TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:55:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 19
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Cost of Wiretapping (Bilgates Remailer)
Re: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! (John Hines)
Re: In Never-Bell Land, Phone Service Is Way Above Average (Mike Sullivan)
Did AT&T Raise Calling Card Charges on Feb. 2nd? (Bill Phillips)
Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (Felix Deutsch)
DoubleClick Waits on Business Plan as Groups File in FTC Action (M Solomon)
Net Camera Scam Alive and Well (Monty Solomon)
"Opt-in Rules!" (Monty Solomon)
Re: Persistent Mysterious Calls From Hell ... (Andrew Green)
Reminder: IDMS 2000 Deadline is March 15 (Clever Ricardo Guareis de Farias)
Rescue 211 (Jeremy Pickett)
Re: Psychic Hotline Charges (Richard D G Cox)
Intrusive Background Checks (reddog3140@my-deja.com)
New Local Service and Problem With 1172 (Carl Moore)
Re: Cost of Wiretapping (John S. Maddaus)
Persistent Mysterious Calls from Hell (Fred Goldstein)
Yahoo! News Story - Motorola Warns Iridium Customers (Yahoo! News)
Last Laugh! Re: Number of Telephones in the U.S. (Dale Neiburg)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
611 Poplar Street
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 805-545-5115
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/
mailing list on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order
telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 22:20:01 CST
From: Bilgates Remailer <noreply@securenym.net>
Subject: Re: Cost of Wiretapping
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
> I think the US has regulations requiring telephone systems
> to have some automated mechanism for wiretaps.
CALEA, passed in 1996.
> Is there a good description of that system available on the web?
> What fraction of the current COs support it?
Any search engine on the Web will turn up numerous discriptions of
CALEA itself. I believe COs have flexibility on how they achieve
compliance to CALEA.
As to whether telcos 'support' it there are two answers: telcos
are now required by law to implement CALEA so there's no question
they will 'support' it in the legal sense. But as to whether telcos
'support' the idea behind it the answer is a universal No - not out
of any sense of consumer privacy merely the bottom line: telcos will
have to pay for the bulk of CALEA compliance out of their own pockets.
Excuse me, out of their customers' pockets, that being us consumers
of course.
> I assume there are supposed to be checks in the system to make
> sure that it's only used for legal taps. Is there any reason
> that I should believe those checks are good enough to keep
> hackers from tapping whatever they want?
Sure there are checks in the system. Just like there are checks in
place to make sure people with badges don't shove broomhandles up your
backside or pump you full of lead when you reach for a wallet.
> How much does that system cost? If I took the total cost of that
> system and put a pile of cash on the table in front of the FBI, would
> they spend it on a wiretapping system or something else? Is this just
> a sneaky way of taxing phone subscribers to support law enforcement?
It's not about revenue-generation, it's about power - our govt's
insatiable need for more power to control us citizens. Somewhen ago a
govt flunky was quoted as saying the feds want the ability to tap 10%
of the phone calls being made in the US at any given time. An
enquiring mind might ask, "Why?" Maybe Echelon isn't working as well
as it used to - more likely CALEA just makes the task of eavesdropping
much easier and cheaper. After all, why go to all the effort of
eavesdropping on communications when you can pass a law that makes
telcos squirt the data right to you no muss no fuss?
Steve
From: John Hines <jhines@enteract.com>
Subject: Re: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert!
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:45:58 -0600
Organization: US Citizen, disabled with MS, speaking solely for myself.
Don Kimberlin <dkimberlin@prodigy.net> wrote:
> ... Thus, there may even be the odd town here and there where one could
> find a firm reference to a fee being paid. However, I'll wager that
> phone companies paying a fee are the exception, and that even if they
> do, it's something that finally occurred since we broke up Ma Bell. She
> was monolithic in more ways than most might imagine.
You're right, there is no need to charge the phone company a franchise
fee, since the village, state, and feds already directly tax the service
to the consumer. (You may not be taxed at all three levels, but I am.)
