[Andy, I'd agree with you - but I suddenly noted, upon re-reading the OBSERVER piece above, that Peter de Jager had also addressed the World Economic Forum. As you well know the annual W.E.O. meeting is the next level down, in the globalist scheme of things, from the annual Bilderberg Conference, and has many overlapping attendees. Are you think what I'm thinking...?

In any event, here's some reassuring reading for those flying across the Atlantic to Heathrow Airport over the New Year....]

John Whitley has I think discovered a very telling link here - de Jager has sold out and thrown his lot in with the elite, the NWO globalist crowd...

I've gone on record several times on this forum as saying that he has been got at by a)being threatened or highley likely in this toe-rags' case b)being promised riches, power, fat contracts for his "consultancy" (what an oxymoron) etc.

There are some great threads on this asshole in the archives.

He has taken his 13 pieces of silver and one day he will pay the piper!!!

He will cost lives.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 26, 1999

Answers

How much did DeJager get from NWO for his soul?

-- (soulseller@ebay.com), December 26, 1999.

He got 13 times the spot price of Silver which is all the MF is worth!!!

About $67.86, and he's VERY pleased with his sorry-assed fat-assed selfish-assed SELF.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 26, 1999.

The point is not that he sold out. He never sold out shit, he was working for them the whole time. Now they don't have to be secretive about it any longer. There are almost always a few plants around in any given situation.

-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), December 26, 1999.

Hadn't thought of that Gordon - what I DO remember is that he was one of the folks that originally, with Ed Yourdon, raised the alarm...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 26, 1999.

Nope. NWO ain't got nothing on these guys.

-- lisa (lisa@casa.now), December 26, 1999.

Peter de Jager, unlike some of you stupid paranoid bozos, has the mental capacity to change his opinion when the facts warrant it........

Sold his soul......hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha............

You extreme doomers have so much in common with the mean-spirited know-it-all fundamentalists of all stripes that I know.............

You're totally right and everyone else is a pawn of Satan.....what a load of crap!!

Get off de Jager's case......at least he has done something positive for Y2K awareness.....a hell of a lot more than some of you idiots.......

Just because he doesn't hide in paranoid fear from those scary chemtrails and he rides buses instead of burying them doesn't give you the right to be malicious assholes.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), December 26, 1999.

typical idiot doomer bullshit, we'll see when you come out of your caves, red faced, and a pure embarassment to wives and children, I pity you guys, i wonder what you were doing in 1994 when de Jager first started to alert the masses on this issue, no one listened then which included you bandwagon doomers, you were to busy watching Geraldo and Oprah, I'm glad there are only 5 days until I can laugh histerically at you types,

shame Andy, go back to pickin your nose...

Bernie

-- Bernard (Llama man@cool.net), December 26, 1999.

Craig, you'll have to excuse Andy. His is a fantasy world---like the Wizard of Oz. And the movie even has his favorite song, 'If I Only Had A Brain'.

Why, when I see one of Andy's threads, I can almost hear the whistling, right through the computer.

The attempts of the doomlit crowd--to which Andy is a card-carrying member--to discredit Mr.deJager is increasingly funny. Now he's involved in the new world order. Hey, just yesterday I heard he was spraying chemtrails over your house, Andy.

Get a clue, pal. The jig is up, and good people like deJager understood throughout that remediation and advancements were indeed possible. That you wanted to close your mind 2 years ago and moan 'all is lost' is very telling about you and your brethren.

deJager has my respect.

Why you doomlits think people in key roles would leak their conspiracy designs to the media for the weak minded to read is beyond imagination. But all the same, Andy, my cat thanks you for providing him some stimulating reading in his litter box.

-- Bad Company (over@therainbow.com), December 26, 1999.

Bernard,

Get any new panties lately?

-- (Here@today.com), December 26, 1999.

Thanks Lisa, you can see EXACTLY where he's coming from. I had no idea. I think gordon is right (as usual) :o)

The three cretins above, try and use what little brains you have left, and please stop touting the establishment line - it's sickening.

