- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Pay Less Today aWem
by Bridget Mcnair 27 Jan '06

27 Jan '06

Hey Guys, I was so happy I took adavantage of this Refinance offer, I thought I would share it with you.I locked in a 3.75 Rate before the increases started and got the cash I needed before the Holiday. It took me less than 1 Min to fill out this form and get started. http://KacI.neckthu.com/af out of maaei ling: http://Oy.neckthu.com/rem k6Nqye

1 0

Ye Olde Rummy's PsyOps
by Eugen Leitl 27 Jan '06

27 Jan '06

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm US plans to 'fight the net' revealed By Adam Brookes BBC Pentagon correspondent A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks. Internet cafe in Iraq The document says information is "critical to military success" Bloggers beware. As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer. >From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war. The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act. Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it. Information Operations Roadmap Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader. Download the reader here The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare. The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance. Propaganda The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks. All these are engaged in information operations. US Defense Secretary at the Pentagon The wide-reaching document was signed off by Donald Rumsfeld Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans. "Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads. "Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on. The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how. "In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive. Credibility problem Public awareness of the US military's information operations is low, but it's growing - thanks to some operational clumsiness. When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone. It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private company, the Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers. The stories - all supportive of US policy - were written by military personnel and then placed in Iraqi publications. And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of Africa and the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon. But the true extent of the Pentagon's information operations, how they work, who they're aimed at, and at what point they turn from informing the public to influencing populations, is far from clear. The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up to - and the grand scale on which it's thinking. It reveals that Psyops personnel "support" the American government's international broadcasting. It singles out TV Marti - a station which broadcasts to Cuba - as receiving such support. It recommends that a global website be established that supports America's strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website would use content from "third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than US officials". It also recommends that Psyops personnel should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet. 'Fight the net' When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone. It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system. "Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," it reads. The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the roadmap. The authors warn that US networks are very vulnerable to attack by hackers, enemies seeking to disable them, or spies looking for intelligence. "Networks are growing faster than we can defend them... Attack sophistication is increasing... Number of events is increasing." US digital ambition And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum". US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum". Consider that for a moment. The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet. Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they real? The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon. And that the scale and grandeur of the digital revolution is matched only by the US military's ambitions for it. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

2 1

Look...Here ZV
by Gayle Boone 27 Jan '06

27 Jan '06

Huge selection of meds available at attractive prices. Highest quality assured. Try us out today.. http://seesproof.com 6hd

1 0

You Need This Cypherpunks
by Denver Forrest 27 Jan '06

27 Jan '06

The most complete Phar macy Online We carry all major medds at bargain price Viggra, Ci ialis, VaIium, Xa naax Phantermiine, Ulltraam and etc... SatiisfactIon Gua ranteeed http://au.geocities.com/ginger75921nariko60652/ IZ

