-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- Bill Joy's "nanophobia" isn't going to stop the militaries of the world from secretly developing genetic, nanotechnology and robotics technologies as potential weapons. THAT IS THEIR JOB. However, it may inhibit the expansion of these technologies onto the consumer market. This is the new social class war: Technolords vs. Technopeasants. But the militaries will secretly acquire all the GNR technology they can afford. FWP (Canadian Intelligence Agency-Cosmic Top Secrets Division). ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:41:13 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ThePentagonGuru] General Learning Program (GLP): What do world militaries know? If my projections below are correct, what military could resist spending a few billion $ on pushing the GLP to the max? How could they afford to NOT do so, knowing that other militaries might have this power? Given that some militaries have a GLP, how are they using it? You could speak directly into a GLP-programmed computer but imagining a room in which there are 1,000 Leprechauns with "Blarney Programs" makes it clearer. The Leprechauns have greater stores of usable knowledge in all fields than the human geniuses of the world. They can add to that knowledge (learn) better than these humans. What they lack is autonomy because they are under military control. Now imagine what you might say to these Leprechauns and what they might say back. Learning-evolution-self improvemnt in the Leprechauns could take off at blinding speed. They don't tire. They rarely malfunction. They work 24 hours a day. And they can replicate to make as many extra hands and brains as they need. Get the picture? Now the other CIA has said on ed tv that they store every broadcast on the planet. Do you think they might have developed the GLP? If so, IMO they could well be sitting around with knowledge and power to make the debris of the alleged Roswell crash look mickey mouse as a "scientific find". FWP (Canadian Intelligence Agency). ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:38:58 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FUTURE-CITIES] "Operation Leprechaun" and my reply to Engelberger on his plans for the HomeMate Humanoid Robot. From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If my ten year projection for robotics is correct, Future Cities in the Post-2012 AD World could be built by robots (humanoid and non-humanoid). (1) I am 99% sure that the "automated home" could be built now in which commands isssued orally will be translated into machine action to take care of all everyday chores. To what extent this entails humanoid and non-humanoid components is discussed in the reply to Engelberger, below. (2) I am 90% sure that the experts could give time and cost estimates to write programs for conversational ability and general learning ability. It wouldn't cost much to find out for certain: several million dollars in grants to academic centres in education, linguistics, psychology should suffice. When this megaproject is undertaken it might require 5 years of time and $5 b. (which is the budget of the USS Ronald Reagan). (3) Robots with general learning programs would surpass humans in all academic/scholarly/intellectual subjects. They would still lag in arts/crafts/athletics. However, learning robots could apply that general learning ability to self-improvement (or robot evolution) and the self-improvement might include the latter. (4) Once robots surpass humans in being more learn-ed (having a greater store of usable knowledge) and having greater learn-ing ability, it makes sense to have them lead humans in R&D, including R&D in nanotechnology, medical research, space colonization...and robotics. If the megaproject referred to in (2) above is successful, allowing for a few years to debug and fine tune the programming would by coincidence take us to the date on the Mayan Calendar hanging over my computer- 2012 AD-The End. See http://www.stardoves.com. What then is the new beginning? Frankly I am more concerned about "technolords" who would keep GNR (genetic, nanotechnology, robotics) technologies from the "technopeasants" than I am about run-away robots, nano- or otherwise. Sun has a Y2K problem and it is a senior scientist with "nanophobia" (and I don't mean "fear of nannies"). Sincerely- FWP (Chief Leprechaun) http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:47:47 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Robot-for-President] Reply to Engelberger on HomeMates, Leprechauns and Gremlins for the Consumer Market. From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Backgrounder: Mr. Engelberger is one of the "founding fathers" of modern industrial robotics as McCarthy and Minsky are considered as modern "founding fathers" of AI. All three of these pioneers and other experts were interviewed in a recent panel discussion for Discover Magazine. As I recall it was 1954 when George Devol patented the robotic arm and 1958 when Devol and Engelberger founded the Unimation Company to market industrial robots. By 1961, GM had the first industrial robot in use. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Engelberger and Mr. Shepard: I congratulate you on taking up the challenge to build HomeMate and put it on the market. This is very exciting news. Perhaps I can assist you at this stage of your work. I think CLEAR COMMUNICATION with potential investors and consumers is the place to start. You might even consider a HomeMate internet "list" or discussion group. I have cc'd a few people from the business and finance community above. On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Shepard, Prue wrote: > This is Prue sending for Joseph Engelberger, > > Dear Mr. Poley, > > I am not the least dissuaded by my friend, John McCarthy or by Sebastian > Thrun. I hope you will ask the AI experts in particular the questions I raise below concerning the cognitive sub-system for your household robots and specifically the estimating of megaprojects to develop (1) the conversational programming as mentioned in your comment to Discover; (2) a general learning program (which I elaborate on below). However, these are not needed to build a home with current technology in which all standard chores are done by intelligent machinery. Money, not definitions, stand in my way. What I propose to build is > within the state of the art. To the extent that you can describe exactly what the state of the art is now, you will be able to gauge the market in advance and you will inspire investor confidence so that you will have the funds for the necessary R&D phase. This is where I am offering the kind of assistance summarized below and should you like this expanded upon I can also pay a visit to your robotics centre. It might also help if you sponsored me to the Humanoids 2000 Conference where I can verify the validity of my conclusions with world experts in humanoid robots. And, there is little to be expected of an > academic gathering were they all to clap me on the shoulder and say, "Bully, > Joe Engelberger." I'll say, "Bully, Joe Engelberger" as I have long hoped to see a truly proficient general purpose humanoid robot on the market. People will pay $2-3,000 for a personal computer but I think they will pay the price of a new car for a personal robot about a decade from now as it becomes highly flexible and proficient. Today I think they would pay $20-30,000 extra for a new home in which all standard chores are done by robot. I would. And I will probably be buying/building a new home in the next few years. > I don't need or want academic corroboration. What is needed is hard-headed > industrial support looking for a long-range profit opportunity. Let's start with the state of the art and to what extent and in exactly what ways a home robot can take care of chores around the home. That will get you the hard-headed industrial support. In other words, you must answer the hard-headed questions of consumers and investors now. > For industrial robotics I found that support. My gauntlet is down again. Wonderful! The world will beat a path to your door (and the door of some foreign competitors like Honda). > Almost everything that is on the humanoid agenda could become useful or at > least fun. Good point. There IS enormous fun in this. As well as being very, very practical, HomeMate will kindle the imagination of all who come in contact with it. The customer/consumer is not left out of the fun and can put forward ideas on how to improve the product as I am doing now. Bill Joy will have fun telling scary stories to the public. But, now, the best of our technology could create a humanoid > robot of great immediate utility. OK, let me put forward some of my estimates on what I think HomeMate could do now and I'll forward to the Humanoids 2000 organizers so hopefully they can put this out for rigorous criticism by Humanoids 2000 participants. First, let me expand around the practical aspects of HomeMate with a little levity and imagination (the fun part eh?). My doctoral area and thesis defense in 1970 were from the newly created field of "behavior genetics" (Fuller and Thompson's text was published in 1960). Now I am even more fascinated by the new field of "machine psychology" and I am 100% sure that robot behavior genetics (evolving robots) will prove to be a technology for this century which is immeasurably more powerful than human behavior genetics. Why? Because the very top performance you could get by being in full command of the human genome has a genetic limit determined by optimal settings of the DNA base-pairs (A,G,C,T). Some people even define "earthling" (human or non-human) by these base-pairs. A creature which has evolved beyond the performance of the nanocomputers/nanoassemblers in the chromosomes by this definition is no longer an earthling because it is using other chemical-physical factors. But evolving robots could/should go beyond maximum human performance in this century and as the Waseda University humanoid web site makes clear, it is humanoids in social interaction with humans we are talking about. So the human buyers of HomeMates will have a major role in determining robot evolution. Then the future HelpMates will assist in determining human (and humanoid) evolution. The here-and-now of HomeMate should in my opinion consider the consumer's objectives. Those objectives have to do with total automation of household chores. I think it is asking too much of a humanoid robot right now to handle the diverse environments of so many homes, so I agree with roboticist, L.J. Kamm on this, <http://www.ljkamm.com/robots.htm>. For example, some people are prone to cluttering the floor with a multitude of things. HomeMate could easily vacuum a rectangular room with no clutter but might get confused and suck up the cat and the toddler in a cluttered home. I think the solution is to create the home setting for total automation of chores by being flexible about home design while still having a useful, functional robot, human-in-appearance. Since St. Patrick's day has just passed, how about a palm-sized HomeMate which looks like an Irish Leprechaun? (You did say "fun"). The Leprechaun would be equipped with voice recognition programming (well developed now) and would receive commands sent on wirelessly to the other sub-systems of the automated home which are robots of themselves but less human in appearance. If the Leprechaun's onboard computer is also connected to a sufficiently powerful mainframe, it could be the kind of conversationalist you refer to in the Discover magazine article. Some questions need answering now concerning the development of a program which will permit our "Lep" to converse as well as a