This is unlike the electric, and cable industries, where the taxes have
been hidden from the end consumer.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What many people do not understand is
that telco cannot cut off your service for failure to pay the tax
due on service. Although they are required to collect the tax and
remit it to government agencies (generally one agency collects all
the municipal taxes on behalf of all other agencies), if you refuse
to pay the taxes (or some portion of them) all telco can do is
notify tax collector that you did not pay. As a matter of fact, the
amounts of money are so small, chances are likely no one will make
an issue of it, but they might, so take care. Back during Viet Nam
days, almost no one was paying the federal phone tax, claiming it
was being used to support the 'war machine'. The feds did not go
out and chase people down; and no one got their phone cut off for
failure to pay the taxes. You do need to notify telco of your intent
to not pay taxes, so you are not put down as a partial payment on
their books. PAT]
From: Michael Sullivan <avogadro@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: Re: In Never-Bell Land, Phone Service Is Way Above Average
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 06:36:22 GMT
The NYT article about the Richmond, Mass. independent telco with
"Phone Service Way Above Average, and Competitive" leaves out some
very important points and suggests the conclusion that a little family
company can do a better job than a Bell behemoth. That this
conclusion is false is only apparent to an astute reader who looks at
the chart at the head of the article, which was not included in the
posted text (not sure if it was in the online version, which is no
longer available).
The specific facts of interest are:
Richmond Telephone has 13 employees, serves 1,200 access lines in a 5
square mile area, and charges $12.50/month for local service.
Let's do the math. The company's annual access revenue is
1200*12.50*12, or $180,000. Thirteen employees at, say, $35,000 salary
+ $15,000 benefits is $650,000. Fixed and variable non-employee costs
(depreciation, electricity, gasoline, etc.) add a few hundred thousand
more, at the very least; estimate $200,000 to be conservative. Add in
return on an investment of $2,000,000 or so -- another $200,000, say.
The company's total revenue requirement for a year comes to at least
$1,050,000. In other words, the low monthly line charges cover only 17%
of the cost of providing the company's "way above average" service.
Who pays the remaining 83%? WE DO. Companies like this are massively
subsidized by those of us paying more per month for poorer service,
through the universal service/high cost program, and through
long-distance access charges. This company probably loads the vast
majority of its costs onto long-distance users by gouging long-distance
carriers for excessive carrier common line charges that are "justified"
by the company's high costs -- costs resulting from providing
gold-plated, overstaffed service.
Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA
avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com)
From: wfp@ziplink.net (Bill Phillips)
Subject: Did AT&T Raise Calling Card Charges on Feb. 2nd?
Organization: ShoeString Projects, Cambridge, MA
Reply-To: wfp@ziplink.net (Bill Phillips)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:23:12 GMT
Since last summer we have used 1-800-CALL-ATT and our Bell Atlantic
calling card to make calls from work at MIT in Cambridge, MA, mostly
to New York City, where her mother is in an assisted-living facility
(not cheap, but there seems to be no other way to make an l/d
connection from her department). We've had AT&T Reach Out service for
many years, and even though it's not very economical for us any more,
my wife seems to want to hang onto it. I have trained her, however, to
use dialarounds from home.]
We looked at our Bell Atlantic bill last night and were shocked.
It appears as though AT&T almost doubled our calling card charges
without letting us know ...
But since I haven't seen any mention of this in the Digest archive,
I'm somewhat suspicious.
(I admit I'm just a wee bit out-of-it in many ways, so please bear
with me if everybody else in the world already knows about this ...)
Calls placed before 2/2/2000 were at a much lower rate than calls
placed since. I calculated the new rate as $0.69/minute plus a $4.95
per-call charge. Ack! I didn't bother to figure out what it was
before, but looks like about half that.
So ... what happened, why didn't I know about it, do we have any
recourse, and is there a better (cheaper) way to get to an l/d carrier
from inside a place like MIT?
Thanks.
Subject: Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery
From: Felix Deutsch <Felix.Deutsch@eed.ericsson.se>
Date: 10 Mar 2000 11:50:45 +0100
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca> writes:
> Felix Deutsch wrote:
>> You are mislead by thinking that AOL is a mere ISP, thus just offering
>> full-IP connectivity. I would think that many AOL subscribers spend a
>> significant amount of their online time using services provided by AOL
>> and not the WWW in general.
> But what advantage is there for CNN to restrict content to AOL-only
> subscribers ?
Quite obviously to get more people to subscribe to AOL. This way
they're trying to push some smaller ISPs out of business.
> If the goal is to have more eyeballs, shouldn't CNN push to be
> on the world-wide-web and get eyeballs from any ISP in the world instead of
> just AOL with a proprietary product available only on AOL ?