1 0

New Poll Finds Half of U.S. Needs Killing
by Eugen Leitl 27 Jan '06

27 Jan '06

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27poll.html?ei=5094&en=b93f38e07… d88d0&hp=&ex=1138424400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all New Poll Finds Mixed Support for Wiretaps David Scull for The New York Times President Bush at his news conference Thursday. The latest polls show that public opinion on Mr. Bush's surveillance program is still unresolved. * E-Mail This * Printer-Friendly * Reprints * Save Article Article Tools Sponsored By By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER Published: January 27, 2006 Americans are willing to tolerate eavesdropping without warrants to fight terrorism, but are concerned that the aggressive antiterrorism programs championed by the Bush administration are encroaching on civil liberties, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. In a sign that public opinion about the trade-offs between national security and individual rights is nuanced and remains highly unresolved, responses to questions about the administration's eavesdropping program varied significantly depending on how the questions were worded, underlining the importance of the effort by the White House this week to define the issue on its terms. The poll, conducted as President Bush defended his surveillance program in the face of criticism from Democrats and some Republicans that it is illegal, found that Americans were willing to give the administration some latitude for its surveillance program if they believed it was intended to protect them. Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they supported eavesdropping without warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism." The results suggest that Americans' view of the program depends in large part on whether they perceive it as a bulwark in the fight against terrorism, as Mr. Bush has sought to cast it, or as an unnecessary and unwarranted infringement on civil liberties, as critics have said. In one striking finding, respondents overwhelmingly supported e-mail and telephone monitoring directed at "Americans that the government is suspicious of;" they overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at "ordinary Americans." Mr. Bush, at a White House press conference yesterday, twice used the phrase "terrorist surveillance program" to describe an operation in which the administration has eavesdropped on telephone calls and other communications like e-mail that it says could involve operatives of Al Qaeda overseas talking to Americans. Critics say the administration could conduct such surveillance while still getting prior court approval, as spelled out in a 1978 law intended to guard against governmental abuses. The findings came in a poll conducted as Mr. Bush prepares to deliver his fifth State of the Union address on Tuesday. It found that Mr. Bush will face a nation that has grown sour on Washington and skeptical that he will be able to achieve significant progress in health care, the economy, the Iraq war and the cost of prescription drugs for older patients before he leaves office in three years. The poll also signaled concern for Republicans as they prepare to defend their control of the House and the Senate in midterm elections this November. Investigations into Congressional corruption are taking a toll as the elections approach: 61 percent of Americans now hold an unfavorable view of Congress, the highest in 10 years. This finding holds particular peril for Republicans as the party that has been in charge. More than half of the respondents said they believed that most members of Congress would exchange votes for money or favors. Republicans were seen as more likely to be unduly influenced by lobbyists. And the Republican Party is now viewed unfavorably by 51 percent of the nation, its worst rating since Mr. Bush took office. By contrast, 53 percent said they held a favorable view of Democrats. The telephone poll was conducted with 1,229 adults, starting Friday and ending Wednesday. Its margin of sampling error was plus or minus three percentage points. The poll found that Americans were to a large extent perplexed as they weighed conflicting forces: the need presented by Mr. Bush to take extraordinary action to fight terrorism, and a historical aversion to an overly intrusive government. The poll found that 53 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping without prior court approval "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism"; 46 percent disapproved. When the question was asked stripped of any mention of terrorism, 46 percent of those respondents approved, and 50 percent said they disapproved. At the same time, 64 percent said they were very or somewhat concerned about losing civil