HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andre@king.slc.mentorg.com (Andre' Hut)
Subject: Re: RFD soc.religion.mormon -- PROPOSED CHARTER
Organization: /slc/home/andre/.organization
	<ANDRE.93Jan20161039@king.slc.mentorg.com>
	<1jn215INN21l@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <1993Jan22.011119.1793@spectra.com>
Date: 22 Jan 93 11:36:28

In article <1993Jan22.011119.1793@spectra.com> johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson) writes:
   >In article <1jn215INN21l@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
   >>In article <ANDRE.93Jan20161039@king.slc.mentorg.com>, andre@king.slc.mentorg.com (Andre' Hut) writes:
   >>> 
   >>> Since the last
   >>> attempt to create soc.religion.mormon was chartered to be
   >>> moderated, I suggest we try it un-moderated this time.  Also, by
   >>> leaving it un-moderated, it resolves the whole "censorship" issue,
   >>> and leaves up to each persons "agency" (Mormon term for "choice").
   >>
   >>Wrong, the last attempt was to make it unmoderated. This is why I voted
   >>against it last time and I will vote against it again if it is unmoderated.
   >>It is my belief that all of the soc.religion groups should be moderated and
   >>I will vote against those that are not.

   >Reminder that the last CFV was for a moderated group:

   >From: gritton@byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
   >Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups
   >Subject: 3rd CFV and VOTE ACK:  soc.religion.mormon moderated
   >Message-ID: <1992Apr6.172211.599@uunet.uu.net>
   >Date: 6 Apr 92 17:22:11 GMT

   >Newsgroup:   soc.religion.mormon

   >Status:      Moderated by Rawlin Blake at blake@nevada.edu

   >Description: Discussions regarding Mormons and Mormonism (Moderated)

   >Charter:     This news group is for the discussion of all things
   >		pertinent to Mormons and Mormonism. The following
   >		topics are unwelcome and run the risk of being
   >		rejected by the moderator:
   >
   >		1. Flames and Flame wars.
   >		2. Posts that reveal or discuss the specific details
   >		   of the Mormon Temple ceremony. Mormons hold the
   >		   temple and what goes on inside sacred. Discussing
   >		   its details shows either little understanding of,
   >		   or no respect for Mormon beliefs. If you are not
   >		   sure of the propriety of a post, submit it to the
   >		   moderator with a note asking for guidance.
   >		   Discussions about the temple in general are
   >		   welcome.
   >		3. Topics not related to Mormonism.
   >
   >   ...where to send votes, etc deleted

Thank you Boyd,  I knew I wasn't losing my mind.   The last attempt to create
	soc.religion.mormon WAS chartered to be *** moderated ***.

Richard, perhaps you didn't understand the last CFV, and voted the wrong way.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are solely my own, and do not necessarily reflect those
of my employer.

Andre' Hut       andre@slc.mentorg.com  or  utah-cs!caeco!andre
Mentor Graphics, Suite 300, 5295 South 300 West, Murray, Utah 84107
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: angelai@wam.umd.edu (Angela I.)
Subject: De-RFD: Codependency (stop sending mail!!)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:53:15 GMT

Thanks for your input, everyone.  When I was determining how to
set up a new newsgroup, I got a lot of redundant information
(including about 7 or so copies of various Creating a New Newsgroup
FAQs, some of which I'd already read).  Amidst the confusion, I 
opted to go the official route for newsgroup creation (especially
if someone wanted to put it in another area of the hierarchy than
alt.*)...  Anyway, rather than getting further flooded with mail telling
me that I don't have to ask issue an RFD here, let me just rescind the 
request.  I did, of course, cross-post to alt.config (and alt.recovery &
alt.support), and we will continue the discussion outside the
news.* hierarchy.

Please stop sending email to this effect!!  :)

Angela

-- 
**************************  angelai@wam.umd.edu  ****************************
From: wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com (Don Wegeng)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:52:41 GMT
Reply-To: wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corp., Henrietta, NY

Considering the heat that was generated recently when some of the music newsgroups
were renamed, I can see no point in creating a problem here when no problem
currently exists.  Are we really solving a problem by renaming all of these groups,
or is someone just trying to *do the right thing* when the current state is
quite adequate?

As for creating rec.outdoors.camping, this would seem to be the beginning of a
new hierarchy that is orthogonal to the existing hierarchy, and would only
lead to confusion.  For example, should I ask questions about backpacking
tents in the camping newsgroup or the backcountry newsgroup?

Are we asking the existing users/readers of these newsgroups to change for the sake
of change, or is there a real problem that needs to be fixed?

