, notebook and pen. Suddenly I found myself asking him, "Are you really pointing that fucking gun at me?" Nothing happened, and I turned back to look for the students. They were on the public sidewalk, but by now more police had arrived to prevent them from walking any further. The last I saw of them – Anne Beckett, Maddy Elfenbein, Jordan Bar Am, Rachel Bloomekatz and Toussaint Losier, all undergraduates – their hands were still up as they were swallowed up by the black-and-brown uniformed horde. When they were on the ground, one officer added a final squirt of pepper spray. How brave they look, I added to myself. Two of my other students avoided arrest by happening to turn in another direction and, minutes later, Touissant, a tall African American with dreds and a video camera, magically walked free because the police were too busy with their already downed dissidents. A minute later, I learned that Democracy Now's Ana Nogueira – and her camera – had been enveloped and arrested too. It was another experiment in the "Miami model." What I remembered of this imperial aggressiveness at the ballot box from November 2000 now seemed to be repeating itself on the streets. Police subsequently informed the larger world that a mob of menacing protestors had disobeyed orders to dissolve an unlawful assembly and were treated accordingly. In truth they may have radicalized the next generation of America's future leaders. NEXT: What's in the new trade agreement? Has the train left the station with the boxcars empty? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Sat Nov 22 16:39:45 2003 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:39:45 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Politics and Economics Message-ID: Dear SAYMA Friends, Just a note to tell you about a very short article that is worthy of discussion, and to offer an apology. I have always been on the side of population control and have been especially concerned about how many children are having children. I worked for Planned Parenthood for several years as paid staff and, eventually, ran a regional office of Planned Parenthood on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. We taught Adolescent Sex Education on a grant from Johns Hopkins to address the problems of the high birth rate among teenagers in that area as well as an unusually high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. The program was quite effective (I understood later from the Planned Parenthood office in Baltimore that the rates of adolescent pregnancy and sexual disease transmission were down by 25% and 30% in our area after the Johns Hopkins program was implemented). Of course, the program was quite controversial and so was shut down after a few years primarily because of protests from fundamentalist Christians on the Eastern Shore who were steadfastly opposed to birth control, abortion and sex education. But something else quite significant has happened since then. It is summarised in a one page article in National Geographic, September '03, by Scott Elder. The title is "Europe's Baby Bust" It is about the change in world population that has been occurring for some years and is now beginning to have a dramatic effect in much of Europe. Because of my long term concern with population studies I found it most interesting. It illustrates clearly that much of the world is no longer suffering from rampant population growth as it seemed to be when I worked for Planned Parenthood in the'70s, but rather from the reverse. The developed world is now facing a population deficit, which is causing alarm and the rethinking of long term entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. Elder says "Without babies to replenish the labor force and pay taxes Europeans will be hard pressed to fund the pensions of longer-living retirees." And the problem is not just in Europe. The US is close but not quite at the point of population deficit yet. However, that population deficit is looming large in our future and in the minds of many of our politicians who have been briefed on this matter. The politicians fear especially that if we keep on funding Social Security and Medicare at current levels, the money available for other government services, and especially the pork barrel government programs that keep many politicians in office, will run dry. One answer to the problem for the US and Western Europe is to admit more young immigrants and refugees who are anxious to work and pay taxes. The insistent pressure of migration on the US and on certain Western European countries (France, Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway) has enabled these countries to delay facing this monumental economic change. However many people, including those near the top in the present US administration, don't really like having more refugees and immigrants in their midst. There is still a prominent racial and cultural bias which appears to be the source of resistance to increasing the number of foreign immigrants and refugees. That tension, between the unpleasant realities in our economic future and a dislike and mistrust of foreigners, may underlie much of the political debate in the US, Western Europe and the rest of the world for years to come. If anyone in SAYMA wishes to comment, respond or argue about this I would love to hear back online. My previous messages have engendered responses but the messages were all addressed to me and the rest of SAYMA didn't have the privilege of sharing in the discussion. I think that as Friends we believe in and try to embody "one standard of Truth" so please share your thoughts. It will make for a more interesting dialog. Now, for my apology: On June 28th of this year I wrote on the Kitenet list the following: "Actually, the only places in the world where poverty is still increasing are in remote areas of China and India. These are areas where one aspect of globalization, moving jobs away from affluent workers in the US to impoverished workers in the rest of the world, has not yet reached. Everywhere that globalization has reached both employment and incomes have increased, sometimes dramatically, for the poor." I completely left out the largest area of entrenched poverty in the world, Sub-Saharan Africa. I have worked in Africa and am well aware of the severe economic problems so why did I leave it out of my message entirely? I really do not know. I only realized the mistake when I reread the message much later on. That omission may have been related to my disability which leaves me in pain most of the time and in severe pain some of the time. When the pain is severe I don't think, speak or write clearly. I'm not offering this as an excuse, just a possibly relevant fact. (To update the message from 6-28, in recent economic data both India and China have turned the corner and are fractionally up in alleviating poverty among their people and environmental degradation in their countries. Both Chinese and Indian people are becoming less poor. China is ahead in some areas of economic advancement and India in others, primarily as a result of globalization.) Janet Minshall -- Janet's new e mail address is : jhminshall at comcast.net From freepolazzo at comcast.net Sun Nov 23 15:11:13 2003 From: freepolazzo at comcast.net (free polazzo) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:11:13 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Replying to Sayma List Messages made easier Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031123140438.00b014f0@mail.comcast.net> Dear Janet I appreciated your update on the population issue. Not often discussed in "polite" company. I also agree that SAYMA's list seems to only have a few messages that are responding to someone's concerns, even though I, too get individual replies to my messages. The reason may be that the way the List is managed causes the difficulty. When I hit "reply"on an e-mail from the e-mail address that populates the "To: " field in my newly created e-mail is the senders address, not SAYMA's. In my experience all the other lists I am part of put the name of the list server on the "To" line, when I respond with the "reply" button on my e-mail. That may be why it is so difficult to have a "discussion" on this list. Perhaps the person who manages the list could change the options on the list so that SaymaListserv goes into the "To" field so that we can more easily converse with all of us who signed up on the list. Free At 03:39 PM 11/22/2003 -0500, you wrote: Dear SAYMA Friends, Just a note to tell you about a very short article that is worthy of discussion, and to offer an apology. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Mon Nov 24 13:05:15 2003 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:05:15 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Re: Politics and Economics In-Reply-To: <3FC115A9.5030104@jhsph.edu> References: <3FC115A9.5030104@jhsph.edu> Message-ID: Hi Stan and Friends, There are three messages, one after the other, below so that anyone in SAYMA who is interested can be fully informed and participate in the discussion. Thanks, Stan for your response. I have been using UN Population data too and in most respects, we said just about the same thing, i.e. I said "The US is close but not at the point of population deficit yet." and you said "Though our fertility is near replacement, due to population momentum and immigration we continue to grow by about 3 million persons per year...." The real difference is that you emphasize the harm of population growth as the most important factor to consider while I focus on somewhat different concerns: the economic, the military and ultimately the spiritual effects of a looming population deficit on the people of Earth. The National Geographic article (in the Sept 2003 issue by Scott Elder) cited in my message focuses on the fact that without babies to replenish the labor force, to work and pay taxes there will be less and less money for pensions (Social Security) for the elderly and for necessary government services. The Veterans of our wars, both old and young, are finding that when they need medical care or psychological help it is no longer available. How will most of us who are retired and/or disabled survive if the small amount we earned and paid for from Social Security or veterans' benefits is cut still further? The disagreements occurring now in Congress over a Medicare drug benefit are intense because many older people in this country (not just the homeless or the currently jobless or veterans and their families) already cannot afford shelter, food, necessary healthcare and prescription medicines on the small amount of income available. The answer we get from this administration and from many of our legislators is that we need to build a fortress. They tell us that we must spend more and more on stronger and better guarded borders in order to protect our "homeland security". Many that they arrest, imprison and deport are aliens who have done nothing more serious than try to get out of a country where they have lived in poverty and into a country which has plenty. The powers that be are very subtle in building and reinforcing distrust of foreigners because, however innocent the foreigners seem, they might really be terrorists. The FBI and other law enforcement has even given us an 800 number to call to report anyone we think looks suspicious. In a country as ambivalent about racial, religious and ethnic diversity as ours do we really want ordinary citizens and local police to serve as informants? The Bush administration insists that preemptive war and expensive weaponry are the only ways to insure our safety, that we must get used to a state of perpetual armed conflict because terrorists are everywhere. Countries which have been facing years of armed resistance by disenfranchised ethnic groups different than those in power are encouraged to designate members of those other groups as "terrorists". Then the Bush administration assures us that the US will be busy killing people designated as terrorists for many years to come. Finally, and this is where the spiritual aspect comes front and center, all of us are currently engaged, whether we know it or not, in deciding whether we wish to participate in the fortress mentality we are being encouraged to adopt or to take a different road. The beauty of our economic system, over the last 1500 years or so as it developed, has been that it always adapted to a fast growing population and even now is rapidly bringing the poor out of poverty over much of the world. Chances are good that it can continue to support that growth at least until we reach the point of population equilibrium. We really are the world and we are expected to reach that point of equilibrium (as many deaths as there are births) in the next 50 to 100 years, depending on which demographer you believe, and then we begin a decline. What you say, Stan, about rapid growth of population in the near term is likely if AIDS or other communicable diseases, or another major world war don't get us first. But if we and the system we have in place are to do a cultural and political about face we need to get busy and plan for progressively lower numbers of people. We have a lot of changes to make very quickly. Knowing how long it takes to make such changes without bloodshed may provide us with a different perspective. Fifty or a hundred years is nothing when we look at that larger picture. What does the future look like to George Bush and the current administration? It seems to be filled with trouble both at home in the US and anywhere else resistance to authority arises. Using the model of our past as prologue, The old, the sick, the poor, the disabled and the very young will be hardest hit as income and services are withdrawn and we die off in greater numbers. The highest mortality rates are likely be among these groups. In addition, we will lose most of "the best and brightest" as casualties of the perpetual armed conflict, the war we are being prepared for. So who is left after all those people are dead? Are we, as Friends, preparing to survive in the fortress whatever it takes, or are we more likely to find our calling in serving those who are being disposed of. It depends entirely on our answer to that question as to what we do or say about population control. Population control is very much in the interest of those inside the fortress--fewer mouths to feed, fewer people to share the wealth and less environmental pressure on the scenery. While population control is clearly not in the interest of the disposables and those who care for them. Their very existence is in peril and they need defenders badly. There was a time when a Jewish prophet encouraged us to follow him, to love one another, and to serve the poor and sick amongst us. Best Regards, Janet > Janet and Friends > >Greetings from Baltimore. > >I just returned from the Am. Pub. Health Assn (San Fran) where I >gave a presentation on "World Population Dynamics now to 2050" so >can comment from some reseach on this matter. First, we live in a >demographically divided world: from the perspective of growth there >are now really 3 groups of countries in the world: those with very >rapid growth (fertility above 5.0 children, mostly in Sub Saharan >Africa), those with moderate growth (fertility 2.1 to 5.0 children, >India, Indonesia, Egypt, most of Latin America, etc) and those with >below replacement fertility (nearly all of Europe, China and >selected other places). >While 59 countires have below replacement fertilty (44 percent of >world population but including China), only 14 or 15 countries >actually have more deaths than births (Russia and aside from Italy >all others are in Eastern Europe).. The rest of the 59 countries >continue to grow due to population momentum (e.g. China has a >fertilty rate of 1.8 but continues to add 9 million people each >year). >Meanwhile, as a world we continue to add 75-80 million persons each >year or about 200,000 per day. 47 countries have fertility levels >above 5.0! > >The U.S. is a special case. Though our fertility is near >replacement, due to population momentum and immigration we continue >to grow by about 3 million persons per year (about 1.5 million more >births than deaths each year and the other half of growth is >immigration, legal and otherwise). Rather than, "the US is close >but not quite at the point of population deficit yet", the >projections from the U.S. Census Bureau show the U.S. population >climbing from 275 million in 2000 to 404 million in 2050 (medium >projection). Recall that we were 76 million in the U.S. in 1900. >and 150 million as recently as 1950! >Friends who are interested can access the data and projections >directly (done by United Nations Population Division for each >country of the world (see Pop. Estimates and Projections at >http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm) and by U.S. Census >Bureau(Projections under People at: www.census.gov ). Data are also >available in a concise data sheet from Pop. Reference >Bureau.