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

RE: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

Expand Messages
  • Tom Mix
    I don t know about that nor see where it matters. Rosecrans got the job because Thomas passed on the opportunity when it was literally handed to him. That is
    Message 1 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      I don’t know about that nor see where it matters.

      Rosecrans got the job because Thomas passed on the opportunity when it was literally handed to him. 

      That is the indisputable fact.

       Rosecrans got the job when Thomas left Buell in command when Thomas had the offer literally in his hand to replace Buell. 

      Thomas did not take the job handed to him and it was then given to Rosecrans. 

      Thomas was the right man for the job but apparently Thomas did not feel that he (Thomas) was the right man since he did not take the command handed to him.

       Proof?

      Thomas had the order in his hand to replace Buell but simply did not do it. Buell was left in command by Thomas’ decision to not act on the order to replace Buell.

      Tom

       

      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
      Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:32 PM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

       

      Why was it necessary to change the date of Rosecran's promotion in order to give him seniority over Thomas?  If it was as cut-and-dried as you make it appear, why the subtrefuge?

       

      Strange.

      Tom Mix <tmix@...> wrote:

      But in final analysis, it appears that was wrong. He was soon passed over in
      favor of Rosecrans. A soldier can elect to not follow an order but he does
      so at his own peril. Thomas' delayed and nearly lost the opportunity of
      higher command.
      However, he viewed it, he was wrong. The proof? When Buell was finally
      replaced, it wasn't by Thomas but Rosecrans.
      The President determines the true meaning of the order and Thomas'
      interpretation did not equate to the C.I.C.'s.
      Rosecrans got the job that Thomas did not take.
      Tom

      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of josepharose
      Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:08 PM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" wrote:
      >
      > I believe Buell felt the orders were peremptory as well. He quickly
      prepared
      > to turn over command. Right?
      > Tom

      Mr. Mix:

      No. Just because someone followed an order, doesn't automatically
      make it peremptory.

      As Mr. Bruner stated, "There is a 'clear' difference between a 'clear'
      order and a peremptory order," although I would add that it's not
      always clear when an order is peremptory.

      In that vein, Thomas, through Baldy Smith, argued against one of
      Grant's "peremptory" orders at Chattanooga, as it could have led to
      the destruction of the AotC. Grant didn't object until long
      afterwards, when he intimated that Thomas had erred.

      Joseph

      P.S. per.emp.to.ry adj.
      1. Putting an end to all debate or action: a peremptory decree.
      2. Not allowing contradiction or refusal; imperative: The officer
      issued peremptory commands.
      3. Having the nature of or expressing a command; urgent: The
      teacher spoke in a peremptory tone.
      4. Offensively self-assured; dictatorial: a swaggering, peremptory
      manner.








      Yahoo! Groups Links













      Yahoo! Groups Links

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

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



       

       

    • Bob Huddleston
      A good question. In the Old Army, seniority was sacrosanct, something that the conservative Rebels carried over into the PACS. But early in 1862, the US
      Message 2 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment

        A good question.

         

        In the Old Army, seniority was sacrosanct, something that the conservative Rebels carried over into the PACS.

         

        But early in 1862, the US Congress changed that, for theUS forces at least:

         

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever military operations may require the presence of two or more officers of the same grade in the same field or department, the President may assign the command of the forces in such field or department without regard to seniority of rank.

         

        Approved, April 4, 1862

         

        12 Stat 617. Issued as General Order # 37, April 8, 1862

         

        The most famous – and important example of this was the selection of George Meade to command the Army of the Potomac, over the heads of several of his fellow corps’ commanders right before Gettysburg .

         

        So there was no need to backdate Rosey’s commission to March, 1862 unless it was to satisfy the vanity of George Thomas about being under someone with a junior commission. Or to satisfy the vanity of Rosecrans and also his sponsor, the Secretary of the Treasury.

         

        Take care,

        Bob

        Judy and Bob Huddleston
        10643 Sperry Street
        Northglenn, CO  80234-3612
        303.451.6376  Huddleston.r@...

        "Don't argue with someone who claims the earth is flat. You haven't given it a second thought, whereas he has spent 20 years thinking about and obsessing over why it is flat."

         


        From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
        Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:32 PM
        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] "Peremptory" orders

        Why was it necessary to change the date of Rosecran's promotion in order to give him seniority over Thomas?  If it was as cut-and-dried as you make it appear, why the subtrefuge?
         
        Strange.

      • Bob Taubman
        Well, I suppose that s one way of looking at it. I think if it were me, I d be more upset that they had to stoop to that level just for optics. “Quando omni
        Message 3 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it.  I think if it were me, I'd be more upset that they had to stoop to that level just for optics.
           
