From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #598 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, October 19 2003 Volume 06 : Number 598 In this issue: Re: Survey re the Firearms Act Harris bad choice to lead new right Re: Survey re the Firearms Act Man killed in subway shooting OPP kills two more black bears RE: Five Questions Survey - Doubting Thomas/Devil's Advocate Good luck to the right, they need it Are Canadians conservative enough? Spring election likely, Paul Martin says Editor: (Expensive trouble.) Black bear gorges in garbage Re: Survey re the Firearms Act Right way to help poor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:48:16 -0600 (CST) From: JP Poulin Subject: Re: Survey re the Firearms Act On 10/19/2003 03:33 -0500, Bruce Mills wrote: > Subject: Re: Survey re the Firearms Act. > What assurances do we have that anything will change *this* time? The trouble with constantly appeasing anti-gun groups or governments is the goal post keeps changing. It is impossible to keep updating legislation for the emotion of the day. C-68 was just another emotional knee-jerk reaction to a non-existing problem. The cost of laws by emotion are overwhelming and does no good for society, but here we are. Now, maybe one can understand why I prefer logic instead of emotion to run governments. Which gender tends to be more logical and the other more emotional about issues? Flame if you will. Both genders have their failings and there are exceptions, but on the whole, you can't disagree. If you do, then prove to me that our current thinking in politics is the best way ever to run a country and make laws. JP Poulin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:49:19 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Harris bad choice to lead new right You just have to know that if the editors of the Toronto "Red" Star think that Mike Harris is a bad choice for the leader of the new Conservative Party, that that is exactly the way to go. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1066428608206&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795 Oct. 19, 2003. 01:00 AM Harris bad choice to lead new right Over the next few weeks, the effort to form a new united conservative party from the ashes of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative party will encounter many obstacles. First, proponents must find a way to deal with former Conservative leader Joe Clark, who hates the deal, and David Orchard, a former Tory leadership candidate who calls the proposed merger a "betrayal.'' Next, backers of the proposed Conservative Party of Canada must get members of both existing parties to ratify the merger by Dec. 12. Then the hard part begins — selecting a new leader. It is the hardest part because all of the potential contenders are damaged in some way or other. Stephen Harper, the Canadian Alliance leader, is considered too dull, too right-wing to appeal to voters looking for dynamic new leadership to lead a national party, not just one rooted in western Canada. Tory leader Peter MacKay has been a disaster. He did betray David Orchard by reneging on his written promise to Orchard at the spring leadership convention that he would keep the Tories as a separate party. This is definitely not the kind of "leadership" that Canada — or any party — needs. Which brings us to Mike Harris. For many conservatives, the prospect of the former Ontario premier leading the merged party appeals because he has a proven track record as a winner. He is a hard-right winger who'd fit right in with the Alliance wing. And he has a national profile already. But while in some sense, Harris may seem like the ideal candidate, especially for Ontario conservatives, he is no national leader. Throughout his political career, Harris has shown little interest in issues outside Ontario. That is especially true for Quebec. It was clearly evident during the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty. Unlike former Ontario premier Bill Davis, who rose to the occasion during the 1980 referendum, Harris had to be pulled kicking and screaming into the debate. After the referendum, Harris criticized Prime Minister Jean Chrétien of being more interested in fighting separatists than trying to find constitutional change to give all provinces more power. Didn't Harris believe that fighting separatists was crucial for Ontario, as well as Canada? More importantly, Harris has never tried to learn to speak French or better understand concerns of franco-Ontarians. Surely, in Canada in the 21st century, we have progressed as a nation to the point where we fully expect the leader of any national political party, not just the new Conservative Party of Canada, to be fully bilingual. If we demand bilingualism, by law, of senior federal bureaucrats, why not demand bilingualism, by just plain common sense, of senior party leaders? With his total lack of interest in Quebec or learning about its culture, its language or its issues, Harris has signalled to Quebec that he doesn't care about it. And that's an insult not only to every Quebecer, but to every Canadian who truly cares about this country — all of it, including Quebec. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:53:31 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Survey re the Firearms Act JP Poulin wrote: You had me right up until this point: > Now, maybe one can understand why I prefer logic instead of emotion to run > governments. Which gender tends to be more logical and the other more > emotional about issues? Women are every bit as capable of being ruthless, heartless and dispassionate as men can - perhaps even moreso. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:00:13 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Man killed in subway shooting http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1066517109506&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968705899037 Oct. 19, 2003. 08:34 AM Man killed in subway shooting 3 shots fired in Kennedy station Police search for two men who fled STEVE KRAVITZ AND NECO COCKBURN STAFF REPORTERS A 19-year-old man is dead following a shooting at Kennedy subway station in Scarborough last night. The shooting occurred around 9:40 p.m. on the street level of the station, police said. A witness told police that a man in his 20s dressed all in black fired one shot at the victim and then two more in quick succession before fleeing. Subway passenger Keith Rampersad heard the gunshots. "I heard bang! bang! bang!," said Rampersad, 27. "I see a guy on the floor and a bullet hole in the window." He said the shooting occurred near the middle of the station. Police said the suspect and a second man fled on foot, but police were getting conflicting stories about where they went. Police described the station as busy at the time. Large crowds gathered around the victim as he lay on the ground. Police cleared roads for an emergency medical run to Sunnybrook hospital, but paramedics enroute reported that the victim had suffered a single small-calibre gunshot wound to the chest and had no vital signs. He was pronounced dead at the hospital. Police are withholding the victim's name pending notification of his family. Police said a dozen cars, as well as canine units, responded to the crime scene, searching Kennedy station and stopping trains from there to the Lawrence East LRT stop. Bobbie-Jo Drew had boarded a subway car at Kennedy station when passengers were told to leave because of unspecified "technical problems." "I went upstairs and saw yellow tape on the ground." Buses from Kennedy station were also halted by police. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:00:37 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: OPP kills two more black bears http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1066384937814&call_pageid=968256289824&col=968342212737 Oct. 17, 2003. 12:43 PM OPP kills two more black bears CANADIAN PRESS PETERBOROUGH - Ontario Provincial Police officers have been forced to kill two black bears north of this city. Officers arrived at a home in Buckhorn late last night after a resident reported that a bear on the porch was acting aggressively. The residents tried to scare the bear away, but were unsuccessful. When police arrived they found a second bear in the area and officers shot both bears dead. Last Saturday in Orillia, provincial police officers shot and killed a black bear cub that had climbed a tree in a bustling downtown neighbourhood. The OPP, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources have been deluged with phone calls from city residents upset about the cub's death. Officers said they made a number of calls in an effort to save the cub, but they were unaware of a Natural Resources Ministry after-hours line that might have changed the cub's fate. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:01:07 -0600 (CST) From: "Ed Sieb" Subject: RE: Five Questions Survey - Doubting Thomas/Devil's Advocate Bruce wrote: > I think it is time for our mystery "benefactor" to reveal > themselves and provide us with their _bona fides_. I'll > bet you dollars to donuts that it is some back room > Lieberal strategist, who is trying to milk us for all we're worth. Maybe yes, maybe no, but one thing is for sure: as much as I want to help Linda and respond to this "survey", I have never in my life responded to anonymous surveys, or questionnaires from undisclosed parties. Whenever I'm asked my opinion, I like to know who is asking these questions, and why. And besides, it's also simple, common courtesy to identify oneself, when asking strangers personal questions. Ed Sieb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:01:30 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Good luck to the right, they need it Sun Tzu says to "know your enemy". Behold! http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/columnists/story.asp?id=6FD89963-0DB6-4566-A545-B57DD74A21C7 Good luck to the right, they need it Catherine Ford Calgary Herald Sunday, October 19, 2003 David Orchard, insofar as he is a Conservative, is a very red one. Paul Martin, a life-long Liberal, is actually bright blue. All things being equal between the Saskatchewan farmer who is a liberal conservative, and the Ontario lawyer/businessman who is a conservative liberal, the fundamental difference is in the treatment their parties afford them. Orchard will be anathema in a newly constituted Conservative party. Already, the Web is humming with "plans" to defeat his supporters and his point of view -- that there can be no union between the Tories and the Canadian Alliance. He represents failure. Anonymous (and thus brave) Alliance members are buying Tory memberships now, so they can control the voting for both parties. On at least one website, Orchard is seen as the "enemy" and a kind of grassroots movement is afoot