--------------------------------------------------
REMINDER: Only 2 Posts Per Day Per Person
--------------------------------------------------
I will be out of the office on Friday, May 7, and will respond when I
return Monday, May 10.
>>> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" 05/06/04 22:08 >>>
Send Stpaul mailing list submissions to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Stpaul digest..."
--------------------------------------------------
The St. Paul Issues Forum is a great way to share
information or news about civic events or issues.
--------------------------------------------------
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Smoking Ban (David Shove)
2. Re: Smoking Ban (Arno Karner)
3. Re: Smoking Ban in St. Paul ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
4. Re: Smoking ban - other side? (Phil Fuehrer)
5. Re: INS & Law Enforcement (erin stojan)
6. Smoking Gun? (Paul Kuettel)
7. FW: NYTimes.com Article: The Secondhand Smoking Gun
(Elizabeth Dickinson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 16:08:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Shove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [StPaul] Smoking Ban
To: Erik Hare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "St. Paul Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
We don't have to ban smoking - we just have to isolate it.
This can be done with a smoking condom - a plastic tent that entirely
surrounds the head, shoulders, and arms of the smoker. All the smoke is
confined inside.
If the plastic is clear it will be interesting to watch the clouds of
smoke fill it until you can't see the smoker inside. Or the smoker may
prefer colored plastic, so that no one can identify him as a habitual
smoker. But either way the smoker would be able to smoke in public, with
his/her buddies. If he wanted to drink too he'd have to take it inside
before he lit up.
True, the alleys and dark corners of St Paul would be littered with used
smoking condoms. So I propose a returnable deposit. They could be
collected for cash, by the boy scounts, camp fire girls, etc. Or
perhaps
the Chamber of Commerce, should it fall on hard times. Or Carl Pohlad,
if
he really needs the cash to build a stadium.
--
Wanna smoke? Did you bring, *ahem*, "protection"?
--David Shove
Roseville
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 16:16:23 -0500
From: Arno Karner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [StPaul] Smoking Ban
Cc: "St. Paul Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
John Harris wrote:
>--------------------------------------------------
> REMINDER: Only 2 Posts Per Day Per Person
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>>...and your promise
>>to back them up as they
>>vote to save your children's lives ...
>>
>>
>
>isn't that one of those rules of debate that whenever
>"saving the children" is brought up the debate is
>ended that side wins because after all, who wouldn't
>want to save the children?
>
>John Harris
>webber-camden
>
>
>
I wish that were the case, but St. James maybe the first procal school
to go belly up, not because they want to save the children, not because
teachers can smoke in the classroom, not because students can smoke in
the lavatories, but because the city won't stop GSE from force feeding
there tiny lungs carcynogins.
But by all means lets make bars smoke free for our children, so they can
meet a better class of people than they will at city hall.
P.S. any establishment that blocks access to someone with a seeing eys
dog is asking for one big law suite, so dogs are allowed in resterants,
and they don't have to be hypoalergenic
Arno A. Karner
West 7 th. st. < 300 ft. NNW of GSE
http://tnss,com/noise_stink
aka Behind the Muffs (Defending the moal high ground, wishing there was
a polatican that could take it from me)
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 16:44:08 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [StPaul] Smoking Ban in St. Paul
To: "John Mannillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "St. Paul Issues Forum"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Yes, John, that was a bad dog analogy, I'll admit.
If restaurants are "public," then I suspect there will be more "clubs"
in
the future. (I can't imagine the SP Pool & Yacht Club will have to ban
smoking.)
Jim M.'s onto something with the tobacco license idea.
To take the Piddling Pool analogy one step further, if there were a
second
pool where people could go to pee, and there was no cross-contamination
of
water, where would the harm be? Why shouldn't O'Gara's be able to have
a
Smoking Garage like the rest of us? And a Potting Shed, for that
matter.
If you can prove your bad air doesn't contaminate the good, then you
should
be allowed to have a smoking lounge. Put all the smokers in a glass box
and shame them into quitting, if that's your ulitmate goal (a la Pizza
Luce', Duluth). But it certainly is not very patriotic to withhold
people's rights, and it smacks of hypocrisy and Prohibition when the
same
ethics are not applied to alcohol consumption, which has killed far more
people I have known than tobacco has. My uncle recently died of lung
cancer and he never smoked, while smoking relatives have lived longer
lives, so clearly there is more to cancer than tobacco smoke.