          “Quando omni flunkus, mortati”
           
          Go Seahawks!!


          "James F. Epperson" <Jfepperson@...> wrote:
          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman wrote:
          >
          > Why was it necessary to change the date of
          > Rosecran's promotion in order to give him
          > seniority over Thomas? If it was as cut-and-dried
          > as you make it appear, why the subtrefuge?

          I don't see any subterfuge at all. Officers could be
          notoriously sensitive about serving under juniors;
          changing the date of Rosy's promotion avoids this
          problem.

          JFE







          Yahoo! Groups Links

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

          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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





        • nickrelee@aol.com
          In a message dated 2/1/2006 3:51:36 PM Mountain Standard Time, huddleston.r@comcast.net writes: So there was no need to backdate Rosey’s commission to
          Message 4 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 2/1/2006 3:51:36 PM Mountain Standard Time, huddleston.r@... writes:
            So there was no need to backdate Rosey’s commission to March, 1862 unless it was to satisfy the vanity of George Thomas about being under someone with a junior commission. Or to satisfy the vanity of Rosecrans and also his sponsor, the Secretary of the Treasury.
            I think in this case it was to satisfy Thomas that Rosecrans had his comission back dated.  I thought Thomas complained of a junior officer commanding him.  So Lincoln changed Rosey date and I think Halleck told Thomas about the congressional resolution that said Lincoln could pick between men of the same grade without worrying about dates.
            --Nick
          • Bob Taubman
            Fortunately they got it right when they had to replace Rosecrans. In Don Piatt s biography of General Thomas he described a scene in which President Lincoln
            Message 5 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Fortunately they got it right when they had to replace Rosecrans. 
               
              "In Don Piatt's biography of General Thomas he described a scene in which President Lincoln and several members of his Cabinet discussed Buell's successor.  Secretary of the Treasury Chase was in favor of General Rosecrans for the vacancy and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton favored General Thomas.  After listening patiently to both men, the President said, "Let the Virginian wait;  we will try Rosecrans.  Piatt also stated that he was in Secretary Stanton's office when he returned from the conference with the President, and that his first words were, "Well, you have your choice of idiots;  now look for frightful disaster."
               
               - General George H. Thomas, The Indomitable Warrior, Wilbur Thomas(no relation)
              p. 270
               


              nickrelee@... wrote:
              In a message dated 2/1/2006 3:51:36 PM Mountain Standard Time, huddleston.r@... writes:
              So there was no need to backdate Rosey’s commission to March, 1862 unless it was to satisfy the vanity of George Thomas about being under someone with a junior commission. Or to satisfy the vanity of Rosecrans and also his sponsor, the Secretary of the Treasury.
              I think in this case it was to satisfy Thomas that Rosecrans had his comission back dated.  I thought Thomas complained of a junior officer commanding him.  So Lincoln changed Rosey date and I think Halleck told Thomas about the congressional resolution that said Lincoln could pick between men of the same grade without worrying about dates.
              --Nick

            • Tom Mix
              GO STEELERS!!!! ... From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:31
              Message 6 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment

                GO  STEELERS!!!!

                 

                -----Original Message-----
                From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
                Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:31 PM
                To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: "Peremptory" orders

                 

                Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it.  I think if it were me, I'd be more upset that they had to stoop to that level just for optics.

                 

                “Quando omni flunkus, mortati”

                 

                Go Seahawks!!



                "James F. Epperson" <Jfepperson@...> wrote:

                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman wrote:
                >
                > Why was it necessary to change the date of
                > Rosecran's promotion in order to give him
                > seniority over Thomas? If it was as cut-and-dried
                > as you make it appear, why the subtrefuge?

                I don't see any subterfuge at all. Officers could be
                notoriously sensitive about serving under juniors;
                changing the date of Rosy's promotion avoids this
                problem.

                JFE







                Yahoo! Groups Links

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

                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



                 

                 

              • Harry Smeltzer
                There was no stooping involved. This was SOP. Harry ... From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
                Message 7 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment

                  There was no stooping involved.  This was SOP.

                   

                  Harry

                   

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
                  Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:31 PM
                  To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: "Peremptory" orders

                   

                  Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it.  I think if it were me, I'd be more upset that they had to stoop to that level just for optics.

                   

                  “Quando omni flunkus, mortati”

                   

                  Go Seahawks!!



                  "James F. Epperson" <Jfepperson@...> wrote:

                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman wrote:
                  >
                  > Why was it necessary to change the date of
                  > Rosecran's promotion in order to give him
                  > seniority over Thomas? If it was as cut-and-dried
                  > as you make it appear, why the subtrefuge?

