[Vision2020] Why I Support Gay Marriage
Dan Carscallen
areaman at moscow.com
Thu Aug 13 21:24:58 PDT 2009
I don't have a dog in this fight, but just wanted to offer up that I've
referred to my delicate flower as my pal. She's also my best buddy. Mi
amiga, if you will.
In all honesty, she really doesn't like me referring to her as my
delicate flower, but I mean it in the most endearing way.
for what it's worth.
DC
-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of keely emerinemix
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:42 PM
To: jampot at roadrunner.com
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [Vision2020] Why I Support Gay Marriage
You decry the "personal" argument Mo offers for her wish to be able to
marry her partner, but then insist that in offering "personal"
arguments, she doesn't answer your question of why her being able to
marry (her) partner is a benefit to me and/or society?" Which seems
like a question based on . . . your personal feelings about the matter,
as I presume you wouldn't intend to represent all of society.
And it seems to me that if you know, and likely knew, that "pal" was and
would be offensive, you would either (A) not use it, out of respect, or,
(B) apologize for having used it once she told you it was hurtful.
Really, is your argument so precious to you that you have to take refuge
in persisting to use a term that she finds offensive? If your argument
requires the use of a word that is flip and demeaning, Webster aside,
perhaps you might want to refine it -- you know, making it less personal
-- or else re-examine why it is that benefit to you "and society" ought
to supercede benefit to her.
Keely
www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
_____
From: jampot at roadrunner.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:14:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Why I Support Gay Marriage
Unfortunately, my question was not answered in even the most oblique
fashion. What I asked was "Why don't you explain to me all the myriad
ways in which you being able to marry your partner is a benefit to me
and/or society?" What you replied with was the standard song we have all
become so familiar with. To paraphrase: "I want it because I perceive it
as good for me." and, because I thinks it's "fair." We've heard this all
before and I am not going to respond at that level because to do so is
to make this into some sort of a personnel argument regarding your
lifestyle (which I have no interest in) rather than a discussion of the
merits of changing a policy that has worked, sometimes imperfectly I'll
be the first to admit, for centuries.
Next order of biz, I suppose, is me making some sort massively insincere
apology for my choice of noun to refer to your "partner." Let's face it,
we all know that I would not be sorry in the least so I won't even
pretend for the sake of civil discourse. I'm glad that you choose to
believe that I'm a "smart man." You would not need to search very hard
to find venomous and vociferous disagreement. Either way, I do know what
the words I choose to use mean,
from dictionary.com
Pal 1. a very close, intimate friend.
Partner 1. a person who shares or is associated with another in some
action or endeavor.
and now you do too. Take from this what you will.
respectfully,
g
----- Original Message -----
From: keely <mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com> emerinemix
To: Mo Hendrickson <mailto:hend5953 at vandals.uidaho.edu> ;
lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Why I Support Gay Marriage
Mo, thanks for a very important contribution to the debate surrounding
same-sex marriage. I appreciate your not only taking the time to answer
Gary, but the reasonableness with which you answer his questions. This,
and many other reasons, are why I'm blessed by God to call you and your
partner -- "pal" IS utterly offensive -- my dear friends.
Keely
www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
_____
From: hend5953 at vandals.uidaho.edu
To: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:02:57 -0700
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Why I Support Gay Marriage
This is my long overdue response to Gary's questions from the end of
July. As we all know life happens and sometimes things fall through the
cracks, that is what happened to my response. With Palouse Pride this
Saturday and the Washington State Referendum 71 likely to be on the
ballot in November, I figured it was time to give my point of view.
First I want to thank Gary for asking his questions. I had honestly not
done a whole lot of research into the effects of restricting marriage
and found that I am now better equipped to handle questions when they
come my way. I am by no means an expert but I want to share what I have
found and speak from my own experience.
The first thing I am going to address is the notion that "most states
allow pretty much all accomodation to homosexual couples as they do
hetro except the title." Oh if this were even close to the truth I
would be a much happier person. Lets take Idaho as an example.
Same-sex couples in Idaho are pretty much considered roommates under the
law. There is no legal protection granted to them by the state. A
married couple in Idaho can file joint taxes, when a child is born both
people in the couple are legally that child's parent even if sperm
donation was used, they can make medical and financial decisions for the
other person without drawing up legal paperwork...the list could go on
and on. A same sex couple enjoys none of these or any other rights of
marriage in Idaho.
