This really is getting outside the bounds of LISTSERV list management.
We might want to move this to another list (or Usenet newsgroup).
 
>I am curious as to what sort of sabotage may be being done on the net.
>The internet worm?  Spamming?  Or is someone running an operation
>against Canadian (or international) nodes?
 
The worst sabotage currently underway is the "decency" movement
that is working against both freedom of speech and academic
freedom.  The bans on certain newsgroups, the actions taken
against BBS operators (a *California* BBS being indicted for
violations of the obscenity standards of *Western Tennessee*?)
I'm *far* more concerned with these movements than those rooted
in technology.  Heck, as long as I have a telephone, I will be
networked.  8)
 
>Remember that the internet was built in significant part around U.S.
>energy (nuclear weapons, reactors, and fusion), space (NASA)
>and defense needs--and that Internet is their turf.
 
As before, I disagree with this.  I can pick up my phone and send
a message like this:
        ukecc!ukma!uunet!...!...!mcsun!...<European site>
and get to Europe without hitting a single government/DoD site.
 
>My current projects include following the issue about the 1500 or so
>disabled Gulf War veterans.  If you ever wanted to see "spin management",
>that is such an issue. [...]  The failure to discuss these topics in
>fair and forthright public debate significantly contributes to the
>injuries which have occurred, continue to occur, and may occur in
>the future with these agents.
 
I only have one question about all of this Gulf War stuff.  (I'm a
veteran, the son of a career officer, and the grandson of a WWII
Navy vet - I think I can safely say that I have no bias against the
military or veterans.)  I wonder why, in a battle environment tra-
versed by troops from several nations, no soldiers from *any* other
nation have apparently been affected.  When a British unit travels
with a US unit and 8-10 US soldiers suffer, one would expect a few
Brits to be affected as well; apparently, none have come forward.)
The winds and terrain in the Gulf region are particularly well-suited
for wide dispersal of chemical weapons; one would think that any use
substantial enough to cause these problems would have affected troops
in the coalition forces as well.  Why haven't we heard anything from
them?  You'd think that, even if the US media were silent, the BBC
(and the House of Commons, and Fleet Street) would be *extremely*
loud on this one...
 
--Wes