                  I don't see any subterfuge at all. Officers could be
                  notoriously sensitive about serving under juniors;
                  changing the date of Rosy's promotion avoids this
                  problem.

                  JFE







                  Yahoo! Groups Links

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

                  <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



                   

                   

                • William H Keene
                  ... Equally famous was the selection of Sherman over Thomas to command the Military Division of the Mississippi. Lesser examples -- Pope placed over the
                  Message 8 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Huddleston" <huddleston.r@...> wrote:
                    >...
                    > The most famous - and important example of this was the selection of George
                    > Meade to command the Army of the Potomac, over the heads of several of his
                    > fellow corps' commanders right before Gettysburg.

                    Equally famous was the selection of Sherman over Thomas to command the Military Division
                    of the Mississippi. Lesser examples -- Pope placed over the corps commanders of the Army
                    of Virginia; Canby placed over the Department Commanders of the Military Division of West
                    Mississippi.
                  • William H Keene
                    Its possible that the recent experience of Pope and Fremont affected the decision in this situation. Fremont resigned rather than serve under Pope giving the
                    Message 9 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Its possible that the recent experience of Pope and Fremont affected the decision in this
                      situation. Fremont resigned rather than serve under Pope giving the dates of commission
                      as his reason.

                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, nickrelee@... wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > In a message dated 2/1/2006 3:51:36 PM Mountain Standard Time,
                      > huddleston.r@... writes:
                      >
                      > So there was no need to backdate Rosey’s commission to March, 1862 unless it
                      > was to satisfy the vanity of George Thomas about being under someone with a
                      > junior commission. Or to satisfy the vanity of Rosecrans and also his
                      > sponsor, the Secretary of the Treasury.
                      >
                      >
                      > I think in this case it was to satisfy Thomas that Rosecrans had his
                      > comission back dated. I thought Thomas complained of a junior officer commanding
                      > him. So Lincoln changed Rosey date and I think Halleck told Thomas about the
                      > congressional resolution that said Lincoln could pick between men of the same
                      > grade without worrying about dates.
                      > --Nick
                      >
                    • Bob Taubman
                      How often was it done? Why is it SOP? Harry Smeltzer wrote: There was no stooping involved. This was SOP. Harry ... From:
                      Message 10 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        How often was it done?  Why is it SOP?


                        Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@...> wrote:
                        There was no stooping involved.  This was SOP.
                         
                        Harry
                         
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
                        Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:31 PM
                        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: "Peremptory" orders
                         
                        Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it.  I think if it were me, I'd be more upset that they had to stoop to that level just for optics.
                         
                        “Quando omni flunkus, mortati”
                         
                        Go Seahawks!!


                        "James F. Epperson" <Jfepperson@...> wrote:
                        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman wrote:
                        >
                        > Why was it necessary to change the date of
                        > Rosecran's promotion in order to give him
                        > seniority over Thomas? If it was as cut-and-dried
                        > as you make it appear, why the subtrefuge?

                        I don't see any subterfuge at all. Officers could be
                        notoriously sensitive about serving under juniors;
                        changing the date of Rosy's promotion avoids this
                        problem.

                        JFE







                        Yahoo! Groups Links

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

                        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



                         
                         

                      • josepharose
                        ... in which President Lincoln and several members of his Cabinet discussed Buell s successor. Secretary of the Treasury Chase was in favor of General
                        Message 11 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman <rtaubman@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Fortunately they got it right when they had to replace Rosecrans.
                          >
                          > "In Don Piatt's biography of General Thomas he described a scene
                          in which President Lincoln and several members of his Cabinet
                          discussed Buell's successor. Secretary of the Treasury Chase was in
                          favor of General Rosecrans for the vacancy and Secretary of War Edwin
                          M. Stanton favored General Thomas. After listening patiently to both
                          men, the President said, "Let the Virginian wait; we will try
                          Rosecrans. Piatt also stated that he was in Secretary Stanton's
                          office when he returned from the conference with the President, and
                          that his first words were, "Well, you have your choice of idiots; now
                          look for frightful disaster."
                          >
                          > - General George H. Thomas, The Indomitable Warrior, Wilbur
                          Thomas(no relation)
                          > p. 270


                          Mr. Taubman,

                          Unfortunately, it appears that some people overlook how things were
                          done in the US Army of the time.

                          Rhea noted: "Placing Burnside under Meade would constitute a serious
                          breach of military protocol."

                          Longstreet had written: "I thought it unwise and not military to
                          choose a junior for assignment over his senior officers, and
                          prejudicial to the espirit de corps and morale of any army, except
                          under most eminent services."

                          This was jus another case of military politics trumping military
                          tradition, common sense, and reasonableness.

