Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 348
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 348
Monday, January 14th 1991
Today's Topics:
Call The Wrong Number!
Re: Don Ecker
Re: Couldn't resist
Re: Need Information
RE: Chuck Harder: FOR THE PEOPLE radio show
Re: Don Ecker
Re: Couldn't Resist
Re: Scanner & OCR
Re: Scanner & OCR
Re: Need information
Re: Couldn't resist
Eclipse
Re: Scanner & Ocr
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Clark.Matthews@p0.f4.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Clark Matthews)
Subject: Call The Wrong Number!
Date: 10 Jan 91 21:28:00 GMT
After many travails, I'm pleased to announce the availability of The Wrong
Number BBS to users and researchers in the N.Y./Northern N.J. area! All ParaNet
International Message Echoes are fully functional (except InterNet/UNIX
gateway). File library areas are still under construction. Areas will include
key ParaNet files and remarkable
Alternate Technology/Free Energy/Anti-Gravity articles, papers, and
demonstration reports courtesy of the Vanguard Sciences
Foundation/KeeleyNet.
The Wrong Number BBS
ParaNet Pi (1012/4.0) A KeeleyNet/Vanguard Sciences
Affiliate
(201) 451-3063 300/1200/2400 24 hrs. PC Pursuitable @ NJNEW
z z z 3 z z z z
z z 3 z z z z
z z z 3 z Thankszfor callingzThe Wrong NumberzBBS!z
z IKKKK; IKKNK; z z
z GWWWW6 GWWWW6 3 zServing N.Y. &zNorthern N.J. as ParaNet Pi
zGWWWW6 GWWWW6zZP? z
z GWWWW6 GWWWW6ZOMO? z _ z z z
z GWWWW6 GWWWW63###3 _1_z z z z
U UMMMJJJJJJ8GWWWW63###3__111 __|__
z VN7z 3ppppppppp3GWWWW63###300111 ._____/ z
z VJJJ7 3ppppppppp3GWWWW63###300111 z / \z z z
VNNNNN73ppppp[_[_[_[_[_[_[##30[[[[] z
z :ccccc:3ppppp:~\~\~\~\~\~:##30]]]]] z z
:::::::3ppppVWRRRRR7~\~\~:##30[^^^]11 z z z
\ VNNNNNNN4ppppLNNNNNN9~\~\~:##30]]]]]111 V7 __ z V7
0\:ccccccc3p^[[CEEEEEE4~\~\~:##30[^^^]1212:\0V::71102_____________V::7____\00
VNNNNNNNN5p^^^CEEEEEE4~\~\~:2220]]]]]22_ I::::; I::::;
:cccccccc3p^^^CEEEEEE4~\~\~:2220[^^^]2 V::::::::7 V::::::::7
:::::::::3p^^^CEEEEEE4~\~\~:2220]]]]]VI::::::::::::::;;7RVII::::::::::::::;
___[[\\\\\3p^^^CEEEEEE4~\~\~:222\[[[[_________::___________________::_______
___[[[^^^CEEEEEE4\[[[[[[[____ :: ::
____[[[[[[[[[[____ S= S=
--
Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:310/8
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@p0.f4.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Houston.Mayer@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Houston Mayer)
Subject: Re: Don Ecker
Date: 11 Jan 91 02:40:00 GMT
Maybe he could provide a few tips for some of us out here that have the hand
held scanners.
--
Houston Mayer - via FidoNet node 1:310/8
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Houston.Mayer@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pecan.cray.com!keith@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM
Subject: Re: Couldn't resist
Date: 11 Jan 91 18:02:43 GMT
From: keith@pecan.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks)
Rick Moen writes:
> This posting gives me high hopes that you intend to post a few
> insights,
Insight Number 1.
Skeptics appear to focus on only one area of investigation implying
strongly that only one area of investigation is worthy of scrutiny.
If skepticism a la BAS and PSICOP is a necessary part of science,
as has been implied, then it should be applied across the board.
We should expect to see in a review of, say, The Skeptical Inquirer
that skepticism has been applied uniformly throughout science.
But that's not the way it works! PSICOP is set up only to investigate
claims of the paranormal.
If skeptics really believe in what they are preaching, then they
should be injecting themselves into all disciplines of science
equally, not in just one area exclusively.
Skeptics should insist that magician representatives be present
during ANY scientific investigations of any type.
This leads to the idea that skeptics are biased philosophically
since they have chosen to focus on only one area of investigation.
Philosophical bias of this kind does not fit in with the idea of
even-handed scientific investigation.
