9 Jul
2001
9 Jul
'01
6:19 p.m.
On July 9, Glenatacme(a)aol.com wrote:
IMHO it's crazy to be on a motorcycle without a
helmet, so why not just
abandon the helmet requirement and let Darwin have the last word . . .
Because our society and government are built around protecting the
stupid.
-Dave McGuire
9 Jul
9 Jul
6:47 p.m.
IMHO it's
crazy to be on a motorcycle without a helmet, so why not just
abandon the helmet requirement and let Darwin have the last word . . .
Because our society and government are built around protecting the
stupid. 
10 Jul
10 Jul
4:48 a.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
At 08:47 PM 7/9/01 -0700, Eric wrote:
More to the point, my tax dollars go to pay the unpaid medical bills
of the stupid, and when too many stupid people get head injuries my car
and health insurance rates go up.
Hell, that applies to anything you can name; car crash victums, skate
boarding accidents, people tripping on the side walks, etc etc etc. The
list is endless. Should you let the "hospital costs" rational be used to
govern everything we do? I don't think so. What if the next law is that
no one will be allowed to work on their own computers since they could be
injured and the public would have to pay the cost of their
hospitalization? Rediculous? Not really. That's the exact rational that
was used to pass the helmets laws to begin with and from what Tony says the
UK isn't far from enacting such non-sensical regulations.
IMHO it's crazy to be on a motorcycle without a
helmet, so why not just
abandon the helmet requirement and let Darwin have the last word . . .
Because our society and government are built around protecting the
stupid. If there's an outcry against helmet laws,
here's a simple solution.
Require riders who don't wear helmets to either get additional "no helmet
inurance,"
That appears to be exactly what the state of Florida has done. So
far it seems to be working. The motorcycle riders are now happy since they
don't have to wear hwelmets, the insurance companies are very happy $$$$$$
and the state isn't caught in the middle any more. FWIW it's rare to see a
rider wearing a helmet around here now and I haven't heard of any cases of
peole being busted for not having insurance.
or post a $50k bond to cover their additional health
costs in
the case of an accident. Fines for riders not carrying proof of either
should be set at a sufficient level to cover the cost of care for the
riders who don't have either.
The other option, and a fine one IMHO, is to deny health care to
riders who are injured while not wearing a helmet.
It all sounds fine except for the last part. There's no way that
they're going to deny emergency health care to anyone. Besides I wouldn't
want them to. Can you imagine the precedence that it would set? The next
thing you know they'd be dening emergency care for any rediculous reason.
Joe
Eric
6:17 a.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, joe wrote:
At 08:47 PM 7/9/01 -0700, Eric wrote:
>More to the point, my tax dollars go to pay the unpaid medical bills
>of the stupid, and when too many stupid people get head injuries my car
>and health insurance rates go up.
And my tax dollars go towards towards pacifying numbskulls who write
things like what Eric just wrote.
Hell, that applies to anything you can name; car
crash victums, skate
boarding accidents, people tripping on the side walks, etc etc etc. The
list is endless. Should you let the "hospital costs" rational be used to
govern everything we do? I don't think so.
Well said Joe! We do so many things in the course of everyday life
that could be considered hazardous, yet, some politicians who, with
the help of actuaries, acting to please the bean counters, pass laws
based upon sometimes contrived and misleading statistics that further
curtail our freedom. I don't recall there being anything in this
nation's founding documents stating that our liberty and freedom are
supposed to be conditional, based upon economics, yet, that's
apparently what's happening.
What if the next law is that
no one will be allowed to work on their own computers since they could be
injured and the public would have to pay the cost of their
Surely there is economic greed behind some of these laws. If we
repair and preserve older computers, televisions, cars,
etc. ourselves, we're not paying certain businesses to do these
things. Also, it may mean, as far as the dinosaur-brains of
politicians are concerned, that we're not buying new computers and
cars, etc., and are hence not doing things which are in the best
economic interests of the businesses that our politicians feel are
more important than the average tax-abused citizen. If we don't
preserve and repair older computers, cars, etc., then, there are,
hypothetically, larger profits to be made through the sales of new
computers, cars, etc.
hospitalization? Rediculous? Not really. That's
the exact rational that
was used to pass the helmets laws to begin with and from what Tony says the
There are too many commercial interests, and other special interests,
interfering with liberty and freedom. It's not just the insurance
companies either. Consider all of the money to be made by the sales
of safety helmets, child-safety seats, hand-free components such as
microphones and external speakers for mobile phones, etc.