liberties as a result of antiterrorism measures put in place by Mr. Bush since the attacks of Sept. 11. And respondents were more likely to be concerned that the government would enact strong antiterrorism laws that excessively restrict civil liberties than they were that the government would fail to enact antiterrorism laws. The poll was conducted just as the White House commenced an elaborate campaign to defend the surveillance program, and thus may have been too early to offer a full measure of that campaign's effectiveness. There were no measurable changes in the poll findings from one day to the next. The findings, and follow-up interviews with some participants, clearly suggest that Mr. Bush has an opportunity to make the dispute over the program play to his political advantage. He has been pointing to the threat of another terrorist attack to justify the eavesdropping program and is trying, for the third election in a row, to suggest that he and his party are more aggressive about protecting the nation than are Democrats. "Say they're targeting someone in Al Qaeda outside the country, and that person then calls someone in the United States about a plot or something really bad: I don't have a problem with that phone being monitored," Debbie Viebranz, 51, a Republican from Ohio, said in a follow-up interview. "But I don't think they should do it for no reason." Donnis Wells, 69, a Republican from Florence, Miss., said: "I don't think civil liberties are the more important thing we need to handle right now. I think we need to protect our people." Still, interviews reflected clear apprehension about the program. "If there is a warrant and done by the courts, I would agree," said Robert Ray, 54, an independent from Kentucky. "But they're trying to do it without using the courts. I just don't trust them." In the poll, 70 percent of respondents said they would not be willing to support governmental monitoring of the communications of "ordinary Americans"; 68 percent said they would be willing to support such monitoring of "Americans the government is suspicious of." Beyond surveillance, the poll found that Americans hold unfavorable views of the president and the Republican-controlled Congress as Mr. Bush prepares to give his State of the Union speech. Americans, while declaring themselves generally optimistic about the next three years under Mr. Bush, do not expect him to accomplish very much in that time. When Mr. Bush leaves office, respondents said, the deficit will be larger than it is today, the elderly will be being paying more for prescription drugs, and the economy and the health care system will be the same as today, or worse. Mr. Bush is viewed favorably by 42 percent of the respondents, statistically the same as in the last Times/CBS News poll, in early December, a lackluster rating that could hamper his ability to rally public opinion behind his agenda and push legislation through a divided Congress. Beyond that, nearly two-thirds of the country thinks the nation is on the wrong track, a level that has historically proved to be a matter of concern for a party in power. A majority said they were dissatisfied with the way Mr. Bush was managing the economy and the war in Iraq. Public approval for his handling of the campaign against terrorism, once one of his greatest political strengths, has rebounded somewhat from last fall, but remains well below where it was for the first two years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Most strikingly, the poll found abundant evidence of public unhappiness with Congress. While it is risky to draw conclusions about Congressional elections from national measurements of discontent . for example, more than half of all Americans said they were satisfied with the job their member of Congress was doing . the findings underscored the tough electoral environment that has led some analysts to predict significant Republican losses this fall. The corruption investigations appear to account for a lot of the dissatisfaction. Nearly 80 percent of respondents said that the kind of influence-peddling revelations that have emerged in the investigation of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff reflected the "way things work in Congress" and were not isolated incidents. More than 50 percent said most members of Congress "accept bribes or gifts that affect their votes." "It seems like the integrity of Congress members in the last few years has just gone to pot," said Donald Pertuis, 54, an independent voter from Hot Springs, Ark. Mr. Pertuis added: "In the last 20 years, greed has accelerated. People expect more, I suppose, and want to work less." Marjorie Connelly, Marina Stefan and Megan Thee contributed reporting for this article. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