(www.prb.org). > >The media seem quite interested in matters of population decline but >give little attention to the continued problem of rapid population >growth in much of the world (e.g. India is adding 16 million persons >per year). > >I hope this helps clarify the matter. > >Stan Becker > > > > >Worldwide we still add > >Janet Minshall wrote: > >>Dear SAYMA Friends, Just a note to tell you about a very short >>article that is worthy of discussion, and to offer an apology. >> >>I have always been on the side of population control and have been >>especially concerned about how many children are having children. >>I worked for Planned Parenthood for several years as paid staff >>and, eventually, ran a regional office of Planned Parenthood on the >>Eastern Shore of Maryland. We taught Adolescent Sex Education on a >>grant from Johns Hopkins to address the problems of the high birth >>rate among teenagers in that area as well as an unusually high >>incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. The program was quite >>effective (I understood later from the Planned Parenthood office in >>Baltimore that the rates of adolescent pregnancy and sexual disease >>transmission were down by 25% and 30% in our area after the Johns >>Hopkins program was implemented). Of course, the program was quite >>controversial and so was shut down after a few years primarily >>because of protests from fundamentalist Christians on the Eastern >>Shore who were steadfastly opposed to birth control, abortion and >>sex education. >> >>But something else quite significant has happened since then. It >>is summarised in a one page article in National Geographic, >>September '03, by Scott Elder. The title is "Europe's Baby Bust" >>It is about the change in world population that has been occurring >>for some years and is now beginning to have a dramatic effect in >>much of Europe. Because of my long term concern with population >>studies I found it most interesting. It illustrates clearly that >>much of the world is no longer suffering from rampant population >>growth as it seemed to be when I worked for Planned Parenthood in >>the'70s, but rather from the reverse. The developed world is now >>facing a population deficit, which is causing alarm and the >>rethinking of long term entitlements such as Social Security and >>Medicare. Elder says "Without babies to replenish the labor force >>and pay taxes Europeans will be hard pressed to fund the pensions >>of longer-living retirees." And the problem is not just in Europe. >> >>The US is close but not quite at the point of population deficit >>yet. However, that population deficit is looming large in our >>future and in the minds of many of our politicians who have been >>briefed on this matter. The politicians fear especially that if we >>keep on funding Social Security and Medicare at current levels, the >>money available for other government services, and especially the >>pork barrel government programs that keep many politicians in >>office, will run dry. One answer to the problem for the US and >>Western Europe is to admit more young immigrants and refugees who >>are anxious to work and pay taxes. The insistent pressure of >>migration on the US and on certain Western European countries >>(France, Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway) has enabled >>these countries to delay facing this monumental economic change. >>However many people, including those near the top in the present US >>administration, don't really like having more refugees and >>immigrants in their midst. There is still a prominent racial and >>cultural bias which appears to be the source of resistance to >>increasing the number of foreign immigrants and refugees. That >>tension, between the unpleasant realities in our economic future >>and a dislike and mistrust of foreigners, may underlie much of the >>political debate in the US, Western Europe and the rest of the >>world for years to come. >> >>If anyone in SAYMA wishes to comment, respond or argue about this I >>would love to hear back online. My previous messages have >>engendered responses but the messages were all addressed to me and >>the rest of SAYMA didn't have the privilege of sharing in the >>discussion. I think that as Friends we believe in and try to >>embody "one standard of Truth" so please share your thoughts. It >>will make for a more interesting dialog. >> >>Now, for my apology: On June 28th of this year I wrote on the >>Kitenet list the following: >> >>"Actually, the only places in the world where poverty is still >>increasing are in remote areas of China and India. These are areas >>where one aspect of globalization, moving jobs away from affluent >>workers in the US to impoverished workers in the rest of the world, >>has not yet reached. Everywhere that globalization has reached both >>employment and incomes have increased, sometimes dramatically, for >>the poor." >> >>I completely left out the largest area of entrenched poverty in the >>world, Sub-Saharan Africa. I have worked in Africa and am well >>aware of the severe economic problems so why did I leave it out of >>my message entirely? I really do not know. I only realized the >>mistake when I reread the message much later on. That omission may >>have been related to my disability which leaves me in pain most of >>the time and in severe pain some of the time. When the pain is >>severe I don't think, speak or write clearly. I'm not offering >>this as an excuse, just a possibly relevant fact. >> >>(To update the message from 6-28, in recent economic data both >>India and China have turned the corner and are fractionally up in >>alleviating poverty among their people and environmental >>degradation in their countries. Both Chinese and Indian people are >>becoming less poor. China is ahead in some areas of economic >>advancement and India in others, primarily as a result of >>globalization.) >> >>Janet Minshall -- Janet's new e mail address is : jhminshall at comcast.net From bonnipeg at charter.net Mon Nov 24 13:53:49 2003 From: bonnipeg at charter.net (Peggy Bonnington) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:53:49 -0600 Subject: [saymaListserv] RE: Replying to Sayma List Messages made easier In-Reply-To: <20031124170004.542AF184B9@kitenet.net> Message-ID: Hi Free ~ I was going to respond that I think the SAYMA list manager may (I think I remember some discussion on this a while back) feel the list is more for SAYMA business than a discussion tool for SAYMA folk ~ in other words, an interpretation of the purpose of the list that differs from that of some of us. However, I note that when I hit "reply" today, the list address did pop up for me. Perhaps your email has already gotten a ball rolling? Or are different participants experiencing different results...??? Ah, the wonders (literally) of technology... Peggy Peggy Bonnington http://www.picturetrail.com/pegfollyarts Downtown Artists Co-op ~ http://www.clarksvilleartists.org ARTZ ~ http://artz4u.cjb.net/ Clarksville, Tennessee -----Original Message----- From: sayma-bounces at kitenet.net [mailto:sayma-bounces at kitenet.net]On Behalf Of sayma-request at kitenet.net Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 11:00 AM To: sayma at kitenet.net Subject: sayma Digest, Vol 10, Issue 7 Send sayma mailing list submissions to sayma at kitenet.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sayma-request at kitenet.net You can reach the person managing the list at sayma-owner at kitenet.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sayma digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Replying to Sayma List Messages made easier (free polazzo) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:11:13 -0500 From: free polazzo Subject: [saymaListserv] Replying to Sayma List Messages made easier To: sayma at kitenet.net Cc: Mary Calhoun Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031123140438.00b014f0 at mail.comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Janet I appreciated your update on the population issue. Not often discussed in "polite" company. I also agree that SAYMA's list seems to only have a few messages that are responding to someone's concerns, even though I, too get individual replies to my messages. The reason may be that the way the List is managed causes the difficulty. When I hit "reply"on an e-mail from the e-mail address that populates the "To: " field in my newly created e-mail is the senders address, not SAYMA's. In my experience all the other lists I am part of put the name of the list server on the "To" line, when I respond with the "reply" button on my e-mail. That may be why it is so difficult to have a "discussion" on this list. Perhaps the person who manages the list could change the options on the list so that SaymaListserv goes into the "To" field so that we can more easily converse with all of us who signed up on the list. Free At 03:39 PM 11/22/2003 -0500, you wrote: Dear SAYMA Friends, Just a note to tell you about a very short article that is worthy of discussion, and to offer an apology. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://kitenet.net/pipermail/sayma/attachments/20031123/8c1e3038/attachment. html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list sayma at kitenet.net http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma End of sayma Digest, Vol 10, Issue 7 ************************************ From sbecker at jhsph.edu Sun Nov 23 16:16:41 2003 From: sbecker at jhsph.edu (Stan Becker) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:16:41 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Re: Politics and Economics References: Message-ID: <3FC115A9.5030104@jhsph.edu> Janet and Friends Greetings from Baltimore. I just returned from the Am. Pub. Health Assn (San Fran) where I gave a presentation on "World Population Dynamics now to 2050" so can comment from some reseach on this matter. First, we live in a demographically divided world: from the perspective of growth there are now really 3 groups of countries in the world: those with very rapid growth (fertility above 5.0 children, mostly in Sub Saharan Africa), those with moderate growth (fertility 2.1 to 5.0 children, India, Indonesia, Egypt, most of Latin America, etc) and those with below replacement fertility (nearly all of Europe, China and selected other places). While 59 countires have below replacement fertilty (44 percent of world population but including China), only 14 or 15 countries actually have more deaths than births (Russia and aside from Italy all others are in Eastern Europe).. The rest of the 59 countries continue to grow due to population momentum (e.g. China has a fertilty rate of 1.8 but continues to add 9 million people each year). Meanwhile, as a world we continue to add 75-80 million persons each year or about 200,000 per day. 47 countries have fertility levels above 5.0! The U.S. is a special case. Though our fertility is near replacement, due to population momentum and immigration we continue to grow by about 3 million persons per year (about 1.5 million more births than deaths each year and the other half of growth is immigration, legal and otherwise). Rather than, "the US is close but not quite at the point of population deficit yet", the projections from the U.S. Census Bureau show the U.S. population climbing from 275 million in 2000 to 404 million in 2050 (medium projection). Recall that we were 76 million in the U.S. in 1900. and 150 million as recently as 1950! Friends who are intested can access the data and projections directly (done by United Nations Population Division for each country of the world (see Pop. Estimates and Projections at http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm) and by U.S. Census Bureau(Projections under People at: www.census.gov ). Data are also available in a concise data sheet from Pop. Reference Bureau.(www.prb.org). The media seem quite interested in matters of population decline but give little attention to the continued problem of rapid population growth in much of the world (e.g. India is adding 16 million persons per year). I hope this helps clarify the matter. Stan Becker Worldwide we still add Janet Minshall wrote: > Dear SAYMA Friends, Just a note to tell you about a very short > article that is worthy of discussion, and to offer an apology. > > I have always been on the side of population control and have been > especially concerned about how many children are having children. I > worked for Planned Parenthood for several years as paid staff and, > eventually, ran a regional office of Planned Parenthood on the Eastern > Shore of Maryland. We taught Adolescent Sex Education on a grant from > Johns Hopkins to address the problems of the high birth rate among > teenagers in that area as well as an unusually high incidence of > sexually transmitted diseases. The program was quite effective (I > understood later from the Planned Parenthood office in Baltimore that > the rates of adolescent pregnancy and sexual disease transmission were > down by 25% and 30% in our area after the Johns Hopkins program was > implemented). Of course, the program was quite controversial and so > was shut down after a few years primarily because of protests from > fundamentalist Christians on the Eastern Shore who were steadfastly > opposed to birth control, abortion and sex education. > > But something else quite significant has happened since then. It is > summarised in a one page article in National Geographic, September > '03, by Scott Elder. The title is "Europe's Baby Bust" It is about > the change in world population that has been occurring for some years > and is now beginning to have a dramatic effect in much of Europe. > Because of my long term concern with population studies I found it > most interesting. It illustrates clearly that much of the world is no > longer suffering from rampant population growth as it seemed to be > when I worked for Planned Parenthood in the'70s, but rather from the > reverse. The developed world is now facing a population deficit, which > is causing alarm and the rethinking of long term entitlements such as > Social Security and Medicare. Elder says "Without babies to replenish > the labor force and pay taxes Europeans will be hard pressed to fund > the pensions of longer-living retirees." And the problem is not just > in Europe. > > The US is close but not quite at the point of population deficit yet. > However, that population deficit is looming large in our future and in > the minds of many of our politicians who have been briefed on this > matter. The politicians fear especially that if we keep on funding > Social Security and Medicare at current levels, the money available > for other government services, and especially the pork barrel > government programs that keep many politicians in office, will run > dry. One answer to the problem for the US and Western Europe is to > admit more young immigrants and refugees who are anxious to work and > pay taxes. The insistent pressure of migration on the US and on > certain Western European countries (France, Britain, Ireland, the > Netherlands and Norway) has enabled these countries to delay facing > this monumental economic change. However many people, including those > near the top in the present US administration, don't really like > having more refugees and immigrants in their midst. There is still a > prominent racial and cultural bias which appears to be the source of > resistance to increasing the number of foreign immigrants and > refugees. That tension, between the unpleasant realities in our > economic future and a dislike and mistrust of foreigners, may underlie > much of the political debate in the US, Western Europe and the rest of > the world for years to come. > > If anyone in SAYMA wishes to comment, respond or argue about this I > would love to hear back online. My previous messages have engendered > responses but the messages were all addressed to me and the rest of > SAYMA didn't have the privilege of sharing in the discussion. I think > that as Friends we believe in and try to embody "one standard of > Truth" so please share your thoughts. It will make for a more > interesting dialog. > > Now, for my apology: On June 28th of this year I wrote on the Kitenet > list the following: > > "Actually, the only places in the world where poverty is still > increasing are in remote areas of China and India. These are areas > where one aspect of globalization, moving jobs away from affluent > workers in the US to impoverished workers in the rest of the world, > has not yet reached. Everywhere that globalization has reached both > employment and incomes have increased, sometimes dramatically, for the > poor." > > I completely left out the largest area of entrenched poverty in the > world, Sub-Saharan Africa. I have worked in Africa and am well aware > of the severe economic problems so why did I leave it out of my > message entirely? I really do not know. I only realized the mistake > when I reread the message much later on. That omission may have been > related to my disability which leaves me in pain most of the time and > in severe pain some of the time. When the pain is severe I don't > think, speak or write clearly. I'm not offering this as an excuse, > just a possibly relevant fact. > > (To update the message from 6-28, in recent economic data both India > and China have turned the corner and are fractionally up in > alleviating poverty among their people and environmental degradation > in their countries. Both Chinese and Indian people are becoming less > poor. China is ahead in some areas of economic advancement and India > in others, primarily as a result of globalization.) > > Janet Minshall > > > > > > From moriah at preferred.com Tue Nov 25 07:12:51 2003 From: moriah at preferred.com (Mary Calhoun) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:12:51 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] "munging" Message-ID: <02f101c3b347$e95c5c20$b872fea9@Mary> Dear Friends, A look at the "munging" issue -- ^o^ \_/ Mary Calhoun, List Administrator AdminAsst at sayma.org 276-628-5852 POB 2191, Abingdon VA 24212-2191 ------------------------------- sayma mailing list administration General Options Section . . . . Configuration Categories . . . . [General Options] . . . . Reply-To: header munging Should any existing Reply-To: header found in the original message be stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an explicit Reply-To: header is added by Mailman or not No Yes Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is strongly recommended for most mailing lists. Poster This list Explicit address (Details for reply_goes_to_list) [links to...] This option controls what Mailman does to the Reply-To: header in messages flowing through this mailing list. When set to Poster, no Reply-To: header is added by Mailman, although if one is present in the original message, it is not stripped. Setting this value to either This list or Explicit address causes Mailman to insert a specific Reply-To: header in all messages, overriding the header in the original message if necessary (Explicit address inserts the value of reply_to_address). There are many reasons not to introduce or override the Reply-To: header. One is that some posters depend on their own Reply-To: settings to convey their valid return address. Another is that modifying Reply-To: makes it much more difficult to send private replies. See `Reply-To' Munging Considered Harmful for a general discussion of this issue. See Reply-To Munging Considered Useful for a dissenting opinion. "Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful An Earnest Plea to Mailing List Administrators -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An email message requires some amount of processing when it is redistributed to a mailing list. At the very least, the envelope must be rewritten to redirect bounces directly to the list administrator. While the message is being processed, the list administrator might take advantage of the opportunity to munge [link.... ] The page cannot be displayed The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please try the following: a.. Click the Refresh button, or try again later. some of the message headers. Some forms of header munging are helpful, such as special loop-detection headers. Others are questionable. Most are ill-advised or dangerous. Many list administrators want to add a Reply-To header that points back to the list. This transformation also is one of the most ill-advised. Some administrators claim that Reply-To munging makes it easier for users to respond to the entire list, and helps encourage list traffic. These benefits are fallacious. Moreover, Reply-To can have harmful -- even dangerous -- effects. If you think Reply-To munging is a good idea, I hope I can change your mind. The Principle of Minimal Munging Email processing is pretty tricky. Read through