Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 530 Wednesday, January 29th 1992 (C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: Hello Re: Budd Hopkins in Denver Re: DELPHOS, DEUTERIUM, PU Re: AMAZON QUESTION UFO suicides? UFOCAT Aussie Circles Re: Delphos, Deuterium, Pu Dudley & Chorost Paranet Content Re: Feder & Williams' books Re: Texas Camps - FEMA Re: Budd Hopkins In Denver Siberian Encounter Ufocat Aussie Circles ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark.Rodeghier@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Rodeghier) Subject: Hello Date: 24 Jan 92 05:24:00 GMT Dear Mark, I'm not sure if this message will reach you but I just wanted to take this opportunity to introduce myself. You see, my name is also Mark Rodeghier. I'm from Orlando, (Winter home of Mickey Mouse) and have been getting some of your message traffic on the local UFO/Paranet BBS. Anyway, just wanted to say Hello and hope that we can strike up a conversation in the near future. BTW, my father's family came from Chicago, which is where I understand you now live. Maybe we're from the same family 'tree' somehow. Hope to make contact soon!! Your Twin, Mark Rodeghier -- Mark Rodeghier - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Mark.Rodeghier@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hrusovszky@f300.n238.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hrusovszky) Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins in Denver Date: 24 Jan 92 02:05:18 GMT MC> UFO ABDUCTIONS -- LATEST CASES BEST EVIDENCE MC> with MC> BUDD HOPKINS Ah, Budd Hopkins. Is this guy for real? The reason I ask, is about a month ago, in THE NEWS (ya know, the national gossip rag like the enquirer) there was an article supposedly by Budd Hopkins about how 1/3 of our pets, i.e. dogs, cats, etc., were actually space aliens in disguise! If this is the same guy that you are speaking of, can you really believe ANYTHING at all he says? -- John Hrusovszky - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hrusovszky@f300.n238.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro) Subject: Re: DELPHOS, DEUTERIUM, PU Date: 23 Jan 92 16:07:20 GMT I believe you stated that right when you mentioned that one group had retracted their discovery, while another is still behind their own findings. Just for the sake of interest, both groups are investigating the same pulsar. If you get Astronomy echo it was covered fairly well. It appears that at a conference where both were to speak, the first group reported that they were withdrawing. The second was surprised at this, but gave their report none the less, and said so far nothing had changed. Both were looking at the same place in space, and the same pulsar. -- Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro) Subject: Re: AMAZON QUESTION Date: 23 Jan 92 16:24:50 GMT John what is the file name or the topic area, I can make a late night call and see what I can find. This is in the area I enjoy the most. TJ> WWII injury first leg, pleas for funds are appearing in numerous water oriented mags. I think I am going to re-join the archaeology area at the museum, maybe there are some brains to be picked when this stuff arises. (but I'm not doing it for that reason) I'm still wondering about the steps under the water in the bahamas? or is it Bimini?, but I recall a geological reason for them, which was hardly a mystery. Nazca has pretty much been put to rest and confirmed by follow ups many times. NOT a landing field for UFO's. Of course every day someone new is infected with "Chariots Desease" and the cure takes much more effort than the infection period. "Berlizt Syndrome" is running up there in the numbers also, and seems to have peaks and valleys. One strain is finally conquered, and it seems an outbreak of a new variety comes up elsewhere. It seems to have started in Bermuda, but now is concentrated in Japan. Can you sumarize the questions in the Amazon? There are red haired and light haired tribes. Seems some light haired Spaniards or Portugese crash landed there and blended in with the locals. This is documented if you want the specifics and the area. -- Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Greenen) Subject: UFO suicides? Date: 24 Jan 92 13:30:00 GMT That was the point I was trying to put over. Your correct, Sheldon. From what I have read in past books, that this only occurs after a few warnings to back off of your investigation or if your in a position to cause a great discomfort or embarrassment at the time. Such is the case I feel happen to the 20+ witness to the JFK incident. Somebody really plays hardball, which I new who was behind it. If I can get ahold of Lars, I can dish out some names that this occured in the past year. All 3 of these people were deeply in the investigation of government corruption. One I remember he told me about was a gentleman that was found in his office completely naked. The office was tore up, meaning that it showed that a struggle had occured and it was either a ice picked or a knife was struck though his hand. I also believe that he was shot though the head. The ruling was that he commited suicide. According to some that new this person, no way that this person would do what they claimed. --... ...-- <<< JIM >>> -- Jim Greenen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield) Subject: UFOCAT Date: 24 Jan 92 04:04:00 GMT To: Mark Rodeghier, CUFOS Finally I have completed stage one of reviewing the UFOCAT printout of Australian UFO cases. It turned out to be a much lengthier job than I envisaged. I ended up sorting through all my files, filing them chronologically and making a computer listing of them. I took a copy of the listing you sent me and have marked on it in green highlighter all the cases which I can see are duplicates, i,e, refer to a single event. I then made up my own data entry form to give me more room to work, and utilising an updated UFORA catalogue of the 150 most interesting Australian reports, I coded these 150 cases as accurately as the known data allows. I have despatched by surface mail some 300 sheets of paper (airmail would have cost some US$50) being:- a) Copy of your UFOCAT printout showing duplicates, and b) 150 odd entry sheets ready for computer input your end, up to the year 1990. A covering letter is enclosed with the package. It should be with you in 6-8 weeks. Please confirm its receipt. I have kept copies. -- Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill.Chalker.UFORA.Associate.NSW@f8.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Chalker UFORA Associate NSW) Subject: Aussie Circles Date: 24 Jan 92 06:46:00 GMT Sheldon in response to your points I have made the following comments: 1. Tully, 1966 > I agree that this case does not fit Meaden's theory > directly, however, being in a coastal region, the land/water/air > thermal variations could be conducive to vortex formation. As > a sailor, I have frequently noticed strong on-shore off-shore > breezes in coastal areas, even at times when calm air prevailed > inland and seaward. Local investigators who have lived in the area and who have undertaken retrospective investigations for me (Russell Boundy & Holly Gorris) have seen extensive and consistent ground trace evidence of "traditional" vortices in the local flora (both grasslands & swampland). All of it is consistent in its rough wind blown appearance. They are readily explainable and in the rare cases of observed creation the causative agency is clear cut - in the Australian idiom: "willy willies" or mini wind vortices. More complex "plasma vortices" are not required for their explanation. What concerns me that Dr. Meaden has invoked his "plasma vortex" in order to explain a minority of cases where visual causative events of "crop circles" are reported and to provide a mechanism for the apparent large forces at work. And yet when we look at the majority of eyewitness events were are dealing with an invisible agency. The Melvyn Bell case does not require a "plasma vortex" to account for it. Instead we have a remarkable observation of what appears to be a wind related phenomenon of a most unusual kind - one that is most worthy of investigation. I feel we do not need to invent a Mercedes when a Model T Ford will do. Admittedly since the explosion of fringe interest in crop circles we have had an increase in claims of visual observations of "causative" luminous phenomena - but these have taken on a wide variety from beams to blobs of light. The few films available show little of substance as evidence for a "plasma vortex" at work. In most of these visual luminous events we have fairly poor evidence of direct correlations with the "circles". WE do however have a greater consistency in the observed phenomena in so called bonafide CE2 ground traces, specifically in the Rosedale case, Landenburg, Canada, etc and possibly in the Tully case - namely apparently solid 3 dimensional objects dull in appearance. In the Bell case after the remarkable formation of the circle we are unable to see the agency move away, maneuver etc, and yet in the Tully case for example we are expected to accept that after expending an extraordinary amount of energy ripping out tough waterlogged sword grass and leaving it all floating in a tight clockwise swirl in the Horseshoe Lagoon, there was still enough plasma intact operating as a vortex to account for George Pedley's observation of a UFO leaving the site. THe RAAF suggested a "willy willy" sucked up the reeds and that sufficient stayed in the vortex to give the impression of a UFO. The problem is there was no evidence supporting the suggestion that there were significant amounts of grass missing. As Tully 1966 was a daylight sighting a Meaden vortex needs to satisfy the criteria of being having a boundary layer effect giving "an evenly-reflecting surface with the illusion of metallic lustre". Pedley has confirmed to me his police staement (made same day of sighting) that the UFO was "light grey; dull-non-relecting", looking like "two saucers-face to face". As it was bright sunshine with the sun directly behind him the conditions would have been ideal for a relective metallic look as per the Meaden hypothesis. > There are in all probability, different variations of > "crop circle type" UGM's with various origins. However, if the data > is correct, there certainly seems to be some correlation (at least > in England) to circle formation proximate to the leeward side hill > slopes. For example 1989 yielded the following data according to > Meaden's analysis: > Number of circles 0-0.5 km from hill slope: 54 > Number of circles 0.5-1.0 km from hill slope: 135 > Number of circles 1.0-1.5 km from hill slope: 55 > Number of circles 1.5-2.0 km from hill slope: 33 > Number of circles 2.0-2.5 km from hill slope: 22 > Number of circles 2.5-3.0 km from hill slope: 8 > NO circles were located greater than 3 km from a hill > slope. The closest elevated ground from Horsehoe lagoon is Mount Mackay to the north at 8 km (peak 724 metres) and 6 km (base). We have the anomoly of few areas in Australia revealing circle concentrations, but in the few where maybe they could be considered in "high" numbers (Tully, Speed in the Mallee Dstrict) we have topograhic conditions atypical of the Meaden theory. Maybe this is what to expect over open flat areas if available in England. We still do not have reports on circle epidemics in English like terrain in Australia. > Are you Bill, through your interviews with the > principals of this case, convinced that the witness viewed a solid > object, rather than a double-convex opaque "cloud-type" composition? I cannot say I am convinced but it sure seems persausive. See above report quotes. > "rotating as it went" part makes me think "vortex". How rapidly > did the UFO rise? Again from RAAF/police statemwent:"First seen at treetop height 30 feet. Rose verticallly to about twice that height, then departed, climbing at about 45 degrees...extremely fast; no estimate of speed, but much faster than an aeroplane.... (It) receeded into distance." It apparently seemed to disappear in midair in the distance. > How long did it remain in sight AFTER it began > to rotate? It was described appearing to be rotating for the full time it was seem, some 15 seconds according to Pedley's police statement. > Good! What about the recently reported radiation > anomalies? I have > a feeling the data may be being misinterpreted. Some > elements that > should be showing up in the gamma spec data are > curiously absent. > We shall see. As an industrial chemist I would have to ask where is the detailed control data as a comparison point. Without it we must be cautious in speculations about reported radiation. > BC> Trust this information helps. > It has... and Thanks! > -- Sheldon My pleasure, Regards, BIll Chalker. -- Bill Chalker UFORA Associate NSW - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Bill.Chalker.UFORA.Associate.NSW@f8.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brent.Wilcox@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Brent Wilcox) Subject: Re: Delphos, Deuterium, Pu Date: 25 Jan 92 22:35:01 GMT They were researching the same pulsar? That's interesting. Thanks for the clarification. Although the question of planets there is now anything but clear . -- Brent Wilcox - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Brent.Wilcox@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff) Subject: Dudley & Chorost Date: 26 Jan 92 01:49:01 GMT In a message to Sheldon Wernikoff <23-Jan-92 13:31> Brent Wilcox wrote: BW> They sent the soil samples to a "National Lab" to have tests BW> run. The Lab provided them with their computer analysis of the BW> data, and this analysis showed several peaks that they BW> interpreted as the anomalous radioisotopes. Hello Brent... thanks for posting this information. Was there any mention as to which "National Lab" did the testing? Mike had always been evasive about this. No specific names were ever mentioned. BW> They stand by that conclusion, based on that data. Do you mean solely on the computer analysis the lab provided? BW> They didn't have immediate access "for security reasons" to the BW> raw data. Immediate??? This is five months after the original gamma spec was run! WHOSE "security reasons" are they speaking of? BW> BUT when the Lab finally gave them access to the raw data, they BW> found that it didn't support the computer analysis. I don't understand this. If D & C paid for this "National Lab" to run comprehensive tests, what right did the lab have to withhold data? Are D & C intimating a possible cover-up here?? I don't think I can handle another *conspiracy*! BW> There were about a hundred peaks, and the "anomalies" became BW> likely artifacts of background noise in the data. There were BW> calibration problems between different machines used in the BW> test, and between the control and the test samples (the test BW> sample was tested at a higher sensitivity than the control). What kind of "National Lab" would run analyses of control and test material utilizing DIFFERENT machines, set at DIFFERENT sensitivity levels??? This is absolutely preposterous! BW> They hope to test the samples again if they can find a more BW> reliable private lab to do the tests under their own scrutiny. But... but... these are for the most part - VERY short-lived radioisotopes - and the samples are now about 7 months old. I think it's a bit late for further testing. BW> They seem to have been victims of bad lab procedures and their BW> own enthusiasm. The lab's original report should have at least described variables such as equipment calibration and sensitivity levels. This should have been sufficient reason to be suspect of the computer analysis. Besides, what about the fact that certain elements, such as Cobalt 56, which should have showed up in the spectra, were remarkably absent? BW> At least they discovered the errors themselves. With a bit of coaxing from many others. BW> I'm not really keeping score anymore, I'm just watching how the BW> game is played... Unfortunately, it seems that's exactly what this has all become... If you can post the full report, or netmail it to me @ 1:11/50, I'd appreciate it. Take care -- Sheldon -- Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Rogers) Subject: Paranet Content Date: 22 Jan 92 04:45:35 GMT I believe the time has come to amplify the comments that I, and others, have been making in the Paranet General echo. Over the past several months, many, many worthwhile posts have been made on the net. Rival points of view have exchanged information in a rational, scholarly way that has allowed those of us who follow the echos to appreciate both sides of the arguments. Unfortunately, this has not been the case with ALL the posts. The JFK exchanges in Paranet General are a good example. While those posts are interesting, and I personally enjoy the read, I must note that they lose sight of the PURPOSE OF PARANET. PARANET exists to study and exchange information about PARANORMAL EXPERIENCES AND OCCURANCES. While the JFK material is a good read, I am failing to see the PARANORMAL connection. Some of the other posts in other areas, such as the religion-fest in Abductions (did I miss a connection? I think not!) and the assertions of unsuported New Age beliefs in the UFO echo signal me that it is time to suggest that we all take a few moments to review what we are talking about here, and attempt to make it conform to the purpose of the net. IF YOU CAN MAKE A PARANORMAL CONNECTION with your post, post it. If it has nothing to do with the paranormal, please post it elsewhere. I'm not threatening or admonishinng any one person or group. I just feel we have begun to lose our focus, and am trying to get each poster to fine tune his own ideas before turning them loose in an international echo. Further discussions with me relative this issue are invited via netmail at either my Paranet address or fido 108/110 or my private net address 606/1. Further communications to individuals ref this message will also be private mailed to your board of choice. Doug Rogers Echo Coordinator -- Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay.Mclaughlin@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kay Mclaughlin) Subject: Re: Feder & Williams' books Date: 24 Jan 92 05:52:00 GMT On 01-19-92 12:08 ncar!wam.umd.edu!infinity posted to All: n> From: ncar!wam.umd.edu!infinity n> Date: 19 Jan 92 18:34:53 GMT n> Message-ID: <18145@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> n> Newsgroups: info.paranet n> From: David Elmore Coleman n> Barry Fell wrote a book _America B.C_ which details all sorts of n> enigmatic finds in the Americas (Hebrew script and the usual.) n> Recently, and simultaneously, Kenneth L Feder and Stephen Williams n> separately wrote books skeptical of these types of claims in North n> America specifically. This is a subject I am not generally interested n> -- Phoenicians and Hebrews -- but one author referenced Fell's claim n> that in the script of the Algonquian indians of Canada, 2000+ symbols n> are identical with known Egyptian hieroglyphs. I am interested what n> Feder, Williams, or other skeptics or academics have to say of this n> claim *in particular*. Does anyone have any information? n> More galactic thoughts n> from: Amicitia Subjugat Omnia Hweohthte... n> (Hwe-oath-T) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- n> ---- ---- ---- ---- David E. Coleman n> infinity@wam.umd.edu 8125 48th Ave, Apt. 612 n> College Park, MD 20740 1-(301)-474-7424 Picking up blue stone stuff deleted. David, I'm familiar with Fells work. I can't personally CONFIRM the Phonecian>Hebrew>America claim, BUT I have been to "Americas Stonehenge", a pretty amazing stone circle, and ruins of buildings in southern New Hampshire. There are a few of these circles in New England. Shure does make ya wonder. If you ever have a chance GO. But, since this has nothing (that we know) to do with UFO's I think we are a bit off topic. Sorry Doug, I'll try to behave! When will the Pnet General echo be available on the Internet? (Mike?) Regards, Kay -- Kay Mclaughlin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Kay.Mclaughlin@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kay.Mclaughlin@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kay Mclaughlin) Subject: Re: Texas Camps - FEMA Date: 24 Jan 92 06:22:00 GMT On 01-21-92 18:20 Clark Matthews posted to Kay Mclaughlin: CM> In a message to Don Ecker <10 Jan 92 11:19> Kay Mclaughlin wrote: >DE> Kay Mclaughlin asked; >> On the Chuck Harder Show the other night, I heard a snippet about how >> various private pilots(?) have been seeing "concentration type camps"(!) >> springing up in the wilds of Texas. I didn't catch the whole thing, but >> it sounded weird, he said he was looking into it. >> Heard anything? KM> Thanks so much, that was exactly the distant bell that rang in my head KM> when I heard the rumor. FEMA, FEMA, FEMA. Bingo! CM> Kay (& Don), CM> You may be interested to know that the shadowy bureaucrats of FEMA CM> have suddenly taken a higher profile here in the Northeast. All of a CM> sudden, two of them appeared on the Jersey Shore, making promises CM> about Federal preparedness to restore the damaged beaches & CM> breakwaters here. This happened three weeks ago, and they haven't CM> been heard from since. CM> They only seem to be interested in beach areas around Ft. Dix and CM> McGuire AFB, which are slated for reductions and cutbacks. Several CM> folks here have taken notice of this. Theories range from an CM> election-year Federal makework program to help local economies around CM> the bases to conversion of areas within the bases to barracks-type CM> camps. CM> NSD-47 and the other Executive Orders and Directives of its ilk do not CM> bode well for the continuation of freedom in this country, in my CM> opinion. CM> Keep you posted as long as the phones work... CM> Best, CM> Clark THX, Clark! Sheesh, I figured that what I'd heard was a wild rumor, but the more I hear from folks the more I wonder... Just when you thought it was safe to back in the water...... Kay -- Kay Mclaughlin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Kay.Mclaughlin@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins In Denver Date: 26 Jan 92 18:59:00 GMT >Ah, Budd Hopkins. Is this guy for real? The reason I ask, is about a >month ago, in THE NEWS (ya know, the national gossip rag like the >enquirer) there was an article supposedly by Budd Hopkins about how 1/3 >of our pets, i.e. dogs, cats, etc., were actually space aliens in >disguise! If this is the same guy that you are speaking of, can you >really believe ANYTHING at all he says? Come on John! You surely know that this is not THE Budd Hopkins. :-) Budd is considered to be the premier abduction researcher in the world. Whatever you read in the tabloids is generally considered the finest in BS. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Rodeghier) Subject: Siberian Encounter Date: 26 Jan 92 20:16:01 GMT Regarding the Haines report in the last IUR, I understand your uneasiness, but I don't have any more information about the report than you see in IUR. All I can suggest is that you contact Haines directly (we have his address at the CUFOS office). Mark -- Mark Rodeghier - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Rodeghier) Subject: Ufocat Date: 26 Jan 92 20:21:02 GMT Your UFOCAT work on Australian cases is most welcome! I'll let Don Johnson know it's coming our way, and I'll verify receipt. We very much appreciate this work. I'll send along any comments that come to mind after I've read through the material. Mark -- Mark Rodeghier - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff) Subject: Aussie Circles Date: 27 Jan 92 00:15:01 GMT Hello Bill, and thanks for your recent post. As you have probably read on this echo already, it now appears that the existence of Dudley and Chorost's crop circle radioisotope anomalies are not supported by the raw data, and may be nothing more than statistical deviations in the background. You were very well grounded in your suspicions. Can you believe that according to Dudley, DIFFERENT gamma spec apparatuses, with detectors made by DIFFERENT manufacturers were used on one of the circle samples; and that the sensitivity of the device was set @ 1/2 scale for the control, as compared to the circle samples? Who would even think of publishing a report based on these techniques? Many of us may be barking up the wrong tree, or as you said Bill... who needs a Mercedes when a Model-T explanation will do. Perhaps even a horse and carriage will suffice . Take care, Sheldon -- Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG ******************************************************************************** For permission to reproduce or redistribute this digest, contact: DOMAIN Michael.Corbin@paranet.org UUCP scicom!paranet.org!Michael.Corbin ********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to******** 'infopara' at the following address: UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!infopara DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com For administrative requests (subscriptions, back issues) send to: UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!infopara-request DOMAIN infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com To obtain back issues by anonymous ftp, connect to: DOMAIN ftp.uiowa.edu (directory /archives/paranet) Mail to private Paranet/Fidonet addresses from the newsletters: DOMAIN firstname.lastname@paranet.org UUCP scicom!paranet.org!firstname.lastname ******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************