Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Why VHEMT? A couple of questions

Expand Messages
  • K.A. Seland
    No one knows what the world will be like in 50 years ... but will it help anything to have a bunch more humans around? As to beauty how about comparing a
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      No one knows what the world will be like in 50 years
      ... but will it help anything to have a bunch more
      humans around?

      As to beauty how about comparing a maggoty pile of dog
      shit to a Porsche SUV?

      Great Idea about wiping out all life by the way, and
      the best part about it is you don't have to do a thing
      but carry on with "business as usual." You don't have
      to think, you don't even have to look around you ...
      even once. There will always be more resources to
      exploit. Won't there?





      --- scriv2003 <scriv@...> wrote:
      > Hi, my name��s Sean and I��m a new member to this
      > group and do have a
      > few questions�K
      >
      > My apologies if you have received this message
      > twice.
      >
      > The first question that I��d like to put to all
      > proponents of this
      > movement is:
      > What makes you think that the involuntary extinction
      > of humans is
      > inevitable or even quite probable? It��s a very
      > pessimistic outlook
      > considering the ongoing and wonderful (in many
      > areas) advances of
      > science, and only an idiot would predict that these
      > advances will
      > probably not dramatically improve life for us all.
      > You��ve absolutely
      > no idea what the world is going to be like in 50
      > years time. If
      > everyone agreed with the movement right this second
      > and stopped
      > reproducing, millions of people would still suffer.
      > So this wouldn��t
      > really help those people. For future generations, a
      > lot can and
      > probably will be done for the good of mankind. Your
      > aim is a long
      > term one. Most world suffering could very well be
      > eradicated in a
      > shorter term.
      >
      > My second question is, if there are no humans in
      > existence, how
      > could the world, as the author of vhem.org puts it,
      > ��return to its
      > former glory��? The word glory (in this sense) is
      > all about beauty,
      > and beauty is all about perception. Need I state the
      > oh-so-often-
      > quoted ��beauty lies in the eye of the beholder��?
      > We find certain
      > things beautiful and other things ugly or whatever
      > word you like,
      > because we are humans. Therefore, nothing is
      > beautiful or
      > everything��s beautiful--or anywhere in between--if
      > humans don��t
      > exist. Without humans, a sensational rose is just as
      > beautiful as a
      > piece of dog shit with lovely maggots, and if you
      > think any
      > different, ask a dog what it prefers. Without any
      > humans, there is
      > no ��beauty��. And please don��t compare this to the
      > falling tree in
      > the woods�K. ��
      >
      > By the way, if the human race ever does decide to
      > voluntarily make
      > itself extinct, I propose that we wipe out all
      > animals�K because,
      > let��s face it, the apes (or ANY other animal) might
      > very well evolve
      > to the stage of humans in terms of intelligence, and
      > then the world
      > might very well have to go through the same bullshit
      > of suffering
      > again�K and it may get worse. Maybe this new race
      > will become much
      > more advanced than humans and wipe out the whole
      > universe. Yes, the
      > only answer is to voluntarily blow the world up�K
      > You see, I don��t
      > even know if I��m joking here, because if what I
      > said was a joke,
      > maybe what you say is a joke, too.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      =====
      Let go of Ego
      _ Mister Twister

      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
      http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
    • Kenneth Robertson
      ... a ... Hey Sean, sorry I didn t answer you earlier here. Just read the last of your posts at VHEMT and wanted to show that you would get responces here also
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "scriv2003" <scriv@e...> wrote:
        > Hi, my name¡¦s Sean and I¡¦m a new member to this group and do have
        a
        > few questions¡K

        Hey Sean, sorry I didn't answer you earlier here. Just read the last
        of your posts at VHEMT and wanted to show that you would get
        responces here also (tho I din't follow your threads there so I'm out
        of the loop as to your positions).
        >

        > What makes you think that the involuntary extinction of humans is
        > inevitable or even quite probable?

        You are right about no one having a crystalball, but history and
        current attitudes and practices certainly tells what the tendancies
        are.

