In This Weeks Bulletin... FREE Weekly Powerful Question The Three Basic Life Principles Questions and Comments from CwG Readers - Do we need the right to bear arms? Has it just gone too far? Should the constitution read: the right to bear hunting rifles and stun guns? |
| Featured Offerings
|
Neale Talks About Resistance It is perfectly okay, in spiritual terms, to seek to change any circumstance, situation, or condition that arises in your life with which you do not agree. Here is the key point around all of this: Change is not resistance. To seek to alter a circumstance, situation, or condition is not to resist it, but simply to re-shape it into a form which is more pleasing to our eye. Change is an act of creation. Resistance stops creation. That is the difference. Once this is understood, we see how it is possible for great people such as Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa to have done the work in the world that they have done. Closely exploring these people's lives makes it clear that they never condemned anyone or anything. Judgment was not part of their vocabulary. Bitterness was not part of their experience. And the use of force was utterly outside of their cosmology. That is, they could not imagine it as a useful energy of change. All the spiritual teachers across time have encouraged us to "resist not evil." This does not mean that we should never seek to create new conditions in our lives or in the lives of others. This means, simply, that we are most effective in bringing about change when we use creative energy rather than condemning energy. Resistance to anything actually places it there more firmly in our experience. You cannot "resist" something that is not there. Therefore in the act of resisting something places it there. Jesus said, "Judge not, and neither condemn." He did not say, "Change not, and neither alter." Change is good. Indeed, Conversations with God tells us that change is the nature of life. It goes further to tell us that the words "life" and "God" are interchangeable. If, then, change is the nature of life, then change is the nature of God. Indeed, the text of CwG tells us this directly. It says, "God is change." God, the material tells us, is a process. That process is Life Itself. And the life is change in process. It is the movement of atoms and molecules, the vibration of energy, the constant shifting of The Essence to create in physical form what has been conceived at the level of pure creation. Resistance is the act of trying to stop something. Change is the act of seeking to modify it. There is an enormous difference. Therefore, when confronted with any outward experience that is not welcome in your reality, do not push back from it but rather, move into it. Embrace it in its totality. Love it in its perfection. Then simply use the process of creation to re-shape it into a form which more perfectly represents Who You Are and Who You Choose to Be. This may take time. One should not expect instant results. Instant results are possible, but one should not expect them. Rather, be satisfied with the process that is taking place, allowing yourself to move with the energy as the energy moves with you, re-creating itself and re-creating you in one motion. Have patience. Have understanding. Have awareness. Come from a place of Total Consciousness about what is occurring and your life will be an experience of peace and quiet joy -- one might call it deep inner serenity -- during all the moments of your time on earth. This is a great promise of God. This is a great reward to those who are Attentive. Therefore, pay attention. Notice the moment. Peer deeply into each occurrence. Do not be confused by the illusion. And resist not evil, for "nothing is evil, lest thinking make it so." Seek gently to simply change any condition or circumstance that may seem "real" in your life which does not speak to you of Who You Are. This Is the Great Secret of All Masters.- NDW Personal Letter From Neale My Dear Friends... I am just returned from the World Oneness Tour sponsored by Humanity's Team and I want you to know that the message of CwG is alive and well and living vibrantly in the hearts of people around the globe! Everywhere we went -- from New Zealand to Japan, from Portugal to the United Kingdom, from Germany to South Africa, from Moldova to Argentina -- people gathered together by the hundreds, yearning to hear more of this message, and to learn what they could do to spread it and share it with others. I am clear that this is because the message itself is so incredibly powerful, so wonderfully healing, so marvelously freedom-giving, that everyone who hears it wants to hear more, and everyone who hears more wants to share it with others, because they see that the message has changed their lives and can change the world! So I just want you to know that your efforts are working. Your input as a supporter of the ReCreation Foundation is doing what you have intended for it to do. NOW...moving forward...let me ask you a question. Is there someone in your life who is facing a major decision right now? Do you know of someone who is being confronted with a huge challenge or a very difficult choice? If so, I want to highly recommend that you tell them about our very special program, The Freedom Retreat, which could not be more perfectly timed, May 21-27 at Black Mountain (just outside of Asheville), North Carolina. This wonderful 7-day event is designed to bring the messages of CwG home in a powerful way, showing you how