UK isn't far from enacting such non-sensical
regulations.
...and if you want to see what sort of things that the world's
political cretins (doesn't it appear that most politicians are
mentally immature children in adult's bodies?) have developed for use
in making people comply with what they want, take a look at the
information about "an appraisal of technologies of political control,"
etc. at:
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/lillithsrealm/myhomepage/Humanity/HumanRights/…
Be forewarned, what you'll see is not at all pleasant; it's the work
of many very sick minds. But then, that just shows what we have
running our governments - a bunch of immature, power-craving,
control-freaks, megalomaniacs and busy-bodies who are often incapable
of rational thought, who, to make things worse, have typically also
had their reptilian brains influenced by peer-pressure and religious
dogma of one sort or other that doesn't exactly discourage harm to
others, which discourages a "live and let live" way of thinking.
want them to. Can you imagine the precedence that it
would set? The next
thing you know they'd be dening emergency care for any rediculous reason.
Our ever so considerate---of their own best interests---politicians
have already passed a law, or laws, that allow insurers to deny
coverage to people involved in activities perceived as "risky," such
as equestrians, based upon the perceived danger of such activities as
horseback riding, and the costs associated with injuries. What's to
prevent insurance companies from eventually declining to cover the
costs of hospitalization for someone who's been injured by repairing
the PSU in a classic computer, or by incorrectly lifting some heavy
classic computer bits at home?
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.net 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.net beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
7:03 a.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
At 08:47 PM 7/9/01 -0700, Eric wrote:
More to the point, my tax dollars go to pay the unpaid medical bills
of the stupid, and when too many stupid people get head injuries my car
and health insurance rates go up.
Hell, that applies to anything you can name; (1) car crash victums,
(2) skate boarding accidents, (3) people tripping on the side walks, etc
etc etc.
(1) Ever wondered why we have seat belt laws?
(2) Some places require helmets and pads for skateboarders.
(3) The number of people suffering suffering catastrophic injury from
tripping on the sidewalk is a substantially lower than the number
that would be injured by
IMHO it's crazy to be on a motorcycle without a
helmet, so why not just
abandon the helmet requirement and let Darwin have the last word . . .
Because our society and government are built around protecting the
stupid.
The
list is endless. Should you let the "hospital costs" rational be used to
govern everything we do?
Of course not, it should be used only where it makes sense. Your attempt
at reductio ad absurdum has failed.
What if the
next law is that
no one will be allowed to work on their own computers since they could be
injured and the public would have to pay the cost of their
hospitalization?
You'd first need to show that there is substantial cost to the state and the
people involved in people working on their own computers.
If there's
an outcry against helmet laws, here's a simple solution.
Require riders who don't wear helmets to either get additional "no helmet
inurance,"
That appears to be exactly what the state of Florida has done. So
far it seems to be working. 
7:16 a.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
"Eric J. Korpela" wrote:
You'd first need to show that there is substantial cost to the state and the
people involved in people working on their own computers.
No, it's not what the state of Florida has done.
I doubt one of the
questions on the insurance application is "do you wear a helmet?" Even if
it is, I doubt it gets answered truthfully by those who don't. What the
helmetless hoard has done is the get their additional costs transferred to
those who are responsible enough to wear helmets. That is the true goal
of libertarianism. Libertarians want the freedom to do everything and
they want everyone else to pick up the tab for cleaning up their mess.
You are only looking at the direct costs while totally ignoring the hard to
measure indirect costs. The net effect is "form over substance". Care to
show some facts behind your last statement? Otherwise, label it as "your
opinion".
9:40 a.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
comments inline
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin" <marvin(a)rain.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
It
may seem that way, but Libertarians (note that it's capitalized, i.e. the
"Party Line") don't want everyone to clean up their mess, but they do want
the
right to make the mess. I'm not clear on how they propose to get the mess
cleaned up, however. The most efficient and effective way to handle this is to
find a way to keep them, and everyone else, from making the mess in the first
place. That results in helmet laws. Solutions more appealing to the
libertarian types probably involve less restriction on headwear. Unfortunately,
though libertarianism implies cleaning up one's own mess, there's room for
debate about whose mess it really is. Also, the mess made by spilling a
helmetless libertarian's brains on the sidewalk are unlikely to be cleaned up by
the libertarian. How do we deal with that?