Yes we can go to a lawyer and have wills and powers of attorney drawn
up, but that does not make things equal. Say my partner and I where
traveling out of state we are in an accident and one of us is unable to
consent to medical care. I pull out my power of attorney hoping that
the hospital will accept it and grant me the power to make the
decisions. If they wanted they could look right past me and call my
partners family to make those decisions. In my case we would probably
be on the same page as to care, but that is not always the case. If a
straight married couple had the same thing occur the hospital would not
ask them to produce their marriage license before allowing the other to
make those decisions. There are plenty of places across this country
that still deny partners the right to visit each other in the hospital,
simply on the basis that they are not a "family" member. Tell me how
this is right? Tell me how this makes our country stronger, denying the
right to see a loved one? To me this is wrong on so many levels.
I know I may not be answering your questions directly but I am trying to
cover a great deal of information. You asked about the major tangible
benefits for my partner and I. First and the most present for my
partner and I is medical benefits. I am currently covered by her plan,
she works for a company that has generously paid for our benefits. She
is back in school and will be leaving her job in the next couple of
years. She will be without health insurance because I cannot carry her
on my insurance through the University. The insurance at UI may not be
the best around but it is better than nothing. Along with health care
if one of us were to get sick or injured and had to take time off, the
other could not take family medical leave to care for the other person.
A married couple is covered under the federal Family Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) which protects a workers job with unpaid time off to care for a
sick family member. We are not married so we are not covered.
Second major tangible benefit, parental rights of each parent. I am
unable to carry children, so when we start a family it will be my
partner who carries the child. When our children are born, the sperm
donor will have more rights to my child than I will. We will need to go
through the process of adoption so that i can be the legal parent of the
child. So not only do we need to go through the expense of pregnancy,
we will have the added expense of legalizing my rights with my child.
If my partner were to die before the process was over I could be denied
custody of my child.
I really could go on and I intended this to be more empirical and less
emotive, but alas it is something that is dear to my heart and would
greatly improve the lives of millions of Americans. If you want
empirical data I will gladly share the volumes of data that I found.
But for now I will hold onto it...this email is getting long and my
lunch break is almost over.
There is one final thing that I would like to say. Unfortunately I did
not save the email in which you wrote this, Gary, and I don't have time
to look it up in the archives, but in subsequent emails you referred to
my partner as my "pal." I am not going to fly off the handle and call
you all sorts of nasty names, but I will say this. That one little word
hurt me. I don't think I am being overly sensitive to this either. We
have been together for over six and a half years, she is not my pal, she
is my partner. We share everything, good and bad, we have seen each
other through some really hard times and we have celebrated with each
other in the joyous times. You are a smart man, you know the impact
your words have on people. I wanted to let you know that this time they
cut a little too deep. I may not agree with most of what you write on
the vision, but I do respect you. I ask that you do the same for me.
Ok, now it really is time to finish my lunch.
-Mo
_____
From: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
To: hend5953 at vandals.uidaho.edu
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Choices
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:26:29 -0700
Since I've done that one before Mo, why not just for fun try a different
approach. Why don't you explain to me all the myriad ways in which you
being able to marry your partner is a benefit to me and/or society?
Explain how it will be good for children (mine or yours, assuming you
have any), how it will strenghten families, and how it won't cause large
problems with regard to an already tottering social security system. Lay
out how it won't set the stage for polygamous and polyandrous unions
with all the inherent problems that will bring. Perhaps, if nothing
else, explain to me what the major tangible benefits of it would even be
for you and your partner.
All the things that you claim you long for can be achieved by other
legal means. It is my understanding that most states allow pretty much
all accomadation to homosexual couples as they do hetro except the
title, why so adamant in your insistance for a change to the status quo?
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Mo Hendrickson <mailto:hend5953 at vandals.uidaho.edu>
To: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:11 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Choices
One question Gary. I am hoping you can clarify this point for me...
How would my desire to marry my partner adversely affect you?
Your marriage, I am making an assumption that you are married, has no
effect on me, so why would mine have any bearing on you? Why do you
advocate for denying me and my partner a legally recognized marriage?
