HIGHLA-L Digest - 20 Jul 2001 to 21 Jul 2001 (#2001-213)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Sat, 21 Jul 2001 22:00:01 -0400
There are 9 messages totalling 668 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Mysogeny (Was Morality) (3)
2. bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) (4)
3. CAH and the down-slide of HL
4. Mysogyny (Was Morality)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 23:33:01 EDT
From: Andrea Cheney <Ac1087@aol.com>
Subject: Mysogeny (Was Morality)
Trilby:
<< My friends from churches that ordain women still can't explain to
me how they reconcile that with Paul's unequivocal statement: "I
do not allow a woman to teach, or to have authority over a man;
she must keep silent." ;-) >>
Me: While offensive (IMGLO), this seems to address the appropriate role of
the Woman in the church when it was in it's infancy. It seems to imply (to
me) that Paul believes Women to be inferior to men, thus are not suitable to
"have authority over men" or to teach them, but from this quote, I don't get
the impression (and some might argue the logic of this opinion) that he hated
women. On the other hand, maybe viewing a whole group of people as inferior
is hatred. This quote doesn't seem hateful to me. Misguided, ignorant but not
hateful.
Leah:
The worst of it doesn't get quoted very often, because it's downright
appalling:
"Woman is defective and accidental...a male gone awry. The result of some
weakness in the father's generative power." --St. Thomas Aquinas (13th
Cent.)
"Among all savage beasts, none is found as harmful as woman." --St. John
Chrysostom (4th Century)
"Girls begin to talk and stand on their feet sooner than boys because weeds
grow up more quickly than good crops." -- Martin Luther (Table Talk; 1533)
>>
Me:
Clearly these "great" theologins, thinkers, philosophers or what have you,
were Mysogenists. These quotes are full of implied violence, and actual
hatred of Women and all things female. Although not religious, I am familiar
with the place in the disciplines of History, theology and philosophy of two
of the people that were quoted by Leah.
Clearly cafeteria or smorgasboard religion is not new if these quotes are not
often quoted. They are ugly secrets in religious thought and tradition of a
certain religion. Maybe they aren't secrets.
Having been born in the early 60's of parents who were at that time in their
early to middle 20's, who were eager to try different parenting than the kind
that they received. As a part of this, myself and my siblings were spared an
upbringing under such hypocracy. Strangely enough, today on more than one
occasion my mom has expressed regret for not taking taking my sisters and I
to church as she was taken as a child. However, my siblings and I were taught
values and raised to be decent people. My siblings and I have never been in
any trouble or involved in anything bad, contrary to the opinions of some
conservatives and fudamentalists who think that it is impossible to raise
good children without (their) religion.
If I have blathered on and on, I ask everyone's pardon.
Andrea Cheney
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 18:14:23 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
John--
> My opinion. I have no real problem with fanfic per se. When judged as a
> creative endeavour, I think it is relatively harmless and sometimes a very
> interesting way of expressing your love of a show. In the grand scheme of
> things, it's nothing more 'infringing' than a scrapbook full of cuttings
or
> an amateur piece of art featuring the likenesses thereof. There are,
> frankly, bigger issues.
Yes, & they include DISTRIBUTING fanfic on the Internet, which takes it
completely out of the personal scrapbook category you evoked above.
> Is it actually illegal? I'll simply say that, technically, that has yet to
> be proved or otherwise in a court of law.There is a grey area and anyone
who
> thinks it is a clear cut issue needs to look more closely.
Or just look at the law as it stands to date (which is all anyone can do in
any area), & you'll see there's no grey at all. Distributing fanfic is an
illegal infringement of intellectual property rights.
> But for the record: Anyone copies makes a direct copy of my work and I'll
> jump up and down on yer ass and make a scene!
Now, now.
> And Nina? You've made some good points. Don't let them get lost by
> presenting them as a challenge rather than a question - because people,
> understandably, get defensive and respond to tone rather than words.
Like you? Because you didn't respond to my question or detailed scenario at
all. I don't recall any tone w/ you (at least, not before you make a
personal remark rather tone-laden itself); I just want to know how you can
reasonably distinguish distributing w/o permission
copied-Impact-articles-with-original-artwork from distributing fanfic w/o
permission.