RFC-822, the Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages, sometime. It is 47 pages of dense, dry detail. A lot of engineering and consideration went into this work. Even still, RFC-822 leaves many corner conditions and specialized circumstances poorly specified. RFC-1123, the commonly-called Internet Host Requirements document, adds a couple dozen more pages, and remedies some of the defects. Then there is MIME, X.400 mapping, and a handful of other standards and conventions -- some documented and some folklore. Email handling is surprisingly complicated, and even an innocuous-sounding change might have grave, unintended consequences. The "Principle of Minimal Munging" is a good rule that will keep you out of trouble. It says you should not make any changes to an email header unless you know precisely what you want to do, why you want to do it, and what it will affect. Unless you can articulate a clear reason for munging and understand the full consequences of the action, you should not do it. The "Principle of Minimal Munging" will help you avoid the sorts of problems we are about to discuss. This principle is a rule designed to be broken, but you can avoid some significant heartache by thinking hard and long before you do so. It Adds Nothing Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer. People want to munge Reply-To headers to make "reply back to the list" easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have two separate "reply" commands: one that replies directly to the author of a message, and another that replies to the author plus all of the list recipients. Even the lowly Berkeley Mail command has had this for about a decade. Any reasonable, modern mailer provides this feature. I prefer the Elm mailer. It has separate "r)eply" and "g)roup-reply" commands. If I want to reply to the author of a message, I strike the "r" key. If I want to send a reply to the entire list, I hit "g" instead. Piece 'o cake. I mention Elm here (and a lot later on) simply because that's the mailer I use everyday. This sort of support is not unique to Elm Any reasonable mailer provides it. The Pine mailer, for instance, asks directly, "Reply to all recipients?" when you use the "r" command. It doesn't get much easier than that! Whichever mailer you choose, please read the fine manual that comes with it. Unless you are stuck with some decrepit mail system, I bet you'll find it has a similar feature. If so, you easily can choose to direct your responses either to the original author or the entire list. Mauling the mail headers doesn't make it any easier. It Makes Things Break If you use a reasonable mailer, Reply-To munging does not provide any new functionality. It, in fact, decreases functionality. Reply-To munging destroys the "reply-to-author" capability. Munging makes this command act effectively the same as the "reply-to-group" function. We haven't added anything new, we've only taken away. Reply-To munging is not merely benign, it is harmful. It renders a useful mail capability inoperative. Freedom of Choice Some administrators justify Reply-To munging by saying, "All responses should go directly to the list anyway." This is arrogant. You should allow me to decide exactly how I wish to respond to a message. If I feel a public response is justified, I'll hit the "g" key and tell Elm to do a group-reply. If I believe a private response is more appropriate, I'll use "r" to send one. Please allow me the freedom to decide how to handle a message. Can't Find My Way Back Home It may be impossible to reply to the author of a message once the Reply-To header is munged. The Reply-To header was not invented on a whim. It is there for the sender of a mail message to use. If you stomp on this header, you can lose important information. There are good reasons why the sender might insert a Reply-To header. The sender might not be the original author of the message (the name that appears in the From header). If responses should return to the sender and not the original author, then the sender will insert a Reply-To header. Or, maybe the sender added a Reply-To because he or she cannot receive email at the account from which the message was sent. There are many good reasons to place a Reply-To header into a mailing list message. If the Reply-To is munged by the mailing list, the value provided by the original sender is lost. Reply-To munging can make it impossible to reach the sender of a message. Coddling the Brain-Dead, Penalizing the Conscientious There are, unfortunately, poorly implemented mail programs that lack separate reply-to-author and reply-to-group functions. A user saddled with such a brain-dead mailer can benefit from Reply-To munging. It makes it easier for him or her to send responses directly to the list. This change, however, penalizes the conscientious person that uses a reasonable mailer. This is a poor trade-off. As Internet list administrators, we should encourage people to run reasonable software. If a few people need to type in a full reply address so that everybody else can use all the features of their mailer, I say, "Fine!" We should not penalize the conscientious to coddle those who run brain-dead software. Principle of Least Work Compare and contrast: the work required for me (or any other Elm user) to reply on lists that do and don't employ Reply-To munging. Case One: Case Two: Action Without Munging With Munging ============= ===================== ===================== Reply to Hit the "g" Probably hit the "r" everybody. key. key, but maybe the "g" key if there were other recipients of the message. Reply just Hit the "r" Look at the original to author. key. message header, write down the sender's email address, hit the "r" key, call up the header editing menu, erase the current To: value, and type in the sender's full email address. And pray the correct address wasn't wiped out when the Reply-To was munged. Again, your preferred mailer probably implements this feature in a different fashion. Nonetheless, it should be easy. I'll take box number one, Monte. Principle of Least Surprise When I hit the "r" key in Elm, it sends a response to the author of a message. When you munge the Reply-To header you change this action so that it does something entirely different from what I expect. This creates specialized behavior for your mailing list, which increases the potential for surprise. I'm not schooled in the science of human factors, but I suspect surprise is not an element of a robust user interface. Private messages frequently are broadcast across lists that do Reply-To munging. That's an empirical fact. It's what happens when you violate the principle of least surprise. Principle of Least Damage Consider the damage when things go awry. If you do not munge the Reply-To header and a list subscriber accidentally sends a response via private email instead of to the list, he or she has to follow up with a message that says, "Ooops! I meant to send that to the list. Could you please forward a copy for me." That's a hassle, and it happens from time to time. What happens, however, when a person mistakenly broadcasts a private message to the entire list? If the message is a complaint about the personal hygiene of sender's boss, or the sex life of his or her roommate, a simple "Ooops!" won't cut it. About all you can do is send a followup with lots of retroactive smileys (weak). Or say your cat was dancing on the keyboard (better). Or start reading the classifieds for a new job/roommate/set of teeth (most likely). Reply-To munging encourages catastrophic failure modes. Sure, you don't need Reply-To munging to create this sort of damage. A simple slip of the fingers will suffice. When, however, you violate the "Principle of Least Surprise" you invite this sort of disaster. A responsible list administrator will avoid creating avenues that lead to such extreme damage. And in the End... If you are not convinced yet, then allow me one final plea. I contribute to the Elm mailer development team. I get to see a lot of the wants and requests from the user community. Guess what feature more and more people are asking for? A third reply command -- one that ignores any existing Reply-To header! Want to guess why people are asking for it? If you think you are doing your subscribers a service by munging Reply-To headers, you are kidding yourself. You are making your subscribers miserable. Some list administrators, even after reading all this, seem to say, "Oh, it's not that bad. Besides, my subscribers like it!" If they do, it's probably because they haven't bothered to learn to use the "reply-to-group" feature of their mailer. Instead of going through all the trouble of making your list gateway scribble on email headers, how about making an effort to educate your subscribers? Summary Many people want to munge Reply-To headers. They believe it makes reply-to-list easier, and it encourages more list traffic. It really does neither, and is a very poor idea. Reply-To munging suffers from the following problems: a.. It violates the principle of minimal munging. b.. It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer. c.. It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct a response. d.. It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer. e.. It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get back to the message sender. f.. It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle those running brain-dead software. g.. It violates the principle of least work because complicates the procedure for replying to messages. h.. It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the way a mailer works. i.. It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a failure mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse. j.. Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones who have bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it. Addendum In case you are wondering, yes, I once thought Reply-To munging was a nifty idea. I got better though. When I started running email lists, I munged 'em all. One day I accidentally sent a private, personal reply out over one of my own damn lists. If the list owner can't remember how to use the list properly, no way will the subscribers be able to sort it out. I stopped munging the very next day. On the whole, it has worked out quite well. Yes, on occasion somebody mistakenly responds directly to the author of a message when they wanted to reply to the group. Most folks, however, seem to catch on pretty fast to how it works, and seem to appreciate the flexibility. Moreover, private responses mistakenly sent to the entire list have become an almost unheard-of event. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chip Rosenthal $Id: reply-to-harmful.html,v 1.20 2002/11/15 03:46:04 chip Exp $---------- Reply-To Munging Considered Useful An Earnest Plea to Mailing List Administrators Last revised: 3 January 2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ An email message requires some amount of processing when it is redistributed to a mailing list. At the very least, the envelope must be rewritten to redirect bounces directly to the list administrator. While the message is being processed, the list administrator might take advantage of the opportunity to munge some of the message headers. Many list administrators want to add a Reply-To header that points back to the list. This transformation is also one of the most useful. Some administrators claim that Reply-To munging can have harmful -- even dangerous -- effects. I assert the opposite, that not adding a Reply-To header has even more harmful effects. If you think Reply-To munging is a bad idea, I hope I can change your mind. RFC 822 and "Text Message Teleconferencing" The first thing to consider is that RFC 822, the document which defines the standards and usages for email, specifically mentions this usage in section 4.4.3: A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution services: include the address of that service in the "Reply-To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their own. Aside from this official sanction, there are a number of reasons for munging the Reply-To header. The arguments which follow are my own. They may not be comprehensive, but I think they are compelling. The Principle of Minimal Bandwidth The ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'' is a good rule that will keep you out of trouble. It says that you should make any changes which will reduce the amount of email traffic on the Internet. The ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'' will help you avoid the sorts of problems we are about to discuss. This principle is a rule designed to be broken, but you can avoid some significant heartache by thinking hard and long before you do so. Reply-To Munging Adds Something Reply-To gives the respondent an option which would not otherwise exist: namely the ability to reply only to the list. Despite the fact that many (though not all) email clients have the ability to "reply to sender" or "reply to all recipients", many list subscribers want to reply only to the list, which is not the result of selecting either of these options. So, to ensure that the reply goes to the list, they select "reply to all recipients", which generally results in the sending of at least two email messages, one to the list, and one to the original sender. This is frequently quite annoying to the original sender, who now receives two copies of the reply. Furthermore, in many cases the original sender has added additional recipients. Not only does "reply to all recipients" send the reply to each of these additional recipients (who are frequently also members of the list), it also propagates this list of recipients onto the reply to the list. The effects of this snowball, as each additional person replies to the messages using "reply to all recipients", they become the sender, and thus get added to the list of recipients with the next reply. Thus the list of recipients grows and grows. Frequently, as the subject matter changes, members of the list find themselves receiving multiple copies of messages which have strayed from the topic in which they were originally interested, even after they have unsubscribed from the list. Many people have pointed out that it is relatively easy to implement a procmail filter to remove duplicates. This attitude merely reveals a Unix-centric and US-centric viewpoint. Many users of inferior operating systems do not have a tool powerful enough to ensure the removal of duplicate messages. Furthermore, in many European countries, connect time is charged by the minute. Even with procmail, the duplicates have to be downloaded before they can be filtered, resulting in unnecessary additional expenses for some of our European list mates. This last fact reveals that the issue is really related to bandwidth. By applying the ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'', we conclude that it is necessary to add a Reply-To header that points back to the list. It Doesn't Break Reasonable Mailers If you use a reasonable mailer, Reply-To munging does provide new functionality, namely the ability to reply only to the list. Furthermore, it does not decrease functionality. In Pine, for example, when there is a Reply-To header, Pine will ask, ``Use "Reply-To:" address instead of "From:" address?'', easily allowing one to reply only to the original author. In KMail, it is even easier. One merely right-clicks on the hyperlinked From address. If your mailer doesn't have this option, you should request it from its development team. Any mailer, whose development team refuses this simple request due to some ideological position, cannot be said to be reasonable. Freedom of Choice Since Reply-To munging adds additional functionality, it actually increases freedom of choice. Not only can you now reply only to the list, you still have the option to reply to the original author, or to all recipients, easily and conveniently. Some Mailers are Broken There are, unfortunately, some poorly implemented mail programs that lack separate "reply-to-author" and "reply-to-group" functions. A user saddled with such a mailer can benefit from Reply-To munging. It makes it easier for him or her to send responses directly to the list. Furthermore, this change does not penalize the conscientious person that uses a reasonable mailer. Reasonable mailers give one the ability to reply to the From address. Therefore, it would be unkind to further penalize those with poorly implemented mail programs, since munging the Reply-To header causes no harm to those with reasonable mailers. Principle of Least Total Work For discussion type lists, I would estimate that ninety percent of the time, people want to reply to the list. Without munging, they either have to break the ``Principle of Least Bandwidth'', or type in the list address. Many people, being lazy, will choose the former, sending unnecessary copies of emails to people who will either have to delete them, or take the time to set up a filter (if they are lucky enough to be running an operating system which facilitates this). On the other hand, about ten percent of the time, replying to the sender might be more appropriate. Even if the respondent has an unreasonable mailer (a decision for which they are probably responsible), the worst case scenario is that they have to type in an address ten percent of the time. Of course, if they took the time to add this recipient to their address book, they could reduce the amount of typing to a minimum. So, which produces least total work: typing in the list address ninety percent of the time (plus possibly taking the time to set up a filter), or typing in an individual's address ten percent of the time? I'll take munged Reply-To headers every time, thanks. People are Responsible for Their Own Mistakes Some administrators claim that munging Reply-To headers is harmful because it surprises people, and can cause damage when things go awry. They assert that administrators should prevent the possibility of a private message being mistakenly broadcast to the entire list. This is simply not the responsibility of the administrator. People are responsible for their own mistakes. If someone is sending a private email which is derogatory, or otherwise embarrassing were it to be made public, they should probably be sending it directly, rather than as a reply to a public message. They should also pause and think about whether they should be sending it at all. This pause should be quite sufficient for a conscientious person using a reasonable mailer to catch any mistake that they might be about to make. In any case, it is an entirely trivial matter for the list administrator to provide an obvious clue in the subject line of every message that the message was received from a mailing list. If your Mailing List Manager doesn't provide an option to prepend "[listname]" to the subject, then switch to one that does ( e.g. GNU MailMan or Majordomo ). And in the End... If you are not convinced yet, then allow me one final plea. Most mailing lists are intended to facilitate discussion on a given topic. If this is indeed the primary purpose of your list, then you really should add a Reply-To header which directs replies to the list. This helps to ensure that the entire thread of the conversation is available to all who might be interested. I can't count the number of times I have searched the archives of a list for a solution to a problem, only to find the question asked, but no solution. Yet, when I subsequently post the question to the list, the long-time members insist that it has already been discussed, and that I should search the archives. If I'm lucky, a newer member forwards to me the private reply which answered the question. Thus, munging the Reply-To header benefits those lists which are intended for serious discussion. If your list is intended primarily for announcements or other one-way mailings, you may safely ignore these arguments. It's What People Want I have been and am subscribed to both munging and non-munging mailing lists. On the non-munging lists, there are regular requests to change the list so that Reply-To replies to the list. On the munging lists which already do this, there are hardly any requests for change. Summary Many people want to munge Reply-To headers. They believe it makes reply-to-list easier, and it encourages more list traffic. It really does both of these things, and is a very good idea. To reiterate: a.. It adheres to the principle of minimal bandwidth. b.. It provides additional functionality to the user. c.. It increases a subscriber's freedom to choose how to direct a response. d.. It does not reduce functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer. e.. It aids and assists the user with a deficient mailer. f.. It adheres to the principle of least total work. g.. It helps to ensure that questions are answered on the list. h.. Your subscribers want you to do it. Addendum There are, of course, a few details that need to be addressed to make Reply-To munging more pleasant and productive for everyone. One potentially serious problem with Reply-To munging is the possibility of mail loops. It should be possible for the list server to detect and prevent this. If anyone has any patches to implement this feature, I would be happy to provide a link to the patch on your ftp server, or to make it available on my own ftp server. Also, patches are needed for any mailers that do not implement the ability to reply to the From address. Please send links or patches to me at sdhill at metasystema.net. Thanks. Patches A patch for Emacs rmail is available at: http://www.metasystema.net/pub/patches/emacs/rmail-query-reply-to.el. Dissenting Opinion I originally wrote this essay as a response to Chip Rosenthal's Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful. Simon Hill sdhill at metasystema.net HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:44:54 GMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jewen at micronetsystems.net Tue Nov 25 09:39:09 2003 From: jewen at micronetsystems.net (Julia Ewen) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:39:09 -0500 Subject: Fw: [saymaListserv] Re: Politics and Economics Message-ID: <000f01c3b359$817f9830$28e9d2d0@amd1gig> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julia Ewen" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [saymaListserv] Re: Politics and Economics > What is population momentum? Stan mentioned in passing another thing that > is interesting: that population growth figures apparently include imigration > and that increase due to births is only part of that figure. It would make > sense then, that some of the population declines are due to outmigration and > show up in somebody else's population growth figures. > > So it would seem to me that countries with a lot of outmigration and > experiencing declining birth rates will increasingly be left with aging and > less able bodied populations as the younger, more able, more > labor-marketable people leave looking for better opportunities, and > coincidentally they happen to be the most fertile people also. They rate of > the "graying" of such countries will accelerate like a brakeless truck > rolling down a mountain highway...Cost of providing health care and > infrastructure in those countries will rise on a per person basis as the > subsidies provided by younger workers disappear. It's a situation that a > health insurer would either charge exhorbitant premiums or refuse to > cover...leaving government to provide it out of taxes, which would also be > declining from an aging population on fixed incomes, if the government is > not doing so already. > > If it is already doing so, the gains made by having a smaller population > utilitzing the services will be offset by a much larger percentage of the > population requiring more expensive services over an extended period. Is it > too fanciful to suppose that such countries may get into the business of > "exporting" their elderly and sick to countries where growing populations > have the labor to provide custodial services? If we tighten all the leaks in > our immigration "walls" and succeed in stabilizing or inverting reproduction > statistics, could we not only be exporting our jobs abroad but also our old > and sick? > > Another scenario though already seems to be underway and gaining momentum. > The numbers of uninsured people continue to grow in this country and the > government is unwilling or unable to pick up the job of providing health > services for these people. The effect seems to be that people who are > relatively healthy (adult full time employed people) will receive most of > the health services, being able to pay for them through wages and insurance, > and increasingly the elderly, children, the unemployed, the underemployed, > and the chronically ill will receive fewer and fewer health services, and > the death rate among such will rise. > > Are we "putting them out on ice floes" at the arbitrary age of retirement? > People keep talking about how social security when originally set up > anticipated that recipients would live about two to three years after > starting to take benefits. As if hinting that the elderly are socially > irresponsible in managing to live into their 80's and 90's and ought not to > expect a public subsidy to help them do so. > > At the other end of life, there is still a great reluctance to provide > childcare and education services for our children, great pressure on women > to work into their 30s or even later before trying to have babies, and > children are the largest and fastest growing group of uninsureds. > > The Administration is adding to the confusion, not helping, by its policies. > It trumpets its encouragement of heterosexual marriage in its tax policies, > but attacks the "natural result" of such marriages through withdrawing money > from services that support mothers and children. At the same time it also > withdraws support from family planning services and contraception education, > as well as opposing abortion. So that the means to reversing the "natural > result" of heterosexual couples is being ingnored. They also propose that > Americans look toward self insurance and self support in their old age, not > saying what is to happen to those who are temporarily unemployed or > underemployed while raising all these children that both the far left and > the far right seem to say ought to be viewed as liabilities, not as > assets--individually and as a society. > > It also is lowering taxes on the wealthy, who already have the ability to > self insure and self support in their old age and already marry without > producing nearly so many offspring as the middle class and is raising taxes > on the middle class--where the impact of female sporadic employment and > underemployment is already being felt--and announcing to them that > simultaneously they ought to be planning to pay all their own bills when > they get old...As for the poor, services are being cut back which could help > the poor to get and keep employment that would lift them out of poverty, > health and family planning services are being strained to the breaking > point, and family planning clinics are literally under attack. And the poor > too are being told that they ought to count on paying for their own health > and old age support, even while they are presently unable to support > themselves. > > It is appalling that many Americans apparently do not see how hard hearted > and cynical these policies are. Coming up on Christmas I am reminded of > Ebeneezer Scrooge, who, told that there a lot of people who would rather die > than go to public workhouses for aid, said "If they would rather die then > they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." Fewer poor > people now would "rather die than accept public aid", so the government has > apparently taken it on itself to make the decision for them. > > Sadly, the money that it will take to rebuild Iraq following an unnecessary > and illegal war would pay for healthcare for uninsured children. If we > applied the entire military budget, there would not be a problem funding > anything including pharmaceuticals that our elderly need for health care. We > have the resources to do what is needed. We have not the willingness to > prioritize the way we ought to. > > It is against this hardness of heart that the OT warned Israel. It was the > sin that sunk Sodom. And the sin against which Jesus preached to the > Pharisees. > > Julia Parker Ewen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stan Becker" > To: "Janet Minshall" > Cc: ; ; > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 3:16 PM > Subject: [saymaListserv] Re: Politics and Economics > > > > Janet and Friends > > > > Greetings from Baltimore. > > > > I just returned from the Am. Pub. Health Assn (San Fran) where I gave a > > presentation on "World Population Dynamics now to 2050" so can comment > > from some reseach on this matter. First, we live in a demographically > > divided world: from the perspective of growth there are now really 3 > > groups of countries in the world: those with very rapid growth > > (fertility above 5.0 children, mostly in Sub Saharan Africa), those with > > moderate growth (fertility 2.1 to 5.0 children, India, Indonesia, Egypt, > > most of Latin America, etc) and those with below replacement fertility > > (nearly all of Europe, China and selected other places). > > > > While 59 countires have below replacement fertilty (44 percent of world > > population but including China), only 14 or 15 countries actually have > > more deaths than births (Russia and aside from Italy all others are in > > Eastern Europe).. The rest of the 59 countries continue to grow due to > > population momentum (e.g. China has a fertilty rate of 1.8 but continues > > to add 9 million people each year). > > > > Meanwhile, as a world we continue to add 75-80 million persons each year > > or about 200,000 per day. 47 countries have fertility levels above 5.0! > > > > The U.S. is a special case. Though our fertility is near replacement, > > due to population momentum and immigration we continue to grow by about > > 3 million persons per year (about 1.5 million more births than deaths > > each year and the other half of growth is immigration, legal and > > otherwise). Rather than, "the US is close but not quite at the point of > > population deficit yet", the projections from the U.S. Census Bureau > > show the U.S. population climbing from 275 million in 2000 to 404 > > million in 2050 (medium projection). Recall that we were 76 million in > > the U.S. in 1900. and 150 million as recently as 1950! > > > > Friends who are intested can access the data and projections directly > > (done by United Nations Population Division for each country of the > > world (see Pop. Estimates and Projections at > > http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm) and by U.S. Census > > Bureau(Projections under People at: www.census.gov ). Data are also > > available in a concise data sheet from Pop. Reference > Bureau.(www.prb.org). > > > > The media seem quite interested in matters of population decline but > > give little attention to the continued problem of rapid population > > growth in much of the world (e.g. India is adding 16 million persons per > > year). > > > > I hope this helps clarify the matter. > > > > Stan Becker > > > > > > > > > > Worldwide we still add > > > > Janet Minshall wrote: > > > > > Dear SAYMA Friends, Just a note to tell you about a very short > > > article that is worthy of discussion, and to offer an apology. > > > > > > I have always been on the side of population control and have been > > > especially concerned about how many children are having children. I > > > worked for Planned Parenthood for several years as paid staff and, > > > eventually, ran a regional office of Planned Parenthood on the Eastern > > > Shore of Maryland. We taught Adolescent Sex Education on a grant from > > > Johns Hopkins to address the problems of the high birth rate among > > > teenagers in that area as well as an unusually high incidence of > > > sexually transmitted diseases. The program was quite effective (I > > > understood later from the Planned Parenthood office in Baltimore that > > > the rates of adolescent pregnancy and sexual disease transmission were > > > down by 25% and 30% in our area after the Johns Hopkins program was > > > implemented). Of course, the program was quite controversial and so > > > was shut down after a few years primarily because of protests from > > > fundamentalist Christians on the Eastern Shore who were steadfastly > > > opposed to birth control, abortion and sex education. > > > > > > But something else quite significant has happened since then. It is > > > summarised in a one page article in National Geographic, September > > > '03, by Scott Elder. The title is "Europe's Baby Bust" It is about > > > the change in world population that has been occurring for some years > > > and is now beginning to have a dramatic effect in much of Europe. > > > Because of my long term concern with population studies I found it > > > most interesting. It illustrates clearly that much of the world is no > > > longer suffering from rampant population growth as it seemed to be > > > when I worked for Planned Parenthood in the'70s, but rather from the > > > reverse. The developed world is now facing a population deficit, which > > > is causing alarm and the rethinking of long term entitlements such as > > > Social Security and Medicare. Elder says "Without babies to replenish > > > the labor force and pay taxes Europeans will be hard pressed to fund > > > the pensions of longer-living retirees." And the problem is not just > > > in Europe. > > > > > > The US is close but not quite at the point of population deficit yet. > > > However, that population deficit is looming large in our future and in > > > the minds of many of our politicians who have been briefed on this > > > matter. The politicians fear especially that if we keep on funding > > > Social Security and Medicare at current levels, the money available > > > for other government services, and especially the pork barrel > > > government programs that keep many politicians in office, will run > > > dry. One answer to the problem for the US and Western Europe is to > > > admit more young immigrants and refugees who are anxious to work and > > > pay taxes. The insistent pressure of migration on the US and on > > > certain Western European countries (France, Britain, Ireland, the > > > Netherlands and Norway) has enabled these countries to delay facing > > > this monumental economic change. However many people, including those > > > near the top in the present US administration, don't really like > > > having more refugees and immigrants in their midst. There is still a > > > prominent racial and cultural bias which appears to be the source of > > > resistance to increasing the number of foreign immigrants and > > > refugees. That tension, between the unpleasant realities in our > > > economic future and a dislike and mistrust of foreigners, may underlie > > > much of the political debate in the US, Western Europe and the rest of > > > the world for years to come. > > > > > > If anyone in SAYMA wishes to comment, respond or argue about this I > > > would love to hear back online. My previous messages have engendered > > > responses but the messages were all addressed to me and the rest of > > > SAYMA didn't have the privilege of sharing in the discussion. I think > > > that as Friends we believe in and try to embody "one standard of > > > Truth" so please share your thoughts. It will make for a more > > > interesting dialog. > > > > > > Now, for my apology: On June 28th of this year I wrote on the Kitenet > > > list the following: > > > > > > "Actually, the only places in the world where poverty is still > > > increasing are in remote areas of China and India. These are areas > > > where one aspect of globalization, moving jobs away from affluent > > > workers in the US to impoverished workers in the rest of the world, > > > has not yet reached. Everywhere that globalization has reached both > > > employment and incomes have increased, sometimes dramatically, for the > > > poor." > > > > > > I completely left out the largest area of entrenched poverty in the > > > world, Sub-Saharan Africa. I have worked in Africa and am well aware > > > of the severe economic problems so why did I leave it out of my > > > message entirely? I really do not know. I only realized the mistake > > > when I reread the message much later on. That omission may have been > > > related to my disability which leaves me in pain most of the time and > > > in severe pain some of the time. When the pain is severe I don't > > > think, speak or write clearly. I'm not offering this as an excuse, > > > just a possibly relevant fact. > > > > > > (To update the message from 6-28, in recent economic data both India > > > and China have turned the corner and are fractionally up in > > > alleviating poverty among their people and environmental degradation > > > in their countries. Both Chinese and Indian people are becoming less > > > poor. China is ahead in some areas of economic advancement and India > > > in others, primarily as a result of globalization.) > > > > > > Janet Minshall > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list > > sayma at kitenet.net > > http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma > From jhminshall at comcast.net Tue Nov 25 10:18:05 2003 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:18:05 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] RE: Replying to Sayma List Messages made easier In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Peggy, its good to hear from you. I was around and still involved in SAYMA business when Errol Hess set up the Kitenet list. I don't ever remember the suggestion that the list should be used only for administrative business. Instead I recall that there were approving comments about using it for worship sharing and discussions of peace and social justice concerns. Love, Janet >Hi Free ~ >I was going to respond that I think the SAYMA list manager may (I think I >remember some discussion on this a while back) feel the list is more for >SAYMA business than a discussion tool for SAYMA folk ~ in other words, an >interpretation of the purpose of the list that differs from that of some of >us. However, I note that when I hit "reply" today, the list address did pop >up for me. Perhaps your email has already gotten a ball rolling? Or are >different participants experiencing different results...??? >Ah, the wonders (literally) of technology... > >Peggy > >Peggy Bonnington >http://www.picturetrail.com/pegfollyarts >Downtown Artists Co-op ~ http://www.clarksvilleartists.org >ARTZ ~ http://artz4u.cjb.net/ >Clarksville, Tennessee > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sayma-bounces at kitenet.net [mailto:sayma-bounces at kitenet.net]On >Behalf Of sayma-request at kitenet.net >Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 11:00 AM >To: sayma at kitenet.net >Subject: sayma Digest, Vol 10, Issue 7 > > >Send sayma mailing list submissions to > sayma at kitenet.net > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > sayma-request at kitenet.net > >You can reach the person managing the list at > sayma-owner at kitenet.net > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of sayma digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Replying to Sayma List Messages made easier (free polazzo) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:11:13 -0500 >From: free polazzo >Subject: [saymaListserv] Replying to Sayma List Messages made easier >To: sayma at kitenet.net >Cc: Mary Calhoun >Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031123140438.00b014f0 at mail.comcast.