Not that I expect an answer but I thought I would put it out there. I
guess anybody who is opposed to same gender marriage could answer this
question. And so we don't head down the ridiculous path of marrying
goats, I am defining same gender marriage as two consenting adults.
-Mo
_____
From: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:41:22 -0700
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."
Another inconsequential argument. No valid marriages are being rendered
"null and void" and I'm not suggesting that any be made so. I think that
my views are quite consistant. I'm in favor of choice when the choice
doesn't adversely affect others who have no way of escaping my decision.
What strikes me as strange is your notion that your personally concocted
idea of freedoms should be celebrated and allowed to impact any and
everyone with no regard for adverse impact.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Campbell
To: the lockshop
Cc: TIM RIGSBY ; <starbliss at gmail.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."
So you think that the state should not be forced to recognize marriage?
If they were to say that conservatives with inconsistent views were not
allowed to marry, and thus your marriage was null and void, that would
be fine with you? Yipes! As I said, this is a strange kind of freedom!
And I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just pointing out the
implications of your own words.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 24, 2009, at 1:55 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
wrote:
Is mis-stating my position really the only way you can think of to try
and make a valid point?
As I have said repeatedly, I believe that if homosexuals can find
someone who is willing to pronounce them man and man, wife and wife, or
man, wife, wife, or any permutation thereof then swell, I wish them the
best. What I am not in favor of is in my or the state being forced to
recognize it.
With regard to the abortion issue though I've really got to admit that
you've got me caught on the horns of a delimma. How could I not see the
similarity between making a choice that has a 1 in 15 chance of
potentially damaging the health of the person doing the choosing and
making a decision that has a 100% chance of killing an innocent party?
In both of your examples the decision extends to others who will not be
given a choice to participate. Bar patrons and employess do get to make
an informed choice and as a result your comments seem a trifle lame.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Campbell
To: the lockshop
Cc: TIM RIGSBY ; <starbliss at gmail.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."
You don't even think that ADULTS are able to make decisions about whom
to marry or whether pr not to have children, so stop pretending to
respect a person's right to make decisions for him or herself!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 24, 2009, at 12:11 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
wrote:
It would seem that you, Mr. Moffet, and our city council have a mighty
low opinion of the intelligence of the patrons and employees of bars and
taverns. I can't speak for your students but, I find it very difficult
to believe that by the time a citizen reaches the age of 21 in the
United States he hasn't heard the anti-smoking mantra to the point of
nausea.
How lucky we are that there are people out there who will take it upon
themselves to prevent emancipated Americans from making their own
decisions with regard to the risks they take in life.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: TIM RIGSBY
To: starbliss at gmail.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."
I would like to add the idea of this saying,
"Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."
Either way Ted, you brought up some very valid points that tend to be
forgotten when people discuss tobacco/smoking regulation and
legislation. What scares me as a Health Teacher is when I hear my
junior high and high school aged students talking about how safe, they
think anyway, Hookah bars are. When asked if they would ever smoke
cigarettes, they claim that they won't. Yet what these students don't
realize is that they are actually smoking tobacco at the high school
hookah parties. What is even scarier is a lot of the parents think that
hookah is a safe alternative as well.
The hookah bar closest to my house in Boise is constantly packed with
young people all of the time. Often times, other substances are being
laced into the tobacco as well and these young people are unknowingly
smoking illegal drugs along with their fruit and tobacco mixture.
I predict in the not so distant future, Boise and possibly the State
Legislature will enact legislation to regulate/control these hookah
establishments.
Here is a question to ponder. By definition based on Idaho Code, what
is a hookah bar categorized as? A restaurant, a bar, a private club?
If it falls under the bar definition, then people under 21 should not be
allowed in. It seems as though hookah bars would fall into an undefined
gray area of the Idaho Clean Indoor Air Act. However, Moscow seems to
have covered hookah bars in their recent ban of smoking, I could be
wrong though.
" 'Politics is the art of controlling your environment.' That is one of
the key things I learned in these years, and I learned it the hard way.
