RE:

["Green, TuJana" <TuJana.Green@mci.com>]

I am sure we all took note of the relevant information and are aware.  But,
90% of the information was still foolishness!!!  It was like the next
episode of the new "Outer Limits".  Oh, and the "gurus" I referenced were
those of us in the industry from "NBS"!  :-) (ugh...people of color)

Anyway, that was my opinion regarding "too negative" mail.  It would have
been better received if the "junk" had been deleted and the pertinent
information passed along.


> ----------
> From: 	Carol D Anderson[SMTP:Carol_D_Anderson@teledyne.com]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, June 16, 1998 2:27 PM
> To: 	Green, TuJana; blkdiamond@nbs.org
> 
> Please be careful how quickly we choose to dismiss information.  We are
> usually the last to be in on relevant life enhancing/threatening
> information.  Let's not waste another opportunity to remain informed.  I
> suggest instead of blowing the entire article off, why don't we each take
> some time to investigate for ourselves what relevance this has to our
> lives
> and how it could affect our communities, and do the reference checks made
> in the article.  The Year 2000 problem is very real and all organizations,
> companies and institutions must become compliant in time to prevent the
> fallout delineated below (way below).  How serious is this?  That's for
> each of us to work out for ourselves.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Green TuJana" <TuJana.Green@mci.com> on 06/16/98 10:23:07 AM
> 
> To:   blkdiamond@nbs.org, "'dorisdavis@earthlink.net'"
>       <dorisdavis@earthlink.net>
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: [Fwd: Blind Man's Bluff in the Year 2000]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who in the "h_ _ _ _" believes the bulk of "crap" like this?  Yes, there
> will be some aftermath in some areas of society due to the prior lack of
> awareness regarding the year 2000 and computer mainframes and so forth,
> but
> for the most part there exist some really intelligent computer and
> technical
> "gurus" in this world today that are to eager to assist with issues as
> such.
> As a matter of fact, there are a few thousand of us in NBS who are in the
> "technical" arena that could without a doubt tear holes in some of the
> "negative" propaganda that was expressed in the forwarded literature.
> But,
> who has the energy to waste.  Please do not forward this "negativity" on
> the
> "blkdiamond@nbs.org" list.  As far as I have noticed, the NBS promotes
> positivity in an upwardly challenging environment and atmosphere dedicated
> to the enrichment of African Americans in a culture of diversity and
> prosperity, in many different areas.  So, to me, you need to check out
> your
> B.S. (Belief System) and redirect your energies.
> 
> 
> 
> > ----------
> > From:   dorisdavis@earthlink.net[SMTP:dorisdavis@earthlink.net]
> > Reply To:    dorisdavis@earthlink.net
> > Sent:   Saturday, June 13, 1998 10:42 PM
> > To:     blkdiamond@nbs.org
> > Subject:     [Fwd: Blind Man's Bluff in the Year 2000]
> >
> > Subject: Blind Man's Bluff in the Year 2000
> > Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 14:50:52 -0400
> > From: info@garynorth.com
> > To: dorisdavis@earthlink.net
> >
> >            BLIND MAN'S BLUFF IN THE YEAR 2000
> >
> >       What are you going to be doing for a living in the
> > year 2001?  Unless you're a fix-it man living in a small
> > town, you won't be doing what you do today.  If you make
> > your living in financial services, you will surely be doing
> > something else.  If you're a journalist, you will be in a
> > new profession.  But what?  What other useful service can
> > you provide?  You have very little time to make the switch.
> >
> >      Let me show you why.
> >
> >      We live in a world that depends on a high division of
> > labor.  That world has less than three years to go.  In one
> > gigantic collapse, the division of labor will implode.
> > This implosion will begin in 1999.  It will accelerate in
> > 2000 and thereafter.  Those who work in highly specialized
> > fields will find little or no demand for their skills, in
> > the face of an enormous supply of desperate, low-wage
> > competition.  Any job classification that did not exist in
> > 1945 will probably not have a lot of demand in 2001, with
> > one exception: computer software programming.
> >
> >       The June 2 issue of Newsweek ran a front-cover story
> > on the looming computer crisis of the Year 2000 -- called
> > y2k (Year 2 K -- shorthand for a thousand).  In the week it
> > the article appeared (late May), the Dow Jones Industrial
> > Average set a record new high.  (It was beaten a week
> > later.)  If investors believed the information reported in
> > the Newsweek article, the world's stock markets would have
> > collapsed.  Clearly, people don't believe it.  That's why a
> > small handful of people can get out now -- out of the stock
> > market, the bond market, and any city over 25,000.