I _have_ throught it through quite a bit & honestly see the added artwork as
equivalent to a fanfic writer's original story contribution, & also the
copyrighted articles as equivalent to the protected franchise material used
as a fanfic base. So, how come you're OK w/ distributing fanfic but get
hopping mad at the thought of anyone using your work w/o permission? What's
the difference?
For your convenience, the full scenario is copied below.
Nina
geiger@maui.net
me before--
>>>OK, how about if I not only scan & print out your HL interviews as a
lovely
set to distribute far & wide via the Internet, but I add several pages of
original artwork, illustrating the interviews??? Let's see.... I create
amazing renderings of all the HL characters. I fancy myself quite an
artist, & HL really inspires me; oddly, no one wanted to look at my work,
until now, when suddenly everyone interested in HL wants to see my stuff &
people say I'm really, really talented! I, personally, see a lot of slashy
subtext in HL, so some of the artwork is of the guys "discovering" each
other, in anatomically correct detail. Of course, I give you & Impact full
credit & make it clear I just added the artwork--so please don't sue me. My
net friends & I trade this stuff around a lot--everyone's doing it! No
one's getting hurt, & I hope no one waves my work in front of the Impact
people--they really don't want to know. I really, really love doing this, &
it's such fun, you know? People who don't like it don't have to look at it.
I hope people just turn their heads, & those who don't are just being mean.
So, tell me please, what's the difference between that, & fanfic distributed
on the net?>>>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 00:16:51 -0400
From: Janeen Grohsmeyer <darkpanther@erols.com>
Subject: Re: CAH and the down-slide of HL
Wendy wrote:
>I happen to be in the camp that says Cassandra got on with her life and
didn't dwell on Methos or her >time in his camp ... that she didn't define
herself for 3000 years as "Ex-Horseman Slave".
I agree. This view is supported by canon. She tells Duncan in CAH that she
thought she had moved beyond that time.
>I like to think that she traveled and loved and worked and fought and did
not constantly look back over >her shoulder at the Bronze Age.
I like to think this, too. She was, however, probably looking over her
shoulder for Roland, as implied by the dialog in Prophecy.
Duncan: He's right behind you.
Cassandra: He always is.
> it's too bad that so much Cassandra fanfic in some way relates back to
that one incident in her past. >Here we have wide open territory..territory
a fanfic author can fill as creatively as they choose without >having to
worry about canon...and over and over we get Methos-Cassandra stories.
Perhaps this is in part because a great many people find Methos very
interesting. Many people find the interaction between Cassandra and Methos
interesting. Few people find Cassandra interesting all on her own. Stories
about Cassandra that do not include Methos have a very limited audience.
Janeen
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:06:03 -0700
From: Lynn <lloschin@sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: Mysogeny (Was Morality)
From: "Andrea Cheney" <Ac1087@aol.com>
> Trilby:
>
> << My friends from churches that ordain women still can't explain
to
> me how they reconcile that with Paul's unequivocal statement: "I
> do not allow a woman to teach, or to have authority over a man;
> she must keep silent." ;-) >>
>
> Me: While offensive (IMGLO), this seems to address the appropriate
role of
> the Woman in the church when it was in it's infancy.
Was it? If women were inferior, why did Jesus (according to biblical
sources) reveal his resurrection to women? Were women like Mary only
accorded high status long after the beginning of the church? I'm
seriously asking.
My only other comment on this thread was re Trilby's earlier comment
that according to her Christian friends, the New Testament only is
authoritative. I'm sure that's true for her friends, yet it seems
it's the Old Testament that gets quoted when some Christians want to
use the Bible to justify the death penalty (I believe the New
Testament says "turn the other cheek") and it's certainly what gets
quoted when they want to "prove" that homosexuality is wrong (I
believe New Testament says "judge not," etc.) Of course, similar
passages in the Old Testament also support selling your daughter into
slavery, etc. (I'm sure many of you have seen the anonymous post with
such questions to "Dr." Laura, paraphrased so beautifully in that
wonderful scene on West Wing.)