I can see you 3 stooges went through the great American "educational" [indoctrinational] system...

stands out a mile...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 26, 1999.

A quick question to those who deride the "Doomers" so much...Why is is so important to you that you mock them (us) so much? You would think that, for all your supposed superiority and intelligence that you would just let us go our own way, and be done with it. Is it such a balm to your souls to inflict cruelty and scorn on those who are different than you? Or have different beliefs? Is it fun? Do you enjoy it? If so, then you have my pity...for now. Don't expect any, however, if things do crash and burn. We doomers for the most part, myself especially, have grown and matured in the past year or two, and realize we have far too much at stake. I'd rather spend the rest of my life being the butt of some good natured ribbing by friends and family than dead or living a bare existance in a post Y2K world.

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@Aol.com), December 26, 1999.

I think Andy is quite credible. Wasn't it just yesterday he was inquiring about the HAARP project being used in Venezuala?

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), December 26, 1999.

Hey you three trainee-morons read the following and WAKE UP!

======================================================================

"Y2K really annoys the insiders, the establishment, the Tri Lats-- because it's the only thing they can't control, & it threatens to cripple or destroy all their controls. They firmly control the mega- banks, global money system, mega-media, all major political parties (on both sides in every nation), & the multi-nationals. But Y2K snuck up on them, & they're mad & scared. They're desperately spending billions to try to "fix" it but they know it can't be totally fixed, perhaps not ever. It will also be a major setback for Big Brother, in all its aspects, from tax collection to bank rule to centralized bureaucracy & monitoring. As a result, the average person will get a lot of unexpected benefits from Y2K. Some are hoping for a worst-case scenario. "However painful, it's a worthwhile cost to regain individual freedom" they say, in essence. Freedom has never been free. If U don't really feel Y2K is going to be a BIG DEAL, & if therefore it annoys or upsets U to read data reports from people who say it probably IS going to be a big deal, then don't bother to read this article. Skip on to the next one. Mostly, people aren't changing their minds, are decided re Y2K. If U are a new subscriber, U should read this so U see what we consider the critical/updated facts. Unless U get heavy/daily Y2K updated hard data (as we do) then it would be puzzling how U can decide either way--without all the new daily facts. But most people are deciding emotionally, not objectively, not factually. That's their option, even if subconscious. So, read on or not, as U choose.

For those few who are still reading (:-), here's the latest: Many are comforted to hear that govt & biz have Y2K "contingency plans." Instead, that glib phrase should scare them. Think about it! If all govt depts, banks, biz, military, airports, hospitals who claim they are Y2K- compliant (as most now claim) were really bug-resistant, why would they need vast contingency plans? "Contingency" isn't just a throwaway word; it means something, ie, what we'll do if our individual company/bureau/system breaks down.

They're spending massive money on contingency plans, which means they've little confidence in their claims they're fully Y2K- compliant. Some have thrown in the towel, admit they can't get compliant in time, & will rely mainly on contingency plans. At least they're honest. That can't be said for the blowhard bluffers who are hoping to con people they're foolproof. Fools, yes. Foolproof: unlikely. Only a minority submit to audits of their repair/test/compliance claims.

Many insiders admit they're far behind schedule & will be on a "fix- on-fault" basis in 2000, ie they'll fix/repair embedded chip/computer/system breakdowns if/as they occur. That means after trouble. The catch is: how do they get back up if the whole system is down? Bottom line: the world is one big web of contingency plans & fix-on-fault. Nobody is 100% safe/compliant, because it's impossible to attain. And that is fact, spoken by the world's leading engineering group. US Senate Y2K Report: "Y2K is not going to be just another 'bump in the road.' No, it's going to be one of the most serious & potentially devastating events the US has ever encountered." Govts tend to soft-pedal bad news, so that statement should be a wake-up call to many. Turn up your hearing aid!

The BIS (Bank for Int'l Settlements, Basel, Switzerland) is the central bank for all other central banks. Their Y2K view is not cheerful. In a fat report they say "some problems will be missed; new problems will be inadvertently introduced via the remediation process; even the best test programs may not detect all potential errors; uncertainty will remain up to & after Jan 1. In other words, it is inevitable there will be Y2K disruption, athough it's not possible to predict how serious or widespread this disruption will be."

