From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #906 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 Thursday, July 18 2002 Volume 04 : Number 906 In this issue: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #904 Editor's Comment (That's a "pot" shot Cauchon will likely try to duck.) STUN GUN USED IN $500GS ROBBERY Re: Ace III Rifle Keeping guns off the streets - and in the forests Speaking on behalf of strangers Re: Column: "an irrational fear, not just of firearms, but of Re: Column: "an irrational fear, not just of firearms, but of Re: Column: "an irrational fear, not just of firearms, but of self-defence" Re: Government ID#? Re: Editorial, "On Target" SPRING/SUMMER 2002 - NO. 19 Re: No Compromise is Acceptable Re: Nugent's Concert? Can pilots be trusted? RE: Nugent's Concert? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:27:50 -0600 (CST) From: "Mike Hargreaves" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #904 The Canadian Citizenship Card! excellent idea, Eduardo is in my opinion right on the money, not to long to wait three years, good test of being a good person, in Canada three years, an ideal piece of I.D. to cross the border, and you can use it to re-enter Canada from anywhere! Take it a step further, type the number into a use specific PC in the local gunstore! It could say what type of firearms you can purchase, buy the one you want, and take it home!! I.D. checked, the gun store employee can see you in front of him! And like we all know, not intrusive, we have it already. Good Idea. Mike Hargreaves. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:29:07 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Editor's Comment (That's a "pot" shot Cauchon will likely try to duck.) PUBLICATION: The Calgary Sun DATE: 2002.07.18 EDITION: Final SECTION: Editorial/Opinion PAGE: 14 COLUMN: Letters to the Editor WHEN ASKED if he'd smoked marijuana, Justice Minister Cauchon said, "Yes, of course I tried it before, obviously." Like it or not, the justice minister broke a Criminal Code statute and didn't appear particularly bothered by it - -- in other words, he had no problem breaking the law because he did not agree with it. I'm sure millions of gun owners will be glad to know this as they count down to the Jan. 1 registration deadline. Barry Glasgow Editor's Comment (That's a "pot" shot Cauchon will likely try to duck.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:31:56 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: STUN GUN USED IN $500GS ROBBERY PUBLICATION: The Toronto Sun DATE: 2002.07.18 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: 47 COLUMN: Sunflashes - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- STUN GUN USED IN $500GS ROBBERY - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two robbers escaped with $500,000 in jewelry yesterday after using a stun to subdue a clerk at a posh Avenue Rd. store. The clerk, who was not seriously hurt in the 3:10 p.m. robbery, told police he thought he recognized the pair as customers from a visit on Tuesday. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:33:58 -0600 (CST) From: "Steve Allen" Subject: Re: Ace III Rifle > Looking for any info you can provide, such as > manufacturer, approximate age and value, for the > following firearm. It's a Cooey, made in Coburg, Ontario. I think the Ace III was basically an Ace 2 with a peep site. They were made from approximately 1929-1935. The value isn't much, certainly less than $100. The last auction that I was had several Cooey's (not sure if any of them were an Ace) going for $10 - $20. These things were practically impossible to sell back when the $25 registration fee was in effect. Hope this helps, Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:34:53 -0600 (CST) From: DaveBartlett@FirearmsTraining.ca Subject: Keeping guns off the streets - and in the forests Here's an unintended consequence that C-68's drafters probably didn't anticipate. In the Larose Forest (on the edge of Ottawa and a minute from my house) someone recently dumped a hockey bag full of guns. It seems that offers of free registration just didn't do it for their owner... Dave Bartlett email: DaveBartlett@FirearmsTraining.ca http://www.FirearmsTraining.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:41:33 -0600 (CST) From: "Brian Drader" Subject: Speaking on behalf of strangers I find it interesting that certain people would spring up on behalf of 'Mike Chamberlain' and his supposed wrongdoing at the hands of the NFA. To the best of my knowledge Rick has never met or conversed with Mike. If in fact Rick has ever met or conversed with Mike, I'd be interested to hear more. You don't hear Mike complaining about the NFA - in fact, he remains a member in good standing, albeit with his name spelled differently as has been his family custom for many generations. Perhaps people wishing to criticize firearm organizations on behalf of others could first clear their remarks with the NFA members involved. - --Brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:57:51 -0600 (CST) From: j galt Subject: Re: Column: "an irrational fear, not just of firearms, but of self-defence" Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > PUBLICATION: The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) > DATE: 2002.07.18 > BYLINE: George Jonas ..... > In our modern, urbanized