Lynn
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 11:22:37 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
> Yes, & they include DISTRIBUTING fanfic on the Internet, which takes it
> completely out of the personal scrapbook category you evoked above.
Not sure it does.And it does depend on what IS found to be disturbing (which
I'm sure you will agree is a personal thing - that's the problem -... even a
quick scan of this list shows that different people have different
interpretations of what they find acceptable). A person can write ANYTHING
they want in ANY way they see fit if it's for personal use. Just the same
way I could paint a portrait of one of the characters without the law
banging on the door. Now... when we get to the issue of selling/distributing
material then we get to the subject-matter that I think we've covered
extensively and I'm sure you can check my (and others') previous posts on
the LEGAL side of that if you wish to see opinions.
> Or just look at the law as it stands to date (which is all anyone can do
in
> any area), & you'll see there's no grey at all. Distributing fanfic is an
> illegal infringement of intellectual property rights.
I'm not a lawyer, so I can only sit back and watch those wth better legal
knowledge explain. I am under the impression that various people on this
List have extensively quoted from legal books which maintain their stance on
the standing of fanfic. I don't dispute the validity of either side's
points. Personally, given my understanding of the law, I don't think fanfic
writers would have a LEGAL chance (if anyone BOTHERED to take it to court),
but (as quoted) it seems that as there has never really been a test-case, so
we can only speculate how a judge/jury would respond to the interpretation
of the law. So far, that doesn't affect your view or Leah's view... it just
proves that no judgement has been handed down and everyone's arguing over
the wording. Hence that LEGAL grey area. You and Leah can argue all you
want, but neither of your opinions means squat until a judge sets a SPECIFIC
precedent - particulalrly under the problematic nature of 21st Century
cyberspace legal jurisdiction.
> > And Nina? You've made some good points. Don't let them get lost by
> > presenting them as a challenge rather than a question - because people,
> > understandably, get defensive and respond to tone rather than words.
>
> Like you?
Now this is what I mean. I can ask a question... I can say 'I think that's a
flawed argument...blah,blah, blah' or 'I don't think you've understood, etc
etc etc' and most people here will tell you that it's not a personal attack.
It's expressing an opinion of disagreement. You are entitled to your opinion
on ANYTHING, Nina, and I'll defend your right to post it here whether I
agree with you or not. But Listers might feel that SOME of your posting is
the equivalent of jabbing people with your finger, whether you think that's
true or not. But it's not what's true, it's all about 'perception'. Ask
people on the list how they perceive your style of posting and then decide
if that's something which might affect the way you're being answered in
turn? I consider that before every post I make.
>I just want to know how you can
> reasonably distinguish distributing w/o permission
> copied-Impact-articles-with-original-artwork from distributing fanfic w/o
> permission.
Well... because it's not really the same thing. Someone photocopies the
Impact article, it copies my work and it's not creating a new version.
Adding some pages of artwork to it (homo-erotic or not), doesn't alter the
basic fact that you've duplicated my work without permission and that would
be my air-tight legal argument. My articles are a bad example because they
are factual and I can't see anyone ever being inspired by my articles to
actually go away and write fiction - using my piece as a source. If they
did, I'm not sure I could prove that my interview was a source for a novel.
I guess some films have been inspired by news-stories and no-one sues them
for that.
Your comparisson might be better suited to a person duplicating a tape and
then designing a Highlander box-cover and distributing it, which I agree
would clearly breach the letter of an existing law.
John
Walking Tall, speaking softly and carrying a large stick-boy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 10:33:53 -0400
From: Janeen Grohsmeyer <darkpanther@erols.com>
Subject: Mysogyny (Was Morality)
Lynn asked about women in the Christian church.
>Was it? If women were inferior, why did Jesus (according to biblical
>sources) reveal his resurrection to women? Were women like Mary only
>accorded high status long after the beginning of the church? I'm
>seriously asking.
>
While "the church" is based on Jesus's ministry, it is not identical to it.
The very early church (say, before the year 50) had women in positions of
some responsibility. As the church grew in size and organization, women's
roles were increasingly restricted. I'm not sure which Mary you're
referring to above, but Mary Magdalene seemed to be a person of some
importance in the movement during Jesus's lifetime. Mary the Mother of God
became increasingly important during the Middle Ages, hence the Cathedral of
Notre Dame (Our Lady).
