# Re: 2 questions



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Joan O. Arc" <joan_o_arc@hotmail.com>* on *Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:07:20 -0000*
Dave,
Belated thanks for your answers to my questions about: a Are there any 
navy-types on the list?, and b Is our naval equipment really as bad as you 
say?
First, how on earth did you stumble into this crew and how on earth did they 
let you stay? I would think given the anti-navy bias I picked up and the 
Puritanical habits of some of the members myself included, I suppose, they 
would have fried you at the stake long ago! Salem again. That line, BTW, 
really *was* a keeper!!
Second, sounds as if naval equipment/vessels are even less practical or 
well-designed than some of the gear the army has to contend with. If things 
get slow on the list, maybe we can start a contest: Which branch of the CF 
is least well-equipped and what is the least well-designed piece of 
equipment you have ever seen/heard of/used? It‘d be kinda like the old Welsh 
guys in the Python sketch again sitting around comparing miserable 
childhoods, don‘t you think???
- Joan
PS - Only first para. of above was meant to be serious. The rest was 
tongue-in-cheek, so replies are welcome - or not - as people see fit...
----Original Message Follows----
From: "dave" 
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: 
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:49:53 -0800
We can detect mines with our Hydrographic survey ships underwater mapping,
but not with our Mine warfare vessels.....
that is sooo Canadian Military, its not funny any more
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan O. Arc" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: 2 questions
 > But maybe we could have a bit of both big and little ships, that is? I
 > know: dream on...
 >
 > Is that really true about us being able to detect mines, but not clear
‘em?
 > How lame!
 >
 >
 > ----Original Message Follows----
 > From: "dave" 
 > Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
 > To: 
 > Subject: Re: 2 questions
 > Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 16:23:02 -0800
 >
 > I know that things will not change in the Navy, there is too much 
prestige
 > involved with large ships, to get rid of them... In the next 10- 15 
years,
 > they will have to think about new vessels once again..Beyong the 
frigates,
 > AOR‘s and MCDV‘s.....
 > By the way, they may be Mine Detection Vessels, but we have no mine
clearing
 > or detecting equipment in or inventory..go figure.
 > Rather than building another batch of too large and too expensive craft,
why
 > not build something to meet an imediate requirement.  This is just my
 > humble, semi-informed opinion.  I do not for one minute believe that the
 > Naval Powers would ever let us become a small ship Navy...there would be
no
 > need for dozens of Admirals.
 >
 >
 >
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: Greg Hawes 
 > To: 
 > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 12:37 PM
 > Subject: Re: 2 questions
 >
 >
 >  > Dave,
 >  >
 >  > Granted, the MCDV may not be the best vessel for the duty,
 >  > but they have been bought, paid for and delivered....
 >  > perhaps they are better suited for mine detection duties,
 >  > but you can‘t deny the fact that they may be of some use as
 >  > part of a team that is tasked with drug or other
 >  > interdiction.
 >  >
 >  > As for satellite uplink ability - with the other radio eqpt
 >  > the vessels possess, it is not necessarily necessary - HF
 >  > has come a long way in the past 20 or so years.
 >  >
 >  > And, as an aside - this is Canada - when have we ever
 >  > worried about not putting our slowest vehicle into a recce
 >  > role?  Was there ever an acceptable vehicle put into that
 >  > role during the period between the Ferret and the Coyote?
 >  >
 >  > BTW, the navy actually has a pretty good website on the
 >  > MCDV - since you stimulated my interest, I decided to seek
 >  > it out.
 >  >
 >  >  http://www.navy.dnd.ca/fleet/kingston_class/fleet_cd_mcd_tour_e.htm 
 >  >
 >  > over,
 >  >
 >  > greg
 >  >
 >  > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:03:14 -0800 dave
 >  >  wrote:
 >  >
 >  > > The MCDV‘s are a slow speed craft, totally unsuited to patroling in
an
 >  > > effective manner...The reservist‘s are up to the tasks, but they 
need
 >  > > equipment......It is like using the slowest vehicle for recce
 > duties...They
 >  > > do not have Sat. uplink capabilities, nor the abilities to respond 
to
a
 >  > > rapidly changing scenario.
 >  > >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  > --------------------------------------------------------
 >  > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
 >  > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
 >  > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
 >  > message body.
 >
 > --------------------------------------------------------
 > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
 > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
 > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
 > message body.
 >
 > _________________________________________________________________________
 > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
 >
 > --------------------------------------------------------
 > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
 > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
 > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
 > message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *CoastDanny@aol.com* on *Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:27:24 EST*
Joan et al:
It is easily the Army which is most under funded and equiped. I can prove this in one sentence. I learned this from my Recruit course many moons ago.
"The Lord tells me he is going to get me out of this mess, but he‘s pretty sure, you‘re fooked!" Haaahahaha.
Braveheart
Told to me by a then soon to be Navy type. 
Danny
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"John Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Wed, 14 Mar 2001 02:21:28 -0500*
Not sure, as a taxpayer and ex-service type, if you are right, Danny...more
like they are all  what did you say?  "fooked"?
Bless ‘em all...the long and the short and the tall...
John
----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: 2 questions
> Joan et al:
>
> It is easily the Army which is most under funded and equiped. I can prove
this in one sentence. I learned this from my Recruit course many moons ago.
> "The Lord tells me he is going to get me out of this mess, but he‘s pretty
sure, you‘re fooked!" Haaahahaha.
> Braveheart
> Told to me by a then soon to be Navy type.
>
> Danny
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *CoastDanny@aol.com* on *Wed, 14 Mar 2001 02:42:53 EST*
I figure we are all in the same barrel. I went by the local NG unit and almost cried. The trucks and heavy equipment they have that sits there for their one weekend a month just amazes me. Our guys go to Yugo and have to leave kit behind for the next roto, Frag vests, helmets etc
Do I worry?  Who me? Yep.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:19:14 -0800*
Joan..
After I decided that the navy had learned enough from me, I got out and
joined the Militia as a Field Engineer..  I managed to put my self through
college based on the generous renumeration they provided.  As well I come
from a long line of Soldiers, Dad, both Grandfathers, all my Uncles, and
several great uncles.  My brothers and I were the first to buck this trend
and join the Navy, bringing many questions from surviving males in my
family.
My current Naval connection comes from my brothers who are both still
members, one is a Petty Officer 2nd class, the other is a Chief Petty
Officer 2nd class.... Sgt. and MWO
I get to hear quite regularily about the state of the Navy at the pointy
end.
I don‘t know if I‘m tolerated here......?  I have been fried at the stake a
few times...But my first and lasting love is the Army, I was a fish out of
waterpun from the first day I stepped aboard a ship, and was told we were
coming back home in 3 1/2 months.......
Our Naval equipment does the job it is supposed to do, I just don‘t think it
fits the role of our forces today...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan O. Arc" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: 2 questions
> Dave,
>
> Belated thanks for your answers to my questions about: a Are there any
> navy-types on the list?, and b Is our naval equipment really as bad as
you
> say?
>
> First, how on earth did you stumble into this crew and how on earth did
they
> let you stay? I would think given the anti-navy bias I picked up and the
> Puritanical habits of some of the members myself included, I suppose,
they
> would have fried you at the stake long ago! Salem again. That line, BTW,
> really *was* a keeper!!
>
> Second, sounds as if naval equipment/vessels are even less practical or
> well-designed than some of the gear the army has to contend with. If
things
> get slow on the list, maybe we can start a contest: Which branch of the CF
> is least well-equipped and what is the least well-designed piece of
> equipment you have ever seen/heard of/used? It‘d be kinda like the old
Welsh
> guys in the Python sketch again sitting around comparing miserable
> childhoods, don‘t you think???
>
> - Joan
>
> PS - Only first para. of above was meant to be serious. The rest was
> tongue-in-cheek, so replies are welcome - or not - as people see fit...
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "dave" 
> Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> To: 
> Subject: Re: 2 questions
> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:49:53 -0800
>
> We can detect mines with our Hydrographic survey ships underwater
mapping,
> but not with our Mine warfare vessels.....
> that is sooo Canadian Military, its not funny any more
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joan O. Arc" 
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 8:24 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 questions
>
>
>  > But maybe we could have a bit of both big and little ships, that is?
I
>  > know: dream on...
>  >
>  > Is that really true about us being able to detect mines, but not clear
> ‘em?
>  > How lame!
>  >
>  >
>  > ----Original Message Follows----
>  > From: "dave" 
>  > Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>  > To: 
>  > Subject: Re: 2 questions
>  > Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 16:23:02 -0800
>  >
>  > I know that things will not change in the Navy, there is too much
> prestige
>  > involved with large ships, to get rid of them... In the next 10- 15
> years,
>  > they will have to think about new vessels once again..Beyong the
> frigates,
>  > AOR‘s and MCDV‘s.....
>  > By the way, they may be Mine Detection Vessels, but we have no mine
> clearing
>  > or detecting equipment in or inventory..go figure.
>  > Rather than building another batch of too large and too expensive
craft,
> why
>  > not build something to meet an imediate requirement.  This is just my
>  > humble, semi-informed opinion.  I do not for one minute believe that
the
>  > Naval Powers would ever let us become a small ship Navy...there would
be
> no
>  > need for dozens of Admirals.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ----- Original Message -----
>  > From: Greg Hawes 
>  > To: 
>  > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 12:37 PM
>  > Subject: Re: 2 questions
>  >
>  >
>  >  > Dave,
>  >  >
>  >  > Granted, the MCDV may not be the best vessel for the duty,
>  >  > but they have been bought, paid for and delivered....
>  >  > perhaps they are better suited for mine detection duties,
>  >  > but you can‘t deny the fact that they may be of some use as
>  >  > part of a team that is tasked with drug or other
>  >  > interdiction.
>  >  >
>  >  > As for satellite uplink ability - with the other radio eqpt
>  >  > the vessels possess, it is not necessarily necessary - HF
>  >  > has come a long way in the past 20 or so years.
>  >  >
>  >  > And, as an aside - this is Canada - when have we ever
>  >  > worried about not putting our slowest vehicle into a recce
>  >  > role?  Was there ever an acceptable vehicle put into that
>  >  > role during the period between the Ferret and the Coyote?
>  >  >
>  >  > BTW, the navy actually has a pretty good website on the
>  >  > MCDV - since you stimulated my interest, I decided to seek
>  >  > it out.
>  >  >
>  >  >  http://www.navy.dnd.ca/fleet/kingston_class/fleet_cd_mcd_tour_e.htm 
>  >  >
>  >  > over,
>  >  >
>  >  > greg
>  >  >
>  >  > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:03:14 -0800 dave
>  >  >  wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  > > The MCDV‘s are a slow speed craft, totally unsuited to patroling
in
> an
>  >  > > effective manner...The reservist‘s are up to the tasks, but they
> need
>  >  > > equipment......It is like using the slowest vehicle for recce
>  > duties...They
>  >  > > do not have Sat. uplink capabilities, nor the abilities to respond
> to
> a
>  >  > > rapidly changing scenario.
>  >  > >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > --------------------------------------------------------
>  >  > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>  >  > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
>  >  > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
>  >  > message body.
>  >
>  > --------------------------------------------------------
>  > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>  > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
>  > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
>  > message body.
>  >
>  >
_________________________________________________________________________
>  > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
 http://www.hotmail.com. 
>  >
>  > --------------------------------------------------------
>  > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>  > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
>  > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
>  > message body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Joan O. Arc" <joan_o_arc@hotmail.com>* on *Thu, 15 Mar 2001 06:32:50 -0000*
Well then, that‘s settled!!! :
----Original Message Follows----
From: CoastDanny@aol.com
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: 
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 01:27:24 EST
Joan et al:
It is easily the Army which is most under funded and equiped. I can prove 
this in one sentence. I learned this from my Recruit course many moons ago.
"The Lord tells me he is going to get me out of this mess, but he‘s pretty 
sure, you‘re fooked!" Haaahahaha.
Braveheart
Told to me by a then soon to be Navy type.
Danny
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (23 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Joan O. Arc" <joan_o_arc@hotmail.com>* on *Thu, 15 Mar 2001 06:45:51 -0000*
Boy, talk about covering your butt!      :
No wonder the gruff old soldiers who keep us all in line allow you to "hang 
around". A big lapse in judgement re: the navy aside, you‘re obviously 
almost "one of them"...       : x 2!
----Original Message Follows----
From: "dave" 
Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
To: 
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:19:14 -0800
Joan..
After I decided that the navy had learned enough from me, I got out and
joined the Militia as a Field Engineer..  I managed to put my self through
college based on the generous renumeration they provided.  As well I come
from a long line of Soldiers, Dad, both Grandfathers, all my Uncles, and
several great uncles.  My brothers and I were the first to buck this trend
and join the Navy, bringing many questions from surviving males in my
family.
My current Naval connection comes from my brothers who are both still
members, one is a Petty Officer 2nd class, the other is a Chief Petty
Officer 2nd class.... Sgt. and MWO
I get to hear quite regularily about the state of the Navy at the pointy
end.
I don‘t know if I‘m tolerated here......?  I have been fried at the stake a
few times...But my first and lasting love is the Army, I was a fish out of
waterpun from the first day I stepped aboard a ship, and was told we were
coming back home in 3 1/2 months.......
Our Naval equipment does the job it is supposed to do, I just don‘t think it
fits the role of our forces today...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan O. Arc" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: 2 questions
 > Dave,
 >
 > Belated thanks for your answers to my questions about: a Are there any
 > navy-types on the list?, and b Is our naval equipment really as bad as
you
 > say?
 >
 > First, how on earth did you stumble into this crew and how on earth did
they
 > let you stay? I would think given the anti-navy bias I picked up and the
 > Puritanical habits of some of the members myself included, I suppose,
they
 > would have fried you at the stake long ago! Salem again. That line, BTW,
 > really *was* a keeper!!
 >
 > Second, sounds as if naval equipment/vessels are even less practical or
 > well-designed than some of the gear the army has to contend with. If
things
 > get slow on the list, maybe we can start a contest: Which branch of the 
CF
 > is least well-equipped and what is the least well-designed piece of
 > equipment you have ever seen/heard of/used? It‘d be kinda like the old
Welsh
 > guys in the Python sketch again sitting around comparing miserable
 > childhoods, don‘t you think???
 >
 > - Joan
 >
 > PS - Only first para. of above was meant to be serious. The rest was
 > tongue-in-cheek, so replies are welcome - or not - as people see fit...
 >
 >
 > ----Original Message Follows----
 > From: "dave" 
 > Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
 > To: 
 > Subject: Re: 2 questions
 > Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 22:49:53 -0800
 >
 > We can detect mines with our Hydrographic survey ships underwater
mapping,
 > but not with our Mine warfare vessels.....
 > that is sooo Canadian Military, its not funny any more
 >
 >
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "Joan O. Arc" 
 > To: 
 > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 8:24 PM
 > Subject: Re: 2 questions
 >
 >
 >  > But maybe we could have a bit of both big and little ships, that is?
I
 >  > know: dream on...
 >  >
 >  > Is that really true about us being able to detect mines, but not clear
 > ‘em?
 >  > How lame!
 >  >
 >  >
 >  > ----Original Message Follows----
 >  > From: "dave" 
 >  > Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
 >  > To: 
 >  > Subject: Re: 2 questions
 >  > Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 16:23:02 -0800
 >  >
 >  > I know that things will not change in the Navy, there is too much
 > prestige
 >  > involved with large ships, to get rid of them... In the next 10- 15
 > years,
 >  > they will have to think about new vessels once again..Beyong the
 > frigates,
 >  > AOR‘s and MCDV‘s.....
 >  > By the way, they may be Mine Detection Vessels, but we have no mine
 > clearing
 >  > or detecting equipment in or inventory..go figure.
 >  > Rather than building another batch of too large and too expensive
craft,
 > why
 >  > not build something to meet an imediate requirement.  This is just my
 >  > humble, semi-informed opinion.  I do not for one minute believe that
the
 >  > Naval Powers would ever let us become a small ship Navy...there would
be
 > no
 >  > need for dozens of Admirals.
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  > ----- Original Message -----
 >  > From: Greg Hawes 
 >  > To: 
 >  > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 12:37 PM
 >  > Subject: Re: 2 questions
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >  > Dave,
 >  >  >
 >  >  > Granted, the MCDV may not be the best vessel for the duty,
 >  >  > but they have been bought, paid for and delivered....
 >  >  > perhaps they are better suited for mine detection duties,
 >  >  > but you can‘t deny the fact that they may be of some use as
 >  >  > part of a team that is tasked with drug or other
 >  >  > interdiction.
 >  >  >
 >  >  > As for satellite uplink ability - with the other radio eqpt
 >  >  > the vessels possess, it is not necessarily necessary - HF
 >  >  > has come a long way in the past 20 or so years.
 >  >  >
 >  >  > And, as an aside - this is Canada - when have we ever
 >  >  > worried about not putting our slowest vehicle into a recce
 >  >  > role?  Was there ever an acceptable vehicle put into that
 >  >  > role during the period between the Ferret and the Coyote?
 >  >  >
 >  >  > BTW, the navy actually has a pretty good website on the
 >  >  > MCDV - since you stimulated my interest, I decided to seek
 >  >  > it out.
 >  >  >
 >  >  >  http://www.navy.dnd.ca/fleet/kingston_class/fleet_cd_mcd_tour_e.htm 
 >  >  >
 >  >  > over,
 >  >  >
 >  >  > greg
 >  >  >
 >  >  > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:03:14 -0800 dave
 >  >  >  wrote:
 >  >  >
 >  >  > > The MCDV‘s are a slow speed craft, totally unsuited to patroling
in
 > an
 >  >  > > effective manner...The reservist‘s are up to the tasks, but they
 > need
 >  >  > > equipment......It is like using the slowest vehicle for recce
 >  > duties...They
 >  >  > > do not have Sat. uplink capabilities, nor the abilities to 
respond
 > to
 > a
 >  >  > > rapidly changing scenario.
 >  >  > >
 >  >  >
 >  >  >
 >  >  > --------------------------------------------------------
 >  >  > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
 >  >  > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
 >  >  > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
 >  >  > message body.
 >  >
 >  > --------------------------------------------------------
 >  > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
 >  > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
 >  > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
 >  > message body.
 >  >
 >  >
_________________________________________________________________________
 >  > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
 http://www.hotmail.com. 
 >  >
 >  > --------------------------------------------------------
 >  > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
 >  > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
 >  > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
 >  > message body.
 >
 > --------------------------------------------------------
 > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
 > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
 > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
 > message body.
 >
 > _________________________________________________________________________
 > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
 >
 > --------------------------------------------------------
 > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
 > to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
 > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
 > message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------