you can free yourself of the constraints that have stopped you from living the life that you choose, being the person that you really are, and experiencing the happiness that is your birthright. I really, really, really wish that I could put all of you in this room with me, and just move everyone to a place of New Awareness and Greater Joy right here, right now! That's not possible, of course...but I know that some of you -- one or two of you here and there -- really are facing a major life choice right now, or are looking at your day-to-day experience very deeply, trying to see just what it is that stops you from feeling that your life is going where you want it to go, feeling the way you want it to feel, and bringing you what you had always hoped for. If that describes you on this day, please, please give consideration to just coming on ahead to this extraordinary event. I will be there in front of the room facilitating your movement through the place called Dilemma to the place called Resolution and Solution. I know, I know....it means that you would have to just drop everything and make some very quick plans. But you still have time to catch the Two Weeks In Advance airline rates, and, by golly, you deserve this for yourself. People who have done these spiritual renewal programs with us have told us that, like the books, they have in many cases changed their whole lives. I want to work with you, I want to share with you how you can move from "where you are" to "where you want to be" in this life. I can't guarantee that everything down to the last detail will be hunky-dory when you leave, but I can tell you that you will gain a new and empowering perspective with which to return to the challenge at hand in your life. This is when CwG truly comes alive for me. I love doing this kind of highly personal, interactive work, and you give me a great gift when you allow yourself to be vulnerable enough to come into the room and explore your life in this soft and gentle, but powerful, way. Just go now to www.cwg.org and there on the Foundation's home page you will find all the information you need to see what this wonderful program is about (it's about bringing you freedom! ) and how you may participate. And I will see you next week! Hugs and love....Neale. Dear Friend, We have a wonderful gift that we want to share with you. If you are not already receiving your FREE WEEKLY POWERFUL QUESTION from CWG Coaching Services, our LEP education partner, we encourage you to sign up today by going to www.cwgcoachingservices.com/FreeQ.php The WEEKLY POWERFUL QUESTION has been featured in Spirituality & Health Magazine as a unique and powerful tool to support you. The question is received each week by thousands of people in over 40 countries around the world. We have received hundreds of comments from people who love the questions and find their timing and content to be a fabulous support in their lives. To see some of the comments we have received, go to www.cwgcoachingservices.com/FreeQ_testimonials.php Go to http://www.cwgcoachingservices.com/FreeQ.php to subscribe and become part of the group, connected energetically, through these powerful questions. You might be surprised at what you discover as you reflect on one, simple, thoughtful question! P.S. If you are already subscribed to the question, why not forward the sign up information to your friends? If you would like to subscribe to the WEEKLY POWERFUL QUESTION in Spanish, go to www.doit.com.mx/pregunta.htm
Message from Marion Hello my dear friends: I am currently in Atlanta at the Humanity's Team gathering and I will be reporting back to you next week. Love to all, Marion Black, CEO PS: My email is marion@CwG.org or my cell number is (541) 301-0365
The Three Basic Life Principles... CwG reveals to us that there is a set of principles that guides and sustains life on the earth, but that these principles have largely been ignored in our day-to-day life because they are not taught by any of humanity's major religions or spiritual movements. Yet they are vitally important, because understanding these principles helps us to understand not only what is going on all around us - but why . Daringly, CwG says that these basic principles - Functionality, Adaptability, and Sustainability - actually replace the concepts of "morality," "justice," and "ownership" in highly evolved societies. Please explain in your paper how these Basic Life Principles form a matrix governing Life everywhere. Show how they interrelate and interconnect to produce a never-ending cycle, and explain how morality, justice, and ownership are a beginning culture's attempts to articulate these principles and overlay them upon its societies in a way that turns mechanisms into systems. (Hint: Mechanisms are built into the natural order of things as impartial processes that make life work; systems are laid onto the natural order of things as human-made methods of making life work. Systems, far from being mechanical and impartial, are imposed upon the objective processes of the universe in order to bend those processes to the subjective will and desire of a given culture.) Explain why morality, justice, and ownership would no longer be necessary, and would, in fact, quickly become outdated and outmoded in a society that understands and embraces the Three Basic Life Principles as operational realities, rather than merely intellectual concepts, in the conduct of daily life. Morality and Functionality I was quite surprised when I was first exposed to the