Thomas Jefferson did not accept the Bible in its entirety, and he did a
cut-and-paste job on it to extract what he considered to be the authentic
teachings of Jesus. Here's an excerpt from an article by Richard N. Ostling
that recently appeared in the Boston Globe.
The founding father's treatment of the Bible was
radical. The Old Testament was of no interest to Jefferson, who regarded
Jesus as a reformer of ''the depraved religion of his own country.''
Jefferson further repudiated the writings of the Apostle Paul, whom he
considered the ''first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.'' He also
eliminated much of the material from the four Gospels, whose compilers he
castigated as ''groveling authors'' with ''feeble minds.'' Jefferson
censored
any hint that Jesus was God, as well as all supernatural events. ''No
miracles, no metaphysics, no mystery,'' summarizes Martin E. Marty of the
University of Chicago. All that's left are parables and aphorisms. ''He made
a Socrates out of Jesus,'' Marty said. Deciding what to keep was easy,
because it was ''as distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill,'' Jefferson
said in a letter to John Adams.
Janeen
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 11:06:38 -0400
From: Genevieve Clemens <nightsky@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Mysogeny (Was Morality)
Lynn wrote:
>
> From: "Andrea Cheney" <Ac1087@aol.com>
>
> > Trilby:
> >
> > << My friends from churches that ordain women still can't explain
> to
> > me how they reconcile that with Paul's unequivocal statement: "I
> > do not allow a woman to teach, or to have authority over a man;
> > she must keep silent." ;-) >>
> >
> > Me: While offensive (IMGLO), this seems to address the appropriate
> role of
> > the Woman in the church when it was in it's infancy.
>
> Was it? If women were inferior, why did Jesus (according to biblical
> sources) reveal his resurrection to women? Were women like Mary only
> accorded high status long after the beginning of the church? I'm
> seriously asking.
Jesus certainly did seem to treat women with an unusal respect, but then
it's also been recorded that he treated Samaritians and tax-collectors
with a respect unusual in his culture. He seemed to value all people.
The thing to realize here is that Jesus was dead and gone before the
Church became established. There are some people who would say it was
St. Paul, not Jesus, that founded the Christian Church.
In the first four-hundred years, the Church evolved from being "just
another Jewish sect," to "another one of those weird religious cults in
Rome" to the "established religion of the Roman Empire." Over this
period (and four hundred years is a long time -- just ask Duncan!) the
Church incorporated a number of the ethics and ideology of the Romans.
There is some evidence that women had more equality in the church when
it was just a "weird religious cult." As the church began to become
more respectible, more upper class, women's status began to reflect
their status in the Empire. In order to be supported by the Roman
government, they "did as the Romans did". The average Christian Bishop
of the late third and fourth century was an urban, literate, Roman
aristocrat. Certainly, there were still people who tried to take the
words of Jesus literally, but they tended to be dismissed as "simple
folk" (Origen's words), or be the somewhat-crazy ascetic hermits in the
desert.
I'm trying to remember the history of Mary -- there were certainly
schisms over her status in the early church, but I'm not remembering any
details. It wasn't until the Council of Ephesus, in 431, that she was
declared the Theotokos - She Who gave birth to God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genevieve
<mailto:NightSky@starpower.net> <http://users.erols.com/nightsky/>
The World Wide Web has made it possible for anyone to find in five
hours what a competent librarian can find in five minutes. :-)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 14:59:05 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
me before--
> > Yes, & they include DISTRIBUTING fanfic on the Internet, which takes it
> > completely out of the personal scrapbook category you evoked above.
John--
> Not sure it does.
You aren't sure that a personal scrapbook is a whole different issue than
distributing fanfic on the Internet? Are you sure that black is different
from an egg? Because in terms of common sense, legality, & just about
everything I can imagine, someone's personal scrapbook of clippings, photos,
poetry or whatever is completely different from infringing on intellectual
property rights & distributing the result far & wide & in perpetuity via the
Internet.