In my opinion, this is not a matter of being closed-minded, but
rather of being wrong-headed.
Insight Number 2.
Since it is possible to apply this skepticism evenly across the
board, we should indeed look at applying it to every area of
investigation.
If skepticism is as robust as some might have us believe, then
it too should be subjected to a skeptical analysis and survive
the bootstrap. This is left as an exercise for the skeptic.
Insight Number 3.
I believe that skeptics are in the business of putting up road
blocks. They probably would deny this saying that you can
investigate anything you want (and please let us judge it for
you).
Open ridicule for the idea of the existance of psychic functioning
(as in the cutesy news release) and the portrayal of skeptical
organizations as open to any ideas (as long as they are interesting)
is contradictory.
Skeptics imply the condemnation of an entire path
of thinking and then expect proponents of that same path of thinking
to consult the skeptic organizations. Now there's some real humor!
Insight Number 4.
> other than the one about how open-minded you are
The value of brainstorming as a way of thinking is that we get
lots of ideas. Many of the ideas that are generated by a brain-
storming process are apparently crazy, but may serve a purpose
of spurring other ideas that turn out to be quite useful.
In brainstorming sessions, judgement of ideas is suspended till
the session is over. In this way the free-flow of ideas is
not inhibited, but promoted. It is well known that judgement
can easily kill a brainstorming session.
Suspension of judgement about an idea or a path of thinking
is an important part of the creative thought process. An
important workable idea often arises from a really crazy idea,
an idea that would have been closed-off by judgement.
Mailing lists like ParaNet have a great potential for generating
lots of ideas. We should probably go for a good balance
between generating lots of ideas with brainstorming and
judging those ideas.
I believe that ParaNet is currently
skewed to the judgemental side. This probably has the side
effect of lots of potential posters not posting because they
are afraid of getting flamed by the skeptics.
It would be easier to throw an idea out on a non-judgemental
mailing list than to lay yourself open to ridicule on a
judgemental mailing list.
> and how closed-minded sundry folk who have the temerity to call
> themselves skeptics are,
As I mentioned above, I think that it is not necessarily a problem
of being closed-minded but a problem of being wrong-headed.
The approach that I have outlined above of condemning a path of
thought and then inviting people who use that line of thought
to be evaluated by your organizations simply does not make sense.
> with which you have favoured us -- oh -- at least a few times.
Sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver is so low that
redundancy must be employed at the transmitter to ensure reliable
transmission.
-keith
--
Keith Fredericks, Cray Research Inc., 655F Lone Oak Dr., Eagan, MN 55121
keith@cray.com (612)MUD-KITY Fax: (612)MUD-KLYX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: afglsc.span.nasa.gov!webb
Subject: Re: Need Information
Date: 11 Jan 91 20:18:24 GMT
From: webb@afglsc.span.nasa.gov
To: Dale Wedge
I was born and raised in Ohio but now live in Boston. I assume you are
referring to the Spaur-Neff police chase in 1966. I lived in Alliance at
the time and actually helped Bill Weitzel with this case, meeting he and
the two officers at the Portage Co. Courthouse a few days after the chase.
I lost touch with Bill soon after that time. I know he moved to Bradford,
PA and taught school there for many years. Whether he is still there or
active in UFOs I don't know.
What are you doing on the Spaur-Neff case? If you need it, I can provide
you with some data from my files on the case. Give me your mail address
here on the net.
Dave Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hpvclmd.vcd.hp.com!miked
Subject: RE: Chuck Harder: FOR THE PEOPLE radio show
Date: 11 Jan 91 22:46:09 GMT
From: Mike Dobbs <miked@hpvclmd.vcd.hp.com>
A number of folks have been asking about Chuck Harder's 'FOR THE PEOPLE'
radio show. It airs weekdays from 2pm to 5pm EST although some stations do
not carry all three hours. Two hours of the show is repeated each night
on short wave station WWCR at 7.520 MegaHertz from 8-10pm EST. On weekends,
this short wave station airs more repeats just as the clock turns from
Saturday to Sunday from Midnight to 2am.
Those of you who are particularly interested in hearing Richard Hoagland
should note that he generally is a guest on the shows during the first
hour on Fridays. Occationally he appears at other random times however.
Walt Andrus is also a guest once in a while. He was on for all three hours
on New Years day he told me.