Yes.
But if there was a single goal, then it would be to make more profit.
And this can be reached by widening the paying customer base for one
_and_ get 'eyeballs' for ads.
Felix
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:47:31 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: DoubleClick Waits on Business Plan as Groups File in FTC Action
By Mike Godwin
E-Commerce Law Weekly
March 8, 2000
Web advertising agency DoubleClick Inc. announced March 2 that it would
hold off on its plans to tie personally identifiable information to
Internet users' online surfing habits until government and industry have
reached a consensus on privacy rules for the Internet. The decision came
two days after five public-interest groups announced that they were
filing an "Additional Statement of Facts and Grounds for Relief" with
the Federal Trade Commission (see:
http://www.cdt.org/testimony/000225ftcdcstatement.shtml), seeking FTC
action against DoubleClick. The filing was a followup to the FTC's Feb.
16 announcement that it is investigating DoubleClick for its privacy
practices.
http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/stories/A18091-2000Mar7.html
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:17:23 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Net Camera Scam Alive and Well
Inside the 'perfect crime' - a blow-by-blow account of
e-commerce gone bad, as MSNBC 'falls' for scheme
By Bob Sullivan
MSNBCMarch 6 - Five months and counting. That's how long one Internet
scam artist has been able to trick Net users into stealing high-end
digital cameras on his behalf. MSNBC first reported on the scam in
January, and with no sign of prosecution in sight, we decided to "fall"
for it ourselves. The end result? MSNBC "stole" a $982 Sony digital
camera from IBuyline Inc.; the e-commerce site and its credit
verification service pointed fingers at each other for not catching an
obviously fraudulent charge; and a scamster calling himself "Peter
Wightman" is still waiting for the $750 we were instructed to wire to
his Latvian bank account.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/378497.asp?cp1=1
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:29:41 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Opt-in Rules!
How does 24/7 Media CEO David Moore target ads without raising the ire
of privacy activists? He asks permission.
By Lydia Lee
When online advertising giant DoubleClick suggested last month that it
would merge its database of anonymous Web surfing habits with a
database of names and other personal information it had recently
acquired, it unleashed a firestorm. Privacy activists protested, the
Electronic Privacy Information Group filed a lawsuit and the Federal
Trade Commission opened an investigation. On Thursday, DoubleClick
began back-pedalling furiously, and CEO Kevin O'Connor admitted the
plan was a mistake.
http://www.salon.com/tech/view/2000/03/06/moore
From: Andrew Green <acg@datalogics.com>
Subject: Re: Persistent Mysterious Calls from Hell ...
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:48:08 -0600
/dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) writes:
>> From NNAG for December 1999.
> 509-533 SPOKANE
> US WEST PNW BELL
> End Office Code - Portable
> Modified 03/17/00
> 5E SPKNWAKYDS0 v:06247 h:08180
*boggle*
What the heck was that? :-) Seriously, I read the Digest in order to
learn things; can you add a little detail as to what sort of info
you're sharing with us here about the 509-533 mystery number?
And to the original poster: Have you ever _answered_ one of these
mystery calls, or are you just looking at Caller ID logs? Does an
answering machine record anything from these calls? From the timing
and pattern you describe, if I answered the phone I would expect to be
hearing the "boop... boop... boop..." of a misprogrammed fax machine
trying to send a regularly-scheduled outbound message of some sort.
Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331
Datalogics, Inc.
101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com
Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282
From: Clever Ricardo Guareis de Farias <farias@cs.utwente.nl>
Subject: Reminder: IDMS 2000 Deadline is March 15
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:37:54 +0100
Organization: CTIT - Centre for Telematics and Information Technology
Call for Papers
IDMS'2000
The 7th International Workshop on Interactive
Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services
October 17-20, 2000
CTIT / Univ. of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
This is just a reminder that the deadline for IDMS '2000 is approaching
quickly: the deadline for full and position papers is March 15, 2000.