"Eric J. Korpela" wrote:
>
> You'd first need to show that there is substantial cost to the state and the
<snip>
of
libertarianism. Libertarians want the freedom to do everything and
they want everyone else to pick up the tab for cleaning up their mess.
You are only looking at the direct costs while totally ignoring the hard to
measure indirect costs. The net effect is "form over substance". Care to
show some facts behind your last statement? Otherwise, label it as "your
opinion".
11 Jul
11 Jul
10:47 a.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
"Eric J. Korpela" wrote:
I doubt the insurance companies are that stupid! Don't you think
that when someone that has never had motorcyle insurance suddenly comes in
to buy it that they will know what's going on? I expect they price ALL
cycle insurnace on the assumption that the rider isn't going to wear a helmet.
Joe
You'd first need to show that there is substantial cost to the state
and the
people involved in people working on their own
computers.
> No, it's not what the state of Florida has done. I doubt one of the
> questions on the insurance application is "do you wear a helmet?" Even
if
> it is, I doubt it gets answered truthfully by those who don't.
11:57 a.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, joe wrote:
I doubt the insurance companies are that
stupid! Don't you
think that when someone that has never had motorcyle insurance
suddenly comes in to buy it that they will know what's going on? I
expect they price ALL cycle insurnace on the assumption that the
rider isn't going to wear a helmet.
Furthermore, there are other parts of the body that bikers can injure
in an accident, which may cost as much to treat as a head injury. The
reality of all this is that someone with political connections is
making money off of the forced purchases of helmets.
As I mentioned before, the concepts of freedom and liberty that we're
supposed to have in this country are not supposed to be conditional
upon the economic cost of such freedoms to certain businesses and to
taxpayers forced to pay for socialized medicine. Such things are only
costly to taxpayers because politicians decided to force the taxpayers
to pay for the medical costs of treating others.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.net 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.net beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
2:39 p.m.
New subject: helmet laws
More precisely, what they'll do is charge rates as though all motorcyclists fail
to wear the headgear, then refuse to pay if someone who claimed he wears one
doesn't happen to have it on when they dump their brain out on the sidewalk.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "joe" <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
"Eric J. Korpela" wrote:
I doubt the insurance companies are that stupid! Don't you think
that when someone that has never had motorcyle insurance suddenly comes in
to buy it that they will know what's going on? I expect they price ALL
cycle insurnace on the assumption that the rider isn't going to wear a helmet.
Joe
You'd first need to show that there is substantial cost to the state
and the
people involved in people working on their own
computers.
> No, it's not what the state of Florida has done. I doubt one of the
> questions on the insurance application is "do you wear a helmet?" Even
if
> it is, I doubt it gets answered truthfully by those who don't.
3:36 p.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration))
> No,
it's not what the state of Florida has done. I doubt one of the
> questions on the insurance application is "do you wear a helmet?" Even
if
> it is, I doubt it gets answered truthfully by those who don't.
I doubt the insurance companies are that stupid! Don't you think
that when someone that has never had motorcyle insurance suddenly comes in
to buy it that they will know what's going on? I expect they price ALL
cycle insurnace on the assumption that the rider isn't going to wear a helmet.
10 Jul
10 Jul
10:14 a.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
Re:
My wife tells me that the availability of organs for transplant declined
when helmet laws were implemented here in California. Maybe that means
people who need transplants should move to Florida? :)
Re: Eric's dumb anti-Libertarian argument. No, Libertarians don't want
other people to pay the costs. Ideally, if a Libertarian doesn't wear
a helmet, and crashes, and incurs costs, he/she would have agreed that
their estate should bear the cost: i.e., personal responsibility!
Stan Sieler sieler(a)allegro.com
www.allegro.com/sieler/wanted/index.html www.allegro.com/sieler
If there's
an outcry against helmet laws, here's a simple solution.
Require riders who don't wear helmets to either get additional "no helmet
inurance,"
That appears to be exactly what the state of Florida has done. So
far it seems to be working. The motorcycle riders are now happy since they
don't have to wear hwelmets, the insurance companies are very happy $$$$$$
and the state isn't caught in the middle any more. FWIW it's rare to see a
rider wearing a helmet around here now and I haven't heard of any cases of
peole being busted for not having insurance.
12:51 p.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
Sadly, not all libertarians have estates large enough to cover the cost of
cleaning up a messed up helmetless head.
Does that mean the "STATE" should bear the cost? I think not! Not even a
libertarian would agree with that, would they?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan Sieler" <sieler(a)allegro.com>
To: "joe" <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>et>; <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
Re:
My wife tells me that the availability of organs for transplant declined
when helmet laws were implemented here in California. Maybe that means
people who need transplants should move to Florida? :)
Re: Eric's dumb anti-Libertarian argument. No, Libertarians don't want
other people to pay the costs. Ideally, if a Libertarian doesn't wear
a helmet, and crashes, and incurs costs, he/she would have agreed that
their estate should bear the cost: i.e., personal responsibility!
Stan Sieler sieler(a)allegro.com
www.allegro.com/sieler/wanted/index.html www.allegro.com/sieler
If
there's an outcry against helmet laws, here's a simple solution.
Require riders who don't wear helmets to either get additional "no helmet
inurance,"
That appears to be exactly what the state of Florida has done. So
far it seems to be working. The motorcycle riders are now happy since they
don't have to wear hwelmets, the insurance companies are very happy $$$$$$
and the state isn't caught in the middle any more. FWIW it's rare to see a
rider wearing a helmet around here now and I haven't heard of any cases of
peole being busted for not having insurance. 
1:56 p.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
Leave his brains on the road.
Peace... Sridhar
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Sadly, not all libertarians have estates large enough
to cover the cost of
cleaning up a messed up helmetless head.
Does that mean the "STATE" should bear the cost? I think not! Not even a
libertarian would agree with that, would they?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan Sieler" <sieler(a)allegro.com>
To: "joe" <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>et>; <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
Re:
My wife tells me that the availability of organs for transplant declined
when helmet laws were implemented here in California. Maybe that means
people who need transplants should move to Florida? :)
Re: Eric's dumb anti-Libertarian argument. No, Libertarians don't want
other people to pay the costs. Ideally, if a Libertarian doesn't wear
a helmet, and crashes, and incurs costs, he/she would have agreed that
their estate should bear the cost: i.e., personal responsibility!
Stan Sieler sieler(a)allegro.com
www.allegro.com/sieler/wanted/index.html www.allegro.com/sieler
If
there's an outcry against helmet laws, here's a simple solution.
Require riders who don't wear helmets to either get additional "no helmet
inurance,"
That appears to be exactly what the state of Florida has done. So
far it seems to be working. The motorcycle riders are now happy since they
don't have to wear hwelmets, the insurance companies are very happy $$$$$$
and the state isn't caught in the middle any more. FWIW it's rare to see a
rider wearing a helmet around here now and I haven't heard of any cases of
peole being busted for not having insurance. 
7:58 p.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Master of all that Sucks wrote:
Leave his brains on the road.
Brains? What brains? If he had any he'd have been wearing a helmet!
- don
Peace... Sridhar
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Sadly, not all libertarians have estates large
enough to cover the cost of
cleaning up a messed up helmetless head.
Does that mean the "STATE" should bear the cost? I think not! Not even a
libertarian would agree with that, would they?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan Sieler" <sieler(a)allegro.com>
To: "joe" <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>et>; <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
Re:
>If there's an outcry against helmet laws,
here's a simple solution.
>Require riders who don't wear helmets to either get additional "no helmet
>inurance,"
That appears to be exactly what the state of Florida has done. So
far it seems to be working. The motorcycle riders are now happy since they
don't have to wear hwelmets, the insurance companies are very happy $$$$$$
and the state isn't caught in the middle any more. FWIW it's rare to see a
rider wearing a helmet around here now and I haven't heard of any cases of
peole being busted for not having insurance.
My wife tells me that the availability of organs for transplant declined
when helmet laws were implemented here in California. Maybe that means
people who need transplants should move to Florida? :)
Re: Eric's dumb anti-Libertarian argument. No, Libertarians don't want
other people to pay the costs. Ideally, if a Libertarian doesn't wear
a helmet, and crashes, and incurs costs, he/she would have agreed that
their estate should bear the cost: i.e., personal responsibility!
Stan Sieler sieler(a)allegro.com
www.allegro.com/sieler/wanted/index.html www.allegro.com/sieler
12:14 p.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2896 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010710/25020102/at…
7:49 p.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Tony Duell wrote:
Let's not have a smoking/anti-smoking rant, please. I think it's fairly
well accepted now that smoking (tobacco) does harm your health. I also
believe that's _your_ business. Not mine, and not the government's.
I don't smoke. I do risk my life in other ways, like working on high
voltage equipment. Again, that should be _my_ choice, and not anybody
else's.
One day, even though I work carefully, (I think) I know how to work
safely on HV stuff, I never work alone, and so on, I might end up getting
a fatal shock. In which case, all I can say (in advance) is that I was
working on the unit because that's what I enjoy doing. The fact I had an
accident was bad luck, but I started out knowing what I was letting
myself in for, I made a mistake, and I paid the price. I don't want this
to happen, of course, but I'd rather die that way than die of old age and
boredom having never worked on anything electronic.
Huzzah! I'm with you all the way, Tony. The only thing that bothers me
is that looking at all of the laws/programs in the UK now, it is
difficult to believe that these are the same folk who defeated the
Luftwaffe!
- don
More to the point, my tax dollars go to pay the unpaid
medical bills
of the stupid, and when too many stupid people get head injuries my car
and health insurance rates go up.
Hell, that applies to anything you can name; car crash victums, skate
boarding accidents, people tripping on the side walks, etc etc etc. The
list is endless. Should you let the "hospital costs" rational be used to
govern
everything we do? I don't think so. What if the next law is that
no one will be allowed to work on their own computers since they could be
injured and the public would have to pay the cost of their
hospitalization? Rediculous? Not really. That's the exact rational that
was used to pass the helmets laws to begin with and from what Tony says the
UK isn't far from enacting such non-sensical regulations.
There's been talk on-and-off for the last <n> years in the UK about only
letting qualified [1] people act as service engineers to fix TVs, etc. I
don't think this will apply to people who fix their own stuff (no other
such laws apply in that way in the UK), but it probably would cut off one
of my passtimes -- namely fixing HP calculators for other HPCC members.
The more serious result of such a law, though, would be that it would be
a lot harder to get service manuals and official spare parts. Which would
then probably cause more dangerous repairs. After all, if you don't know
a particular resistor is 'fusible', and you can't get the right
manufacturer's part anyway, you'd probably stick in a normal resistor.
Which could prove dangerous under fault conditions. Time and again I've
been told I can't have a service manual because of liability reasons. No
amount of pointing out that I am more likely to miss some safety related
point _without_ the service manual has ever worked :-(
[1] Whatever the necessary qualifications are, a Ph.D. in particle
physics will not be included...
-tony
6:41 p.m.
New subject: helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, joe wrote:
At 08:47 PM 7/9/01 -0700, Eric wrote:
More to the point, my tax dollars go to pay the unpaid medical bills
of the stupid, and when too many stupid people get head injuries my car
and health insurance rates go up.
Hell, that applies to anything you can name; car crash victums, skate
boarding accidents, people tripping on the side walks, etc etc etc. The
list is endless. Should you let the "hospital costs" rational be used to
govern everything we do? I don't think so. What if the next law is that
no one will be allowed to work on their own computers since they could be
injured and the public would have to pay the cost of their
hospitalization? Rediculous? Not really. That's the exact rational that
was used to pass the helmets laws to begin with and from what Tony says the
UK isn't far from enacting such non-sensical regulations.
And if you stop to think about it, that was the basis for the various
states class action against the tobacco companies.
- don
IMHO it's crazy to be on a motorcycle without a
helmet, so why not just
abandon the helmet requirement and let Darwin have the last word . . .
Because our society and government are built around protecting the
stupid. If there's
an outcry against helmet laws, here's a simple solution.
Require riders who don't wear helmets to either get additional "no helmet
inurance,"
That appears to be exactly what the state of Florida has done. So
far it seems to be working. The motorcycle riders are now happy since they
don't have to wear hwelmets, the insurance companies are very happy $$$$$$
and the state isn't caught in the middle any more. FWIW it's rare to see a
rider wearing a helmet around here now and I haven't heard of any cases of
peole being busted for not having insurance.
or post a $50k bond to cover their additional
health costs in
the case of an accident. Fines for riders not carrying proof of either
should be set at a sufficient level to cover the cost of care for the
riders who don't have either.
The other option, and a fine one IMHO, is to deny health care to
riders who are injured while not wearing a helmet.
It all sounds fine except for the last part. There's no way that
they're going to deny emergency health care to anyone. Besides I wouldn't
want them to. Can you imagine the precedence that it would set? The next
thing you know they'd be dening emergency care for any rediculous reason.
Joe
Eric
8414
days inactive
8416
days old
17 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
donm＠cts.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
korpela＠ellie.ssl.berkeley.edu -
marvin＠rain.org -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
rdd＠smart.net -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net -
sieler＠allegro.com -
vance＠ikickass.org