typical human: (1) How many man-hours would be required to set out the rules for normal human conversational ability? I take it this can be done as human translators (eg English-French) use rules in teaching people how to converse in different human languages. (2) How many man-hours would be required to convert these rules to computer code? (3) What kind of computer would be required to run such a program? If it is not affordable to the HomeMate buyer could it be shared and accessed by internet? Answering these questions now would inspire consumer-investor confidence. Next, let's consider commands sent from the Gnome to the totally automated kitchen. The idea here is to consider the kitchen as a single, complex appliance. Food items are stored and converted to prepared meals, served by being sent to the dining room (perhaps on a conveyor belt or a delivery robot), kitchen garbage is disposed of and dishes are washed...all automatically. That requires a complex which may have more than one manipulator-gripper and more than one machine vision unit for object recognition and range finding. If there are any reasons such a unit cannot be designed now I don't know what they are. Given that software exists now which can recognize human faces in a crowd, I would expect that the kitchen's recognition sub-system would be able to recognize a carrot in a vegetable bin. Is that correct? I expect the manipulator would be able to pick it up and peel it. Is that correct? Is there any aspect of the automated kitchen which anyone receiving this email knows to be beyond present technological capabilities? If you call it the "Martha Stewart Automated Kitchen" maybe she will invest some of her one billion $ net assets in it. There is nothing to stop people with automated kitchens from cooking as a hobby. And Martha is after all selling her own brand of furniture presently. Robomow and Husqvarna now market robotic lawn mowers for about $1,500 so voice commands could be sent via Lep to mow the lawn when required. Similar guide wires could be placed around rooms in the home to guide a robovacuum. Like the lawn mower it would be able to navigate around larger and well defined obstacles but the home owner would have to avoid cluttering the floor. Next we come to scrubbing and dusting. Discovery Television has shown an Engelberger robot named "ScrubMate" at work with its robotic arm busily and effectively scrubbing bathroom porcelain. Warwick, in his book, "March of the Machines" (1997) writes that "The United States Postal Service has designed a robot for cleaning washrooms. The robot cleans the toilet inside and out in its entirety, lid, pan and seat. Indeed it gives a better performance than that of human cleaners." (p. 57). Would you then say that Scrubmate (deployed via the Homemate Leprechaun) would be able to scrub all floors, porcelain and walls? This seems to be essentially a mobile robotic arm with end effector. Could it not also dust walls, ceilings and furnishings? What would such a robot for home use cost? The Leprechaun could also receive voice commands to perform all standard secretarial-clerical duties. As Professor Gelernter and others have noted, the pc menu system is still a pedagogical nightmare. One large, clear menu of voice commands for Lep will suffice: to send and receive emails; look up web sites; shop and order online; run off material on the printer; scan in items; enter debits and credits and run off financial statements; file items and fetch from files; type dictation and print for postal mail letters, etc. This requires configuring Lep properly to the pc and peripherals. The Leprechaun could even be taken to the office so it becomes a home and office robot. I don't think there are too many other everyday sorts of household chores. If there are, let's go through them one by one as well and determine exactly how they can be automated now. In my opinion the so-called "smart homes" we see now are not so smart unless they come very close at least to total automation of everyday chores...all of them. If a new home is designed to accommodate this totally automated machinery, how much would it add to the cost of the home? I think it would be quite affordable to the new home buyer, adding $20-30,000 to the cost of the home. What do you think? And, what a platform for researchers to > build upon! Now you said a whole lot there. At first we humans can help the complete system to evolve or improve. Later it will evolve on its own as it builds in its own self-improvements given guidelines from humans. That is where the "general learning program" below comes into play. The first generation Lep would be small...palm-sized. Future Leps could go in either direction. They could become larger or smaller. Very, very small robots take us into nanorobotics. The initial Lep would be no more capable of articial vision and motion-locomotion than a toy robot. But it would be one heck of a conversationalist if we can get that "Blarney Program" to work well. And it would still be a fine companion as generations of Irish will testify. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss, A humanoid is a humanoid, no matter how small. At any rate if the objective is a home in which the chores are totally automated, I expect this approach would do the job now. I think the entire home should be built using modules assembled around light gauge steel framing which allows for ease of (near) future robot assembly of the entire home. Light gauge steel framing is growing very fast as a home building method and constitutes 7% of new housing starts in the US. Three steel engineers have told me it is so precise that all components can be precut in factories for assembly on site. Thus a home can be shipped to a site in a kit. I think such kits could be assembled now by laymen using simple tools. In a few years, a larger and more capable HomeMate or HomeMate crew could put the house together and then stay on to serve as household mechanical servants. I would say we are only 10 years from that (if we want it to happen). > It is your expertise I would call upon once we field a HomeMate. Ever so > useful at the outset, it must be matched to the needs of our expanding > clientele. Well, even fielding an idea in this era has a big effect on society. It is ideas, mostly unactualized as yet, which fuel Bill Joy's nanophobia and nanonightmares. Robots are, as Professor Moravec says, our "mind children". When I say "Leprechauns", Bill Joy sees "Gremlins". Now, he is 100% correct that GNR technologies of this century are vastly more powerful than ABC (atomic, biological, chemical) technologies of the last. All three (genetic, nanotechnology and robotics) merge in "Operation Leprechaun". But I believe the "little people" can be kept under satisfactory control. > Best wishes to you for getting in the fray. > > Joe Engelberger > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please allow me to indulge my imagination a little while also trying to do a little "futuristics" and see as well as I can where "Operation Leprechaun" will lead within the next decade. Improving upon our Leprechauns can involve laymen as well as expert roboticists. Good customer relations require that the manufacturer listen to the buying public. The Telemanufacturing Project at the National Univserity of Singapore tells us this is a project to "...connect anyone anyone, anywhere to a robot in Singapore." Leprechauns and their owners would be connected to the Lep Manufacturing Centre which could be in US, Singapore, Japan, UK, Sweden, Germany or almost anywhere. Reis Robotics in Germany advertises "Total Tele-Control". Their web site tells us they have "service support online available worldwide via modem". By this means the customer can "...get an immediate insight into the error trace memory of the robot controller. The problem can be analyzed and solved within minutes." ISR also tells us it wants to bring "robots into the mainstream". It seems that ongoing internet connection from a centre with the Leps and their owners is the way to conduct repairs and maintenance and improve upon the robots. Intragenerational improvement is traditionally distinguished from inter-generational improvement or genetic improvement. Mind you, the distinction can blur as a single robot improves itself enormously over a long period of time and goes through what may be considered as genetic enhancement within a very long generation. At certain stages as the robot "morphs" into something quite different we may declare this a new generation. In any case, the Leps would evolve over the next generations as the Honda Humanoids are doing now through P1, P2 and P3. (Helped in no small part by $100 million in investment). Between now and a decade from now in my estimate, humans will play the major part in robotic improvement. However, after that I think the robots will surpass "human equivalency" as Professor Moravec calls it, in all work-related categories. That includes intellectual work and the ability to improve upon themselves. That's when things get really exciting and humankind enters an entirely new phase of human evolution because the robots will show humans the way toward the improvement of humankind as well as machinekind. Ubiquitous HomeMates will democratize the evolution of both humankind and machinekind. Of course there are "elitists" in the high tech fields who will resist this. Some will even disguise their elitism and attempts to maintain a new two class system of technolords and technopeasants in dire warnings about their concern for public safety. Elsewhere I have listed 11 categories of learning in humans which are also found in machines. Thus I think the "general learning program" for machine learning exists now. It is like that first airplane. And look what happened to aerospace in just 50 years. Where will the general learning program be in 10 years? I think robots will have a greater store of knowledge (ie they will be more "learned") than humans and they will be capable of adding to that store of knowledge at a greater rate than humans (ie greater "learning"). But only if humans want to make it happen. Robots will then learn how to improve upon themselves. They will even learn how to design better learning programs. They will learn how to learn just as we are learning enough about how learning takes place now to write learning programs. Learning-evolving Leps have the additional advantage that they can work tirelessly 24 hours a day. And they can replicate or reproduce quickly to create as many additional artificial hands or artificial brains as might be required to solve a problem. Leprechauns can increase their population geometrically. Thus any wealth they generate can also increase geometrically. Therefore I would be inclined to leave the problems of nanotechnology to the Leps. Instruct advanced Lep models to miniaturize themselves. But then we have to be careful. Example-what if they produce "dustbots", invisible to the naked eye and having only two functions? They reproduce at blinding speed and they convert all atoms around them (solids, liquids or gases) into dust. Before these "Gremlins" turn the entire planet into a dust bin, Bill Joy manages to install a simple program. When this galaxy meets Andromeda in a few billion years, the Andromedan paleontologists marvel at the fossilized lettering in the dust: "I TOLD YOU SO"-Bill Joy. They will wonder if it is a sign that intelligent beings ever lived on this planet or just a freak of nature like the human-appearing face on Mars. Imaginative futuristics aside, I hope you will ask your AI friends like McCarthy and Minsky from the Discover interview what they think the requirements are for developing (1) conversational programming as above and (2) the