> >
> >       Not everyone can get out at the top of a bull market.
> > This includes the "bull market" known as modern industrial
> > society.  Pull the plug on the local power utility for 30
> > days, and every city on earth becomes unlivable.  What if
> > the plug gets pulled for five years?
> >
> >       How do you rebuild the shattered economy if the
> > computers go down, taking public utilities with them?
> > Without electricity, you can't run the computers.  Without
> > computers, you can't fix computers.  How can you assemble
> > teams of programmers to fix the mess?  More to the point,
> > how do you pay them if the banks are empty?
> >
> >       Chase Manhattan Bank has 200 million lines of code to
> > check and then repair.  Citicorp has 400 million lines.
> > All big banks are similarly afflicted.  And even if this
> > could be fixed, bank by bank, there is no universal repair
> > standard.  Thus, the computers, even if fixed (highly
> > doubtful) will not work together after the individual
> > repairs.  A noncompliant bank's data will then make every
> > compliant bank noncompliant.  Thus, the world banking
> > system will crash in 2000.  When the public figures this
> > out in 1999, the bank runs will begin.
> >
> >       You probably will not have your present job in 2001.
> >
> >                    "It Just Can't Be True!"
> >
> >       You don't believe me, of course.  Not yet.  But I
> > havepublished the evidence on this Web site.  You can
> > verifywhat I'm saying.  But you still won't believe it.
> > Why not? Because it's too painful.  In their book, The
> > Sovereign Individual, Davidson and Rees-Mogg make a very
> > important observation:
> >
> >       A recent psychological study disguised as a
> >       public opinion poll showed that members of
> >       individual occupational groups were almost
> >       uniformly unwilling to accept any conclusion that
> >       implied a loss of income for them, no matter how
> >       airtight the logic supporting it.  Given
> >       increased specialization, most of the
> >       interpretive information about most specialized
> >       occupational groups is designed to cater to the
> >       interests of the groups themselves.  They have
> >       little interest in views that might be impolite,
> >       unprofitable, or politically incorrect (p. 339).
> >
> >       My views are all three: impolite, unprofitable, and
> > politically incorrect.  Impolite, because I am saying this:
> > (1) those advising you are as blind as an eighth-century
> > Israelite king; (2) they have given you information that
> > will prove to be wildly unprofitable; (3) all the hype
> > about your getting rich -- the world's getting rich -- is a
> > clap-trap.  We are heading for a disaster greater than
> > anything the world has experienced since the bubonic plague
> > of the mid-14th century.
> >
> >       Because the year 2000 begins on a Saturday, millions
> > of victims will not be aware of their dilemma until the
> > following Monday or Tuesday.  They will pay no attention to
> > advance warnings, such as this one, that they are at risk.
> >
> >       As you read this report, I want you to think to
> > yourself: "How will this affect me?  Is my business at
> > risk?  Is my income at risk?  What should I do?"  I also
> > want you to visit my Web site, http://www.garynorth.com and
> > examine the accumulating evidence, week by week.
> >
> >                  The Origin of the Problem
> >
> >       Here is the problem.  Over three decades ago,
> > computer programmers who wrote mainframe computer software
> > saved disk space -- in those days, very valuable space --
> > by designating year codes as two-digit entries: 67 instead
> > of 1967, 78 instead of 1978, etc.  Back then, saving this
> > seemingly minuscule amount of disk space seemed like an
> > economically wise decision.  This may prove to be the most
> > expensive forecasting error since Noah's flood.
> >
> >       What the programmers ignored for three decades is
> > this: in the year 2000, the two digits will be 00.  The
> > computer will sit there, looking for a year.  At midnight,
> > January 1, 2000, every mainframe computer using unrevised
> > software dies.  If old acquaintances are in the computer,
> > they will indeed be forgot.
> >
> >       Programmers who recognized the implications of this
> > change did not care.  They assumed that their software
> > would be updated by year 2000.  That assumption now
> > threatens every piece of custom software sitting on every
> > mainframe computer, unless the owner of the computer has
> > had the code rewritten.  In some cases, this involves
> > coordinating half a billion million lines of code.
