There are 4 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. UN Reform Isn't the Answer
From: John Perna <savefreedom2005@yahoo.com>
2. questions about the veep who couldn't shoot straight
From: "norgesen" <norgeson@hotmail.com>
3. Air Force Plan: Hack Your Nervous System
From: "norgesen" <norgeson@hotmail.com>
4. Codename Camolin: What is "Camolin"?
From: "norgesen" <norgeson@hotmail.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 05:48:34 -0800 (PST)
From: John Perna <savefreedom2005@yahoo.com>
Subject: UN Reform Isn't the Answer
Ask your congressman to cosponsor H. R. 1146 to get out of the U. N.
UN Reform Isn't the Answer
by John F. McManus
The proper response to cries for UN reform and restructuring is for our nation to leave. Even with veto power, the UN remains a constant threat to freedom.
Flag wavers for the United Nations like to point out that nations large and small have a voice in the "world forum." For instance, Julian Hunte of minuscule Saint Lucia (population: 160,000) currently finds himself as the president of the General Assembly.
But the power in the UN doesn't reside in the General Assembly; it's located in the Security Council. Originally made up of only 11 members (four more were added in 1965), only five have ever been designated "permanent" and each of these possesses a veto over Security Council decisions. (Non-permanent members serve for only two years, and their places are then awarded to others.) The language in the UN Charter's Article 27 states that Security Council decisions must include "the concurring votes of the permanent members." The five permanent members originally named were the Republic of China (Taiwan), France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Two of these memberships were later transferred to the People's Republic of China and Russia.
Possession of veto power supposedly assures Americans that no Security Council resolution would ever unfavorably impact the United States. The veto power's very existence persuaded some of the senators in 1945 that there was nothing to fear by approving UN membership. Most surely expected that our nation's leaders would always use the veto to protect America's interests, an expectation that is by no means realistic today.
Still, because possession of the veto power leaves the door open for any of the five permanent members especially the United States to thwart UN designs, a rising number of UN partisans have suggested that it be abolished. In December 1985, for instance, World Federalist Association Vice President John Logue testified before a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He stridently called for action to "reform, restructure and strengthen the United Nations." To "be able to make and enforce law on the individual," he pointedly declared, "the Security Council veto must go."
Though Logue may have been ahead of the pack, the number of those wanting to reform the UN as he suggested has grown. During a convocation at Notre Dame University in April 1991, retired President Father Theodore Hesburgh called for restructuring the UN in part by "eliminating the veto possessed by the five permanent Security Council members." An unabashed partisan of the "new world order," Hesburgh has spent much of his adult life joining and playing an important role in various globalist organizations.
In April 1996, former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev convened a gathering in Bhurban, Pakistan. Delegates to the affair produced a 12-plank "Bhurban Statement" urging that the UN "should become the principal custodian of global human security." To accomplish this goal, stated the document: "There should be no veto power."
Canadian oil billionaire and New Age heavyweight Maurice Strong has served the UN in a variety of ways, including secretary-general of the UN's 1992 "Earth Summit" and senior adviser to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He has frequently called for revising the UN's structure, including the removal of the Security Council veto.
In 2000, the little-known United Nations University (UNU) produced a study offering the following conclusion: "To respect sovereignty is to be complicit in human rights violations." Formed in 1973 to assist the UN in resolving "global problems," the UNU produces recommendations such as urging the world body to "remove the Great Power veto" to facilitate its ability to sanction "humanitarian war."
In 2003, David Davenport of the supposedly conservative Hoover Institution suggested that the UN could become a "more effective decision-making body" by limiting the veto power to a requirement that "at least two nations exercise it to be effective." The Weekly Standard, also a supposedly conservative voice, has called for eliminating the veto power.
Brookings Institution senior research analyst Parag Khanna authored an op-ed piece for the December 6, 2003 New York Times proposing ways to make the world body function more efficiently. Khanna wants the UN to add Japan and India to the roster of Security Council permanent members, collapse the French and British places into a single seat for the European Union, and further beef up the permanent membership by awarding slots to the Organization of American States, the League of Arab States and the African Union. "But most importantly," he wrote, "if the United States sincerely wants a more effective Security Council, it will have to relinquish its veto power in favor of majority voting."