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Dear Janet > >I appreciated your update on the population issue. Not often discussed in >"polite" company. >I also agree that SAYMA's list seems to only have a few messages that are >responding to someone's concerns, even though I, too get individual replies >to my messages. The reason may be that the way the List is managed causes >the difficulty. > >When I hit "reply"on an e-mail from the e-mail address that >populates the "To: " field in my newly created e-mail is the senders >address, not SAYMA's. In my experience all the other lists I am part of >put the name of the list server on the "To" line, when I respond with the >"reply" button on my e-mail. > >That may be why it is so difficult to have a "discussion" on this >list. Perhaps the person who manages the list could change the options on >the list so that SaymaListserv goes into the "To" field so that we can more >easily converse with all of us who signed up on the list. > >Free > >At 03:39 PM 11/22/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Dear SAYMA Friends, Just a note to tell you about a very short article >that is worthy of discussion, and to offer an apology. >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: >http://kitenet.net/pipermail/sayma/attachments/20031123/8c1e3038/attachment. >html > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list >sayma at kitenet.net >http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma > > >End of sayma Digest, Vol 10, Issue 7 >************************************ > > >_______________________________________________ >Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list >sayma at kitenet.net >http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma -- Janet's new e mail address is : jhminshall at comcast.net From DLDay2000 at aol.com Tue Nov 25 13:09:53 2003 From: DLDay2000 at aol.com (DLDay2000 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:09:53 EST Subject: [saymaListserv] remove from list Message-ID: <1d5.1521ad9f.2cf4e6e1@aol.com> Hi, Please remove my name from your e-mail list. Thanks, Diana Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sharonannis at comcast.net Tue Nov 25 21:26:16 2003 From: sharonannis at comcast.net (Sharon Annis) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:26:16 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] "munging" References: <02f101c3b347$e95c5c20$b872fea9@Mary> Message-ID: <009b01c3b3bc$49e3df40$0302a8c0@oakrdg01.tn.comcast.net> Dear Friends I don't know about any of the rest of you but I am now totally confused. I try to reply to all when appropriate and to the individual when that is what I want to do. So far this has worked and i don't want to learn any thing else. shaon ----- Original Message ----- From: Mary Calhoun To: sayma Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 6:12 AM Subject: [saymaListserv] "munging" Dear Friends, A look at the "munging" issue -- ^o^ \_/ Mary Calhoun, List Administrator AdminAsst at sayma.org 276-628-5852 POB 2191, Abingdon VA 24212-2191 ------------------------------- sayma mailing list administration General Options Section . . . . Configuration Categories . . . . [General Options] . . . . Reply-To: header munging Should any existing Reply-To: header found in the original message be stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an explicit Reply-To: header is added by Mailman or not No Yes Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is strongly recommended for most mailing lists. Poster This list Explicit address (Details for reply_goes_to_list) [links to...] This option controls what Mailman does to the Reply-To: header in messages flowing through this mailing list. When set to Poster, no Reply-To: header is added by Mailman, although if one is present in the original message, it is not stripped. Setting this value to either This list or Explicit address causes Mailman to insert a specific Reply-To: header in all messages, overriding the header in the original message if necessary (Explicit address inserts the value of reply_to_address). There are many reasons not to introduce or override the Reply-To: header. One is that some posters depend on their own Reply-To: settings to convey their valid return address. Another is that modifying Reply-To: makes it much more difficult to send private replies. See `Reply-To' Munging Considered Harmful for a general discussion of this issue. See Reply-To Munging Considered Useful for a dissenting opinion. "Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful An Earnest Plea to Mailing List Administrators ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ An email message requires some amount of processing when it is redistributed to a mailing list. At the very least, the envelope must be rewritten to redirect bounces directly to the list administrator. While the message is being processed, the list administrator might take advantage of the opportunity to munge [link.... ] The page cannot be displayed The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please try the following: a.. Click the Refresh button, or try again later. some of the message headers. Some forms of header munging are helpful, such as special loop-detection headers. Others are questionable. Most are ill-advised or dangerous. Many list administrators want to add a Reply-To header that points back to the list. This transformation also is one of the most ill-advised. Some administrators claim that Reply-To munging makes it easier for users to respond to the entire list, and helps encourage list traffic. These benefits are fallacious. Moreover, Reply-To can have harmful -- even dangerous -- effects. If you think Reply-To munging is a good idea, I hope I can change your mind. The Principle of Minimal Munging Email processing is pretty tricky. Read through RFC-822, the Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages, sometime. It is 47 pages of dense, dry detail. A lot of engineering and consideration went into this work. Even still, RFC-822 leaves many corner conditions and specialized circumstances poorly specified. RFC-1123, the commonly-called Internet Host Requirements document, adds a couple dozen more pages, and remedies some of the defects. Then there is MIME, X.400 mapping, and a handful of other standards and conventions -- some documented and some folklore. Email handling is surprisingly complicated, and even an innocuous-sounding change might have grave, unintended consequences. The "Principle of Minimal Munging" is a good rule that will keep you out of trouble. It says you should not make any changes to an email header unless you know precisely what you want to do, why you want to do it, and what it will affect. Unless you can articulate a clear reason for munging and understand the full consequences of the action, you should not do it. The "Principle of Minimal Munging" will help you avoid the sorts of problems we are about to discuss. This principle is a rule designed to be broken, but you can avoid some significant heartache by thinking hard and long before you do so. It Adds Nothing Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer. People want to munge Reply-To headers to make "reply back to the list" easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have two separate "reply" commands: one that replies directly to the author of a message, and another that replies to the author plus all of the list recipients. Even the lowly Berkeley Mail command has had this for about a decade. Any reasonable, modern mailer provides this feature. I prefer the Elm mailer. It has separate "r)eply" and "g)roup-reply" commands. If I want to reply to the author of a message, I strike the "r" key. If I want to send a reply to the entire list, I hit "g" instead. Piece 'o cake. I mention Elm here (and a lot later on) simply because that's the mailer I use everyday. This sort of support is not unique to Elm Any reasonable mailer provides it. The Pine mailer, for instance, asks directly, "Reply to all recipients?" when you use the "r" command. It doesn't get much easier than that! Whichever mailer you choose, please read the fine manual that comes with it. Unless you are stuck with some decrepit mail system, I bet you'll find it has a similar feature. If so, you easily can choose to direct your responses either to the original author or the entire list. Mauling the mail headers doesn't make it any easier. It Makes Things Break If you use a reasonable mailer, Reply-To munging does not provide any new functionality. It, in fact, decreases functionality. Reply-To munging destroys the "reply-to-author" capability. Munging makes this command act effectively the same as the "reply-to-group" function. We haven't added anything new, we've only taken away. Reply-To munging is not merely benign, it is harmful. It renders a useful mail capability inoperative. Freedom of Choice Some administrators justify Reply-To munging by saying, "All responses should go directly to the list anyway." This is arrogant. You should allow me to decide exactly how I wish to respond to a message. If I feel a public response is justified, I'll hit the "g" key and tell Elm to do a group-reply. If I believe a private response is more appropriate, I'll use "r" to send one. Please allow me the freedom to decide how to handle a message. Can't Find My Way Back Home It may be impossible to reply to the author of a message once the Reply-To header is munged. The Reply-To header was not invented on a whim. It is there for the sender of a mail message to use. If you stomp on this header, you can lose important information. There are good reasons why the sender might insert a Reply-To header. The sender might not be the original author of the message (the name that appears in the From header). If responses should return to the sender and not the original author, then the sender will insert a Reply-To header. Or, maybe the sender added a Reply-To because he or she cannot receive email at the account from which the message was sent. There are many good reasons to place a Reply-To header into a mailing list message. If the Reply-To is munged by the mailing list, the value provided by the original sender is lost. Reply-To munging can make it impossible to reach the sender of a message. Coddling the Brain-Dead, Penalizing the Conscientious There are, unfortunately, poorly implemented mail programs that lack separate reply-to-author and reply-to-group functions. A user saddled with such a brain-dead mailer can benefit from Reply-To munging. It makes it easier for him or her to send responses directly to the list. This change, however, penalizes the conscientious person that uses a reasonable mailer. This is a poor trade-off. As Internet list administrators, we should encourage people to run reasonable software. If a few people need to type in a full reply address so that everybody else can use all the features of their mailer, I say, "Fine!" We should not penalize the conscientious to coddle those who run brain-dead software. Principle of Least Work Compare and contrast: the work required for me (or any other Elm user) to reply on lists that do and don't employ Reply-To munging. Case One: Case Two: Action Without Munging With Munging ============= ===================== ===================== Reply to Hit the "g" Probably hit the "r" everybody. key. key, but maybe the "g" key if there were other recipients of the message. Reply just Hit the "r" Look at the original to author. key. message header, write down the sender's email address, hit the "r" key, call up the header editing menu, erase the current To: value, and type in the sender's full email address. And pray the correct address wasn't wiped out when the Reply-To was munged. Again, your preferred mailer probably implements this feature in a different fashion. Nonetheless, it should be easy. I'll take box number one, Monte. Principle of Least Surprise When I hit the "r" key in Elm, it sends a response to the author of a message. When you munge the Reply-To header you change this action so that it does something entirely different from what I expect. This creates specialized behavior for your mailing list, which increases the potential for surprise. I'm not schooled in the science of human factors, but I suspect surprise is not an element of a robust user interface. Private messages frequently are broadcast across lists that do Reply-To munging. That's an empirical fact. It's what happens when you violate the principle of least surprise. Principle of Least Damage Consider the damage when things go awry. If you do not munge the Reply-To header and a list subscriber accidentally sends a response via private email instead of to the list, he or she has to follow up with a message that says, "Ooops! I meant to send that to the list. Could you please forward a copy for me." That's a hassle, and it happens from time to time. What happens, however, when a person mistakenly broadcasts a private message to the entire list? If the message is a complaint about the personal hygiene of sender's boss, or the sex life of his or her roommate, a simple "Ooops!" won't cut it. About all you can do is send a followup with lots of retroactive smileys (weak). Or say your cat was dancing on the keyboard (better). Or start reading the classifieds for a new job/roommate/set of teeth (most likely). Reply-To munging encourages catastrophic failure modes. Sure, you don't need Reply-To munging to create this sort of damage. A simple slip of the fingers will suffice. When, however, you violate the "Principle of Least Surprise" you invite this sort of disaster. A responsible list administrator will avoid creating avenues that lead to such extreme damage. And in the End... If you are not convinced yet, then allow me one final plea. I contribute to the Elm mailer development team. I get to see a lot of the wants and requests from the user community. Guess what feature more and more people are asking for? A third reply command -- one that ignores any existing Reply-To header! Want to guess why people are asking for it? If you think you are doing your subscribers a service by munging Reply-To headers, you are kidding yourself. You are making your subscribers miserable. Some list administrators, even after reading all this, seem to say, "Oh, it's not that bad. Besides, my subscribers like it!" If they do, it's probably because they haven't bothered to learn to use the "reply-to-group" feature of their mailer. Instead of going through all the trouble of making your list gateway scribble on email headers, how about making an effort to educate your subscribers? Summary Many people want to munge Reply-To headers. They believe it makes reply-to-list easier, and it encourages more list traffic. It really does neither, and is a very poor idea. Reply-To munging suffers from the following problems: a.. It violates the principle of minimal munging. b.. It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer. c.. It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct a response. d.. It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer. e.. It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get back to the message sender. f.. It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle those running brain-dead software. g.. It violates the principle of least work because complicates the procedure for replying to messages. h.. It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the way a mailer works. i.. It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a failure mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse. j.. Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones who have bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it. Addendum In case you are wondering, yes, I once thought Reply-To munging was a nifty idea. I got better though. When I started running email lists, I munged 'em all. One day I accidentally sent a private, personal reply out over one of my own damn lists. If the list owner can't remember how to use the list properly, no way will the subscribers be able to sort it out. I stopped munging the very next day. On the whole, it has worked out quite well. Yes, on occasion somebody mistakenly responds directly to the author of a message when they wanted to reply to the group. Most folks, however, seem to catch on pretty fast to how it works, and seem to appreciate the flexibility. Moreover, private responses mistakenly sent to the entire list have become an almost unheard-of event. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chip Rosenthal $Id: reply-to-harmful.html,v 1.20 2002/11/15 03:46:04 chip Exp $---------- Reply-To Munging Considered Useful An Earnest Plea to Mailing List Administrators Last revised: 3 January 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- An email message requires some amount of processing when it is redistributed to a mailing list. At the very least, the envelope must be rewritten to redirect bounces directly to the list administrator. While the message is being processed, the list administrator might take advantage of the opportunity to munge some of the message headers. Many list administrators want to add a Reply-To header that points back to the list. This transformation is also one of the most useful. Some administrators claim that Reply-To munging can have harmful -- even dangerous -- effects. I assert the opposite, that not adding a Reply-To header has even more harmful effects. If you think Reply-To munging is a bad idea, I hope I can change your mind. RFC 822 and "Text Message Teleconferencing" The first thing to consider is that RFC 822, the document which defines the standards and usages for email, specifically mentions this usage in section 4.4.3: A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution services: include the address of that service in the "Reply-To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their own. Aside from this official sanction, there are a number of reasons for munging the Reply-To header. The arguments which follow are my own. They may not be comprehensive, but I think they are compelling. The Principle of Minimal Bandwidth The ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'' is a good rule that will keep you out of trouble. It says that you should make any changes which will reduce the amount of email traffic on the Internet. The ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'' will help you avoid the sorts of problems we are about to discuss. This principle is a rule designed to be broken, but you can avoid some significant heartache by thinking hard and long before you do so. Reply-To Munging Adds Something Reply-To gives the respondent an option which would not otherwise exist: namely the ability to reply only to the list. Despite the fact that many (though not all) email clients have the ability to "reply to sender" or "reply to all recipients", many list subscribers want to reply only to the list, which is not the result of selecting either of these options. So, to ensure that the reply goes to the list, they select "reply to all recipients", which generally results in the sending of at least two email messages, one to the list, and one to the original sender. This is frequently quite annoying to the original sender, who now receives two copies of the reply. Furthermore, in many cases the original sender has added additional recipients. Not only does "reply to all recipients" send the reply to each of these additional recipients (who are frequently also members of the list), it also propagates this list of recipients onto the reply to the list. The effects of this snowball, as each additional person replies to the messages using "reply to all recipients", they become the sender, and thus get added to the list of recipients with the next reply. Thus the list of recipients grows and grows. Frequently, as the subject matter changes, members of the list find themselves receiving multiple copies of messages which have strayed from the topic in which they were originally interested, even after they have unsubscribed from the list. Many people have pointed out that it is relatively easy to implement a procmail filter to remove duplicates. This attitude merely reveals a Unix-centric and US-centric viewpoint. Many users of inferior operating systems do not have a tool powerful enough to ensure the removal of duplicate messages. Furthermore, in many European countries, connect time is charged by the minute. Even with procmail, the duplicates have to be downloaded before they can be filtered, resulting in unnecessary additional expenses for some of our European list mates. This last fact reveals that the issue is really related to bandwidth. By applying the ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'', we conclude that it is necessary to add a Reply-To header that points back to the list. It Doesn't Break Reasonable Mailers If you use a reasonable mailer, Reply-To munging does provide new functionality, namely the ability to reply only to the list. Furthermore, it does not decrease functionality. In Pine, for example, when there is a Reply-To header, Pine will ask, ``Use "Reply-To:" address instead of "From:" address?'', easily allowing one to reply only to the original author. In KMail, it is even easier. One merely right-clicks on the hyperlinked From address. If your mailer doesn't have this option, you should request it from its development team. Any mailer, whose development team refuses this simple request due to some ideological position, cannot be said to be reasonable. Freedom of Choice Since Reply-To munging adds additional functionality, it actually increases freedom of choice. Not only can you now reply only to the list, you still have the option to reply to the original author, or to all recipients, easily and conveniently. Some Mailers are Broken There are, unfortunately, some poorly implemented mail programs that lack separate "reply-to-author" and "reply-to-group" functions. A user saddled with such a mailer can benefit from Reply-To munging. It makes it easier for him or her to send responses directly to the list. Furthermore, this change does not penalize the conscientious person that uses a reasonable mailer. Reasonable mailers give one the ability to reply to the From address. Therefore, it would be unkind to further penalize those with poorly implemented mail programs, since munging the Reply-To header causes no harm to those with reasonable mailers. Principle of Least Total Work For discussion type lists, I would estimate that ninety percent of the time, people want to reply to the list. Without munging, they either have to break the ``Principle of Least Bandwidth'', or type in the list address. Many people, being lazy, will choose the former, sending unnecessary copies of emails to people who will either have to delete them, or take the time to set up a filter (if they are lucky enough to be running an operating system which facilitates this). On the other hand, about ten percent of the time, replying to the sender might be more appropriate. Even if the respondent has an unreasonable mailer (a decision for which they are probably responsible), the worst case scenario is that they have to type in an address ten percent of the time. Of course, if they took the time to add this recipient to their address book, they could reduce the amount of typing to a minimum. So, which produces least total work: typing in the list address ninety percent of the time (plus possibly taking the time to set up a filter), or typing in an individual's address ten percent of the time? I'll take munged Reply-To headers every time, thanks. People are Responsible for Their Own Mistakes Some administrators claim that munging Reply-To headers is harmful because it surprises people, and can cause damage when things go awry. They assert that administrators should prevent the possibility of a private message being mistakenly broadcast to the entire list. This is simply not the responsibility of the administrator. People are responsible for their own mistakes. If someone is sending a private email which is derogatory, or otherwise embarrassing were it to be made public, they should probably be sending it directly, rather than as a reply to a public message. They should also pause and think about whether they should be sending it at all. This pause should be quite sufficient for a conscientious person using a reasonable mailer to catch any mistake that they might be about to make. In any case, it is an entirely trivial matter for the list administrator to provide an obvious clue in the subject line of every message that the message was received from a mailing list. If your Mailing List Manager doesn't provide an option to prepend "[listname]" to the subject, then switch to one that does ( e.g. GNU MailMan or Majordomo ). And in the End... If you are not convinced yet, then allow me one final plea. Most mailing lists are intended to facilitate discussion on a given topic. If this is indeed the primary purpose of your list, then you really should add a Reply-To header which directs replies to the list. This helps to ensure that the entire thread of the conversation is available to all who might be interested. I can't count the number of times I have searched the archives of a list for a solution to a problem, only to find the question asked, but no solution. Yet, when I subsequently post the question to the list, the long-time members insist that it has already been discussed, and that I should search the archives. If I'm lucky, a newer member forwards to me the private reply which answered the question. Thus, munging the Reply-To header benefits those lists which are intended for serious discussion. If your list is intended primarily for announcements or other one-way mailings, you may safely ignore these arguments. It's What People Want I have been and am subscribed to both munging and non-munging mailing lists. On the non-munging lists, there are regular requests to change the list so that Reply-To replies to the list. On the munging lists which already do this, there are hardly any requests for change. Summary Many people want to munge Reply-To headers. They believe it makes reply-to-list easier, and it encourages more list traffic. It really does both of these things, and is a very good idea. To reiterate: a.. It adheres to the principle of minimal bandwidth. b.. It provides additional functionality to the user. c.. It increases a subscriber's freedom to choose how to direct a response. d.. It does not reduce functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer. e.. It aids and assists the user with a deficient mailer. f.. It adheres to the principle of least total work. g.. It helps to ensure that questions are answered on the list. h.. Your subscribers want you to do it. Addendum There are, of course, a few details that need to be addressed to make Reply-To munging more pleasant and productive for everyone. One potentially serious problem with Reply-To munging is the possibility of mail loops. It should be possible for the list server to detect and prevent this. If anyone has any patches to implement this feature, I would be happy to provide a link to the patch on your ftp server, or to make it available on my own ftp server. Also, patches are needed for any mailers that do not implement the ability to reply to the From address. Please send links or patches to me at sdhill at metasystema.net. Thanks. Patches A patch for Emacs rmail is available at: http://www.metasystema.net/pub/patches/emacs/rmail-query-reply-to.el. Dissenting Opinion I originally wrote this essay as a response to Chip Rosenthal's Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful. Simon Hill sdhill at metasystema.net HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:44:54 GMT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list sayma at kitenet.net http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From freepolazzo at comcast.net Wed Nov 26 09:25:23 2003 From: freepolazzo at comcast.net (free polazzo) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:25:23 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] "munging" In-Reply-To: <009b01c3b3bc$49e3df40$0302a8c0@oakrdg01.tn.comcast.net> References: <02f101c3b347$e95c5c20$b872fea9@Mary> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031126082100.0324baf8@mail.comcast.net> Dear Sharon, "Reply to all" works fine for me, now that I understand how the List works. It can be seen as a question about whether the SAYMA LIst exists for us to ALL visit together, or whether the List exists primarily for the benefit of individuals who wish to pass information to the group. You say "Potato" and I say "Patato", but we can both understand each other. Peace, Free At 08:26 PM 11/25/2003 -0500, Sharon Annis wrote: >Dear Friends I don't know about any of the rest of you but I am now >totally confused. I try to reply to all when appropriate and to the >individual when that is what I want to do. So far this has worked and i >don't want to learn any thing else. shaon >----- Original Message ----- >From: Mary Calhoun >To: sayma >Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 6:12 AM >Subject: [saymaListserv] "munging" > >Dear Friends, > >A look at the "munging" issue -- > >^o^ >\_/ >Mary Calhoun, List Administrator >AdminAsst at sayma.org >276-628-5852 >POB 2191, Abingdon VA 24212-2191 > >------------------------------- > >sayma mailing list administration >General Options Section > >. . . . > >Configuration Categories > >. . . . > >[General Options] > >. . . . > >Reply-To: header munging > >Should any existing Reply-To: header found in the original message be >stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an explicit >Reply-To: header is added by Mailman or not >No Yes >Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is strongly >recommended for most mailing lists. >Poster >This list Explicit address > >(Details >for >reply_goes_to_list) > > >[links to...] This option controls what Mailman does to the Reply-To: >header in messages flowing through this mailing list. When set to Poster, >no Reply-To: header is added by Mailman, although if one is present in the >original message, it is not stripped. Setting this value to either This >list or Explicit address causes Mailman to insert a specific Reply-To: >header in all messages, overriding the header in the original message if >necessary (Explicit address inserts the value of >reply_to_address). > > >There are many reasons not to introduce or override the Reply-To: header. >One is that some posters depend on their own Reply-To: settings to convey >their valid return address. Another is that modifying Reply-To: makes it >much more difficult to send private replies. See >`Reply-To' Munging >Considered Harmful for a general discussion of this issue. See >Reply-To Munging >Considered Useful for a dissenting opinion. > > >"Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful > > > > > >An Earnest Plea to Mailing List Administrators > > > > >---------- >An email message requires some amount of processing when it is >redistributed to a mailing list. At the very least, the envelope must be >rewritten to redirect bounces directly to the list administrator. While >the message is being processed, the list administrator might take >advantage of the opportunity to >munge > >[link.... ] >7be5829.jpg > >The page cannot be displayed > > > >The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might >be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your >browser settings. > >Please try the following: > * Click the 7be5839.jpg Refresh button, or try again later. > >some of the message headers. > >Some forms of header munging are helpful, such as special loop-detection >headers. Others are questionable. Most are ill-advised or dangerous. Many >list administrators want to add a Reply-To header that points back to the >list. This transformation also is one of the most ill-advised. > >Some administrators claim that Reply-To munging makes it easier for users >to respond to the entire list, and helps encourage list traffic. These >benefits are fallacious. Moreover, Reply-To can have harmful -- even >dangerous -- effects. If you think Reply-To munging is a good idea, I hope >I can change your mind. > >The Principle of Minimal Munging > > > >Email processing is pretty tricky. Read through >RFC-822, the Standard for the >Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages, sometime. It is 47 pages of dense, >dry detail. A lot of engineering and consideration went into this work. >Even still, RFC-822 leaves many corner conditions and specialized >circumstances poorly specified. >RFC-1123, the commonly-called >Internet Host Requirements document, adds a couple dozen more pages, and >remedies some of the defects. Then there is MIME, X.400 mapping, and a >handful of other standards and conventions -- some documented and some >folklore. Email handling is surprisingly complicated, and even an >innocuous-sounding change might have grave, unintended consequences. > >The "Principle of Minimal Munging" is a good rule that will keep you out >of trouble. It says you should not make any changes to an email header >unless you know precisely what you want to do, why you want to do it, and >what it will affect. Unless you can articulate a clear reason for munging >and understand the full consequences of the action, you should not do it. > >The "Principle of Minimal Munging" will help you avoid the sorts of >problems we are about to discuss. This principle is a rule designed to be >broken, but you can avoid some significant heartache by thinking hard and >long before you do so. > >It Adds Nothing > > > >Reply-To munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable mailer. >People want to munge Reply-To headers to make "reply back to the list" >easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have two separate >"reply" commands: one that replies directly to the author of a message, >and another that replies to the author plus all of the list recipients. >Even the lowly Berkeley Mail >command has had this for about a decade. > >Any reasonable, modern mailer provides this feature. I prefer the >Elm mailer. It has separate "r)eply" >and "g)roup-reply" commands. If I want to reply to the author of a >message, I strike the "r" key. If I want to send a reply to the entire >list, I hit "g" instead. Piece 'o cake. > >I mention Elm here (and a lot later on) simply because that's the mailer I >use everyday. This sort of support is not unique to Elm Any reasonable >mailer provides it. The Pine mailer, for instance, asks directly, "Reply >to all recipients?" when you use the "r" command. It doesn't get much >easier than that! > >Whichever mailer you choose, please read the fine manual that comes with >it. Unless you are stuck with some decrepit mail system, I bet you'll find >it has a similar feature. If so, you easily can choose to direct your >responses either to the original author or the entire list. Mauling the >mail headers doesn't make it any easier. > >It Makes Things Break > > > >If you use a reasonable mailer, Reply-To munging does not provide any new >functionality. It, in fact, decreases functionality. Reply-To munging >destroys the "reply-to-author" capability. Munging makes this command act >effectively the same as the "reply-to-group" function. We haven't added >anything new, we've only taken away. Reply-To munging is not merely >benign, it is harmful. It renders a useful mail capability inoperative. > >Freedom of Choice > > > >Some administrators justify Reply-To munging by saying, "All responses >should go directly to the list anyway." This is arrogant. You should allow >me to decide exactly how I wish to respond to a message. If I feel a >public response is justified, I'll hit the "g" key and tell Elm to do a >group-reply. If I believe a private response is more appropriate, I'll use >"r" to send one. Please allow me the freedom to decide how to handle a >message. > >Can't