In case of questions, please, feel free to contact the program
co-chairs:
Marten van Sinderen - mailto:sinderen@cs.utwente.nl
Hans Scholten - mailto:scholten@cs.utwente.nl
For general details please check the website at:
http://www.ctit.utwente.nl/Docs/news/idms_2000.htm
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:39:37 -0500
From: Jeremy Pickett <jer76@mindspring.com>
Subject: Rescue 211
In many towns in the north Georgia area 311 is used as a shortcut to the
telco's voicemail system. Out of curiousity, I began to try the
different combinations one evening, being careful not to dial 411 or
911. I was surprised when I reached our county's 911 center by dialing
211. Embarassed, I apologized and quickly hung up. Does anyone know if
this is something other telco's are doing as well, or just a strange
ALLTEL quirk? I've heard that in some areas 311 will be assigned to
non-emergency police, but nothing's been mentioned about 211.
Incidentally voicemail in our exchange cannot be reached at 311. When
dialed it returns a fast busy.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:16 +0000
From: Richard@office.mandarin.com (Richard D G Cox)
Subject: Re: Psychic Hotline Charges
In TELECOM Digest V20 #16, Paul Cook reports from the Bergen Record:
> Ochs opened up accounts in five different names in order to make
> hundreds of calls to the hot line, which operates from the South
> Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, west of Fiji. The calls weren't
> cheap, averaging about $6 per minute.
...
> Ochs, 49, who works for a job placement agency, has refused to pay
> for the hot line calls, made between Nov. 15 and Jan. 7. Last week,
> he filed a report with police seeking to charge Bell Atlantic with
> deceptive business practices.
...
> "We think he should pay only for the long-distance charge and not
> for the psychic hot line's fee for its services," said Ochs' lawyer,
> Richard Galler. "In other words, he should pay whatever it costs
> to make a regular call to Vanuatu."
He may have a point - however I wonder if it is the *right* point!
The chances of such a service actually operating in Vanuatu - given
the cultural and other differences - are at the best extremely slim.
It is far more likely (as close to 100% certain as you can be without
actually being 100% certain) that the service operates out of somewhere
closer to mainland USA. Possibly even ON mainland USA - or in the UK.
(calls US->UK or vice versa cost Telcos about a (US) cent per minute!)
Many phone companies operate services where an international number is
intercepted and diverted to a less expensive destination, with the
savings in call charges achieved by routing to the less expensive
destination being shared between the long-distance phone company and
the called party.
It used to be necessary for such calls to be routed over a specific LD
company, but the phone companies have now developed a method using C7
for one Telco to "grab" calls dialled over another LD/International
company, route that call into their network and terminate it locally.
This method isn't widely understood outside those personnel who
actually operate it, but came to light during one of my firm's recent
fraud investigations.
Telcos have traditionally claimed that their actions are acceptable
"because the caller is getting the service they expected at the price
they expected to pay" but consumers (and, I gather, the FCC) would
regard the practice as being 100% fraudulent: because the main purpose
of such an arrangement is to bypass any regulatory/consumer protection
processes that are in place, and also to get around any barring that
may be in place (as it often is on 900 or locally-equivalent numbers!)
Richard Galler should consider obtaining in dependant verification of
where these calls actually terminated, and which long distance company
actually handled them. Which is not necessarily the same as asking
which long distance Telco would have handled normal calls to Vanuatu.
To get reliable information, it would be necessary to obtain notarised
copies of the Call Detail Records from the LD/international switches.
There again, a good check would be whether the dialled number actually
exists in the Vanuatu dialling plan ... I'm sure Linc Madison would be
able to help with that!
Richard D G Cox
Mandarin Technology, Penarth, United Kingdom: Telephone +44 29 2031 1131
Senders of genuine e-mail should remove "office" from the e-mail address.
From: reddog3140@my-deja.com
Subject: Intrusive Background Checks
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:40:31 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
I am doing a story on internet privacy and have heard that your
employer, head hunting firms, even your insurance company are using
newsgroups archives to search for incriminating information you may
have posted in a newsgroup. Has this happened to anyone? Do you know
of anyone who has been fired (or not hired) because of something they
posted in a newsgroup?
Also, does has anyone had their identity stolen DIRECTLY as a result
of the internet? Any ideas would be so helpful! Thanks.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:33:20 EST
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: New Local Service and Problem With 1172
Conectiv Power Delivery, formerly Delmarva Power, has been offering
(in Maryland, at least in North East and Elkton exchanges?) local
service to New Castle County, Delaware in addition to the areas
offered via Bell Atlantic. I have been switched recently to Conectiv,
but notice as to when that was occurring may have left something to be
desired. I just opened up what turns out to be a very small bill from
Bell Atlantic (apparently pro-rated due to the just-mentioned switch).