Anybody who thinks that 'it doesn't matter who's President' has never
been Drafted and sent off to fight and die in a vicious, stupid War on
the other side of the World -- or been beaten and gassed by Police for
trespassing on public property -- or been hounded by the IRS for purely
political reasons -- or locked up in the Cook County Jail with a broken
nose and no phone access and twelve perverts wanting to stomp your ass
in the shower. That is when it matters who is President or Governor or
Police Chief. That is when you will wish you had voted." - Hunter S.
Thompson
_____
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:39:45 -0700
From: starbliss at gmail.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."
The "Off List" response referenced, from someone I regard as one of the
most educated and honest Vision2020 participants, that I received to my
post below on tobacco regulation, is in total what is stated in the
subject heading of this post. Wise words, no doubt, that I ignore at my
own risk...
Notice there is limited or no discussion of some of the critical facts
my post presented: that tobacco (nicotine) is a physically addictive
drug, with underage tobacco addiction common, raising questions if
whether adult "choice" is in effect regarding employees or consumers in
tobacco related decisions; that tobacco is the leading cause of
premature death (nuclear waste or energy or even nuclear weapons
production is not even close as a cause of premature death); that other
drugs doing less harm to society than tobacco are criminalized and
prosecuted aggressively, involving civil and human rights violations,
yet who among those opposing regulation of tobacco, will as aggressively
advocate for these drugs to be managed by free choice and the
marketplace, rather than a government "Big Brother?" Some, perhaps...
While there are others who should know better playing some on this list
as fools, for the sake of debate, or political advantage, or popular
image or whatever... Or they are as deluded as those they are debating
with...
My response to the "Off List" comment discussed here:
Ummm... OK, I guess... However, being an idealist in belief that
expressing the truth is morally mandated (where did I get that dangerous
idea? I''ll end up in serious trouble! Oh, I forgot, I already am...),
I may not comply. I recently read a variation of this same expression
in James Lovelock's "Revenge of Gaia:" "Don't confuse me with the facts,
my minds made up." Lovelock was referring to this mentality regarding
the rejection of nuclear power by many in the environmental movement.
Ted
Please do not continue to confuse people with facts.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Moffett
To: Moscow Vision 2020
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:55 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Tobacco: Targeting the Nation's Leading Killer:
Centers for Disease Control
Tobacco (nicotine) is a physically addictive drug. Once addicted,
"choice" becomes a problematic concept. And many people become addicted
while underage, encouraged to continue their addiction in bars, where
cigarettes are often shared between customers.
The fact tobacco is physically addictive is absent from the comments of
many opposing the smoking ordinance, as are the facts regarding the
magnitude of the damage. Comparisons to other harmful behaviors are
drawn (fatty food, etc.), suggesting that a slippery slope of regulation
will lead to government control over too many aspects of life, but many
of these behaviors do not involve a drug addiction. Of course alcohol
has dramatic negative impacts. But workers in bars are not forced to
drink the drinks the customers order, as they breathe the smoke of the
customers.
I find it incredible that the health of workers exposed to an addictive
drug when they breathe in the workplace is approached so callously.
They can work elsewhere, it's announced with smug authority, as if in
this economy workers have the luxury of choosing whatever job suits
their fancy, rather than an urgency to take whatever work they can find.
If it was cocaine or heroin or methamphetamine that workers were exposed
to, the attitude might be different.
Profits from exposing workers to addictive drugs in the workplace should
be protected based on free market, free choice, adult responsibility?
If this is the logic, where are the protests against laws imposed on
those selling cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine, et. al., to consenting
adults, which can result in long prison sentences? Let the free market
decide! Why stand in the way of profits and the free choice of adults?
If those opposing the smoking ordinance were consistent in their outrage
against limits on the free market, their ideology might have more
intellectual credibility. Instead, the libertarianism proposed is
inconsistent and conformist. Or perhaps those opposed to the smoking
ordinance will now protest that bars do not allow legal cocaine, heroin
or methamphetamine use? Think of the profits to be made! And remember,
tobacco prematurely kills more people than those three drugs combined...
If attempts were made to criminalize tobacco like cannabis is, resulting
in prison sentences, home invasions, for sale or use, I would oppose
this vehemently. But an ordinance regulating smoking in bars does not
stop any adult from legally using tobacco products in settings where
they do not expose workers.