                          Joseph
                        • DORR64OVI@aol.com
                          In a message dated 2/1/2006 6:36:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nickrelee@aol.com writes: I think in this case it was to satisfy Thomas that Rosecrans had his
                          Message 12 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 2/1/2006 6:36:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nickrelee@... writes:
                            I think in this case it was to satisfy Thomas that Rosecrans had his comission back dated.  I thought Thomas complained of a junior officer commanding him.  So Lincoln changed Rosey date and I think Halleck told Thomas about the congressional resolution that said Lincoln could pick between men of the same grade without worrying about dates.
                            --Nick
                            You have this backwards.  Lincoln changed Rosy's date when he promoted him and not after Thomas protested.  When Rosy and Thomas met, the Virginian learned of the date of the commission and then later found out about the back dating.  In any case, the President could pick whom he wanted but mindful of the military traditions, the backdating was done.
                             
                            Kent Dorr
                          • Harry Smeltzer
                            See Will s post concerning other examples. But it was done because seniority was very important to these guys. And it was not only done for Army command.
                            Message 13 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment

                              See Will’s post concerning other examples.  But it was done because seniority was very important to these guys.  And it was not only done for Army command.

                               

                              Harry

                               

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
                              Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 9:11 PM
                              To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: "Peremptory" orders

                               

                              How often was it done?  Why is it SOP?



                              Harry Smeltzer <hjs21@...> wrote:

                              There was no stooping involved.  This was SOP.

                               

                              Harry

                               

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Taubman
                              Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:31 PM
                              To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: "Peremptory" orders

                               

                              Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it.  I think if it were me, I'd be more upset that they had to stoop to that level just for optics.

                               

                              “Quando omni flunkus, mortati”

                               

                              Go Seahawks!!



                              "James F. Epperson" <Jfepperson@...> wrote:

                              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman wrote:
                              >
                              > Why was it necessary to change the date of
                              > Rosecran's promotion in order to give him
                              > seniority over Thomas? If it was as cut-and-dried
                              > as you make it appear, why the subtrefuge?

                              I don't see any subterfuge at all. Officers could be
                              notoriously sensitive about serving under juniors;
                              changing the date of Rosy's promotion avoids this
                              problem.

                              JFE







                              Yahoo! Groups Links

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

                              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


                               

                               

                               

                               

                            • William H Keene
                              ... My examples were not of backdating, they were examples of juniors over seniors.
                              Message 14 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > See Will's post concerning other examples.

                                My examples were not of backdating, they were examples of juniors over
                                seniors.
                              • William H Keene
                                ... Yet the dating of Rosecrans rank made the situation match the tradition.
                                Message 15 of 30 , Feb 1, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@...>
                                  wrote:
                                  > ...
                                  > This was jus another case of military politics trumping military
                                  > tradition, common sense, and reasonableness.

                                  Yet the dating of Rosecrans rank made the situation match the
                                  tradition.
                                • Bob Taubman
                                  To say it was standard operating procedure is just an easy way to excuse political expediency. Obviously there was some honour attached to the seniority
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Feb 2, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    To say it was standard operating procedure is just an easy way to excuse political expediency.  Obviously there was some honour attached to the seniority system in the military but as you have pointed out it was politics trumping tradition.
                                     


                                    josepharose <josepharose@...> wrote:
                                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bob Taubman wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Fortunately they got it right when they had to replace Rosecrans.
                                    >
                                    > "In Don Piatt's biography of General Thomas he described a scene
                                    in which President Lincoln and several members of his Cabinet
                                    discussed Buell's successor. Secretary of the Treasury Chase was in
                                    favor of General Rosecrans for the vacancy and Secretary of War Edwin
                                    M. Stanton favored General Thomas. After listening patiently to both
                                    men, the President said, "Let the Virginian wait; we will try
                                    Rosecrans. Piatt also stated that he was in Secretary Stanton's
                                    office when he returned from the conference with the President, and
                                    that his first words were, "Well, you have your choice of idiots; now
                                    look for frightful disaster."
                                    >
                                    > - General George H. Thomas, The Indomitable Warrior, Wilbur
                                    Thomas(no relation)
                                    > p. 270


                                    Mr. Taubman,

                                    Unfortunately, it appears that some people overlook how things were
                                    done in the US Army of the time.

                                    Rhea noted: "Placing Burnside under Meade would constitute a serious
                                    breach of military protocol."

                                    Longstreet had written: "I thought it unwise and not military to
                                    choose a junior for assignment over his senior officers, and
                                    prejudicial to the espirit de corps and morale of any army, except
                                    under most eminent services."

                                    This was jus another case of military politics trumping military
                                    tradition, common sense, and reasonableness.

                                    Joseph






                                    Yahoo! Groups Links

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

                                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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




                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.