/Don
wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com
From: pdavid@leland.Stanford.EDU (Peter Rensis David)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:09:40 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <1jvvolINNeq1@rodan.UU.NET>, Tim Rigg <rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu> writes:
|>                         REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
|> 
|> [[ Specific pointers to this article will be posted in the potentially
|>    renamed groups.   tale, moderator news.announce.newgroups ]]
|> 
|> There is some discussion in rec.backcountry about creating a camping
|> subgroup.  If such a group is created, it should be placed in the
|> rec.outdoors. hierarchy which currently contains just
|> rec.outdoors.fishing.
|> 
|> In addition, obvious outdoors.* groups should be moved to that
|> hierarchy.  Specially, rec.hunting should be moved.  Other
|> possibilities include
|> 
|> rec.boats 
|> rec.boats.paddle 
|> rec.climbing 
|> rec.scuba 
|> rec.skiing 
|> rec.skydiving 
|> rec.windsurfing 
|> 
|> So there are two separate topics in this RFD.  
|> 
|> First, should the above groups be transfered to the rec.outdoors
|> hierarchy?  As moderator of rec.hunting, I strongly support the
|> renaming of rec.hunting.  Readers of the other groups should post to
|> news.groups with comments about their groups.  
|> 
|> One comment might be needed, the vote will only affect the naming of
|> the groups.  If the vote is taken and fails the group will remain
|> unchanged.  There is NO possibility of a group being removed. 
|> 
|> 
|> Second, should rec.backcountry be renamed and modified to include
|> subgroups?  It seems that splitting rec.backcountry might be a good
|> idea.  But, where to split the group is quite another debate.
|> Possibilities include:
|> 
|> rec.outdoors.camping
|> rec.outdoors.backpacking
|> rec.outdoors.hiking
|> 
|> Regarding rec.backcountry, there are three things to be decided: 
|> 
|> 1) Is the change of rec.backcountry to rec.outdoors.misc needed?
|> 
|> 2) What subgroups have enough traffic to justify them?
|> 
|> 3) What should rec.outdoors.misc's charter be?  Here is a suggestion
|> 
|>    CHARTER: rec.outdoors.misc is for the discussion of general
|>    backcountry topics.  These include backpacking, camping, hiking, the
|>    state of wilderness areas, wildlife observation and the like.
|> 
|> 4) should the group be moderated?
|> 
|> 
|> Please post any suggestions/comments to news.groups.  Email and posts
|> to the original groups are not really considered in the evaluation
|> process.
|> 
|> tim



	I would prefer to leave rec.scuba as such. i.e NOT rec.outdoors.scuba

			Thanks,
				Peter
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION OF soc.culture.native CHARTER GOES OFFLINE
Date: 21 Jan 1993 18:11:29 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1993Jan16.193204.4913@gnosys.svle.ma.us>
	<idoy.727301838@crux1.cit.cornell.edu>
	<1993Jan18.012058.25130@spdcc.com> <C15z0E.LIC@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: hades@dartmouth.edu's message of Wed, 20 Jan 1993 17:53:01 GMT

In article <C15z0E.LIC@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> hades@dartmouth.edu writes:

       The discussion period is over. There will be no further discussion
   of this group on news.groups for 6 months, although if people think that
   there is enough of a consensus to go to a CFV then that can be posted.

Why do you say no further discussion on n.g for 6 months?  That
provision (as I read the Guidelines) is for failed votes, which
this is not.

   But if people are following the Guidelines, then discussion of the
   charter will take place in email or alt.native or somewhere other than
   news.groups and it will not be "resumed in news.groups prior to a vote
   being conducted."

I think the current version of the charter is ready for a vote.
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
From: gk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Gavin Kerr)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: RE: RFD: comp.cs.undergrad
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:52:50 GMT
Reply-To: gk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Gavin Kerr)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U


Received: from [080039007000/DCC.38826110000150002000000203] by dcs.ed.ac.uk
          id aa05105; 27 Jan 93 21:19 GMT
Received: from techno.fuug.fi by ben.uknet.ac.uk via EUnet with SMTP (PP) 
          id <g.06136-0@ben.uknet.ac.uk>; Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:19:23 +0000
Received: from sovcom.kiae.su by techno.fuug.fi with UUCP 
          id AA27486 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for gk@dcs.ed.ac.uk);
          Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:53:15 +0200
Received: by sovcom.kiae.su; Wed, 27 Jan 93 22:48:44 +0300
Received: by infopro.spb.su; Tue, 26 Jan 93 22:31:19 +0300 (MSK)
To: gk@uk.ac.ed.dcs
Message-Id: <AA66PPh4d0@infopro.spb.su>
Organization: NOVINTECH-INFOPRO Ltd, St.Petersburg, Russia
From: "Valeriy E. Ushakov" <uwe@su.spb.infopro>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 22:31:18 +0300 (MSK)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.cs.undergrad
Status: RO

In reply to the foolowing message of yours:
| From: gk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Gavin Kerr)
| Subject: RFD: comp.cs.undergrad

Hi, Gavin!

