I've made this message easier to read and below
I explain how you can too, for this message and all
multi-forwarded messages that result in jagged lines
and an eye-straining disarray.
This message is in three parts:
1) your story reformated
(done in less than 2 seconds)
2) the how-to and why this works
not readily available at the website
(something special)
3) the original message in its jagged disarray
to contrast with the clean message reformatted above it
I've used the utility described below for many years,
it's certainly a favorite of mine, I anticipate it will
be yours too. Read below and see for yourself
how much better your message looks after using
this utility. I don't have any affiliation with the sevice,
simply passing on one of the best finds on the Web,
now and for a long time to come.
http://ReFormatYourEmail.makes.it/
Your Message Set At 60 SPACES Across:
Fra http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0204-23.htm
Published on Sunday, February 4, 2007 by the Toronto Sun /
Canada Fight Against Iran Too Familiar by Eric Margolis
While the Bush/Cheney administration seems hell-bent on
provoking war with Iran, Americans appear far more alarmed
by the dangers of global warming. Many of them must regret
not voting for "Ecological Al" Gore in 2000.
While icebergs melt, the U.S.-Iran confrontation is getting
very dangerous. The heaviest concentration of U.S. naval
strike forces since the 2003 war against Iraq is
concentrating off Iran.
In a disturbing replay of that conflict, CIA drones and
U.S. Air Force recon aircraft -- along with U.S. and
British Special Forces -- are overflying Iran and probing
its nuclear and military installations. CIA and Britain's
MI6 are stirring unrest among Iran's Kurds and
Azerbaijanis, and arming Iranian Marxist and royalist
exiles.
A belligerent President George Bush ordered U.S. forces in
Iraq to "kill" Iranian agents or diplomats who appear
threatening.
U.S. troops in northern Iraq broke into an Iranian liaison
office and arrested its military staff. Bush unblushingly
warns Iran, not to "meddle" in neighbouring Iraq.
Pentagon sources accused Iran of smuggling weapons and
explosives to "Iraqi insurgents;" though the "insurgents"
are in fact Shia militiamen allied to the U.S.-installed
Baghdad regime. Half of the 21,000 additional U.S. troops
headed to Iraq are being positioned to cover the Iranian
border and block an Iranian threat to the main U.S.
-Kuwait-Baghdad supply line.
New contingents of U.S. Air Force personnel and warplanes
are arriving at key forward air bases in Bulgaria and
Romania that link the U.S. to the Mideast and Central Asia.
U.S. bases in Britain, Germany, Diego Garcia, the Persian
Gulf, Central Asia, and Pakistan are reported on heightened
alert. Turkey is being pressed to allow U.S. and Israeli
strike aircraft to use its air space to attack northern
Iran.
The Pentagon's latest strike plan against Iran includes
more than 2,300 "high value" targets such as its dispersed
nuclear infrastructure and, worryingly, operating reactors,
air and naval bases, ports, telecommunications, air
defences, military factories, energy networks and
government buildings.
Iran's water and sewage systems, bridges, food storage, and
bomb shelters could also be targeted, as were Iraq's in
2001.
The U.S. Treasury has mounted a highly effective campaign
to strangle Iran financially, seriously hurting its foreign
banking connections, retarding industrial growth and energy
production, and impeding foreign investment.
The Bush administration and close ally Israel have sharply
intensified their war of words against Iran, claiming,
implausibly, it poses a nuclear threat to the entire world.
Israeli threats
Politicians in Israel are in dangerous emotional overdrive
and making open threats to attack Iran. They claim Iran is
a new Nazi Germany and Israel faces a second Holocaust --
in spite of its powerful triad of nuclear forces that can
survive any surprise attack.
Though UN inspectors find no evidence Iran is producing
nuclear weapons, Tehran, like Saddam's Iraq, is being told
to prove an impossible negative -- that it has no nuclear
weapons.
With disturbing deja vu, the U.S. Congress and media are
swallowing the administration's torrent of unproven
allegations against Iran precisely the way they lapped up
its grotesque lies about Iraq.
Intelligence analysts would conclude either: Washington is
trying to bluff Tehran to abandon its entirely legal but
worrisome civilian nuclear power program and thus claim a
major victory after so many defeats. Or, the cornered
Bush/Cheney administration is trying to provoke an air and
naval war against Iran as a last desperate, ideologically
driven assault against the Muslim world, and divert
attention from its Iraq debacle.
