[I write:]
#>>> Imagine that 1000000 Alterian dollars turn up in your bank account every
#>>> month. Suppose further that this money is being paid to you by (a) your
#>>> big-hearted Alterian benefactor, or (b) a bug in an Alterian ATM.  Let's
#>>> suppose that this is a true dichotomy, so P(a)+P(b)=1. Trouble is, Alterius
#>>> is in a different universe, so that no observations of Alterius are possible
#>>> (except for the banks - you couldn't possibly afford it ;-)
#>>>
#>>> Now let's examine the case for (a).  There is no evidence whatsoever that
#>>> there is any such thing as a big-hearted Alterian benefactor. However,
#>>> P(exists(b-h A b)) + P(not(exists(b-h A b)) = 1. On the grounds that
#>>> lack_of_evidence_for is evidence_against when we have a partition like
#>>> that, we dismiss hypothesis (a).
#>>>
#>>> Turning, therefore, to (b), we also find no evidence to support that
#>>> hypothesis.  On the same grounds as before, we dismiss hypothesis (b).
#>>>
#>>> The problem with this is that we have dismissed *all* of the possible
#>>> hypotheses, and even though we know by construction that the money
#>>> arrives every month, we have proven that it can't, because we
#>>> have dismissed all of its potential causes.
#
#>> That's an *extremely* poor argument, and here's why.
#>>
#>> Premise 1: "...this money is being paid to you by [either] (a) your big-
#>>             hearted Alterian benefactor, or (b) a bug in an Alterian ATM".
#>>
#>> Thus each monthly appearance of the bucks, should it happen, is an
#>> observation on Alterius, and by construction, is evidence for the
#>> existence of [either the benefactor or the bug in the ATM].
#>>
#>> Premise 2: no observations on Alterius are possible.
#
#>     #> (except for the banks - you couldn't possibly afford it ;-)
#>
#> You forgot to include this.  My premise is actually:
#>
#> Premise 2:  The cardinality of the set of possible observations on Alterius
#>             is one.
#
#>> This is clearly contradictory to the first.
#
#> Not if you state it properly.
#
#>> Trouble is, on the basis of premise 2, you say that there can be no evidence
#>> of [either the benefactor or the bug], but the first premise leads to the
#>> conclusion that the appearance of the bucks, should it happen, is evidence
#>> for the existence of [either the benefactor or the bug].
#>>
#>> Voila, a screaming contradiction.
#
#[with my highlights - SC]
#> But in a strawman argument. There is only evidence for OneOf(Benefactor,Bug).
#> No observation to distinguish Benefactor from Bug is possible. That is
#> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#> not evidence for Bug, and neither is it evidence for Benefactor. Nor
#> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#> is true to say that this hypothetical universe appears exactly as
#> if there were no Benefactor/Bug (two statements, both would be false).
#
#This is still contradictory. It reduces to
#
#  (1): Alterian dosh arriving in my account is due to [benefactor or bug].
#
#  (2): this is not evidence for [benefactor], neither is it evidence for
#       [bug] (meaning that it doesn't lend more weight to one than to the
#       other)
#
#  (3): therefore no evidence can exist for [benefactor] and no evidence
#       can exist for [bug].
#
#But (3) relies on a shift in meaning from (2). When you say (paraphrased)
#in (2) that this is not "evidence for [benefactor]", for example, what you
#mean is that it's no *more* evidence for [benefactor] than it is for [bug].

Yes, that's what I mean.

#In (3), however, you've shifted the meaning of "evidence for [benefactor]"
#so that it now means `absolute' "evidence for [benefactor]" rather than
#`relative' "evidence for [benefactor]" w.r.t. [bug].

Not really, I meant evidence that would tend to one over the other.  I
think this is just a communications problem.   What I am trying to say,
in my clumsy way, is that while I buy your theory as far as it relates
to theism making predictions (prayer, your 'Rapture' example), I don't
buy your use of Occam's razor in all cases where A=0.

In my example, one couldn't dismiss
[benefactor] or [bug] on the grounds of simplicity - one of these is necessary
to explain the dosh.  I brought up the 'one-by-one dismissal' process to
show that it would be wrong to do so.  From what you're saying in this
post, it seems you agree, and we're talking at cross-purposes.

#(3) is still in contradiction to (1).
#
#Some sums may help. With B = benefactor, b = bug, d = dosh arrives in account:
#
#  (1) implies  P(B+b | d) = 1
#
#Assuming that P(Bb | d) = 0, so it's either the benefactor *or* a bug
#which is responsible if the bucks arrive, but not both, then
#
#   P(B+b | d)   =   P(B | d) + P(b | d)
#
#so
#
#   P(B | d) + P(b | d)  =  1
#
#but (3) implies that
#
#   P(B | d)  =  0  and  P(b | d)  =  0.

No, this isn't what I meant.  P(B | d) = 0.5 and P(b | d) = 0.5, with
necessarily no new observation (we've already seen the dosh) to change
those estimates.  I was trying to say (again, in my clumsy way) that
it would be _wrong_ to assign 0 probability to either of these.  And that's
precisely what use of the Razor does in the case of gods - gods are
one class of hypothesis (there are many others) belonging to a set of
hypotheses _one_of_which_ is necessary to explain something which otherwise
would _not_ be satisfactorily explained.  It can be thrown out or
retained on grounds of non-rational preference, not of science or statistics.
Alternatively, one could chuck out or retain the lot, on the grounds
that the answer can't be known, or that the notional probability estimates
are effectively useless, being equal (agnosticism/weak atheism).

#> As they do when the set M is filled by "the universe is caused by x",
#> where x is gods, pink unicorns, nothing, etc.  - and no observation
#> tends to one conclusion over the other.
#
#Exactly the point I was making, I think. So we don't "throw out" any of
#these, contrary to your assertion above that we do.

Some people do, Simon, and they think they are doing excellent science.
My sole point was that they aren't.

#>> Only observations which directly contradict the hypothesis H[i] (i.e. x
#>> where P(x | H[i]) = 0) can cause P(H[i]) to go to zero after a finite
#>> number of observations. Only in this case do we get to throw any of the
#>> hypotheses out.
#
#> Exactly my point, though I may have been unclear.
#
#You said the diametric opposite, which I guess is the source of my confusion.

I was merely trying to illustrate the incorrectness of doing so.

#> What I'm trying to say is that while you are correct to say that absence of
#> evidence can sometimes be evidence of absence, this does not hold true for
#> all, or perhaps any, versions of theism - and it isn't true that those for
#> which it does not hold can be discarded using the razor.
#
#On the contrary, those for which it does not hold are *exactly* those which
#can be discarded using the Razor. See my post on the other branch of this
#thread.

Then you seem to be guilty of the contradiction you accuse me of.  If
the razor holds for gods, then it holds for all like hypotheses.  Which
means that you're assigning P(x | H[i]) =0 for all i, though we've already
established that it's not correct to do so when SUM(P(x|H[i]))=1 over
all i.

#> Simply put, anyone who claims to have a viable proof of the existence or
#> non-existence of gods, whether inductive or no, is at best mistaken, and
#> at worst barking mad.
#
#Luckily I make no such claim, and have specifically said as much on numerous
#occasions. You wouldn't be constructing a strawman here, would you Frank?
#Although that doesn't, of course, rule out my being barking mad in any case
#(I could be barking mad in my spare time, with apologies to Cleese et al).
#
#But I think you miss the point once again. When I say that something is
#"evidence against" an hypothesis, that doesn't imply that observation of
#the said something necessarily *falsifies* the hypothesis, reducing the
#estimate of P(H | data) to zero. If it *reduces* this quantity, it's still
#evidence against H.

No, I got that.  I'm talking about the case when A=0.  You're clearly
correct when A!=0.   And I'm not constructing a strawman (though it's
certainly possible that I've misunderstood what you're saying).  However,
by any standards, a system that says when A=0, gods are highly unlikely,
and when A!=0 gods can be dismissed using the Razor, is a system purporting
to be an inductive proof that gods either don't exist, or are unnecessary
to explain any or all phenomena.  In my experience, systems such as this
(including those which purport to prove that gods exist) always contain
a fallacy upon close examination.  If that's not what you're saying, then
please put me straight.


[Stuff deleted]

Would Mr. Hart please explain how one could get every nation on
earth and every corporation to agree that astronomers own the
night sky without `coercion'.   Remember that not every nation
follows the English common law.   In most countries, for most of
history, it was probably true that the rulers `owned' everything
not explicitly owned by individuals.   Even in North America,
where by the principle enunciated, the aboriginal inhabitants should
have owned everything, when new arrivals wanted to use land
and resources, they just took it over.  In case Mr. Hart hasn't noticed,
there is currently a brutal war going on in Bosnia about who owns what.
Of course, if some friendly super power were to give an international
astronomy organization some anti-satelite missiles and also agree
to defend it if attacked, such a proposal might work, but it
would hardly be non-coercive.

Some of us nutty environmentalists think it might make sense first
to try to mobilize public opinion against advertising in space
and also to use governmental actions (like taxing power, for example)
to discourage them.   This of course would be too coercive for
Mr. Hart.


+>The paranoid assertion that the BATF fired first in an unprovoked
+>assault assumes that the BATF were on a death wish. Had they
+>expected the B-D to be anything other than peacefull citizens who
+>would accept a search authorized by a court they would have turned up
+>in a tank and broken the door down on day one.

	The search was a "no-knock" warrent.  Meaning that what
those on the scene see is a bunch of men with guns storming
their compound and lobbing grenades at them.  The terms of the
search warrent are secret and the BATF has yet to even reveal
what they were.

+>The stupidity was the attempt to serve a warant on the place by
+>ludicrously underarmed and unprotected police.

	They did not serve a warrent, they basically attacked the
compound and expected a surrender.  They had semiautomatics and
concussion grenades that we KNOW about.

	Look at the death and injury toll inflicted on both sides in the first
battle and its difficult to believe that either side had any
superiority in weapons.


Most DOS X servers are terribly slow to use in my experience - and no, I guess
performance would be pretty bad. I believe the discussion is valid for an X
server on a decent workstation.


After setting up a very large (>4 pages) table in Word for Windows
I asked word to print it to my HP laserjet II -- worked fine at first.
After much editing of the table contents (but not structure) output
requests now kick the LJ into manual feed mode for the document
containing the table.  Other documents without tables print correctly.

Where should I look and what should I change to get the document with
the long table to use the paper drawer rather than kick into manual
feed mode? [I believe I've tried all the obvious printer manager changes
as well as replacing the hppcl.[lp]00 files with archived versions.]

Thanks for any and all help.

Peter


[obnoxious name-calling deleted]

	Ok, who wants rm off of here? I say we get his net privleges revoked.
	Any seconds?


IMO, the influence of Stalin, or for that matter, Ayn Rand, invalidates your
assumption that theism is the factor to be considered.  Gullibility,
blind obedience to authority, lack of scepticism, and so on, are all more
reliable indicators.  And the really dangerous people - the sources of
fanaticism - are often none of these things.  They are cynical manipulators
of the gullible, who know precisely what they are doing.  Now, *some*
brands of theism, and more precisely *some* theists, do tend to fanaticism,
I grant you.  To tar all theists with this brush is bigotry, not a reasoned
argument - and it reads to me like a warm-up for censorship and restriction
of religious freedom.  Ever read Animal Farm?

Well, there is a glaring paradox here:  an argument that reason is useful
based on reason would be circular, and argument not based on reason would
be irrational.  Which is it?

The first part of the second statement contains no information, because
you don't say what "the beliefs" are.  If "the beliefs" are strong theism
and/or strong atheism, then your statement is not in general true.  The
second part of your sentence is patently false - counterexample: an
axiomatic datum does not lend itself to rational analysis, but is
assumed to contain reliable information regardless of what process is
used to obtain it.

I can't agree with this until you are specific - *which* theism?  To
say that all theism is necessarily antirational requires a proof which
I suspect you do not have.

I don't understand this.  Can you formalise your argument?


Think for a moment about the technology required to do that.  By
the time they could make the Earth's sky look like Las Vegas,
the people could afford to go backpacking on the Moon. Round
trip costs for 500 kg to the Moon would be about the same as
5000 kg in a Low Earth "advertising" orbit: Very roughly the
same cost as a smallish billboard, therefore. If such ads were
to become common place, that would have to be a very low price...

The night sky on a Lunar backpacking trip would still be very
pristine...

There's always been a problem of having to get
away from civilization before you can really find "natural"
scenery. 100 years ago, this usually didn't take a trip
of over 5 miles. Today, most people would have to go 100 miles
or more. If we ever get to the point where we have billboards
on orbit, that essentially means that no place on Earth is still
"wild." While that may or may not be a good thing, the orbital
billboards aren't the problem: They are just a symptom of
growing, densely-populated civilization. Banning such ads will
not save your view of the night sky, because by the time
such ads could become widespread you will probably have trouble
finding a place without street lights, where you can _see_
the stars...

An ad on a moon of Jupiter would be rather pointless, since you need
a telescope to see them. However, I'd love to see them get all
the publicity they could from underwritting the "Coca Cola Io
Orbital Mapping Probe."

They already can, to some extent: The IAU allows names derived from
sponsors or patrons of scientific research. If Microscum donates
money to a university astronomy program, one of the galactic
astronomers could easily get a newly discovered galaxy named after
them.


Note:  the following article is submitted on behalf of someone (Frank
daniels) who has difficulty posting to s.r.c, email replies to
daniels@math.ufl.edu

	I am unable to post to the bitnet groups.
	Here is a capsule history of the Shepherding/Discipleship Movement in
the Churches of Christ (i.e. Crossroads/Boston):

	I could trace the Movement back as far as 1800, and indeed some of its
roots go back that far, but these were really "influences" on the Movement,
and not the actual movement, per se.
	I will start in c.1920.
	In that day, there were 'white' churches and 'colored' churches in
nearly every area (due to segregation).  Modern Pentecostalism was developing
as a predominantly 'colored' phenomenon.  Here, there was great fanaticism,
emphasis on emotional experiences, and belief in a personal guidance and
indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
	Many 'white' Protestant churches were growing into what became known
as conservative fundamentalism.  By the 1940s, the evangelical movement was
in full swing, and many groups were becoming part of it.
	When the civil rights movement grew stronger (in the 1950's and
1960's),
many 'white' church groups began to be influenced by the 'black' churches and
by what was going on there.  This spread started in the most liberal of groups
and spread to the more conservative ones by the late '60's.  In 1969, even the
Catholic Church was displaying evidence of influence by the other
groups...still
evident today.

	The Churches of Christ are (and were) a very conservative Protestant
group.  When the influence from outside began to reach the CofC in c.1965, it
was generally not appreciated.  Conservative groups are very strongly
resistant
to change, and the new movement was VERY different from the CofC status quo.
	The magazines put out at that time by CofC folks tell the story as it
unfolds.  New ideas came into the CofC.  There was a big push to reach out to
college students, young adults, and teens.  Some called this the Campus
Evangel-
ism Movement.  Emotions, generally not highly regarded in the CofC at large,
played a more important role in the new movement.  In some places, people
began
to speak in tongues (as their Pentecostal predecessors did).
	This was met with extreme criticism from within the Churches of
Christ.
In some places, people were fired from their jobs for speaking in tongues or
for
advocating the "Holy Spirit Movement", another name for the new branch.  The
term "Underground Church of Christ" also came into use because these people
had
to hide their differences (or they might be ostricised).
	There were several congregations, however, whose leaderships were
receptive to the new ideas (at least in part; the tongues-speaking never
really
caught on).  One of these was the 14th Street Church of Christ in Gainesville,
FL.  Campus Ministry had already been regarded as important at 14th Street,
and
the new ideas seemed to be very helpful tools for evangelism.  They also
seemed
to put vitality into the church, which many felt had been lacking.
	In October of 1967, the 14th Street congregation hired Chuck Lucas to
be its Campus Minister.  By 1970, he would move to being the congregation's
(lead) Minister.  In the late 60's/early 70's, the congregation worked with
many
other groups.  They held Bible discussions at Daytona Beach during Spring
Break.
They organized talks in the fraternities on the University of Florida campus.
They also worked with UF sports people.
	In 1972, the congregation ordered a larger building to be constructed.
When it was finished, the group moved and changed its name (now no longer
appropriate).  It became the Crossroads Church of Christ from then on, a name
that would become legendary.

	By this time, Crossroads was basically the only CofC whose programs
were fully aligned to the new movement.  While they didn't start it, they
continued it and were responsible for where it wound up going.
	By 1975, none of the other Churches of Christ in the area felt that
they could cooperate with Crossroads, due to what they recognized as doctrinal
problems at Crossroads.
	Crossroads had begun to heavily emphasize, and later require
attendance
at all church functions.  It was seen as a good thing for each member to have
at least one close relationship, a person with whom you would share all of
your problems, pray, and get help from.  The concept was called Prayer
Partners,
which later became Discipleship Partners and also later became mandatory.  The
leadership was assigning prayer partners to people for a while.
	The book called "The Master Plan of Evangelism" was a strong influence
on Chuck Lucas.  He (and the group) believed that it was every person's duty
and life purpose to carry out the great commission.  Crossroads was growing
in number, and numbers became VERY important (some would say all-important).
	A person who "was evangelistic" was "spiritual".  Evangelism meant
inviting people to Crossroads events; if you did this a lot and some of them
converted, then you were "spiritual".  There were sermons about how if you
bought groceries, the cashier and bag boy ought to receive invitations to
services.  Everyone at your job ought to receive invitations.  Since these
people needed Jesus, you should be "aggressive"--don't take 'no' for an
answer.
	If you did not evangelize enough, you came to be called "lazy" or
"unspiritual".
	By the end of the decade, the Prayer Partner system was integrated
into
a structure.  The Elders and Ministers were on top (like a big pyramid).  Then
the group leaders, Bible study leaders, and members.  Everyone who came in had
someone placed over them.
	It is at this time, 1978-1980, that the bad press about Crossroads
began to circulate.  The problem with rape on the University of Florida campus
was tremendous, but Crossroads was considered a bigger and more immediate
problem.  There were many complaints about the congregation and its "pushy"
evangelistic tactics.  Crossroads was considering the other Churches of Christ
to be "dead" churches, which aggravated them; it was aggressively recruiting
out of the other church groups (denominations), which aggravated THEM.

	By this time, Crossroads had grown numerically to the point (1100)
where not only did they believe that they would soon need a new building, but
also they were sending out "planting" [create a new church] and
"reconstructing"
[reorganize an existing church] teams to other cities.  By this time, the
Crossroads Movement was underway.
	A group was sent to the 30-member Lexington Church of Christ in
Boston,
MA.  The team was headed up by Kip McKean, who had been converted out of a
fraternity by Crossroads (in Gainesville).  Kip held a still stronger view of
church authority, which he believed was heavily vested in the Evangelist(s),
and not so much in the Elders.  He had been fired in 1977 from the
congregation
that he had been working at when the elders there found numerous things wrong
with his theology, including the practice of what came to be called one-over-
one
Christianity.  [Called this by critics]
	In the first year, half of the 30 people felt that they did not want
to
be a part of the new congregation.  They left.  But others began coming into
the new Boston Church of Christ.
	Ah, but I'm ahead of myself.
	At Crossroads, the heavy-handed system had begun to take its toll on
the members.  Many have said that they felt that they were working hard, but
they were not achieving the results that were so important.  The numbers were
dropping.  From 1978, Crossroads membership declined steadily.  The leadership
began to tighten the reigns on the congregation, who was seen as being largely
"unproductive" and "unfruitful".  The "fruit" passages in the NT were
interpreted
as referring to new converts.  If you were not bearing fruit, said John 15,
you
would be cast into the fire!  [Boston still teaches this.]
	If you love your neighbor, you'll save his soul (invite him to church
and convert him).  If you're not doing that, you don't love your neighbor.
And if you don't love, you're in danger of backsliding.  The logical arguments
continue in this vein.
	In 1985, Chuck Lucas was fired from his job as minister, due to
recurring
sins in his life.  These struggles were never revealed to the congregation at
large, although many people outside the congregation had heard about them.
For
by now, there was very little contact (on a friendship level) between most
Crossroads members and those outside.  [If you have contact, your focus should
be on converting them.  Bring them to a Bible Study.]
	Chuck's replacement was Joe Woods, who was fully supportive of the
Boston system.  As Boston grew in number, they began to offer 'training'
sessions
for other ministers.  Joe went to Boston to be trained and returned to Cross-
roads ready to emphasize the "total commitment" to the church that Boston and
Kip McKean were now emphasizing.  Eventually, in Fall of 1987, the Elders at
Crossroads (now 2 in number--Dick Whitehead and Bill Hogle) made a decision.
Boston was demanding that all of the other churches in the movement come under
the direction of the church in Boston.  The Elders refused, citing their
belief
that each church should be autonomous (something true in all non-Boston
Churches
of Christ).  Perhaps there was also some degree of offense done here, since
Crossroads was no longer the 'example' to the rest of the Movement.  The group
now numbered about 800, while Boston was now larger (in membership).
	The Churches of Christ generally teach that baptism is a necessary
element of salvation.  At Crossroads, they taught what was called 'Lordship'
baptism:  you had to understand the commitment involved before you could be
baptized.  You had to 'count the cost'.  At Boston, they took this a step
further.  If at some time you became "unproductive", then your spirituality
was suspect.  People would begin to ask you if you REALLY understood what you
were getting into.  Anyone who said 'no' had their baptism deemed invalid:
they
hadn't counted the cost properly.  They still had to be baptized.  Others
called
this "rebaptism", and Crossroads didn't approve of this practice.
	When Crossroads announced that it would not follow Boston, many of its
members left Crossroads and went to Movement-related ministries, which were
now called Discipling Ministries.  You were either discipling (evangelizing)
or
you were "dead".  They also used the nickname "Movement of God" for a while.
	By Summer of 1988, Crossroads was withdrawn from the Movement and now
stood alone.  They had few to no allies in the mainstream Churches of Christ,
and now none in the Movement.

	Boston, however, continued to chart its course in the direction that
they had been following.  They sent "reconstruction teams" to many cities,
which
usually meant that they split the church there.  They stopped acknowledging
other
churches of Christ as Christians and began to call themselves the "remnant".
The "remnant" of the Jews in the OT are those who are saved by God.  It was
felt that the "remnant" today represents all the Christians.  Sometimes they
would simply call their Movement "the church".
	They usually took the name of the city for their name, implying to the
other Churches of Christ that Boston did not recognize their existence.  Many
campuses have now formally forbidden Boston ministries from recruiting there
due to the number of complaints.  In some cases, it has been documented that
Boston ministries have lied to University officials in order to continue to
have
access to the campus.  Any resistance that they experience is termed "perse-
cution", which all true Christians are expected to experience.  Are you really
a Christian if you're not being persecuted?
	The numbers at Boston peaked at c.3000 in 1989.  Since then, they have
fought to remain steady.  I have heard a tape of Kip McKean shouting at the
leaders for failing to fulfill the Great Commission (their life's purpose) as
God commanded them.  Their Christianity is highly centered on commands and
obedience.

	Crossroads once was called a cult.  Boston is now recognized by the
Cult Awareness Network and other national and international groups as a cult,
under a formal definition, because of the techniques which they employ.  The
term "cult" is usually differentiated from "sect" by the practice of those
techniques.  The techniques which they employ are recognized by many as being
techniques of destructive pursuasion, also used by other Shepherding
Discipleship groups.  [Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Thaler Singer, and many
others have written about the topic.]  These techniques include guilt
motivation,
emotional manipulation, loaded language, the aura of sacred science (a sort
of mystic element seen in everyday events), and others.

	I have no particular axe to grind against the Movement.  I have numer-
ous friends who are still part of the Movement.  I have never had a 'falling
out' with anyone in the Movement.  I disagree with many things which they
teach.
I recognize the psychological damage done by being involved in such a system.
I hold no loyalty to the mainstream Churches of Christ and do not defend their
mistakes either.
	I want to point out, though, that unlike in many other systems which
are in other ways similar, the Leadership of the Boston Movement are as much
victims of the system as the members.  We do not have a leader who enjoys
manipulating his people.  The leaders believe what they teach, and they feel
accountable for the activites (and spiritual welfare) of the members.  When
members do not evangelize to their expectations, for example, the leaders feel
personally responsible as well.  The leaders are not out for money or power.
They want to evangelize the world in their lifetime.

	I have said too much, but there is much more to say.  There are many
examples I could give and quotes from other sources (including Boston
bulletins)
that I could include.  But this is too long already.  You may post this if
you so desire.
						Frank D.


He's a Canadian "thing". Former coach of the Boston Bruins and Colorado
Rockies. From the summaries that get posted I gather that his ongoing beef
this year has been the conventional wisdom that Canadian hockey is doomed
to be second or third rate behind the perceived emergence of the U.S.
and European programs.

After he left the Rockies, he got a job with CBC's Hockey Night in Canada
and hasn't looked back since. Actually, he did work for CBC at least
on playoff season after the Rockies were eliminated.

I'd say it's a combination of flame bait and serious journalism. The closest
thing you'll find to Cherry in the U.S. is Stan Fischler, a self-described
hockey maven. The similarities are that they both say things that get
people upset. The difference is that Cherry knows the game and Fischler
doesn't.

Don's a character. If he were completely rational and noncontroversial
he wouldn't have a job. By some definitions, he could be called an ass.
But then some people feel the same about Mike Lang, another character that
I wish would get wider exposure (only one national telecast last year).


Wake up and smell the Norris!!  Rick Zombo was traded to the Blues for Vince
Riendo (sp?) last season.


The paper was distributed (against the wishes of the NSA - I have a copy
with a few 'illicit distribution' footnotes scribbled on it :-), and eventually
published at one of the crypto conferences.  Things were looking good.

Then Xerox patented the algorithms.  <Plonk!>

I don't know of anything which uses them.  Also, Khafre was broken at a
later conference and from work on a related algorithm I don't think the
existing Khufu would hold up too well against a converted differential
cryptanalysis attack, although it can probably be changed to resist this
type of attack....

Peter.


Nope.  Your problem is either being caused by excessive voltage drop in the
long cable from the generator, or just plain not having enough power.  I
would suspect that those amps are going to draw a lot of current on short
peaks.

You can try using larger (and shorter) cables to the generator, or try
strapping the amps for 240V service and running 240V mains cables out,
which will minimize the line drop.  If these don't work, though, you're
going to need a bigger generator.

I assume that you're using well-maintained generators, and have watched the
voltage output on the generator properly.  If you don't have 120V coming out
of the unloaded generator you'll never get 120V at the other end.


Blessed are those
	who hunger and thirst
	for righteousness,
	for they will be filled.


[...]

Does this imply the German tone dialing is compatible with the American
one?  I know at least the British system is not -- it is supposedly close
enough though that an American phone will work.  But my modem (American)
has a special setting for British standards...

Michael


I am working for a company which has only one connection to the Internet.
This is through a firewall gateway (unix workstation). I would like to be
able to telnet to a host outside the company and set the DISPLAY to my PC
which is running an X-terminal emulator (eXceed/W). The display can be set
to the gateway workstation with no problem but when I set the variable to
my IP address I get a "Error: Can't open display" message.

This can't be that hard to work around can it?

BTW I have no trouble running x-clients on local workstations (in the company)
and having them display on my PC.


If the BT phone system is anything to go by...me thinks this should be
approached with great caution.

Mark


I am selling the following sets of comics.  Listed are the guide
prices (Overstreet, or Comics Values Monthly or Wizard if I couldn't
find it in Overstreet) as well as my price.

Feel free to ask me about single items from the sets, as I often have
extra copies of some of the items in the set.

All comics are Near Mint to Mint unless otherwise noted.

Set #	Titles					Guide		PRICE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Adventure Comics Set (VF-NM unless noted)	$130.00		$100.00
		296, 304, 312, 313, 319 (F-VF)

2. Animal Man Set				$ 46.00		$ 30.00
	Animal Man 35-38, 41
	Animal Man TPB Reprint #1
	Wonder Woman 267 (Re-intro Animal Man)

3. Avengers Set					$ 21.00		$  9.00
	Avengers 263, 272, 300, 306, 324, 329
	Avengers Annual 15, 18, 19

4. Fish Police					$ 22.50		$  9.00
	Fish Police 3-7, 9

5. Green Arrow					$ 35.50 	$ 15.00
	Green Arrow 1-9, 12, 47-51

6. Infinity Gauntlet				$ 17.00		$  9.00
	Infinity Gauntlet 1-3

7. Legion of Super-Heroes			$  8.00		$  5.00
	Legion of Super-Heroes 294
	Legion of Super-Heroes (1989) 1, 21
	L.E.G.I.O.N. 29, 30

8. Lone Wolf and Cub				$ 22.00		$ 15.00
	Lone Wolf and Cub 5-10, 18, 19, 21-23

9. Omega Men					$ 23.00		$ 15.00
	Omega Men 3, 10
	Omega Men Annual 1, 2

10. Outcasts					$ 21.00		$ 10.00
	Outcasts 1-12

11. Ragman					$  9.00		$  5.00
	Ragman 1-5

12. Retief					$ 16.25		$  9.00
	Retief Volume 1 (Mad Dog) 1-6
	Retief Volume 2 (Adventure) 1
	Retief of the C.D.T.

13. Silver Blade				$ 24.00		$  9.00
	Silver Blade 1-12

16. Slash Maraud				$ 10.50		$  5.00
	Slash Maraud 1-6

17. Sleepwalker					$ 16.25		$ 10.00
	Sleepwalker 1, 4-13

18. Star Trek					$ 30.00		$ 20.00
	Star Trek (Marvel) 3 (VG), 6 (F),
			   10 (VF)
	Star Trek: Next Generation (mini) 1
	Star Trek: Next Generation (series) 1,2

19. Strange Adventures (VF-NM unless noted)	$260.00		$200.00
	Strange Adventures 91, 124, 125, 128,
			   140, 144, 146 (F-VF),
			   147 (G), 148 (G), 150,
			   152, 166, 169, 171,
			   174, 205 (F-VF)

20. Superman					$ 18.40		$ 10.00
	Superman 2, 4, 7, 53
	Superman Annual 1-3
	Superman The Earth Stealers
	Superman The Man of Steel 1

21. Trekker					$  9.50		$  5.00
	Trekker 1-6

22. Trouble with Girls				$ 20.00		$  9.00
	Apache Dick 1-3
	Trouble with Girls (Eternity) 5, 11-14
	Trouble with Girls (Comico) 2, 4

23. V For Vendetta				$  8.00		$  5.00
	V For Vendetta 6, 7, 9, 10

24. Video Jack					$ 12.00		$  5.00
	Video Jack 1-6

25. Warlock and The Infinity Watch		$ 19.00		$ 10.00
	Warlock and the Infinity Watch 2-9

26. Warriors					$  6.50		$  5.00
	Warriors 1-3

27. X-Terminators				$  7.25		$  5.00
	X-Terminators 1-4

I guarantee comic grading satisfaction.  If you are not satisfied with the
grade I've assigned to the book, you can send it back and I will refund your
money minus shipping costs.

I have thousands of other comics, so if you are looking for something in
particular, please let me know.  I might be able to help out.

I reserve the right to refuse any offer.


Posted for a friend without posting access (but with e-mail access...)
----------------------------

Help, anyone!

I have a X client that is abnormally terminated with the following message:

XIO:   fatal IO error 22 (Invalid argument) on X server "xxxxx:0.0"
       after 10058 requests (10057 known processed) with 78 events remaining.

It has been known to occur when displaying on the Xsun (X11R4) server.  It
occurs with a higher frequency when the client displays on the Xdomain
(X11R4) server running on DomainOS 10.3.5 on an Apollo.

Anybody know why this may be happening? Any suggestions would be greatly
appreciated.

Reply-To: has been set to me.  I'll summarize to the net.

Doug Leary
REDARS Software Development
Boeing Computer Services
dcl@luey.ca.Boeing.COM


For Sale:  386SX-16Mz, 8 meg RAM!, 120 meg Maxtor IDE hard disk, AMI BIOS
           STB PowerGraph SVGA, 1MB (up to 1024x768x256)
           LOOP 14" color SVGA monitor (.28 dot pitch)
           1.2 & 1.44 diskette drives
           Desktop  case, turbo & reset switches, Hard Drive LED
           101 keyboard, 2 Serial/1 Parallel/ 1 Game Port
           Serial, 2-button, fully MS-compatible mouse.
           Everex 2400 bps External modem with MNP5
           DOS 5.0, Windows 3.1
           Logitech ScanMan 32 HandScanner with all software,docs,box.


From: Center for Policy Research <cpr>
Subject: Labour's enclaves policy.IMPORTANT

Labour's enclaves policy in the occupied territories

by Israel Shahak
publ. in Middle East International, London, 30.4.93

It is not difficult to discover Israel's policy towards the
Palestinians at any given time. It can be easily inferred
from the facts on the ground and from the information
provided by the Hebrew press. There is one condition,
though. The torrents of claptrap about "the peace
process" must be totally ignored, as must Israel's official
pronouncements, whole sole purpose is to distort reality.
By concentrating only on the facts, it was early apparent
that Labour's policies were no different from those of
Shamir but for their greater reliance on deceit and their
more effective implementation.

Likud's policies were accurately described by Ariel
Sharon in an article, accompanied by a map, in Yediot
Aharonot last August. The Sharon plan envisaged a
division of the West Bank into seven, and the Gaza Strip
into four, "autonomous" Palestinian enclaves, all of them
under Israeli supervision. The total area of these
enclaves amounted to about 15 per cent of the
territories. The rest was to be controlled by the Israeli
settlements and the highways built around the enclaves.
The entire area around Jerusalem, from the outskirts of
Ramallah to the boundaries of Bethlehem, has already
been turned into a "Greater Jerusalem" where the Arab-
inhabited localities amount to small enclaves surrounded
by areas occupied by Israeli settlements or reserved for
them.

Judging from Labour's settlement policy, it may be
assumed that it may content itself with a lesser number
of Arab enclaves of a rather larger size than Sharon had
planned. But the principle of surrounding the enclaves by
settlements strategically dispersed along the highways
remains unchanged. Labour plans only four enclaves in
the West Bank: two in "Samaria" and two in "Judea" (i.e.
north and south of Jerusalem respectively), and no more
than two in the Gaza Strip. In regard to "Greater
Jerusalem", Labour's policies hardly deviate from
Sharon's.

A saner version of Likud policy

As some Israeli correspondents at once realised, Labour
policies were but a saner version of Sharon's
extravaganza. Last July, Gideon Eshet wrote in Yediot
Aharonot that, while "barely a few months ago" Labour
supported the demand to freeze all construction beyond
the Green Line, "no specific decision to freeze
construction in the territories has been taken". And Uzi
Benziman wrote in Ha'aretz that "as far as can be judged
on the basis of the internal political discussions in
Jerusalem, Rabin intends to stick to Likud's ways".

The two biggest enclaves envisaged by Labour are
located in "Samaria". Therefore the belt of settlements
around the "Trans-Samaria Highway", designed to
separate those enclaves from each other, is of paramount
importance. According to the latest data, the percentage
of Israeli settlers in the entire West Bank population
(apart from East Jerusalem) is a mere 5.5 per cent. But
for the area around the "Trans-Samaria Highway", the
corresponding figure is almost 20 per cent, and it is
increasing steadily. The situation in the settlements of
the "Efrat Block" south of Jerusalem, designed to sever
the enclave around Bethlehem from the one around
Hebron, is pretty much the same. The "Efrat Block" is now
being connected with West Jerusalem by a highway.

The project is costly in the extreme, because the highway
is designed to bypass Bethlehem by a sequence of long
tunnels. The final decision to build this highway was
suspended until Rabin's return from his US visit in
March. The subsequent decision to renew its construction
can be seen as US approval for the enclaves plan as a
whole.

Process of impoverishment

The enclaves plan implies deliberate and steady
impoverishment of the Palestinians. This is well known
in Israel but ignored abroad by all who should be
concerned, including the PLO. In regard to the Gaza Strip,
the whole process was best described by Ze'ev Shiff in
Ha'aretz in March. He mentions having seen "a pamphlet
issued six years ago by the Civil Administration
forecasting the conditions in the Gaza Strip under Israeli
rule in 2000". His analysis deserves to be quoted
extensively:

"We continue to steal the Strip's water, even though its
quality deteriorates from year to year. We continue to
steal the Strip's tiny land resources, in order to found
there more and more settlements, as if we deliberately
want to make the inhabitants despair, and in their
despair think in termws of having nothing to lose. It is
by our own doing that the Strip's workers must now
spend travelling to their workplaces almost as much time
as they spend working. From the military point of view,
we have kept control of no more than half the Strip's
area at an increasingly exorbitant price in manpower and
resources. About a year before Moshe Arens left the
defence ministry, I heard him saying that we should
withdraw from the Strip come what may. His argument
was that Israel sinks into the Strip ever deeper and
deeper. He told me he had proposed this to Yitzhak
Shamir but he rejected it." Yitzhak Rabin rejects it too.

Enormous state support for the Qatif Block settlers can
also be cited as proof that the enclaves plan is being
implemented. The Qatif Block settlements, founded by
the first Rabin government of 1974-77, are intended to
divide the Gaza Strip into two separate enclaves. Efraim
Davidi of Davar had data showing how vital for Israeli
this enterprise is. "The Qatif Block is now producing 40
per cent of Israeli tomatoes destined for export, and a
substantial proportion of cut flowers." He also deals with
the subsidies the settlers receive, considerably
augmented by the present government. Owing to them,
housing units are cheap. The present government does
not spare efforts to recruit new settlers to the block.
"Any prospective settler will get a 95 per cent mortgage
for his house on top of a grant of 18,000 shekels
($6,500)."

Such data shows that Israel's plans apply whether the
Palestinians of the Gaza Strip are allowed or forbidden to
work in Israel. The economic motivations were explained
by Danny Rubinstein in Ha'aretz in March:

"From the economic viewpoint Gaza could already be
sealed off hermetically and all the Strip's workers could
be barred from entering Israel...Even though accurate
data is hard to come by, it is indisputable that during the
last two years the numbes of Gazan workers arriving
daily to work in Israel has markedly decreased, from
80,000 in the mid'80s to 40,000 today. But the decrease
is not only due to restrictions imposed on entering Israel
from Gaza. It is also due to the drastic curtailment of
demand for Gazan labour in Israel. With unemployment
in Israel soaring and the construction of apartments
blocks virtually halted, the workers from Gaza are no
longer really needed..."

Gaza's total dependence

The entire economy of the Gaza Strip is totally dependent
on Israel. In recent years in the Gaza Strip there has
been an increase in sub-contracted work for Israeli
factories, mostly footware and textiles. Thousands of
small workshops, employing an average of four workers,
get their raw materials or unfinished products, together
with detailed working instructions, from Israeli factories.
Rubinstein attributes this development to the fact that
"the average wage in the Gaza Strip is merely 40 per cent
of that in the West Bank, which in turn stands at half the
average wage in Israel; and besides the Gazan employer
does not pay any social security for his employees." If
the average wage in the Gaza Strip is just a fifth of that
in Israel, the profits of Israeli factories and even of
Palestinian sub-contractors must be vast.

They are higher still when "a Gazan sub-contractor
provides labour to be performed at home, with the
family's help. The livelihood of tens of thousands of
Gazans depends on such sub-contracted work." Many of
them are women and children, paid about ten shekels
($3.50) a day which can last 12 hours or more. There can
be no doubt that profits from exploiting cheap Gazan
labour are one of the reasons for the stubborn opposition
of Rabin and other Israeli ministers to withdrawal from
the Strip.

Economic conditions in the Gaza Strip differ little from
what was created straight after Israel's conquest [in
1967]. In this respect, one should not be deluded by the
talk, nowadays fashionable, about Israeli gestures
intended to "encourage economic development in the
territories", As Israeli journalists point out, all permits
for opening new businesses depend on a prior approval
by the Shin Bet. "Behind all the professed goodwill there
is no desire to solve problems, just the attitude of a good
colonialist, willing to do something for the benefit of the
natives, but on condition that they behave nicely, do not
become rebellious, and never do anything against the
interests of the metropolis, its economic interests
included," wrote Michal Sela in Davar in February. The
development of sub-contracted work in the Gaza Strip
accords perfectly with Sela's diagnosis.

Sela also shows how exactly the economic controls work.
"In all branches of the economy, lobbies have been set in
motion for purposes of freeing Israeli production from
the threat of any Palestinian competition. The method is
simplicity itself. As soon as any Israeli producer succeeds
in persuading the government, or even the trade and
industry minister alone, a military order is issued
prohibiting the export of a given produce to Israel. If this
does not suffice, a Palestinian factory may be denied a
licence to operate or bureaucratic obstacles may paralyse
its production." Among the most active of such lobbies is
the agricultural one. It has succeeded in limiting exports
of Gazan vegetables (except for those grown by settlers)
not only to Israel but also to Europe, where they
otherwise might compete with Israeli exports.

Perpetuaring apartheid

Labour's goal is to perpetuate this apartheid regime in
the territories. The same goal is shared by the US, which
otherwise could not support the Labour government so
firmly. In my view one of the reasons the US feels
happier about supporting Labour than Likud is its
greater efficiency in pursuing the settlement drive. This
point was brought home by Ofer Shelah in Ma'ariv, who
deplored the settlers' failure which he attributed to
Likud's inefficiency. he showed that the peak yearly
settlement growth "occured during the term of office of
the National Unity government (i.e. 1984-90) in which
Rabin served throughout as the defence minister".
Likud's reputation for settling the territories better than
Labour is false, attributable to the many tiny settlements
without strategic value founded under Shamir for
symbolic reasons.

To sum up: Labour's policy, unconditionally supported by
the US differs from that of Likud primarily in the
efficiency with which it is implemented. According to
that policy the territories are to be divided into two
parts. The major part is to be ruled by Israel directly,
and the minor part indirectly. In my view, this racist
scheme is doomed to ultimately fail, but at a horrifying
price in human suffering. The sooner its true nature is
recognised, the less suffering it may cause.


     Bzzzzt.  THANK you for playing, but obviously you are not reading the
  material as it is presented.  According to the report I've got in my
  hands, the Newsweek article (which reported that "2 to 3 percent" of the
  population is gay) used the criteria of "No heterosexual contact in the
  past year."  But at the same time, the University of Denver study points
  out, quite dramatically, that 60% of all self-identifying gay men have


Those are pretty typical, I believe.


I'd like to add that I think Canadian hockey fans like Don because his kind of hockey (the hockey he promotes in his TV appearances) is the kind that they think used to get played in the old 6 team NHL. So there's a kind of nostagia for the old days, before expansion, the Soviet series, Gretzky and even Bobby Orr, when guys weren't afraid to take a hit, nobody floated and defensemen played defence. Who cares that that probably never really existed, the myth is still around in Canada and all the European in

fluence on the game has diminished it in some people's eyes.

Personally, I'd like to add before I get flamed, I love the fast-paced "European" game and think Don Cherry is a bit of an idiot. I have to say that I missed him when I was living in the States, though. He is entertaining, even if you end up throwing your popcorn at the screen when he's on.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I stand by all the misstatements that I've made.
		-- Vice President Dan Quayle to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/89


Feeding frenzy!!!

Ah, 'tis April in rec.moto and the newbies are bitin'!  Catch all you want,
we'll make more!


Hijaak claims to convert .dxf to .iff, although Hijaak claims some stuff
that I have never gotten to work (for example, not long ago I tried to
convert some .iff files from an Amiga video toaster (using CrossDos, so my
PC could read the disks) int Targa files.  Hijaak made some gorgeous 1.5
megabyte Targa files from the .iffs -- all totally black!


...

I must object to the characterization of those opposed to the
government's handling of the Waco situation as "gun supporters".
Your argument tries to paint the BATF critics as right-wing
gun nuts, and just mixes up two issues.

I am one of the BATF/FBI critics, and yet I am a liberal
and just as anti-gun as you are.  I just happen to believe
that everyone has civil rights, even religious crazies.
They're all human beings, not some nest of wasps that
you're trying to exterminate.

The BATF created the crisis situation by the way they handled
the original raid.  It was well known that Koresh regularly
went jogging outside his property.  He could have been served
with a search warrant then.  He could have been arrested if
he had refused to comply.  Instead officers armed with grenades
invaded the property.  This escalated into a shooting war
with tragic deaths on both sides.

Those were the first two mistakes:  the bad judgment of
asking for a no-knock warrant, and the bad and probably
illegal way the already-unwise warrant was served.

At this point, the situation escalated to where it was
described as an armed standoff and a hostage crisis.
That's when the government started covering their traces,
sealing the warrant, revising their reported history of
the incident, etc.

Things were already building up to disaster.  Now the
government could have simply closed the supply routes
and waited.  But according to Janet Reno, that option
had "never been seriously considered".  So, supposedly
because the agents were "frustrated and fatigued", and
because there supposedly were no backups, they felt
they had to go in.

Now it's entirely possible that Koresh was responsible
for the fire.  If that's so, he deserves the blame
for the deaths of the people in his compound.

But the government's hands are far from clean.
Their first raid demonstrated bad judgment plus
contempt for the 4th amendment.  The motivations
for the second raid are just too unbelievable.
And their coverup of the events of the first
raid undermines their credibility in anything
they do thereafter.  We have only some very
biased FBI agents' word for what happened.

And please let's not turn this into a pro-gun vs. anti-gun
discussion.  Anti-gun people do not believe that gun-owners
deserve to get frontally assaulted by armed government
agents.  And Koresh's civil rights exist whether his
guns were legal, illegal, illegal-but-should-have-been-legal,
or whatever!


Sorry, this must be a FAQ, but it's a quick fix that I need to take care of
before a demo in less than 24 hours from now! Couldn't think of a better place
for a rapid answer than comp.sys.mac.hardware.

I need to connect the Serial A of a Compac 386/20 PC to the printer port of a
Mac IIci. Does anyone have handy the pin-pin routing for the cable that would
allow this connection?

The serial port on the Compaq is a MALE DB9. How would this map to the DIN8 of
the Mac serial? I tried one of those really short femaleDB9-maleDIN8 cables
that Apple sold as adaptors to plug in Macintosh serial peripherals from the
pre-MacPlus era. This cable didn't do it. Do I need a null modem adaptor as
well on the DB9 side of things?

I just need to be able to map the data TX and RX pins correctly.

thanks kindly,


...

The so-called Athanasian Creed has never been a recognized standard of faith
in the Orthodox Church. It was introduced (without the Filioque) in certain
service-books in the 17th and 18th centuries at a time when there was a
strong Western influence on Orhtodoxy.


My Windows 3.1 installation has somehow gone awry.  Whenever I try to run
Windows now, the logo comes up OK, but when it tries to enter Windows
itself, the screen gets totally screwed up as if it's in the wrong
graphics mode or something.  It's completely illegible although functional
as I can still exit to DOS with an ALT-E RETURN combination.

I tried to reinstall Windows again, but if you recall, halfway through the
installation process, install takes you into Windows and there my graphics
problem surfaces again so I cannot complete the re-installation.

All this started after trying to get a game working on my system but my
config.sys and autoexec.bat have been restored to what they were before
this problem cropped up.

I'm running a 486-33DX with a Diamond Stealth VRAM (I've resinstalled the
Stealth video drivers again but with no luck).  I'm also using QEMM and
Stacker 3.0 but Windows is installed on an un-stacked partition.  And of
course, it worked perfectly before.

Any email replies and suggestions would be appreciated.  Thanks.


If you brighten up the dark part of CV043015.GIF with your viewer you
will see two other objects near the upper left part of the moon.
One is actually between the weather satellite and the moon.


The temperature of intergalactic space (or intercluster or
intersupercluster space) would be very, very close to the microwave
background temperature, 2.73 kelvins.  I recall that in interstellar
space in our neighborhood of the galaxy it's something like 4 K.

Is that what you were looking for?


      Frankly, I'm sick of being lied to.  It was bad before Clinton,
      and now it's worse.  Here, listen to Ricks' ( FBI ) words,
      ONE-HALF hour before the fire:

       " Come out with your hands up.  This matter is NOW OVER. "

      Now, I hear Ricks ( and REno ) claiming that this was just
      "another incremental step in pressure".  More bullshit.

      Why did they pick 6 AM  Monday morning?  So nobody would
      NOTICE.  So everyone would be busy at work, starting a new
      week.  More bullshit.

      Did the FBI hold back fire engines?  Here, let me paraphrase
      Sessions"

       " no, we didn't hold back the engines.  We had them on
         stand-by, blah, balh, blah...   And so, to protect the
         the fireman, we didn't allow the engines to enter until
         it was safe "

     WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?   " YES, WE HAVE NO BANANAS? "

     What the HELL kind of double-talk is this?  No, we didn't, so
     blah, balh, we did.    Huh?

     I WATCHED this.

     Clinton takes responsibility, "EVEN THOUGH" it wasn't his
     decision.  MOre BULLSHIT.  Does he, or does he NOT, take
     responsibility?!   No more "even though" bullshit.  Yes.
     Or no.

     Christ.


The concrete floor accelerates the problem because it is a heat sink and a
colder lead-acid battery self-discharges at a slightly faster rate. That's
why the old wives' tale of sitting it on a piece of wood on the floor works
to help keep from killing the battery as fast ---- it insulates the battery
thermally. It you'll set the battery down on a piece of styrofoam, it will
self-discharge even slower. The best thing would be to attach a small load
such as a small transistor radio with the volume turned down low and leave it
on constantly, but also trickle-charge it every couple days too to "shallow-
cycle" the charge in the battery. Such mild "exercising" of a lead-acid
battery is the next best thing to completely removing the electrolyte for
storage. If you do remove the electrolyte, may sure you keep separate storage
containers for each cell's electrolyte and put it back into the same cells
when you refill the battery. This isn't so critical for a brand-new battery
in a fully charged state, but will maximize the restored output of an older
battery which may not be fully charged when you remove the electrolyte for
storage.


# Recent studies have shown that the number of men who have
# engaged in homosexual activities in the last decade is 2.3%
# and the number of men who are exclusively homosexual is 1.1%.
# These figures are much less than those that came from earlier
# studies that showed that homosexuality among men is a lot
# higher.
#
# So, what can we deduce from these figures?  Are there a lot
# less male homosexuals than there used to be or are men
# (perhaps women too) not as honest as they used to be about
# there sexuality?  Presumably, the people that were polled in

You mean, in the 1940s, men and women were much more open about
their homosexuality than today?  Want to try that one again?

# this survey were assured of their anonymnity so they should
# have answered the questions honestly I suppose.  However, it
# could be that gays feel so repressed and denigrated by society
# that they didn't feel that they could be forthcoming about there
# sexuality in something like a survey.  If this true then is it
# possible that there is a lot more gays out there than we are led
# to believe?
#
# Perhaps if Americans were more open about there sexuality---I think
# most Americans aren't---then we might discover that there are really
# quite a few more people out there who are orientated toward the same
# sex---men and women included.  I'd venture a guess that there is a
# lot of people out there who have considered having a relationship
# with someone of the same sex at some point in there life.  Maybe they
# didn't take their longings seriously, but this doesn't make these
# longings any less valid.  Therefore, if Americans weren't so
# repressed about their sexuality in general---as I believe they may be
# ---then we'd see a lot more people "coming out of the closet".

You mean, ignore study after study, so that we can continue to
accept a study (Kinsey's) that is obviously wrong?

# As for myself, I'm a heterosexual and I've never considered having
# sex with another man.  That's just the way I am...I could have just
# as easily of been gay I suppose.  One of the big debates about
# homosexuality is whether or not it's a type of behavior that is
# learned or if one is just born that way.  IMHO, the more likely
# explanation is that it's some combination of the two.

Based on what, besides your own warm fuzzy feelings?

# Here's something to ponder upon:  have any of you gay-bashers out
# there ever considered that homosexuals probably deem their sexual
# orientation as being a state of affairs that is just as much an
# intrinsic and "natural" part of their life as heterosexuals do
# about their own sexuality?  In other words, someone who is *truly*

Alcoholics share that feeling, until they hit bottom.

# gay may not be able to live any other way.  Even if they date someone
# of the opposite sex or get married, in their *heart* they are still a
# homosexual.  Likewise, if someone who is *truly* heterosexual forms
# a relationship with someone of the same sex, then they are *still*
# a heterosexual even though outward appearances may suggest otherwise.
#
# Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot

Unless, of course, the problem is that homosexuality is a form
of mental disorder, caused by childhood sexual abuse, as a number of
recent works suggest.

If homosexuals would stop using the government to impose their
morality on others (antidiscrimination laws) and leave our children
alone, I wouldn't care in the least what they did in private.  But
until they get over the liberal notion that the proper role of
government is to tell peaceful people how to live, I have no choice
but to continue to point out that homosexuality is not an "alternative
lifestyle," but a sickness.

# Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
#           the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
# After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
#           [the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me

Good signature!


\\).

Silly you. Don't you know the only division at Apple allowed to use the
Cray is the legal department?


fc> Exactly what fraction of current research is done on the big,
fc> visable light telescopes? From what I've seen, 10% or less
fc> (down from amlost 100% 25 years ago.) That sounds like "dying"
fc> to me...

 That doesn't seem like a fair comparison.  Infrared astronomy
 didn't really get started until something like 25 yrs. ago; it
 didn't explode until IRAS in 1983.  Gamma-ray (and I think
 X-ray) observations didn't really get started until the '70s.
 I believe the same is true of ultraviolet observations in
 general, and I know that extreme UV (short of 1000 Angstroms)
 observations, until the EUVE (launched last year) had almost
 no history except a few observations on Skylab in the '70s.

 Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of astronomers only
 had access to optical or radio instruments.  Now, with far more
 instruments available, growth in some of these new fields has
 resulted in optical work representing a smaller fraction of
 total astronomical work.

fc> That would be true, if adaptive optics worked well in the visable.
fc> But take a look at the papers on the subject: They refer to anything
fc> up to 100 microns as "visable". I don't know about you, but most
fc> people have trouble seeing beyond 7 microns or so... There are
fc> reasons to think adaptive optics will not work at shorter
fc> wavelengths without truely radical improvements in technology.

 Hmm, some of the folks in this department planning on using
 adaptive optics at the 5 m at Palomar for near-infrared
 observations (1 and 2 microns) might be surprised to hear this.

 And isn't the NTT already pushing toward 0.1 arcsecond resolution,
 from a ground-based site (remember 0.1 arcseconds was one of the
 selling points of HST).


Hi there kids and kidlets...

It your ol' pal the KotPM  (Keeper of the Pin Money!)

I've got good new and bad news...

	Good news - I got laid..er...
	The pins will be coming, to use the computer software phrase,  "real
	soon now"

	Bad news - Right after we placed our order, the company upped its
	minimum order for manufacturing.  We got in under the wire (with
	an order of 115 or so pins), but as a result of the low number of
	pins, we were relegated to the "we'll get to it in-between other
	runs" bin.  As a result, it seems that it may be another 4 or 5 weeks
	until your beloved Geeky is guiding you along the blacktop..  (And
	we thought madonnas on the dashboard were foolish; hmmm, now, if that
	were Madonna sitting on my dashboard, that could be DANGEROUS...hell.
	I'm tough.)

   SO...please continue to be patient.  As soon as they arrive, I'll post
   	the grand announcement, and rush our Messiah on his way directly
	to your abode.  In the meantime, if you need revised versions of the
	holy word of Geeky, please send $15.95 cash or money order (no COD's)
	to:

	Ranch Apocalyp...er......Ashram Geeky, 305 Cyberspace Place...

	I'm off to MSF class...hope it's not too BORING...my wife made me go
	with her!


Someone mentioned a while ago that the Duos were scheduled for a
10-18% price reduction, according to 'newsbytes'.  Is this definite?
Does anyone know when it will take effect?  And what is 'newsbytes'?
Thanks.


Novell 386dx16 motherboard with cpu, 4 megs of memory and I/O ports for
$160 + shipping / firm.

let me know if you are interested.


Does anyone have a listing of Pontiac's three-letter option codes and
what they mean?

Thanks.

-Oliver
---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Scholz                                                         DG4NEM
Graduate Student of Computer Sciences at the University of Erlangen, Germany
"You're killing me, Peg!"  "Oh, shut up, Al, like I care..."


# #However, monogamous homosexual male sex is so rare that for practical
# #purposes, homosexuality spreads AIDS.
# #--
# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# #Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

# You fucking homophobic moron!!!!!!!!!  What about IV drug use?  What about
# tainted blood?  What about multi-sexual partners?  If you knew anything

What about them?  Those also spread AIDS.  Where did I say anything
different?  Go back and read what I wrote.  The statement "homosexuality
spreads AIDS" is not made false by the fact that there are other
methods of spreading it as well.

# about what you are talking about, you would be dangerous.  As it is right now,
# you are a persistent boil on the skin of humanity that needs to be lanced.
#
# Joe Cipale

Typical homosexual response.


It would help if his OBP were higher than his batting average. Yes, the
April 12 USA Today lists Le Grand Chapeau as having a .422 batting average
and a .413 OBP. That's on 19-for-45 hitting with 0 (zip, nil, nada) walks.
The reason a lot of us are down on Galarraga is that he's has a long history
of showing that this is nowhere near his real level of ability (except for
drawing walks). If he hit .400 for, say, even 250 AB's I'd be convinced that
there was a real change in his ability. If he did it with an OBP<AVG, I'd
not only be amazed but I'd make a bet that that would be a unique feat in
the history of the game. But what do 45 AB's prove? Look at some of the
other fluke players at this point in the season:
  Player    AVG AB
  Blauser  .367 49
  Grace    .391 48
  Milligan .400 35
  Conine   .375 40
  Lansing  .400 50
  Slaught  .406 32
Are any of these guys really that good? Well, in a word, no. How significant
is Galarraga's average? At the 45 AB level, a hit is worth about .020. If
he'd had one of those hits called an error and one taken away by a good
defensive play, he'd be in the .380 range. If he goes 0-for-4 in his next
game he's all the way down to .388. In one game. Come back in June. Let's
talk then.

It's history, Greg. Andres' history is that he doesn't walk much because he
swings at bad pitches, so his average isn't very good. 45 AB's doesn't mean
an awful lot compared to a history of a couple of thousand, especially when
there's ample evidence (0 BB in 1992) that his basic hitting approach hasn't
changed. Yeah, he might suddenly have turned into a .400 hitter who never
walks, but don't bet the rent money on it.

 Mike Jones | AIX High-End Development | mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com


X Resource, Issue 6


[much deleted]
[much deleted]

     It bugs me when I see this kind of nonsense.

     First, there is no reasonable evidence linking Masonry to ancient
Egypt, or even that it existed prior to the late 14th century (and
there's nothing definitive before the 17th).

     Second, worship of Osiris is not, nor has it ever been, a part of
Masonic practice (we are strictly non-denominational).

     You said it!


      "I have no question that our plan was correct?"  Months to
get ready, unlimited funds, knowledge of a threatened mass suicide by fire,
and no fire trucks on hand?   This is "extreme professionalism and care?"

      I can understand the first screwed-up raid by the BATF.  They
underestimated the opposition, which happens.  But not this one.
The FBI had their first team in place, massive resources, ample time
for planning and bringing up any specialized equipment or people necessary.
They still botched it.

      The FBI Director and the FBI SAC in overall charge should resign,
or be fired for incompetence.

      I don't blame Reno or Clinton.  They gave the FBI clear orders:
don't go in unless you can do it without casualties; if you can't do that,
wait it out.  Those were reasonable orders.  The FBI said they could
pull off a tactical solution, and they couldn't.


I'm personally expecting Moog.  Blue played fairly decent (alright
spectacular at times) in his 1/2 a game but Moog has the experience.
What Did Blue have going for him, nothing, What would happen in a Tie
game, the prssure is then on the Goal tender to insure that you keep the
puck out (at the very least until your team scores)  Blue didn't face that
kind of pressure on Tuesday.  The Bruins will come out storming that
is for sure.  I really think that this series is up to Buffalo, Boston
(except for two bad passes in game one) really hasn't played that bad
,  As a believer is statistics, you know that your going to get the
puck by fuhr sooner or later, just keep shooting.  There game plan is
sound but they need to take the lead first, and control the tempo.....

               IMHO
                      Pat Ellis

P.S.  GO BRUINS    GO UMAINE BLACK BEARS    42-1-2       NUMBER 1......

                   HOCKEY EAST REGULARS SEASON CHAMPIONS.....
                   HOCKEY EAST TOURNAMENT CHAMPIONS>......
                   PAUL KARIYA, HOBEY BAKER AWARD WINNER.......
         NCAA DIV. 1 HOCKEY TOURNAMENT CHAMPIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I was wondering if a group called 'sci.pharmacology' would be relevent.
This would be used for a more formal discussion about pharmacological
issues (pharmacodynamics, neuropharmacology, etc.)

Just an informal proposal (I don't know anything about the net.politics
for adding a newsgroup, etc.)

[more alt.psychoactives stuff deleted]


Well, here goes.

The first item of business is to establish the importance space life
sciences in the whole of scheme of humankind.  I mean compared
to football and baseball, the average joe schmoe doesn't seem interested
or even curious about spaceflight.  I think that this forum can
make a major change in that lack of insight and education.

All of us, in our own way, can contribute to a comprehensive document
which can be released to the general public around the world.  The
document would scientifically analyze the technical aspects of long
term human habitation in space.

I believe that if any long-term space exploration program is to
succeed we need to basically learn how to engineer our own microworld
(i.e. the spacecraft).  Only through the careful analyses of engineering,
chemical, biological, and medical factors will a good ecosystem be created
to facilitate human life on a long-duration flight.

So, I would like to see posts of opinions regarding the most objective
methods to analyze the accepted scientific literature for technologies
which can be applied to long-duration spaceflight.  Such a detailed
literature search would be of interest to ourselves as space advocates
and clearly important to existing space programs.

In essence, we would be dividing the space life science issues into
various technical problems which could be solved with various technologies.
This database of acceptable solutions to various problems could form the
basis of detailed discussions involving people from the bionet, isunet,
and any other source!


ESPN is pathetic, I have been watching everybody complain about ESPN's coverage
and I agree with all of you.  Might I suggest that we are getting all worked up
over nothing.  We ALL knew that ESPN's coverage was going to suck.  I mean have
you ever watched during the regular season Sportscenter coverage of hockey? It
sucks, I mean really sucks!!!  ESPN does not know hockey if it shot them in the
ass.  I was really pissed of about last night, coverage.  I go to school in Ohio
I *know* the Indians suck, so why show them?  If I were Bill Clement I would
shoot myself.

Anyway after I calmed down after I realized that they were not going to show
overtime of the Caps Isles game I thought to myself I knew that this was going
to happen, in fact I remerbed myself praying that at least they would keep even
the boring Devils game.

Overall I think ESPN does not care if they show hockey or not and I firmly
belive that they have know respect for the fans. ie *because of contract
obligations*, screw you ESPN.

Praise be to all hockey fans who put up with this shit!

GO HAWKS!!!


Bufflo Sabres has just finished their great four wins over Boston. All
Sabres players contribute to those great wins but those talent players
including Mogily, Fuhr, Kemhlev and Lafontin impressed me most. Their
skills showed the art of sport, not like the garbage speech from the
coach's corner.


My apologies if this is a re-post - I submitted it on Friday, but
got a message that my post might not have gone out.  Considering
the confusing spitting contest over 'rights', (there are TOO
inalienable rights damn it!  The majority can be just as destructive
of liberty as a despot), I suspect that my post did not get out
of my site.    (I ain't saying that dark skies are included in these
rights, although we can only preserve any rights by exercising them.)

Anyway, here are my thoughts on this:

I'd like to add that some of the "protests" do not come from a strictly
practical consideration of what pollution levels are acceptable for
research activities by professional astronomers.  Some of what I
would complain about is rooted in aesthetics.  Many readers may
never have known a time where the heavens were pristine - sacred -
unsullied by the actions of humans.  The space between the stars
as profoundly black as an abyss can be.  With full horizons and
a pure sky one could look out upon half of all creation at a time
- none of which had any connection with the petty matters of man.
Any lights were supplied solely by nature; uncorruptable by men.
Whole religions were based on mortal man somehow getting up there
and becoming immortal as the stars, whether by apotheosis or a belief
in an afterlife.

The Space Age changed all that.  The effect of the first Sputniks
and Echo, etc. on this view could only happen once.  To see a light
crossing the night sky and know it was put there by us puny people
is still impressive and the sense of size one gets by assimilating
the scales involved is also awesome - even if the few hundreds or
thousands of miles involved is still dwarfed by the rest of the universe.
But there is still a hunger for the pure beauty of a virgin sky.

Yes, I know aircraft are almost always in sight.  I have to live
in a very populated area (6 miles from an international airport
currently) where light pollution on the ground is ghastly.  The
impact of humans is so extreme here - virtually no place exists
that has not been shaped, sculpted, modified, trashed or whipped
into shape by the hands of man.  In some places the only life
forms larger than bacteria are humans, cockroaches, and squirrels
(or rats).  I visited some friends up in the Appalacian mountains
one weekend, "getting away from it all" (paved roads, indoor plumbing,
malls, ...) and it felt good for a while - then I quickly noticed
the hollow was directly under the main flight path into Dulles - 60-80
miles to the east.  (Their 'security light' didn't help matters
much either.)  But I've heard the artic wilderness gets lots of
high air traffic.  So I know the skies are rarely perfect.

But there is still this desire to see a place that man hasn't
fouled in some way.  (I mean they've been TRYING this forever -
like, concerning Tesla's idea to banish night, - wow!)  I don't watch
commercial television, but I can imagine just how disgusting beer,
truck, or hemmorrhoid ointment advertisements would be if seen up so high.
If ya' gotta make a buck on it (displaying products in heaven), at
least consider the reactions from those for whom the sky is a last
beautiful refuge from the baseness of modern life.

To be open about this though, I have here my listing of the passage
of HST in the evening sky for this weekend - tonight Friday at
8:25 p.m. EDT it will reach an altitude of 20.1 degrees on the
local meridian from Baltimore vicinity.  I'll be trying to see it
if I can - it _is_ my mealticket after all.  So I suppose I could
be called an elitist for supporting this intrusion on the night sky
while complaining about billboards proposed by others.  Be that
as it may, I think my point about a desire for beauty is valid,
even if it can't ever be perfectly achieved.

Regards,
Wm. Hathaway
Baltimore MD


The NY Times is in error. This is not simply my opinion; even the Arab sources
that I use do not make this claim. This, of course, is assuming that the NY
Times was refering to the islands that I named above. Of those islands, only
Abu Musa has been in dispute and Iranian occupation of that island predates
the existence of the UAE.