So there U have it. Central banks will go into 2000 not knowing if these systems are fixed. They know most are not fixed, worldwide. Compare BIS language to your local bank's PR rubbish. The BIS report goes on in great detail. If U read it all U lose any shred of optimism. The general threat is a breakdown of the inter-bank payments system. And once down, how to get it back up? BIS says: Y2K is "unlike any other disruption problem where identical backup sites can be activated. But any uncorrected Y2K problem is likely to affect both sites so the backup would not be a contingency."

It gets worse. BIS, who says what neither private banks nor govt banks dare to say, reveals: "The inability of a major payment & settlement system to function smoothly, or have procedures for isolating problems, will intensify uncertainty/concern. In the extreme case, this could have repercussions throughout the global & domestic systems." Conclusion: the world economy is at acute risk. This is not some "doom/gloom" offbeat writer's view; it's the bluest of the blue chip banks. If your hair hasn't turned grey so far, read the following:

The BIS advises banks to get the home phone numbers of regulators & govt officials so they can be contacted at night or on weekends to discuss the prudence of "closing markets & declaring an emergency financial bank holiday." This is scarier than any Y2K newsletter writer (except Gary North) has dared to say. And it's the real thing! U see, if banks go down, there can be no stock/bond/property mkt, or any other mkt, except black mkts of course, using cash. And all this is separate from equal risks from no power, oil, water, & no phones/fax/e-mail. U don't like this? Does that mean it can't happen? Or can it happen even if U don't like it? Try to separate wish from reality. Author Dr.Edward Yardeni, chief economist/global investmnt strategist at Deutsche Banc-Alex Brown has come back from Y2K retirement & says: "Y2K summary: Most have eyes wide shut....My prediction for a global recession in 2000, at 70% odds remains...Stock mkt down 10-30% (that's 1-3000 DJIA pts). Recession major causes: breakdown in just-in-time manufacturing system, & in global oil industry. Y2K could cause another energy crisis." (I'm virtually sure of it--HS)

EY notes Y2K press coverage is childish, reports the good news press releases, make no comment, ask no questions. "Some frame Y2K as an all-or-nothing story. Either planes fall out of sky or nothing happens. None consider in between. Anyone who talks in between is lumped into the doomsday category & dismissed as far-fetched..Public is led to believe the casual assurances of the few means everyone will be ready. EY says: "Y2K will turn out to be the greatest story never told--- properly." Reporters squeeze answers out of politicians thought to be in hanky-panky, but never ask ONE question about any Y2K report by anyone in banks/govt/biz.

Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, US Inspector General,testified in Senate: Half of 161 nations assessed are reported at medium-to high- risk re Y2K failures in telecommunications, energy &/or transport. Her strong conclusion: "The global community is likely to experience varying degrees of Y2K-related failures in every sector, in every region, & at every economic level. The risk of disruption will likely extend to int'l trade, where a breakdown in any part of the global supply chain would have a serious impact on the US & world economies." Now, tell me dear readers, WHY doesn't TV & the press tell U this? My answer: the banks won't let them. Maybe U have a different answer?

As I reported before, the US State Dept will issue Y2K travel advice in Sept. 3 cheers to USSD for integrity in this regard. But it will shock a lot of people. The penny will finally drop. US govt Y2K topdog Koskinen says the US is considering evacuating US citizens from nations with widespread Y2K failures. Each ambassador will make that decision. More than a penny is dropping now. More like a silver dollar. I've only scratched the surface of all there is to report. What bothers me most is the nuclear power plant risks, a global risk, at least in the northern hemisphere. But I can't cover it all. And most people don't even want to hear it.

I'm optimistic that Y2K will paralyze most tax collecting computer systems to such an extent that govts will quickly switch from the income tax to a sales tax (the only fair system), which isn't computer complex & will allow govt to function, ie, bring in money, their 1st concern, 1 of the Holy Trinity of govts (the other 2: power & control).

Here's some more reality.

