Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 616 Monday, December 14th 1992 (C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: Life: Real & Artificial Life: Real & Artificial UK CONFERENCE (Preliminary Announcment) New Phone Numbers... ParaNet FAQ File Fido UFO moderator Uk Conference (preliminary Announcment) Re: ParaNet FAQ File Life: Real & Artificial Washington Post Article Fido Ufo moderator Fido UFO moderator Re: Corona Crashed & Smashed? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Life: Real & Artificial Date: 3 Dec 92 09:08:01 GMT * Forwarded from "Sci.Skeptic" * Originally by Kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us * Originally to All * Originally dated 30 Nov 1992, 12:14 From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us Date: 29 Nov 92 17:36:55 GMT Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA Message-ID: <9FH1uB1w165w@kalki33> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic >From Back to Godhead magazine, January/February 1991 LIFE: REAL AND ARTIFICIAL by Sadaputa Dasa (c) 1991 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust Used by permission. In Santa Fe, New Mexico, a group of scientists, mainly from the Los Alamos National Laboratories, recently held a conference on "Artificial Life." The theme of the conference, which I attended, was that the essence of life lies not in biological substance but in patterned organization. If this idea is valid, the thinking goes, life forms should be able to set themselves up through many different types of material stuff. In particular, life should be able to exist as a pattern of electronic activity in a computer. The conference organizers, casually dressed, long-haired men in their thirties and early forties, say that artificial, computer-based life forms are developing even now -- and may evolve to dominate the earth. According to this view, the evolutionary role of man is to give birth to silicon-based life patterns that will eventually look back on him as a primitive ancestor. The conference sponsors counseled a broad-minded attitude toward such evolutionary progress: we should transcend parochial anthropocentrism and welcome advanced life in whatever form it may emerge. But some attending scientists doubted whether a program running on a computer could properly be thought of as alive. Philosopher Elliot Sober argued that when engineers make a computer simulation of a bridge, no one would think of it as a real bridge: the simulation merely shows a picture in which computations tell us something about bridges. In the same way, when a computer simulates an organism, we see a picture in which computations tell us something about life -- we're not seeing life itself. Tommaso Toffoli, a computer scientist from Massachusets Institute of Technology, responded to this argument. Suppose, he said, that simulated people were driving cars on a simulated bridge. If the bridge were to collapse, the people would fall to their simulated deaths. The patterns in a faithful simulation match the patterns found in reality: the simulated people cross the simulated bridge just as real people cross a real bridge. And since these patterns, Dr. Toffoli proposed, are the essence of what is happening, we can think of the simulation the same way we think of the original. In principle, then, if a real material scene can exhibit life, so can a simulation. In practice, of course, present computers, operating with a single processor, are weak at matching the patterns of reality. But Toffoli suggested that the powerful computers of the future will consist of crystallike arrays of many thousands of microminiature processors, nearly atomic in size, all computing at once. Toffoli described such computers as "programmable matter." Indeed (though Toffoli didn't say so), we might regard matter itself, with its interacting atomic subunits, as such a computer. According to this idea, life is already a computer simulation running on the "programmable matter" of the universe itself. Now, if life is but a computer simulation, a series of computational states, then life too must be essentially unreal. Words such as "flower," "dog," and "human" are simply names, symbols we attach to patterns of matter. This, in fact, is the Vedic understanding not of life but of the material body. In the eleventh canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, Krsna says to Uddhava that the gross and subtle forms of material bodies have no existence of their own; they are only temporary patterns manifested by the eternally existing reality, the Absolute Truth. Krsna illustrates this idea with an example: "Gold exists before it is made into gold products, and the gold remains when the products have been destroyed. The gold alone is the reality while used under various names. Similarly, I alone exist before the universe is created and after it is destroyed, and I alone exist while it is maintained....That which did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future has no existence of its own while it lasts....Whatever is created and revealed by something else is ultimately only that other thing." (Bhagavatam 11.28.19,21) So we can look at the temporary forms of the material universe as patterns in Krsna's energy to which various names have been assigned. In essence these patterns in Krsna's material energy (bahiranga-sakti) are the same as the patterns of electrons that form and disappear in the circuitry of a computer during a simulation. So we can view the material universe as the ultimate computer simulation, and Krsna as the ultimate simulator. But seeing the material body as a succession of flickering patterns doesn't mean we should view life the same way. Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita (2.20) that the soul, the individual conscious self, eternally exists: "For the soul there is never birth or death. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, ever-existing, and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain." Tommaso Toffoli's simulated people on the simulated bridge lack one main element: consciousness. A series of computations might simulate the changes a person's body undergoes, including those in the brain. But why should patterns of electric current generate the conscious experience of these changes? We may easily imagine that the patterns of current making up a machine's computations may flow without conscious awareness. This suggests that if consciousness of the results of these computations exists in the computer, this must be due to some element that our understanding of computers has not yet taken into account. Here's how some might reply: It may be hard to understand how patterns of computer states could generate consciousness, but we already know that similar patterns generate consciousness in human brains. So why can't this take place in a computer? The answer is that we don't know in any scientific sense that patterns of brain states do generate consciousness. Resolving how such patterns might do this in brains would be just as hard as figuring out how they might do it in computers. Bhagavad-gita provides a simple solution by postulating that consciousness in the material body is due to the presence of an entity fundamentally different from matter. Given the difficulties philosophers and scientists have run into in trying to understand consciousness as patterns of material elements, they should think about this solution. If we tentatively adopt this solution, then we may ask: How would the nonmaterial conscious entity be linked to the material body? We can understand how this link might work by returning to Toffoli's story of the simulated bridge. How could we introduce consciousness into the simulation? One way would be to make a "real-time" simulation, one in which the simulated events take place at the same pace as corresponding events in the real world. (One would simply need a fast enough computer.) Then one could put consciousness into the simulation by electronically linking the senses of real, conscious people with the senses of the simulated people. The intentions of the conscious people would move the bodies of the people in the simulated world, and the conscious people would have the experiences the simulated people would have. Far-fetched? Some people in computer science are already working on it. VPL Research in California is experimenting with "virtual realities" in which a person's eyes, ears, and one hand are hooked up electronically with virtual eyes and ears and a virtual hand in a simulated world. The person looks through "eyephones," small TV screens placed directly in front of his eyes, and sees as though in the simulated world. A "data glove" electronically senses his hand movements, and another device the movements of his head; the resulting data control the movements of his simulated hand and head. Thus the person experiences the simulated world through a simulated body, moves about in that body, and handles simulated objects in that world. If it is possible to link human consciousness with an unreal, virtual body in a simulated world, why shouldn't it be possible to link spiritual consciousness with similarly unreal bodies in the "real" material world? The Vedic philosophy known as Sankhya describes the workings of such a communications link. The third canto of Srimad Bhagavatam describes Krsna's material energy as including an element called "false ego," or ahankara, which serves as the interface between the nonmaterial soul and the material energy. This false ego serves like the eyephones and data gloves that link a human being with a computer running a virtual-reality program. Both the material body as understood in Vedic literature and the simulated body in a computer-generated world are merely temporary patterns in an underlying substrate. But the conscious self --the real essence of the living being-- has a substantial reality outside the realm of transient patterns. In the computer-generated reality this conscious self is a human being not part of the computer system, and in the Vedic philosophy this self is a transcendental entity distinct from matter. One lesson we can learn from the thoughts and experiments of computer scientists is that such a relationship between the self and the material world is possible. And it just might be our actual situation. END OF ARTICLE Posted by Kalki Dasa for Back to Godhead. ------------------------------------------------------- | Don't forget to chant: Hare Krishna Hare Krishna | | Krishna Krishna Hare Hare | | Hare Rama Hare Rama | | Rama Rama Hare Hare | | | | Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA | | (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us) | ------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lawrence.A..Doerr@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Lawrence A. Doerr) Subject: Life: Real & Artificial Date: 6 Dec 92 05:08:00 GMT Just a comment to a reference in the article to atom sized microprocessors. There is a limit to how small you can go. Current microprocessors are susceptible to neutron and alpha bombardment. Our cells can repair themselves from radiation induced damage, currently computer chips cannot. Someday maybe, but not for a while yet. -- Lawrence A. Doerr - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Lawrence.A..Doerr@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mrc-crc.ac.uk!sgamble Subject: UK CONFERENCE (Preliminary Announcment) Date: 7 Dec 92 00:33:04 GMT From: sgamble@mrc-crc.ac.uk (Steve Gamble x3293) This is a preliminary announcement for the 7th Internatinal UFO Congress, which will be held at University of Bristol, England on Saturday 24th and Sunday 25th July 1993. Speakers who have so far accepted include Jenny Randles Albert Budden John Shaw Ken Phillips This is organised primarily by the British UFO Research Association in association with other UFO groups. All information so far is provisional and may be subject to change. I will post further details as they become available. Steve. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: New Phone Numbers... Date: 6 Dec 92 23:41:02 GMT ParaNet will be moving the weekend of December 5th through the 7th, to a larger place. Unfortunately, we were unable to keep the same phone numbers as we moved outside of the local central office. Please note these new numbers and manually add them to your nodelists until Net 104 gets the new phone number recorded in the upcoming nodelists. The new number is: 303-429-2713. The new voice number is: 303-429-2654. The system may be unreachable on Monday, December 7th for a couple of hours while installation is completed. Thanks, Michael Corbin -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: ParaNet FAQ File Date: 6 Dec 92 23:33:00 GMT BD> One of the things I've been working on in my dubious free time is a BD> sort of "who's who" in UFO research. A short bio and address for some BD> of the more prominent UFO investigators. I think Jerry Clark's UFO BD> Encyclopedia would be a good source for this. Bob: A few years ago, Bob Boyd put out a book called "Who's Who in Ufology." He hasn't updated it since 1988, however. You may be able to fill the void. BD> I'm also working on a "celebrity UFO file", prominent people (Carter, BD> Reagan, Stuart Whitman, Muhammad Ali, etc) who believe they've seen a BD> UFO. I'm especially interested in sightings by scientists and military BD> brass. If you're interested in seeing any of this, let me know. That's another one that would make an excellent book. "Close Encounters of the Rich and Famous..." Jim -- Jim Speiser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Fido UFO moderator Date: 6 Dec 92 23:33:00 GMT JH> FYI, Don Allen is now Fido UFO moderator. JH> I'm sure he'll do fine. I just couldn't find enough hours in the day. JH> jbh John, I'll say it here and on UFO, congratulations on an exemplary performance as UFO moderator. You brought the echo light years ahead of where it was under George Adam and Jym Fox. Jim * OLX 2.1 TD * Generic Tagline -- Jim Speiser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f100.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Uk Conference (preliminary Announcment) Date: 8 Dec 92 05:57:02 GMT + From: mrc-crc.ac.uk!sgamble + Date: 7 Dec 92 00:33:04 GMT + Message-ID: <31905@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> + Newsgroups: info.paranet + From: sgamble@mrc-crc.ac.uk (Steve Gamble x3293) + This is a preliminary announcement for the 7th Internatinal UFO + Congress, which will be held at University of Bristol, England on + Saturday 24th and Sunday 25th July 1993. Thanks for posting this information. Could you please arrange to get us a copy of the proceedings? Thanks, Mike -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff.Brewi@p0.f812.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jeff Brewi) Subject: Re: ParaNet FAQ File Date: 9 Dec 92 20:28:00 GMT BD> I'm also working on a "celebrity UFO file", prominent people (Carter, BD> Reagan, Stuart Whitman, Muhammad Ali, etc) who believe they've seen a BD> UFO. I'm especially interested in sightings by scientists and military BD> brass. If you're interested in seeing any of this, let me know. Timothy Beckley has a book called UFOs Among the Stars...don't know what is inside the covers but it has about 50-60 people in it that are celebrities, etc...might be a good place to start to get a list of names to get your own info... -- Jeff Brewi - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jeff.Brewi@p0.f812.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark.Matthews@f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews) Subject: Life: Real & Artificial Date: 11 Dec 92 08:42:00 GMT In a message to Michael Corbin <05 Dec 92 22:08> Lawrence A. Doerr wrote: LAD> Just a comment to a reference in the article to atom sized LAD> microprocessors. There is a limit to how small you can go. LAD> Current microprocessors are susceptible to neutron and alpha LAD> bombardment. Our cells can repair themselves from radiation LAD> induced damage, currently computer chips cannot. Someday maybe, LAD> but not for a while yet. Hi Lawrence. You're correct, but if atom-sized microprocessors were arranged in some sort of neural net -- massively parallelized, of course -- individual mishaps wouldn't matter much. Though I expect it'll be a while before people are writing "Quantum Parity Error" messages... ;-) Best, Clark -- Clark Matthews - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Washington Post Article Date: 13 Dec 92 03:54:01 GMT * Originally by Uucp, 1:104/422 * Originally to Michael Corbin, 1:104/428 * Originally dated 12 Dec 1992, 20:37 * Original: TO ... Michael Corbin of 1:104/422 * ReDirected Using ReDirect Version 1.00 (C)1989 David Nugent >From scicom!ecn.purdue.edu!skunk-works-owner From: rbarton@who.cc.trincoll.edu (Ran Barton, III) To: skunk-works@ecn.purdue.edu Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:52:54 -0500 Cc: bartonr@csoc.dnet.dupont.com The last time someone posted an article, a great deal of discussion ensued as to the legality of forwarding copyrighted information. I do not recall any final outcome of that discussion, so I will apologise know if the following Washington Post article is out of line. I am including it here, apart from its obvious interest to this list, to atone for my atrocius typos of late. Regards, Ran ___________________________________________________ Plane Mystery Gains Speed, Hits 5,500 Miles an Hour By John Mintz Washington Post Staff Writer Mysterious rumblings in the California desert, staggeringly swift bright lights in the night skies over Nevada, a strange whooshing roar over Scotland and unex- plained entries on Lockheed Corp.'s financial books all have an explanation, some aerospace enthusiasts say: The United States is developing a supersecret spy plane. Defense Department officials have denied it for years, and members of Congress who presumably would know say it's not so. But there is a growing consensus in the subculture of mystery aircraft-watchers - not loonies who talk of Venusian visitations, but defense industry journal- ists, market analysts and engineers - that the Pentagon is testing a new gener- ation of ultra-fast aircraft that can travel up to Mach 8, eight times the speed of sound, or about 5,500 miles per hour. The world speed record is Mach 3.2. These scientists and obsessed individuals for years have trafficked in the latest news of sightings of things zooming around secret installations such as Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, puffs of smoke resembling "donuts on a rope" and word of radio transmissions to unknown craft landing in California. They even count cars in the parking lots of California defense contractors to devine whether a company's known projects could account for all the employees there. Now comes a new report in a defense industry publication throwing in with the speculators: Britain's Jane's Defence Weekly carried an article this week specu- lating that the U.S. Air Force has a secret fleet of new spy aircraft. This next-generation plane, according to the report, has a liquid-methane engine that is halfway between a rocket's and a jet plane's, costs $1 billion each and is a follow-on to the SR-71 Blackbird, a venerable spy-in-the-sky retired in 1990 after 28 years of service. The Jane's article, by veteran aviation writer Bill Sweetman, recounted an intriguing development: a British oil drilling engineer named Chris Gibson said that in 1989, while aboard a North Sea drilling rig, he spotted an arrowhead- shaped plane he had never seen before streaking across the sky. Gibson, an experienced aircraft observer, kept the sighting to himself until recently, when he sketched the mystery craft for Jane's. The drawing looks like others in Aviation Week and similar industry publications that for years have speculated there is a successor to the SR-71. Other experts say that if such a craft were indeed flying over the North Sea, it could buttress the idea that such a plane is "operational," meaning it has gone beyond the prototype and test stages. But some analysts point out that at the speeds at which the new plane is thought to fly, it would be difficut to restrict a test drive to U.S. airspace. A hypersonic trip from California to Japan would take only an hour, and nowhere on the planet would be more than three hours away. "A mysterious, fast-moving shape in the sky has been scaring sheep in the Mull of Kintyre (Scotland) and rattling windows in Los Angeles," said a July article in London's Sunday Telegraph asserting the existence of a new hypersonic air- craft. At night it visits a secure Scottish airfield guarded by U.S. Navy SEALs, "before stealthily streaking back to America across the North Pole," the paper said. Jane's said it believes the spy plane has been flying tests since about 1985 and has been operational since 1989. Air Force officials have denied such reports for years, with more pointedness than the "I-have-nothing-for-you-on-that" nondenial denials used in reply to queries about other classified subjects. "The Air Force has no such program, period," said Capt. Monica Aloisio, an Air Force spokeswoman. Yesterday she also denied a suggestion in Jane's that the Air Force would lie to cover up the secret plane. "Air Force public affairs doesn't knowingly participate in any disinformation programs," she said. But Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio), a member of the Armed Services Committee who led congressional opposition to retiring the SR-71, said this week that the Pentagon's trickiness in denying secret programs over the years gives people pause. So with each flurry of reports like the one in Jane's, he calls the CIA and senior Defense Department officials "to make sure I wasn't being hung out to dry." "They answer me from all quarters there is no such program," Glenn said. "Everybody in CIA swears up and down there's no such program. I think they're telling me the truth." He said he used to wonder about those denials, because the Air Force's 1990 retirement of the SR-71 did not make sense. Air Force officials said satellites are more cost-effective for reconnaissance, but Glenn said planes such as the SR-71 are far superior. Spy planes, he said, are more maneuverable and can get to a target more quickly than satellites. Further, an adversary can often calcu- late when a satellite is making its once-every-few-hours sweeps and hide secrets on the ground. "The only way doing away with the '71 made sense," Glenn said in an interview this week, "was if you had a (spy plane) follow-on," which the Air Force has always denied. Glenn said he was also intrigued by the suggestion in the Jane's article that the supposed new plane is so secret that Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney has designated it a "waived program," meaning only the chairmen and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate military committees would have been told of its existence. If true, Glenn is being kept in the dark by his own committee chairman, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.). Glenn said he called Nunn's staff this week and was told Nunn has not misled him on the subject. Glenn said that under the Senate's "rules of engagement," a direct question to a colleague must be answered straight. There are other indications suggesting there is no new spy plane. In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, for instance, field commanders were distressed at what they believed was inadequate photo reconnaissance by U.S. satellites and the some subsonic spy aircraft. The Pentagon considered reactivating the SR-71, but rejected it, government officials said. "If they'd had this (new spy plane) operational," said William E. Burrows, author of a 1987 book entitled "Deep Black: Space Espionage & National Security" about space-based military projects, "they would have used it" in the gulf. Ernest Blazar, who is writing a book on the SR-71, said industry sources told him the Pentagon planned a second-generation Blackbird that died in 1990 when the SR-71 was withdrawn from service. John Pike, director of a space policy project for the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit research group that favors disarmament and opposes government secrecy, contends as do other nongovernment experts that secret airplanes may exist but may have multiple missions operating as, say, spy planes and spacelaunch vehicles. Speculation about a possible successor to the SR-71 heated up in 1984, when an entry in the defense budget mentioned a $2 billion, two-year "Aurora" project. Pentagon officials said it was not a spy plane, but journalists became suspicious when, a year later, "the Aurora line item vanished as mysteriously as it had first appeared," said a report by the Federation of American Scientists. Jane's still uses that name for the supposed project, but Blazar said if a new spy plane exists, it would be code-named "Senior Citizen." A number of Wall Street defense industry analysts have said for years they think Lockheed - which built the SR-71 - and other companies are involved in the spy plane business because Pentagon money going to the firms does not square with the aircraft work the companies acknowledge. A Lockheed spokesman referred questions about the matter to the Pentagon. Proponents of the spy plane theory also cite earth rumblings in southern California that some U.S. Geological Survey scientists have speculated are sonic booms caused by unknown aircraft. There have been eight such booms in the last 18 months, all on Thursdays between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. In a 94-page report pub- lished in August, the federation said "a certain measure of agnosticism contin- ues to be appropriate" in discussing mystery aircraft. The report noted that in recent years, as the number of sightings of supposed secret Pentagon aircraft increased dramatically in the western United States, sightings of unidentified flying objects also rose there. Both groups of eyewitnesses typically cite bright lights in the sky or strange noises, the report said. "The number of reports (of mystery aircraft) and their consistency suggest that there may be some basis for these sightings other than hallucinogenic drugs," the report said. But it warned: "There is no exit from this wilderness of mirrors." ______________________________________________________________ || Ran Barton, III '93 | A year passes apace || || rbarton@who.trincoll.edu | and proves ever new; || || Trinity College | First things and final || || 300 Summit Street - Box 955 | conform but seldom. || || Hartford, CT 06106-3100 | -The Gawain Poet || ||_______________________________|__________________________|| -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: Fido Ufo moderator Date: 12 Dec 92 03:18:01 GMT + You did a super job, and deserve about a thousand times more gratitude Thanks, I appreciate that. It's very nice to relax and just converse now. + Maybe I'll volunteer, sometime. I have a thick skin, and wield a + sharp tongue impartially. ;-> Masochistic streak, huh? ;-) jbh -- John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: Fido UFO moderator Date: 12 Dec 92 03:23:02 GMT + John, I'll say it here and on UFO, congratulations on an exemplary Thanks very much. I'm sure Don will do even better. jbh -- John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker) Subject: Re: Corona Crashed & Smashed? Date: 26 Nov 92 07:21:01 GMT Danni Brewi asked; > Don, > How does one find your raadio show? We would like to listen to it.. > Thanks, > Danni Danni, the show is carried on the Cable Radio Network. Check with your cable TV carrier. The show is also carried on satellite on; SATCOM 1-R, Transponder 15, Audio Freq. 7.235. Thanks and by the way we are currently syndicating the show around the country. More to follow later. Best; Don -- Don Ecker - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG ******************************************************************************* Submissions infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com Administrative requests infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com FTP archive grind.isca.uiowa.edu:/info/paranet/infopara Permission to distribute Michael.Corbin@paranet.org Private mail to Paranet/Fidonet users firstname.lastname@paranet.org UUCP gateway {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom *********************End**of**the**InfoPara**Newsletter************************