Alaska Anchorage KENI 550 am | Missouri Bolivar KYOO 1200 am
Alabama Evergreen WIJK 1470 am | Marshfield KMRF 1510 am
Mobile WABB 1480 am | Washington KSLQ 1350 am
Montgomery WACV 1170 am | Mississi Crystal Spas WCSP 590 am
Arkansas Glenwood KANI 670 am | I-aurel WLAU 1430 am
Jonesboro KBTM 1230 am | Natchez KAIN 1040 am
Little Rock KBIS 1010 am | Tupelo VVITUP 1490 am
Californ Baja XEK 950 am | Montana Billings KBLG 910 am
Canoga Pk KWNK 950 am | N. Carol Aberdeen WQNX 1350 am
Mendoconi KPMO 1300 am | Eden WEDE 1130 am
Palm Desert KNWZ 1270 am | Edenton WZBO 1260 am
Connecti Middletown WCNX 1150 am | Graham WSML 1190 am
Florida Clearwater WEND 760 am | King WKTE 1090 am
DeLand WXVQ 1490 am | Kinston WISP 1230 am
Ft Walton Bch WFTW 1260 am | Lexington WLXN 1440 am
Gainesville WGGG 1230 am | Rocky Mount WEED 1390 am
Kissimmee WMJK 1220am | Weldon WSMY 1400 am
New Smyrna Bc wccz 1550 am | Whiteville WTXY 1540 am
Punta Gorda WCCF 1580 am | Nevada Laughlin KROL 870 am
St Augustine WFOY 1240 am | New York Schenectady WVKZ 1240 am
Sanford WTRR 1400 am | Ohio Bellevue WNRR 92.1 fm
Tallahassee WFAL 1450 am | Delaware WDLR 1550 am
Vero Bch WTFR 1490 am | Marietta WBRJ 910 am
Georgia Camilla WCLB 1400 am | Oklahoma Blackwell KOKB 1580 am
Gainesville WGGA 1240 am | Oregon Lk Oswego KLVS 1290 am
Garden City WNMT 1520 am | St Hlens KOHI 1600 am
Vienna W'N 1550 am | Pennsylv Brownsville WASP 1130 am
Idaho Idaho Falls KID 590 am | Johnstown WCRO 1230 am
Illinois Alton WBGZ 1570 am | Shamokin WISL 1480 am
Belleview WIBV 1260 am | S. Carol Clemson WCCP 1560 am
Chicago Hts WCGO 1600 am | Greenville WFBC 1330 am
Crete WRAS 102.3 fm| Tennesse Chattanooga WGOW 1150 am
Harrisburg WEBQ 1240 am | Humboldt WIRJ 740 am
Herrin WJPF 1340 am | Nashville(SW) WWCR 7.520MHz
Metropolis WRIK 750 am | Oak Ridge WORI 1550 am
Murphysboro WINI 1420 am | Texas Amarillo KFNS 1360 am
Indiana Ft Wayne WGL 1250 am | Bellville KACO 1090 am
Mt Vernon WPCO 1590 am | Utah Ogden KJQN 1490 am
Noblesville WYIC 1110 am | Virginia Norton WNVA 1350 am
Kansas El Dorado KSPG 1360 am | Onley WESR 1330 am
Kentucky Paducah WRIK 98.3 fm | Washingt Tacoma WLAY 1180 am
Louisian Lk Charles KAOK 1400 am | Wisconsi Pt Washington WGLB 1560 am
Massachu Lowell WCAP 980 am | Ripon WCWC 1600 am
Springfield WSPR 1270 am | W. Virgi Bluefield WKOY 1240 am
Maine Lincoln WTOX 1450 am |
Sanford WSME 1220 am |
Michigan Caro WKYO 1360 am |
Escanaba WDBC 680 am |
Gaylord WSNQ 900 am |
Traverse City VVITCM 580 am |
Wyoming VVYGR 1530 am |
--------
Mike Dobbs / Internet: miked@vcd.hp.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f9.n310.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Don Ecker
Date: 12 Jan 91 03:52:00 GMT
> Maybe he could provide a few tips for some of us out
> here that have the hand held scanners.
Ask him. He may at that.
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:310/8
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f9.n310.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@f9.n310.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Couldn't Resist
Date: 12 Jan 91 04:05:00 GMT
> From: keith@pecan.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks)
> It would be easier to throw an idea out on a non-
> judgemental
> mailing list than to lay yourself open to ridicule on
> a
> judgemental mailing list.
>
> > and how closed-minded sundry folk who have the temerity to call
> > themselves skeptics are,
>
> As I mentioned above, I think that it is not
> necessarily a problem
> of being closed-minded but a problem of being wrong-
> headed.
>
> The approach that I have outlined above of condemning
> a path of
> thought and then inviting people who use that line of
> thought
> to be evaluated by your organizations simply does not
> make sense.
>
> > with which you have favoured us -- oh -- at least a few times.
>
> Sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver is
> so low that
> redundancy must be employed at the transmitter to
> ensure reliable
> transmission.
Keith,
Among your "signal-to-noise" I have failed to see any substantive
refutation of the findings that were brought forth in Rick's
posting about the psychics. Rather than spend bandwidth on
personal observations, why not post something that can get a non-judgmental
discussion going pertaining to facts? It is obvious that
the predictions made did not prove out. That is factual.
So, what do you have in the way of refutation for this?
Your posting about this being a judgmental list is
inaccurate. We are only exercising our freedom to post
results of something that was made public. Perhaps you
could also elaborate on how we are "judgmental" in an
unfavorable way?
Thanks,
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:310/8
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f9.n310.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Re: Scanner & OCR
Date: 11 Jan 91 17:33:00 GMT
> Maybe he could provide a few tips for some of us out
> here that have the hand held scanners.
Houston, what is it that you would like to know?
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:310/8
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Houston.Mayer@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Houston Mayer)
Subject: Re: Scanner & OCR
Date: 13 Jan 91 03:40:00 GMT
Basic set up of switch settings and how in the heck can I judge the rate of
movement during the scan process. I'm pretty sure that lots of practice
will be the answer but a tip or two or incouragement would be appreciated.
I seem to have the hang of scanning pictures but my text scans come out
twisted, broken and in diffent heights. Thanks for the reply and courtesy.
--
Houston Mayer - via FidoNet node 1:310/8
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Houston.Mayer@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: Need information
Date: 10 Jan 91 15:47:34 GMT
Dale Wedge (aa440@cleveland.freenet.edu) writes as follows:
DW> Also, does anyone know what happened to the files that NICAP
DW> had after it went defunct?
Probably there are other net posters who are better informed on
this than I, but you might try CUFOS. CUFOS was founded in 1973,
which is right around when NICAP went under for financial reasons
(declining membership -- they kept admitting in public that their
evidence for the ET hypothesis was poor, that the Travis Walton
case was probably a hoax, etc.). Further, CUFOS has a massive
database of case reports, and it would have been logical to give
them NICAP's files. Anyhow, CUFOS might well be able to point
you to where they went.
Best Regards,
Rick M.
--
Rick Moen - via FidoNet node 1:310/8
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen)
Subject: Re: Couldn't resist
Date: 13 Jan 91 09:04:02 GMT
Keith A. Fredericks (keith@pecan.cray.com) expounds as follows:
KF> Skeptics appear to focus on only one area of investigation,
KF> implying strongly that only one area of investigation is worthy
KF> of scrutiny.
KF> If skepticism a la BAS and CSICOP is a necessary part of science,
KF> as has been implied, then it should be applied across the board.
KF> We should expect to see in a review of, say, _The Skeptical
KF> Inquirer_ that skepticism has been applied uniformly throughout
KF> science.
KF> But that's not the way it works! CSICOP is set up only to
KF> investigate claims of the paranormal.
KF> If skeptics really believe in what they are preaching, then they
KF> should be injecting themselves into all disciplines of science
KF> equally, not in just one area exclusively.
Keith would no doubt criticise the National Geographic Society
for allegedly creating the implication that astronomy is not
worthy of study, since it never has articles on that subject.
He would say that carpenters imply that _only wood_ is worthy of
use in construction, because they don't use steel girders, that
physicists imply that chemistry is not worthy of scrutiny because
they don't do titrations, etc.
The purpose of the skeptics' movement _happens to be_ the
critical examination of fringe science/medicine and paranormal
claims (which doesn't entail "belief" or "preaching", by the
way). That happens to just be a basic fact. That's what the
field _concerns_. It is ludicrous to suggest that it _must also_
be the skeptics' business to cover every branch of mainstream
science. They have a vast enough territory to cover, as it is.
KF> This leads to the idea that skeptics are biased philosophically
KF> since they have chosen to focus on only one area of
KF> investigation. Philosophical bias of this kind does not fit in
KF> with the idea of even-handed scientific investigation.
As I've suggested above, the conclusion does not follow from the
premise. Further, all of this (the whole posting, really) is
just a genteel variation on the traditional appeal ad hominem.
KF> I believe that skeptics are in the business of putting up road
KF> blocks. They probably would deny this saying that you can
KF> investigate anything you want (and please let us judge it for
KF> you).
The good news is that this personal opinion, accompanied by 85
cents, will get you a several-hour ride on most of San
Francisco's Municipal Railway system (barring fare increases).