'Not very dangerous'
Amid growing war fever, this week France's President
Jacques Chirac sensibly observed, off the record, that even
if Iran had a few nuclear weapons for self-defence, "it is
not very dangerous."
Iran would be obliterated by U.S. and Israeli nuclear
counterstrikes if it ever used its nukes against Israel,
noted Chirac, and is unlikely to commit national suicide.
After his comments became public, Chirac retracted them
when Washington's French-haters went apoplectic. But, as he
did before Bush's 2003 war against Iraq, Chirac spoke with
logic and good sense.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fra http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-28.htm
Published on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 by Consortium News
Iran Clock Is Ticking by Robert Parry
While congressional Democrats test how far they should go
in challenging George W. Bush's war powers, the time may be
running out to stop Bush from ordering a major escalation
of the Middle East conflict by attacking Iran.
Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that
preparations are advancing for a war with Iran starting
possibly as early as mid-to- late February. The sources
offer some differences of opinion over whether Bush might
cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take
the lead in launching air strikes against Iran's nuclear
facilities.
But there is growing alarm among military and intelligence
experts that Bush already has decided to attack and simply
is waiting for a second aircraft carrier strike force to
arrive in the region - and for a propaganda blitz to stir
up some pro-war sentiment at home.
One well-informed U.S. military source called me in a fury
after consulting with Pentagon associates and discovering
how far along the war preparations are. He said the plans
call for extensive aerial attacks on Iran, including use of
powerful bunker-busting ordnance.
Another source with a pipeline into Israeli thinking said
the Iran war plan has expanded over the past several weeks.
Earlier thinking had been that Israeli warplanes would hit
Iranian nuclear targets with U.S. forces in reserve in case
of Iranian retaliation, but now the strategy anticipates a
major U.S. military follow-up to an Israeli attack, the
source said.
Both sources used the same word "crazy" in describing the
plan to expand the war to Iran. The two sources, like
others I have interviewed, said that attacking Iran could
touch off a regional - and possibly global - conflagration.
"It will be like the TV show '24'," the American military
source said, citing the likelihood of Islamic retaliation
reaching directly into the United States.
Though Bush insists that no decision has been made on
attacking Iran, he offered similar assurances of his
commitment to peace in the months before invading Iraq in
2003. Yet leaked documents from London made clear that he
had set a course for war nine months to a year before the
Iraq invasion.
In other words, Bush's statements that he has no plans to
"invade" Iran and that he's still committed to settle
differences with Iran over its nuclear program
diplomatically should be taken with a grain of salt.
There is, of course, the possibility that the war
preparations are a game of chicken to pressure Iran to
accept outside controls on its nuclear program and to trim
back its regional ambitions. But sometimes such high-
stakes gambles lead to miscalculations or set in motion
dynamics that can't be controlled.
[Reformatted at 60 Spaces Across]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is, indeed, very important to you
and to many other people.
Before you endeavor to forward this or any other
email message in the future, you should seriously
consider how messy it may appear to the new
recipients -- unless you clean it up with this
savvy utility that will help them better
understand your message or any other message you
forward, and far more likely to read it all the
way through, and hopefully take action because of
it. Now, that's 'progressive'.
See your message, sampled below, for how much
better it could come across by using this
utility:
http://ReFormatYourEmail.makes.it/
Use this utility to set the width of your
message, get rid of all the jagged edges that
jumble your messages, and make it imperceivable,
and far less likely to be read at all. And you
can use it on any document, not just email.
Eliminate any symbols you want, such as the
myriad ">>>>>>>" that polute multiple forwards of
email messages.
http://ReFormatYourEmail.makes.it/
Billions of Web pages, trillions of email
messages, though this website is in my TOP 10 of
all websites because it forever delivers a
meaningful service needed every day by most
everyone affected by the Internet or who write
any document using a computer, so make it one of
your favorites too!
http://ReFormatYourEmail.makes.it/
Below you'll find the original message in all its
messiness and you'll find the cleaned-up message
looking sharp and straight.
By choosing a narrow width for your newly
reformatted message, say maybe something between
55 and 65 spaces across, your message can be
forwarded many times over without losing its
justification for most recipients, even when
subsequent recipients don't eliminate the ever
growing series of ">>>>" marks.