        If
        > everyone agreed with the movement right this second and stopped
        > reproducing, millions of people would still suffer.

        Suffering because the last generation did not stop reproducing. Also
        because of our selfishness in using resourses that are not infinite
        as if they were.

        So this wouldn¡¦t
        > really help those people. For future generations, a lot can and
        > probably will be done for the good of mankind. Your aim is a long
        > term one. Most world suffering could very well be eradicated in a
        > shorter term.

        Or could have been avoided altogether. It is no secret, nor hard to
        figure out the consequences of our actions and all of this had been
        predicted long before it got this bad, but we continued and even now
        as bad as things are, we ignor ways to conserve and reduce. This is
        the trend that I was speaking of and there is no reason to believe
        that it would change until major devistation forced that change.
        >
        > My second question is, if there are no humans in existence, how
        > could the world, as the author of vhem.org puts it, ¡§return to its
        > former glory¡¨? The word glory (in this sense) is all about beauty,
        > and beauty is all about perception. Need I state the oh-so-often-
        > quoted ¡§beauty lies in the eye of the beholder¡¨? We find certain
        > things beautiful and other things ugly or whatever word you like,
        > because we are humans. Therefore, nothing is beautiful or
        > everything¡¦s beautiful--or anywhere in between--if humans don¡¦t
        > exist. Without humans, a sensational rose is just as beautiful as a
        > piece of dog shit with lovely maggots, and if you think any
        > different, ask a dog what it prefers. Without any humans, there is
        > no ¡§beauty¡¨. And please don¡¦t compare this to the falling tree
        in
        > the woods¡K. ƒº

        I find beauty in balance and semitry and I again draw attention to
        the entire history of the human race to show that it is our nature
        and power to tip both to our advantage, without thinking about the
        consequences. Nature on the other hand has an amazine built in series
        of checks and balances.
        >
        > By the way, if the human race ever does decide to voluntarily make
        > itself extinct, I propose that we wipe out all animals¡K because,
        > let¡¦s face it, the apes (or ANY other animal) might very well
        evolve
        > to the stage of humans in terms of intelligence, and then the world
        > might very well have to go through the same bullshit of suffering
        > again¡K and it may get worse. Maybe this new race will become much
        > more advanced than humans and wipe out the whole universe. Yes, the
        > only answer is to voluntarily blow the world up¡K You see, I don¡¦t
        > even know if I¡¦m joking here, because if what I said was a joke,
        > maybe what you say is a joke, too.

        Joke or not, I would be content with buying that much more time and
        if they are inteligent enough to put the peices together of our time
        on the planet and ignor the lesson, then maybe there is something
        amiss with the world and/or the universe that it would make that
        mistake again and deserves anialation.

        kenr61
      • Les U. Knight
        ... There are several ways we could inadvertently bring about our involuntary extinction. The ecological collapse we may cause by bringing about the sixth
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 11, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Sean, you asked:
          >What makes you think that the involuntary extinction of humans is
          >inevitable or even quite probable?<

          There are several ways we could inadvertently bring about our
          involuntary extinction. The ecological collapse we may cause by
          bringing about the sixth major extinction event seems the most likely
          to me. Our life-support is the same as other living creatures in the
          biosphere, and we're destroying it. There's a chance we've already
          passed the point of no return. If not, I see no indication that we
          will reverse direction before that point is reached.

          It true we can't predict the future, but if we continue in the
          direction we're going we'll likely get where we're headed.

          I think it was Garrett Hardin who made the analogy that we're all on
          an airplane and some of the passengers are popping rivets out to
          sell. Others complain that this will cause harm to all, but those
          popping rivets say the plane is obviously not falling apart, so don't
          be an alarmist.

          An analogy isn't needed: we are removing strands from web of life by
          causing extinctions. At the same time, we increase the weight this
          web has to support by increasing our population. At some point it has
          to fall apart.