general learning program. Just as we would ask the experts to estimate the number of man hours to set out the rules for conversation we would ask the experts to set out verbally the rules for a general learning program. (As the late B.F. Skinner said, "If it can be verbalized it can be programmed"). For example, if my 11 categories are insufficent how many categories are there? Twenty? Next we would ask the experts in education and learning psychology to tell us step-by-step what greater and greater proficiency in each of these categories is. Maze learning, a category represented in mice, men and machines is a good example. "How" maze learning takes place differs for mice, men and machines but the "what" aspect of it remains the same. And we can verbalize what constitutes better performance in maze learning to program maze learning machines more proficiently. Writing in "The Futurist", Ian Pearson from British Telecom says by 2011 we can expect "computers (will) surpass human learning and logic abilities" so my projections are similar to his. Pearson adds that by 2012 "intelligent robots (will) run unmanned factories". (Jan-Feb, 2000 issue of The Futurist). If your AI friends say that estimating the man hours required for mega-projects in these two areas is feasible, I expect that a few million dollars in grants would then go out to academic centres in linguistics, education and psychology to do the estimates in some detail. The actual projects would require what? Would I be far off to guess at $5 b. over 5 years? (Modern warships and warplanes cost $1-2 b. and I understand the USS Ronald Reagan will cost $5 b.)? Now imagine those HomeMate Leprechauns in 5 years time with access to the stored knowledge of the world via internet and learning ability to surpass that of any humans; and having conversational ability such that anyone can instruct them in complex R&D projects. From the standpoint of consumer robotics we would want better models of HomeMates as we want better models of cars or televisions. The discussion via internet as to what constitutes a better HomeMate would then include the human manufacturers, human consumers and ... the Leprechauns. Other Leprechaun Research Centres might take on finding cures for diseases, ending world poverty, learning how to mine the asteroid belt which has billions x billions of dollars in mineral wealth, mastering pollution-free development, space colonization, space travel etc. Admittedly I have had "fun" with this reply but I think futuristically oriented roboticists like professors Moravec, Warwick and Brooks now agree that before 2050 robots will perform all categories of work, including intellectual work, better than humans. And putting a little "blarney" aside, I am wondering if my projections for the next 5-10 years are not feasible. I think there are excellent projects which could develop the necessary sub-systems for a HomeMate like the Plymouth University Project but they need more funding and a better articulated and co-ordinated master plan. Your initiative in consumer robotics might be just what is needed to kick start a solution. Sincerely-FWP Some Helpful URL References: http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm http://humanoids.usc.edu http://alife7.alife.org http://www.nas.nasa.gov/NAS/Projects/nanotechnology http://techweb.plym.ac.uk/soc/staff/guidbugm/bugmann.htm http://telemfg.eng.nus.edu.sg http://www.reisrobotics.com http://www.icsc.ab.ca/153-info.htm http://www.binisystems.com http://kipr.org http://www.honda.co.jp/english/technology/robot/index.html http://users.ntplx.net/~helpmate http://www.humanoid.rise.waseda.ac.jp http://reisrobotics.com/frameset.htm http://www05.abb.se/robotics/core.html http://www.ljkamm.com.com/robots.htm http://www.mlnet.org http://www.shadow.org.uk/philo/manifesto.stm http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~Xavier http://www.cai.com/neugents http://www.genetic-programming.com/gpanimatedtutorial.html http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs http://www.usc.edu/ext-relations/news_service/real/real_video.html http://www.inf.ulst.ac.uk/staff/mf.mctear http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/ezequiel/alife-page/alife.html http://www.faceit.com http://www.qub.ac.uk/ivs http://www.erato.atr.co.jp/DB http://www.binisystems.com http://itri.loyola.edu/nanobase http://www.automatedbuilder.com http://www.incx.nec.co.jp.robot http://www.remotec-andros.com/news.htm http://www.ibm.com/news/1999/12106.phtml http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~trb/auro.html http://www.personalrobots.com http://www.isr.com http://www-poleia.lip6.fr/~sab2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERFORM CPR ON YOUR APR! Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/2121/5/_/433155/_/953596171/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** The Era of Total Automation is Now *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/975/6/_/618879/_/953598816/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Community email addresses: Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/transhumantech Old archive: http://mail.planetx.com/transhumantech/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/936/7/_/529939/_/953678341/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Space has unlimited carrying capacity *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ to unsubscribe send and email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please avoid attacks againist any religion or race. this is an awareness list, not a hatred list. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files. Install today: http://click.egroups.com/1/2344/5/_/25882/_/953761288/ -- Create a poll/survey for your group! -- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=thepentagonguru&m=1 <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