idea of functionality replacing morality as a guide to human behavior. At the seminary I attend, there are no courses on "functionality." There are, however, two or three required courses in ethics. Ethics and morality have a similar ring to them. We hear in these words that there are behaviors that we are supposed to do; behaviors we are obliged to do; even behaviors that we are required to do. Who does the requiring? Well God, of course! Let's say I approached someone who was a smoker. I wanted to confront them about their behavior, telling them that it is not "ethical" or "moral." A conversation like this might take place: "Do you mind not smoking? It's really rude. Don't you have any sense of morals?" "Morals? What do morals have to do with it? Smoking helps me to relax and calm down after a stressful day." "Yes, but you are filling up your lungs with toxins. That is not very healthy. Not only that, but I have to ingest all of your secondhand smoke. Do you think that is ethical?" "Look, I don't know what you're talking about with all this 'ethical' business. I know smoking isn't good for my health. But I enjoy the way it makes me feel after a stressful day." "Okay, fine. But don't you think it's unfair to make others inhale the same smoke that you exhale? That's not very kind or compassionate to those around you." "I see what you mean. I never thought about it that way. Does it really bother you that much?" "Yes, it does. I've wanted to tell you for a while, but have just gotten the nerve. I would really appreciate if you were kind enough to not smoke around me." "I can understand that. From now on, I will smoke in another area, where it won't disturb you. Thanks for being honest with me." In this conversation, and in most conversations about being ethical, the heart of the conversation is found in functionality- what works and what doesn't work- rather than in what is abstractly right or wrong. The confronter started the conversation on the basis of ethics and morality. But what he ended up appealing to was functionality- what worked and what didn't work based on where each person wanted to go. Smoking helped the smoker get to a place of relaxation and calmness. Therefore, the confronter did not challenge the smoker's behavior on those grounds. He challenged her behavior on the grounds that she was not being kind, compassionate, or empathetic. If she wanted to be kind, compassionate, and empathetic, her lack of consideration for himself- as a non-smoker- was not functional. (Of course, he could have had another conversation with her about how smoking may not have been functional in helping her to get to a place of health and vitality). When we discuss behavior on the basis of ethics, we tend to lose common ground. After all, whose ethical system am I following? Do you follow the ethics of the Bible? The Tao Te Ching? Religious Science? Satanism? With so many various ethical systems, we do not all share the same moral compass. Some people believe that God rewards you if you kill Americans. Other people believe it is their ethical duty to kill people who perform abortions. Our ethical and moral systems are often based on other people's rules or guidelines for our lives. While other people's advice can be good, no person's feedback is infallible. Ultimately, it is up to us to decide what we will do. It is not uncommon for religious people, when explaining their behavior, to quote verse after verse of whatever scripture they deem holy and authoritative. Ask a person why they don't believe in sex before marriage, homosexuality, or abortion, and they'll quote you a passage they have memorized out of scripture as a justification for their beliefs. Basing our beliefs solely on what others say is not "sustainable." Is this true even for what spiritual masters have said? Yes. Even for spiritual masters this is true. Jesus said in the Bible that we should not divorce. If we interpret this statement literally, we are forced to say that no one should divorce today- even if a person's spouse is engaging in abusive or degrading behavior. "Sorry," we must say. Jesus told us you can't divorce. You'd better suck it up. Such an approach does not resonate with our inner being. We know better than to buy into this belief just because a secondhand source (i.e. the gospel writers) attributed it to a spiritual master (Jesus). If we look closely, Jesus' statement about divorce was not based as much on universal morality as it was on functionality. In the patriarchal society Jesus lived in, women were treated as property. In Matthew 19: 3-9, Jesus says that a man should not divorce his wife, except for "unchastity." Jesus' teaching about divorce is not a universal one that carries over automatically to today. Look closely at the text. Jesus' teaches that a MAN should not divorce his WIFE. Jesus doesn't say anything about a woman divorcing a man. Why not? In ancient patriarchal days, women were not treated as full human beings. They did not have the rights that men had, in divorce as in many other areas of life. The Pharisees and Jews of Jesus' day were locked in a debate about how to interpret the Torah from Deuteronomy 24:1. Did this unclear passage mean that men could only divorce women based on a matrimonial offense (i.e. unchastity), or that men could divorce a woman for any cause? Out of this debate, the Pharisees ask Jesus in Matthew 19:3, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" (i.e. as opposed to only one cause). In Jesus' time, the argument was not