Synergism.
Or how do you know that deaths are caused by the first match/lighter hit
or
the last burning-cotton-filter drag?
OK, so it's hard to deny first- and second-hand smoke is bad. But a ban
is
extreme, when there are alternatives. Haven't you heard of Cigs Sigma?!
It is quite likely that The Lucky Foxx Bar patrons will not be displaced
by
Lycra-clad cyclists and jogger-moms. Rather, the same ruffians will be
there, only on the sidewalks now. All our bars will turn into sidewalk
bars, like Skarda's, where folks play bean-bag horseshoes outdoors
constantly. This is fine with me, but I suspect parents and
early-to-bedders might prefer these people were inside. The Spot is
going
to smell like cigarettes for another century even if no one ever lights
up
in there again, so banning smoking there is not going to attrack the Run
'n' Fun crowd from across the street. They should be able to hang a Mr.
Butts shingle above their door and designate themselves a Smoking
Establishment if they want to. Have you been dying to go to The Spot
with
your friends so you can play darts and play the juke box but you just
can't
take the smoke? I doubt it. And we're not painting storm drains so
more
sidewalk smokers can throw their fag ends down the sewer and straight
into
the Mississippi River. If you're as sick of butts everywhere as I am,
then
why not ban butt polluters first? At least start imposing the fine
(wasn't
it $700?). Not to mention this sidewalk drinking isn't going to help
the
Disappearing Glassware problem in this town. Drinking from plastic is
not
only in bad taste, it's bad for the environment. Plastic cups should be
banned, clearly.
Let's take a look at my igloo away from home, the XEC. (FYI, when North
Star Ice takes over from Xcel, it will be known as The Igloo.) Year One
was a smoking disaster, you may recall. This was due mainly because the
arena architects were non-smokers, and the HVAC people were trainees.
The
smoking in the Iron Range Grill spilled out into the concourse, as did
the
smoke from the upper lounge. Even Stan Makita, who was known to burn
one
in the locker room after a game, would not have approved. So, now we go
outside between periods, but people are too inconsiderate to get far
enough
away from the doors so the smoke still goes inside. The current
"secret"
smoking spot upstairs causes no complaints that I am aware of. This is
because it's done properly in the proper place, (albeit not accessible
to
us poorer folks, unless we can turn invisible temporarily).
Chuck brings up a good point - this whole issue is about being
considerate
of others. We obviously need to teach our children how to be more
conscientious smokers. It could be added to the 5th grade curriculum
right
between You & Your Trash and Tolerance, Manners, & Other Things Your
Parents Never Told You Mattered. And any and all kids who tell me how
disgusting I am should be taxed, and then microchipped so my kids can
find
them later and tell them what rude little buggers they were.
Further salvos throughout the day in my losing battle:
Since Native Americans use tobacco as a sacrament, will they be exempt?
Smokers cost the American economy no more than incessant gabbers.
You can still smoke at the Day By Day, outside.
What's next? No outdoor smoking? This ain't Texas, Sven.
If we can get Thune drinking, maybe we can knock some sense back into
him.
If it was wintertime, things would be/feel different.
Will chewing and spittoons be allowed?
Smokers who support a ban are looking for extra help to quit at the
inconvenience of others.
One stall in each bar restroom should have a heavy duty fan on a
7-minute
timer.
I thought the 2 am closing was meant to encourage conventioneers? No
Shriners are going to convene in a hodunk town where you can't even
smoke.
Aren't there some Commandments and ordinances you could be working on?
I didn't realize the object of the game was to live as long as
possible...
I thought it was a matter of quality, not quantity...
LOL at the condom idea, David!
How about we get smart and have Cones Of Silence that come down over the
smoking booths?
If any Councilmembers start getting too rotund, I will start a campaign
to
ban the sales of fat, because it's costing us a lot of money, and people
are actually dying!
Now, in Nazi Germany...
"Those who are willing to give up freedom for a little safety deserve
neither freedom nor safety."