          > It¡¦s a very pessimistic outlook
          considering the ongoing and wonderful (in many areas) advances of
          science, and only an idiot would predict that these advances will
          probably not dramatically improve life for us all.<

          I assume you're speaking of life for all humans. Hypothetically,
          advances could improve our lives, depending on what criteria we use
          to measure improvement. I don't consider it an improvement that we
          have almost no ecosystems left which haven't been seriously degraded.
          Others might feel that being able to drive from air conditioned
          building to air conditioned building in an air conditioned car to be
          an environmental improvement.

          Each of our advances has included an unintended down-side -- to say
          the least. As Albert Einstein said, "All our lauded technological
          progress--our very civilization--is like the axe in the hand of the
          pathological criminal."

          > You¡¦ve absolutely
          no idea what the world is going to be like in 50 years time. If
          everyone agreed with the movement right this second and stopped
          reproducing, millions of people would still suffer. So this wouldn¡¦t
          really help those people. <

          I disagree. If everyone stopped breeding, in five years there would
          no longer be tens of thousands of children under five dying of
          preventable causes each day. Of course, the world isn't going to stop
          breeding all at once, but each new person not created increases the
          potential for caring for those who already exist.

          >For future generations, a lot can and
          probably will be done for the good of mankind. Your aim is a long
          term one. Most world suffering could very well be eradicated in a
          shorter term. <

          That's the idea: a long-term solution as well as short-term improvements.
          See: http://www.vhemt.org/philrel.htm#popshrink

          <snip>Without humans, a sensational rose is just as beautiful as a
          piece of dog shit with lovely maggots, . . .<

          Sensational roses are selectively bred by humans and would revert to
          wild eventually. Maggots and excrement aren't pretty to us, but are a
          part of a balanced ecosystem. Domesticated plants are not.

          >Without any humans, there is no "beauty". And please don't compare
          >this to the falling tree in the woods.<

          Why not? That's what you're saying. The definition of "sound"
          includes perception, which is why the falling tree doesn't make a
          sound without someone to hear it. However, I'd say a squirrel
          perceiving the noise would qualify it as a sound.

          Likewise, as you say, the tree wouldn't be beautiful without
          perception. Humans have the capacity to perceive the beauty of a
          thousand-year-old tree, but we seem to appreciate the lumber to makes
          to be even more beautiful. No beauty without humans? It's our way to
          convert nature into dead zones: where we live not much else lives. My
          perception is that there's no beauty *with* humans.

          See: http://www.vhemt.org/philrel.htm

          >By the way, if the human race ever does decide to voluntarily make
          itself extinct, I propose that we wipe out all animals¡K because,
          let¡¦s face it, the apes (or ANY other animal) might very well evolve
          to the stage of humans in terms of intelligence, and then the world
          might very well have to go through the same bullshit of suffering
          again¡K and it may get worse. <

          It isn't impossible that another species will come along and do as we
          are, just highly unlikely. No species, as far as we know, has ever
          taken the evolutionary sidetrack we have. Many species, not just
          apes, exhibit intelligence on a par with us -- even though we try to
          skew the scale of intelligence to make it seem like we're the
          smartest. None of them seem to be in line to convert the rest of the
          world into their habitat as we are doing.

          Some mighty evil deeds could be justified with this line of thinking.
          Arms dealers might say. "If we didn't sell arms to petty dictators,
          someone else would, and they might sell them even worse weapons."

          Les

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Sean Scrivener
          Hi Les, Thanks for your reply. I intend on replying to it properly when I get the time; I’m loaded with work for the foreseeable future, but watch this space
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 11, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Les,



            Thanks for your reply. I intend on replying to it properly when I get the
            time; I’m loaded with work for the foreseeable future, but watch this space
            :-)



            Thanks.

            _____

            From: Les U. Knight [mailto:les@...]
            Sent: 11 April 2004 17:05
            To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Why VHEMT? Re: A couple of questions



            Sean, you asked:
            >What makes you think that the involuntary extinction of humans is
            >inevitable or even quite probable?<

            There are several ways we could inadvertently bring about our
            involuntary extinction. The ecological collapse we may cause by
            bringing about the sixth major extinction event seems the most likely
            to me. Our life-support is the same as other living creatures in the
            biosphere, and we're destroying it. There's a chance we've already
            passed the point of no return. If not, I see no indication that we
            will reverse direction before that point is reached.