settled. Some of Jewish tradition said that Deuteronomy 24:1 meant a man could divorce his wife for any cause. This interpretation allowed a man to divorce his wife with ease and flexibility. Wives, who in that time were much more dependent on their husbands for their survival and status, suffered greatly as a result. Jesus' statement not to divorce, rather than being a statement of universal ethics, can be read as a statement of functionality. Jesus is saying: "Men, do not oppress your wives by divorcing them for petty reasons and leaving them without support. Only divorce your wife if they are unfaithful to you." Jesus is appealing to the man's sense of self and conscience. If you want to be compassionate and loving, refrain from divorce (except under extreme circumstances). Jesus' statement was context specific for first century Israel. His statement was not meant to translate literally to men or women in every century that followed. Jesus wants Israel to get to a place of love. He bases his teachings on what works in helping Israel to live out love, given their particular circumstances. Simply because Jesus was a spiritual master, however, does not mean that his teachings of how to be fair, compassionate, and loving in first century Israel work for us today. The Christ consciousness exists in each of us. Rather than look only to fallible secondhand sources of Jesus' teachings two millennia ago, our invitation is to look to the living Christ consciousness that exists in each of us in the here and now. People who speak about what is ethical often speak about what is "right" and "wrong." Right and wrong, however, are fluid categories. When we peel back the layers of right or wrong speech, what we are really talking about is what works and doesn't work in getting us where we want to be in life. Let's say I have a conversation with someone who is thinking about robbing a bank and killing people to steal millions of dollars. To tell him his behavior is unethical will probably not be persuasive by any means. This person's goal is to acquire millions of dollars. This person's desire is to get to a place of material abundance and prosperity. Recognizing this, I could appeal to this person, not based on an abstract moral standard of right and wrong, but based on who that person wants to be and where they want to go. "Okay, you want to be abundant and prosperous? Do you think this is the best way to go about doing it? Would you be willing to live with the shadow of knowing that you killed others to gain your prosperity? Is who you want to be someone who hides out for the rest of your life so that you do not get caught by the authorities for what you did to secure material abundance? Do you really think this is the best path, given where it is you say you want to go?" At this point, the conversation could make a drastic turn. "What else is it that you want in life? At what destination do you wish to arrive at? Who do you wish to be? What qualities do you wish to manifest? If you desire to be and manifest fear and violence, then continuing with your plan of robbery and killing is probably a successful way of getting where you want to go. But, if you wish to be and to have love, compassion, joy, peace, and freedom, then I doubt your plan will help you to get where you wish to go." A real conversation with someone making these plans probably wouldn't unfold in this way. Nevertheless, you see the point. Right and wrong have a tone of judgment and are too often less than helpful. Instead, if a person can begin to ask: "where do I want to go in life, and who do I want to be?" then they can begin also to ask: "what is the best way to get there?" This is where functionality comes in. Almost everyone can agree that we desire to get to a place of love, peace, abundance, or security. If someone knows where they want to go, the question becomes: what is the most effective way to get there? The history of our world has given us the message that violence and war are the way to peace. When Caesar Augustus died in the first century C.E., he sent out his will throughout the earth. His will had inscribed on it: "I brought peace. I conquered." Yet, during Augustus' 51 year reign as emperor, there were only two days that his army was not out in the fields. Is that peace? The conversation about functionality must first begin by recognizing where it is we wish to go. Can we all agree that we wish to go to a place of love? If we can all agree on that, then the question becomes: how can I best get to that place? Some religious people think that the way to get to love is by judging and condemning others who are not walking their particular religious path. What might cause a person to believe that judging and condemning another- or one's self-will help get us to a place of love? When I have judged and condemned others, I have not felt very loving. Judgment was like a toxin I put into my system that did not feel good or loving by any means. The judgment and condemnation I meted out felt like a roadblock that prevented love from entering my system. I could only receive what I was giving out. In giving out judgment, I could not receive love. Such has been my experience with judgment. In my experience, it does not lead to a place of love. When I gave out love, then I could receive it in turn. It is just as Don Eaton and Cathy Bolton sing at the ReCreation retreats: "You must give yourself to love, if love is what you're after..." Some people believe that loving a homosexual person means telling