I think I remember hearing that special features would not be affected
(I have had call forwarding), but after I saw that Bell Atlantic bill,
I checked (calling from my other line to the one which has had the
call forwarding), and sure enough, I got ringing with no forwarding!
As some of you may know from elsewhere, you have to watch out for
special features being lost (until you program them back in) when a
switch is made, and I had that happen back in late 1996 when I had my
phone number moved from one residence to another.
Dialing 0 from the phone line which had the call forwarding now gets
"Conectiv operator". I had a pulse-only phone plugged into that line,
but when I punched 1172 while trying to put that call forwarding back
on, I got a ringing signal, then a message that the call could not be
completed as dialed. I plugged in in a touch-tone phone and was able
to proceed correctly via *72. When is 1172 supposed to work for this?
Delmarva Power had, between 1993 and 1996 inclusive, taken over the
local power supplying for where I live in Maryland. A letter at the
time said Delmarva Power has been serving parts of Maryland, but was
new in that particular part of Maryland.
From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus)
Subject: Re: Cost of Wiretapping
Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 18:08:46 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Anonymous User <tonne@jengate.thur.de> wrote:
> As to whether telcos 'support' it there are two answers: telcos
> are now required by law to implement CALEA so there's no question
> they will 'support' it in the legal sense. But as to whether telcos
> 'support' the idea behind it the answer is a universal No - not out
> of any sense of consumer privacy merely the bottom line: telcos will
> have to pay for the bulk of CALEA compliance out of their own pockets.
> Excuse me, out of their customers' pockets, that being us consumers
> of course.
There's an even more compelling reason why telcos do not want feds in
their COs. Telco's can monitor their traffic at will (needs of the
business) without any court order. Once court ordered taps are put in
place at a CO, they essentially need to stop their own monitoring.
They do not like to do that, -- most have many cases going
simultaneously where they build the evidence and when they are ready,
contact law enforcment with archived and sealed forensic material.
Telcos are loathe to let any law enforcement individual phyiscally
into the CO. The rift between the government and the telco's is huge
for precisely the reason posted above. CALEA has just about shut the
discussion door between "the gov't" and the telcos.
John S. Maddaus
jmaddaus@usa.net
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:07:53 -0500
From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein@wn.net>
Subject: Persistent Mysterious Calls from Hell
While it may not be easy to find out who owns the specific number, the
prefix code 509-533 is listed as Spokane:
WA 509-533 9638 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS - PACIFIC NWEST BELL SPOKANE
The best source is now www.nanpa.com, which has area code information
including the "utilized" lists. These now show the above information. So
while it's not quite as thorough as the (costly) LERG, you can tell the
rate center and the carrier. (9638 is PNB-WA's Operating Carrier Number.)
Thanks to NeuStar, which now administers the NANP.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:19:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Yahoo! News <refertofriend@reply.yahoo.com>
Subject: Motorola Warns Iridium Customers
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Motorola Inc. (NYSE:MOT - news) has notified customers of Iridium LLC, the financially troubled satellite telephone system it bankrolled, that service would end on March 17 unless a buyer for Iridium comes forward.
Motorola Warns Iridium Customers
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000310/bs/telecoms_iridium_5.html
Yahoo! News http://dailynews.yahoo.com/
From: Dale Neiburg <DNeiburg@npr.org>
Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Number of Telephones in the U.S.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:30:47 -0500
In Telecom Digest 20:009, Greg Ericksen asked:
> Could you tell me how many telephones are currently in the
> U.S.A. broken down into Business and Residential or where I can go to
> research such information?
In my experience, at any given time about 30% of the telephones in America
are broken down.
(Then there's the old schtick about the bishop who sent every pastor in his
diocese a letter asking for a list of parishioners, broken down by sex....)
Dale Neiburg ** NPR Satellite Operations ** 202-414-2640
"The thoughts that you refuse to think, you will act out in
some violent, seemingly illogical way."
--Sigmund Freud
End of TELECOM Digest V20 #19
Visit the Crazy Atheist Libertarian
Visit my atheist friends at Arizona Secular Humanists
Some strange but true news about the government
Some strange but real news about religion
Interesting, funny but otherwise useless news!