The problem is worldwide, systemic, interconnected.

"As a net is made up of a series of ties, so everything in this world is connected by a series of ties. If anyone thinks that the mesh of a net is an independent, isolated thing, he is mistaken...."

Buddha

"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about."

Sufi Prophet Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan's prophecy made in 1922 (Complete Works, 1922 I, p. 158-9)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 26, 1999.

Butt you idiot, I didn't say the .mil types used Haarp on Ven I said the capacity for weather modification exists and is used, as is the ability to cause earthquakes.

Work the rest out for yourself.

Ever hear of the Tuskagee Airmen, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, The [illegal] FED [a private European bank that contols US finacial affairs], Gulf War Syndrome - you think .mil isn't capable?

Numbskull.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 26, 1999.

FWIW: I heard deJager speak on the radio three days ago, a sound bite on the news. He said, and I quote, "Y2k is the biggest, dumbest, most expensive mistake in the history of technology." He also quoted a one trillion grand total figure. What I heard didn't sound that pollyannish.

-- StanTheMan (heidrich@presys.com), December 26, 1999.

To make a point, I want to contrast Bill Clinton with Peter deJager. Bill Clinton never publicly gave Y2K credit, in any meaningful way, for the potential havoc it could wreak. OTOH, deJager is in the top five in the world for having called attention to the problem in an alarmist way.

If anyone deserves to be allowed to say, "we'll have problems, but most things are going to work," rightly or wrongly, it is deJager. It is beyond me (a semi-doomer, but more hopeful than one year ago) how anyone who never heard of Y2K until years after deJager started sounding the alarm, could regard him as a traitor.

Gary North has played an important and useful role in the Y2K saga. If not for deJager's work, North would have been more on target than he will be in actuality, something for which we can all be thankful.

-- Bill Byars (billbyars@softwaresmith.com), December 26, 1999.

Bill, someone who does a complete U-turn [which was VERY WIDELY reported in the media, causing the vast majority of folks that heard it to let their guard down] on an issue this important

IS A TRAITOR

period

yes, he was one of the first to expose the issue way way back...

all well and good, but to come out a year or so ago and say that he was mistaken, it will be a BITR

IS TRAITEROUS

he has sold out

no question

he's lining his pockets, and setting himself up

THAT SIMPLE!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 26, 1999.

Bill, I remember the rumor going around last spring that Clinton would imminently address the country regarding y2k. He never did. History will judge his actions--orinactions--accordingly upon reflection.

As for North, there's that agenda thing again. When you blatantly state you wish the downfall of western civ so as to usher in a return to the days of Christian goodness, worth ethic and moral pulchritude (and Bill, I am a Christian who agrees that the world is going to hell in a handbasket), well, you lose credibility with the fence-sitters....which I was as late as this past summer.

Lastly, for BillyBob, you are somewhat off target with your idea here. There are at least two types of people posting here. One, people who fear doom that have made prudent preps and basically are bouncing ideas off one another here. Since I am no real polly and agree that preps are necessary, I can only understand their concern, no matter how misplaced I feel it is.

But Billy, you also have the conspiracy theory/anti-gov/militia types here masquerading as the first group, intermingling, etc. many in THIS type of group would actually love to see huge problems and unrest to spice up their pitiful lives. And that's the type of sick-o thinking I abhor, BillyBoy. As stated many times before--to you and others--I come from a family with a long heritage of fighting wars against REAL enemies, never asking why. Three-quarters of the kids in my dad's little town never made it back from WW2.

Guess what I'm saying, BillyBoy, is that if one thinks the government is so entrenched in engaging in covert-ops to someday enslave the populace....if one thinks things are so bad here...maybe it's time to take a slow boat to Cuba.

Nuff said.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 26, 1999.

Plus, de Jager has gotten AS FAT AS A FRIGGING PIG!!! Everytime I see a picture of the dude he looks like he IS his own food-storage plan. Gawd!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 26, 1999.

de Jager administers the payroll for the polly trolls is why they come out in full force should thoust utter his name.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), December 26, 1999.

lisa, methinks thou dost protest too much. Moi? polly troll? By your very own interpretation, I am not a polly. Perhaps you forget deJager's own history.