If worker freedom of choice was a valid argument to justify the exposure
of workers to tobacco smoke in bars, than OSHA could be mostly
eliminated. After all, if workers exposed to hazards monitored or
banned by OSHA don't want to work with those risks, they can work
elsewhere, as long as signs posted in the workplace inform them of the
risks. A "Big Brother" government bureaucracy gone.
--------------------------
http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm
The Burden of Tobacco Use
Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability,
and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people
die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and
another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by smoking. For every
person who dies from smoking, 20 more people suffer from at least one
serious tobacco-related illness. Despite these risks, approximately 43.4
million U.S. adults smoke cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco, cigars, and
pipes also have deadly consequences, including lung, larynx, esophageal,
and oral cancers.
The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the smoker. More than 126
million nonsmoking Americans, including children and adults, are
regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. Even brief exposure can be
dangerous because nonsmokers inhale many of the same carcinogens and
toxins in cigarette smoke as smokers. Secondhand smoke exposure causes
serious disease and death, including heart disease and lung cancer in
nonsmoking adults and sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory
infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in
children. Each year, primarily because of exposure to secondhand smoke,
an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die of lung cancer, more than
46,000 (range: 22,700-69,600) die of heart disease, and about
150,000-300,000 children younger than 18 months have lower respiratory
tract infections.
Coupled with this enormous health toll is the significant economic
burden of tobacco use-more than $96 billion per year in medical
expenditures and another $97 billion per year resulting from lost
productivity.
Chart showing about 443,000 U.S. deaths attributable each year to
cigarette smoking. Text description below.
<http://gfx2.hotmail.com/mail/w3/ltr/i_safe.gif>
[A text description of this graph is also available.]
The Tobacco Use Epidemic Can Be Stopped
A 2007 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report presented a blueprint for
action to "reduce smoking so substantially that it is no longer a public
health problem for our nation." The two-pronged strategy for achieving
this goal includes not only strengthening and fully implementing
currently proven tobacco control measures, but also changing the
regulatory landscape to permit policy innovations. Foremost among the
IOM recommendations is that each state should fund a comprehensive
tobacco control program at the level recommended by CDC in Best
Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs-2007.
Evidence-based, statewide tobacco control programs that are
comprehensive, sustained, and accountable have been shown to reduce
smoking rates, tobacco-related deaths, and diseases caused by smoking. A
comprehensive program is a coordinated effort to establish smoke-free
policies and social norms, to promote and assist tobacco users to quit,
and to prevent initiation of tobacco use. This approach combines
educational, clinical, regulatory, economic, and social strategies.
Research has documented the effectiveness of laws and policies to
protect the public from secondhand smoke exposure, promote cessation,
and prevent initiation when they are applied in a comprehensive way. For
example, states can increase the unit price of tobacco products;
implement smoking bans through policies, regulations, and laws; provide
insurance coverage of tobacco use treatment; and limit minors' access to
tobacco products.
If the nation is to achieve the objectives outlined in Healthy People
2010, comprehensive, evidence-based approaches for preventing smoking
initiation and increasing cessation need to be fully implemented.
CDC's Response
CDC is the lead federal agency for tobacco control. CDC's Office on
Smoking and Health (OSH) provides national leadership for a
comprehensive, broad-based approach to reducing tobacco use. A variety
of government agencies, professional and voluntary organizations, and
academic institutions have joined together to advance this approach,
which involves the following activities:
* Preventing young people from starting to smoke.
* Eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke.
* Promoting quitting among young people and adults.
* Identifying and eliminating tobacco-related health disparities.
Essential elements of this approach include state-based,
community-based, and health system-based interventions; cessation
services; counter marketing; policy development and implementation;
surveillance; and evaluation. These activities target groups who are at
highest risk for tobacco-related health problems.
-------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
_____
Windows LiveT HotmailR: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports
pics. Check it out.
_____
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
_____
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.26/2257 - Release Date:
07/23/09 18:00:00
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
_____
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:
07/24/09 05:58:00
_____
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:
07/24/09 05:58:00
_____
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:
07/24/09 05:58:00
_____
Get free photo software from Windows Live Click
<http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL
:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009> here.
_____
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
_____
Get free photo software from Windows Live Click here.
<http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL
:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090813/d2347eff/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list