rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) (02/06/85)
>>... It does help at >>times to look at our own beliefs without the cloud of religion/ideolgy/etc. >>that each of us has acquired over the years, thanx to our parents/teachers/ >>friends/etc., which I'd term as an unseen form of "brainwashing" -- strong, >>gradual, but very potent. [RAMANATHAN] > You might call it "brainwashing", but it isn't, and the use of that > term is an example of the inflammatory rhetoric you claimed that you > wished to avoid. [McLINDEN] It may be "inflammatory" to say so, but it *is* brainwashing nonetheless. Especially when its "purpose" seems to be to direct its "victims" towards a specific type of thinking to the exclusion of more reasoned analysis. I put the word "purpose" in quotes for a reason: from a teleological standpoint, it would seem that this is a purpose that such brainwashing serves. To call it purpose would imply some sort of designer that (conspiratorially?) manipulates things to make this happen. The brainwashing is a result of the ideological manipulation by the status quo, but that's not necessarily to say that there's some sort of conspiracy on the part of the status quo to repress. Members of the status quo (powers-that-be) are people too, as I mentioned in my own response to Ramanathan's article. And they are equally subject to the brainwashing effects. > Religion is NOT science (although the latter arose > from the former), and does not require the rigorous scientific > justifications that other intellectual disciplines do. Why? Because you say so? For your own personal perspective of the world, I agree, it does not; one chooses to believe what one likes. But for the perspective of a societal morality, and a system of indoctrination, it most certainly SHOULD require such rigorous justifications!!! > Some of what I (and I would assert you, too), believe > in, has come to us on the authority of another. This authority might > be a textbook, a journal article, a speech bu a Nobel laureate, or > a teacher. You may choose to accept or deny the authority of any > source of information but I would venture to say that a good percentage > of your beliefs are rooted in authority rather than your ability to > demonstrate them to your own satisfaction. There is a difference between an authority who simply asserts (an opinion? based on what?) and an authority who supplies reasoned analysis and evidence. In addition, "authorities" (e.g., Lewis) have been known to engage in analysis without disclosing basic assumptions which are not necessarily taken as givens. > Children, long before the acquire the discipline to reason, must accept > authority as the basis for certain beliefs and behaviors. You are told > "Don't play out in the street!". Do you accuse your parents of being > neofascist propagandists and demand that they give incontrovertable > evidence for why you shouldn't play in the street? If you are like > most of the children I grew up with, you accepted the fact that your > parents beliefs should be observed, at least for a time, because they > held higher authority than you did. As a child develops, he/she begins > to question these beliefs and may reject some as untenable. In my experience, the people who have the most rational outlook on the world are the ones who were raised, not by blind assertions and demands of an authority, but by authority that proves itself and explains its motives for its demands. Leading to better understanding. The type of "authority" you describe, involving blind obedience, is best used as training for learning to live under a fascist state. > Many religions operate in just such a fashion, by providing authority > as the basis for a belief or a way of life. When they "provide authority" through edict and expect blind obedience without question, or when they allow "analysis" of questions only within the framework of taken-for-granted assumptions that still must not be questioned, they are by their very nature dangerous. > In some of these religions, > certain people are endowed with special "powers" which allow them to > interpret messages from this authority (God). In my book, such people are known as "charlatans". To believe in such "special authority" is ludicrous. > It is not undesirable for us to learn to accept certain things on authority > from others. It is not "brainwashing" to teach beliefs in addition to > facts. The mere fact that you question what you have been taught is > evidence that parents/teachers/etc., whom you have accused of brainwashing > you, cannot, in fact, control what you believe. Some are luckier (and/or smarter) than others. Unfortunately, the less lucky and the less smart, the more gullible and easily brainwashed, are greater in number. > Life is considerably > simplified by accepting certain concepts on authority (religious and > otherwise), without us demanding unequivocal proof. Life is NOT simple! Attempts to make it so for convenience are riddled with fraud, lies, and preconceptions! Often of the most dangerous nature... -- BRIAN: "You're all different!" CROWD: "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!" Rich Rosen MAN: "I'm not ... " {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
sm@cadre.UUCP (02/07/85)
In article <467@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP writes: >>>... It does help at >>>times to look at our own beliefs without the cloud of religion/ideolgy/etc. >>>that each of us has acquired over the years, thanx to our parents/teachers/ >>>friends/etc., which I'd term as an unseen form of "brainwashing" -- strong, >>>gradual, but very potent. [RAMANATHAN] > >> You might call it "brainwashing", but it isn't, and the use of that >> term is an example of the inflammatory rhetoric you claimed that you >> wished to avoid. [McLINDEN] > >It may be "inflammatory" to say so, but it *is* brainwashing nonetheless. [Rosen] brainwashing - a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to GIVE UP basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas. [Webster's New Collegiate] If you want to learn something about brainwashing, you might try reviewing the large body of psychology literature that arose after the Korean War. I can give you references, if you wish. (But then these texts were probably written by individuals who had grown up being "brainwashed" by their teachers, parents, television, talking pets, visions of the Four Horsemen, and Bazooka Joe comics so I don't know if you would value them.) >Especially when its "purpose" seems to be to direct its "victims" towards >a specific type of thinking to the exclusion of more reasoned analysis. Just because you ARE paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. >Members of the status quo (powers-that-be) are people >too, as I mentioned in my own response to Ramanathan's article. And they >are equally subject to the brainwashing effects. Interesting concept, a sort of "self-perpetuating brainwashing". Lucky for you (for all of us perhaps), you were able to escape centuries of this madness. >> Religion is NOT science (although the latter arose >> from the former), and does not require the rigorous scientific >> justifications that other intellectual disciplines do. > >Why? Because you say so? For your own personal perspective of the world, >I agree, it does not; one chooses to believe what one likes. But for the >perspective of a societal morality, and a system of indoctrination, it most >certainly SHOULD require such rigorous justifications!!! "and a system of indoctrination", I thought that you were against this. (Or is it that you only object to "indoctrination of ideas with which you disagree). Don't confuse morality with law. The idea of a collective (societal) morality is dangerous. We can surrender to government and society the right to make laws by which we live but I retain for myself, always, the right to decide what is moral (right and wrong). I don't care how much "evidence" you give for your "opinion", the individual will still always be the ultimate judge of morality. The individual might choose to accept the teachings of others and religion is one such framework for that. Science and philosophy are others. But no individual should let Rick Rosen, or anyone else, tell him/her than they can offer "proof" for what is right and what is wrong. That is a belief. > >> Some of what I (and I would assert you, too), believe >> in, has come to us on the authority of another. This authority might >> be a textbook, a journal article, a speech bu a Nobel laureate, or >> a teacher. You may choose to accept or deny the authority of any >> source of information but I would venture to say that a good percentage >> of your beliefs are rooted in authority rather than your ability to >> demonstrate them to your own satisfaction. > >There is a difference between an authority who simply asserts (an opinion? >based on what?) and an authority who supplies reasoned analysis and evidence. That's not the point, The point is: Have you taken the time to rigorously verify everything in which you believe? Does gravity exist? Does it exist EVERYWHERE on earth? Prove it. The point is that you acccept some of your so-called scientific notions because you accept someone else's authority in that matter. >In my experience, the people who have the most rational outlook on the world >are the ones who were raised, not by blind assertions and demands of an >authority, but by authority that proves itself and explains its motives for >its demands. Oh, and I suppose that you have, in fact, studied the upbringing of these people in enough detail to know. Tell me, what stories did their parent's tell them as kids (name ALL of them)? How many rational people are in your "n" (enough to be significant in a U.S. population of 300 million?). Oh, excuse me, what you meant was that a few of your friends tell you that they discussed "Critique of Pure Reason" in kindergarden and had read the original scriptures (in Sanskrit) by age 3. NEXT!!! >> In some of these religions, >> certain people are endowed with special "powers" which allow them to >> interpret messages from this authority (God). > >In my book, such people are known as "charlatans". To believe in such >"special authority" is ludicrous. When "your book" is read by as many people as the Bible, or the Tao, or the Torah, or even the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence, I MIGHT (heavy emphasis on MIGHT), be mildly interested. Let me know when you get into second printing and I'll get a copy from the library. >> It is not undesirable for us to learn to accept certain things on authority >> from others. It is not "brainwashing" to teach beliefs in addition to >> facts. The mere fact that you question what you have been taught is >> evidence that parents/teachers/etc., whom you have accused of brainwashing >> you, cannot, in fact, control what you believe. > >Some are luckier (and/or smarter) than others. Unfortunately, the less >lucky and the less smart, the more gullible and easily brainwashed, are >greater in number. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pretty inspired for a bunch of automatons. Thus spoke: >BRIAN: "You're all different!" >CROWD: "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!" Rich Rosen >MAN: "I'm not ... " {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr Sean McLinden
jay@cadre.UUCP (02/08/85)
I've been reading with great interest Sean McLinden's <241@cadre.ARPA>, <249@cadre.ARPA> and Rich Rosen's <467@pyuxd.UUCP> views on religion, science, brainwashing, indoctrination, etc. I have abstracted away some of the ideas put forth by Sean, using my own interpretation of what he must have meant. (I hope I've preserved the original intended thoughts). The interested reader is referred to the above articles. Sean's views: (1) Looks like we have to resort to believing in people in authority or books if we have to move on in science or religion. I quote here: >...The point is: Have you taken the time to rigorously verify everything >in which you believe? Does gravity exist? Does it exist EVERYWHERE on >earth? Prove it.... (McLinden, <249@cadre.ARPA>) When I read this, I realized that the line of argument Sean is using much too powerful. One has to agree that it's simply impossible to go around all over the earth and measure the force of gravity (that is, "if it ever exists"). The only reason we believe it exists all over the earth is, I guess, because people have found its presence in different labs of the world (I can see an objection from Sean to this: How can you believe the reports that you receive?, but I let it pass), and hence by the process of inductive inference have concluded it must exist in the places they haven't measured also. But mind you, if a new theory comes up in Physics that can disprove an extant theory, it replaces the old one. AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT DOES NOT OCCUR IN RELIGION. One has to believe in miracles, visions and the like that have been recorded, without rhyme or reason, only because "it is a good thing to do", I guess. One can counter what I've stated above by saying, "So, how do you say the process that goes in science is right and/or it should be adopted in religion, which is a different ball game altogether?" To this, I've only this to say: I was all along under the impression that to inquire and question something that has been laid out -- in whatever field our intellect has exposure to -- is a useful exercise and one that would make us more aware of the things around us and our relationships with them. If the domain of discussion has axioms, rules of inference, and thereby all possible results already worked out, and if our only job is to marvel at the domain, then it doesn't interest me. (The domain I'm referring to is, yes you're right, RELIGION). By the way, Sean, how are you sure what you see on the screen as you read this article is coming from any person at all? (2) Science is an offshoot of religion. H'm, that IS interesting (and enlightening). Wasn't it a religious institution (in this case, the Christian church) that ruled that the poor guy who said the earth is round should be done away with, since he was saying things it didn't want to hear? (Wait, how are we sure the earth IS round? I don't believe the photographs the astronauts took, etc. can again be a line of argument that is absolutely water-tight to refute. In fact, extending it, how do we know Reagan exists? Or someone whom we see today and again tomorrow really existed in the interim period? Or Sean McLinden or Rich Rosen or Jay Ramanathan?) Similarly, another guy suffered because he proposed our earth was just a part of the solar system instead of being the center of the universe as the religious instituion had believed till then. (3) Don't mix up religion with the practice of it. This is like saying, "The meaning of a word is given under null context". Fact is, context always exists. Any religion is firmly intertwined with its practice. Even the original people who, say, proclaimed "This is a new religion, its principles are such-and-such", had their own viewpoints tagged on to whatever they said. Eventhough the basic idea of any religion is to advise people to be good (whatever that is), it is in the rituals and religious rites that the religions differ and hence are distinct. If religion was a merely abstract concept, then why so many religions? Religion X's follower goes to his place of worship religiously (!) every Sunday, religion Y's follower does it every Saturday, religion Z's follwer does it every Friday, and so on. And mind you, every one of them belongs to that species called Homo Sapiens (Or do we? Prove it to me, says Sean). Each has been doing this for centuries. Have they gone mad? asks Sean. Who knows? says I. After all, madness is a relative term. (4) If you believe in the books and authority, life would be so simple. As pointed out in <467@pyuxd.UUCP>, our aim is not necessarily "to make life easy". In fact, we need not have done all the things that we have done so far in science, if our only aim was to have a simple life. Strange that, while in science we question even the fundamental theories off and on, in religion we are told to abide by that one (or two, or three, anyway a finite number!) "holy" book(s) without question. You might say, "That's the greatness of religion, everything that needs to be known has been recorded once and for all". Good, if the same had been done in, say, following a political ideology, you call it "getting indoctrinated". At this stage, let me clarify a few things. My original intent in posting the article was to lament at the religious differences that we all have, and how it is causing avoidable tension. My main target of attack were those people who want to perpetuate these differences, often saying the other man's religion is to be looked down upon. This, according to me, is a very dangerous approach. (Am I being vehement about it? You bet). Just imagine, we go thru life without knowing anything about the other person's religion, all the time bickering about non-essentials like comparative plus and minus points of our own religion. Mind you, you can even be "converted" from one religion to another. Until one day you go to your place of worship on Day X; from the day of conversion you switch to Day Y! Are you a different person? They would have us believe even that. As Rich Rosen writes: why do we need an external "authority" to guide us all the time? How about at least trying to make an attempt to stand on our own two feet? Jay Ramanathan "You're all different!" "No", shouts the crowd, "Yes", says that lonely creature.
sm@cadre.UUCP (02/08/85)
In article <251@cadre.ARPA> jay@cadre.ARPA (Jayaram Ramanathan) writes: >... But mind you, if a new theory comes up in Physics that can >disprove an extant theory, it replaces the old one. AND THIS IS EXACTLY >WHAT DOES NOT OCCUR IN RELIGION. One has to believe in miracles, visions >and the like that have been recorded, without rhyme or reason, only because >"it is a good thing to do", I guess. >One can counter what I've stated above by saying, "So, how do you say the >process that goes in science is right and/or it should be adopted in >religion, which is a different ball game altogether?" To this, I've only >this to say: I was all along under the impression that to inquire and >question something that has been laid out -- in whatever field our >intellect has exposure to -- is a useful exercise and one that would >make us more aware of the things around us and our relationships with them. >If the domain of discussion has axioms, rules of inference, and thereby >all possible results already worked out, and if our only job is to marvel >at the domain, then it doesn't interest me. (The domain I'm referring >to is, yes you're right, RELIGION). To state this is demonstrate one's ignorance of the truth. Since your comments seem to be centered around Chrsitian religions, let me use them as an example. The central Christian document is the Bible, which is an anthology of the written and oral history of the Hebrews and the early Christians. The Bible is not so much a textbook as it is a ~2000 year transcript of man's arguments about his origins and his place in the world. Anyone with any familiarity of the text can take something like the Book of Job (which deals with the question of why a good man should suffer), and recognize that the story was probably written by two separate authors, living in different times, who had DIFFERENT ideas about the answer to that question. The whole history of the Christian religions, from their heritage in Judaism to the present, is one of continued discussion and conflict about the nature of mankind. This dicsourse continues into the present (try reading H.T. Kung, Karl Rahner, or C.S. Lewis, if you want your theology made a little more palatable). These people demonstrate the continued conflict of ideas which exists within Christianity. To suggest that religion represents a blind trust in stagnant ideas is to be ignorant of religious history, itself. > (2) Science is an offshoot of religion. > >H'm, that IS interesting (and enlightening). Wasn't it a religious >institution (in this case, the Christian church) that ruled that the >poor guy who said the earth is round should be done away with, since >he was saying things it didn't want to hear? Religion arose as a result of man's inquiry into his nature and origin. It satisfied his desire to be able to explain everything in terms of some reproducible (deterministic), order. As men learned that certain of these concepts could be verified or disproved via example, experimentation, and reason, science was established. The domain of science is that which is verifiable. To religion (and philosophy) is left those aspects of existence with which science offers no explanation. > (3) Don't mix up religion with the practice of it. > >This is like saying, "The meaning of a word is given under null context". First you paraphrase me, then you comment on your paraphrase. Bad technique. What I said was that you don't condemn a religion because of the actions of its members (i.e., Christianity because of the Crusdades, Judaism be- cause of the invasion of Lebanon, etc.) no more than you would condemn all Americans because of the invasion of Cambodia. There will always be people who CLAIM to have a certain belief and, in fact, act in another fashion. This does not impune the belief, just the person. Simply because some people who are affiliated with a religion act in a manner which you find distasteful, does not implicate the tenets of that religion. You must first show that their actions were directed by that religion. To do that you must demonstrate that you truly understand the religion which you are deriding (you haven't demonstrated that you know ANYTHING about any religion, yet). >Even the original people who, say, proclaimed "This is a new religion, >its principles are such-and-such", had their own viewpoints tagged on >to whatever they said. Of course. The nature of most philosophy/religion is that it represents man's INTERPRETATION of some principle. As I stated in my original message, the difference between some religions and others is that certain religions remove this limitation by having some AUTHORITY (i.e., Jesus Christ who was God,accordian to certain Christain faiths), who served to state the priciples of that religion devoid of human interpretation. >Eventhough the basic idea of any religion is to advise people to be >good (whatever that is), it is in the rituals and religious rites >that the religions differ and hence are distinct. Back to Comparitive Religions 101. Many relisions (albeit less common than the major religions), make NO STATEMENT about what is good. Religion relates to faith, not right or wrong. SOME religions deal with these issues, but this is not a requirement. > (4) If you believe in the books and authority, life would be >so simple. As I never said this, I don't feel the need to comment on it. I don't believe it, though. >At this stage, let me clarify a few things. My original intent in posting >the article was to lament at the religious differences that we all have, >and how it is causing avoidable tension. Part of it is results from people making uninformed statements about members of another religion (or those who have a religion). >Just imagine, we go thru life without knowing anything about the other >person's religion, all the time bickering about non-essentials like >comparative plus and minus points of our own religion. You appear to have done it. >They would have us believe even that. "They". Is that big brother, cosmic muffin, who? >As Rich Rosen writes: why do we need an external "authority" to guide >us all the time? Better an external authority than Rich Rosen! Sean McLinden
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) (02/10/85)
> brainwashing - a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to GIVE UP > basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to > accept contrasting regimented ideas. [Webster's New Collegiate] It needn't be forcible when it's part of the societal status quo. (Shouldn't argue with a dictionary: it's an "authority"!!! :-) > If you want to learn something about brainwashing, you might try reviewing > the large body of psychology literature that arose after the Korean War. > I can give you references, if you wish. (But then these texts were probably > written by individuals who had grown up being "brainwashed" by their > teachers, parents, television, talking pets, visions of the Four Horsemen, > and Bazooka Joe comics so I don't know if you would value them.) Good point, that parenthetical sentence there. I'd guess that you yourself don't agree. >>Especially when its "purpose" seems to be to direct its "victims" towards >>a specific type of thinking to the exclusion of more reasoned analysis. > Just because you ARE paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. You obviously don't bother to read articles you respond to. I quoted the word "purpose" and explained WHY I quoted the word "purpose"---because notions of conspiracy may be construed from such ideas, but there isn't necessarily any basis for doing so. Do you know Gary Samuelson personally? Did you take lessons in excerpting from articles from him? :-( You quote out of context with his unique flair and panache. >>Members of the status quo (powers-that-be) are people >>too, as I mentioned in my own response to Ramanathan's article. And they >>are equally subject to the brainwashing effects. > Interesting concept, a sort of "self-perpetuating brainwashing". Lucky for > you (for all of us perhaps), you were able to escape centuries of this > madness. There's always a few. The freer a society gets, the more there are. >>>Religion is NOT science (although the latter arose >>>from the former), and does not require the rigorous scientific >>>justifications that other intellectual disciplines do. >>Why? Because you say so? For your own personal perspective of the world, >>I agree, it does not; one chooses to believe what one likes. But for the >>perspective of a societal morality, and a system of indoctrination, it most >>certainly SHOULD require such rigorous justifications!!! > "and a system of indoctrination", I thought that you were against this. > (Or is it that you only object to "indoctrination of ideas with which you > disagree). I *am* against this. My point was that when religion enters the realm of determining societal morality and systems of indoctrination, "it most certainly SHOULD require such rigorous justifications!!! > I retain for myself, always, the > right to decide what is moral (right and wrong). I don't care how much > "evidence" you give for your "opinion", the individual will still always > be the ultimate judge of morality. The individual might choose to accept > the teachings of others and religion is one such framework for that. Science > and philosophy are others. But no individual should let Rick Rosen, or > anyone else, tell him/her than they can offer "proof" for what is right > and what is wrong. That is a belief. Stop agreeing with me, it's getting annoying. :-) If you really feel that the individual has the right to his/her own life, then I'd think you'd feel that societal indoctrination (be it brainwashing, religious permeation of morality, or television shows) is detrimental to independent thought. >>>In some of these religions, >>>certain people are endowed with special "powers" which allow them to >>>interpret messages from this authority (God). >>In my book, such people are known as "charlatans". To believe in such >>"special authority" is ludicrous. > When "your book" is read by as many people as the Bible, or the Tao, or > the Torah, or even the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence, > I MIGHT (heavy emphasis on MIGHT), be mildly interested. Let me know > when you get into second printing and I'll get a copy from the library. The number of people who've read a book has little bearing on correctness. Or is popularity itself an "authority"? >>>It is not undesirable for us to learn to accept certain things on authority >>>from others. It is not "brainwashing" to teach beliefs in addition to >>>facts. The mere fact that you question what you have been taught is >>>evidence that parents/teachers/etc., whom you have accused of brainwashing >>>you, cannot, in fact, control what you believe. >>Some are luckier (and/or smarter) than others. Unfortunately, the less >>lucky and the less smart, the more gullible and easily brainwashed, are >>greater in number. > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by > their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, > liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pretty inspired for a bunch of > automatons. I have no idea what relevance Sean McLinden's previous paragraph has to the two that preceded it. Did it sound real good, just in that spot? It certainly didn't make any point. Maybe that was your point: to show that pompous words vested with emotional meaning can be used in the absence of substance to sway people to your point of view. Thanks for showing that. -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen {ihnp4|harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/10/85)
Rich, You have an operative problem here. In trying to remove brainwashing, you are setting yourself up to the impossible. Let us set forth an ideal: All our children shall be taught the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This sounds all right so far. The great problem is, ``who gets to bell the cat?'' Since the whole story of human histry can be viewed as a search for ``the truth'', this one is *never* going to be answered by the time you get around to having kids unless there is some huge sort of unexpected (hmm, maybe for some expected) Divine Revelation. All one can do is allow a huge plurality of beliefs, encourage people to think for themselves, and encourage them to TRAVEL AROUND so that they can actually meet with people of varying beliefs. Will they ever get ``the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?''. Nope. But at least they will have a chance to discover errors in their existing beliefs. I feel very sad for the people who will not choose to look for errors in their existing beliefs. They are missing great oportunities to grow and learn. However the thought of forcing them to look for errors fills me with very real terrors. Don't force them to think -- just make the benefits of thinking apparant. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (02/11/85)
[Replace this message with your line] I've been enjoying the debate here, but now I have a serious question. Jayaram said: > Wasn't it a religious > institution (in this case, the Christian church) that ruled that the > poor guy who said the earth is round should be done away with, since > he was saying things it didn't want to hear? Now I certainly am willing to concede that various Christian churches have done all sorts of rotten things, and not being a Christian I feel no need to defend any of them, but this doesn't sound familiar. What incident is being referred to here? ***************************************************************** This is a generic disclaimer. As such it may contain unsightly impurities. However, these impurities are guaranteed to be purely cosmetic. They should have no effect on the functioning of the disclaimer. ***************************************************************** "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712