            It true we can't predict the future, but if we continue in the
            direction we're going we'll likely get where we're headed.

            I think it was Garrett Hardin who made the analogy that we're all on
            an airplane and some of the passengers are popping rivets out to
            sell. Others complain that this will cause harm to all, but those
            popping rivets say the plane is obviously not falling apart, so don't
            be an alarmist.

            An analogy isn't needed: we are removing strands from web of life by
            causing extinctions. At the same time, we increase the weight this
            web has to support by increasing our population. At some point it has
            to fall apart.

            > It¡¦s a very pessimistic outlook
            considering the ongoing and wonderful (in many areas) advances of
            science, and only an idiot would predict that these advances will
            probably not dramatically improve life for us all.<

            I assume you're speaking of life for all humans. Hypothetically,
            advances could improve our lives, depending on what criteria we use
            to measure improvement. I don't consider it an improvement that we
            have almost no ecosystems left which haven't been seriously degraded.
            Others might feel that being able to drive from air conditioned
            building to air conditioned building in an air conditioned car to be
            an environmental improvement.

            Each of our advances has included an unintended down-side -- to say
            the least. As Albert Einstein said, "All our lauded technological
            progress--our very civilization--is like the axe in the hand of the
            pathological criminal."

            > You¡¦ve absolutely
            no idea what the world is going to be like in 50 years time. If
            everyone agreed with the movement right this second and stopped
            reproducing, millions of people would still suffer. So this wouldn¡¦t
            really help those people. <

            I disagree. If everyone stopped breeding, in five years there would
            no longer be tens of thousands of children under five dying of
            preventable causes each day. Of course, the world isn't going to stop
            breeding all at once, but each new person not created increases the
            potential for caring for those who already exist.

            >For future generations, a lot can and
            probably will be done for the good of mankind. Your aim is a long
            term one. Most world suffering could very well be eradicated in a
            shorter term. <

            That's the idea: a long-term solution as well as short-term improvements.
            See: http://www.vhemt.org/philrel.htm#popshrink

            <snip>Without humans, a sensational rose is just as beautiful as a
            piece of dog shit with lovely maggots, . . .<

            Sensational roses are selectively bred by humans and would revert to
            wild eventually. Maggots and excrement aren't pretty to us, but are a
            part of a balanced ecosystem. Domesticated plants are not.

            >Without any humans, there is no "beauty". And please don't compare
            >this to the falling tree in the woods.<

            Why not? That's what you're saying. The definition of "sound"
            includes perception, which is why the falling tree doesn't make a
            sound without someone to hear it. However, I'd say a squirrel
            perceiving the noise would qualify it as a sound.

            Likewise, as you say, the tree wouldn't be beautiful without
            perception. Humans have the capacity to perceive the beauty of a
            thousand-year-old tree, but we seem to appreciate the lumber to makes
            to be even more beautiful. No beauty without humans? It's our way to
            convert nature into dead zones: where we live not much else lives. My
            perception is that there's no beauty *with* humans.

            See: http://www.vhemt.org/philrel.htm

            >By the way, if the human race ever does decide to voluntarily make
            itself extinct, I propose that we wipe out all animals¡K because,
            let¡¦s face it, the apes (or ANY other animal) might very well evolve
            to the stage of humans in terms of intelligence, and then the world
            might very well have to go through the same bullshit of suffering
            again¡K and it may get worse. <

            It isn't impossible that another species will come along and do as we
            are, just highly unlikely. No species, as far as we know, has ever
            taken the evolutionary sidetrack we have. Many species, not just
            apes, exhibit intelligence on a par with us -- even though we try to
            skew the scale of intelligence to make it seem like we're the
            smartest. None of them seem to be in line to convert the rest of the
            world into their habitat as we are doing.