Perhaps you need someone a little more open-minded to deliver 'info' about deJager.

Does the NWO have a baseball team?

Finally, your prose harkens back to another familiar line, 'It was the best of times. It was the worst of times'.

Or was that, 'do not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee'.

Aw, well. You get the picture.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 26, 1999.

Yeah, yeah, BC.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), December 26, 1999.

While you're all mocking Andy, is Clinton mocking you?

[re-post]

And why am I reminded of this...?

As a century of war draws to a close, it's time for an age of international justice

By Andrew Marr
The Observer, London.
Sunday, March 28, 1999

This war is not a modern war. It is the last episode in Europes twentieth-century War of the Nations. The nationalist fuel burning Kosovo villages in 1999 is chemically identical to the stuff that set the first Belgian and French villages aflame in 1914. What began in the Balkans is ending there. The weaponry has evolved; but the refugees, with their bundles, shawls and carts, look pitifully the same. Nato hasn't noticed this, not really. If it had, the war would be even more controversial, particularly in Washington. For Europe's long war has become, inexorably, a war against the nation- state. The story of our century is in part the story of how nation- tribes failed to live together. Slowly, agonisingly, the old lies about national destiny, race and absolute sovereignty have been tested and exposed. And slowly, fitfully, a new political idea has struggled to replace them. It was present at the short-lived League of Nations. It spoke at the Nuremberg trials and, more confidently, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention of 1948, then at the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

The Cold War stuffed its mouth shut, except for Western Europe, which struggled against nationalism through the top-down Community. But the idea is on the march again today; and it directly affects both the Serb conflict and the Pinochet case in London.

And what is this idea? It is world government. That may sound wild. But its starting assumption is that there are universal humanitarian values which matter more than national sovereignty. And in this limited way, at least, it has already been accepted. This, after all, is why we are today attacking a sovereign nation, Yugoslavia, which has a legally elected government and which threatens none of its neighbours. This is why Pinochet, who has broken no law in Britain, is under house arrest in Surrey.

But how does the struggle against nationalism and in favour of supra-national authority, affect this nasty little war? Because this is, in the end, a matter of law. One day, international courts will get at monsters like Milosevic well before we need huge armies to do so. In this, at least, we are not yet civilised.

Stand back and look again at what's happening. To express our anger about a Balkan thug and his policies, we send flying into the air millions of pounds'worth of metal, so that it hurtles down on buildings, people and machines. Like giants with clumpy boots, we stomp on the earth hoping, eventually, to change the mind of a single malevolent politician who doesn't give a damn how many die. This is clumsy.

It's like seeing a bug crawling along the skirting-board and throwing half the kitchen at it, then smashing down the wall for good measure. One day, perhaps, people will look back and find it all unbelievably crude. Why not, they will ask, just reach down and pick out that bug? And indeed, going for Milosevic early and personally would have been far better than what actually happened. It wasn't possible. Why? Because under our current world rules, this bug is a superbug, an elected head of state bug. Like Saddam, Milosevic has absolute authority inside his borders. To get at him we have to go to war against his state - against millions of people we have no quarrel with - and smash buildings, suburbs, factories, aircraft. We have to "degrade his capability' - leaderspeak for splintering the skirting-board - to get near him.

That's been the story of this long European war. But one day, it will be different. Imagine a world in which mass- murderers or torturers, elected or not, were simply treated as criminal suspects from the word go. Imagine if, as soon as there was evidence of villages being ethnically cleansed in Kosovo, world prosecutors at an international criminal court had opened a case against Milosevic personally.