[Clips] Rosenberg Reruns
by R. A. Hettinga 27 Jan '06

27 Jan '06

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: clips(a)philodox.com Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:02:59 -0500 To: Philodox Clips List <clips(a)philodox.com> From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: [Clips] Rosenberg Reruns Reply-To: rah(a)philodox.com Sender: clips-bounces(a)philodox.com <http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110007878> OpinionJournal WSJ Online DE GUSTIBUS Rosenberg Reruns They were guilty, but the left can't give up their cause. BY JOSEPH RAGO Friday, January 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST You would think, by now, with a half-century of scholarship behind us and a great deal of damning evidence on display, we would not have to be arguing about the guilt or innocence of various iconic figures of the late 1940s and 1950s: Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White or, perhaps most notoriously, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. But the martyr status of such figures seems irresistible, even today, to a certain kind of sentimental leftist. They still remain symbols of some malevolent American quality--never mind the truth of what they actually did. Such was the lesson of a forum last week in Manhattan convened to discuss the "artistic influence" of the Rosenbergs. The invitation to the event, sponsored by the Fordham Law School, referred to the Rosenbergs as "the accused." It was a tellingly exculpatory phrase. For the record, both Julius and Ethel were convicted as communist spies and executed for espionage in 1953. The stars of the evening were the novelist E.L. Doctorow and the playwright Tony Kushner. Mr. Doctorow is the author of "The Book of Daniel" (1971), a novel that centers on a couple loosely patterned after the Rosenbergs; Mr. Kushner wrote the play "Angels in America" (1993), which imagines the specter of Ethel Rosenberg returning to haunt various protagonists. Both works are highly sympathetic to the Rosenbergs' dilemma, if that is the right word. The forum was generally arcane and self-serious. Messrs. Doctorow and Kushner ventilated many concerns about the relation of culture to society, chief among them the obligation of the artist to accurately represent the past. The pair eventually settled on the definition of historical art as "an aesthetic system of opinions," as the good Doctorow put it. Fair enough. But why would "the artist"--let alone anyone--still be hung up on the Rosenbergs? To plow through the evidence for the millionth time: While the trial of the Rosenbergs was flawed by technical improprieties, their crimes are not uncertain or unresolved. Julius Rosenberg, with Ethel as his accomplice, was the head of a sophisticated spy network that deeply penetrated the American atomic program and relayed top secrets to Stalin's Kremlin. In his memoirs Nikita Khrushchev noted that the Rosenbergs "vastly aided production of our A-bomb." Joyce Milton and Ronald Radosh wrote a damning account of their activities in "The Rosenberg File" (1983). And the Rosenbergs' guilt was corroborated by the 1995 declassification of the Venona documents, thousands of decrypted KGB cables intercepted by the National Security Agency in the 1940s. The notion that anyone would today deny their fundamental complicity in Soviet subversion is extraordinary, almost comically so. But comedy was not quite the mentality at the Rosenberg event. "Ambiguity is the key word, I think," said Mr. Doctorow, regarding our understanding of the past, though in this instance ambiguous is precisely what it is not. Mr. Kushner argued the Rosenbergs were "murdered, basically." Mr. Doctorow went further, explaining that he wanted to use their circumstances to tell "a story of the mind of the country." It was a mind, apparently, filled with loathing and paranoia--again, never mind the truth of the charges against the Rosenbergs or other spies of the time. "The principles of the Cold War had reached absurdity," he continued. "We knew that the Russians were no threat, but we wanted to persuade Americans to be afraid" and so impose "a Puritan, punitive civil religion." Pronounced Mr. Kushner: "Our failure to come to terms with a brutal past, our failure to open up the coffins and let the ghosts out, has led to our current, horrendous situation." The enduring artistic influence of the Rosenberg case, then, seems to be primarily allegorical. Guilt and innocence drop away (rather, guilt is converted to virtue) and the Rosenbergs are made into victims of "American fascism," to use Ethel Rosenberg's own phrase. Or to borrow the exquisite formulation of the scholar-apologist Ellen Schrecker, the Rosenbergs were guilty only of "nontraditional patriotism." The arts should not be judged entirely on political character, of course. But in considering an "aesthetic system of opinions" when the aesthetics are pointless bathos and the opinions are the whole point, politics ought to be taken into account. And for all the hand-wringing about fidelity to historical accuracy, the point is that Messrs. Doctorow and Kushner get the politics so wrong. As the artists turned the Rosenbergs' treason into dissent and then into patriotism, the audience was enthusiastically in tune. Present were the Rosenbergs' children, Robert and Michael Meeropol, who continue to contest their parents' Soviet entanglement, and the former editor of the Nation, Victor Navasky. When it came time to ask questions, the moderator warned off any "Cold War warriors" from asking "disrespectful" questions, like, presumably, how these authors could defend an ideology that took millions of lives. No one did. Mr. Rago is an assistant features editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _______________________________________________ Clips mailing list Clips(a)philodox.com http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