            Some mighty evil deeds could be justified with this line of thinking.
            Arms dealers might say. "If we didn't sell arms to petty dictators,
            someone else would, and they might sell them even worse weapons."

            Les

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



            VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction




            _____

            Yahoo! Groups Links

            * To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Why_VHEMT/

            * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            Why_VHEMT-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            <mailto:Why_VHEMT-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

            * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
            <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Sean Scrivener
            I accept most of what you say, but I think that much of it boils down to either optimism or pessimism. I choose the former. I must admit that I have a lot to
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 13, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I accept most of what you say, but I think that much of it boils down to
              either optimism or pessimism. I choose the former. I must admit that I have
              a lot to read up on and think about regarding what you’ve said, so I won’t
              say anything now :-) I have a couple of points, however, that I’m a lot more
              certain about.



              I’m fully aware that a fundamental belief of VHEMT is that total extinction
              of humanity is the only answer, no more, no less. However, you say yourself
              that this just isn’t going to happen. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not
              saying this is a flaw of VHEMT because it’s not going to happen (well, in
              one sense, anyway). I would happily become a member of a group that supports
              the extinction of Microsoft, even if I knew full well that this will never
              happen just because of a bunch of people on a Yahoo group, and all the
              friends of this bunch of people, whom they convince! The fact is, I have no
              issues with becoming a member of a cause whose aims will never be
              achieved—directly, that is. But this is far more important, as we both know.



              The problem lies in your therefore TRUE aim. Your realistic aim. I’m sure
              you care a lot about your cause, and your passionate belief that it’s either
              extinction or nothing, but you must see that the aim will never be met—at
              least not because of your movement or its ideologies—and I therefore would
              assume that you realistically can only seek to reduce the problem of
              overpopulation. And I believe that therein lies the great flaw of VHEMT. The
              vast majority of people are never going to support voluntary extinction, and
              so you are effectively shutting the door to the vast majority of people. If
              you concede that humans are never going to voluntarily wipe themselves out,
              I hope that you must be content (sorry, I can’t think of a better word than
              ‘content’!) with at least reducing the problem of overpopulation. Because if
              you don’t, VHEMT is utterly pointless, even if it is your true belief.
              However, I would bet my life on it that you would convince a lot more people
              to actively reduce population if you dropped the idea of voluntary
              extinction. And so the aims of VHEMT would be better met, ironically, if you
              were to give up on this idea and instead focus on reducing population. I
              know I’m repeating myself here, but surely you must admit that it would be
              better to reduce the problem more, than reduce the problem less?



              I’ve found something else that I feel is very wrong about VHEMT, and that is
              the shocking number of vehement “human haters”. This was highlighted when I
              asked one of your members would they REALLY prefer to run over 12 *random
              humans* than one cat. Without any reserve the answer was short and definite:
              “Yes”. What was even more disturbing is that not ONE individual member of
              VHEMT cared to voice their disapproval of this. Not one. And you mustn’t
              forget that the forum was very active just one message before. What this
              clearly highlights, to me at least, is an unhealthy, biased hatred towards
              humans. No matter what, this is wrong. And if the shoe were on the other
              foot, i.e. an anti-VHEMT group were supported by many fervent, total
              human-lovers-at-all-costs, I’d feel the same way: it’s so very wrong. And if
              this is true—I challenge you to disprove it—I would say that VHEMT has many
              members for very wrong and perverse reasons…







              _____

              From: Les U. Knight [mailto:les@...]
              Sent: 11 April 2004 17:05
              To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Why VHEMT? Re: A couple of questions



              Sean, you asked:
              >What makes you think that the involuntary extinction of humans is
              >inevitable or even quite probable?<

              There are several ways we could inadvertently bring about our
              involuntary extinction. The ecological collapse we may cause by
              bringing about the sixth major extinction event seems the most likely
              to me. Our life-support is the same as other living creatures in the
              biosphere, and we're destroying it. There's a chance we've already
              passed the point of no return. If not, I see no indication that we
              will reverse direction before that point is reached.

              It true we can't predict the future, but if we continue in the
              direction we're going we'll likely get where we're headed.

