benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) (11/17/89)
Ok, here's an idea; How do you guys feel about alt.kids, rather than
soc.kids, and the more suggestive rec.kids?
That way, as I understand it, sites could take it or leave it.
(Somebody fill me in on the exact difference between alt groups and
rec., misc, and biz., etc. groups!)
--
|Opus and Frodo live! | "Sometimes, when your cat just died and you've cut
off your favorite appendage(s) with a power saw and there's epoxy in the
Visine and you brush your teeth with Clearasil it helps to say 'What the
f*ck'" | This signature consists of non-blanks separated by blanks.ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) (11/18/89)
[Please note! Followups to alt.config, not news.groups!]
>>>>> On 17 Nov 89 03:29:39 GMT, benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) said:
Ben> Ok, here's an idea; How do you guys feel about alt.kids, rather than
Ben> soc.kids, and the more suggestive rec.kids?
Ben> That way, as I understand it, sites could take it or leave it.
Ben> (Somebody fill me in on the exact difference between alt groups and
Ben> rec., misc, and biz., etc. groups!)
Making it alt.kids sounds fine to me. If there's no massive outcry by
Thanksgiving, I'll newgroup it.
Now, the background for Ben, and a little tongue-in-cheek commentary for
everyone else [hit 'n' if you don't care]:
The difference between alt. and mainstream groups
[i.e. {comp,rec,sci,misc,soc,talk,news}.all]
as seen by Chris Davis.
DISCLAIMER: I am not the Backbone Cabal.
alt.groups can be created by anyone. However, this is counterbalanced by
the fact that they can be *removed* by anyone. This is what happens to
frivolous newsgroups, like alt.sex.carasso, that are created without so
much as a 'by-your-leave' in alt.config. [Topical reference: this article
is, basically, the "fair warning" part of the alt.niceties.] At times, the
creation (and removal, and re-creation, and re-removal...) of an alt.group
will be accompanied by flame wars in one or more of the following:
The new group itself
alt.config
alt.flame
Mainstream groups can also be created by anyone. However, with these
groups, it is required that they first have a Call for Discussion, then a
Call for Votes, then a Call for Flames, then a Call for Vote Flames, and
then Jeff Daiell will start a pun thread. [Note for the humor-impaired: I
am not serious. Jeff will usually start the pun thread *before* the Call
for Flames.] Then a gazillion people will vote, the vote will either pass
or not pass, and 20 people will start complaining that their votes were not
received and that the vote was crooked. The flame wars will be in one or
more of the following groups, but not limited thereto:
news.groups
alt.flame
alt.aquaria
talk.bizarre
misc.test
rec.humor.funny
The advantages of the mainstream system are that flame wars are usually
seen both before and after the creation of the group.
That and the puns.
--
Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet>
"Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand."edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (11/24/89)
In article <1989Nov17.032939.11435@ddsw1.MCS.COM> benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) writes: >Ok, here's an idea; How do you guys feel about alt.kids, rather than >soc.kids, and the more suggestive rec.kids? > That way, as I understand it, sites could take it or leave it. > (Somebody fill me in on the exact difference between alt groups and > rec., misc, and biz., etc. groups!) I think that's an excellent idea. It's the old "let's try it without having to annoy easily annoyed people" method and will give the concept a chance to sink or swim (please, no fishy jokes) on it's own merits. I wouldn't have to "vote" on it, simply propogate it (at least what of alt comes here to the boonies hanging directly off a major backbone). Ed. A. Hew Authorized Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew ->home: edhew@xenitec.on.ca -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!edhew # This posting has absolutely nothing to do with what I do for a living.
bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman) (11/25/89)
In article <1989Nov17.032939.11435@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) writes: > Ok, here's an idea; How do you guys feel about alt.kids, rather than > soc.kids, and the more suggestive rec.kids? I don't care what the name is; this group is inappropriate for USENET. Let 'em use CompuServe. -- Bob Weissman USENET administrator for omni.com Internet: <bob@omni.com> UUCP: ...!{apple,pyramid,sgi,tekbspa,uunet}!koosh!bob
benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) (11/26/89)
In article <1222@mondo.omni.com> bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman) writes: >In article <1989Nov17.032939.11435@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) writes: >> Ok, here's an idea; How do you guys feel about alt.kids, rather than >> soc.kids, and the more suggestive rec.kids? > >I don't care what the name is; this group is inappropriate for USENET. > >Let 'em use CompuServe. Please note: If: a) Your initials are B.W. b) Your first name is Bob c) You are prejudiced against those under 5'7" d) You have an interest in alt.kids , please continue reading. Otherwise, hit [space] now. AAAAAARGGH!!!! I can't believe this attitude! What do you MEAN, "inappropriate?" In what way? Why should those under 18 be denied access to a public-access network? And in any case, you misspelled Compu$erve. The '$' is important - without it you lose the full meaning of the word, for Compu$erve is the domain of they who have the ca$h. The Usenet is a wonderful system. I never fail to find at least an hour's worth of interesting reading every day. Why should kids such as myself be denied an open forum to express our own views, and be assured of having an audience of our peers? I KNOW that there are many kids on the net, and all we need is a group for a kind of free conversation found nowhere else, and for the cost of a phone call, no more. " > -- |Opus and Frodo live! | "Sometimes, when your cat just died and you've cut off your favorite appendage(s) with a power saw and there's epoxy in the Visine and you brush your teeth with Clearasil it helps to say 'What the f*ck'" | This signature consists of non-blanks separated by blanks.
bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman) (11/28/89)
In article <1989Nov26.043958.771@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) writes: > In article <1222@mondo.omni.com> bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman) writes: > >In article <1989Nov17.032939.11435@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) writes: > >> Ok, here's an idea; How do you guys feel about alt.kids, rather than > >> soc.kids, and the more suggestive rec.kids? > > > >I don't care what the name is; this group is inappropriate for USENET. > > > >Let 'em use CompuServe. > > AAAAAARGGH!!!! I can't believe this attitude! What do you MEAN, > "inappropriate?" In what way? Why should those under 18 be denied access to > a public-access network? I didn't say you should be denied access. You obviously already have that, anyway. You called for discussion about a newsgroup, and you got it. Don't scream. USENET has historically been limited to those of college age and above, simply because of the lack of physical net access by kids. It is already vastly overloaded. I would like you not to contribute to that overload with traffic which would only be of interest to a tiny minority of net readers. > And in any case, you misspelled Compu$erve. The > '$' is important - without it you lose the full meaning of the word, for > Compu$erve is the domain of they who have the ca$h. Listen up, junior. USENET isn't free, either. It costs real money to send your postings around the world. > The Usenet is a wonderful system. I never fail to find at least an > hour's worth of interesting reading every day. Agreed. > Why should kids such as > myself be denied an open forum to express our own views, and be assured of > having an audience of our peers? Nobody is denying you an open forum to express your views. You are perfectly free to write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, or stand and picket outside the White House. (I often wish more people would participate at this level rather than taking the easy way out by posting to the net.) Furthermore, if you can participate in an adult manner in the existing USENET newsgroups, then you are entirely welcome to do so. As for why you shouldn't be adding to USENET traffic with kid-specific postings, that's easy: because you're not paying for it. > I KNOW that there are many kids on the > net, and all we need is a group for a kind of free conversation found > nowhere else, and for the cost of a phone call, no more. There are plenty of BBS systems around. Use them. This system is clogged enough as it is with drivel from so-called adults... -- Bob Weissman USENET administrator for omni.com Internet: bob@omni.com UUCP: ...!{apple,pyramid,sgi,tekbspa,uunet}!koosh!bob
benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) (11/28/89)
>USENET has historically been limited to those of college age and above, >simply because of the lack of physical net access by kids. It is already >vastly overloaded. I would like you not to contribute to that overload >with traffic which would only be of interest to a tiny minority of net >readers. What about rec.nude? How many nudists do you know? And now that I've proposed it as an alt. group, I can use the example I noted before: alt.wicca is not exactly one of the more interesting newsgroups, but existed. Alt.sex.bondage? Get real! Alt.bizarre is high-traffic, but most of the articles consist of: The moon is high So high in the sky So high, so high. At least I am now hahahaha... This is literature? All I wanna do is see how people feel about a group which I think is of interest to at least as many people as, say, alt.sex.carasso, eh? >> I KNOW that there are many kids on the >> net, and all we need is a group for a kind of free conversation found >> nowhere else, and for the cost of a phone call, no more. >There are plenty of BBS systems around. Use them. This system is >clogged enough as it is with drivel from so-called adults... Not many BBS systems can reach London from Mundelien, Illinois. > -- |Opus and Frodo live! | "Sometimes, when your cat just died and you've cut off your favorite appendage(s) with a power saw and there's epoxy in the Visine and you brush your teeth with Clearasil it helps to say 'What the f*ck'" | This signature consists of non-blanks separated by blanks.
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (11/29/89)
In article <1233@borabora.omni.com> bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman) writes: >In article <1989Nov26.043958.771@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) writes: >> In article <1222@mondo.omni.com> bob@omni.com (Bob Weissman) writes: >> >In article <1989Nov17.032939.11435@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) writes: >> >> Ok, here's an idea; How do you guys feel about alt.kids, rather than >> >> soc.kids, and the more suggestive rec.kids? >> >I don't care what the name is; this group is inappropriate for USENET. >> >Let 'em use CompuServe. >> >> AAAAAARGGH!!!! I can't believe this attitude! What do you MEAN, >> "inappropriate?" In what way? Why should those under 18 be denied access to >> a public-access network? > >I didn't say you should be denied access. You obviously already have >that, anyway. You called for discussion about a newsgroup, and you got >it. Don't scream. I find your idea of the Usenet somehow being inappropriate for those under a certain age bigoted and unrealistic. Why should those who are under-age be singled out? >USENET has historically been limited to those of college age and above, >simply because of the lack of physical net access by kids. It is already >vastly overloaded. I would like you not to contribute to that overload >with traffic which would only be of interest to a tiny minority of net >readers. The net is >not< overloaded any more than you allow it to be. If you want to talk about things of interest to a tiny number of readers, well, we could talk about talk.bizarre, or alt.sex, or any one of a number of other groups. But I won't do that. >> And in any case, you misspelled Compu$erve. The >> '$' is important - without it you lose the full meaning of the word, for >> Compu$erve is the domain of they who have the ca$h. > >Listen up, junior. USENET isn't free, either. It costs real money to >send your postings around the world. Listen up senior. Ben is aware that Usenet isn't free. He even pays to access it, out of his own pocket. We're a public access site here, I own a portion of the machine, and by Gods, Ben pulls his own weight. He's also more articulate and less offensive, on the balance, than any one of a few hundred posters that are "of college age or above". See the recent chain letter, the JJ fiasco, or any one of a hundred other examples for details. All perpetrated by so-called adults. >Nobody is denying you an open forum to express your views. You are >perfectly free to write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, >or stand and picket outside the White House. (I often wish more people >would participate at this level rather than taking the easy way out >by posting to the net.) > >Furthermore, if you can participate in an adult manner in the existing >USENET newsgroups, then you are entirely welcome to do so. > >As for why you shouldn't be adding to USENET traffic with kid-specific >postings, that's easy: because you're not paying for it. Ok, I AM PAYING FOR IT. And I don't have a problem with the proposal, especially in alt.*. If you're an admin, and don't like it, then don't carry the group. Simple. >> I KNOW that there are many kids on the >> net, and all we need is a group for a kind of free conversation found >> nowhere else, and for the cost of a phone call, no more. > >There are plenty of BBS systems around. Use them. This system is >clogged enough as it is with drivel from so-called adults... Well-said. We could use a few thinking under-age people on this net; it would help to drown out the noise. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
dveditz@dbase.UUCP (Dan Veditz) (12/02/89)
If you want an alt. group, there's no need for much discussion, just get your sysadmin (or any other sympathetic sysadmin) to newgroup it, and send mail to Spaf asking him to include the name on his monthly postings (some sites use this list to determine which alt groups are "official", as if that meant anything). Personally, I'd rather see soc.kids. Another option would be to announce that you're going to start posting in soc.misc or misc.misc and see how much traffic turns up, and how valuable it is. A vote on soc.kids right now would not reflect the amount or lack of interest in such a group -- some people would vote NO out of bigotry, others would vote YES to counter balance the NO's but wouldn't actually read the group themselves. Once you have an idea how many people are interested, then come back for a soc.kids vote. -Dan Veditz uunet!ashtate!dveditz dveditz@ashtate.A-T.COM
benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) (12/04/89)
In article <311@dbase.UUCP> dveditz@ashtate.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) writes: >If you want an alt. group, there's no need for much discussion, just get >your sysadmin (or any other sympathetic sysadmin) to newgroup it, and send >mail to Spaf asking him to include the name on his monthly postings (some >sites use this list to determine which alt groups are "official", as if >that meant anything). It's already been created :-) To everybody: Are you recieving alt.kids-talk yet? If not, find out why! I can't find out how much interest there is without it even being distributed! -- |Opus and Frodo live! | "Sometimes, when your cat just died and you've cut off your favorite appendage(s) with a power saw and there's epoxy in the Visine and you brush your teeth with Clearasil it helps to say 'What the f*ck'" | This signature consists of non-blanks separated by blanks.
lori@hacgate.UUCP (Lori Barfield) (12/06/89)
OK, I've been biting my tongue long enuff. Here's My Arrogant Opinion:
I like the idea of a group oriented to kids, whether it has to start
out under the anarchy class (alt.) or not. Right now, the closest
thing is misc.kids. That is a parenting-oriented group, and yes, we're
quite mundane. There are many things I'd enjoy debating in an open
forum dominated by kids: school, books and movies, vacations,
siblings and parents, moving to a new home, hobbies, pets....
(The way this discussion's been going so far, the first topic should
be discrimination by adults!)
What I'd love most to see are postings of poetry, humor, and creative
writing by kid (and kidphile) contributors.
Such a newsgroup with an international distribution would be
interesting to watch-- how would a child attending sixth grade in
the UK see things differently from a kid the same age in, say, Texas?
"?.kids-only" would not be a good name, since it would imply
exclusivity inappropriate for any public forum.
...lori
P.S. If a kids' group ever gets to a Call for Votes, I think the votes
should be weighted inversely by the age of the caster. ;-)
P.P.S. Note the cross-post.antony@lbl-csam.arpa (Antony A. Courtney) (12/06/89)
In article <6352@hacgate.UUCP> lori@hacgate.UUCP (Lori Barfield) writes: > >OK, I've been biting my tongue long enuff. Here's My Arrogant Opinion: > >I like the idea of a group oriented to kids, whether it has to start >out under the anarchy class (alt.) or not. Right now, the closest >thing is misc.kids. That is a parenting-oriented group, and yes, we're >quite mundane. There are many things I'd enjoy debating in an open >forum dominated by kids: school, books and movies, vacations, >siblings and parents, moving to a new home, hobbies, pets.... > > [...] > >Such a newsgroup with an international distribution would be >interesting to watch-- how would a child attending sixth grade in >the UK see things differently from a kid the same age in, say, Texas? I agree, but I somehow doubt there are many 6 year olds on the net. ;-) I wasn't even on the net until I was 11, and that seems very early. > >"?.kids-only" would not be a good name, since it would imply >exclusivity inappropriate for any public forum. I wholeheartedly agree. The basic idea should be to have a newsgroup where "kids" are the dominating force and can feel it is their domain. And where adults can post their opinions in a reasonable, non-condescending manner, if they wish to get some insight from a "younger perspective" :-) >P.S. If a kids' group ever gets to a Call for Votes, I think the votes > should be weighted inversely by the age of the caster. ;-) Right. This is an odd issue. I suspect there are RELATIVELY few of us out here(although I hope that will change in the near future), so the volume of such a group would probably be quite low. However, because of this, there aren't enough of us to have the voting power to get a new newsgroup created. (Not to say that I'm not above NNTP or SMTP impersonations, mind you...) >P.P.S. Note the cross-post. Yes. It would be neat to see frequent cross-posts between the groups, with those interested in raising kids getting input from kids, and those of us who are trying to raise parents getting input from other adult-types. > >...lori Also, with all due respect, I don't see how posting "do this if you want to post" or posting the list of smilies is particularly appropriate. Seemed a bit condescending, if anything. Suffice it to say, if you are having problems posting, talk to someone in charge of the site from which you read news. Cheers, antony -- ******************************************************************************* Antony A. Courtney antony@lbl.gov Advanced Development Group ucbvax!lbl-csam.arpa!antony Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory AACourtney@lbl.gov
joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu (Jochen M. Fritz) (12/06/89)
The question is: do enough kids have access to the net to justify such a group? Jochen Fritz joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu If all else fails, be more general. Failing that, say "42".
woodd@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WOOD DEREK H) (12/06/89)
That all depends on what we would decide to call a 'kid'. If its under the age of 18, there are a lot of college students who are 'kids'. And, of course, Zaphod and all the others are correct with 42.
bee@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (12/07/89)
Said woodd@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WOOD DEREK H): (in article <14610@boulder.Colorado.EDU>) | |That all depends on what we would decide to call a 'kid'. If its under the |age of 18, there are a lot of college students who are 'kids'. And, of |course, Zaphod and all the others are correct with 42. Actually I've been deliberately avoiding this line of discussion because the one thing I have to say will likely get my mailbox filled with flames. Although I will agree that 42 is of course the answer. Well, since I'm posting, I might as well make my one comment; it seems to me that all of this talk about creating a group for kids to talk is redundant. After all, we already have talk.bizarre. [ quickly activating thermal shield ] B.E.E. -- Z. Beeblebrox | I live with two people, I like both of them. (alias B. Elmore) | He likes both of me and I like both of him. bee@cs.purdue.edu | They're my alter egos and to them I'm wed, ..!purdue!bee | 'Cause I'm happy I live in a split-level head. -- Nap. XIV
benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) (12/07/89)
In article <^N+ZQ|@rpi.edu> joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu (Jochen M. Fritz) writes: >The question is: do enough kids have access to the net to justify such >a group? > A) Have you ever checked? B) Has ANYONE ever checked? C) Do alt. groups have to be justified? To answer your question, maybe not. But we'll DEFINITELY top e. e. carasso's 180 readers worldwide in alt.sex.carasso.snuggles. P.S. Hi Tony! I'm the only other kid here, and I'm the creator of this group! P.P.S. Well, not the creator - I have many people from misc.kids to thank for the idea. I just proposed it to my sysadm. -- |Opus and Frodo live! | "Sometimes, when your cat just died and you've cut off your favorite appendage(s) with a power saw and there's epoxy in the Visine and you brush your teeth with Clearasil it helps to say 'What the f*ck'" | This signature consists of non-blanks separated by blanks.
dattier@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (David W. Tamkin) (12/08/89)
joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu (Jochen M. Fritz) asked in <^N+ZQ|@rpi.edu>: | The question is: do enough kids have access to the net to justify such | a group [as alt.kids-talk]? There aren't a very large number of people like Antony Courtney and Narciso Jamarillo around the corporate and university sites, perhaps, but I think Jochen is overlooking the public sites, such as those from which Ben Feen (who first proposed the group) and I (a former kid, admittedly) read news. Followups to news.gripes, er, .froups, please. -- David W. Tamkin dattier@jolnet.orpk.il.us ...!attctc!jolnet!dattier P. O. Box 813 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 The opinions above are mine.
andy@hydra.unm.edu ( Andrew Eberhart) (12/08/89)
In article <^N+ZQ|@rpi.edu> joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu (Jochen M. Fritz) writes: >The question is: do enough kids have access to the net to justify such >a group? Ah thur op kot!! <pop!> Oh, sorry. I forgot to take my thumb out. I said I sure hope not! Andy ( :-[ )
benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) (12/08/89)
In article <14610@boulder.Colorado.EDU> woodd@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WOOD DEREK H) writes: > >That all depends on what we would decide to call a 'kid'. If its under the >age of 18, there are a lot of college students who are 'kids'. And, of >course, Zaphod and all the others are correct with 42. Let's say a kid is whatever you think you are. Is that a good definition? -- |Opus and Frodo live! | "Sometimes, when your cat just died and you've cut off your favorite appendage(s) with a power saw and there's epoxy in the Visine and you brush your teeth with Clearasil it helps to say 'What the f*ck'" | This signature consists of non-blanks separated by blanks.
thomas@shire.cs.psu.edu (Angela Marie Thomas) (12/09/89)
In article <^N+ZQ|@rpi.edu> joefritz@pawl.rpi.edu (Jochen M. Fritz) writes:
The question is: do enough kids have access to the net to justify such
a group?
I would say, yes. With public access Unix systems and fidonet on
Usenet, anyone who has a computer and modem has access to Usenet.
Granted, 7-8 year olds might not be reading/posting, but I would
guess that 10+ year olds are reading/posting right under our noses!
(I know I was at 13 O:-)
If we encourage kids to read/post maybe we can discourage them from
becoming "bad" hackers by helping them to become "good" hackers.
--
Angela Thomas Internet: thomas@shire.cs.psu.edu
PSU Comp Sci BITNET: thomas@psuvax1
Turing Police UUCP: {...}!psuvax1!thomasTURSHEN@AUVM.BITNET (12/10/89)
quit
benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) (12/11/89)
>quit Is there a point to this message? -- |Opus and Frodo live! | "Sometimes, when your cat just died and you've cut off your favorite appendage(s) with a power saw and there's epoxy in the Visine and you brush your teeth with Clearasil it helps to say 'What the f*ck'" | This signature consists of non-blanks separated by blanks.
lesatz@castor.usc.edu (Eric Michals) (12/11/89)
In article <1989Dec10.170421.4558@ddsw1.MCS.COM> benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) writes: >>quit > >Is there a point to this message? Seems like someone doesn't know how to use the net. The least he could have done is deleted the article..but is there a point to your message? There isn't one to mine...
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (12/11/89)
In article <6973@chaph.usc.edu> lesatz@castor.usc.edu (Eric Michals) writes: |In article <1989Dec10.170421.4558@ddsw1.MCS.COM> benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) writes: |>>quit |> |>Is there a point to this message? | |Seems like someone doesn't know how to use the net. The least he could |have done is deleted the article.. Are you suggesting that someone who "doesn't know how to use the net" would have enough information or experience to cancel an article? | but is there a point to your |message? | |There isn't one to mine... Small one to mine... :-) -- ________Robert J. Granvin________ INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org ____National Computer Systems____ BITNET: rjg%sialis.mn.org@nic.mr.net __National Information Services__ UUCP: ...amdahl!bungia!sialis!rjg "Go ahead... be naughty. Save Santa the trip."