Most people's inbound or outbound width range
from 64 to 80 spaces across, and often they'll
have different widths for what they receive and
what they send or reply with. Thus, something
they receive at a 76 width may be sent out at a
68 width, which in many cases will truncate some
or each line to create a subsequent line for each
original line of as much as 8 to 11 digits,
grossly compromising your forwarded message, its
impact, and your intent.
This utility will keep your message squared off
long after you've sent it and your subsequent
recipients have sent it further.
http://ReFormatYourEmail.makes.it/
You can also change the capitalization for every
word, whether the first letter of each word or
every letter of every word, or the first word of
each sentence.
READ THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE, AND SEE HOW MUCH
BETTER IT LOOKS AFTER USING
http://ReFormatYourEmail.makes.it/
On 2/6/07, nablusos108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Fra: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0204-23.htm
>
>
> Published on Sunday, February 4, 2007 by the Toronto Sun / Canada
> Fight Against Iran Too Familiar
> by Eric Margolis
>
> While the Bush/Cheney administration seems hell-bent on provoking
war with
> Iran, Americans appear far more alarmed by the dangers of global
warming.
> Many of them must regret not voting for "Ecological Al" Gore in
2000.
>
> While icebergs melt, the U.S.-Iran confrontation is getting very
> dangerous.
> The heaviest concentration of U.S. naval strike forces since the
2003 war
> against Iraq is concentrating off Iran.
>
> In a disturbing replay of that conflict, CIA drones and U.S. Air
Force
> recon
> aircraft -- along with U.S. and British Special Forces -- are
overflying
> Iran and probing its nuclear and military installations. CIA and
Britain's
> MI6 are stirring unrest among Iran's Kurds and Azerbaijanis, and
arming
> Iranian Marxist and royalist exiles.
>
> A belligerent President George Bush ordered U.S. forces in Iraq
to "kill"
> Iranian agents or diplomats who appear threatening.
>
> U.S. troops in northern Iraq broke into an Iranian liaison office
and
> arrested its military staff. Bush unblushingly warns Iran, not
to "meddle"
> in neighbouring Iraq.
>
> Pentagon sources accused Iran of smuggling weapons and explosives to
> "Iraqi
> insurgents;" though the "insurgents" are in fact Shia militiamen
allied to
> the U.S.-installed Baghdad regime. Half of the 21,000 additional
U.S.
> troops
> headed to Iraq are being positioned to cover the Iranian border and
block
> an
> Iranian threat to the main U.S. -Kuwait-Baghdad supply line.
>
> New contingents of U.S. Air Force personnel and warplanes are
arriving at
> key forward air bases in Bulgaria and Romania that link the U.S. to
the
> Mideast and Central Asia. U.S. bases in Britain, Germany, Diego
Garcia,
> the
> Persian Gulf, Central Asia, and Pakistan are reported on heightened
alert.
> Turkey is being pressed to allow U.S. and Israeli strike aircraft
to use
> its
> air space to attack northern Iran.
>
> The Pentagon's latest strike plan against Iran includes more than
2,300
> "high value" targets such as its dispersed nuclear infrastructure
and,
> worryingly, operating reactors, air and naval bases, ports,
> telecommunications, air defences, military factories, energy
networks and
> government buildings.
>
> Iran's water and sewage systems, bridges, food storage, and bomb
shelters
> could also be targeted, as were Iraq's in 2001.
>
> The U.S. Treasury has mounted a highly effective campaign to
strangle Iran
> financially, seriously hurting its foreign banking connections,
retarding
> industrial growth and energy production, and impeding foreign
investment.
>
> The Bush administration and close ally Israel have sharply
intensified
> their
> war of words against Iran, claiming, implausibly, it poses a nuclear
> threat
> to the entire world.
>
> Israeli threats
>
> Politicians in Israel are in dangerous emotional overdrive and
making open
> threats to attack Iran. They claim Iran is a new Nazi Germany and
Israel
> faces a second Holocaust -- in spite of its powerful triad of
nuclear
> forces
> that can survive any surprise attack.
>
> Though UN inspectors find no evidence Iran is producing nuclear
weapons,
> Tehran, like Saddam's Iraq, is being told to prove an impossible
> negative --
> that it has no nuclear weapons.