2 1

[Clips] Don't be Google
by R. A. Hettinga 27 Jan '06

27 Jan '06

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: clips(a)philodox.com Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:43:23 -0500 To: Philodox Clips List <clips(a)philodox.com> From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: [Clips] Don't be Google Reply-To: rah(a)philodox.com Sender: clips-bounces(a)philodox.com <http://www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=184032&loc=/opinion/colum…> Townhall.com Don't be Google By Debra Saunders Jan 26, 2006 Google gives life to the Eric Hoffer observation, "People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Google painted itself as heroic in refusing to help the U.S. Department of Justice's efforts to reinstate a 1998 federal Child Online Protection Act, then revealed that it was going to help the Chinese government suppress free speech. That sort of goes against the company's informal corporate motto, "Don't be evil." I realize how eager those in the Bay Area are to believe that the evil Bush administration wants to double as Big Brother and eavesdrop on well-meaning peaceniks. So it doesn't matter that the DOJ isn't looking for information on individual accounts -- but instead wanted data on how the Internet is used during a given week to see how users access porn. Personally, I'd be more supportive of the Department of Justice's subpoena if the feds were trying to locate specific individuals -- child-porn-aholics, for instance -- just as I would support a government subpoena for bank accounts used to launder mob money. My issue with the subpoena -- and I agree with Google on this -- is that it asks for a huge chunk of information to support the government in a civil suit. It's a fishing expedition, in which corporate America provides free research. Yahoo and Microsoft, however, were able to comply. A Yahoo spokesperson said the company did not release personally identifiable information. Care about rights? Be it noted that exposing children to porn on the Internet violates their parents' rights. Still, Google emerged from the controversy as a defender of privacy. Columnist Robert Scheer in Wednesday's San Francisco Chronicle duly lauded Google's refusal to comply with the Justice Department's request, as he wrote that the "latest high-tech upstart giant dared to challenge the government's claim of an unbridled right to break into our information-age virtual homes." The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson described the subpoena as "more of an Orwellian threat than the National Security Agency's snooping on phone calls and e-mails." You have to marvel at Google's great marketing ploy. The company amasses founts of information on users of its service. Yet, by riding on the coattails of anti-Bush sentiment, Google claims the mantle of champion of privacy rights. "We intend to resist (the government's) motion vigorously," said a Google lawyer in a statement. All hail Google. The Google-philes fawn as if bashing the Bushies in the Bay Area is an act of courage, when it's the most popular -- and probably profitable -- thing a company can do. Meanwhile, back in Beijing, Google has agreed to filter out sites that the Chinese government doesn't like. The Chinese government won't have to rely on its fleet of monitoring devices that block out "subversive" content from the West, such as information on the Tiananmen Square protest, Tibet and Taiwan. Google will do the dirty work. The Mountain View, Calif., company will withhold e-mail and blogging services, it says, to protest the Chinese filtering. A Google statement explained that "while removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information" is "more inconsistent." It may be only a matter of time before Google starts acting like other Internet providers that also censor for China. Last year, Yahoo helped the Chinese government prosecute a dissident reporter. This month, Microsoft shut down a pesky blog. As The Associated Press reported, Microsoft's service in China bars such terms as "democracy" and "human rights." Here's a thought: Google could ban the phrase, "Don't be evil." I understand that Google wants to make a profit. I just don't know how company execs garner the image of little guys standing up to big, bad government. Google can say no to the Bushies and know that it won't lose any business, its executives won't go to jail and their children will not get run over by tanks. In the country where those things could happen, Google is a collaborator. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _______________________________________________ Clips mailing list Clips(a)philodox.com http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

[bear@sonic.net: Re: thoughts on one time pads]
by Eugen Leitl 27 Jan '06

27 Jan '06

----- Forwarded message from bear <bear(a)sonic.net> -----

2 1

Refill Reminder avenue
by Tory Thomas 27 Jan '06

27 Jan '06

Xanax and other drugs with wholesale prices. You wont find better prices anywhere! Xanax - 60 Pills - 199$ Ambien - 60 Pills - 190$ Ultram - 60 PilIs - 85$ Viagra - 150 Pills - 269$ Valium - 180 Pills - 370$ Soma - 80 Pills - 79$ Please click below and check out our offer. http://zoroo.info/?8a6d6e4d683S6a73e39S9a2a3359fbe8 aztec you bali me, patagonia augustine breakwater chigger . seventy you largesse me, dentistry inputting collusion breadwinner . determine you brickbat me, chalcocite bernet gravy . bass you starvation me, ivanhoe gloss turnover . aqueous you decompression me, peale tall wiggly godfather . pacify you abut me, addend chocolate arboretum . stepmother you balsa me, sewn .

1 0

[declan@well.com: [Politech] In China, Google censors more than just politics: beer, dating, joke, gay sites too [fs]]
by Eugen Leitl 27 Jan '06

27 Jan '06

----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> -----

1 0