The bad news is that it has no other apparent merit. See below.
KF> Open ridicule for the idea of the existence of psychic
KF> functioning (as in the cutesy news release) and the portrayal of
KF> skeptical organizations as open to any ideas (as long as they are
KF> interesting) is contradictory.
The sentence's initial premise (skeptics ridiculing possiblity of
psychic powers' existence) is an obvious error, making the
conclusion untenable. Sorry, Keith. Nowhere has Bay Area
Skeptics ridiculed that possibility -- in particular, nowhere in
the press release in question. Try re-reading?
KF> Skeptics imply the condemnation of an entire path of thinking and
KF> then expect proponents of that same path of thinking to consult
KF> the skeptics' organizations. Now there's some real humor!
As above. Wrong opening premise, leading to wrong conclusion.
KF> The value of brainstorming as a way of thinking is that we get
KF> lots of ideas. Many of the ideas that are generated by a brain-
KF> storming process are apparently crazy, but may serve a purpose of
KF> spurring other ideas that turn out to be quite useful.
The obvious implied premise is that skeptics _oppose_
brainstorming. This premise is yet another blunder! Keith will
search in vain for any indication that I or Bay Area Skeptics
have opposed brainstorming in any way. At this point, it would
be difficult to not suspect a strong personal bias behind these
pervasive misapprehensions.
KF> I believe that ParaNet is currently skewed to the judgemental
KF> side. This probably has the side effect of lots of potential
KF> posters not posting because they are afraid of getting flamed by
KF> the skeptics.
Where _are_ all these guys with the flame-throwers, by the way?
The only flamings I've seen in quite a while have been aspersions
cast between rival UFOlogists, plus of course the periodic
one-note postings against skeptics from Mr. Fredericks.
(However, I hereby absolve him of concern for oversensitivity on
_our_ part, in case he was as even-handedly worried about _us_ as
he was about those other "potential posters".)
Isn't it interesting that Keith didn't fault BAS's press release
for any _inaccuracies_? One might almost think that Keith regards
fact-determination as unimportant, that the key thing on Paranet
is that no one to be scared off by "judgement" (which seems to
mean any attempt to distinguish fact from fiction).
Anyhow, aside from being founded on copious and pervasive
fundamental errors, dubious motivation, and an overall appeal to
prejudice, _otherwise_, Keith's posting was just great! <grin>
Best Regards,
Rick M.
--
Rick Moen - via FidoNet node 1:310/8
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kurt.Lochner@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kurt Lochner)
Subject: Eclipse
Date: 11 Jan 91 09:11:09 GMT
Another tidbit that ran across my shadow.....
I've been reading Sagan's latest snoring collection of
billions of adjectives..it's about nuclear winter.
It was mentioned in retort to me by a friend that even
a conventional war would have firestorms sufficient to
raise absorbing particulate matter. The parallel given
to support this was the cruel winters of WWII.
Petroleum "smoke" of an even more recent study was modeled
to simulate this effect of lowering the surface temps.
Something like 5-10 degrees was consider'd quite harmful
and could be likened to a mini-ice age. Geez, this sounds
worse than Chicken Little....
"The sky is falling"
--
Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:310/8
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kurt.Lochner@f22.n14766.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Re: Scanner & Ocr
Date: 14 Jan 91 06:25:00 GMT
Houston,
OK, you first asked;
> Basic set up of switch settings and how in the heck
> can I judge the rate of movement during the scan
> process.
I presume you have OCR software, so check your manuel on
what it says about your scanner. I have Logitech, both OCR
and the Scanman +. My DPI is set at the 300 setting for
Point size 6 to 15, ( that is the size of the print that is
being scanned ) and the other settings on the card I took
from the manuel.
> I'm pretty sure that lots of practice will
> be the answer but a tip or two or incouragement would
> be appreciated. I seem to have the hang of scanning
> pictures but my text scans come out twisted, broken
> and in diffent heights.
You are absolutely correct, practice is what you need to
do. If you are finding out that the text is twisted ( and
if you can get the text, your settings must be correct)
then make sure that when you are scanning, use a straight
edge of some type ( perhaps a 12" ruler or a large book )
and "carefully" scan the text down in an even movement, and
with testing you should find the movement that will suit
you best.
> Thanks for the reply and
> courtesy.
You are more than welcome, and if you need some more help, let me know.
Best;
Don
--
Don Ecker - via FidoNet node 1:310/8
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
'infopara' at the following address:
UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
ADMIN Address infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
{ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