that person that they are a sinner; that loving the homosexual means telling them they should negate their homosexual lifestyle and homosexual desires. The rationale? God desires us only to have male-female relationships. Under this belief system, the way to love another is by telling them to change their sexual orientation. We can love homosexual people by telling them to have sexual relationships with people whom they are not sexually attracted to. People who believe this way are not "wrong." They are only operating out of their model of the world. We find common ground in our dialogue when we can decide where we want to go. Do we want to go to a place of love? "If we want to go to a place of love, let's then have a dialogue about how we can manifest love to people who are homosexual. I believe that loving people of various sexual orientations means loving and accepting them for who they are. What do you believe?" The flaw in morality is that it is based on a conception of a universal "right" and "wrong." If a universal "right" and "wrong" exist then I can easily say that homosexual behavior is "wrong." After all, God says so. Heterosexual behavior, then, is "right." God says that too. From this conclusion, it is an easy step to justify non-acceptance of homosexual behavior. With such constructs and models of the world, we must ask ourselves: who is making these decisions? Who is deciding what is wrong and what is right? Many would say that God is, and that they are simply following "God's commands." What if God did not say that homosexual behavior was a sin? What if God did not give any regulations about who we could and couldn't have sexual relations with? What if all such "God-ordained laws" were only laws that had been created and justified by human beings? So long as we are caught up in morality as our society has constructed it, we are caught up in a never-ending debate about who is right and who is wrong. I am right, and so I try to make you wrong. You believe you are right, and so you try to make me wrong. Rather than have an open dialogue where we learn from each other, we both come into conversation desiring to convince the other person about our pre-packaged answers of what is "right" and "wrong." In morality-centered debates that revolve around right and wrong, nobody wins or loses. Both parties come away frustrated. Neither is able to convince the other. As a result, neither person wins or loses. In debates about functionality, we begin to erase notions of a universal right and wrong. When our discussion centers around what works and what doesn't work, then I begin to let go of my need to be right. I also let go of my need to make you wrong. On the contrary, we can find common ground about where we want to go, and how we can most effectively get there. What is the way we can love in relation to people who are homosexual? If I believe that homosexual behavior is wrong- just like if I believed killing is wrong- then I would love you by trying to get you to change your behavior. I would love the sinner, but hate the sin. I would try to convince you not to engage in your "wrong" behavior. A dialogue between people on two different sides of this issue might start out something like this: " Why do you believe that we should try to change people who are homosexual ?" "Haven't you read God's laws? Can't you see that such behaviors are wrong?" " But what are homosexuals doing in their sexual relations with persons of the same sex that is not loving? What are they doing that is not taking them to the place of love? " When we ask that last question, then the conversation takes a U-turn. When we talk about what works and doesn't work today, then the basis of our beliefs no longer becomes what we believe to be God's law. It becomes: "Is this person's behavior loving or not?" When two people of the same sex decide to enter into a mutually agreed upon, consensual relationship, I do not see any fear or violence in that relationship. I do not see any way in which that relationship is not manifesting love. When we think about love in this way, then what is functional for homosexual relationships becomes exactly what is functional for heterosexual relationships. If persons want to get to a place of love- be they heterosexual or homosexual- then here are some roadmaps: enter into relationships that both people consent to; enter into relationships that are a source of continual evolution, freedom, and ever-new joy; enter into relationships that cause our love to expand, and not contract- so that out of our relationship, our love for each other and for others increases, not decreases! If both heterosexual and homosexual people in relationships desire to get to a place of love, there are also signs that such relationships have gotten off course: if I enter into non-consensual relationships as in rape, incest, or pedophilia; if I enter into relationships where there is a power differential between myself and the other; if I enter into relationships where there is a lack of emotional and sexual maturity on either one's part. These are some of the things that do not work in taking us to a place of love. Heterosexual and homosexual relationships that are abusive, domineering, and lacking in mutual consent are road signs that we are going in the wrong direction of where we wish to go. Both these lists could go on further. One sees how easy it was for the number of Torah laws to get so high: to over 600! But the meaning of this exposition is clear- the behaviors that are functional for heterosexuals are the same behaviors that are functional for homosexuals. If we want to get to a place of love, then nothing is "wrong" with homosexual relationships that are healthy, consensual, and loving. END PART ONE *(Matt Carriker is a current participant in our 2 nd Level LEP. We are blessed with several wonderful writers in this 2nd Level and FasTrak classes and we are pleased to be able to share their writing with you from time to time. This article is the first part of a 3-part paper that Matt has written for the LEP. If you would like to respond to Matt: matt@cwg.org )