Instead of inclining a condescending head at Richard Holbrook from the gilded pomp of his presidential chair, the booze-drenched Serb gets no diplomatic courtesy at all. He's a fugitive from justice. His own government and army are asked to hand him over. If he tries to leave his country, he's arrested. If he travels anywhere, any time, he faces being Pinochet'd. This is no panacea. It would not change things overnight. Some bandit territories would remain no-go areas. But it is the lack of such a strong, UN-backed court, reaching deep into sovereign states, which has left Nato with the primitive (and I fear, hugely self-destructive) tactic of lobbing missiles into Serbia. In the end, law is the better. In the words of one dreamer, an international criminal court would help tackle "the grotesque parody whereby the killer of one person is more likely to be brought to justice than the killer of thousands". Now consider the reality - which is that, rather amazingly, we are more than half-way there. The dreamer quoted above is Tony Lloyd, a British Foreign Office Minister, celebrating our signing up to the proposed International Criminal Court last year. The court is edging towards reality partly thanks to an extraordinary campaign by non- governmental organisations, including Amnesty International and the World Federalist Movement (president: Sir Peter Ustinov).

Yes, there is a federalist plot, and yes, it is working. On one hot night in Rome last July, this new, sovereignty-sapping court was agreed after an intense negotiation among 160 countries and scores of non-government groups. In the words of William Pace, who has been organising the campaign among the NGOs, "it was a kind of miracle'which produced "the most extraordinary outburst of emotion at a diplomatic conference any of us have ever, or will probably ever again, witness". So far, 78 countries, including three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council (Britain, France and Russia) have signed the proposed new treaty. The Times of India rightly said that "not since the establishment of the UN itself have so many countries voluntarily yielded ground on such a fundamental aspect of state sovereignty." But not every country. And here comes the rub. The American government - fighting today to dismember Serbia - has been very obstructive. The Clinton administration hates the idea of a court that could indict US citizens without prior US approval.

Just before the Rome negotiations, the Pentagon itself began a frantic - and unsuccessful - campaign to stop it. Jesse Helms has described the proposed court as a "monster" and asked: "Imagine what would have happened if this court had been in place during the US invasion of Panama? Or the US invasion of Grenada? Or the US bombing of Tripoli?" Yes indeed, Jesse.

So it is time, I think, for this country to know just what it is fighting in the Balkans for. We are not fighting to prevent the quick slaughter or "cleansing" of Albanian Kosovars. Our bombing is making that worse, not better; you can't police anywhere from three thousand feet up. We are not fighting to protect a sovereign state, as in the Gulf - in fact we are fighting to tear one in two.

We are not fighting, I take it, to calm down Serb nationalism, for that is intensifying. We are not fighting to help the Serbian democratic opposition. (If so, we are having the opposite effect.) We are not fighting because we believe in Albanian nationalism - or at least, we never did before. Ironies abound. But the greatest is this: if we are fighting for a big thing, it is presumably to enforce the subordination of nationalism, after Europe's bloody century, to international law and global humanitarian values. And yet the US, which is leading this war, is fighting in another forum against that very idea. This seems, to put it politely, a tricky position.

On Friday night, Tony Blair asked for our support. In a personal sense, he deserves it, of course. No one here backs Milosevic or wishes harm to Nato troops. Everyone's got their fingers crossed. But we need to know, in the wider sense - support for what? As this goes on, and we get bogged down - which seems likely - the Nato partners are going to face more questions from their own people and from other countries. We have gone to war out of instinct - a good instinct - but without a coherent philosophy or properly thought-out war aims. Going to war is an awesome, unpredictable act. Is it possible that even the US will one day regret this one?

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 15, 1999.

Thank you John for a little sanity here.

Let's hope these morons have the capacity to read and digest the information on this thread.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 26, 1999.

Hey, Andy, was that extract you posted from the Harry Schultz newsletter? Sure seemed like his style. I notice he's just now alerting his 'millionaire' readers in the latest one to problems with oil and the refineries [Ummm..I think I first ran a warning article on that in December of last year, and it's been discussed on here for months, at least :)]

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 27, 1999.

Yes John it certainly was - I posted his latest one here a while back concerning the coming energy crunch and his views on oil and the embedded chip problem - this plus your appearnce on the Jeff Rense show got me into researching oil in detail over the last month or so... thanks for the outstanding work! I wonder if harry will put out any final thoughts - guess we're all running out of time on that one...

P.S.

check out the Millenium Dome thread...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 27, 1999.