>
> With disturbing deja vu, the U.S. Congress and media are swallowing
the
> administration's torrent of unproven allegations against Iran
precisely
> the
> way they lapped up its grotesque lies about Iraq.
>
> Intelligence analysts would conclude either: Washington is trying
to bluff
> Tehran to abandon its entirely legal but worrisome civilian nuclear
power
> program and thus claim a major victory after so many defeats. Or,
the
> cornered Bush/Cheney administration is trying to provoke an air and
naval
> war against Iran as a last desperate, ideologically driven assault
against
> the Muslim world, and divert attention from its Iraq debacle.
>
> 'Not very dangerous'
>
> Amid growing war fever, this week France's President Jacques Chirac
> sensibly
> observed, off the record, that even if Iran had a few nuclear
weapons for
> self-defence, "it is not very dangerous."
>
> Iran would be obliterated by U.S. and Israeli nuclear
counterstrikes if it
> ever used its nukes against Israel, noted Chirac, and is unlikely to
> commit
> national suicide.
>
> After his comments became public, Chirac retracted them when
Washington's
> French-haters went apoplectic. But, as he did before Bush's 2003 war
> against
> Iraq, Chirac spoke with logic and good sense.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Fra http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-28.htm
>
> Published on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 by Consortium News
> Iran Clock Is Ticking
> by Robert Parry
>
> While congressional Democrats test how far they should go in
challenging
> George W. Bush's war powers, the time may be running out to stop
Bush from
> ordering a major escalation of the Middle East conflict by
attacking Iran.
>
> Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that
preparations
> are
> advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as early as mid-to-
late
> February. The sources offer some differences of opinion over
whether Bush
> might cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take the
lead in
> launching air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.
>
> But there is growing alarm among military and intelligence experts
that
> Bush
> already has decided to attack and simply is waiting for a second
aircraft
> carrier strike force to arrive in the region - and for a propaganda
blitz
> to
> stir up some pro-war sentiment at home.
>
> One well-informed U.S. military source called me in a fury after
> consulting
> with Pentagon associates and discovering how far along the war
> preparations
> are. He said the plans call for extensive aerial attacks on Iran,
> including
> use of powerful bunker-busting ordnance.
>
> Another source with a pipeline into Israeli thinking said the Iran
war
> plan
> has expanded over the past several weeks. Earlier thinking had been
that
> Israeli warplanes would hit Iranian nuclear targets with U.S.
forces in
> reserve in case of Iranian retaliation, but now the strategy
anticipates a
> major U.S. military follow-up to an Israeli attack, the source said.
>
> Both sources used the same word "crazy" in describing the plan to
expand
> the
> war to Iran. The two sources, like others I have interviewed, said
that
> attacking Iran could touch off a regional - and possibly global -
> conflagration.
>
> "It will be like the TV show '24'," the American military source
said,
> citing the likelihood of Islamic retaliation reaching directly into
the
> United States.
>
> Though Bush insists that no decision has been made on attacking
Iran, he
> offered similar assurances of his commitment to peace in the months
before
> invading Iraq in 2003. Yet leaked documents from London made clear
that he
> had set a course for war nine months to a year before the Iraq
invasion.
>
> In other words, Bush's statements that he has no plans to "invade"
Iran
> and
> that he's still committed to settle differences with Iran over its
nuclear
> program diplomatically should be taken with a grain of salt.
>
> There is, of course, the possibility that the war preparations are
a game
> of
> chicken to pressure Iran to accept outside controls on its nuclear
program
> and to trim back its regional ambitions. But sometimes such high-
stakes
> gambles lead to miscalculations or set in motion dynamics that
can't be
> controlled.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.27/671 - Release Date:
2/5/2007
>
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
Flourishingly,
Dharma Mitra
Helping you "Say It With Panache!"
Because, how you say it can be, and often is,
as important as what you want to convey,
and what you have to say is
very important to you.
http://PROUT-Ananlysis-Synthesis.latest-info.com
Copywriting - Editing - Publishing - Publicity
I want every person to be complete in themselves. Your himsa has no place
in my mission.
Of all that anyone leading or teaching has to convey, the most valuable
thing to cultivate and convey to others is a moral conscience. Only such
persons deserve to lead others, in any capacity. Anything less is a menace
to society.