culture we've developed an > irrational fear, not > just of firearms, but of self-defence. We feel that > fighting back is > intrinsically uncivilized, and should be delegated > to officials of the > state. Ironically, our phobia has created a > singularly uncivilized society. > It's a society designed to let criminals and > terrorists have the upper hand > in any initial confrontation. It leaves the best > people defenceless against > the worst. It has helped to make 9/11 possible. > Perhaps this fear of self defense is just Darwin working overtime cleaning the very overcrowded shallow end of the gene pool. JG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:16:44 -0600 (CST) From: j galt Subject: Re: Column: "an irrational fear, not just of firearms, but of self-defence" Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > PUBLICATION: The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) > DATE: 2002.07.18 > BYLINE: George Jonas ..... > In our modern, urbanized culture we've developed an > irrational fear, not > just of firearms, but of self-defence. We feel that > fighting back is > intrinsically uncivilized, and should be delegated > to officials of the > state. Ironically, our phobia has created a > singularly uncivilized society. > It's a society designed to let criminals and > terrorists have the upper hand > in any initial confrontation. It leaves the best > people defenceless against > the worst. It has helped to make 9/11 possible. > Perhaps this fear of self defense is just Darwin working overtime cleaning the very overcrowded shallow end of the gene pool. JG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:19:49 -0600 (CST) From: j galt Subject: Re: Column: "an irrational fear, not just of firearms, but of self-defence" > PUBLICATION: The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) > DATE: 2002.07.18 > BYLINE: George Jonas ..... > In our modern, urbanized culture we've developed an > irrational fear, not > just of firearms, but of self-defence. We feel that > fighting back is > intrinsically uncivilized, and should be delegated > to officials of the > state. Ironically, our phobia has created a > singularly uncivilized society. > It's a society designed to let criminals and > terrorists have the upper hand > in any initial confrontation. It leaves the best > people defenceless against > the worst. It has helped to make 9/11 possible. > Perhaps this fear of self defense is just Darwin working overtime cleaning the very overcrowded shallow end of the gene pool. JG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:20:54 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Government ID#? j galt wrote: > What makes your version of people control any less > patronizing than our present masters'? Your system > can't control the right of personal defense any more > than the present regime. > > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men > are created equal, that they are endowed by > their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that > among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of > Happiness." > > Those rights are not changed by where you were born > any more than by the colour of your skin or the name > you choose for your Creator. > > What part of "unalienable Rights" isn't clear? > > Or to put it another way- If someone with a handgun > stops a nutcase with a rifle on an unchallenged 20 > minute killing spree, before he gets to your kid's > classroom, are you really going to care where they > were born? > > In a free society the choice of personal defense tools > shouldn't be any more controlled than the use of > vehicles. For example: I don't care if you let your > kid with no operators license, drive your > un-registered and un-insured old 4x4 beater truck all > over your property at any speed. However if he wants > to drive on the street where my kid is learning to > ride his bicycle, then I want to know that he's passed > a knowledge and proficiency test, and that the vehicle > is roadworthy. In a similar manner if you want to > carry a dangerous tool for personal defense, then I > believe it's reasonable for me to expect that you're > not a psyco or a criminal and that you've demonstrated > that you can use the tool safely. > > For the kind of society I'd prefer to live in, I > propose something like a Hazardous Tools Operating > Certificate [not a license] with specific endorsements > for classes of tools like: land, water or air > vehicles, explosives, firearms, power tools, etc. > Good for life and maintained by periodic proficiency > qualification. If you want to use hazardous tools off > your property, then you need a HTO Certificate. Other > than that, no other restrictions need apply. > JG And yet, John, you espouse the self-same restrictions on rights as you accuse Eduardo of doing. If your rights are inalienable, then they cannot be restricted by the State, unless you forfeit those rights by violating the rights of others. You have the right to liberty, and of mobility, that is, the right to come and go as you please, when you please, and where you please, in a public venue, as long as you aren't terspassing, or committing a crime against someone else. Why, then should your right to defend yourself not be attached to the right to come and go as you please? Are you less likely to be mugged on the street than you are on your own property? Why should you have to prove your competency to someone else in order to exercise your right to defend yourself in public? Acquiring an "HTO" entails all the same problems as does government mandated ID, training courses, licences, etc., etc., etc: you have to "prove" to someone who you are, you have to fulfil certain criteria set by someone else, you have to continue to prove that you meet these requirements, all without having committed any crime. And it still doesn't solve the problems of knowing who, out on the street, are the "capable" "approved" people, who are the people freely exercising their right, and who are the crooks. I don't think your HTO solves anything. Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:21:43 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Editorial, "On Target" SPRING/SUMMER 2002 - NO. 19 I asked the CFC who the Editor of "On Target" was, and what their email address was; they replied that Sharron Pelletier was the editor and provided the address below, which I used to send her my comments. Bruce - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Editorial, "On Target" SPRING/SUMMER 2002 - NO. 19 Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:15:33 -0400 From: Bruce Mills To: sharron.pelletier@justice.gc.ca Dear Ms. Pelletier: The "car analogy" you use in your Editorial, and no doubt in discussing firearms licensing and registration scheme in public, is in error. You do not need a driver's licence to "borrow and/or own and/or operate a car"; you only need a driver's licence to operate a car on public thoroughfares. You can own as many cars as you like, and even drive them on your own property, without a licence. You don't need to register your car unless you intend to drive it on public thoroughfares. Such registration is not for "ownership identification", since each vehicle already comes with a unique Vehicle Identification Number; registration is for tax purposes only. If the exact same principle applied to firearms licensing and registration, I could own and use as many guns as I wished, as long as they never left my property. I would be more than happy to comply with such legislation. Bruce Mills Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:29:27 -0600 (CST) From: Edward Hudson Subject: Re: No Compromise is Acceptable ed wrote: > > >1. We are struggling to RECLAIM Rights that the government has taken > >away from us. > >2. To reclaim these lost Rights we must repeal the Firearms Act. > >3. We can not reasonably expect to repeal this Act without being willing > >to accept "something" in its place. > > >I suggest the Certificate of Canadian Citizenship be that "something". > > >I hope this discussion continues to see if this idea is acceptable among > >ourselves or if there are better ideas as yet unmentioned. > > >Sincerely, > > Eduardo: > > What sort of infringement upon YOUR RIGHTS do you see as acceptable? > Any intrusion on rights is a crime against you and your freedom. I see > just one, and only one way to have rights. No compromise is acceptable. > > Ed Re: No Compromise is Acceptable You ask a very germane question, a question which I sincerely believe every firearms owner in Canada needs to spend some very serious time answering. While I find your position of “No Compromise” the easiest position to take, that is, it is the easiest to “stake out” or define, is the least ambiguous, and is certainly less open to criticism from the Strict Libertarians, it is also the least reasonable, and hence unacceptable. Masssimo Salvadori writing in his introduction to “Locke and Liberty” (1959) , states that Locke “wanted liberty, but recognized that, to survive, liberty had to be limited”, that the “limit having been set by what was then practical” or reasonable. We in Canada have been searching for over a hundred years to reach a “reasonable” limit on the ownership of firearms. I think most firearms owners would agree that “we” have been reasonable, accepting very severe limits on what we consider our “natural rights”, and that “they” (Wendy et al) have transgressed all bounds of reasonableness with the Firearms Act of 1995. Therefore, what seems reasonable to me is to nullify the entire Firearms Act of 1995. But nature abhors a vacuum. Wendy’s forces will not accept a total defeat. Therefore we must both “repeal” and “replace” the Firearms Act. Again, I suggest the Certificate of Canadian Citizenship as the replacement for the Firearms Act and the FAC. If you have a “clean” and “unrestricted” Card you may own, purchase, and carry firearms. If you shoot people, act stupid with a firearms, or hurt animals you get your Card “punched” and your rights restricted. I think it is imperative for firearms owners to reach consensus on this question. And I think a second question is just as vital: What are you willing to do to reclaim these Rights ? Sincerely, Eduardo - -- "Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:48:46 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Nugent's Concert? "Jim Szpajcher" said: > There was a very small turn-out at the speech, which was held at the old > Crossroads Inn on 16th Ave. NW (I cannot recall the new name of the place.). > I would estimate that there were fewer than 50 people there, but I never did > an exact count. > > Linda Toews and Ross Spagrud gave rousing