Lots of red earth flying about intellectual honesty and chains rather than networks of transmission. Will these discussions lead to more clarity? [him] hopes so …

The [him] moderator received this anonymous comment: “The same characters who are oppose humanitarian aid to Burma are defending Chevron's ability to stay in the country and using US tax payer money to reimburse Chevron for taxes that it pays to … the junta. The people defending an “engagement” position with respect to a private oil company are so morally righteous and so actively anti-engagement on the humanitarian front. Outrageous.”

The [him] website Cbox has the following question: “Hi, i'm doing a research and i need help. I would like to know about the HIV/AIDS prevalence and infection rate in the Ayeyarwaddy Delta. Any advice on where I can find that? Thanks =)”

The [him] moderator has made a few comments in parentheses on the article about these twelve myths and misconceptions by a Harvard faculty member.

This article would have been much more useful if an estimate was given by Fadela Chaib of the number of people previously taking DOTS in Nargis affected areas. Their interruption of treatment will not necessarily lead to resistance if they are treated as temporary defaulters by a fast-recovering National Tuberculosis Programme. There is a much greater risk of increased transmission in camps. Watch for more disaster recovery materials soon.

WHO has finally come out and stated something closer to the truth. Now it is UNAIDS turn.

U Thant wrote this sixty years ago. How little has changed.

Louise Arbour's last speech to the Human Rights Council includes:

The proxy announcement from Myanmar Teleport is nonsense. People still need and can use proxies. And as long as internet cafes expect to make money they will provide or allow them. Bandwidth restriction is used in Iran …

Branding is important to the Red Cross as it is to many other GONGOs and NGOs. In ordinary times it would be strange to see people who are not employees or cooperants of AZG or SC wearing their logos as they perform relief work. But these are not ordinary times. It is necessary for ordinary people doing good to disguise themselves these days and a Red Cross is a valid way to do it. Complaining in the press by the Red Cross is inappropriate. The good name of the Red Cross can only be improved by people using the logo. Unless, of course, it is the military wearing the symbol. But then this article would never be published. Comments?

The [him] moderator received this comment on Arthrotec:

This is from a flyer distributed at the Sunday 25 May Donor Conference … and it is attached.