to stop his supporters from scuppering the deal. One wit with some knowledge of medical matters referred to defeating Orchard as an "orchiectomy," the surgical removal of both testes. (Whoever posted that may have a sense of humour and a knowledge of medicine, but knows little of language. If you emasculate a political movement, what's left?) Martin's Liberal party doesn't worry about labels or definitions, it merely opens itself wider. It accepts the next prime minister of this country will be, for all intents and purposes, a Liberal in name only. And that will be explained away as an evolution into the 21st century. Regardless of the fate of the "new" Conservative Party, Orchard represents the reason why the Liberals will still take the country and the Conservatives, in their marriage with an unrepentant Canadian Alliance, will lose. Despite ideological differences, the Liberals are united. Their opponents care more about ideology than success, which might be admirable, but does little good in giving them a chance to advance any of the real reforms they keep demanding. In the fashion of former Conservatives, they've already started eating their young, taking a cue from Conservative leader Peter MacKay's feasting on his agreement with Orchard not to pursue union. Who would place his future in the hands of a man who not only broke his word, but a word he gave in writing? MacKay, with a seemingly straight face, seems to believe breaking his agreement is nothing much at all. Actually, he insists he did not break his word, given in order to secure the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives. Call me old-fashioned, but any person who discards a promise that blatantly doesn't get another chance to renege. Maybe that's moot right now. Neither Mackay, nor his Alliance counterpart, Stephen Harper, is appropriate as the leader of a new party. If Harper were to be elected, the party would be seen as warmed-over Alliance. As for MacKay, his followers now know what his word is worth. Little wonder Martin seemed unconcerned in his swing through the West last week, especially in his visit to Calgary Friday. Referring to the proposed union, he called it an "interesting" development in the way deft politicians have of pricking someone else's self-inflated balloon. Personally, he says, he's focusing on "what I have to do." There's a world of difference between announcing a merger and completing it; between a one-night stand and a marriage. Nonetheless, wish the "new" Conservative Party well. It will need it. A merger of the right-of-centre parties is good for democracy and good for the country. It represents a credible alternative to the Liberals and one that should spur the Liberal party into doing more for the alienated regions than it has in the past. (Although Albertans with long memories need to remember that even having the clout of a handful of cabinet ministers in Ottawa in Brian Mulroney's government didn't dampen the whinging about western alienation.) But the juggernaut that is Martin and his abilities to reach out and -- if not sway, at least impress -- a roomful of skeptical conservatives, as he did Friday, leaves any new party with a huge psychological and political deficit to overcome. cford@theherald.canwest.com © Copyright 2003 Calgary Herald ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:02:00 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Are Canadians conservative enough? Already the feeding frezny of the left-lib chattering classes begins... http://www.canada.com/national/globalsunday/story.asp?id=8964D5A5-3B3B-4D6C-A757-C72A37785F32 Global Sunday STORY Are Canadians conservative enough? Global Television Friday, October 17, 2003 To what extent is anyone truly "conservative" anymore? Have most Canadians now blended fiscal conservatism with social liberalism, and have the Liberals cornered this new political market? Has the "Conservative Party" missed the boat? This week, Global Sunday looks at the current state of social conservatism in a post unite-the-right world. Feature guests include "backroom boys" Rod Love and Tom Long. Our panel will include President of Environics Michael Adams, Ottawa columnist for the Calgary Herald Don Martin and author and political commentator Lawrence Martin. © Copyright 2003 Global Television ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:02:27 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Spring election likely, Paul Martin says http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2003/10/19/230036.html Spring election likely, Paul Martin says MARIA MCCLINTOCK, Free Press Parliamentary Bureau 2003-10-19 05:17:21 OTTAWA -- Ready or not, the new Conservative Party of Canada can expect a spring face-off at the polls, Liberal prime minister-in-waiting Paul Martin said yesterday. "We've got to recognize that the government -- the government of which I'll be the head of, if in fact things come to pass that way -- will require a mandate," Martin said in an interview with CBC's The House radio program yesterday. "The one thing I would point out -- those who were seeking to unite the right have all said that they're doing this in the anticipation and the expectation of a relatively early election. Their timing is, in fact, based on that." Martin said a spring election is likely because once he's won the November Liberal leadership vote, Canadians will expect an election. "I'm going to call it in the interests of what Canadians require out of the Liberal government. Do they believe that the new prime minister requires a mandate? That's normally the case." In 2000, Prime Minister Jean Chretien called the bluff thrown out by newly minted Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day and put the country into an unexpected election. Political observers have repeatedly said the lack of time the Alliance had to prepare for that election played a key role in the party's poor showing in Ontario and contributed to Day's demise as leader. Alliance strategist Tim Powers said it's not shocking Martin will attempt to stymie any momentum the new conservative party may gain. "Arrogance is a Liberal trademark and we shouldn't be surprised if he calls a spring election," Powers said yesterday. "We're mindful that an election might come in May and we're putting the new party together with that in mind . . . yeah, it's a concern, but we have no control over it." Tory strategist Geoff Norquay said if the public senses Martin's election call puts the new party at an obvious disadvantage, it could backfire on the Grits. "Governments need to be careful in making these kinds of decisions," Norquay said yesterday. "People may see that type of things as a deliberate attempt to jam the new party up . . . and I don't think Mr. Martin would want timing (of an election) to become an election issue. You never know how public opinion is going to turn an issue like that." Copyright © The London Free Press 2001,2002,2003 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:38:37 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Editor: (Expensive trouble.) http://www.canoe.ca/CalgarySun/editorial.html Calgary Sun Letters to the Editor October 19, 2003 Federal IMMigration Minister Denis Coderre, in true Liberal fashion, is pressing ahead with his national ID card. The last boondoggle by the Liberals was their $2-million gun registry, which ballooned to $1 billion. We know the Liberals can't add, nor are they competent to give honest estimates on program costs. If we factor in cost increases to the ID card similar to the gun registry, we're in trouble. Jim Hill (Expensive trouble.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:39:29 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Black bear gorges in garbage http://www.canoe.ca/CalgaryNews/cs.cs-10-19-0026.html Sunday, October 19, 2003 Black bear gorges in garbage By MELISSA RIDGEN, CALGARY SUN Many find it tough to walk away from an all-you-can-eat buffet, including a big black bruin who spent two days in a giant dumpster, gorging himself to exhaustion. Duncan Salloway was manning the Priddis transfer station yesterday morning and discovered the burly bear. "I went to throw a bag of garbage in the bin and saw something black but I wasn't sure if it was a bear or if he was alive or dead," said Salloway. "I threw a bag of garbage in and he kind of rolled his head." It's believed the bear -- who tips the scale at close to 400 lb. -- fell into the three-metre-deep bin late Thursday or sometime Friday when no one was around. "He probably leaned over to smell the garbage and got a little too far over and fell in," said Salloway, who runs a website dedicated to bears. "I know a black bear couldn't climb up a (three-metre) flat metal wall," he said. The bear was sedated by conservation officers and relocated to an area where he shouldn't run into humans -- or their trash. It took five grown men to move the hungry garbage-picker. It isn't known how much of his brawn the bear packed on in the bin. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:40:12 -0600 (CST) From: JP Poulin Subject: Re: Survey re the Firearms Act On 10/19/2003 12:53 -0500, Bruce Mills wrote: > You had me right up until this point: >> Now, maybe one can understand why I prefer logic instead of emotion to run >> governments. Which gender tends to be more logical and the other more >> emotional about issues? > Women are every bit as capable of being ruthless, heartless and dispassionate as > men can - perhaps even moreso. That is certainly true, but are they not more emotional than men? Does that not get into the way of logic? Did I not make myself clear on that point? Do you believe women are now far more logical and less emotional than men Bruce? If so Bruce, there's no discussion. JP Poulin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:41:30 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Right way to help poor http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/corbella.html October 19, 2003 Right way to help poor Government must take its hand out of pockets of low-income earners By LICIA CORBELLA -- Calgary Sun I got a call the other day condemning me for writing favourably about the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative Party merger. "I can tell from your columns that you care about the poor," said the caller. "How then can you endorse such parties that just care about the rich?" My answer was: Because they don't just care about the rich. Just because these parties believe in smaller government, doesn't mean they don't believe in helping the poor. Indeed, Canadian Alliance policies would remove about 2.1 million of the poorest Canadians from the tax rolls altogether. Such policy is endorsed by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the organization credited with forcing the Liberals to get rid of bracket creep -- the hidden tax caused by inflation that pushed taxpayers into higher tax brackets and caused them to pay more taxes even as their buying power diminished. Walter Robinson, the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, says Canadians start paying income tax at $7,756 a year -- which is well below the poverty line. Robinson advocates increasing the basic personal exemption to $15,000 over five years. That would put about $4 billion back into the hands of the poorest Canadians. The Alliance has similar goals. But, can you trust poor families to do the right thing with the money? Isn't that money better spent by a large Ottawa departments filled with lavish-spending bureaucrats, rather than by Canada's struggling families? Well, I remembered a story about a New Brunswick family Preston Manning told the House of Commons about during a pre-budget debate on Dec. 10, 1997. The story began when Manning, then the leader of the Reform Party, received a letter from a young mother by the name of Kim Hicks, who was married with four children, then aged two to eight. Her husband was the only breadwinner and brought home about $30,000 a year. Because in the previous year, her husband had worked a lot of overtime and took his vacation pay without a vacation, the family was penalized by the feds. At the end of the year, they owed $900 in income tax, and lost money on their GST and child tax benefit. "My concern is this," wrote Hicks. "We feel as though we are drowning with no sign of relief in sight. "Our kids won't be going to the dentist this year, but the child down the road, whose mom is on welfare, will. We have refinanced and refinanced and we just can't do it anymore." Manning sent Hicks a letter and told her that under Reform Party's tax relief measures she and her husband would receive $3,000 in tax relief. "In effect," wrote Manning, " a family like theirs would have been removed from the federal income tax rolls altogether." So, Manning asked the Hicks family if they would take part in a research project. He sent the family a cheque for $3,000-plus (the plus was needed to cover the tax they would have to pay on the cheque) and then asked her to write letters telling him how the family spent their "tax-refund." Her response is extremely humbling. The first thing the Hicks did was put $1,000 aside for a rainy day. Then they paid their two oldest boys' dentist bill and paid for their two younger sons' trip to the dentist. They then set aside $200 for one of their sons in order to buy a new pair of glasses "which are badly needed." "We bought the extra wood we will need for winter," paid off one of the credit card balances, thereby easing their monthly payment load, went shopping for back-to-school, clothes and set aside money for school books. They paid off some other debts, bought groceries they couldn't afford and then spent the remaining $200 any way they wished. "We bought Kentucky Fried Chicken and we went to see the movie George of the Jungle. "My husband," wrote Hicks, "along with his regular hours, has had to start working Saturday morning and also two to three evenings a week to make ends meet. He only takes one week of his vacation and we use the other week's vacation pay to buy wood. What this means is we've never taken a vacation trip with our children, but this year we are taking the $125 left from the $200 and we are driving to Pictou, taking the ferry to P.E.I and driving back across the bridge to N.B. It feels great." As Manning pointed out, after savings, their highest priority was meeting the medical and educational needs of their children. "Notice the commitment to debt reduction," said Manning. "There is more commitment to debt reduction in this letter than there is from a government that receives $150 billion a year." Manning then pointed out the obvious. "Is there any member in this House; any bureaucrat at human resources development or finance, who has the nerve to stand up and say they could have spent that money more wisely or more socially responsibly?" The government may be able to set up programs to help just such families, but as Manning said, it would probably cost us $30,000 per family to administer. For many people, $3,000 doesn't sound like a lot of money. It's therefore remarkable to see what a difference leaving some money in a lower-income family's pocket does for them. Hicks wrote another letter telling Manning how the pretend "tax relief" made her family feel. "It was as if a weight had been lifted from our shoulders and we could finally catch our breath." So while Liberal friends get paid millions to write reports that don't exist and for lavish lunches or get their tax arrears excused, the Hicks struggle on. Hicks wrote that her husband had recently received what for them was a substantial raise -- $44 a week. When he got his pay cheque he had lost $27 of the $44 -- fully $24.18 to federal taxes alone. So, yes. I support the poor with a substantial amount of my money but also with my prayers and my vote. Licia Corbella, editor of the Calgary Sun, can be reached at 403-250-4129 or by e-mail at licia.corbella@calgarysun.com. Her columns appear Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday. Letters to the editor should be sent to callet@calgarysun.com. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #598 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:akimoya@cogeco.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.