The Brookings Institution is currently led by former Time magazine columnist and former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott. Perhaps his most revealing utterance is that in the next hundred years "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete."
For an American, the proper response to cries for UN reform and restructuring is to demand that our nation leave the world body altogether. Even with veto power, a succession of U.S. administrations has shown little interest in using it to protect our nation's independence.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:50:15 -0500
From: "norgesen" <norgeson@hotmail.com>
Subject: questions about the veep who couldn't shoot straight
February 13, 2006
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VEEP WHO COULDN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN DICK CHENEY'S HUNTING "ACCIDENT"?
A smart mid-western friend who has a lot of quail-hunting experience writes:
The entire Cheney hunting accident story stinks. The delay in announcing it is suspicious, obviously. I'll bet Cheney had a few beers in him, but I'm not sure that is illegal in Texas (drinking and hunting is illegal in most states, but I couldn't find out if that includes Texas).
But a few other points that may be worth noting:
1. The news reports say the accident happened "around 5:30 pm" on Saturday. In Texas, quail can be hunted until 30 minutes after sunset. Sunset on Saturday, in Corpus Christi, was at 6:18, which means they were legal until 6:48. The "around" is suspicious.
2. The news reports say that after Whittington (left) had gotten off his shot and went looking for his bird, Cheney and the other hunter went to another spot where they saw a covey of quail. Texas quail might be different from Iowa quail, but in Iowa when a shotgun goes off, every quail within earshot flutters away. The story doesn't make sense.
3. None of the stories have commented on the fact that they were "road hunting", or hunting from a car. That is just about the lowest kind of low-rent, dishonorable kind of hunting there is (the phrase "road hunting" is often used synonymously with "poaching"). When I was growing up in Iowa, I went pheasant or quail hunting on scores of occasions with my Dad and others. We never would have hunted from a vehicle and it was an insult to even suggest that someone might. It was considered dangerous and declasse, as it was too great an advantage for the hunter to be "fair". It most states, including Texas, it is also illegal:
"It is unlawful to hunt from or by means of motor-driven vehicles and land conveyances or aircraft of any kind except paraplegics and single or double amputees of legs may hunt from stationary motor-driven vehicles or land conveyances."
However, Texas exempts private property owners from the prohibition when they are on their own land and Cheney was with the property owner on his ranch. But it is still really tacky.
4. Hunting quail in Texas requires an "Upland game bird stamp", which costs $7. This is a relatively new requirement, but I'll bet Cheney didn't have one.
5. The spin is that Whittington "came up from behind the Vice President", implying that he snuck up on him or was somehow partially responsible because Cheney didn't know he was there. When hunting, it is bad form to walk in front of someone's gun. When given a choice, one would always approach another hunter from behind.
Cheney has gotten negative press in the past for participating in "canned hunts" and a couple of years ago he got really negative press for going on a canned pheasant hunt in Pennsylvania where he got between 70 and 95 birds (depending on which report is to be believed). The typical daily limit in places like Iowa and South Dakota, where we have many more pheasants than Pennsylvania, is 3 or 5 per day and a possession limit of 15 or 20.
To many of our milieu, hunting is hunting is hunting and the distinctions noted above aren't that big of a deal. To hunters, these are important distinctions. Hunting regulations are strictly enforced in most states and every sixpack Joe knows he better abide by them or he'll get in trouble. Most hunters aren't affluent suede vest guys, they are working class guys within a couple of generations of agriculatural roots. The gluttony of shooting 70 pheasant in a day is almost impossible for them to comprehend.
Focusing on the kill rather than the hunt is frowned upon. Killing more than you can eat is frowned upon. Canned hunts and that kind of over-indulgence is for the Rambo hunters, who are not thought highly of by the old-fashioned Izaak Walton league type of guys, like my Dad.
Someone should be asking if Cheney was drinking, if he was properly licensed with his Upland Game Bird Stamp, when (and if) the hunting accident was actually reported to the authorities and if anyone has investigated why the quail in Texas seem to have gone deaf.
Ms. Armstrong claims to have been in the car, but to have witnessed the shooting. If so, that would mean the hunters were fairly close, within eyeshot, which makes it even less likely that Whittington had gotten off a shot at a quail and then there were other quail still waiting around for Cheney to find them. It just does not make sense!
UPDATE AT 1:50 PM: CBS news' White House correspondent reports that Secret Ser ie agents prevented local law enforcement from interviewing Cheney. At White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's late morning press conference, he said that Cheney had a valid hunting license -- but no one asked whether the Veep had the required Upland Game Bird Stamp. Think Progress has a partial transcript of the McClelln presser here. And my quail-hunting friend updates his comments above with the following:
"I spoke to my younger brother today who did not know anything about the hunting accident. He kind of lives off the grid, doesn't pay attention to news, I'm not sure he has a wallet, checking account or even pays taxes. What he does is hunt and fish. And generally vote Republican I am sorry to report.
I read him the story and when I got to the part about Cheney and the other guy going to flush a second covey of quail, he interrupted me "You NEVER break your hunting party when hunting quail. NEVER NEVER NEVER." He explained that game birds flight patterns vary when they are taking flight or flushed. Quail flush in a starburst or "blizzard pattern" and fly all around, often between the hunters themselves. Pheasant go up in a linear fashion, away from the hunters.
My brother said that it also depended on what kind of quail they were hunting and whether or not they were stocked quail or wild quail. He said if they were "blues" (one of the two main species in Texas) (left), they typically first run on the ground, in a single file, to the nearest cover. It might be a piece of sagebrush, but the entire covey will hover underneath it. Then, when one of them sees better cover and takes off for it, they'll all follow single file.
He thinks it may be possible that some of them were flushed--and Whittington took his shot--and the other birds ran a few yards to better cover, and Cheney and the other hunter followed those birds. At this point he repeated his comment about "never breaking your party when hunting quail". That is, apparently, one of the most common reasons for hunting accidents (that and alcohol).
Bobwhite quail (right) don't run and they'll sit tight until they are flushed.
Whether the initial shot would have caused the other nearby birds to flush or not may depend on whether or not they were stocked birds. He said that wild birds usually would flush upon hearing a shot, but stocked birds may be less likely to and could just sit tight. "They'll watch the hunters and if the hunters don't see them, they'll sit tight until they figure out they've been detected and then they'll flush".
In any case, when I read to him the part about Whittington approaching the Veep from behind, without announcing himself, he said "that's bullshit, it is his fault. It is always the shooters' fault". That reminded me of "the pause" which was what our Dad taught us to do right before squeezing the trigger. We were taught to build in a moment, even if a fraction of a second, right before firing the gun to look at precisely what you were shooting at. This was true whether hunting birds or shooting skeet (clay pigeons). You never fired your gun as part of a swinging motion or in excitement; you maintained safety and control by always having that fractional pause.
He said Cheney is "a weekend warrior who really just wants to do his blasting" and is "more interested in the kill than in the hunt". (Left, Cheney gets gift of gun from NRA Convention.) He called that type of hunter "overzealous and lazy" and said they "don't enjoy the hunt for what it is".
My brother and our Dad have won all sorts of awards for hunting, as have their dogs. They travel all over the continent to shoot various fowl (no mammals), including some of the most respected bird hunts, like the []deleted] and the [deleted] Championship.
I asked him if he could be quoted on the record and he said "you gotta be kidding, these people will track you down". That prompted me to ask him if the election were held today, would he vote for Bush or Kerry and he stunned me by saying he thought he'd go for Kerry now. That was the best news of the day. I then asked Bush or Hillary and he said "I won't for her". I asked Bush or Vilsack and he said, without hesitation, Vilsack."
2nd UPDATE MONDAY MIDNIGHT: My perspicacious friend was right in his speculation above: Smoking Gun now has the local law enforcement report showing that Cheney indeed did NOT have an Upland Game Bird Stamp on his hunting license.
GOP SEN. ALLEN CALLS FOR PROBE OF CHENEY IN LEAK Meanwhile, Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia (left) -- a potential Republican presidential contender in 2008 -- has called for Cheney to be put on the grill about reports in the Plame case that he leaked her name to Scooter Libby, AP reports. On Fox News Sunday, Allen said a full investigation was necessary, adding, "I don't think anybody should be releasing classified information, period, whether in the Congress, executive branch or some underling in some bureaucracy.".... and kudos to Murray Waas, the guy who broke the story of the Cheney leak. Murray (right) , a friend and sometime colleague, has done some great reporting on the Plame case from the beginning -- and it was Murray who last week broke the story of the Cheney leak in the National Journal. Smart people who follow this case -- including the leading journalists on the story -- have learned to keep tabs on Murray Waas's blog for new developments and insights no one else has.
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/02/questions_about.html
GAO report: BUSH SPENDS BILLIONS ON DOMESTIC PROPAGANDA
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:16:29 -0500
From: "norgesen" <norgeson@hotmail.com>
Subject: Air Force Plan: Hack Your Nervous System
Air Force Plan: Hack Your Nervous System
This is the first of a two-part series on plasma and electromagnetic weapons by David Hambling, author of Weapons Grade: How Modern Warfare Gave Birth to Our High-Tech World.
The brain has always been a battlefield. New weapons might be able to hack directly into your nervous system.
"Controlled Effects" (see image, right) is one of the Air Force�s ambitious long-term challenges. It starts with better and more accurate bombs, but moves on to discuss devices that "make selected adversaries think or act according to our needs... By studying and modeling the human brain and nervous system, the ability to mentally influence or confuse personnel is also possible."
The first stage is technology to �remotely create physical sensations.� They give the example of the Active Denial System "people zapper" which uses a high-frequency radiation similar to microwaves as a non-lethal means of crowd control.
Other weapons can affect the nervous system directly. The Pulsed Energy Projectile fires a short intense pulse of laser energy. This vaporizes the outer layer of the target, creating a rapidly-expanding expanding ball of plasma. At different power levels, those expanding plasmas could deliver a harmless warning, stun the target, or disable them - all with pinpoint laser precision from a mile away.
Early reports on the effects of PEPs mentioned temporary paralysis, then thought to be related to ultrasonic shockwaves. It later became apparent that the electromagnetic pulse caused by the expanding plasma was triggering nerve cells.
Details of this emerged in a heavily-censored document released to Ed Hammond of the Sunshine Project under the Freedom if Information Act. Called �Sensory consequence of electromagnetic pulsed emitted by laser induced plasmas,� it described research on activating the nerve cells responsible for sensing unpleasant stimuli: heat, damage, pressure, cold. By selectively stimulating a particular nociceptor, a finely tuned PEP might sensations of say, being burned, frozen or dipped in acid -- all without doing the slightest actual harm.
The skin is the easiest target for such stimulation. But, in principle, any sensory nerves could be triggered. The Controlled Effects document suggests �it may be possible to create synthetic images�to confuse an individual' s visual sense or, in a similar manner, confuse his senses of sound, taste, touch, or smell.�
In other words, it may be possible to use electromagnetic means to create overwhelming 'sound' or 'light', or indeed 'intolerable smell' which would exist only in the brain of the person perceiving them.
There is another side as well. The �sensory consequences� document also notes that the nervous system which controls muscles could be influenced to cause what they call �Taser-like motor effects.� The stun gun�s ability to shock the muscles into malfunction is relatively crude; we might now be looking at are much more targeted effects.
Tomorrow: Moscow moves in. Remote-controlled heart attacks, anyone?
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002152.html
Moscow's Remote-Controlled Heart Attacks
This is the second of David Hambling's two-part series on plasma and electromagnetic weapons. Check out part one here.
The American military may want to attack the nervous system, with pain rays and laser plasma pulses. But they're not the only ones. The Russians have long studied such systems, too -- including one weapon that could, in theory, remotely trigger heart attacks.
In 2003, at the 2nd European Symposium on Non-Lethal Weapons, Anatoly Korolev and his colleagues from Moscow State University presented a paper with the snappy title "Bioelectrodynamic Criterion of the NLW Effectiveness Estimation and the Interaction mechanisms of the multilayer Skin Tissues with electromagnetic Radiation." This is a study of how radio-frequency weapons -- like the American Active Denial System -- affect the skin. After wading through a mass of technical data showing how complex the interactions are we reach the punch line:
The sensations modality (pricking, touch, pressure, gooseflesh, touch, burning pain etc) depends on the field parameters and individual concrete human being factors. As a matter of fact, we can really choose the non-lethal bioeffect.
The effects include sensations similar to those discussed previously, and more besides. The paper discusses effects on cell membranes and affecting the body�s normal function, including "information transfer to the organs of control."
At the same conference, V Makukhin of the Trymas Engineering Center in Moscow described "Electronic equipment for complex influence on biological objects." And when he says "biological objects," he means you and me.
His laboratory apparatus uses a modulated beam of radio waves to produce what he terms "disorder of autonomic nervous system," put forward as a possible non-lethal weapon. Makhunin notes that there is no general agreement on how EM waves disrupt nerves - he mentions ion channels similar to those in the plasma paper - but he certainly seems to be seeing the same effects as American researchers.
But it need not be a non-lethal weapon. Makhunin also mentions the effects of "change of electrocardiogram" and what he calls "function break of heart muscle."
The vulnerability of the heart to electrical stimulation (including that produced by EM waves) is well documented. A lethal device would interfere with the electrical potentials that keep the chambers of the heart synchronized, producing fibrillation and rapid death. A death ray doesn�t need to be a truck-sized laser that reduces the target to smoking heap; a small device that stops the heart will do the job.
Little has been openly published in this area in the public domain, but this may be the tip of the iceberg. We are likely to be hearing more in future - especially if the Russians manage to find funding.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002169.html
Lasers and Ray Guns Archives
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_lasers_and_ray_guns.html
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:14:07 -0500
From: "norgesen" <norgeson@hotmail.com>
Subject: Codename Camolin: What is "Camolin"?
What is "Camolin"?
A little-noticed report in Der Spiegel in November 2004 (13.11.04) revealed the existence of an intelligence operation called "Camolin" involving agencies from the USA, Germany, France, UK, Canada and Australia.
The operation set up in February 2003 is charged with tracking down Al-Qaeda suspects in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Its headquarters is in a military barracks close to Paris where regular meetings of the agencies take place backed up by a secure communications system. The role of the European agencies is to supply dossiers on suspects which the CIA then acts on.
The Der Speigel article stated the Germany was represented by the Federal Intelligence Agency and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
Source: Webdiary
Filed 16 January 2006
See: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/jan/05eu-camolin.htm
Codename Camolin
Before the invasion of Iraq, Webdiarist Alun Breward translated A think tank war: Why old Europe says no from der Spiegal which became Webdiary's most read piece. Today Alun has provided a major extract from another der Spiegal article on the secret service group 'Camolin', published today.
"I have not been able to establish if there is anything about it in the USA or UK media, but it doesn't seem to have made it into the Australian media. I hope it might be useful." Thanks Alun.
The Shady Ones
by Georg Mascolo and Holger Stark, Der Spiegal
[extract translated by Alun Breward]
European Intelligence Services are working together with the CIA in a Paris Anti-terror centre - their work is as delicate as it is secret.
The personnel were hand-picked and their work high risk. American secret service agents worked undercover with an international team - all of them hard men from the elite units of six nations. Of course there was a Briton, and even Old Europe was represented: a German took part, as did a French agent. The team, codename "Rainbow Six" liberated an Austrian millionaire from his kidnappers, preventing the release of a terrorist in exchange for the tycoon. All in a day's work for the Top Guns of the war against terror.
The heroes are fictional and come from Tom Clancy's "Operation Rainbow".
But reality has overtaken Clancy's fiction. Since February 2003 there has been a similar secret service group operating in Europe, in which all those nations that feature in Clancy's political thriller play a part.
Besides these countries Canada and Australia are involved. The secret group has the codename "Camolin" and aims, like its literary model, to hunt terrorists and prevent their attacks.
So delicate is the existence of these multinational terrorist-hunters that a spokeswoman for Interior Minister Otto Schily audaciously denied the first reports of the organisation. "There is no anti-terror-centre in which German officials take part" she said.
But there is, and their cooperation is a matter of great sensitivity.
For officially European states are distancing themselves from the hard-knuckled American fight against terrorism. Germany and France do not want to have anything to do with Guantanamo and the so-called Black Sites, where torture of suspects takes place, according to human rights groups.
On the other hand, international cooperation in this conflict is indispensable and for this reason the German government has dispatched an official of the Federal Intelligence agency, as well as a representative of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. They attend the regular Camolin meetings in a barracks on the outskirts of Paris.
The political difficulties with Camolin only truly begin after a successful mission: there are no guarantees what will happen with leaders of the jihad that are picked up as result of this transatlantic cooperation.
Camolin aims only to improve participants' reach - what happens with those they track down remains secret.
This Paris group must be understood as a unique entity. Only results count and the top secret foundation agreement anticipates that member nations will put all relevant information on the table. In this way Camolin has made it possible for the CIA to operate legally in Europe.
For the US government this information exchange is of huge importance: they regard Europe as the epicentre of jihad. The continent is "much more dangerous" than America, maintains John Negroponte, Director of the USA's national intelligence. "Ten million Muslims live there, and they are not integrated into society" he warns.
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/11/codename_camoli.html
---------
Germany: Government complicit in Iraq war -
Secret service BND remained in Baghdad and
supported US military in "identification of
targets", Panorama programme reveals: See:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/jan/04germany-iraq.htm
----
UK: Telephone and communication interception reaches new high - now
three times more than when the Labour government came to powe in 1997:
Statewatch's Observatory on: Telephone tapping and mail-opening figures
1937- 2004:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/nov/uk-tel-tap-rep-2004.htm
It is interesting to compare the UK figures with those for the USA, see:
The Centre for Democracy and Technology (USA, link):
http://www.cdt.org/wiretap/wiretap_overview.html
The comparable figures showed that in 2003 there were more interception
warrants issued in the UK than the whole of the USA. Figures for warrants
issued by the UK Foreign Office (for the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6
and for GCHQ) were only published 1980-1984.
--
OBSERVATORY ON THE SURVEILLANCE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN THE EU
Statewatch has launched an Observatory on the surveillance of
telecommunications in the EU - under mandatory data retention a record will
be kept of everyone's phone-calls, e-mails, mobile phone calls (including
location) and internet usage. The Council (the 25 EU governments) are
proposing the data can be accessed by law enforcement agencies for any
suspected crime, however minor. The proposal is now being discussed in the
European Parliament:
Observatory: http://www.statewatch.org/eu-data-retention.htm
and Critical Opinion of the Article 29 Working Party on Data Protection:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/nov/WP113.pdf
UK-EU: Data retention and police access in the UK - a warning for Europe:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/nov/01uk-eu-police-access-to-data.htm
UK: Statement from the families of the men who have been detained
pending deportation to countries where they are certain to be tortured and
even killed:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/nov/deportees-statement.pdf
The right to know or the right to try and find out? The need for an EU
freedom of information law, by Ben Hayes:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/nov/eu-FOI.pdf
Statewatch Observatory
The surveillance of telecommunications in the EU
http://www.statewatch.org/eu-data-retention.htm
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/september_eleven_vreeland/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
september_eleven_vreeland-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment