fred@inuxc.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) (03/06/84)
THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE WAS ISSUED BY THE L5 LEGISLATIVE ACTION NETWORK " SPACE STATION ALERT!!! To all L-5 members: There is a significant effort in the House Space Science Subcommittee to cut funding for a space station by 50%. A strong showing of public support for a space staion is critical now, just before Congress takes its first vote on the issue. The Administration request for Fiscal 1985 space station definition studies is $150 million. HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP: 1. IMMEDIATELY CALL OR SEND A MAILGRAM to the following two Congressmen, stating briefly in your own words that you support full funding for a space station and incress funding for NASA: Congressman Harold Volkmer Congressman Don Fuqua 1230 Longworth House Office Bldg 2269 Rayburn House Office Bldg Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2956 (202) 225-5235 Although the subcommittee vote is scheduled for March 13, a decision will probably be made a week before that date. ......." There was more to the message but that is the critical information as excuse me while I make some phone calls. Fred Mendenhall AT&T CP (Indianapolis)
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (03/06/84)
+ + When I called Congressman Fuqua's office, the receptionist told me that my call should have been made to the Science and Technology Committee. So, I called them and they said they were logging phone calls and the state I am from to report to the appropriate persons. The phone number for the Science and Technology Committee is: (202) 225-8101 Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
wolit@rabbit.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) (03/06/84)
SPACE STATION ALERT!!! To all U.S. taxpayers: There is a significant effort in the House Space Science Subcommittee to cut funding for a space station by 50%. A strong showing of public opposition to a space station is critical now, just before Congress takes its first vote on the issue. The Administration request for Fiscal 1985 space station definition studies is $150 million. HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP STOP THIS WASTE OF MONEY: 1. IMMEDIATELY CALL OR SEND A MAILGRAM to the following two Congressmen, stating briefly in your own words that you oppose any funding for a space station or increased funding for NASA: Congressman Harold Volkmer Congressman Don Fuqua 1230 Longworth House Office Bldg 2269 Rayburn House Office Bldg Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2956 (202) 225-5235 Although the subcommittee vote is scheduled for March 13, a decision will probably be made a week before that date. Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ (Posted in response to an opposing viewpoint on net.space. Flames to /dev/null.)
dls@hocse.UUCP (03/07/84)
Cute. Why don't you contribute some substantial criticism of the space station as a probject. I'm sure we'd all be interested and the net would be more interesting as a result. If we(space station advocates) can't convince a person such as yourself that a space station is 1)the essential next step in space 2)extremely important to the human future 3)likly to produce significant economic return 4)well worth a billion a year for ten years then maybe we shouldn't have one. But give us a chance to make our case. Dale.
whp@cbnap.UUCP (03/07/84)
FLAME ON: Your whole article seems to be a flame; why didn't you post it in net.flame to begin with? Or in net.politics? Or just in net.taxes? I would guess most of the readers of net.space apprieciated the original information and support tax money investment into space. FLAME OFF. W. H. Pollock
brt@pyuxvv.UUCP (B Reytblat) (03/08/84)
@ <- receive thy gift, o blank-line eater, and let me by.. I've just called the phone number for the Science and Technology Committee (provided by Allen England ihnp4!ihuxb!alle). When I asked the receptionist how many people have called in their support, she said that she didn't know, but that their workload had increased significantly and they will definitely have to work overtime and weekends to catch up. She even wondered whether the callers had intended to slow them up. B.Reytblat ...!pyuxvv!brt
clyde@ut-ngp.UUCP (03/08/84)
<<!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>> > To all U.S. taxpayers: There is a significant effort in the House Space > Science Subcommittee to cut funding for a space station by 50%. A > strong showing of public opposition to a space station is critical now, > just before Congress takes its first vote on the issue. The Administration > request for Fiscal 1985 space station definition studies is $150 > million. HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP STOP THIS WASTE OF MONEY: > 1. IMMEDIATELY CALL OR SEND A MAILGRAM to the following two > Congressmen, stating briefly in your own words that you oppose any > funding for a space station or increased funding for NASA: > (Posted in response to an opposing viewpoint on net.space. > Flames to /dev/null.) ***** No such luck, sucker! If this trash was supposed to be in sarcastic mode, you failed miserably. If this piece was SERIOUS, you are in even a deeper ditch. The building of a space station is long overdue. The U.S. should have built a space station YEARS ago. Going to the moon was fine, but a space station would have set us up for some serious space exploration. Each any and every penny spent on space exploration in general and a space station in particular is WELL worth it. Those who do not believe this are hopelessly stuck in the past (though there will always be those who are - the best we can hope is to prevent them from stopping us). What alternative do YOU suggest to building a space station? -- Clyde W. Hoover @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas (Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots) "The ennui is overpowering" - Marvin clyde@ut-ngp.{UUCP,ARPA} clyde@ut-sally.{UUCP,ARPA} ihnp4!ut-ngp!clyde
wolit@rabbit.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) (03/08/84)
> The building of a space station is long overdue. > The U.S. should have built a space station YEARS ago. Going to the moon > was fine, but a space station would have set us up for some serious > space exploration. > Each any and every penny spent on space exploration in general and a space > station in particular is WELL worth it. Those who do not believe this > are hopelessly stuck in the past (though there will always be those who > are - the best we can hope is to prevent them from stopping us). > What alternative do YOU suggest to building a space station? > -- > Clyde W. Hoover @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas > (Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots) My, what persuasive arguments you have! I still haven't heard what we'd be getting from a space station that's worth even ONE penny, no less "each and every". Just a lot of arm waving and shouting (as if to dead parrots), but no particulars. On the other hand: 1. We've done just fine exploring space without a space station. In fact, we've done just fine without people in space at all. Examples: the Pioneer, Viking, Explorer, Ranger, etc., series. We've returned lunar soil samples with robot probes, photographed the moons of Saturn, all for a LOT less than it would have cost for manned missions, and all without a space station. 2. Building a space station would SLOW DOWN the advance of space science. Every penny spent on a station, is a penny NOT spent on exploration, and they're not talking about pennies, but billions of dollars. Ask an astronomer, planetologist, climatologist, etc., what she'd rather have the money spent on. Scientists are not the ones behind a station. 3. Considering that the Reagan administration is working hard to push high school biology texts back into the 19th century, their commitment to a space station in the name of "science" is hard to swallow. Face it, they want a military base in space before the Russkies get one. They also want it in NASA's budget so the War Department's budget doesn't look quite so bad, and so us geeks can feel like we're supporting science instead of a military machine. 4. If the commercial potential of space is so great, let the companies that will benefit from a station fund it. That's called "investment", and it's the basis of capitalism, which is good, right? Frankly, I don't see the market for perfectly round plastic beads as so promising, but if DuPont wants to pay for it, more power to them. We didn't pay for all the communication satellites that are up there making money, why should we suddenly be getting into the space business business now? (Answer: because the companies concerned either don't think there's any profit in it any more than I do, or they'd rather have us suckers shoulder the risk so they can reap the profits later.) OK, let's hear your arguments, if you have any. Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
kcarroll@utzoo.UUCP (Kieran A. Carroll) (03/09/84)
* We're not going into space simply to do science; the main reason for the space station (perhaps not in the eyes of the administration) is to start opening up space for development and (cover your ears!) exploitation. While all the planetary science is very worthwhile, advancing our theories of solar system formation and all that, they are the areas of space exploration that return The Least to the paying public. Perhaps the scientists who sponsor such missions should actually be the ones to pay for them? Although on their salaries, it's take an awfully long time to scrape up half a billion dollars... (heavy sarcasm) On the other hand, the space station wil provide a place to start learning how to do manufacturing in space, including learning how well people can work there. This will be necessary before such things as lunar mining bases, and solar power satellites can be made to work. Of course, if you feel that mankind is destined to stay on the surface of the earth forever, then perhaps you're right in feeling that a space station is a waste of money. -Kieran A. Carroll ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll
richard@sequent.UUCP (03/10/84)
Several points should be made: o Unmanned mission haven't done "just fine" - if the mars lander had some operational intelligence behind it, all those tests run probably wouldn't have been so indeterminate. o As far as I know, no unmanned mission has every returned samples back to earth, as was suggested. And if unmanned probes are so good, why return samples at all? o Since the trend towards decreasing budgets will inevitably continue (in the long run) it is important to make space a profitable venture as soon as possible. In a few decades, most of our resources will be going simply to keep this world under control, with all the starving billions against us. o Although I agree that any space venture will have some military aspects, this is not just true of the space station. In fact, due to unpopularity with the pentagon, the space station as proposed is justified solely in terms of commercial benefits. o The commercial benefits derived have to do primarily with materials processing. You are aware, of course, that drugs can be made purer and ball bearings rounder in space? Well, that's just the tip of the iceberg. The prime eventual benefit is to get humanity into space on a permanent basis. o As far as taking away the unmanned exploration budget, in the long run, the space station will help. It will be much cheaper to base a telescope in space with facilities right there - the same goes for deep-space launches. It can be hoped that attention on space will relieve some of the earth-side nationalistic pressures, which might let civilization live long enough that some of us will someday take jobs/vacations on the moom/space station. ___________________________________________________________________________ The preceding should not to be construed as the statement or opinion of the employers or associates of the author. It is solely the belief... from the confused and bleeding fingertips of ...!sequent!richard
dave@qtlon.UUCP (Dave Lukes) (03/12/84)
Suggested alternatives to wasting money on a space station: 1) feed a few of the starving people in the world 2) Give all politicians a lobotomy (semi :-)) 3) Build a mock up space station (did you see the movie Capricorn One?) since no-one will be able to tell the difference. But seriously, folks, there ARE a lot more useful ways of spending that much money. Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before making new ones in space? Yours sadly, Dave Lukes (<U.K.>!ukc!qtlon!dave)
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/14/84)
Dave Lukes observes, in part:
But seriously, folks, there ARE a lot more useful ways of spending
that much money.
Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before making new ones in space?
Why not do both? They are in no way mutually exclusive. The money
being spent on space is a drop in the bucket compared to what's already
being spent on the problems of Earth; neither eliminating the space
effort entirely nor beefing it up considerably will have any noticeable
financial effect.
King Ferdinand of Spain (Queen Isabella's husband) had a lot of problems.
Nobody remembers them today. We do remember something else.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrykcarroll@utzoo.UUCP (Kieran A. Carroll) (03/15/84)
* As a matter of fact, sample-return missions have been flown. The Russians sent at least one to the moon, I think as part of their Luna program (yup, I just checked my Jane's; Luna 16 and 20 were successful sample collection missions). The thing included a sample-collecting drill, to obtain surface cores, I think to 14 inches deep. -Kieran A. Carroll ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (03/18/84)
This is unfortunate enough to deserve yet another response:
From: dave@qtlon.UUCP (Dave Lukes)
Suggested alternatives to wasting money on a space station:
1) feed a few of the starving people in the world
The money would not go to feed starving people, it would go for arms.
Even if it would go to feeding people, remember that NASA's budget
has never amounted to a sizeable fraction of the existing social programs.
You don't eat your seed corn, not if you want there to be food later.
The space station is a large step towards the eventual industrialization
and settlement of space, possibly involving the use of solar power satellites
to supplant terrestial sources of power such as fossil fuels, the moving
of much ground-based and polluting industry into space, and access to
very large amounts of resources that are in short supply down here.
Not to mention the immediate development of production of pharmaceuticals
and other products that cannot be produced in quantity (or at all) here.
Any of these things will benefit the starving people of the world.
2) Give all politicians a lobotomy (semi :-))
The main reason Margaret Mead, for instance, was interested in the
settlement of space is that it would give a real chance for the study
of many medium to large scale societies in various stages of isolation
from each other: something no longer possible on this planet.
This would, one would think, have a beneficial effect on the various
social sciences, and might perhaps lead to better political systems.
Considering the way politicians are leading us, societies off this
planet may well be the only ones to survive.
3) Build a mock up space station (did you see the movie
Capricorn One?) since no-one will be able to tell the difference.
As Hans.Moravec%cmu-ri-rover@sri-unix.UUCP pointed out:
One of the most potentially lucrative markets in space is the
manufacture of drugs that are expensive to make on Earth, but easy and
cheap to manufacture in zero gravity. Industry projections show that
space-made pharmaceutical products could generate annual sales of $20
billion by the 1990s.
Two of the first drugs that will be produced in zero gravity in mass
quantities are beta cells, expected to be a single-injection cure for
diabetes; and interferon, used for treating viral infections, cancer
and sexually transmitted Type II herpes.
While he was referring to private space vehicles, the space station would
be an excellent platform for developing just such pharmeceuticals. One
would think a number of diabetics and cancer and herpes victims would
notice the difference.
again From: dave@qtlon.UUCP (Dave Lukes)
But seriously, folks, there ARE a lot more useful ways of spending
that much money.
Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before making new ones
in space?
How about finding about what the space station is for before claiming it
will cause more problems than it will help solve? You give no real arguments
against a space station; you just assert it's bad. Why?
Yours sadly,
Dave Lukes (<U.K.>!ukc!qtlon!dave)
It's somewhat droll that, being in the U.K., you don't even have to pay for it.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqal@ames-lm.UUCP (03/20/84)
In response the the following (edited): Suggested alternatives to wasting money on a space station: 1) feed a few of the starving people in the world Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before making new ones in space? The federal government of the U.S. spends approximately $300-400 billion a year on human services of one sort or another. NASA's budget is approximately $7.7 billion, of which $150 million is earmarked for space station in fiscal 85. I.e., the government spends 50 times as much on trying to solve Earth problems as on NASA as a whole, and about three orders of magnitude more than on the space station. I believe that this is a fairly reasonable ratio, especially considering that NASA's programs have had a large positive effect on the lives of millions of people (communication satellites, pacemakers, computer chips, solar cells, etc.). Communication and weather satellites are particularly effective in aiding the peasants of the world with weather forcasts and communication where no lines have been layed. That's one reason why India and Indonesia have recently put up such satellites. You might be interested to know that NASA's goal is to have a budget equal to 1% of total federal outlay. The present sum is less. This is not an excessive sum to spend on the future. Lastly, reputable economic analysis suggests that each dollar spent on the space program generates $7 - 14 of economic activity. Since the feds take about 25% of every dollar in taxes, each dollar spent on NASA generates $1.75 - 3.50 in tax revenue over the next few years. Think about it.
richard@sequent.UUCP (03/20/84)
>> Suggested alternatives to wasting money on a space station: >> >> 1) feed a few of the starving people in the world >> >> 2) Give all politicians a lobotomy (semi :-)) >> >> 3) Build a mock up space station (did you see the movie Capricorn One?) >> since no-one will be able to tell the difference. >> >> But seriously, folks, there ARE a lot more useful ways of spending >> that much money. Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before >> making new ones in space? You're missing several points Dave. The problem with your suggestions one and two is that it's only a temporary fix. In another generation, you'll have an even larger host of hungry to feed, with less earthly resources to do so. And any intelligent person knows that there would be no noticable differance in the behavior of most politicians after a lobotomy, or even total brain death, for that matter. :-) No real reply is necessary for point three. The important thing is: The money spent in space is an *investment* that may someday solve alot of the worlds problems. Aren't you aware that research in "closed-loop" systems might provide the knowledge needed to feed those billions you worry so much about? And perhaps the psychological research necessary to allow humans to live in such circumstances might someday obviate the world's need for politicians in the first place (not to mention psychiatrists and lawyers - what more could you ask?) Considering the amount wasted each year (trillion dollar defense budgets?) eight billion over a decade is a tiny amount, considering what it will someday buy. Some other ideas: Materials research that can only be done in space might discover a new photovoltaic technique that stops the world's dependency on oil reserves - something that will assuredly lead to war if left alone. Drug research taking advantage of micro-gravity might cure cancer, provide better birth-control drugs, or even teach us how to enable crops to fix nitrogen from the air, as opposed to fertilizers. International competition in space between the superpowers might reduce the competition on the ground. Orbital analysis of the earth might help us understand the ecology of spaceship earth - combine that with the "closed system" research, and you might get some interesting new data on what we're doing to our nest. Sit back and think a few minutes, or listen (with an *open* mind) to some of the pro-space people, and you'll hear so many ideas it'll make your head spin. Feeding the poor without attempting to solve the *problem* of hunger is treating the symptoms and ignoring the disease. The patient will eventually die. ___________________________________________________________________________ The preceding should not to be construed as the statement or opinion of the employers or associates of the author. It is solely the belief... from the confused and bleeding fingertips of ...!sequent!richard
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (03/21/84)
I personally think that the government spending ratio (7.7G$ for space vs 350G$(?) for human needs) is *not* "about right"; it is grossly short- sighted and dangerous financially, and furthermore most of the "human needs" money does not help any of the people its designed to help in any lasting way. One last cheap shot - its draining the nation of its will and spirit. This country (indeed, the world) needs the frontier and the promise of space to grow spiritually (if you can still believe in such) as well as all the other ways mentioned above. Spend on (at least for space), I say. -- Lyle McElhaney (hao,brl-bmd,nbires,csu-cs,scgvaxd)!denelcor!lmc
wombat@uicsl.UUCP (03/24/84)
#R:pyuxvv:-19400:uicsl:11100021:000:463 uicsl!wombat Mar 23 10:23:00 1984 The most recent Science News told about a new U. of Michigan study that shows only about 7% of the people on welfare at any one time are semi-permanent welfarites. Most of the people who take welfare take it for a short time, just long enough to recover from some crisis in the family. A bit more encouraging than most reports these days. But it's not like the whole NASA budget would do much more for social services. Wombat ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat
holt@parsec.UUCP (03/28/84)
#R:pyuxvv:-19400:parsec:42600003:000:1074
parsec!holt Mar 27 12:45:00 1984
"Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before making new ones in
space?"
Yours sadly,
Dave Lukes (<U.K.>!ukc!qtlon!dave)
Please Dave,
This argument just won't do. If the human race waited to solve
all of its problems on earth befor going into space, then we would
NEVER go into space. In other words, we'll never solve all of our
problems on earth. In fact, I would guess that new ones will spring up
as fast as we solve the old ones.
Let's spread out the human race a little. Then that one stupid
mistake by one set of stupid politicians (which is sure to happen sooner
or later on our beloved little planet) won't exterminate our species.
As a matter of fact, it is highly likely that most of the people
who do colonize space will possess "superior" genes. Thus, from an
evolutionary standpoint, the "space people" of a couple of centuries in
the future, will have improved a sector of the species.
Ignoring genetic engineering for the sake of this discussion,
Dave Holt
Convex Computer Corp.
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!parsec!holtfred@inuxc.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) (05/06/84)
I received the following Spacepac alert Saturday May 5, 1984
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPACEPAC Emergency Alert
Suite S
2801-B Ocean Park Blvd
Santa Monica CA 90405
VICTORY IS NEAR: ONE MORE SHORT, FOCUSED, MAXIMUM EFFORT IS REQUIRED!
Thanks in part to your efforts, the space station victory is within sight.
Of the three swing-vote Congressmen that we asked people to contact in the last
E-COM message, one is now on our side and the other two are leaning in our
direction. Dr. Hans Mark, Deputy Administration of NASA, has recently written
us commending our pro space station efforts.
We have come from behind to a position where we have at least an even
chance of victory despite significant organized opposition. This battle is
being fought in the most difficult of all the subcommittees that the space
station legislation is faced with. If we lose here, we will be forced to
engage in a long series of expensive time-consuming battles, the main objective
of which will be damage control.
Thus we are calling upon everyone for a short, maximum effort drive aimed
at obtaining a decisive victory. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY CALL OR TELEGRAM
CONGRESSMAN EDWARD P. BOLAND, even if you have recently done so. As Chairman,
he is by far the most powerful Congressman an the Committee. At this point
his blessing would be decisive. WE HAVE UNTIL THE END OF BUSINESS HOURS ON
TUESDAY, MAY 8, TO REACH CONGRESSMAN BOLAND BY PUBLIC OPINION TELEGRAM OR BY
PHONE. Phone calls should be made during business hours in Washington;
BOLAND'S PHONE NUMBER IS (202) 225-5601. Public Opinion Telegrams (20 words or
less, address not needed) may be sent any hour of the day or night by calling
Western Union at the toll-free number listed in the white pages of your phone
book. ASK CONGRESSMAN BOLAND TO SUPPORT FULL FUNDING ($150 MILLION) FOR THE
PERMANENTLY MANNED SPACE STATION. Don't forget to ask your friends to help.
The space station war has become an enormous undertaking. Examples of the
types of activities that L-5 and Spacepac are engaged in include: E-COM; phone
tree alerts; mail to people outside of our collective membership; local and
foreign chapter alerts; efforts to obtain help from other organizations;
special local efforts aimed at key Congressmen, such as visits from our local
people; Congressional testimony; potential Spacepac donations to campaigns;
Washington lobbying activity (Gary Oleson, our Washington representative,
has been working only half time for the last three months in order to volunteer
more time to these efforts); as well as an enormous amount of volunteer time.
We do this because it is important. It is also expensive. We need not only
your time, but also your dollars. These should be sent to Spacepac (Dept. X)
at the above return address. Remember, you are entitled to a 50% tax credit
for the first $100 donated ($200 for couples), whether you itemize or not.
Our entire internation network is totally mobilized and committed. The
system is under enormous strain. We need whatever help you can give.
Signed: Mark M Hopkins, Spacepac Chairman, L-5 Society Executive Vice Pres.
(E-COM software by Lagrange Systems, 3231 Audley Suit 104 Houston TX 77098)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, you have all read it. I hear a lot of lip banging on this net about
support for the space program and the space station. Here is your chance to
do something more productive than pounding a keyboard.
CALL NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fred Mendenhall AT&T CP
Indianapolis, Indianapalmer@uw-june.UUCP (05/07/84)
<>
It's time to get on the horn and start the wheels of politics
rolling.
Call Congressman EDWARD P. BOLAND, (202) 225-5601. He is Chairman
of the House Appropriations committee, which makes him rather
influential. Ask him to support FULL FUNDING FOR A PERMANENTLY MANNED
SPACE STATION.
We have until the end of business hours on Tuesday, May 8 to get
our voices in. CALL NOW. If it is after Tuesday, call him anyway.
ANY statement of support will help.
I called his office at 10:40 EDT this morning, and they had already
logged 50 calls. This is what is known, in political circles, as a
groundswell, and it will not be ignored IF WE KEEP IT UP.
Phone today, it will make the future a much better place to live in.
That's CONGRESSMAN EDWARD P. BOLAND (202) 225-5601. Do it.
David Palmerjeff@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Bishop) (05/08/84)
<> Why do we need a Space Station???? Jeff Bishop || University of Chicago ...ihnp4!oddjob!jeff || Astrology & Astrophysics Center
els@pur-phy.UUCP (Eric Strobel) (05/09/84)
Astrology ???? and Astrophysics ? I guess that explains why someone (possibly) involved in Astrophysics would ask why a space station is needed!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | "Things always look | A message from the mental maze that darkest just before | calls itself: they go totally black!!" | | -- Col. Hannibal Smith | ERIC STROBEL | --------------------------------| UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:els INTERNET: els @ pur-phy.UUCP