> I'm not a lawyer, so I can only sit back and watch those wth better legal
> knowledge explain.
Well, I AM a lawyer, so I can look at applicable statutes, examine case law,
& conclude that fanfic is not Fair Use or otherwise allowed by law. Nor is
there a trend even hinting at extension in that area.
> You and Leah can argue all you want
You're confused here. Leah & I never argue. She's the one who mentions all
the time that she has me kill-filed, then drones on about someone's else's
comment on what I said. Since she thus spends so much time NOT arguing w/
me, I have to wonder why she insists on bringing in the middle man,
but--that's Leah. Or, is it Annie?
> but neither of your opinions means squat until a judge sets a SPECIFIC
> precedent
Really? So, it would be OK for me add my artwork to your Impact articles &
sell them on EBAY? UNTIL a judge specifically rules THAT'S illegal?
>But Listers might feel that SOME of your posting is
> the equivalent of jabbing people with your finger, whether you think
that's
> true or not. But it's not what's true, it's all about 'perception'.
My perception is that you don't want to answer my question, & the most
likely reason for that is you can't do so in a way you're happy about. So,
if you feel a jabbing finger, then maybe it's your conscience.
> Ask
> people on the list how they perceive your style of posting and then decide
> if that's something which might affect the way you're being answered in
> turn? I consider that before every post I make.
That's must be lovely for you. But, what makes you think perception of
posting style is important to me? I'm much more truth-based than
perception-based. Besides, if I posted all sunshine & lollipops, people
would get confused, be afraid, & wonder what I was planning....
me before--
> >I just want to know how you can
> > reasonably distinguish distributing w/o permission
> > copied-Impact-articles-with-original-artwork from distributing fanfic
w/o
> > permission.
John--
> Well... because it's not really the same thing. Someone photocopies the
> Impact article, it copies my work and it's not creating a new version.
Nor is fanfic a new version of anything--it's building on an entire
fictional universe & character set that someone sweated blood creating &
spends good effort & money maintaining as an entertainment franchise, in the
way _they_ see fit (tattered canon & all). Just like fanfic, my
hypothetical artwork is inspired by & builds on the actors you interview &
the characters they discuss in your articles. And, remember--I really like
doing it! And everyone does it! And if you don't like it, you don't have
to look! And Impact doesn't have to know!
> Adding some pages of artwork to it (homo-erotic or not), doesn't alter the
> basic fact that you've duplicated my work without permission and that
would
> be my air-tight legal argument. My articles are a bad example because they
> are factual
That hurts your argument. Factual material probably IS less deserving of
protection from unauthorized use than creative material--such as the HL
universe & characters--infringed on by fanfic. At least, that's what my gut
says.
I think the only real difference between fanfic & my hypothetical is that
one infringes on someone else's rights & the other infringes on yours--& you
just care about yours.
Now, are you going to continue to bluster about my abrasive posting style,
or actually answer me & address the merits? Because that says a lot more
about you than it does about me.
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 12:01:08 +1000
From: Carmel Macpherson <Carmel@stuartfieldhouse.com>
Subject: Re: bootleg tapes & more (was--ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
Hi all
Gosh - it's like watching a train crash isn't it!
All is revealed.
Nina: <<..Well, I AM a lawyer,... I'm much more truth-based than
perception-based. ..>>
Well if ever there was a profession that was socialised to be more
interested in process than outcome then you are in it, dear Nina. I'm happy
to say that not all lawyers are so afflicted, by the way and fortunately I
know some who manage to rise above the affliction that is so desperate to
win a point that they are completely uncaring of the human effects on the
people they deal with or whether justice has truly been served. What is that
great line from Billy Budd - "We're not talking about justice, Mr Budd.
We're talking about the law!"
I understand now Nina why you have taken the twisting of people's words to
new heights, and see why scoring points is so important to you - far more
important than *truth*. I think that you are having yourself on in the
above quote. I don't perceive you as interested in truth at all - simply in
being incredibly rude, insensitive and thoroughly unpleasant. If you were
genuinely interested in intellectual engagement, and not game playing, then
you wouldn't adopt a style of argument that puts so many people off side -
to the extent where they will simply kill file you rather than read your
arguments and respond. A combative style that seems to deliberately thin
out the people who will speak with you seems to me to be rather more the
mark of a person who has little confidence in the strength of his/her
argument per se.
You have now managed to insult, berate, misconstrue, misunderstand or ignore
many of some of the nicest people on this list and to be frank it's beyond
me why it is put up with. It does nothing for Highla-l, nothing to
encourage new members to post and little to encourage old members to be
bothered. It's like trying to work out whether you will go for a swim in
shark infested waters or go for the lagoon around the corner that offers a
great crowd on the beach, challenging waves, good discussion, and an even
tan versus a roasting. Hmmm./...which one will I choose. Some of us are
masochists but that doesn't negate my point.
Nina: <<..what makes you think perception of posting style is important to
me?..>>
Believe me, I don't. It never occurred to me that you in any way think
about the real life effect of your posting style on real life people but I'm
pleased to see that you have confirmed that for me.
Nina: <<..Besides, if I posted all sunshine & lollipops, people would get
confused, be afraid, & wonder what I was planning....>>
Not at all. You give yourself too much credit in terms of thinking that
people like me actually value the stereotype you choose to perpetuate or
that it adds any value to our day. I would be delighted to simply see you
intellectually engage without feeling as if you have to point score and
insult the person. It's called keeping your eye on the ball, and not the
player.
In terms of the fanfic argument, my own view is that most of us just don't
care. Yep - I actually said that. I think that we are all rule breakers
and law breakers in many aspects of our lives. Humans are wonderful
rationalisers - I speed when I shouldn't...I jay walk...I cross against red
lights...I would kill anyone who attempted to harm those close to me....I
would steal if it meant a *greater good* as defined by me was
served.....(saving my child from starving, for example)....stealing a car if
I needed to get out of danger (I'd rationalise it as *borrowing*..)....I'd
lie if the circumstances demanded it...laws are social constructs and they
change with the times....I'd have had alcohol during Prohibition...I've
smoked pot....the most cursory reading on multiculturalism demonstrates that
different cultures place emphasis on different aspects of morality.
Indeed, this is one of the things that I really enjoy discussing in
Highlander - how difficult it must be for Immortals to maintain perspective
on changing codes of law and morality without totally substituting their own
code.
So, who cares if it is illegal. I'll keep writing fanfic until I decide
that the cost outweighs the benefit, just as I do with every other aspect of
my life. I'll speed down street A until I decide that there really *is* a
high risk now that I'll get a speeding ticket. Then I'll speed down Street
B...I won't drink and drive because that would endanger other life and the
cost certainly outweighs the benefit....for the most part I seriously do try
to live my life by the motto of "Treat others in the way that you like to be
treated" and within that framework I am a moral relativist/situational
ethicist...I write fanfic...I'm going to hell and to gaol? Ah well - if so
then think of all that writing time I'd have behind bars...
There *have* to be more important topics in Highlander and in life to
discuss, that's all. Maybe that's why people aren't responding any more.
Maybe they don't care that it may be illegal to write fanfic? Once you have
accepted that you are a tarnished soul then it is all relative.
As Methos so wisely said: ".."Well it's not that simple. We're all good and
evil. We feel rage and compassion. Love and hate. Murder and
forgiveness...." I would add, "....we're all hypocrites at least half of
the time....".
Shades of gray color our lives and our actions - and as much as the law
would like to think that it was all black and white, it just isn't.
Motivations and intent are very human traits.
Kind regards
@ Carmel Macpherson:
<<<@{}=================>>> Chief EDFWs
@ carmel@hldu.org
http://www.carmelmacpherson.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Highlander DownUnder: The Official HL Fan Club of Australia
PO Box 198, Brisbane Albert St QLD 4002, Australia.
OR, for US members, make out checks to Fran and send $US25 to: Fran Koerner
P. O. Box 3565, Palos Verdes, CA 90274
Visit the HLDU club site: http://www.hldu.org
***HLDU5. May 2003. Brisbane***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 20 Jul 2001 to 21 Jul 2001 (#2001-213)
***************************************************************