"Smoke Free and/or Die!"
AMH
Not a coffee shop owner in the Wild West End
Andrew M. Hine
Corporate Research Materials Laboratory
3M Center 201-1W-28
St. Paul MN
55144-1000
USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (651) 733-1070
Fax: (651) 737-5335
Lab 201-W110
"John Mannillo"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ck.com> "Erik Hare"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: cc: "St. Paul
Issues Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
orum.org Subject: Re: [StPaul]
Smoking Ban in St. Paul
05/06/2004 10:24
AM
--------------------------------------------------
REMINDER: Only 2 Posts Per Day Per Person
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew wrote:
A friend of mine won't/can't come to our house because we have a dog and
the dog-ness will make him sick. He would never dream of asking us to
get
rid of our dog so he can come over! He's got plenty of other places to
go
without imposing his will on us. The dog may be shortening my life for
all
I know, but I don't mind.
Andrew, This analogy make the point for the smoking ban. No one is
saying
you can't smoke in your house. If you want to shorten the life of you
and
your dog, you'll still be able, and if your friends don't want to come
over, they don't have to. What this ban will do is prevent you from
bringing
your smoke to a public restaurants. You already can't bring your dog to
the
restaurant.
John Mannillo
Downtown and Highland Park
_____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 15:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Phil Fuehrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [StPaul] Smoking ban - other side?
To: "St. Paul Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Just to throw some smoke on the fire:
>From a 1998 World Health Organization study (from the
abstract):
"CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association
between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer
risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response
relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure
to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable
risk after cessation of exposure."
ETS is second-hand smoke.
This ban would be extreme - but, if we go ahead with
it, then....
I have near-death reactions to perfumes ergo we must
ban those stinky (and dangerous) fragrance counters at
all retail stores. And, while we're at it magazines
with perfume samples should be banned as well. I like
that loud music ban too. And, I get skin rashes from
certain types of detergents - we must ban those or
require that napkins at St. Paul restaurants be made
of paper. Oh, don't forget my peanut allergies - I
won't ask for a ban on that - just require postings at
the door and in the menus if a restuarant has any
peanut products on site.
Phil Fuehrer
Highwood Hills
Note: I don't have any of the above, they're only
examples. I also don't smoke, but don't begrudge
those who do.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 17:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: erin stojan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [StPaul] INS & Law Enforcement
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hiya all,
This might be moot as the Council has already approved
the Ordinance 6-1 yesterday (woohoo!), but nobody's
saying that immigrants shouldn't have to carry proper
identification. The ordinance states that local law
enforcement shouldn't have to enforce federal
immigration law.
I attended the police chief candidate finalists
community forum on Tuesday, where the candidates
*unanimously* supported the INS separation ordinance.
I thought that John Harrington was the most articulate
in his reasons for supporting it. He said that he
supported it because, from a local law enforcement
perspective--
1. In the Cities local law enforcement enforcing
national immigration law was tried (he specifically
cited LA and NYC), it wasn't effective in identifying,
starting more investigations, or ultimately enforcing
national immigration law,
2. It increased the number of profiling complaints,
and increased distrust between immigrant communities
and local law enforcement, and
3. It was essentially an unfunded mandate. The
Department doesn't have extra money for the training
it would require, and doesn't have enough officers for
the tasks the Department is already committed to. He
specifically said that local law enforcment enforcing
federal immigration law was "bad practice."
Of course, those were just John Harrington's comments.
There were more excellent comments made at the public
hearing--about people afraid to call the fire
department to report fires because of fear of being
reported, fearing to report domestic violence to
police, fearing to go to the emergency room for
servere burns.
By the way, nobody testified against the ordinance.
In the spirit of not understanding this particular
part of government, a question: how does one avoid
paying property taxes? My understanding was that the
county keeps records/assessments of these sorts of
things, and certainly the MN Dept of Revenue and the
IRS would be interested in this. If illegal
immigrants are renting, then they're paying the
property tax through the rent---but don't have access
to that renter's rebate that we get. So, if anything,
they're paying more than their fair share. But hey,
you probably know something that I don't.
There are a good many large *white* families in this
state, too, Brett. Perhaps we should go after them as
well.