speeches to the converted, and - > of course - Nugent blasted out with his mega-watt energy style, but I was > embarrassed for the NFA and COHA, for the low turn out. It was my > understanding that this was an impromptu opportunity for the RFC to hear > Nugent speak about his pro-gun views, and the whole meeting had a very > "throw-together" feel, which Nugent liberally substantiated in his remarks. The very best people to give you the accurate, blow by blow account of that debacle would be to talk to those who actually were there, tried to bail it out, and make something positive of it. Linda Toews, Ross Spagrud and Dan Lupichuk would be the best ones to give a first person account of what happened. As I understand and recall it (without searching back through all my archived emails), with some involvement from Ross, Ted Nugent agreed to do the concert there without charging his usual fee. Hinter was supposed to look after the arrangements, advertising and promoting it, etc. So when Dan, Linda and the others got down there, they saw that Jim Hinter had - for the umpteenth time - yet again dropped the ball. They pitched in to help in whatever manner they could, and at the end of the night Dan Lupichuk handed Jim Hinter an envelope that contained the take for the evening. The turnout was indeed low, because Hinter hadn't gotten the word out that Ted Nugent would be performing. You can't attend something you don't know is happening... Anyway, the envelope of money was seen going into Jim Hinter's desk and that's the last anybody knows about it. Richard Fritze as National Vice President Finance tried to find out about it - long before the "coup" and couldn't get any answers. Why should he need to know... he's only the most senior NFA officer responsible for finances and the annual financial statement... Anyway, people have been repeatedly asking to see the books on this concert, where the money went, COHA and Ted Nugent NFA never got a financial accounting and/or their share of the proceeds if there was any. Hinter, Tomlinson, et al have simply refused to give an accounting of the expenses and income from the evening. The issue isn't even necessarily one of how much money is involved - the issue is what happens to money that ends up in the hands of the NFA National Executive, how is it recorded and accounted for, and whether or not the NFA National Executive and the members of the MAC will be accountable to members for monies they pay to the NFA. The closest we have to an "answer" came to me from DAT yesterday. Tomlinson won't say whether or not there is any record of this on the NFA books. He won't explain why COHA were not allowed to see any records or be provided with a statement of expenses/income from the concert. All he will say is that there was no money, and once the expenses were paid there was no profit. The closest thing to an explanation for refusing to provide an accounting to NFA members and COHA who partnered in the event is his remarks that the concert was a total flop and the NFA doesn't advertise failures. Of course, the concert was a flop because his golden haired boy Jim Hinter dropped the ball and didn't get the word out, but DAT doesn't like to contemplate the implications of THAT. Anyway, if you want the precise blow by blow of what went on that night, the people above are the ones to talk to who were actually there. The main question seems to be "where is the accounting for the money and how come the partners were refused an accounting to see what happened with that money". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:57:27 -0600 (CST) From: Barry Glasgow Subject: Can pilots be trusted? In a recent commentary regarding US legislation that will permit arming of airline pilots, Southam columnist, George Jonas rightly pointed out that: "In our modern, urbanized culture we've developed an irrational fear, not just of firearms, but of self-defense. We feel that fighting back is intrinsically uncivilized, and should be delegated to officials of the state. Ironically, our phobia has created a singularly uncivilized society. It's a society designed to let criminals and terrorists have the upper hand in any initial confrontation." A very good observation - supported by skyrocketting crime statistics flooding in from countries who, like Canada, have recently adopted policies designed to suppress the legal ownership of firearms. And while predatory criminals in the UK and Australia revel in their newfound security, crimes of violence in jurisdiction that have adopted a "shall issue" approach to handgun licensing have experienced a notable drop in such crimes. Does this not go against everything we've ever read in Canadian newspapers? Sure, but consider what Mr. Jonas said about phobia and how government policies and so-called "studies" have fed on these irrational fears. My only point of contention with Mr. Jonas' article is his claim that "Guns in the cockpit are simply a last line of defense, in the event terrorists penetrate all other defenses." They are not the last line of defense, they are the first line. The thought that potential victims might be armed discourages any such plan before it starts. Confrontations become non-existent - - making the actual use of such weapons improbable. It's worked in the cockpits of El-Al for over 30 years and in those US jurisdictions smart enough to embrace rational policies. The alternative approach has been an abject failure everywhere it's been tried - proof of the fact that only terrorists and criminals benefit from gun-prohibitions. As for pilots, if we can trust them to operate immense, complex machinery carrying hundreds of potential victims, why can't they be trusted in the same way we trust cops? Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:17:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Bear.23 Rogers" Subject: RE: Nugent's Concert? I recall seeing in this digest or maybe on the chat about the coming concert I thought it was a little odd though seeing it the day of the concert and if I remember correctly it was billed as a fundraiser.... Thanks BW "Bear" Stephens info@reloadersbench.com http://www.ReloadersBench.com BDX Bullets, Starline Brass, Dillon Reloading Presses and so much more - -----Original Message----- From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca [mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca]On Behalf Of Rick Lowe Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 1:49 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Re: Nugent's Concert? "Jim Szpajcher" said: > There was a very small turn-out at the speech, which was held at the old > Crossroads Inn on 16th Ave. NW (I cannot recall the new name of the place.). > I would estimate that there were fewer than 50 people there, but I never did > an exact count. > > Linda Toews and Ross Spagrud gave rousing speeches to the converted, and - > of course - Nugent blasted out with his mega-watt energy style, but I was > embarrassed for the NFA and COHA, for the low turn out. It was my > understanding that this was an impromptu opportunity for the RFC to hear > Nugent speak about his pro-gun views, and the whole meeting had a very > "throw-together" feel, which Nugent liberally substantiated in his remarks. The very best people to give you the accurate, blow by blow account of that debacle would be to talk to those who actually were there, tried to bail it out, and make something positive of it. Linda Toews, Ross Spagrud and Dan Lupichuk would be the best ones to give a first person account of what happened. As I understand and recall it (without searching back through all my archived emails), with some involvement from Ross, Ted Nugent agreed to do the concert there without charging his usual fee. Hinter was supposed to look after the arrangements, advertising and promoting it, etc. So when Dan, Linda and the others got down there, they saw that Jim Hinter had - for the umpteenth time - yet again dropped the ball. They pitched in to help in whatever manner they could, and at the end of the night Dan Lupichuk handed Jim Hinter an envelope that contained the take for the evening. The turnout was indeed low, because Hinter hadn't gotten the word out that Ted Nugent would be performing. You can't attend something you don't know is happening... Anyway, the envelope of money was seen going into Jim Hinter's desk and that's the last anybody knows about it. Richard Fritze as National Vice President Finance tried to find out about it - long before the "coup" and couldn't get any answers. Why should he need to know... he's only the most senior NFA officer responsible for finances and the annual financial statement... Anyway, people have been repeatedly asking to see the books on this concert, where the money went, COHA and Ted Nugent NFA never got a financial accounting and/or their share of the proceeds if there was any. Hinter, Tomlinson, et al have simply refused to give an accounting of the expenses and income from the evening. The issue isn't even necessarily one of how much money is involved - the issue is what happens to money that ends up in the hands of the NFA National Executive, how is it recorded and accounted for, and whether or not the NFA National Executive and the members of the MAC will be accountable to members for monies they pay to the NFA. The closest we have to an "answer" came to me from DAT yesterday. Tomlinson won't say whether or not there is any record of this on the NFA books. He won't explain why COHA were not allowed to see any records or be provided with a statement of expenses/income from the concert. All he will say is that there was no money, and once the expenses were paid there was no profit. The closest thing to an explanation for refusing to provide an accounting to NFA members and COHA who partnered in the event is his remarks that the concert was a total flop and the NFA doesn't advertise failures. Of course, the concert was a flop because his golden haired boy Jim Hinter dropped the ball and didn't get the word out, but DAT doesn't like to contemplate the implications of THAT. Anyway, if you want the precise blow by blow of what went on that night, the people above are the ones to talk to who were actually there. The main question seems to be "where is the accounting for the money and how come the partners were refused an accounting to see what happened with that money". ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #906 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:acardin33@shaw.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., 1702 20th St. West, Saskatoon SK S7M OZ9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 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.