Find My Way Back Home > > > >It may be impossible to reply to the author of a message once the Reply-To >header is munged. The Reply-To header was not invented on a whim. It is >there for the sender of a mail message to use. If you stomp on this >header, you can lose important information. > >There are good reasons why the sender might insert a Reply-To header. The >sender might not be the original author of the message (the name that >appears in the From header). If responses should return to the sender and >not the original author, then the sender will insert a Reply-To header. >Or, maybe the sender added a Reply-To because he or she cannot receive >email at the account from which the message was sent. There are many good >reasons to place a Reply-To header into a mailing list message. > >If the Reply-To is munged by the mailing list, the value provided by the >original sender is lost. Reply-To munging can make it impossible to reach >the sender of a message. > >Coddling the Brain-Dead, Penalizing the Conscientious > > > >There are, unfortunately, poorly implemented mail programs that lack >separate reply-to-author and reply-to-group functions. A user saddled with >such a brain-dead mailer can benefit from Reply-To munging. It makes it >easier for him or her to send responses directly to the list. > >This change, however, penalizes the conscientious person that uses a >reasonable mailer. This is a poor trade-off. As Internet list >administrators, we should encourage people to run reasonable software. If >a few people need to type in a full reply address so that everybody else >can use all the features of their mailer, I say, "Fine!" We should not >penalize the conscientious to coddle those who run brain-dead software. > >Principle of Least Work > > > >Compare and contrast: the work required for me (or any other Elm user) to >reply on lists that do and don't employ Reply-To munging. > > Case One: Case Two: > >Action Without Munging With Munging > >============= ===================== ===================== > > >Reply to Hit the "g" Probably hit the "r" > >everybody. key. key, but maybe the "g" > > key if there were other > > recipients of the message. > > >Reply just Hit the "r" Look at the original > >to author. key. message header, write > > down the sender's > > email address, hit the > > "r" key, call up the > > header editing menu, > > erase the current To: > > value, and type in the > > sender's full email > > address. And pray the > > correct address wasn't > > wiped out when the Reply-To > > was munged. >Again, your preferred mailer probably implements this feature in a >different fashion. Nonetheless, it should be easy. I'll take box number >one, Monte. > >Principle of Least Surprise > > > >When I hit the "r" key in Elm, it sends a response to the author of a >message. When you munge the Reply-To header you change this action so that >it does something entirely different from what I expect. This creates >specialized behavior for your mailing list, which increases the potential >for surprise. I'm not schooled in the science of human factors, but I >suspect surprise is not an element of a robust user interface. > >Private messages frequently are broadcast across lists that do Reply-To >munging. That's an empirical fact. It's what happens when you violate the >principle of least surprise. > >Principle of Least Damage > > > >Consider the damage when things go awry. If you do not munge the Reply-To >header and a list subscriber accidentally sends a response via private >email instead of to the list, he or she has to follow up with a message >that says, "Ooops! I meant to send that to the list. Could you please >forward a copy for me." That's a hassle, and it happens from time to time. > >What happens, however, when a person mistakenly broadcasts a private >message to the entire list? If the message is a complaint about the >personal hygiene of sender's boss, or the sex life of his or her roommate, >a simple "Ooops!" won't cut it. About all you can do is send a followup >with lots of retroactive smileys (weak). Or say your cat was dancing on >the keyboard (better). Or start reading the classifieds for a new >job/roommate/set of teeth (most likely). > >Reply-To munging encourages catastrophic failure modes. Sure, you don't >need Reply-To munging to create this sort of damage. A simple slip of the >fingers will suffice. When, however, you violate the "Principle of Least >Surprise" you invite this sort of disaster. A responsible list >administrator will avoid creating avenues that lead to such extreme damage. > >And in the End... > > > >If you are not convinced yet, then allow me one final plea. I contribute >to the Elm mailer development team. I get to see a lot of the wants and >requests from the user community. Guess what feature more and more people >are asking for? A third reply command -- one that ignores any existing >Reply-To header! Want to guess why people are asking for it? If you think >you are doing your subscribers a service by munging Reply-To headers, you >are kidding yourself. You are making your subscribers miserable. > >Some list administrators, even after reading all this, seem to say, "Oh, >it's not that bad. Besides, my subscribers like it!" If they do, it's >probably because they haven't bothered to learn to use the >"reply-to-group" feature of their mailer. Instead of going through all the >trouble of making your list gateway scribble on email headers, how about >making an effort to educate your subscribers? > >Summary > > > >Many people want to munge Reply-To headers. They believe it makes >reply-to-list easier, and it encourages more list traffic. It really does >neither, and is a very poor idea. Reply-To munging suffers from the >following problems: > * It violates the principle of minimal munging. > * It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer. > * It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct > a response. > * It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer. > * It removes important information, which can make it impossible to > get back to the message sender. > * It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle > those running brain-dead software. > * It violates the principle of least work because complicates the > procedure for replying to messages. > * It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the > way a mailer works. > * It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a > failure mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse. > * Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones who > have bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it. > > >Addendum > > > >In case you are wondering, yes, I once thought Reply-To munging was a >nifty idea. I got better though. > >When I started running email lists, I munged 'em all. One day I >accidentally sent a private, personal reply out over one of my own damn >lists. If the list owner can't remember how to use the list properly, no >way will the subscribers be able to sort it out. I stopped munging the >very next day. > >On the whole, it has worked out quite well. Yes, on occasion somebody >mistakenly responds directly to the author of a message when they wanted >to reply to the group. Most folks, however, seem to catch on pretty fast >to how it works, and seem to appreciate the flexibility. Moreover, private >responses mistakenly sent to the entire list have become an almost >unheard-of event. > > >---------- >Chip Rosenthal > > >$Id: reply-to-harmful.html,v 1.20 2002/11/15 03:46:04 chip Exp $ > >---------- > > > > > >Reply-To Munging Considered Useful > > > > > >An Earnest Plea to Mailing List Administrators > > > > > >Last revised: 3 January 2000 > > > > >---------- >An email message requires some amount of processing when it is >redistributed to a mailing list. At the very least, the envelope must be >rewritten to redirect bounces directly to the list administrator. > >While the message is being processed, the list administrator might take >advantage of the opportunity to >munge some of the message >headers. Many list administrators want to add a Reply-To header that >points back to the list. This transformation is also one of the most useful. > >Some administrators claim that Reply-To munging can have harmful -- even >dangerous -- effects. I assert the opposite, that not adding a Reply-To >header has even more harmful effects. If you think Reply-To munging is a >bad idea, I hope I can change your mind. > >RFC 822 and "Text Message Teleconferencing" > > > >The first thing to consider is that >RFC 822, the document which defines >the standards and usages for email, specifically mentions this usage in >section 4.4.3: > A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message > > teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution > > services: include the address of that service in the "Reply-To" > > field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; then > > participants can "reply" to conference submissions to guarantee > > the correct distribution of any submission of their own. >Aside from this official sanction, there are a number of reasons for >munging the Reply-To header. The arguments which follow are my own. They >may not be comprehensive, but I think they are compelling. > >The Principle of Minimal Bandwidth > > > >The ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'' is a good rule that will keep you >out of trouble. It says that you should make any changes which will reduce >the amount of email traffic on the Internet. The ``Principle of Minimal >Bandwidth'' will help you avoid the sorts of problems we are about to >discuss. This principle is a rule designed to be broken, but you can avoid >some significant heartache by thinking hard and long before you do so. > >Reply-To Munging Adds Something > > > >Reply-To gives the respondent an option which would not otherwise exist: >namely the ability to reply only to the list. Despite the fact that many >(though not all) email clients have the ability to "reply to sender" or >"reply to all recipients", many list subscribers want to reply only to the >list, which is not the result of selecting either of these options. So, to >ensure that the reply goes to the list, they select "reply to all >recipients", which generally results in the sending of at least two email >messages, one to the list, and one to the original sender. > >This is frequently quite annoying to the original sender, who now receives >two copies of the reply. Furthermore, in many cases the original sender >has added additional recipients. Not only does "reply to all recipients" >send the reply to each of these additional recipients (who are frequently >also members of the list), it also propagates this list of recipients onto >the reply to the list. > >The effects of this snowball, as each additional person replies to the >messages using "reply to all recipients", they become the sender, and thus >get added to the list of recipients with the next reply. Thus the list of >recipients grows and grows. Frequently, as the subject matter changes, >members of the list find themselves receiving multiple copies of messages >which have strayed from the topic in which they were originally >interested, even after they have unsubscribed from the list. > >Many people have pointed out that it is relatively easy to implement a >procmail filter to remove duplicates. This attitude merely reveals a >Unix-centric and US-centric viewpoint. Many users of inferior operating >systems do not have a tool powerful enough to ensure the removal of >duplicate messages. Furthermore, in many European countries, connect time >is charged by the minute. Even with procmail, the duplicates have to be >downloaded before they can be filtered, resulting in unnecessary >additional expenses for some of our European list mates. > >This last fact reveals that the issue is really related to bandwidth. By >applying the ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'', we conclude that it is >necessary to add a Reply-To header that points back to the list. > >It Doesn't Break Reasonable Mailers > > > >If you use a reasonable mailer, Reply-To munging does provide new >functionality, namely the ability to reply only to the list. Furthermore, >it does not decrease functionality. In Pine, for example, when there is a >Reply-To header, Pine will ask, ``Use "Reply-To:" address instead of >"From:" address?'', easily allowing one to reply only to the original >author. In KMail, it is even easier. One merely right-clicks on the >hyperlinked From address. > >If your mailer doesn't have this option, you should request it from its >development team. Any mailer, whose development team refuses this simple >request due to some ideological position, cannot be said to be reasonable. > >Freedom of Choice > > > >Since Reply-To munging adds additional functionality, it actually >increases freedom of choice. Not only can you now reply only to the list, >you still have the option to reply to the original author, or to all >recipients, easily and conveniently. > >Some Mailers are Broken > > > >There are, unfortunately, some poorly implemented mail programs that lack >separate "reply-to-author" and "reply-to-group" functions. A user saddled >with such a mailer can benefit from Reply-To munging. It makes it easier >for him or her to send responses directly to the list. > >Furthermore, this change does not penalize the conscientious person that >uses a reasonable mailer. Reasonable mailers give one the ability to reply >to the From address. Therefore, it would be unkind to further penalize >those with poorly implemented mail programs, since munging the Reply-To >header causes no harm to those with reasonable mailers. > >Principle of Least Total Work > > > >For discussion type lists, I would estimate that ninety percent of the >time, people want to reply to the list. Without munging, they either have >to break the ``Principle of Least Bandwidth'', or type in the list >address. Many people, being lazy, will choose the former, sending >unnecessary copies of emails to people who will either have to delete >them, or take the time to set up a filter (if they are lucky enough to be >running an operating system which facilitates this). > >On the other hand, about ten percent of the time, replying to the sender >might be more appropriate. Even if the respondent has an unreasonable >mailer (a decision for which they are probably responsible), the worst >case scenario is that they have to type in an address ten percent of the >time. Of course, if they took the time to add this recipient to their >address book, they could reduce the amount of typing to a minimum. > >So, which produces least total work: typing in the list address ninety >percent of the time (plus possibly taking the time to set up a filter), or >typing in an individual's address ten percent of the time? > >I'll take munged Reply-To headers every time, thanks. > >People are Responsible for Their Own Mistakes > > > >Some administrators claim that munging Reply-To headers is harmful because >it surprises people, and can cause damage when things go awry. They assert >that administrators should prevent the possibility of a private message >being mistakenly broadcast to the entire list. > >This is simply not the responsibility of the administrator. People are >responsible for their own mistakes. If someone is sending a private email >which is derogatory, or otherwise embarrassing were it to be made public, >they should probably be sending it directly, rather than as a reply to a >public message. They should also pause and think about whether they should >be sending it at all. This pause should be quite sufficient for a >conscientious person using a reasonable mailer to catch any mistake that >they might be about to make. > >In any case, it is an entirely trivial matter for the list administrator >to provide an obvious clue in the subject line of every message that the >message was received from a mailing list. If your Mailing List Manager >doesn't provide an option to prepend "[listname]" to the subject, then >switch to one that does ( e.g. GNU MailMan or >Majordomo ). > >And in the End... > > > >If you are not convinced yet, then allow me one final plea. Most mailing >lists are intended to facilitate discussion on a given topic. If this is >indeed the primary purpose of your list, then you really should add a >Reply-To header which directs replies to the list. This helps to ensure >that the entire thread of the conversation is available to all who might >be interested. > >I can't count the number of times I have searched the archives of a list >for a solution to a problem, only to find the question asked, but no >solution. Yet, when I subsequently post the question to the list, the >long-time members insist that it has already been discussed, and that I >should search the archives. If I'm lucky, a newer member forwards to me >the private reply which answered the question. > >Thus, munging the Reply-To header benefits those lists which are intended >for serious discussion. If your list is intended primarily for >announcements or other one-way mailings, you may safely ignore these >arguments. > >It's What People Want > > > >I have been and am subscribed to both munging and non-munging mailing >lists. On the non-munging lists, there are regular requests to change the >list so that Reply-To replies to the list. On the munging lists which >already do this, there are hardly any requests for change. > >Summary > > > >Many people want to munge Reply-To headers. They believe it makes >reply-to-list easier, and it encourages more list traffic. It really does >both of these things, and is a very good idea. To reiterate: > * It adheres to the principle of minimal bandwidth. > * It provides additional functionality to the user. > * It increases a subscriber's freedom to choose how to direct a response. > * It does not reduce functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer. > * It aids and assists the user with a deficient mailer. > * It adheres to the principle of least total work. > * It helps to ensure that questions are answered on the list. > * Your subscribers want you to do it. > > > >Addendum > > > >There are, of course, a few details that need to be addressed to make >Reply-To munging more pleasant and productive for everyone. One >potentially serious problem with Reply-To munging is the possibility of >mail loops. It should be possible for the list server to detect and >prevent this. If anyone has any patches to implement this feature, I would >be happy to provide a link to the patch on your ftp server, or to make it >available on my own ftp server. > >Also, patches are needed for any mailers that do not implement the ability >to reply to the From address. Please send links or patches to me at sdhill >at metasystema.net. Thanks. > >Patches > > > >A patch for Emacs rmail is available at: >http://www.metasystema.net/pub/patches/emacs/rmail-query-reply-to.el. > > >Dissenting Opinion > > > >I originally wrote this essay as a response to Chip Rosenthal's >Reply-To Munging >Considered Harmful. > >Simon Hill sdhill at metasystema.net > >HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:44:54 GMT > > >---------- >_______________________________________________ >Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list >sayma at kitenet.net >http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma > >_______________________________________________ >Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list >sayma at kitenet.net >http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 7be5829.