> > (Example: AT&T)  One error on one line can shut down the
> > whole system, the way that America Online was shut down for
> > a day in 1996 because of a one-digit error.
> >
> >       The handful of reporters who have investigated this
> > problem have met a wall of indifference.  "We're all using
> > microcomputers now."  "This is a problem only for a few
> > companies that are still using mainframes."  "Cheap
> > solutions will appear as soon as there is demand."  "The
> > software will be updated soon, and I'll buy it then."  "If
> > this were a serious problem, we'd have heard about it."
> > Yet this last response is given to someone -- a reporter --
> > who is trying to tell people about the problem.
> >
> >       I first read about this problem years ago in a book
> > by the pseudonymous author, Robert X. Cringely: Accidental
> > Empires.  It is not as though the computer industry has
> > been unaware of it.  Only a few weeks ago, I read a Wall
> > Street Journal column on computers that mentioned it.  The
> > writer wrote that his editor is getting tired of having him
> > mention it.  This is typical.  The general public hasn't
> > heard about it, yet editors are already tired of hearing
> > about it.  "It's old news."  Well, it's new news for most
> > people.
> >
> >       What does it matter, really?  We use microcomputers.
> > Microsoft has solved the Year 2000 problem, we assume.  So
> > have most software companies.  Everyone uses desktop
> > computers or, at the largest, minicomputers, right?  Wrong.
> >
> >       Governments Rely on Aging Mainframes and Software
> >
> >       On September 24, 1996, Congressman Stephen Horn, who
> > is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management,
> > Information, and Technology, submitted to the full
> > committee a report on the Year 2000 problem.  The
> > Subcommittee held hearings on April 16.  (Just one day of
> > hearings.  This indicates the degree of concern that the
> > government has.)  He said that these hearings revealed "a
> > serious lack of awareness of the problem on the part of a
> > great number of people in business and government.  Even
> > more alarming was the cost estimate reported to the
> > Subcommittee to remedy the problem, which was said to be
> > $30 billion for the Federal Government alone."  Then he
> > announced:
> >
> >       Without greater urgency, those agencies risk
> >       being unable to provide services or perform
> >       functions that they are charged by law with
> >       performing.  Senior agency management officials
> >       must take aggressive action if these problems are
> >       to be avoided.
> >
> >       Yet despite Horn's valid warning, nothing visible is
> > happening.  He knows this.  These agencies must shift
> > hundreds of millions of dollars from their existing budgets
> > to hire outside programmers to rewrite the code that runs
> > these agencies.  This isn't being done.  More to the point,
> > the longer they delay, the worse the problem gets.  You
> > can't just go out and hire programmers who are familiar
> > with the code.  As businesses find out what threatens them,
> > the demand for these highly specialized services will soar.
> > (If businessmen don't figure this out in time, payment will
> > come due in January of 2000.)
> >
> >       The Subcommittee's report warns: "This issue may
> > cause banks, securities firms and insurance companies to
> > ascertain whether the companies they finance or insure are
> > year 2000 compliant before making investment decisions."
> > It also says that companies will start demanding
> > contractual warranties guaranteeing against Year 2000
> > breakdowns.
> >
> >       A memorandum from the Library of Congress Research
> > Service (CRS) has warned that "it may be too late to
> > correct all of the nation's systems."  So, the question
> > arises: Which systems will survive and which ones won't?
> > Here are some problem areas, according to CRS:
> >
> >             Miscalculation by the Social Security
> >             Administration of the ages of citizens,
> >             causing payments to be sent to people
> >             who are not eligible for benefits while
> >             ending or not beginning payments to
> >             those who are eligible;
> >
> >             Miscalculation by the Internal Revenue
> >             Service of the standard deduction on
> >             income tax returns for persons over age
> >             65, causing incorrect records of
> >             revenues and payments due;
> >
> >             Malfunctioning of certain Defense
> >             Department weapon systems;
> >
> >             Erroneous flight schedules generated by
> >             the Federal Aviation Administration's
> >             air traffic controllers;
> >
> >             State and local computer systems
> >             becoming corrupted with false records,
> >             causing errors in income and property
> >             tax records, payroll, retirement
> >             systems, motor vehicle registrations,
> >             utilities regulations, and a breakdown
> >             of some public transportation systems.
> >
> >       I don't think these are small issues.  They will
> > probably start receiving media attention when it is so late
> > in the process that there will be massive foul-ups in
> > coordinating the revisions.
> >
> >       Notice, the biggest one is missing: an international
> > bank run, as depositors demand cash.  From that day on, all
> > exchanges will be local: the collapse of the division of
> > labor.
> >
> >       When the computers' clocks think it's 1900, it soon
> > will be.
> >
> >       I realize that there has been tremendous progress in
> > microcomputer power, but does anyone really think that all
> > of the Federal government's forms -- not an infinite
> > number, but approaching infinity as a limit -- can be put
> > on three dozen Compaq desktop computers and run with, say,
> > Lotus Approach or Microsoft Access?  And even if they
> > could, how would you re-train all of the bureaucrats to use
> > the new systems?  How fast will they learn?  How fast do
> > bureaucracies adapt?  The Subcommittee's report warns:
> >
> >       The clock is ticking and most Federal agencies
> >       have not inventoried their major systems in order
> >       to detect where the problem lies within and among
> >       each Federal department, field office and
> >       division.  The date for completion of this
> >       project cannot slip.
> >
> >       By "cannot," the Subcommittee's report-writer meant
> > "must not."  The date can surely be allowed to slip.  It
> > almost certainly will be allowed to slip.
> >
> >       Additionally, the task may be more difficult for
> >       the public sector, where systems have been in use
> >       for decades, may lack software documentation and
> >       therefore increase the time it takes from the
> >       inventory phase to solution.
> >
> >       Did you get that?  The software code's records are
> > gone!  Remember also that we're not just talking about the
> > United States government.  We're talking about every
> > government -- national, state, and local -- anywhere on
> > earth that has its data stored on an unrevised mainframe
> > computer system or which relies on any third-party computer
> > service that uses uncorrected software.
> >
> >       As the year 2000 approaches, word will slowly begin
> > to spread: "After the three-day weekend that will
> > inaugurate the year 2000, there is going to be a hangover
> > the likes of which we have never seen before."  For some,
> > it will be a time of celebration.  For others, it will be
> > the end of their dreams.  It depends on whether they are
> > being squeezed by the government or dependent on it.
> >
> >       But it's not just government that is at risk.  It's
> > private industry.
> >
> >                     Kiss Medicare Goodbye
> >
> >       Some 38 million people will receive Medicare payments
> > in 1997.  In 2000, an estimated one billion claims will be
> > filed, totalling over $288 billion.  This, according to a
> > May 16, 1997 report of the General Accounting Office (GAO):
> > "Medicare Transaction System."
> >
> >       Problem: the Medicare system won't make it through
> > 2000.  The same GAO report shows why.  Medicare claims are
> > not actually administered by Medicare.  It's administered
> > by 70 private agencies.  These agencies have been informed
> > that their contracts will not be renewed in 2000.
> >
> >       The agency that officially supervises Medicare has
> > plans for one huge computer system that will bring the
> > program in-house.  It is the same dream that motivated the
> > Internal Revenue Service for the past 11 years.  The IRS
> > announced earlier this year that after 11 years and $4
> > billion, the attempt had failed.
> >
> >       Medicare now knows that it has a problem with its
> > computers.  They are not Year 2000-compliant.  So, to make
> > sure that they will be compliant, Medicare has issued an
> > appeal to the 70 newly canned companies: please fix the
> > year 2000 problem for us before you leave.  As the GAO
> > report puts it, "contractors may not have a particularly
> > high incentive to properly make these conversions. . . ."
> >
> >       What if the system fails?  (What if?  Are they
> > kidding?  When!)  The report says that the Health Care
> > Financing Administration (HCFA), which is responsible for
> > running Medicare, has not made contingency plans.  "HCFA
> > officials are relying on the contractors to identify and
> > complete the necessary work in time to avoid problems.  Yet
> > the . . . . contractors not only have not developed
> > contingency plans, they have said that they do not intend
> > to do so because they believe that this is HCFA's
> > responsibility."
> >
> >                    Kiss the IRS Goodbye
> >
> >       The IRS has 100 million lines of code.  Their code is
> > not year 2000-compliant.  After the failure of the 11-year
> > project to upgrade the system, Chief Information Officer
> > Arthur Gross announced that getting the IRS year 2000-
> > compliant is the "highest priority for the IRS."  The IRS
> > has nearly 50,000 code applications to coordinate and
> > correct. This task will require the IRS to move 300 full-
> > time computer programmers to the new project.  (Reported in
> > "TechWeb," April 21, 1997).
> >
> >       For comparison purposes, consider the fact that the
> > Social Security Administration began working on its year
> > 2000 repair in 1991.  Social Security has 30 million lines
> > of code.  By June, 1996, the SSA's 400 programmers had
> > fixed 6 million lines.
> >
> >       What if the IRS isn't technically equipped to pursue
> > tax evaders after December 31, 1999?  What if the IRS
> > computer system isn't fully integrated with all of its
> > branch offices?  What if the system's massive quantities of
> > forms are not stored in a computer system that is Year
> > 2000-compliant?  More to the point, what if 20% of
> > America's taxpayers believe that the IRS can't get them if
> > they fail to file a return?
> >
> >       In 1999, the IRS may find a drop in compliance from
> > self-employed people.  If the IRS can't prosecute these
> > people after 1999, there will be a defection of compliance
> > by the self-employed.  When word spreads to the general
> > public, there will be a hue and cry -- maybe at first
> > against the evaders, but then against employers who are
> > sending in employees' money when self-employed people are
> > escaping.  Meanwhile, cash-only, self-employed businesses
> > will begin to lure business away from tax-compliant
> > businesses by offering big discounts.
> >
> >       This will start happening all over the world.  Once
> > it begins, it will not easily be reversed.  The tax system
> > rests on this faith: (1) the government will pay us what it
> > owes us; (2) the government can get us if we stop paying.
> > Both aspects of this faith will be called into question in
> > the year 2000 if the governments' computers are not in
> > compliance.
> >
> >       Big Brother is no more powerful than his software.
> > On January 1, 2000, this strength may fall to zero.
> > Actually, double zero.
> >
> >       If the IRS cannot collect taxes, and if all the other
> > mainframe computer-dependent tax collection agencies on
> > earth do not fix this, what will happen to the government
> > debt markets worldwide?  To interest rates?  To the
> > government-guaranteed mortgage market?
> >
> >       Kiss them all goodbye.
> >
> >                      "No Problem!  Trust me!"
> >
> >       There are a few conservative financial newsletter
> > writers who have heard about y2k.  They deny its economic
> > relevance.  A shut-down of all mainframe computers would
> > mean that newsletter writers will be out of business after
> > 1999 -- a thought too terrifying for them.  So, they brush
> > y2k aside with some version of this rebuttal: "Of course,
> > the government may not get its computers fixed."  This is
> > supposed to calm you.  It should terrify you.  Ask
> > yourself:
> >
> >             What happens to T-bills and T-bonds if the
> >       IRS computer breaks down and a tax revolt spreads
> >       because taxpayers know the IRS will never find
> >       them, and that if they pay their taxes, they
> >       won't get their refunds?
> >
> >             What happens to money market funds and bond
> >       funds that invest heavily in government debt when
> >       investors realize that if the IRS can't collect
> >       taxes, the government will default on its debt?
> >
> >             What happens to the banks when depositors
> >       figure out that the FDIC is bankrupt and that
> >       nobody insures their accounts any more?
> >
> >             What happens to your job when the banks
> >       close because of bank runs, and no business can
> >       borrow money or even write a check to its
> >       employees?
> >
> >             What happens to the delivery of food into
> >       cities when money fails because the banks are
> >       busted?
> >
> >             What happens to the delivery of public
> >       utilities when money fails because the banks are
> >       busted?
> >
> >             What happens to your retirement fund when
> >       ERISA, the government pension guarantee program,
> >       goes bankrupt?
> >
> >            What happens to the 38 million people in
> >      the U.S. who are dependent on Medicare?
> >
> >           What happens to 42 million people on Social
> >      Security?
> >
> >             What happens to every state government?
> >
> >             What happens to crime rates when the state
> >       cannot imprison violent criminals and may have to
> >       release those who are locked up because they
> >       can't be fed?
> >
> >             What happens to the world economy when this
> >       scenario is multiplied across every government?
> >
> >       Kiss you job goodbye.  Especially if you're a
> > journalist.  I know.  I am one.  I figure I'll be out of
> > work -- forced retirement -- January 1, 2000.  I'm making
> > plans to be in small-scale agriculture.  I'm out of debt.
> >
> >       What about you?
> >
> >                      Psychological Deferral
> >
> >       Those in authority prefer to defer thinking about
> > this.  They are playing Scarlett O'Hara: "I'll think about
> > it tomorrow," followed by, "Well, fiddle dee-dee."
> > Deferral is a normal response to distant problems.  The
> > question is: What can we afford to defer?  People defer
> > making this assessment.  The fact that you have not read
> > much about this looming problem doesn't mean that it isn't
> > a problem.  If your employer has not actively sought
> > solutions to this problem, your firm had better not use
> > mainframe computers or be dependent on suppliers that rely
> > on mainframe computers.
> >
> >       Everyone assumes that someone else is doing something
> > to solve these problems.  "It's being taken care of."  The
> > problem here is the passive voice.  Who, exactly, is taking
> > care of it?  What, exactly, is this person doing?  Is he on
> > schedule?  How do you know for sure?  Are you taking his
> > word for it?  Anyone who takes the word of a computer
> > programmer that he is on schedule is a person of very great
> > faith.  If the programmer says "Sorry, I didn't make it" on
> > December 31, 1999, you're dead in the water.  Meanwhile, he
> > moves on.
> >
> >               What You Should Do, Beginning Today
> >
> >       First, you investigate whether what I'm saying is
> > true.
> >
> >       Second, think through what happens to you if the
> > local power company and the local water and sewage company
> > shut down in your city for six months.  "Who ya gonna
> > call?"  Especially if your phone is dead?  And if you do
> > get through, how ya gonna pay if your local bank is
> > defunct?
> >
> >       Third, here is my personal strategy.  I have adopted
> > a question:
> >
> >         "Can I prove on paper that he owes it to me?"
> >
> >       I want hard copy print-outs of everything I do with
> > the government.  If you are owed money from Social
> > Security, and you're dependent on this income, contact the
> > Social Security Administration every year and get a letter
> > telling you what you're owed.  This is true of every
> > government pension system.
> >
> >       Do you have a copy of your birth certificate?  If
> > not, write to your place of birth and get it.  Even if that
> > community has not computerized the records, do it now.
> > Even if it keeps the records in a desktop, do it.  If word
> > starts to spread, they may be buried in requests in 1999.
> > You want your paperwork completed before word gets out.
> >
> >       Do you have a copy of your college transcripts?  If
> > not, get it.  The same goes for your work record history.
> > Assume that your records are in some company's mainframe
> > computer.  Assume also that the company has failed to
> > update the software.
> >
> >       Do you have a print-out of all of your insurance
> > records?  Would they stand up in court?  If not, get what
> > you need, now.
> >
> >       Have you spoken with your local insurance agent?  Is
> > he fully aware of the problem?  Ask him straight out if he
> > has scheduled an update of his software if he relies on
> > vendor-supplied software.  He deserves to know what is
> > coming.  So do you.  (If you want to photocopy this issue
> > to send him, go ahead.)
> >
> >       Think through this problem in advance, before it gets
> > out and creates a banking panic, all over the world.  This
> > story will get out eventually.  In 1999, when reporters are
> > running around looking for sensational Year 2000-third
> > millennium stories, this one will at last surface.  It
> > already has: in Newsweek.  At that point, every government
> > bureaucrat whose agency is at risk will start playing the
> > "No problem" game.  "It's being taken care of."  The
> > bureaucrat's number-one rule is to evade responsibility.
> > No one with any authority is going to admit that his
> > malfeasance in office is going to create a disaster on Jan.
> > 1, 2000.  The basic response will be this: "There's no
> > problem here, and furthermore, I'm not responsible when
> > everything collapses next year!"
> >
> >       Keep visiting my Web site for updated information:
> >
> >                     http://www.garynorth.com
> >
> >       E-mail this report to anyone you care about.
> >
> > -
> > This is the blkdiamond@nbs.org mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send
> > email to majordomo@nbs.org and in the body of the message put
> > "unsubscribe blkdiamond."  For more info on the NBS, see
> > http://www.nbs.org/ .
> >
> -
> This is the blkdiamond@nbs.org mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send
> email to majordomo@nbs.org and in the body of the message put
> "unsubscribe blkdiamond."  For more info on the NBS, see
> http://www.nbs.org/ .
> 
> 
> 
> 
-
This is the blkdiamond@nbs.org mailing list.  To unsubscribe, send
email to majordomo@nbs.org and in the body of the message put
"unsubscribe blkdiamond."  For more info on the NBS, see
http://www.nbs.org/ .