Dear Mr. Martinson,

What does my nationality have to do with my response, or for that matter,
with my original post? I hope that the validity of my positions does not
depend on my nationality.

Based on your response to some of my statements it is obvious that you
simply do not understand some of what I wrote. Because of this, and because
I simply cannot devote the time and effort to untangle the conglomeration of
unsupported assertions, rhetorical flourishes, and suspect facts that your
response to me is, I will not attempt to rebut your post. It is also evident
from you writings that you knowledge of Middle Eastern culture is very
limited and many of your assertions regarding possible responses by Iraqis
are simply not credible. Curators normally operate from established facts
not from wishful thinking or unsupported statements.

Be that as it may, you still miss the central core of the discussion of the
past few days. The core discussion of the past few days has been: What, if
any, responsibility does an invading force have towards the protection of
cultural items of the country invaded. Colen Powell says that America has
the responsibility to protect and recover looted cultural items. It has been
established by this discussion that the Geneva Convention also places
responsibility of protecting cultural items (as well as, the population) on
the victorious party. If the words of our Secretary of State and
international law are not sufficient for you, then you should also become
aware of the American legal concept of depraved indifference. If you, as a
citizen, observe someone bleeding to death and fail to help you may be found
both civilly and criminally liable. The various circumstances that affect
the actual liability are too complex to go into here, but they do exist. In
short, Americans legally bear responsibility for the looting to some degree.
In my view when you area stationed yards away from an obvious criminal act
and have the means to stop it (guns) failure to do so constitutes depraved
indifference.

My original post merely stated that America has both a legal and political
self-interest responsibility to prevent breaches in civil security in Iraq
(this includes preventing looting). You cite no legal or moral arguments to
rebut this position. Your whole counter is to blame Saddam, his regime, the
perpetrators, and the UN. The issue, however, never has been if there is no
liability on the part of other actors. No one here defended Sadam, for
example. No one defends the looters. The issue was simply that due to bad
planning or cultural insensitivity the American military failed to live up
to international law and its own best self-interest.

Last point. Some in our discussion have asked the most significant question:
What positive things can we do now? I think writing to your representatives
to request a congressional inquiry of the incident and contacting UNESCO to
see what pro-active help we can give is a good beginning.
N.Burlakoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of John Martinson
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 3:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Response to Apologia for Cultural Desacration

Nicholas,

Thank you for your response to my message.   I take it that you are an
American?

You stated, ". . . your arguments stem from an intellectual/rational Western
viewpoint and not from a point-of-view based on culturally determined
emotional perceptions that will determine how America will be judged by the
Iraqis, other
Arabs, and many who have an axe to grind with American policies and
behavior."
No, I based my opinion on seeing the news, hearing the comments from Iraqis
themselves, and seeing the joy of the people as the troops continue to take
more
control of the city.  I also based my "emotion" on my education in history,
and knowing that historically, something small as a museum being looted will
be overlooked by the
extended freedom for the people of Iraq from a dominating dictator.   As
time
progresses, and they realize more and more the blessings of having a new
form of government.  That, to me, is far more important and will be
remembered.  And that the United States and Britain were instrumental in
returning those freedoms to the people of
Iraq.

You then mentioned:  "There was no need to search thousands of buildings to
know where the National Museum, the National Library and hospitals were. Had
America's military wanted to, it could have protected those sites-they knew
where they are."

As mentioned, I do not believe that 20,000 vehicles can protect a city of
millions, with thousands upon thousands of buildings.  Too, were the 20,000
vehichles of the 3rd Infantry all in that area....or scattered arond Iraq
and in other cities?   Yes, some were more important than others, but also I
do not believe the town was secured with the looting began.  You are not
going to put a "few tanks or Hum Vees with machine guns" when you have a war
going on all around you.   Was the area around the museum "totally" secure
at the time the looting took place?   I question that.

With 14 years in the military, I know you don't come in and put a "police
force" on duty, when major military action is taking place in the area or
even close by.

Nicholas, you must remember that this to is "war."  I didn't realize it was
the offensive people (us) who were responsible to care for the "defensive"
side (the Iraqis).  As I mentioned, and you agreed, it was a technologically
superior invasion that minimized the damages to civilians and
infrastructure(s).  Military plans also revealed that humanitarian,
police force and other units would come in after the area was secured.   I
see no use of them when hostile or war actions are taking place...and that
did not occur until AFTER the museum was looted.  Yes, there were troops
near by, but they were traveling around clearing out the hostile pockets,
and did not have the manpower to put up a "security guard" at the museum.
As mentioned, and I truely believe, that would be the responsibility of the
Iraqi police, government and museum personnel.

What you are saying in a war that the attacker is responsible for damages,
and ensuring a museum is okay?   I do not agree.  You seem to have forgotten
that the UN Security council did not accept the United States objectives.
In fact, in their Global Policy Forum, they wrote the "Seven Fallacies of US
Plan to Invade Iraq."

In that plan, it states:  1. "A war agains Iraq would be illegal."
However, Iraq was in violation of Un Security Council Resolution 687.  In
addition, in August 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuawit, defying the U.N.
directives to retreat from Kuwait.
2.  "Regional allies widely oppose a U.S. attack."  I believe over 50+
nations support the US/Britain and coalition forces.   Only a few do not
such as France and Russia...which it seems is being proven have been
supplying information and supplies to the Iraqis.
3.  "There is no evidence of Iraqi links to Al Qaeda or other anti-American
Terrorists."  I think this has been proven false with all the documents,
weapons, gas masks, gas producing vans that were uncovered, and training
camps in northern Iraq that have been found.
4.  "There is no proof that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction."
Again, this statement has been proven erroneous.
5.  "Iraq is no longer a significant military threat to its neighbors."
With their chemical weapons, military weapons close by, gas masks, etc.   I
think that is proven false.
6.  "There are still non-miltiary options available."   Iraq never followed
the UN agreements for years.  They hid their WMD and have constantly lied to
the world.
7.  "Defeating Irqa would be militarily difficult."  I think that has been
proven false.  It was fast and
swift!(http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/08fallac
ies.htm).

You stated:  "You appear to be factually incorrect in stating that looting
occurred before
the arrival of soldiers. According to all reports I am aware of, the looting
began a day or two after American and Brits took over their respective
cities. And, it continued for a few days while these soldiers watched it
being conducted. In some instances, it appears to have been an organized
affair conducted by our allies, the Kurds.

I guess you supported the bombing of the World Trade Center on 9/11---that
is okay you feel and that the Irqai's had nothing to do with it?   Do you
believe that? -- and the present situation in Iraq is proving Iraqis
relationship to the Al Qaeda or other anti-American terrorists.

"Looting after the fall of city is a normal and predictable event in any
war.  Usually it is the invading forces that conduct it, this time we
allowed the Iraqi "homeboys" to do it."   That is a very harsh statement.
Can you back that up with military orders saying to allow looting or it is
only your opinion?

"27 Looting or pillage is forbidden in IV Geneva Convention of 1949, art.
33, and in Protocol II of 1977 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, art. 2 (g).
The prohibition on pillage is an old principle of international law. It is
general in scope and concerns not only pillage through individual acts
without the consent of the military authorities, but also organized pillage
as conducted in former wars, when the booty allocated to each soldier was
considered as part of his pay. Jean S. Pictet, ed., Commentary, IV Geneva
Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
(Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 1958), p. 226."

I think that is referring to the invading soldiers and forces looting their
captive people and lands, not the people themselves looting.  The invading
army is not responsible for what the countries own people are doing, and it
has nothing at all to do with the Geneva Convention, unless I have missed
something?

To pillage is defined as Ato rob, plunder, or sack, as in war; to take
possession of, to carry off as booty; to rob with open violence.@

To loot is Ato rob, sack, or carry off as booty.@ The Oxford English
Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971).

Since you are accusing the United States of allowing the looting, please
document your statements, with military orders directing its soldiers to
loot or allow the people of Iraq to loot and pillage their own land.

Clearly the blame has to be with the Iraqi people themselves---stealing
their own history.   And you hold the responsibility up to the Americas--and
feel this is what is going to judge the outcome of what the world feels
about the Americans?  I don't think so.

I saw the news videos, and the smashed in glass cases, left easily
accessiable to the looters.  And the reported said it must have been a
museum staff member who opened up the vault...because the safe was not
damaged to get entry.  So, it obvisouly was staff members.   Staff members,
with a country falling a part, are often the first ones to loot the place.
They would be first on my list for investigation.

Nickolas, I have been an Executive Director and Curator of Collections in
museums, and never would I have left collection pieces/artifacts out in open
display cases during a KNOW and possible invasion by outside forces.   I
have my BS in History, and my MS in Museology/Museum Studies.  I know what
to do in case of emegency, fire or attack and how to protect the artifacts
under my care.   I would have had my TOTAL collection, or at least the most
valuable...moved out of the area and into guarded security compound.

It is odd that you support this statement: "Whoever does it, however,
allowing looting to
take place is a violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention..." when batteries
were found near where US military POW were at.   Where US returned POW's are
stating that they were beaten and treated against the Geneva Convention.  In
fact, the Iraqis did not allow the American Red Cross in to check up on the
US POWs.

Article 17: No physical or mental torture; No coercion to obtain
information; Prisoners who decline to provide information may not be
threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment.

In fact, the Iraqis showed the US military POWs on televison, which is
against the Geneva Convention.  It seems you are supported of all that the
Iraqis are doing, but not the United States.  Whoes said are you on?  Are
you an American?  An Iraqi?   Whom?

In fact, it has been proven that Iraqi soldiers have taken off their
uniforms, shield themselves with women and children, and fired upon
Americans.  They have even used "white flags" to surrender, then opened up
on American troops.

Art 37 of the Geneva Convestion prohibits the killing, injuring or capturing
of an adversary by resort to perfidy. Examples of perfidy mentioned in the
Protocol are the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or
of a surrender and the feigning of protected status by the use of signs,
emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not
Parties to the conflict.

You stated: "One also does not need total control of a city to prevent
looting.  Normally a 24-hour curfew is declared before entering an enemy
city (note Israeli tactics in that regard) and then anyone who is seen to be
on the streets can be legitimately shot on sight."

Do you really feel that the Americans are suppose to follow the Convention,
when the Iraqi has weapons of mass distruction in the area, the area is not
secured, yet you expect our troops to sit around and protect thier museum,
and honor the Geneva Convention?

Again, you were in the military.  The US/Britain did not have total control
of Iraq or even the Bagdad area...since many of the Iraqis have and are
escaping to the southwest and northwest. They are not going to subject a few
tanks to harm---protecting cultural resource places.  In fact, they did not
have the hospitals under control....and before they could get the area
secured---they were even looted.

"I was a combat medic and therefore am highly aware of medical needs of
soldiers and
civilians in a combat situation. I also was involved in an earlier operation
in the Middle East in which American forces deliberately handed over wounded
soldiers to their enemies to be executed."

Did you see the executions?   Were the people being turned over in violation
of a law that deemed their excution valid?   If not, all that is just
hear-say.

You state: "While I regret that our young people are being shot and killed,
I also remember that they consciously chose a profession whose sole goal is
killing other people. They need or prayers and forgiveness."  Well, you
choose that profession once yourself, didn't you.
As a Vet myself, I know I did not "choose" it to go to war and kill, but
because I wanted the G.I.Bill, hoping that I would not have to kill and go
to war.  Many wars, too, have had drafts, where soldiers did not want to be
there, i.e., Vietnam, Korean War, etc., but due to the draft, unemploymetn
or other reasons they had to join the military.

I'm against war, but I'm for the US soldiers.  I have been in early 70s,
peace marches..but
I was in the military, and have 14 years (7 active-7 reserve).   I have
eight honorable discharges.   People, too, join because they appreciate
their freedom, and want other countries with dicators (as Iraq had) to have
freedom and rights.   And not be gased, put in jail, and tortured by their
own government.

You stated that the museum personal, "None of these entities destroyed the
civil society that
existed before the invasion (however imperfect that society was)."

So you are saying, it was better to leave them under the dictator who sent
his own generals and people to jail, and murdered thousands?

You stated: "Museum staffers are not equipped or trained to deal with armed
mobs and
organized gangs of thugs. From newspaper accounts it appears that they did
all they could while US armed troops just watched this desecration of Iraqi
culture."

Oh, come now Nickolas.  Did the army have bandstands built, and were they
selling poporn and coke too?   The soldiers were not sitting around the
museum doing nothing.  I watch the same news you do, and I saw one or two
soldiers at a police recruitment, and he was overwhelmed and said there was
nothing his small group could do.

You stated, blaming "a county for not preventing acts of civil disorder
after
the country is destroyed (though not completely pacified) is as sensible and
compassionate as blaming the rape victim for being raped."

Nickolas, the country is not destroyed.   I just said one high Iraqi
historian and cultural expert speak on this same issue, that there is so
much history left in Iraq and the people will retain and keep it strong.

You, too, are looking at the museum looting, and not the "big picture" -- in
that in less than three weeks, a dictator and his followers have been
removed.  That most of Iraq is now under control.   Yes, some things were
damaged, but over-all, the city and people are intack.  Yes, there were some
bombs that got out of line, but it was one of the best protected wars I have
ever studied or seen...and we can now do it on by tv.

There are other museums that were not looted.  There is also the "future"
where the looters will be captured, and items will be returned -- once the
sensation has cooled down.  If you say the people of Iraq are deep within
their culture, then the looters should then know the value of the artifacts
and return them.   No, I don't think they are professional antique dealers
or robbers--and simply was taking anyting free, with doors open and where
other looters were rioting and they joined in.

And again, no---I don't think the Americans had the manpower to be the
military--PLUS
be the police force of a city that size and capacity of buildings of
importants.   America has done one damn good job in protecting country, when
they could have bombed the hell out of them.  Nuked them with one bomb.
Come, now it is war.   They have weapons of mass destruction, and the
evidence is becoming more clear they were ready to use them.  But the
quickness of the British and American troops coming in shocked them---and
their troops dropped their guns and uniforms in many cases --- and ran.

Yes, looting is bad.  But it is war, and the army is not responsible when
they did not do the looting.   Nor, is it their responsibility to protect
the city before it is totally control.  It is a step-by-step process, as
mentioned.

Nickolas, you stated that the US could have sent up a 24-hour curfew and
that "anyone who is seen to be on the streets can be legitimately shot on
sight."  Come now....do you really think that would have gone over with the
Iraqi people being shot by Americans for stealing?   They would have said it
was an innocent person...just going to get their run-away child....or
putting out the cat.

There have been ample posting on Museum-L from people stating that the US
soldiers are not trained policemen/women.  Their job is to kill...not to
police.  And I don't see any evidence that soldiers become policement when
they are still fighting under orders to take a country.   The museum is in
only one area of Iraq, and the entire nation has not been secured.

You said:

> You may recall that the UN as a body opposed the war and therefore made
few
> preparations for its onset. Furthermore, it is a membership organization,
> and as such, it does only those things that members direct it to do. Most
UN
> members saw no need for this invasion and did not authorize creation of a
> police force to follow the invading troops.

Of course, not....they would not sanction the invasion of Iraq---supporting
the terrors of Suddan to take place.  To the UN, Iraqi's government where
simply girl scouts out selling cookies....when in fact, there were in the
business of terrorist, killing their own people..and not following for years
the dictates of the United Nations.   France and Russia helped
Iraq do what they have done...and sold them material and provided them with
information.  And those two countries should have UN action taken against
their two-faced action.

I already quoted you what the UN Security Council felt about Iraq and making
them as an innocent little child.   In fact, I think Iraq is suppose to lead
the next Security Council.   It is also clear that the US financially
supports the UN, and that the United States Constitution, does not subject
my country under the dictates of another body or group of governments.

You stated:

> I find it interesting that you are compelled to defend the status-quo
> (looting of Iraqi national treasures) ascribing fault to everyone except
the
> one power that could have actually prevented it within the context of the
> situation.

No, I simply do not agree with your point of view, and that it is the fault
of the US soldiers and government, when it was the Iraqi people doing the
looting.  Again, in my opinion the areas was not secure, we did not have the
troops in there, and daily there is still hot spots in the city where gun
fire is taking place---which yes, is more important that a museum.  And yes,
the looting is responsible by those doing the looting.  The Iraqi police
also did nothing, and the museum staff did nothing much to remove their
artifacts--they were there to be stolen, and the staff clearly should have
removed them.   Most wars you see the artifacts stockpiled in vaults hidden
in mountains and caverns (Nazi Germany, Russia, Italy, etc.).

You said:  "You obviously, have not been following the history of our
relations with
Germany. The invasion and occupation of Germany after WW II has often been
cited as an American military and political success; and rightly so."

I don't agree.  The Berlin Wall was no success.  We were allied with Russia
and we let them come in and take Berlin, thus the wall was set up.   And, it
was an American Presiddent who cried to tear that wall down.  No it was not
a success--and the people of Germany have been divided since WWII.  And yes,
what about the millions of dollars that poured from the US citizens to pay
for Marshall's Plan and foreign aid to West Germany [$1,297 Million] plus
millions in humanitarian aid to rebuild their country, and still they spit
on Americans.  There was $33 million to Yugoslavia, $547 million to
Belguim/Luxenburg and on and on our dollars have constantly poured in
foriegn aid and support for European nations.  They want America's money and
technolgy, and then turn around and burn our flags--as they are doing in the
Middle East.

 "But, now that Germany is united, the perceived threat from the East
eliminated..."
Is it.....is Russian and the Germans really buddy-buddies?

You continued, "and as it sees American power becoming more dominant and
aggressive, the resentments of atrocities committed by US forces during WWII
are becoming part of the national conversation."

How is American becoming more dominate and agreessive over Germany or
Europe?
And you speak of "atrocities committed by US forces during WWII" don't you
mean Hitler's gas chamber and his goal to emilinate the Jewish culture and
peoples of the world?  Or do you mean the Russian concentration camps in
Sebria?  Or do you mean Hilter's raid on France and Italy, stealing them
blind, and sending the people to concentration camps?

You said:  "When I served there in the military that resentment was
expressed on the popular level, late at night, after a few drinks. Today it
is in the public eye."

You seem to have forgotten all the money we have wheel barrowed over to
europe by the millions, the aid...and the fact our soldiers came over and
fought for Europe to get rid of Hilter and other agressive acts, which
allows you...or the Germans to sit around in coffee shops and downplay our
help and the American lifes lost to provide them the freedom and opportunity
they have today.  It was the American tax dollar that came into help rebuilt
and restore Germany, just like it will be the American tax dollar that comes
in and rebuilts
Iraq.

I was in Germany and visited Dacu and on my way there, I wondered how on
earth didn't the German people know what was going on in the death
camps...with the ashes falling on their head.   You, Nickolas, are doing the
same thing with the Iraqi situation now, blaming the Americans, for
something the Iraqi people are doing themselves.   The ashes are followign
on you -- can'y you see them?   Time to remove the blinders....the Americans
are the good guys.

And yes, personally, I am tired of you and everyone else thinking we are the
"police force" of the world, to protect you.....and then you split on us and
burn our flags, and whisper in your drink and coffee groups.   Wake up.

"Are you aware of the most recent book by Guenter Grass, dealing with the
firebombing of the undefended/civilian city of Dresden?"

No

"My point? It is precisely if we succeed in helping Iraq develop its economy
> to its fullest potential, and if we succeed in helping them develop a more
> just civil society, that resentments of the permitted looting of the
> National Museum will become most strident."

And just like what you said about what is happening in Germany, is going to
happen in Iraq.  The Americans will come in and spend millions to rebuild,
have their soldiers tourtured as POWs, killed -- and then they sit around in
their coffee bars and put down the Americans.

People, who appreciate real "freedom" will not remember the looting..but the
entrance of the American troops getting rid of the dictator that dominated
their lifes for centuries.  Talk to the millions of Iraqis in America...who
ran to America for protection and freedom..and know of their family members
killed and murdered by the former Iraqi government.   This I think will be
talked about in the coffee bars by those who appreciate what America has
doen for them.

"Today the question of survival is paramount, but in a (hopefully) brighter
tomorrow the question of permitted cultural desecration....."

Again, that is a very harsh statment.   In the military plans there is
humanitarian and policing plans, but as mentioned the war just came three
weeks ago.   Iraq is not secure, once the machine gets going, the aid will
start pouring in.

You go on, by "poor planning, if not deliberate intent, our (I guess you are
an American then?) Armed Forces have set a serious "worm of discontent" into
the "apple" of Arab cultural politics."

I've seen the news and heard the aid plans for those people.   You have your
eyes closed there man.....do you remember the aid boats sitting out at sea,
not wanting to come in becaues of the mines and hostile areas?   That some
cities were or had not been secure yet..and just recently only the capital.
So of course, they cannot get into to carry on with their rebuilding plan.
Again, you don't have the rebuilding plan, until the military gets out.
Just right now, they are setting away the US aircraft carriers...the
military present is starting to withdraw, and now the rebuilding plan takes
place.

"By the time that "worm" eats much of the apple our current administration
will only be a memory. I can only hope that allowing the looting of the
Iraqi Museum will not force further death and destruction for my children
and grandchildren and those of currently living Iraqis."

Oh, I was against this war, too....and I was against Bush.  I voted for
Clinton, because of the Democrates funding museums and social programs.  I
voted to the party that funded my employer.   But, with my military
background and what has happened in Iraq----I think what has happened will
be good for the people of Iraq--and I hate to disagree---I think will also
be appreciated.

> I think that death of innocent humans on all sides, destruction of
cultural
> artifacts, seeds of future resentment and possible political unrest are a
> high price to pay to "kick some butt" as you so colorfully express.

Yup, kick some butt after what the Iraq leaders done in the Middle East.
Yup, Kick some butt because of threats of gases and what they have done to
the Iraqi people.  Yup, kick some butt becaue they did not follow UN
recommendations...and for years ignore their direction.  Yup, kick some butt
after seeing pictures of Iraqi people gassed and twisted in deformed death
by their own Iraqi government.   Those pictures are very colorful expressed,
too.  The American governement is not your enemy.  If you are a citizen, you
have the opportunity to leave...and sit in your coffee bar..and talk
negative against America all you want.   And you probably would be the one
sitting sipping your drink while people like Hilter marches through, and
then you can complain about the Americans and Britains coming in to rid the
government of your pest.   We.we are not the enemy--but the Iraqi people's
own prior government.

I am sorry --- but having my freedom would me 100% more appreciated.  Having
my family members save from the dictates of a controlable dictatorship who
robbed my people blinded would be more important than looting a museum.

Yes, museum artifacts are important -- but freedom and human life is a far
cry more important to me.   And I'm not going to sit around critizing my
government, who has protected the world from such dictators....and sip my
drink and complain.

Lastly, you said "Especially since the Iraqi people have never done anything
to America."

Head must be in sand, ole man.   Who is Sadame?  Is he Iraqi?   Who
threatened America?   Who violated the UN Security Council?   I think our
special forces and security are finding tons of evidence to connect the
Iraqi government and its people to terrorism groups in the Middle East.  Who
Who is shooting at the American GI's now in Iraq?  Who shot at them in the
Gulf War?

What culture or government would tell its own people to put on a bomb and
explode themselves near American GIs?   Wow!  Only a dictorships government!
I sure would not follow such a leader...and especially put on a bomb and
explod myself, while that leader is hiding and protecting himself in deep
underground concrete bunkers or running like hell with his tail up his a**.

I think the people of Iraq are wising up to such thinking.  They now know
what freedom is.  They are the ones now tearing down the old government and
statues of their own dicator.  However, it seems you want the people of Iraq
to remain under the dictatorship of Suddam's control and death wishes--so
their museum can be protected?


Best, John

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).