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 653 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 7be5839.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 633 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bonnipeg at charter.net Wed Nov 26 10:58:04 2003 From: bonnipeg at charter.net (Peggy Bonnington) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:58:04 -0600 Subject: [saymaListserv] RE: "munging" In-Reply-To: <20031126132535.E9C6D18398@kitenet.net> Message-ID: Do we get to find out what Free wrote about munging? I'm most interested, as I haven't a CLUE what this word really means. I never even HEARD the word before yesterday, and it certainly isn't in the dictionary! The long, most involved "info" sent out by Mary held perhaps a hint of possible meaning... but a little too much for some of us lesser techno-Quakes to digest. Peggy Peggy Bonnington http://www.picturetrail.com/pegfollyarts Downtown Artists Co-op ~ http://www.clarksvilleartists.org ARTZ ~ http://artz4u.cjb.net/ Clarksville, Tennessee -----Original Message----- From: sayma-bounces at kitenet.net [mailto:sayma-bounces at kitenet.net]On Behalf Of sayma-request at kitenet.net Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 7:26 AM To: sayma at kitenet.net Subject: sayma Digest, Vol 10, Issue 12 Send sayma mailing list submissions to sayma at kitenet.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sayma-request at kitenet.net You can reach the person managing the list at sayma-owner at kitenet.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sayma digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: "munging" (free polazzo) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:25:23 -0500 From: free polazzo Subject: Re: [saymaListserv] "munging" To: "Sharon Annis" , "Mary Calhoun" , "sayma" Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20031126082100.0324baf8 at mail.comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 7be5829.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 653 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://kitenet.net/pipermail/sayma/attachments/20031126/7498acbb/7be5829.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 7be5839.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 633 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://kitenet.net/pipermail/sayma/attachments/20031126/7498acbb/7be5839.jpg ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list sayma at kitenet.net http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma End of sayma Digest, Vol 10, Issue 12 ************************************* From jhminshall at comcast.net Wed Nov 26 13:27:38 2003 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:27:38 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Politics and Economics In-Reply-To: <19d.1d9827b3.2cf41e31@aol.com> References: <19d.1d9827b3.2cf41e31@aol.com> Message-ID: Hi SAYMA Friend, I don't recognize your e-mail address so I cannot call you by name, but thanks for the response. Yes, Stan Becker is the person in Baltimore YM who is a demographer/medical doctor at Johns Hopkins University and has spoken at SAYMA yearly meeting about population concerns. Indeed, Stan was a member of SAYMA and Atlanta Meeting before he moved to Baltimore. And yes, Stan has replied on this topic twice. He was on the "To" list of recipients of my e-mail messages. It is the expected effects of a dramatic population decline that I have been exploring. I had, in the '70s before I knew Stan, worked on a grant from Johns Hopkins to encourage population control. Knowing Stan from my meeting, he was the first person I spoke with several years ago about this. I had heard a panel discussion on C-SPAN in which representatives of the military and the security agencies were projecting widespread panic and violence which would erupt as a steep population decline and related economic dislocation occurred. The panel's answer to that projection was to recommend increasing the size and scope of the military and the security agencies (which has since happened under the Bush Administration). When I told Stan about that panel discussion and their recommendation, he said he had no idea where their population projection came from. I began then to look for articles or other sources that would explain what I'd heard. I found out that many demographers were, indeed, projecting a sharp drop in population after a brief period (fifty to 100 years) of upward momentum, meaning population would rise more and more slowly until it came to a point of equilibrium (as many births as deaths), and then begin to decline. The short article by Scott Elder in National Geographic, the Sept.2003 issue, was the first one I found in a popular, non-academic journal that addressed both the problem and its likely consequences. Best Regards, Janet Minshall From vmbra at aol.com >As I understand it, US population is expected to DOUBLE by the end >of the century, though its composition will be different from the >current mix. Before getting overly concerned with population >declines in Europe, it might be well to examine the global picture. > Baltimore YM has a Friend who is an expert in international >population who might be a good resource. I'm blocking his last name >right now, but I think it's Stan Becker.It is and he has > >cps -- Janet's new e mail address is : jhminshall at comcast.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moriah at preferred.com Wed Nov 26 15:39:37 2003 From: moriah at preferred.com (Mary Calhoun) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:39:37 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] RE: "munging" References: Message-ID: <017601c3b455$47291380$b872fea9@Mary> Dear Peggy, "Munging," as far as I can tell, is a piece of internet jargon; like "netiquette" it probably won't be found in Webster's. Have you tried an internet search? The fifth paragraph of "Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful" contains a pretty clear hint about the meaning of "munging" -- "changes to an email header." Munging the reply-to line would therefore mean "changing the reply-to line." As best I can make out from the example below (from your posting), the header of an e-mail contains the "to," and "from" information that we see on-screen, but also a lot more. The reply-to line is apparently one of the ones we don't see; apparently it tells your computer what address your reply should go to if you click the reply button. The headers also seem to tell how an e-mail got to you, where it came from, when all this happened, and where to return it if it can't be delivered. As I understand it, revealing an e-mail's itinerary and credentials is a way to show it's legitimate; deleted or edited headers send up a red flag to our list's spam-filters, a clue that the sender is trying to remain anonymous while sending unwanted messages. ^o^ \_/ Mary Calhoun List-Administrator, sayma at kitenet.net AdminAsst at sayma.org 276-628-5852 POB 2191, Abingdon VA 24212-2191 ----------------------------------------------- Received: by dialin (mbox moriah) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Wed Nov 26 10:59:15 2003) X-From_: sayma-bounces at kitenet.net Wed Nov 26 10:01:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (exprod5mx50.postini.com [12.158.34.217]) by psmtp.preferred.com (8.12.9-20030924/8.12.9) with SMTP id hAQF1DNU018066 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:01:14 -0500 Received: from source ([64.62.161.42]) by exprod5mx50.postini.com ([12.158.34.245]) with SMTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:01:13 PST Received: from kitenet.net (kitenet.net [127.0.0.1]) by kitenet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4728184B0; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:01:12 +0000 (GMT) X-Original-To: sayma at kitenet.net Delivered-To: sayma at kitenet.net Received: from mxsf16.cluster1.charter.net (mxsf16.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.216]) by kitenet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F37618194 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:01:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from default ([68.185.136.49]) by mxsf16.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.10/8.12.8) with SMTP id hAQEw2RC053963 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:58:08 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bonnipeg at charter.net) From: "Peggy Bonnington" To: Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:58:04 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20031126132535.E9C6D18398 at kitenet.net> Subject: [saymaListserv] RE: "munging" X-BeenThere: sayma at kitenet.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: sayma-bounces at kitenet.net Errors-To: sayma-bounces at kitenet.net X-pstn-levels: (S:56.7811 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:100.0000 C:80.2920 ) X-pstn-settings: 4 (1.5000:4.5000) r p m C X-pstn-addresses: from forward (good recip) [1336/51] -------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peggy Bonnington" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 9:58 AM Subject: [saymaListserv] RE: "munging" > Do we get to find out what Free wrote about munging? I'm most interested, > as I haven't a CLUE what this word really means. I never even HEARD the > word before yesterday, and it certainly isn't in the dictionary! The long, > most involved "info" sent out by Mary held perhaps a hint of possible > meaning... but a little too much for some of us lesser techno-Quakes to > digest. > > Peggy > > Peggy Bonnington > http://www.picturetrail.com/pegfollyarts > Downtown Artists Co-op ~ http://www.clarksvilleartists.org > ARTZ ~ http://artz4u.cjb.net/ > Clarksville, Tennessee > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Sat Nov 29 19:35:35 2003 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:35:35 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: [saymaListserv] Re: Politics and Economics Message-ID: A message was received from a Friend who does not wish to be acknowledged in writing, thus I have blanked out the name and e-mail address and only responded to questions. Janet > >Hello Friend, >Thanks for writing. I agree with you completely that the world will >not be able to support unending numbers of additional people. That >is why I worked to encourage population control through Planned >Parenthood some years ago. But we have reached a point where we no >longer even need to do that. Population growth is now slowing so >significantly in the developed world, where most of the resources >are consumed, that it will come to balance (equlibrium) relatively >soon and then go into decline even if we do absolutely nothing else >about it. It is that decline that will have a profound impact on >world politics and on the global economy. The UN Population >Division expects Europe's population to shrink by more than 90 >million people in the next 50 years and they are seriously afraid of >the consequences. > >Our population in the US will only increase beyond that time if we >let in a lot more refugees and immigrants, an idea I fully support, >but one which is unpopular with most people. Refugees and immigrants >will come from somewhere else and the population where they come >from will decline faster because they left, so there is no net >increase from their migration. > > Regards, Janet Minshall > > > > > >-- >Janet's new e mail address is : jhminshall at comcast.net -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhminshall at comcast.net Sun Nov 30 16:22:43 2003 From: jhminshall at comcast.net (Janet Minshall) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:22:43 -0500 Subject: [saymaListserv] Politics and Economics In-Reply-To: <156.28aec252.2cfab982@aol.com> References: <156.28aec252.2cfab982@aol.com> Message-ID: This is a response to a SAYMA Friend. His message is below mine) J. Dear Friend, Thanks so much for the longer and more detailed message. I think you'll find that a declining population in the world beginning 50 to 100 years from now is becoming the majority view of demographers -- especially those in Europe who are experiencing the beginning of it firsthand. If the increase in immigration becomes much greater while the birthrate is falling to a state of balance in the US then consumption will fall, too, because refugees and immigrants don't use as much of anything in their first years in the US. It is in the second generation of refugees and immigrants with citizenship and active peer pressure when consumption becomes more like that of the US-born population, and by then the decline in the birth rate should be the stronger pressure here,too, reducing consumption significantly. If you go back to my original message, dated 11-22-03, I mentioned AIDS and other communicable diseases as a force which would speed up the decline in population. I also mentioned world war, which might actually be several smaller wars if the Bush Administration has its way, as having the same effect. I didn't include famine in my message because it is a component of the death toll from both communicable disease outbreaks and war. I didn't try to work through the effects on particular countries (Bangladesh for example.) I did, however do some work in East Africa on economic development projects and am well aware of the cultural issues which have impeded the use of contraceptives there. Your comments about male dominated hierarchical countries are right on target. However, when women even in those countries, are given the opportunity to use contraceptives, as they are now, smaller families are the result. This produces a decline in the rate of growth of population there. There is also the factor of less developed countries adopting some aspects of US and Western European cultures which both improves the situation of the poor and also the situation of women. This is occurring most dramatically where there are multinational corporations hiring local women and discouraging sexist discrimination in the workplace to keep the production lines running smoothly. Women who work and have their own incomes tend to have many fewer children. All of these issues you have raised ultimately result in a declining world population, not an increasing one. These are all aspects of why the rate of growth of populations is dropping nearly everywhere. This is also the basis of the projections of demographers, some of whom recognize that such a decline in population is actually the first one on this scale in our (US and Western European) history since the Black Death. Such a decline will bring serious disruptions of global economies and have terrible effects on people throughout the world unless we start now to recognize the danger and begin to plan for it. As I indicated before, in times of crisis and fear, the greatest mortality rates are among the poor, the elderly, the disabled and small children. I have taken out your name, e-mail address and other personal references and am post both your comments and my response with copies to Stan Becker and the other SAYMA Friends I sent to before. I hope you and yours have had a blessed Thanksgiving. Best Regards, Janet Minshall (I believe the Bush Administration has cut the provision of abortion services funded by the US but not the rate of contraceptive distribution by US and European-funded providers around the world. Maybe you or Stan can check that out. And I agree completely with your last sentence "Voluntary birth control is an essential component of improved women's health and establishing a democratic society for women as well as men"). J. From a SAYMA Friend today: >I doubt that's the majority view of demographers, and it certainly >does not reflect projections of US population (which is the biggest >offender as far as consumption is concerned). > >Steep declines in populations in Africa are possible due to the >impact of AIDS, and the consequences would be as predicted by the >military. This is an operation of the aforementioned four horsemen, >however (famine and plague, in particular) and is in no small way a >consequence of population exceeding carrying capacity. It is also >no coincidence that SARS began in Asia, or that floods (partially >caused by US overconsumption of energy) repeatedly decimate lowlying >areas of Bangladesh, which are marginal lands subject to population >because there are simply too many people occupying better quality >space. > >Finally, there is the question of female human rights. Those >countries were population is out of control tend to be male >dominated and hierarchical. Exactly what the current administration >prefers. Women in such countries, when asked, want to limit their >fertility, and usually do so if given the chance. Again, from my >experience in Bangladesh, I was involved in caring for a Muslim >woman who had a serious uterine infection as a consequence of an >illegal abortion she received without her husband's knowledge. > Voluntary birth control is an essential component of improved >women's health and establishing a democratic society for women as >well as men. > -- Janet's new e mail address is : jhminshall at comcast.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From listener at bellsouth.net Sun Nov 30 23:43:08 2003 From: listener at bellsouth.net (Kit Potter) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:43:08 -0600 Subject: [saymaListserv] RE: "munging" In-Reply-To: <017601c3b455$47291380$b872fea9@Mary> Message-ID: <005301c3b7bd$3c200820$6501a8c0@heyoka> Dear Friends, I agree with Sharon Annis on this issue. We all have choice, because we all have the address of the list to use as we wish and when we wish - with courtesy. The suggestion that I read within the information that Mary has sent encourages us to continue to choose to have choice. Since all of us have the group email address, and most of us do not have all of each others' personal email addresses (the whole SAYMA list!) in our computers, the system we now have contains the most individual choice. It seems to me that most of us are inundated with so much email as it is that we are very very cautious in choosing to reply to the entire group. Happy Thanksgiving! May we all continue to be grateful and aware of the overall progress of mankind in Spirit, despite depressing news. thanks, Kit -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: