THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 20, 1993

                            PRESS BRIEFING
                       BY GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

                          The Briefing Room

12:36 P.M. EDT

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As you know, the President is going
to come out at 1:15 p.m.  With your indulgence, I think what we'd
like to do is have the President award the National Teacher's Award
first and then have the teacher leave, or whatever, and then he'll
make a statement on Waco and take a couple questions.  So if we can
just hold off going live and all that until that's done, it probably
will work out a lot better.

	     Q	  If you'll give us the time.  That's the problem.

	     Q	  We've got a two-minute warning problem.

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, it is a problem.  It's about
1:15 p.m.

	     Q	  The teacher would walk off and then --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's -- I'm just trying
to work this out here.  I think that's the best way to handle it.

	     Q	  Can I ask you a series of questions about the way
the President handled the notifications yesterday?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sure.

	     Q	  Did you, for instance, talk to the Justice
Department about who would come out and discuss what had happened in
Waco and whether it should be the Attorney General or the President?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Why don't we just take a step even
farther back from that and look at the whole sequence of events on
the contact between the Justice Department and the White House.  As
you know and as we've said, the President spoke with the Attorney
General on Sunday, Sunday afternoon.  They had a good discussion,
about 15 minutes.  The Attorney General informed the President of
what she wanted to do.  He raised no objections.  Obviously, she had
the implicit authority from the President to go forward.  He raised
no objections.  She went forward.  They had a discussion of a general
nature about the incident.

	     Again, yesterday morning around 11:00 a.m., the
President spoke with the Attorney General again.  They had a brief
discussion over what was happening in Waco.  As you know, this was
before the fire broke out at the compound.  And I think that was why
there was some -- just some confusion.  I think that she was
confusing in her minds before and after the fire, not the actual day
when they spoke.

	     Then there was a number of contacts at a number of
different levels in the White House yesterday afternoon between the
Justice Department and the White House.  They were informing us of

their decisions, what they would like to do.  There was an FBI
briefing in Waco.  The Attorney General had her press conference.
The President then issued a statement after that.

	     Frankly, yesterday afternoon, you know, there was a fair
amount of confusion over exactly what was happening on the ground in
Waco, and I think that we wanted to be very careful not to have the
President say anything until we had a much better sense of what was
actually happening on the ground.  Once we were fairly clear on what
was happening on the ground in Waco, the President issued a
statement.  He spoke with the Attorney General again yesterday
evening.

	     Q	  At what hour was that?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It was quite late.  I believe it
was after he returned from the Holocaust Museum.  He took a tour of
the Holocaust Museum last night.

	     Q	  And he went out to dinner.

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe briefly.  Yes, he went to
dinner and then he spoke with the Attorney General last night.  I
don't know the exact time; I think it was relatively late.  And he
just said, I think as Dee Dee has reported, that he just wanted to
tell her that he thought she handled a difficult situation very well,
that she did a good job in a tough situation, and that she should try
and get some sleep.  He then, again, spoke with her this morning
about the follow-up in Waco, and about what they're going to do this
afternoon.  As you know, the President will have an announcement to
make at 1:15.

	     Q	  Did he ever talk with Webb Hubbell yesterday, last
night, or this morning?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not to my knowledge, no.

	     Q	  Was Webb Hubbell the point man for the White House?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Webb Hubbell is the general White
House Liaison and several people talked to Webb.  The Attorney
General was running the operation.

	     Q	  Did he tell her that she should sleep well, that
she had done a good job?  Or he just tell her that she should get
some sleep?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think sleep well -- done a good
job -- I don't know the exact words.  I think that sounds right.

	     Q	  I mean, sleep well has implications as to
conscience and whether she should feel badly about it or not.

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I mean, I think everybody
feels badly when you have a situation when --

	     Q	  I understand that, but whether the issue of blame
is brought up in that phraseology.

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's the spirit -- no, it
has nothing to do with that.  The spirit with which it was offered
was that the entire administration and certainly the Attorney General
had to face a very difficult decision, a very difficult situation
yesterday.  And that he thought that she had handled it well, as best
as she could and --

	     Q	  Well, does he think it was mishandled?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  -- it was just speaking of warm
words to a friend.

	     Q	  Does he think the situation was mishandled?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President --

	     Q	  In retrospect?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President stands  by the
decisions of the law enforcement agencies, the decisions of the
Attorney General.  He accepts full responsibility.  At the same time,
I think that we all want to look to the future and figure out what
exactly happened, do a full review, and make sure we do what we can
to make sure this doesn't happen -- this kind of thing doesn't happen
again, or at least we know how to handle it.

	     Q	  How much did he know about what she was going to go
ahead with?  I know that she made the case to him -- explained --
outlined the case for action.  Did she say to him on Sunday precisely
what action?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think it was specific
operational detail as to what was going to happen.  I think that they
had a general discussion about the action, about the advisability of
action.  I think, as she noted, he asked a few general questions just
trying to get a sense of how things were considered.  But it wasn't
minute-by-minute detail of how the operation --

	     Q	  Well, was it, "we are going in."  Is it, "we're
going to use tear gas"?  I mean, what?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe it was that we want to go
in and take some action that would increase the pressure on those in
the compound, and hopefully spur them towards some sort of movement
out.

	     Q	  George, was there ever a conscious political
decision made, or even a discussion about distancing the President
from --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not at all.  I mean, we were in
close contact with the Justice Department.  The President accepts
responsibility for this.  At the same time -- I mean, we just wanted
to be very, very clear about how this happened and be as factual as
we could be on how the decisions were made.  It is the responsibility
of those on the ground to make recommendations.  The Attorney General
has operational control over this.  The President obviously accepts
responsibility for all of this, and he stands by the Attorney
General.

	     Q	  George, there was a report on the television today
-- and I don't know more than that -- one of the members of the cult
had said going into a courthouse that the FBI had started the fire
and not themselves.  There was also a picture yesterday on the TV of
a smashing into the building  where the fire broke out.  And my
question is, is the White House absolutely certain that this fire was
--

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  All the evidence we have is that
this fire was started by David Koresh and those inside the compound
-- every bit of evidence we have.

	     Q	  Did the President ask the Attorney General why do
this now, why this particular date, and did he ask about possible
consequences of either death or injury?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know the specific
questions.  He had general questions about how the decision was going
about being made.

	     Q	  Those are general questions and did he ask
generally, why now?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he asked, have you
considered all of the consequences; have you considered the
recommendations?  I don't know if he asked the question, "why now?  "
I don't know if he asked that specific question.

	     Q	  Did she tell him why now in terms of the stuff
that's come out since then about the information provided by the
listening device about Koresh getting increasingly more violent?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I'm not certain how much
specific detail they got into.  I know that she generally said that
this is the recommendation she's prepared to make, I mean, the
decision she's prepared to make.  It's based on the recommendations
she was receiving from the field and after intensive questioning of
those involved.  Again, I do not know how precisely detailed it was
beyond that.

	     Q	  What is the President's understanding why
yesterday?  One of the people who went into the compound a couple
weeks ago came out over the weekend with some speculation that he may
have told law enforcement people something that precipitated this
action.  Why yesterday?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  This is the first I've heard.  I
think what we can go to is what the FBI and the Attorney General has
said.  There were indications that those inside the compound were at
some danger.  It was clear that the negotiations had broken down and
it was the judgment of the experts involved in the negotiations that
the situation was not going to get any better at all.

	     There was also some concern over the vulnerability of
the agents themselves who had been working long beyond the time that
these teams normally have to work.  And as the Attorney General has
said, there was some concern over the fact that they did not have
replacements in place who could stand in for them, and there was a
concern over the safety.

	     All of these factors came into play.  They also
considered the advice of a number of psychologists and other experts
on David Koresh and those in the compound.  I would just go back to
what the Attorney General has said.  You have to make the best
judgment you can, given the information you have at the time.  They
did.  Obviously, we all regret the loss of life.  It's a terribly
unfortunate situation.  We all wish it could have turned out
differently, but that doesn't take away from the judgments that were
made at the time.

	     Q	  George, when did the President know that they were
going to use tear gas?  Was it before the assault on the compound?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I just don't know.  I don't believe
he was given a lot of detail on exactly how the operation would go.
I just don't know.

	     Q	  Along that point, George, can you say whether the
plan was presented to the President by the Attorney General as a way
to end the standoff one way or the other yesterday?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it was presented as a way
to increase the pressure on those in the compound and, we all hoped,
as a way to move some of those out and bring it in -- it wasn't
presented as tomorrow is D-Day, this is it.

	     Q	  Is the President satisfied that, A, he had all this
relevant information necessary to make a decision, and B, that Janet
Reno had all the relevant information necessary to make a decision?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, I think he's satisfied that
they were acting on the best advice and the best information they
had, and he's not second-guessing it in any way whatsoever.

	     Q	  George, was there a 12-hour gap between
conversations between the President and the Attorney General?  In
other words, they spoke at 11:00 a.m. and they didn't speak again
until Clinton got back from dinner at --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's likely, yes.

	     Q	  Did he call her?  What time did she call?  Was
there a gap between when she called him?  I mean, was he at dinner
when she called and --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, no, no.  I think he called her
last night.  I couldn't swear to it, but I believe he called her last
night.  He just wanted to talk to her.

	     Q	     what was going on?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not that I know of, no.

	     Q	  What do you know about the situation now?  Everyone
has perished who -- except eight or nine?  And do you know any of the
other details?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know any more details than
the FBI reported in Waco.

	     Q	     watching CNN or how was he keeping track of what
is going on?  If he wasn't talking to his Attorney General, how was
he keeping track of what was going on here?  I mean, with all due
respect to CNN, is that how he was doing it?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  There was also -- as I said,
several people in the White House were in constant contact with their
counterparts at Justice to have the full and complete information.

	     Q	  Who were those contacts?  I mean, was it Mack
McLarty, Webb Hubbell?  How was the President being kept informed?
That's not a --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I believe Mack was in contact with
Webb.  I spoke with several people at the Justice Department.  I
believe Bruce Lindsey spoke with people at the Justice Department.
Either Bernie or Vince was also in contact at different times during
the day with people at the Justice Department.  We were fully briefed
and fully informed.

	     Q	  We were told this morning that the President may
have spoken -- a chance that he may have spoken with Webb.  Do you
know if that's true or not?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think there's a chance he may
have.  I don't believe he did, but I think there's certainly a chance
that he may have at some point.  I don't believe he did.  I think
that the last contact he had during the day yesterday directly with

the Justice Department was the 11:00 a.m. phone call with the
Attorney General.  But the White House was fully informed on a
minute-to-minute basis of what was happening in Waco and what was
happening at the Justice Department.

	     Q	  George, who decided that the briefing would be done
by the Attorney General?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The Attorney General.

	     Q	  Did you or did the White House communications staff
-- were you ever involved with that decision?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  We were told about it.

	     Q	  Did you ask her to go on Nightline and MacNeil-
Lehrer and all that stuff?  Was that part of --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.

	     Q	     there was no advice from the White House at all
about her -- she was on all night, all day.  (Laughter.)

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, and she did a very good job.

	     Q	  Why did you decide to have the President's reaction
to the situation be only a written statement, which is traditionally
the White House's way of distancing the President from the issue, not
having him appear as personally saying anything?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, that wasn't the intent at
all.  As I said, we had to -- we wanted to wait until we had all of
the information at hand.  The President is also making a statement
today.  The President made a statement yesterday morning.  The
President has been fully involved --

	     Q	  After this turned into less than a successful
operation, the only statement from the President was what was on
paper after the Attorney General had already given what amounted to
the major facts in this.

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, it was the first statement
from the President, not the only statement from the President, number
one.

	     Q	  After the --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Number two -- well, the first.
Number two, the Attorney General --

	     Q	  He gave a statement early in the morning when the
thing was starting to move --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Right.  And he gave one yesterday
and he's giving one today.  Now, the second point --

	     Q	  It just happens this was a written statement with
no sort of communications policy or thought process involved?  It was
the President wants to put out a written statement?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Knowing what we knew at the time,
we thought it was appropriate for the President and he thought it was
appropriate to put out a written statement expressing his regret and
expressing his support for the Attorney General's --

	     Q	  Why was it not appropriate for him to personally do
something?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, he did personally do so.
That is his statement.  It's a statement under his name.

	     Q	  George, yesterday during the briefing you didn't
say the President took full responsibility for what happened --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I certainly did.

	     Q	  No, what you said was --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's just not right, Susan.

	     Q	  Well, I think you can go back to the transcript, I
mean, unless I miss something --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'd love to.

	     Q	     Janet Reno said that she took full
responsibility and you said that she made the decision, that the FBI
--

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  And the President takes
responsibility.  Absolutely.

	     Q	  Took responsibility -- all right.

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Check the transcript.

	     Q	  Considering how little was known about what was
going on inside the compound and, even now, how little is known, why
is Washington calling this a mass suicide?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I think that knowing what we
know now and given all of the actions of David Koresh before and
during, it is painfully clear that those there were under his
control.

	     Q	  It's stretching it a little bit where the kids are
concerned, though, isn't it, George?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that that is an entirely
different matter.  I mean, I think that David Koresh must bear
responsibility for the deaths of those children, absolutely.  But he
clearly was intent on creating some kind of an apocalyptic incident,
and that's what he did.

	     Q	  You're still operating completely on assumption,
right?  I mean, you have no evidence, or you know of no evidence that
this was mass suicide.

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We have evidence that those inside
the compound set fire to the compound, which led to the deaths of
those inside.

	     Q	  I didn't quite hear it.  This might be Ann's
question, I didn't quite hear it.  But at what time did Clinton
himself put out a statement on this?  I know Dee Dee said some stuff
on this at 6:00 p.m., but the President put out --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  At 6:35 p.m., 6:40 p.m.

	     Q	  Right after the evening news went on the air?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, right when we had all the
information.  We were working on it.

	     Q 	  Dee Dee confirmed this morning that the
investigation the President is going to announce is going to be an
administration-run investigation.  Why not have someone from the
outside to make sure that it's not colored by those who would have a
political stake, particularly those at the ATF whose actions have
already been --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that clearly the ATF and
the Justice Department will bear responsibility for the
investigation.  That's not to rule out, as is often in investigations
like this, having some sort of independent involvement as well.  But
it will be run by the Treasury and Justice.

	     Q	  Are you confident that you will not have any
problem getting --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely.

	     Q	  George, did the President reach out to anybody else
to get advice after the meeting with Janet Reno?  And who else in the
White House sat in on that meeting?  Anyone else from Justice?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't believe anybody else was
there at the time.  It was a phone call on Monday, it wasn't a
meeting.

	     Q	  Sunday.

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sunday.  It was a phone call, it
wasn't a meeting.  I believe he might have been there with Bruce, but
beyond that, I think he just talked to the Attorney General.

	     Q	  George, you said that in that phone call, she said
that we want to go in and take action, as you said, that will force
him out.  What did he think she was talking about?  If he didn't know
about tear gas, what exactly was his idea of what he was approving?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he was approving an action
to increase the pressure on --

	     qQ	   It didn't matter how she did that?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, no.  I mean --

	     Q	  What information did he have in terms of how this
would proceed?  Presumably he would have wanted to know, not minute-
by-minute, but in a general sense --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he knew that this was the
recommendation of those on the ground and the recommendation of the
law enforcement agencies.  I just don't know --

	     Q	  What is "this" -- when you say that "this" was the
recommendation --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The action to increase pressure.  I
don't know exactly what he was told -- whether he was going to be
told that the tank was going to go up to the left wall and punch a
hole in the window, or whether he was just told generally that they
were moving forward in a way that would increase the pressure.  I
just don't know.

	     Q	  It's hard to imagine him not asking, though.

	     Q	     that Janet Reno presented him with as her best
advice about what they should go forward with, he would have agreed?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He was -- he did ask some general
questions about the advice and recommendation he gave.  At the same
time -- and I would repeat -- that this was based on the unanimous
recommendation of the law enforcement agencies involved.

	     Q	  George, it would seem that this question about just
exactly in what detail the President was informed about the nature of
the operation is going to come up again here and elsewhere.  Can you
take that question and --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely.  Yes.

	     Q	     get the answer and come back to us with all of
it?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.

	     Q	  Can you tell us that there was never a meeting -- a
strategy session -- where you and others decided, we will put out a
written statement from the President and we will have Janet Reno be
on all of these television broadcasts?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Never.  Never.

	     Q	  And you never called the Justice Department and
said to anyone or Janet Reno, "you're the one who needs to be out
front explaining this"?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not once.

	     Q	  It just happened that way that she was the
spokesman, that no one ever saw Bill Sessions until --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  She made a decision as Attorney
General that it was important for her as the operational officer in
charge, as the person who made the decision, to go out and take the
questions on this tragic incident.

	     Q	  She had no guidance from the White House at all?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We certainly didn't object.

	     Q	  But did you -- (laughter) -- no, I'm sure you
didn't object, but did you suggest it?  Was this a plan --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No. Absolutely not.

	     Q	     a strategy?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.

	     Q	  Did she clear it?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.

	     Q	  Did she notify you?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We certainly knew about it.

	     Q	  What happened to this great detailed process you
have for clearing and talking to every public information officer and
every -- under every rock and every place in government that
something as major as this could have occurred without a discussion
between you and the public information people at least at the Justice
Department?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The Attorney General made the
decision and the Attorney General wanted to go forward.  It seemed
like a good decision.  It was a good decision.  She did a good job.

	     Q	  Let me ask it this way, George, if in hindsight how
you would handle it?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it was handled very well.

	     Q	  You wouldn't change a thing if --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Change what?

	     Q	  The way the White House handled any part of it --
from start to finish.

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I think that's an awful broad
question and we're certainly going to have a review.  One of the
reasons for the investigation is to look for ways in the future that
something like this -- see what we can learn from an incident like
this and see what we can learn about how to handle them.  If you're
talking specifically about the issue of the press conferences, no,
there -- wouldn't make any change at all.

	     Q	  Two questions:  First of all, on her going on TV,
no White House people or outside media consultants came up with this
idea?  It's just very reminiscent of what you guys did during the
campaign.

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  How so?

	     Q	  I'm thinking of like watching Clinton on Nightline
after the draft story; watching Clinton on --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  There's absolutely no comparison.
Yesterday there was a law enforcement incident.  The incident ended
in tragic deaths of many, many people.  The Attorney General was
involved in that decision.  The Attorney General made the decision to
do that.  She felt it was her responsibility in the interest of
public information to go out and take the questions of the press in
order to make sure that all of the questions were answered, and she
did a fantastic job.

	     Q	  The second question is, did -- as someone who knows
Clinton as well as you do, can you understand why it's sort of hard
to believe that he might not have asked some detailed questions about
what she intended to do?  In other words, she came and she said, I'm
going to put pressure on them.  It's hard not to see Clinton, who's
fairly intelligent and inquisitive, asking how.

	     Q	  What kind?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Both the Attorney General said that
he did ask questions, he did ask general questions.  I don't have a
minute-by-minute account of the conversation.

	     Q	  How long a conversation?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it was about 15 minutes.

	     Q	  Telephone conversation?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.

	     Q	  George, was the federal cost of this standoff ever
a consideration in terms of stepping up the pressure --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't believe so, no.

	     Q	  George, you keep saying that the President takes
full responsibility, but then you refer to it as her decision.  Does
the President not accept the fact that as Commander-In-Chief, it is
ultimately his decision?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know what this has to do
with Commander-In-Chief.  This was a law enforcement action, not a
military action.  And he clearly takes responsibility for the
decisions of the law enforcement agencies involved taken in his
government.  I mean, I think there's just no ambiguity about that.

	     Q	  But is he accepting it as his decision as well as
hers, or is he saying it's her decision?  There's a difference.

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  As a matter of fact, it was her
decision.  He did not object to that decision.  He clearly takes full
responsibility.

	     Q	  George, this briefing has gone on just a little
over 15 minutes, and as you can see a lot of things can be exchanged.
What exactly did they spend 15 minutes talking about if it was just
very general?  That's a long period of time in a phone conversation.

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It is an awful long phone
conversation.  It was a very important phone conversation.  I think
Brit has asked that we take the question, and I've said that I would.

	     Q	  One of the things Reno said last night is that the
buck stops here.  I think that was her direct quotation.  Does the
President agree with that in this case?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President says he accepts full
responsibility.  I think what the Attorney General was saying is that
she made a decision, that she's going to accept all the
responsibility that comes to her.  And she's not shrinking from that
at all, but neither is the President.

	     Q	  At any point in the conversation last night between
the President and the Attorney General or this morning, did she ever
offer her a resignation?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not to my knowledge.

	     Q	  Even before the fire was out yesterday, there were
some Republicans on Capitol Hill calling for an investigation.  Is
the White House at all concerned about the timing of those requests
trying to make political hay out of this situation?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  And I don't want to cast any
questions about the motives of those who are requesting
investigation.  We want an investigation, and we'll have a full and
complete investigation.

	     Q	  In what forum will you answer Brit's question?
Will you put out a written statement?  Will you -- the wires?  How
will you answer the question that you've taken?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not sure.

	     Q	  George, can you remind us what the President was
doing all yesterday afternoon, where he was, and what meetings he was
involved in?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'll have to try and remember.  He
had a series of meetings with different members of the staff during

the afternoon.  He was certainly monitoring the situation in Waco and
getting periodic reports on that as well.  He did see some on CNN as
well.  I believe he saw a fair amount of the FBI press briefing as
well.

	     Q	  And those reports would have come to him from Mack
McLarty, would they -- do you think?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Mack talked to him, Bruce talked to
him, I talked to him.

	     Q	  George, to follow Helen's question, in their
conversation this morning did they discuss at all her statement last
night in response to the question about whether she would resign?
Did he say, I don't know why you felt the need to say that?  I'm here
to reassure you that you don't have to do this?  Did that come up at
all?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if it even came up
that specifically.  I know that the bulk of the conversation was
discussing where do we go from here and what form the investigation
--

	     Q	   The didn't talk at all about her kind of
remarkable comment last night about --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I believe she was asked a
question.

	     Q	  And her response was, if the President wants me to,
I will.

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Which would be, I think, the
standard response that most Cabinet members would give.  I mean, it's
a conditional statement.

	     Q	     have a need to talk about whether -- personally
about whether the President wanted her --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if they talked about
it.  I mean, what I learned about the conversation was that it was
largely about the investigation itself.  And this just didn't come
up.  I did not ask the question if they talked about --

	     Q	  Will you take that with the Brit package?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Certainly.  (Laughter.)

	     Q	  George, for the record, does the President want her
to resign?  I know Dee Dee answered this morning --

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely not.  He supports Janet
Reno.  She's a good Attorney General.  She's done a good job.  She
handled a difficult situation extremely well.

	     Q	  George, does the President feel that he and Janet
Reno were let down by the unanimous professional advice from the law
enforcement experts on the ground?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  And the President is not
second-guessing that decision and those recommendations in any way.
That is not to say that he doesn't regret the loss of life.
Everybody regrets the loss of life in this situation.  But the best
judgments were made in a difficult situation based on the best
information we had.

	     Q	  George, the 15-minute conversation was the one on
Sunday, is that correct?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.

	     Q	  How long was the one at 11:00 a.m. yesterday
morning?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.  I'll take that
question, too.

	     Q	  Were these outside experts that they were
consulting with, or experts within the ATF and the FBI?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  You'd have to ask them.  I'm just
not sure.  I know that there were several experts.

	     Q	  And also, why weren't there replacements for these
people?  Is the unit that small?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I think it is a very small
highly-specialized unit.  But I think it's one of the kinds of things
that the investigation will examine.

	     Q	  George, isn't there a factor here involving the FBI
Director?  Normally, a president, when he wants to get information,
doesn't only asks the Attorney General.  I know the chain of command.
But presidents talk to their FBI directors.  In this case, throughout
this entire siege, he has not felt that he could pick up the phone
and talk to Bill Sessions, who is from Waco, and get expertise from
him on what to do and what not to do?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he talked to the FBI
Director well in the beginning of the situation when it first broke
out in Waco.  At the same time, the Attorney General bears the
ultimate responsibility and he was getting fully briefed from the
Attorney General.

	     Q	  Don't you think the ambiguous situation that
Director Sessions is in has some impact on the way the President is
briefed and on the way that all of this evolved?

	     MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not at all.  I mean, it's perfectly
appropriate that he be briefed by the Attorney General and that the
Attorney General has supervisory authority over the FBI Director, and
that's following the chain of command.

	     THE PRESS:  Thank you .

                                 END                    1:03 P.M. EDT


KK>    Newsgroups: sci.crypt
KK>    From: sphughes@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Shaun P. Hughes)
KK>    Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 07:18:59 GMT

	[..]

KK>       Just a random passing thought, but can anyone cite a documented use
KK>    of encryption technology by criminals and terrorists.
KK>       (Excluding the Iran-Contra Gang)

KK> Sure, the rum-runners in Prohibition. See Kahn's _The Codebreakers_.
KK> The irony was, they were using better codes and key security than
KK> most governments were.


FULL 1993 CALDER CUP PLAYOFF SCHEDULE AND RESULTS
home team in CAPS		*=if necesary

FIRST ROUND
Springfield Indians vs Providence Bruins
Gm 1:	Springfield 3	PROVIDENCE 2
Gm 2:	Springfield 5	PROVIDENCE 4
Gm 3:	Providence 3	SPRINGFIELD 2
Gm 4:	Providence 9	SPRINGFIELD 0
Gm 5:	Springfield 4	PROVIDENCE 2
Gm 6:	SPRINGFIELD 4	Providence 3
(SPRINGFIELD WINS SERIES, 4-2)

CD Islanders vs Adirondack Red Wings
Gm 1:	ADIRONDACK 6	CDI 2
Gm 2:	ADIRONDACK 5	CDI 3
Gm 3:	Adirondack 3	CDI 0
Gm 4:	Adirondack 3	CDI 1
(ADIRONDACK WINS SERIES, 4-0)

Baltimore Skipjacks at Binghamton Rangers
Gm 1:	Baltimore 4	BINGHAMTON 3
Gm 2:	BINGHAMTON 6	Baltimore 2
Gm 3:	Binghamton 8	BALTIMORE 3
Gm 4:	BALTIMORE 3	Binghamton 1
Gm 5:	4/26	Baltimore at Binghamton
Gm 6:	4/28	Binghmaton at Baltimore
Gm 7:	4/30	Baltimore at Binghamton	*

Utica Devils vs Rochester Americans
Gm 1:	Utica 3		ROCHESTER 2	(OT)
Gm 2:	ROCHESTER 9	Utica 3
Gm 3:	Rochester 6	UTICA 4
Gm 4:	Rochester 4	UTICA 3		(OT)
Gm 5:	ROCHESTER 3	Utica 2
(ROCHESTER WINS SERIES, 4-1)

Moncton Hawks vs St John's Maple Leafs
Gm 1:	St JOHN'S 4	Moncton 2	(at Halifax)
Gm 2:	ST JOHN'S 3	Moncton 2	(at Halifax)
Gm 3:	St John's 6	MONCTON 5
Gm 4:	MONCTON 5	St John's 4	(OT)
Gm 5:	4/26	Moncton vs St John's at Halifax
Gm 6:	4/28	St John's at Moncton		*
Gm 7:	4/30	Moncton vs St John's at Halifax	*

Cape Breton Oilers vs Fredericton Canadiens
Gm 1:	FREDERICTON 4	Cape Breton 3	(2OT)
Gm 2:	Cape Breton 5	FREDERICTON 2
Gm 3:	CAPE BRETON 3	Fredericton 0
Gm 4:	CAPE BRETON 6	Fredericton 5 	(OT)
Gm 5:	Cape Breton won


I wouldn't and don't.  I thought I did a pretty good job of
qualifying my statement, but apparently some people
misinterpreted my intentions.  I apologize for my part in
communicating any confusion.  My intent was more to
stir up discussion rather than judge.   It seems to
have worked.

[rest of post noted - by the way, I did not originally post this to
alt.atheism.  If it got there, I don't know how it did.]


The answer to your second question lies in the way you phrased the
first one:  'the media is...'.

The medis isn't 'is'.  The media 'are'.  'Media' means 'more than one
medium.'  There are thousands of publications.  Some say this, some say
that.

     How can the bulk of the people be informed, when they won't read
     informative publications?


Start the renamed saver vid the commandline option /s.


Radius 24X accelerated graphics adaptor. Supports multiple resolutions and
allows on-the-fly changing of resolution or bit depth. MSRP $1999, street
price $1700, your price: best offer over $800.


The following is what they feed to us..... most has been posted already,
but there are a number of items not seen here yet.....

Redesign Activities Update -- Following is the weekly status on redesign,
based on information provided by NASA headquarters.

The station Redesign Team (SRT) provided a detailed status report to the
Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station on April 22.  The
day-long meeting was held in ANSER facilities in Crystal City, VA; topics
covered by the SRT included a preliminary mission and goals statement for
the space station; science, technology and engineering research; the
assessment process; and the design approach. Discussions on management
options and operations concepts also were held.

The Design Teams then presented the three options under study:

¥ Option A - Modular Buildup -- Pete Priest presented the A option. Priest
said the team is working to define a station that meets cost goals and has
identified three distinct phases of evolution - power station, human tended
and permanent presence. The team will define the minimum capability needed
to achieve each phase, the total cost of each phase and the achievable
capability for budget levels. The A option uses current or simplified
Freedom hardware where cost effective and is considering other existing
systems such as the so-called "Bus-1 spacecraft," the orbiter and Spacelab.

The Power Station Capability could be achieved in 3 flights with Freedom
photo voltaic modules providing 20 kW of power. 30-day Shuttle/Spacelab
missions docked to the power station are assumed for this phase.

Human Tended Capability would be provided by the addition of the U.S.
Common Module Module which adds subsystems and 9 payload racks and docking
ports for ESA and Japanese laboratories. 60-day missions with the orbiter
docked to the station are assumed for this phase. Different
operation/utilization modes are being studied for this phase.

¥ Option B - Freedom Derived -- Mike Griffin presented the status of Option
B activities. Griffin detailed the evolution of the Freedom-derived option,
from initial Research Capability, to Human-Tended Capability, to Permanent
Human Presence Capability, to Two Fault Tolerance, and finally Permanent
Human Capability. Griffin also outlined proposed systems changes to the
baseline program, with minor changes to the Communications and Tracking
system, Crew Health Care System and ECLSS, and a major change to the Data
Management System.

Initial Research Capability would be achieved with 2 flights to 28.5 degree
inclination (3 flights to 51.6 degrees) and consist of an extended duration
orbiter-Spacelab combination docked to a truss segment with 2 photo voltaic
arrays providing 18.75 kW of power.

Human-Tended Capability would be achieved in 6 flights and add truss
segments and the U.S. lab.

Permanent Human Presence Capability would be achieved in 8 flights with two
orbiters providing habitation and assured crew return.

Two Fault Tolerance, achieved in 11 flights, would build out the other
section of truss with another set of PV modules, thermal control and
propulsion systems.

The freedom derived configuration could achieve an International Complete
state with 16 flights.  Three more flights, to bring up the habitat module,
a third PV array and two Assured Crew Return Vehicles (ACRV) would complete
the Permanent Human Capability with International stage.

Griffin told the Redesign Advisory Committee that eliminating hardware
would not, by itself, meet budget guidelines for the Freedom derived
option.  Major reductions or deferrals must occur in other areas including
program management, contractor non-hardware, early utilization and
operations costs, he said.

¥ Option C - Singe Launch Core Station -- Chet Vaughn presented Option C,
the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid
rocket boosters would be used  to launch the station into orbit.  Shuttle
main engines would be mounted to the tail of the station module for launch
and jettisoned after ET separation.

The module, 23 feet in diameter and 92 feet long, would provide 26,000
cubic feet of pressured volume, separated into 7 "decks" connected by a
centralized passageway.  Seven berthing ports would be located at various
places on the circumference of the module to place the international
modules, and other elements.  This "can" would have two fixed photo voltaic
arrays producing approximately 40 kW of power flying in a solar interial
attitude.

In his closing comments to the Redesign Advisory Committee, Bryan O'Connor
said a design freeze would be established for the 3 options on April 26 so
that detailed costing of the options can begin.  The next meeting with the
Redesign Advisory Committee will be May 3.

Russian Consultants Arrive in U.S. -- A delegation of 16 Russian space
experts arrived in the U.S. on April 21 and briefings to the SRT by members
of the Russian team began on the 22nd.  The group includes Russian Space
Agency General Director Y. M. Koptev, and V. A. Yatsenko, also of the RSA.
Others on the team include representatives from the Ministry of Defense,
the Design Bureau SALYUT, the Institute of Biomedical Problems, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NPO Energia and TsNIJMASH.  The Russian team
briefed the SRT on environmental control and life support system, docking
systems, the Proton launch vehicle, Mir operations and utilization, and the
Soyuz TM spacecraft.

The Russian consultants are available to the SRT to assess the capabilities
of the Mir space station, and the possible use of Mir and other Russian
capabilities and systems as part of the space station redesign.  They will
be available to the SRT through May 5.

Management and Operations Review Continues --  Work continued in the SRT
subgroups.  The Management Group under Dr. Walt Brooks is working to
develop a family of options that solve the current problems and build a
foundation for the transition to development and operations.  Various
management options have been developed including:

¥ Lead Center with the Center Director in the programmatic chain of
command.

¥ Host Center with the Program Manager reporting directly to an Associate
Administrator.

¥ Skunk Works/Dedicated Program Office with a small dedicated co-located
hand-picked program office.

¥ Combine Space Station with Shuttle, with the space station becoming an
element of the current program.

¥ Major Tune Up to Current Organization, with current contracts and
geographical distribution maintained but streamlined.

The Operations Group under Dr. John Cox is building on the work of the
Operations Phase Assessment Team lead by Gene Kranz of NASA-JSC, which had
already begun a comprehensive review of operations and had concluded in its
preliminary results that significant cost reductions are possible.

As part of its work,  the Operations Group has identified teams of agency
experts to develop detailed evaluations of each design in the areas of
assembly and operations, utilization, maintenance and logistics and testing
and ground operations.

What's in the Week Ahead? -- The Design Support Teams will provide a
comprehensive status of their option to the Station Redesign Team on Monday
and Tuesday at which point the design will be "frozen" to begin the
detailed cost assessment.   Also this week, the team will begin preparing
for the next round of discussions with the redesign Advisory Committee, to
be held May 3.

Dr. Shea Steps Down --  Dr. Joe Shea stepped down as director of the
Station Redesign Team on April 22 and Bryan O'Connor will take over the
activities of the team.  Dr. Shea submitted his resignation as assistant
deputy administrator for space station analysis, but will continue to serve
as a special advisory to NASA Administrator Goldin and be available to
consult with the SRT. Mr Goldin accepted the resignation so that a request
from Dr. Shea to reduce his workload could be accommodated.

Key Milestones -- The key dates for the SRT as they are currently being
carried on the schedule are:

April 26
Design Freeze on Options for Costing

April 27
Design Support Team Present Selected Options to SRT

May 3
Status report to Redesign Advisory Committee

May 15
Interim report by Redesign Advisory Committee

June 7
Final report to Redesign Advisory Committee


From article <1993May12.111030@IASTATE.EDU>, by jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan):

	First of all, this is NOT a strife; this is a massacre of innocent
	Moslem poeples by the Christian West.

	Since Ottoman lost the control of Balkans, many tens and hundereds
	of millions of Muslem peoples (Turks, Albanians, Bosnians, and others)
	have been tortured, raped, massacred, and driven out of their homes
	by the Cristians of both the region and Europe. Some lucky ones
	escaped to relative safety in Turkiye. The remaining others are being
	finished now by local Christians, the USA, and the rest of Europe.

	The Christian West is maintaining a tight arms ambargo on the Muslem
	peoples of Bosnia so they cannot deffend themslves while letting
	Christian Serbs and Croats torture, rape, and massacre the innocent
	Moslem peoples of Bosnia.


If a Christian means someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus, it is safe
to say that Jesus was a Christian.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)


I know, you all were saying "Ha!  The Braves score a few runs for
Maddux, that'll shut that guy up."

But no,  I think we'll just keep track a bit longer...

Last  outing: 5 runs.

Total to date:  8 runs, 4 games

Braves record in Maddux's starts:  2-2

See ya next time.

Dennis


I have done several of these upgrades (about 6 IIsi's, and 1 Quadra 700), and
the best thing to use would be some sort of "heat sink compound". If possible,
you should look for the silicon-free stuff. There's a comany who makes the stuff
called Tech Spray, their address is: P.O. Box 949, Amarillo, TX 79105.

You should be wary in using most kinds of tape; and definately don't use duct
tape  that stuff is for ducts...

When using the heat sink glue or compound, only use enough to fill the small
space between the heat sink and the CPU.

Mario Murphy


I need a little help from a Texas Rangers expert.

I was at Yankee Stadium Sunday (12-2 Texas rout) with my kids.  We
wandered out to the outfield during Rangers batting practice and
I caught a ball tossed into the stands (actually wrestled some guy
a bit, I might add) by #62 on the Rangers.  Who is he?  Looked like
a bullpen assistant type, youngish I think.  He was not in the
roster listed in the Yankee scorecard.  Any ideas?

Please e-mail as I haven't been reading r.s.b regularly.

Thanks.
- Bob


[bible verses ag./ used ag. homosexuality deleted]

also check out the episcopal church -- although by no means all
episcopalians are sympathetic to homosexual men and women, there
certainly is a fairly large percentage (in my experience) who are.  i
am good friends with an episcopalian minister who is ordained and
living in a monogamous homosexual relationship.  this in no way
diminishes his ability to minister -- in fact he has a very
significant ministry with the gay and lesbian association of his
community, as well as a very significant aids ministry.

my uncle is gay and when i found this out i had a good long think
about what the bible has to say about this and what i feel God thinks
about this.  obviously my conclusions may be wrong; nonetheless they
are my own and they feel right to me.  i believe that the one
important thing that those who wrote the old and new testament
passages cited above did NOT know was that there is scientific
evidence to support that homosexuality is at least partly _inherent_
rather than completely learned.  this means that to a certain extent
-- or to a great extent -- homosexuals cannot choose how to feel about
other people -- which is why reports of "curing" homosexuals always
chill me and make me feel ill.  please not that, although i can't cite
sources where you can find this information, there is homosexual
behavior recorded among monkeys and other animals, which is in itself
suggestive that it is inherent rather than learned, or at least that
the word "unnatural" shouldn't really apply....

please remember that whatever you believe, gays and lesbians shoul not
be excluded from your love and acceptance.  christ loved us all, and
we ALL sin.  and he himself never said anything against homosexuals --
rather it is paul (who also came out with such wonderful wisdom as
"women shouldn't speak in church" and "women should keep their heads
covered in church" -- not exact quotations as i don't have my bible
handy) who says these things.  i have a tendency to take some of the
things paul says with a grain of salt....

well, that's all i'll say for now.

vera noyes


Don Alvarez posted a good partial solution to this problem to
comp.risks.  I'll present my variant on it instead, since I feel it's a
bit stronger against some likely attempts to cheat.  depends on the
protocol that's followed for reading traffic.  Briefly, the cops get a
wiretap warrant, and record the call.  They then notice the encryption
and the disclosure header.  It, along with a copy of their warrant, is
sent to the FBI, or whoever it is who holds the family key.  The
F-holder decrypts the header, and sends the serial number N and the
encrypted session key U[K] to the escrow agents.  They, in turn, use U1
and U2 to recover K, and send that to the local police.

Note how this solves the problem of wiretapping forever.  Neither the
cops nor the FBI ever see U, so they can't read other traffic.  Every
request must be validated by both the FBI and the escrow agents.  The
cops and the FBI together can't cheat, since they don't have U.  (I
regard that as a likely pairing of folks who might try to beat the
system.  It's to prevent this that I modified Alvarez's scheme.)  The
escrow agents can't read the conversation, since they don't have it;
all they have is N and U[K].  And the police don't even see N.


But this is all gun control laws end up doing.  Politicians can never
manage to get a handle on those who obtain arms illegally, so all their
laws can ever do is further restrict people who obtain them legally.

Karen McNutt, a local attorney, states that there are about two MILLION
licensed gun owners in Massachusetts.  In the past year, the number of
licensed gun owners involved in gun crimes was something like SIX.
Yet, there were a large number of gun crimes in the state last year.

Does passing laws that will further restricting only those people ALREADY
obeying laws pay any dividents?

So far, I've seen them treated with the least respect by legislators.

See, this is what I call the "argument from religion:" "I believe."  Don't
believe -- it's not NECESSARY to take this on faith.  Go look at the history
of countries that passed gun restrictions.  Pay particular attention to
whether or not violent crime was HIGHER before the restrictions and LOWER
after.  (Don't look at "violent gun crimes," that's begging the question.)
You may be very surprised.

You have this absolutely backwards.  If crime stopped in the presence of
strict gun control, there is NO WAY I would consider lifting any of it.
However, if gun control made absolutely NO IMPROVEMENT in the violent
crime rate, THAT'S when I would have it lifted.  Think about it.

So far, none of the stats show any improvement...

Do you really think driver's tests are any indication of your propensity
for having accidents?

I've never known anybody stupid enough to take a driving test while
drunk; after having been up all night; with two fighting kids in the
back seat; with a hot cup of coffee on their lap; or while putting on
makeup, reading the newspaper, or talking on their cellular phone.
But that's what they're doing when they have those accidents.

How can anything that has no positive effect at all ever be "necessary?"

And it didn't help, any of it.

I'm sorry, I don't remember any story where Winnie the Pooh was
offered weapons.
--


Poor Phill Hallam-Baker.  The tremors are getting worse, and his
stratospheric typing skills can no longer keep up.  [spelling flame or
real sympathy - only his hairdresser knows for sure]

[Official Mossad policy: we don't stop until we get Disneyland!]


*sigh*

It is standard procedure to suspend law enforcement officers, or re-assign
them to administrative (non enforcement) duties, while an investigation
into possible misconduct is going on. The Administration has given no
indication that such suspensions will occur in this case. And given that
the president, attorney general and governor were all involved in the
decisions that led to the Waco Massacre, they should also suspend all
activities regarding law enforcement. Given their positions, that equates
to an enforced vacation.


Though you can certaily assert all this, I don't see why it necessarily
has to be the case. Why can't hate just stay as it is, and not beget more?
Who says we have to get disgusted and start hating the sinner. I admit
this happens, but I donlt think you can say it is always necessaily
so.

Why can we not hate with a perfect hatred?

Certainly we should love even our enemies. Amos 5:15 says to hate the evil
and love the good. This can't contradict Christ's teaching. I think we tie
up both hate and love with an emotional attitude, when it really should be
considered more objectively. Surely I don't fly into a rage at every sin
I see, but why can I not "hate" it?


Your doubts are unsubstantiated, have some faith in us..

Yes I agree..  Lets say I call my self a XXX.  I go and shoot your family
in cold blood.  Does that mean that XXX is responsible? No.  I am.
People tend to associate others with color/creed/etc.. it is a form of racism.


1) It fixes some problems with MicroProse games.  After leaving F-15 III it
would, in vain, try to find a floppy in drive A:.  This has been fixed.  I
don't know what other corrections were made.

2) It comes with an image of the original, in case things don't work.

3) Download glb05.exe.  Format a bootable floppy disk, and don't put a
config.sys or autoexec.bat.  Run the self extracting archive so all the files
explode to the disk.  Run the file fsh.exe.  It should be self-explanatory from
there.

Dan

P.S.:  I was feeling extraordinarily generous once again, so I uploaded the
file to ftp.cica.indiana too..


I've always heard them referred to "horizontally opposed"...

Joe


	No way -- gotta be Walter Johnson.  All were with Washington.
Carlton spent too long in St. Louis to collect less than 700 there.

	I'd also guess Hough due to his length of tenure though I suspect
Bobby Witt wasn't far behind.  Maybe even Jenkins snuck in close....

	Fingers had to have achieved 100 with either MIL or with SD so, yes,
I'd go with that guess.  Otherwise I was thinking that Reardon has a better
chance of having 100 with MIN along with (I would think) easily reaching 100
with MON.

	Gotta be Willie Mays...I am fairly sure he had over 300 steals in his
career.

	Hmmm...Leary is a really good point.  I'd forgotten about him.  Well,
if nothing else, there are plenty of ex-Met pitchers in the category of
"could have lost to all teams" -- Koosman, Leary, Torrez, Ryan, Seaver....
I guess the best three guesses would be Leary, Ryan, and either Seaver or
Koosman.


Tim Shippert recently posted summaries of last year's Defensive Average
stats in terms of the Linear Weights estimated run-value of defensive
performances, compared to league average.  I've combined those with my
position-adjusted MLV numbers to come up with first-approximation total
run values for players last year.  We can use these as a springboard for
reconsideration of the MVP award.

Major caveats:  these numbers include no defensive park adjustment, so if
San Diego really is just a question of odd scoring or gopher holes in the
infield, that will cause some inaccuracies.  The offensive numbers are
position-adjusted, but not park adjusted, so we have to deflate some and
inflate others to be fair.  Finally, we still don't know what to do about
catchers, and I have no idea how to evaluate the defensive contributions
of Tony Phillips and Bip Roberts.

Having said that, there are still some surprises.  Let's look National
League first.  All numbers in total runs contributed over the season.

	Player		Offense		Defense		Total

	Sandberg	  44		  32		 76
	Bonds		  67		   3		 70
	Walker		  26		  26		 52
	Justice		  14		  33		 47
	Daulton	 	  44		  ??		 44+?
	Larkin		  36		   4		 40
	Grace		  13		  27		 40

As I see it, these are the legitimate MVP candidates from last season.
If you deflate Sandberg's offense a wee bit for playing in Wrigley, you
get essentially a dead heat.  Had Bonds been his usual defensive self, it
wouldn't have been close, but that apparently wasn't the case.  Darren
Daulton needs 22 or more defensive runs to make up the offensive difference,
and I couldn't tell you whether that's easy or impossible.  A good case
could be made for any of Sandberg, Bonds, or Daulton as top dude.

My personal vote:  Bonds, Sandberg, Daulton, Walker, Justice.

In the American League:

	Player		Offense		Defense		Total

	Ventura		  22		  34		 56
	Martinez	  47		  -1		 46
	B. Anderson 	  21		  25		 46
	Thomas		  47		  -5		 42
	R. Henderson	  25		  16		 41
	Raines		  17		  23		 40
	Tettleton	  33		  ??		 33+?

OK, let's see a show of hands: how many of you picked Robin Ventura as top
player in the AL last year?  I certainly didn't, but I'd have a hard time
arguing against him at this point.  Yes, I know these numbers are only
approximate, but that's a big gap between him and the #2 guy.  Also, those
of you who thought Rickey Henderson stank last year are out of your minds.

Once again, there's a catcher in the ointment.  If calling a game is as
important as it might be, 23 runs is easy to make up (or give away).  TAke
a guess, folks; I don't think we can do any better than that.

My personal vote (excluding pitchers):

	Ventura, Tettleton, Anderson, Martinez, Henderson.

I'm a big Frank Thomas fan, but I have to admit to a bias in favor of
balanced offensive/defensive contribution, which should have a higher
leverage in W/L record than an equal shift that is lots of offense with
negative defense.

For the record:

	Carlos Baerga		  27		  5		  32
	Roberto Alomar		  35		 -2		  33

Forget it; it's a wash.

Let me also take this opportunity to admit that I was grossly wrong regarding
Don Mattingly's defense this past season.  Don recovered brilliantly from his
weak '90 and '91 to end up with

	Mattingly		  -1		  17		  16 runs

which is clearly an above-average first baseman.  However, it's still 18 runs
behind Mark McGwire, 26 runs behind Frank Thomas, and 7 runs behind John
Olerud.  On the other hand, it's ahead of Rafael Palmeiro, Cecil Fielder, and
every other AL first baseman not yet mentioned.


Did anyone happen to see Peter Gammons on ESPN last night?  He addressed
this exact issue, and dismissed it rather quickly.  According to Gammons,
advanced scouts are reporting that Morris' fastball and slider still have
the same zip and that his problems this year are due to his sudden inability
to keep the ball hidden during his release.  Guzman and Stottlemyre have
gone through similar stretches that have been cleared up succinctly by a
little work with the pitching coach.  Gammons looks to see Morris back in
top form within the month.

I, on the other hand, still have my doubts.  Morris' ERA last year was
rather high for a pitcher who won 20 games.  His showing in the Series was
not surprising.  Although I'm not convinced that he's washed up, I have my
doubts as to whether or not he can ever regain the form he had for the
Twins in '91.


You are in the village. Many happy returns! Be seeing you!


Hi.

I'm not sure what the other guy (can't track down his post for his name)
was talking about when he made the claim that cobralinks are not adjustable.
They are.  There's a space between each link where the "teeth" of the
locking head notch in.  Thus, each link is a possible locking point.

Also, (and this is not applicable to hard-core thieves who cart around
liquid nitrogen and oxy-acetylene torches) the cobralinks "LOOK" a lot
more effective than kryptonite cable locks (IMHO) and I think the initial
appearance effect is more relevant to bored-joyriders-nominally-adept-at-
cracking-unsecured-bike deterrence, as long as the lock is nominally
functional.

Finally, I notice that when I ride with my leathers, harness boots, and
the cobralinks slung across like a bandolier (BTW, I've crashed in the rain
dressed like this and the lock didn't pulverize any vertebrae), cagers give
me a much wider berth, don't hassle me, and tend to avoid any potentially
inflammatory action at stoplights.

I love my cobralinks almost as much as I love my pre-80's Honda dinosaur.
(I think I have a pavlovian drool reflex-I put the lock on (i.e., on my
body) and I can feel the bike already shaking away).

My first post.  What did I do wrong :)?

sang
DoD #0846
'80 CX500

p.s. any other CX500 owners out there?  Please e-mail me. Got
questions about the weird handling on my bike.


Actually, this strife in Yugoslavia goes back a long way. Bosinan Muslims,
in collaboration with the Nazis, did to Serbians after the first world
war what Serbs are doing to Muslims now. This is not a fresh case of
ethnic cleansing but just another chapter in the continuing saga
of intense mutual hatred, destruction,... Not taking sides in this
perpetual war does not amount to religious bigotry. It could just
be helplessness with regards to bringing peace to a region that does
not even know the meaning of the word.

Satya Prabhakar


The Waco/Whacko Bar-B-Q caused me to remember an official explanation
from the Vietnam War.  The 90s, liberal version is:

    "It was necessary to incinerate the children in order to save them."


This is a tricky situation; if the previous owner didn't inform
the dealer of the odometer change, then the previous owner committed
fraud, and he may be liable. The dealer may also be liable; If the
previous owner notified the dealer, or if the previous owner had the
dash replaced at a dealer, or if the previous owner had the dash changed
legally, any records search on the car should turn up the fact that
the odometer had been altered.  If a dealer changes the speedometer, he has
to report it (it goes into the car's service record with the manufacturer,
and on the title, if I remember correctly; the dealer told me that
the old mileage, etc. were sent to Ford when my T-Bird's speedo
was replaced). If the odometer can be set to the old mileage, it must
be; if it can't (eg, electrically-driven odometers) then the mileage
of the old odometer must be written on a permanent sticker which is
affixed to the door frame of the vehicle.

Either way, if the change had been done legally, then a records search
(which the dealer almost certainly did) should have turned it up.

Call your state's Department of Transportation/Public Safety/Motor
Vehicles--or your tag agent--to find out for certain what your
rights are. Your state's Attorney General will know for certain ;-)

				James


If available please send to
Glen Moore
Director
Science Centre
Wollongong, Australia
fax: 61 42 213151   email: gkm@cc.uow.edu.au


I have been scanning and trying to read the articles in the sci.crypt area,
but what do I get?   SURPRISINGLY, the blurb comes upon the screen " file xxx
has either been cancelled or expired.       Now I ask you, If it expired,
wouldn't it be out of the available file cache?
I am 32 and not a paranoid, but the older I get, the greater my cynicism of
both federal and state governments becomes.
The censorship  of this Internet (and it is no less than censorship [stupid me, it's the GOVT.])
is ridiculous.  The Japanese have far outstripped our ciphertechnology,  and
our government is now, before your very observant eyes, trying to force the
"crypto standard" onto a framefork where the "standard" is now an ancient
relic in terms of modern Japanese security techniques.

Now, I pose the question: Why censor folks on the net and send the warning
shown above ("cancelled or expired") when it would be wiser to not let people
see the post at all??

Which Article of the Constitution gives me the right of revolution if things
seem to be going cockeyed??

Hmmm...


I don't seem to be able to get window positions reliably through
the XView xv_get() function:

   x = (int) xv_get(my_frame, XV_X);
   y = (int) xv_get(my_frame, XV_Y);

For example, if I set XV_X & XV_Y to 50,50 the frame comes up
in the correct position, with the top left corner (the size
handle) at 50,50. xv_get() returns 50,50 as well. But later on
xv_get() returns 5,25 without any intervening xv_set(my_frame,
XV_?). My frame is fitted around a canvas, and it turns out
(by measuring on the screen) that 5,25 is the position of the
first pixel in my canvas relative to the frame's origin. What
gives? Any help most appreciated!

Derek

P.S. On a related subject, is there any way of querying the
window manager as to the thickness of borders it puts around
frames, etc.?

-----------------------------------------------------------


<clip clip>

Running MS-DOS or a derivative OS, obviously. Please take note that the
following is not what exactly happens, but a slightly simplified
explanation.

Technically, the IRQ line is only a means for the device (printer
adapter, SoundBlaster, modem, hard disk, ...) to signal the CPU that
"Something's happening here, please take note." How the CPU is
programmed to handle this signal is usually up to the operating system.
In MS-DOS, the "interrupt vector" is used to store the address of the
function that handles each interrupt.

Now, basic DOS doesn't care whether the printer reports that it's ready
to print some more stuff or not - it simply ignores the interrupt.  When
DOS prints, it looks at the LPT buffer.  If there's a character there,
wait a while and check again.  If there's not, copy a new character to
the LPT port.  Since the IRQ 7 is ignored as a printer interrupt, it's
free for use for any other adapters - in this case, the SB.

With any multitasking or otherwise advanced OS, this kind of printing
approach just doesn't work (or more precisely, it wastes a lot of CPU
cycles.) Hence, you can't "share" the IRQ 7 with LPT1 and SB if you're
running Unix or OS/2 or whatnot.

Another issue with the SB is that only the digitized sound uses
interrupts. When the SB plays plain music, the CPU simply tells it what
to play until told otherwise. With digitized sound the interrupt is
required to notify the CPU when the output ends and new data is
needed.

You can, however, hook two (or more) COM ports to one interrupt, but use
them only one at a time.  This is because the interrupt handling routine
is same for both ports, and it can see from which port the data came
from. This, of course, applies for some other devices (like LPT) as well.

Remember, this was greatly simplified in parts, but I think gives the
general picture correctly enough.

Cheers,


It really bums me out that xv went shareware.

 * XV is shareware for PERSONAL USE only.  You may use XV for your own
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
                       What does this mean anyway?  Can I sit in a company
                       and look at pictures off the net in my spare time?

 * amusement, and if you find it nifty, useful, generally cool, or of
 * some value to you, your non-deductable donation would be greatly
 * appreciated.  $25 is the suggested donation, though, of course,
 * larger donations are quite welcome.  Folks who donate $25 or more
 * can receive a Real Nice bound copy of the XV manual for no extra
 * charge.
 *
 * Commercial, government, and institutional users MUST register their
 * copies of XV, for the exceedingly REASONABLE price of just $25 per
 * workstation/X terminal.  Site licenses are available for those who
 * wish to run XV on a large number of machines.  Contact the author
 * for more details.

Now since universities are institutions (right?), doesn't this mean that
most everyone in the world is affected by this?  (I don't believe there
are that many running X windows at home yet, relatively speaking).

Can the author legally sell xv?  Xv uses tiff and jpeg code developed
by others.  Did the author get permission to sell these works?  Did
the author also get permission from all the people who contributed to
xv to sell their work as well?

My guess is that now nobody is going to want to help the author
maintain the code anymore now that xv has become a commercial product,
and support for xv will begin to slide downhill.

If this is the case, then that's a bummer.  I really liked xv.


It has be reported that the National Baseball League has
been spotted in the West Bank;  they were recruiting pitchers.


: The Branch Davidians were not violent and were not planning to start
: violence.
:
: When the BD compound was assaulted by the ATF the BD did fire back.
: But they agreed to a cease fire and they allowed the ATF to care for
: their wounded.  The BD even released the ATF agents they captured.  It
: is clear from the release of the agents and allowing the ATF medical
: attention that the BD were not looking for trouble.

  This is the first I've heard of the BD capturing and releasing ATF agents.
Is there any more info about this?


:
:    Hams can legally run up to 1500 watts.  It is very unlikely, however,
:    that a ham would be running that kind of power from a car.  Ham rigs
:
: Not possible either.  You'd need about a 300 amp alternator for
: just the amplifier.  I can just see it.  You need to slow
: down on a downgrade,  so you hit the push to talk button.

Well - 100+ amps anyway. Transmissions are generally for a short interval.
The battery would supply the rest. Of course, if you transmitted too much,
you would run the battery down.

It really would not be that much of a brake.  Even at 50% efficiency, 1500
watts would only consume 4 horsepower.


A recent post bears the subject line:

 > Re: Serbian genocide work of God?

The text contains 80 lines devoted to a defence of the doctrine of
predestination as applied to the salvation of individuals. There is
then a five-line post-script on the Balkans. It is natural and easy
to keep the Subject line of the post that one is replying to, but
when the focus shifts, keeping the same Subject can cause confusion.

This is intended as a general request. The post mentioned is just
the handiest example.


Its bogus.  See the sci.skeptic FAQ (I edit it).

You can diagnose some things by looking at the eyes.  Glaucoma is the
Classic Example, but there are probably others.

Iridology maps parts of the body onto the irises of the eyes.  By
looking at the patterns, striations and occasional blobs in the irises
you are supposed to be able to diagnose illnesses all over the body.

The two questions to ask any alternative therapist are:

1: How does it work?

2: What evidence is there?

The answer to question 1 takes a little knowledge of medicine to
evaluate.  I don't know about iridology, but I've read a book on
reflexology, which is a remarkably similar notion except that the
organs of the body are mapped onto the soles of the feet.  There are
supposed to be channels running down the body carrying information or
energy of some sort.  Anatomists have found no such structures.
(Always beware the words "channel" and "energy" in any spiel put out
by an alternative practitioner.)

The answer to question 2 is rather simpler.  If all they have is
anecdotal evidence then forget it.  Ask for referreed papers in
mainstream medical journals.  Ignore any bull about the conspiracy of
rich doctors suppressing alternative practitioners.  Studies are done
and papers are published.  Some of them are even positive.

The word "licensed" in the flyer is an interesting one.  Licensed by
whom?  For what?  It is quite possible that the herbology is real and
requires a license: you can kill someone by giving them the wrong
plants to eat, and many plants contain very powerful drugs (Foxglove
and Willow spring to mind).  It is not clear whether the license
extends to the iridology, and I suspect that if you ask you will be
told that it means "(Licensed herbologist) and iridologist".

BTW, the usual term is "herbalist".  Why use a different word?


which are them main trucking companeies and
their locations?  do you have the name of ac
a contact person?

thanks..


Hello Folks,

I'm very happy with my "new" R80GS.  My range is 238 miles on 4.8 gallons...
that's 50 mpg!!  Surprisingly, the bike is a real cruiser.  I was expecting
something rough.   She's a sweet backroad honey.  And I can go pretty much
anyplace I'd take my mountain bike.  As far as shaft effect, it's more a
torque effect from the crankshaft in my opinion.  Rev it sitting still
(when the driveshaft is not moving) and the bike twists a bit.  Maybe
I don't ride her fast enough to get a shaft effect, but in my opinion
a little buffeting by wind is of far greater consequence.  Okay, here are
my questions:

1) Any recommendations for a home-made fairing?  I'd like to keep the
wind off my chest, and perhaps my helmet, for comfort at highway speeds
(70 mph), yet don't want to (a) screw up the stability or (b) block my
vision too much for trail riding.  Anybody have luck with two-piece
detachible fairings?  I'd like to make it myself out of plexiglas.

2) I run two lights, the standard headlamp plus a sidelamp mounted on the
crash bar.  The illumination's excellent that way, with a full beam coming
out from the level of the motor (left side); the lamp beam is linear so
that you get a bright streak of illumination from left to right, and it
really picks up the periphery (deer lurking, etc.)  Combined with the
headlamp on high you can see like day.  But I've heard that BMW alternators
don't crank out too much.  Do I need to shut down the sidelamp when I'm
puttering around in the dirt at low RPM?

3) This is embarassing: I'm having trouble starting the bike first thing
in the morning.  I invariably flood the carbs, then go in and read a section
of the paper, and then she starts right up.  Is this a Zen thing?

4) The Hayne's manual says do not under any circumstances use gasoline
with alcohol additives... Yeah, right.  What do you folks due to keep
the engine and carbs from being eaten by ethanol and methanol?  Any
particular brands of gas that are best?  Additives?

Thanks,


I think this is a little extreme, i am concerned about a couple of things
i've seen lately. It seems to me that the government is *beginning* to
enforce political correctness. the first King verdict was polically incorrect
so the hell with constutitional protection from double jeopardy, try the cops
again. the BD's are far as i can tell didn't do anything wrong. nothing that
would justify the horrable end they were subjected too. they were simply
polically incorrect in the extream. i can't help but wonder "who's next"


Here we go again.

========================================================================


For those who would like to know, the 6507 was a 6502 without IRQ or NMI,
and with only 13 address lines (giving 8K memory space).

Didn't know about it being called the 6526 - thats the CIA found in the
Commodore 64 (I don't believe this chip existed when the 2600 was around).
The TIA was mapped into the bottom 128 bytes of page 0, and shadowed in the
bottom 128 bytes of page 1. To get an image on the screen, you had to wait
until the raster line your picture started at, load bitmaps for this line
into the 'sprite' registers, tell them what x positions to take, how many
duplicates you wanted, etc, then do it all again for the next line. This
took all of the processor's time during the visible portion of the
display.

The RAM was mapped into the top 128 bytes of page 0, and shadowed in page
1. The 6502 has a zero-page addressing mode on most instructions that is
both shorter and faster than the normal ones, so it is important on a
machine like this to have the scratchpad RAM in page 0. Unfortunately, it
also wants its stack to be in page 1 (the stack pointer is 8 bits, and the
high byte of the address is hardwired to 1).

The IOT section was mapped into page 2 somewhere. 2 8 bit I/O registers
(can't remember if each bit could be independantly set to I or O like the
6522 and 6526), and 1(?) 8(?) bit timer with a programmable prescaler (I
think this was some power of 2). There were no interrupts in the system, so
many games would set up the timer at some known time, go away and do
something else for a while, then sit and wait for the timer to run down.

There was no logic in the box to do address decoding - the RIOT had at
least 2 chip select pins (probably one active high, one active low), and I
imagine the TIA was much the same. Various address lines were fed directly
to chip selects. The 6507 likes to have ROM right at the top of memory, so
the 2600 had to use ROMs with active high chip selects - not exactly
normal, so some cartriges had a 7404 in them to convert this to the more
usual active low chip select.


On 23 Apr 93 00:18:59 GMT, Clayton Cramer observed:
: # Can someone tell me why when Mr. Cramer spouts on about homosexuals,
: # he only addresses homosexual men, and never, in any post I've read,
: # addressed lesbians?  Granted, I stopped reading all his posts long, long
: # ago, so perhaps I missed something.

: Because women very, very seldom molest children.

Un-hunh.  Yeah.  Right.  Sure.

You know that list of things that are stereotypically American -- Mom,
apple pie, etc.?  You don't hear too many stories about Mom being
a child molester, because such stories would simply be unAmerican.

But that doesn't say that it doesn't happen.


Not to muslims :)

That could be arguable.. (for bandwith and flames sake, I wont say more)

It is a civil war, but the serbian generals who allow rape are not fighting
fair.  Yah I know .. war is hell  ..  those serbian generals are propretuating
both..

Lines and bordres .. money .. power .. fear ..

Let's change canadian bordres while we are at it :)
I see this as civvil war..
(sp borders)

Possibly..  I do agree that it is a civil war, which makes the donation of
humanitarian aid even more complex...  I mean serbs are bleeding too and I heardthat a few croats had raped serbian women.. (unconfurmable at this point)


I've recently uploaded to cica the current (v2.8) version of the working
model of MicroCal Origin, a scientific and technical 2D/3D graphics and data
analysis package for Windows 3.x. The working model is 2D only and puts a
promo message on hardcopies, but is largely identical to the full version.
Saving Origin files is disabled, but you can save ASCII data sets produced
with Origin. It also says it has an expiration date of Sept. 1, 1993.

Try it. You may like it, as I do!

It's currently in /pub/pc/win3/uploads as ORIGIN.ZIP.


I am familiar with the project.  It is the Onboard Shuttle Flight
Software Project.  This software controls the Space Shuttle During
all dynamic phases as well as on-orbit.
It has ultra-high reliability and extremely
low error rates.  There have been several papers published on the
subject and I'll collect some references.  There may be an
article in the IBM Systems Journal Late '93, early '94.

There is no magic formula.  We did it with dedicated and disciplined
folks who worked to put together a process that finds and removes errors
and is corrected based on errors that "escape".  We present a
one day overview of our process periodically to interested folks.
The next one is May 19th in Washington, D.C.  I can fax specifics
to those who are interested.

Bret Wingert
Wingert@VNET.IBM.COM


	I have a 5FG and think it is great. I haven't seen the Nanao's so I
can't compare, but the 5FG image is very sharp and the color contrast is
*extremely* good. I've used other Trinitron monitors (e.g. a Sun SS2 color
monitors, which is a 19" Trinitron), and think the 5FG is at least as good,
perhaps brighter, and has *none* of these silly horizontal lines running across.
	BTW, I could be wrong, but I thought that the 5FGe is slower as well
as missing ACCUCOLOR. It may not be able to handle 1280x1024 the way the 5FG
can.


  Thanks for the etymology lesson, but I actually know what "orthodox" means.
You're avoiding my question, however, which was: From what body of theology
does your version of orthodoxy come?  You seem to simply be saying that
whatever *you* understand the Bible to say is "orthodox."

  You are obviously mistaken, since many, many people have read the Bible and
many do not agree with you on this point.  Once again, Robert, is your
interpretation the only "correct" or "orthodox" one?

   This whole string began as a response to your attacks on Mormonism; no one
is attacking your personal beliefs, only your tendency to present them as
"orthodoxy."  I don't much care *what* you believe about the Bible; just don't
present you personal understanding as the only "orthodox" one.

   I have never attacked your specific beliefs -- that's *your* approach,
remember?
    Stating that other people who depend solely on the Bible have other views
is indeed proof that the Bible can be interpreted many ways, which has been
my whole point all along.  The specifics of your belief are your business;
just don't pretend that they are anything more than your personal
intepretation, and be careful about crying "heresy" based on your private
belief system.


well, i have lots of experience with scanning in images and altering
them.  as for changing them back into negatives, is that really possible?
scanning and altering is no big deal. i don't know what types of
features you have in your version of photoshop.  but the one i use
(which, incidentally is on a quadra) has gallery effects and all types
of other neato stuff.
i'm just wondering why you would want to put your images back into
negatives, because once you print the image out-that's your print.
do you know what exactly your aim is in all of this?  like, are you
doing this just for fun, for a business, to gain more computer
knowledge, for a project you're working on....
otherwise, i guess i don't know if i'd be helping or not by posting info
on scanning and stuff.
ok?  cool.
seeya


:      Here's a hypothetical question...  If Clayton said something like "all
: those niggers are really stupid."  (Please don't be offended, I'm not racist
: but merely using an example of Clayton's malign logic).  And then said he
: read a report that a lot of blacks in inner cities dropped out of school, I
: bet he wouldn't have your support.  Yet he can claim that all homosexuals are
: dishonest, evil, lying child molesters without *PERSONALLY* having a single
: homosexual friend or acquaintance and you'll sit there and support him.

:      God created a place for bigots.  It's called Hell and Clayton is going
: to burn there for a long time.  I pray for him to find in his heart the
: Christian values he espouses so that he can learn to love his gay brothers
: and sisters, because anyone with so much hatred in his soul coulld never
: be righteous.

There is a difference between supporting Claytons opinions and supporting
his right to speak.  I want you to know that you cannot educate and/or
elevate ones understanding by calling him names.  Clayton has an opinion
which in his mind is as valid as any opinion anyone else on the net has.
If you were to walk up to black person to talk about blacks in the inner
city and began the conversation with "Those niggers in th.......".  You
would lose the attention of that black person by the time you spoke your
second word.  All name calling and derisive remarks do is turn off the
audience you are trying to address.  Clayton is guilty of that and as
such has distracted attention away from his message to bits and pieces
of his conversation.  I don't understand why people want to repeat his
mistakes!


I would appreciate it if someone could volunteer to verify the shots on goal
and save percentage numbers for me, so I can put these stats on the archive
site.  Contact me by mail if you want to volunteer.

Here are the individual goalie stats as of: Wed Apr 21 09:09:38 CST 1993

These stats include games up to and including the Sunday previous to the date
listed above.  They have been verified against what is printed in my newspaper
every Tuesday.  They don't print shots and save percentage numbers, so those
are not verified.  These stats are available by mail every weekday and
sometimes on weekends, if I'm in town and I can get late game results.  Just
send me a note if you would like to receive these stats by mail.

If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, let me know.

Randy

-------
MP = Minutes Played, GA = Goals against,
SO = Shutouts, GAA = Goals against average
W = Wins, L = Losses, T = Ties
SOG = Shots on Goal, SV = Save Percentage

 MP   GA SO   GAA  W  L  T  SOG   SV  TM Player
=======================================================
   1   0  0  0.00  0  0  0    0 1.000 WAS Byron Dafoe
  11   0  0  0.00  0  0  0    3 1.000 HAR Corrie D'Alessio
  40   1  0  1.50  0  0  0   19 0.947 MTL Frederick Chabot
  25   1  0  2.40  0  0  0   10 0.900 BOS Mike Bales
2781 116  2  2.50 25 15  7 1287 0.910 TOR Felix Potvin
4106 177  7  2.59 41 18 11 1879 0.906 CHI Ed Belfour
1322  64  1  2.90  9  8  4  596 0.893 BOS John Blue
 996  49  2  2.95  6  7  1  414 0.882 CHI Jim Waite
3702 186  4  3.01 43 14  5 1889 0.902 PIT Tom Barrasso
3890 196  1  3.02 29 28  9 2194 0.911 STL Curtis Joseph
1817  94  1  3.10 18  8  4  858 0.890 VAN Kay Whitmore
1429  75  0  3.15 11 10  4  716 0.895 BUF Dominik Hasek
3194 168  3  3.16 37 14  3 1354 0.876 BOS Andy Moog
1311  70  1  3.20 14  4  1  629 0.889 CAL Jeff Reese
3595 192  2  3.20 31 25  5 1813 0.894 MTL Patrick Roy
 168   9  0  3.21  1  1  1   87 0.897 HAR Mike Lenarduzzi
1193  64  0  3.22 13  4  2  522 0.877 DET Vincent Riendeau
1785  96  2  3.23 17  7  4  938 0.898 TOR Daren Puppa
3880 210  4  3.25 34 24  7 1898 0.889 DET Tim Cheveldae
3732 203  2  3.26 29 26  9 1805 0.888 CAL Mike Vernon
2655 146  1  3.30 22 20  2 1314 0.889 NYI Glenn Healy
3359 185  1  3.30 24 24  6 1726 0.893 BUF Grant Fuhr
2757 152  4  3.31 20 18  7 1519 0.900 NYR John Vanbiesbrouck
3282 181  1  3.31 27 23  5 1531 0.882 WAS Don Beaupre
3476 193  3  3.33 26 26  5 1683 0.885 MIN Jon Casey
3261 184  3  3.39 28 21  5 1620 0.886 VAN Kirk McLean
2672 151  2  3.39 19 21  3 1322 0.886 NJ  Chris Terreri
1433  81  1  3.39 17  5  1  686 0.882 MTL Andre Racicot
1939 110  0  3.40 18  9  4  947 0.884 QUE Stephane Fiset
2512 143  5  3.42 20 17  6 1329 0.892 PHI Tommy Soderstrom
1368  78  0  3.42 13  7  2  691 0.887 PIT Ken Wregget
 542  31  0  3.43  5  4  0  225 0.862 BOS Reggie Lemelin
2988 172  0  3.45 29 16  5 1525 0.887 QUE Ron Hextall
2253 130  0  3.46 17 15  5 1067 0.878 NYI Mark Fitzpatrick
3855 227  2  3.53 33 26  6 2119 0.893 WIN Bob Essensa
1601  96  0  3.60 15 10  2  777 0.876 WIN Jim Hrivnak
1596  97  1  3.65 10 12  5  803 0.879 MIN Darcy Wakaluk
1591  97  0  3.66  7 19  2  757 0.872 TB  Wendell Young
1163  71  0  3.66  8 10  1  573 0.876 TB  JC Bergeron
2389 146  2  3.67 21 16  4 1180 0.876 NJ  Craig Billington
1210  74  1  3.67  8  8  2  628 0.882 STL Guy Hebert
1302  80  2  3.69  8 12  0  664 0.880 WAS Rick Tabaracci
 664  41  0  3.70  5  6  0  344 0.881 BUF Tom Draper
 224  14  0  3.75  1  2  1  116 0.879 NYR Corey Hirsch
1769 111  1  3.76 13 11  5  932 0.881 PHI Dominic Roussel
2105 134  1  3.82 13 19  3 1184 0.887 NYR Mike Richter
 157  10  0  3.82  1  2  0   78 0.872 NYI Danny Lorenz
3753 240  1  3.84 17 38  6 2069 0.884 EDM Bill Ranford
1735 111  0  3.84 15  8  4  987 0.888 LA  Robb Stauber
2718 175  2  3.86 18 21  6 1545 0.887 LA  Kelly Hrudey
 154  10  0  3.90  0  2  1   66 0.848 QUE Jacques Cloutier
 867  57  0  3.94  5  9  1  499 0.886 HAR Mario Gosselin
 532  35  0  3.95  6  4  0  294 0.881 LA  Rick Knickle
2268 150  1  3.97  8 24  4 1197 0.875 TB  Pat Jablonski
2074 142  1  4.11  7 26  0 1250 0.886 SJ  Arturs Irbe
2656 184  0  4.16 16 27  3 1470 0.875 HAR Sean Burke
1338  93  0  4.17  9 12  2  763 0.878 EDM Ron Tugnutt
1326  95  0  4.30  2 17  1  743 0.872 OTT Daniel Berthiaume
 802  59  0  4.41  3  9  0  405 0.854 PHI Stephane Beauregard
3388 250  0  4.43  8 46  3 1711 0.854 OTT Peter Sidorkiewicz
  65   5  0  4.62  0  0  1   39 0.872 CAL Andrei Trefilov
1373 111  0  4.85  4 15  1  784 0.858 HAR Frank Pietrangelo
  73   6  0  4.93  0  0  1   34 0.824 WIN Mike O'Neill
  60   5  0  5.00  0  1  0   46 0.891 SJ  Wade Flaherty
2000 176  0  5.28  2 30  1 1220 0.856 SJ  Jeff Hackett
 930  86  0  5.55  2 14  1  559 0.846 SJ  Brian Hayward
 160  15  0  5.63  0  3  0   91 0.835 TOR Rick Wamsley
  20   2  0  6.00  0  0  0    7 0.714 WAS Olaf Kolzig
  90  10  0  6.67  0  2  0   44 0.773 OTT Darrin Madeley
 249  30  0  7.23  0  5  0  146 0.795 OTT Steve Weeks
  98  13  0  7.96  0  2  0   51 0.745 LA  David Goverde
  45   7  0  9.33  0  1  0   21 0.667 TB  David Littman


From article <1993May1.092058.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, by pstlb@aurora.alaska.edu:

Since this was posted on comp.ai, I assume there is an AI angle to this.  Hacking is
what AI students do when they're really supposed to be doing something else, e.g.
thesis research & write up, getting their supervisors' pet programs to run properly,
etc.  No-one gets much glory for hacking, and no-one gets any money out of it.
Producing good free software requires an enormous investment of time & resources that
not many people can, or want to, afford - particularly during a recession.

In addition, over the last 10 years, I think there has been a de-emphasis on producing
running programs in AI research, and a greater emphasis on more formal approaches to
problem-solving.  Students have been proving theorems instead of writing programs.
At a conference a year or two ago, Johann de Kleer suggested that everyone should
'Get back to the keyboard' and write more programs that demonstrate their ideas -
and I have to say I'm inclined to agree.

(I don't claim to be a superhacker, but I don't think that invalidates my remarks.
And I'm sure this isn't the whole story.)


: So to most of the computer users in the world MS product symbolize
: quality. MS has made their life easier, and more productive and to them
: that is quality. They do not care about what innovative things MS has
: done, other than to make their life with a computer one heck of a lot
: easier. You may know better than most computer users in this world
: but that will not change their perception.

None of this changes the fact that MSW3.1 is objectively inferior to its
competition.

I have begun to learn in life that the masses never choose the best option
available to them-- they choose the one which they have been conditioned to
think is best.  I'm glad I'm not one of them.


[Text Deleted]

I have, my thesis was on Sun Tzu.

More to the point:

Those who are called the good militarists of old, could make opponents
lost contact between front and back lines, lose reliability between
large and small groups, lose mutual concern for the welfare of the
different social classes among them, lose mutual accomodation between
the rulers and the ruled, lose enlistments among the soldiers, lose
coherence within the armies.  They went into action when it was
advantageous, stopped when it was not.

Today it is.  Sitting on your hands will get you nowhere in this battle.

uni@acs.bu.edu


Last two copies of silverlining 5.42 from La Cie for sale.  This
is disk management software.  Lets you evalulate/test hard drive,
install and test drivers, partition disks (supports AUX, ProDos, etc).
Nice piece of software to have around the house.  If you are interested
please email your offers.  First good offer also gets MacTree disk
organization software free.


Back your statments with proof, or shut up.

Again, back your statements or shut up.

Hmm...  Tell me, did you go to the Mickey Mouse school of logic?  You have
just stated that there are not many homosexuals as Kinsey reported in his
survey (and the surveys of the Kinsey Institute since).  Then you say that
the reason many young people are promiscuous is because homosexuals form
a large part of that group, or there are some homosexuals whose lives
consist of having sex, with no gaps for eating &c.  Using *your* logic
it would seem to suggest that on average gay men have about 2000 partners each
a week!  Try to think through your arguments carefully.  Or then again, not,
because I like to laugh every now and then.

Hence the argument cannot be resolved using this data.  Next point, please.

This depends on the premise that there are only three types of behaviour: gay, bi
and hetero.  This has yet to be proved.  See an earlier post about the Kinsey
Institute of grading.  This, although rough, seems more logical.  Also you use
"this would show", defining a fact and not an assumption.  Again, back your
statements or shut up.


CNN just reported the ATF and the FBI have begun killing everyone in the
United States. A press release stated this action was required because
bugs had revealed that many people were doing something illegal in their
homes, and statistical data indicated that those who weren't might someday
do something illegal. An ATF spokesperson, just before he shot himself, stated
that "this would clean up things once and for all".

If the citizens can be gathered into groups of more than 100, the FBI has
indicated they will "burn them, just like we did those kooks in Waco".
It hasn't been decided how the new proposed "energy tax" will enter into
this, an IRS representative stated "We're looking at the tax code to determine
if taxes really end at death. With this many dead Americans, we don't want
to overlook anything". An ATF agent ran into the room, and shot her.


It is completely clear. You have to assume that each byte that was encrypted
by this 'Clipper Chip' has been compromised.
Some people wondered, why Denning, Hellman and others did not respond,
when asked what would be done about such compromised phones, or if
compromise could not be restricted in time. (I did too) Let us just assume
that a) They do not know and b) Those who know don't tell and c)
They do not care. It seem's to be an 'Other Person's Problem' ...

 gec


ITEMS FOR SALE - PRICE LISTED OR BEST OFFER!!!!!!!

KFC SVGA Monitor 1024X768 .28DP Non-interlaced 14"
Screen, still under warranty! (Brand New)          $ 275.00

1200 Baud Compuadd Modem Box/docs/software         $  15.00

CGA Monitor with Cga/Parallel Card                 $  30.00

SCO UNIX V3.2.2 Unlimited User OS, has the base
and extended Utilities, and UUCP                   $ 125.00

Turbo C/Turbo C++ The complete reference book.     $  15.00

Serial I/O Card  1 serial Port                     $  10.00

Joystick, three button                             $  10.00

IDE Controller with 2 Serial, 1 parallel and one
Game port.                                         $  10.00Each


I am wondering how to change the English fonts in an existed
API to some multi-bytes fonts ? (such as Chinese, Japanese...)
Someone told me X11R5 supports some internationalization
features, but I cannot find any examples for my need. Is there
anybody has done some similar jobs ?

By the way, all the English fonts should be replace by Chinese or
Japanese fonts, that means in windows, menubar, button....

That will be great if someone can share us what you have done.
Thanks in advance.


A friend of mine had the same problem, it turned out that his floppy was
set up as a 5 1/4 1.2Mb drive instead of 3.5 1.44Mb.....

might help...

Matt.

--


please subscribe me.


I went out and bought the PAS16 yesterday, and installed it into my Gateway
DX2-66V. I followed the instructions and set the SB side with DMA 1 and IRQ5
(the default) and then the PAS side with DMA 5 and IRQ 10. My question is how
should I configure for MPU-401 compatibility. The manual and installation
program recommended IRQ2, but on my machine it is configured to [cascade] to
IRQ8-15. So can I still use IRQ2, or should I choose a different one? Right now
I have the MPU-401 emulation mode turned off. Actually what is this "cascade to
IRQ8-15" business?

A related questions (to other GW or VL-bus machine owners) I was told that
only DMA 5, 6, 7 are 16 bit DMAs, and 0-4 are 8 bit DMAs. Now what about
32-bit VL-bus mastering DMAs?? Which DMA channel(s) is used by the VL-bus
extension to do 32-bit DMA?

Yet another question, after installing PAS16, my Links (golf game) will hang
the machine when I select SB mode and run, but works with Adlib mode??
Civilization however works fine ( at least so far). Any body knows what I might
have done wrong?


The European version is called 200 SX and have a 1.8 liter engine with
turbo and have more power than the US version ( 169 HP ); it goes from
0 to 100 Km/h in 7.5 sec and have a top speed of 225 Km/h ( 140 miles/h ).
I just purchased one ( new ) and I am looking for a repair book. I could
not find one in FRANCE and GERMANY; does anybody knows where to find one ?
Is there one in the UK ?
Probabaly no use to look in the US as the 240 SX have here a different motor.
I am very pleased with the car and have no problem with it; but like to have
good technical documentation about the car I own.