              I think it was Garrett Hardin who made the analogy that we're all on
              an airplane and some of the passengers are popping rivets out to
              sell. Others complain that this will cause harm to all, but those
              popping rivets say the plane is obviously not falling apart, so don't
              be an alarmist.

              An analogy isn't needed: we are removing strands from web of life by
              causing extinctions. At the same time, we increase the weight this
              web has to support by increasing our population. At some point it has
              to fall apart.

              > It¡¦s a very pessimistic outlook
              considering the ongoing and wonderful (in many areas) advances of
              science, and only an idiot would predict that these advances will
              probably not dramatically improve life for us all.<

              I assume you're speaking of life for all humans. Hypothetically,
              advances could improve our lives, depending on what criteria we use
              to measure improvement. I don't consider it an improvement that we
              have almost no ecosystems left which haven't been seriously degraded.
              Others might feel that being able to drive from air conditioned
              building to air conditioned building in an air conditioned car to be
              an environmental improvement.

              Each of our advances has included an unintended down-side -- to say
              the least. As Albert Einstein said, "All our lauded technological
              progress--our very civilization--is like the axe in the hand of the
              pathological criminal."

              > You¡¦ve absolutely
              no idea what the world is going to be like in 50 years time. If
              everyone agreed with the movement right this second and stopped
              reproducing, millions of people would still suffer. So this wouldn¡¦t
              really help those people. <

              I disagree. If everyone stopped breeding, in five years there would
              no longer be tens of thousands of children under five dying of
              preventable causes each day. Of course, the world isn't going to stop
              breeding all at once, but each new person not created increases the
              potential for caring for those who already exist.

              >For future generations, a lot can and
              probably will be done for the good of mankind. Your aim is a long
              term one. Most world suffering could very well be eradicated in a
              shorter term. <

              That's the idea: a long-term solution as well as short-term improvements.
              See: http://www.vhemt.org/philrel.htm#popshrink

              <snip>Without humans, a sensational rose is just as beautiful as a
              piece of dog shit with lovely maggots, . . .<

              Sensational roses are selectively bred by humans and would revert to
              wild eventually. Maggots and excrement aren't pretty to us, but are a
              part of a balanced ecosystem. Domesticated plants are not.

              >Without any humans, there is no "beauty". And please don't compare
              >this to the falling tree in the woods.<

              Why not? That's what you're saying. The definition of "sound"
              includes perception, which is why the falling tree doesn't make a
              sound without someone to hear it. However, I'd say a squirrel
              perceiving the noise would qualify it as a sound.

              Likewise, as you say, the tree wouldn't be beautiful without
              perception. Humans have the capacity to perceive the beauty of a
              thousand-year-old tree, but we seem to appreciate the lumber to makes
              to be even more beautiful. No beauty without humans? It's our way to
              convert nature into dead zones: where we live not much else lives. My
              perception is that there's no beauty *with* humans.

              See: http://www.vhemt.org/philrel.htm

              >By the way, if the human race ever does decide to voluntarily make
              itself extinct, I propose that we wipe out all animals¡K because,
              let¡¦s face it, the apes (or ANY other animal) might very well evolve
              to the stage of humans in terms of intelligence, and then the world
              might very well have to go through the same bullshit of suffering
              again¡K and it may get worse. <

              It isn't impossible that another species will come along and do as we
              are, just highly unlikely. No species, as far as we know, has ever
              taken the evolutionary sidetrack we have. Many species, not just
              apes, exhibit intelligence on a par with us -- even though we try to
              skew the scale of intelligence to make it seem like we're the
              smartest. None of them seem to be in line to convert the rest of the
              world into their habitat as we are doing.

              Some mighty evil deeds could be justified with this line of thinking.
              Arms dealers might say. "If we didn't sell arms to petty dictators,
              someone else would, and they might sell them even worse weapons."

              Les

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction




              _____

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              * To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Why_VHEMT/

              * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              Why_VHEMT-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              <mailto:Why_VHEMT-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

              * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
              <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.