You know, as my coworker puts it---I want to know why
illegal immigrants think they can come into this
country (or this city---hi Tim!) and steal my dream of
being an illegal immigrant farmworker. Or an illegal
immigrant meatpacker. Or janitor, or cook. Or
Wal-"we didn't KNOW they were illegal"-Mart midnight
stocker. You said it, Brett---just WHO do these
illegal immigrants think they are, anyway?
My $.02,
Erin Stojan
Dayton's Bluff
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> Do You Have Any Questions About St. Paul
> Government or Politics? Please Post Them Here.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Right now there is a case being heard by the US
> Supreme Court which will
> bear on whether or not Americans must provide their
> "papers" i.e.
> identification cards and drivers license, upon
> demand by the police (local, state, and
> federal). This is an important case because it
> reminds us of how communist
> Russia and the Eastern Block nation, not to mention
> Nazi Germany, controlled the
> movements of their populations.
>
> The case has made it to the Supreme Court, but
> it looks like Americans
> will have to carry "proper identification" and
> provide it at all times. So my
> question is, why should illegal immigrants be given
> rights that the citizens of
> this country do not currently enjoy?
>
> Contrary to popular myth, illegal immigrants
> provide very little in the
> way of tax money, since they habitually underreport
> their incomes. Many have
> large families and pay little or no property taxes,
> which puts an unfair burden
> on our overstretched civil service system and our
> schools, which are hurting
> for money.
>
> I am sorry that they have chosen to immigrate to
> this country illegally,
> but I do not feel that giving them rights that
> Americans do not enjoy is much
> of a solution.
>
> Brett Sprangel
> East Side
> _____________________________________________
> NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your
> password - visit:
> http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
>
> Archive Address:
> http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
=====
-----------------------------------------
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious,
makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even
passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears
and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've
got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run
it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will
be prevented from working at all!--- Mario Savio
------------------------------------------
Erin Stojan
North End, Ward 5
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 20:17:00 -0500
From: "Paul Kuettel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [StPaul] Smoking Gun?
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi All!
It's always fun to get Driscoll's goat to the point that he makes, um,
personal
"responses" on-list:
I'm a big boy (too big for my health, I'm afraid -- second-hand smoke is
the
least of MY worries) and I respectfully accept Andy's arguments.
But this shot really smoked me, to whit::
"Back to Kuettel's post (he lives elsewhere anyway)"
OUCH!!!!
What are your St Paul Props, Andy? I was born at Miller, baptized at St
Lukes,
confessed, communicanted and was confirmed at St. Mark's, married Laura
and
baptized my three kids at St. Agnes, to which we still belong. Oh and
there was
Cretin and St. Thomas. I even had the Last Rites at St Joe's but I
pulled
through just to be a burr under your saddle. When the burr is removed,
it will
be planted at Calvary.
And I've got two sons at Cretin and a Derham Dollie on the way in a
couple of
years.
When I moved to far distant Falcon Heights, all of 4 blocks north of
Como Park,
my heart stayed behind. Which is why I participate in this forum.
When St Paul sneezes, Falcon Heights catches pneumonia.
Say and think of me what you will, I am and always will be a St Paul
Boy.
Back to Driscoll's post (he lives on Crocus Hill) I dare say my
neighborhood is
more like an "average" neighborhood than the tony bluff from which Andy
looks
down on our sordid world.
All posted in fun, really!
I like all of my St Paul List Friends, although Thune has changed now
that he's
got the reins back on some power.
To clarify my position, I wouldn't mind at all if St Paul banned smoking
in bars
and restaurants. But unless surrounding communities go along, it is
bound to
have a serious impact...maybe short-term, but just long enough to put
some good
folks out of business.
If Thune is buying, I would be happy to share an adult beverage with him
at
Mancini's on the day the ban goes into effect (which is never, if I were
to
predict) Of course, Hell COULD freeze over eventually, and likely will.
But
not soon.
Cheers!
PK
Grand/Chatsworth (WAY B4 it was trendy)
Highland Park
Merriam Park
Randolph/Hamline
Far Distant Falcon Heights
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 22:08:12 -0500
From: Elizabeth Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [StPaul] FW: NYTimes.com Article: The Secondhand Smoking Gun
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
I posted this last year, but given the discussion of a St. Paul smoking
ban,
I thought it might be good to post an edited version again.
Elizabeth Dickinson
West Side
The Secondhand Smoking Gun
October 15, 2003
By ROSEMARY ELLIS
Six months into New York City's smoke-free ordinance, there
has been a spate of criticism about the wisdom of sticking
by such a ban. The most notable came in a roundabout swipe
from none other than former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who
declared during a trip to Ireland last month that Irish
citizens should have the choice to smoke in public places.
(Mr. Giuliani later tried to distance himself from his
comments.)
But if New York - as well as other cities and
municipalities - is ever tempted to rescind its smoking
ban, it should look at the goings-on in Helena, Mont. The
citizens of Helena voted in June 2002 to ban smoking in all
public buildings - including restaurants, bars and casinos.
Soon after, doctors at the local hospital noticed that
heart-attack admissions were dropping. So they, in
conjunction with the University of California, San
Francisco, did a study to measure the potential short-term
effects of a smoking ban.
Helena is a perfect place for such a study: relatively
isolated, with enough people in the region (66,000) for a
meaningful population sample, and only one cardiac-care
hospital within a 60-mile radius. So it was easy to control
the study sample and methodology: if you get a heart attack
in Helena, there's only one place to go for treatment.
The study showed two trends. First, there was no change in
heart attack rates for patients who lived outside city
limits. But for city residents, the rates plummeted by 58
percent in only six months.
"We know from longer-term studies that the effects of
secondhand smoke occur within minutes, and that long-term
exposure to secondhand smoke is associated with a 30
percent increased risk in heart attack rates," says Stanton
Glantz, a professor of medicine who conducted the study's
statistical analysis. "But it was quite stunning to
document this large an effect so quickly."
It was also stunning to witness what happened next. The
Montana State Legislature, under pressure from the Montana
Tavern Association and tobacco lobbyists, rescinded the ban
in December. The result: heart-attack rates bounced back up
almost as quickly as they dropped.
The bottom line of Helena's plummeting, then soaring, heart
attack rate is painfully obvious: secondhand smoke kills.
Only 30 minutes of exposure to it causes platelets in the
bloodstream to become stickier. When that happens, blood
clots form more easily, which can block arteries and cause
heart attacks.
Dr. Richard Sargent, one of the study's authors, points out
that eight hours of working in a smoky bar is equivalent to
smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. In such an environment,
other studies have shown, workers more than double their
chances of developing cancer and asthma, and pregnant
workers put themselves at risk for miscarriage and
premature delivery.
All of which make Mr. Giuliani's comments particularly ill
informed. In addition, despite the dire economic
predictions that preceded it, the smoking ban in New York
City does not appear to have drastically depressed
business. From March to June, the city created 10,000 new
restaurant and bar jobs, according to the Department of
Labor. The state Department of Taxation and Finance's most
recent report of alcohol and beer tax collections (which
measures both on-premises consumption and retail sales)
shows that revenues rose to $15.2 million this past August,
from $14.4 million in August 2002. And although the tobacco
lobby continues to finance a campaign claiming that New
Yorkers are unhappy with the ban, a poll released earlier
this month by Quinnipiac University reported that 59
percent of voters in the state favor prohibiting smoking in
public places; another survey, commissioned in August by
antismoking groups, found that 70 percent of New York City
voters support it.
At a time when the city's budget is in tatters, smoking in
public places also sets off an enormous domino effect in
public-health spending by creating or worsening illnesses
whose treatment costs are eventually shouldered by
taxpayers. For all of these reasons, New Yorkers can't
afford to be as easily defeated as the unfortunate citizens
of Helena - nor as easily manipulated by the tobacco lobby
and the politicians who are in its pocket.
Rosemary Ellis is editorial director of Prevention
magazine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/15/opinion/15ELLI.html?ex=1067228995&ei=1&en=
b8134393232930eb
------------------------------
_____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
_____________________________________________
For state and national discussions see:
http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
End of Stpaul Digest, Vol 5, Issue 11
*************************************
_____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