Dear Neale, I am hoping the current issues in the news will compel you to address one of the basic ideas our country was founded on, the right to bear arms. It seems there aren't many people 'on the fence' regarding this issue. I am personally a pacifist, yet I don't have a solution to the problem of how to defend yourself against those with guns, without guns. Ever been to 'neutral' Switzerland ? Neutral by force, yet they are not killing each other in the streets. What's the difference? Jesus said turn the other cheek. Where would that get us? Occupied? I grew up in a household with guns. My father lived through the depression and his mother's motto was, if you can kill it, I can cook it. It was a matter of eating or going hungry. I was taught to shoot and respect guns at a young age, although always a little fearful, I was mostly uninterested. My father felt very strongly about the right to own guns, for hunting as well as protection (he fought in WWII). He was a member of the NRA. I know there are millions like him. I understand both sides of the issue, but do not see a solution to the problem that we are facing in the U.S. What are your thoughts? 'Abraham's' thought is that there always was war, and there always will be, just don't make it a part of your experience. That is the way I thought I was handling it, and yet it has become part of my experience. Given my belief system (thank you Dad and world), it isn't surprising. (Changing my belief system is about the hardest thing I have ever attempted. Beliefs are embedded in every single thought! Wow!). I would love to hear your thoughts. Do we need the right to bear arms? Has it just gone too far? Should the constitution read: the right to bear hunting rifles and stun guns? With a joyous heart, Lori Dear Lori... One argument of gun owners is that guns are needed to hunt. Yet it is not necessary to kill other animals in order to eat. Another argument of gun owners is that guns are needed to defend one 's self. Yet defense is never necessary when being attacked can take nothing from you that you want or need. The Master is one who neither wants nor needs anything, so defense become pointless. Let me give you an example. Byron Katie is the author of the extraordinary volume, Loving What Is. In one of her later books Byron tells the story of being mugged. A man approached her, stuck a gun in her belly, and said he was going to kill her. Byron looked at the man and said, "I wish you wouldn't do that." The man replied coarsely that he had to, he had no choice, to which Byron replied, "In that case, thank you for doing the best that you can." The mugger blinked twice, tilted his head as a dog does to make sure he has heard what he's heard, blinked again, stowed his gun, turned and walked away, shaking his head. Conversations with God says that all fear is ultimately a fear of death. When you do not fear death, you do not fear life. If you think that death is the end of life, you will fear living, especially if you think you can lose your life. If you are clear that death is not an end, but the beginning of something quite extraordinary, you will not fear the path that takes you there, however it takes you. This is all that life is. Life is a pathway to death. When you understand this, and understand why you are taking this path, you begin to understand life itself, and are no longer afraid of losing it, for you realize that this is something you cannot do. Life is a journey of the soul, having nothing to do with the physical body. The body is something you have, not something you are. It is a tool used by the soul in the never-ending process of the recreation and experiencing of the Self. A gun is a weapon. No matter how you slice it, no matter how you parse it, no matter how you look at it or try to explain it, a gun is a weapon. Spiritual masters do not require weapons for any reason. The owning of a weapon is the disowning of the Self. It is an announcement that you have rejected Who You Really Are. You have no reason to own or use a weapon of any kind unless you have abandoned your true identity. I hope, Lori, that this response has been helpful to you. Love, Neale. If you would like to send a comment or a question to Neale here at the Weekly Bulletin, you may do so by addressing an email to: weeklybulletinresponse@CwG.org
|
The CwG Weekly Bulletin is written by Neale Donald Walsch. It is produced by Joanna Gabriel and edited by Rose Wolfenbarger with technical contributions from Marion K. Black and Roger Mellon. If you would like to connect with us with any comment, question, or sharing, please visit http://www.cwg.org/main.php?p=About&sub=Contact If you would like to be removed from this list, please visit http://www.cwg.org/main.php?p=Connect&sub=Bulletin If someone passed this on to you and you would like to subscribe to the list yourself visit http://www.cwg.org/main.php?p=Connect&sub=Bulletin |
