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