[...]
| Therefore, it is hoped that the proposed newsgroup will become an important
| source of ideas and information for the next generation of computer science
| professionals.

Hardly could I disagree with you.

I'm a 4th (out of 5) year student of St.Petersburg University.
Thou networking is not very distributed in Russia and we use
uucp mostly, but fortunately I have an access to the net and
can use the opportunities it offers. As you can see from
"Organization:" header, I write you not from university site;
in fact our uni (as the russian sciense as a whole) is very
poor; so I'm lucky enough. I'm intersted in such a newsgroup
you propose; think it'll be interesting to communicate with
my mates out there.

So I vote with both of my hands.

I apologize for my english.
Best regards.

Uwe.

--
Valeriy E. Ushakov (aka Uwe)        |           Zu gruende kommen
uwe@infopro.spb.su                  |           Ist zu gruende gehen
From: koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:51:16 GMT
Organization: Hyperion, Mountain View, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: spud.hyperion.com

In <C14EBD.BAF@cs.uiuc.edu> noe@cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) writes:
> [about .reviews]
>1. Its primary purpose is to make it more convenient for people who
>want to read Star Trek reviews, instead of plucking them out of
>r.a.st.current.

True.  I've outlined in another message some reasons why news is a lot more
convenient than a mailing list (easy-to-use kill functionality, a broader
range of topics than is being proposed on the list, and news' built-in
short-term archiving, to name three).

>This is perfectly suited for a mailing list.  Also, as Windsor pointed out:
>>(3) This mailing list could start immediately, and not take weeks to
>>gear up.

Someone should start up the list now.  If it's the eventual moderator of
.reviews, we'll have the best of both worlds (no pun intended) -- a newsgroup,
with all its attendant advantages, gatewayed into a mailing list for people
whose sites refuse to carry _any_ of the Star Trek groups.

Once again, it's not a matter of "choose this or choose that."  You can have
the mailing list and the newsgroup, and they can go hand-in-hand.

>If such a mailing list is not created, I'd recommend that those who
>favor the idea of a moderated reviews newsgroup look into broadening
>the scope of an existing Star Trek low-volume, no-discussion newsgroup
>of convenience, r.a.st.info.

Putting reviews on .info violates that group's charter, at least according
to its moderator.  Now, we could certainly vote to change the charter there,
but I don't know of any well-defined procedure for doing that.

-Steve
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: hakana@isy.liu.se (Hakan Andersson)
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdo
Reply-To: hakana@isy.liu.se
Organization: Linkoping University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:52:43 GMT

In article 20787@aio.jsc.nasa.gov, horn@freefall.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Horn) writes:
>In article <1jvvolINNeq1@rodan.UU.NET> Tim Rigg <rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu> writes:
>
>[ ..stuff deleted.. ]
>
>>In addition, obvious outdoors.* groups should be moved to that
>>hierarchy.  Specially, rec.hunting should be moved.  Other
>>possibilities include
>>
>>rec.skydiving 
>
>I don't know about anyone else in rec.skydiving, but I kind of like that
>group just where it is.  I don't really care to see it moved.  I just don't
>associate skydiving with all the typical "outdoors" type sports.  Besides that
>there IS such a thing as indoor skydiving - vertical wind tunnels.  Now maybe
>	rec.flying.skydiving
>	rec.flying.hanggliding
>	rec.flying.experimental
>But that's another discussion.
>
>I don't think that rec.skydiving belongs in the rec.outdoors hierarchy.
>--
>  _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/     _/_/_/  _/  _/ _/ _/_/_/ #include <std/disclaimer.h>
>   _/    _/ _/  _/ _/   _/ _/   _/ _/  _/ _/      sparkie
>    _/  _/_/   _/_/_/  _/_/    _/_/   _/ _/_/     horn@mickey.jsc.nasa.gov
>_/_/_/ _/     _/   _/ _/  _/  _/  _/ _/ _/_/_/    D-14578 - Blue Skies!


That was very precise and to the point. I must agree completely!
We're fine where we are and should definitely not be moved into the outdoors
hierarchy.

Hokie
---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hakan Andersson                               E-mail:     hakana@isy.liu.se
Division of Information Theory                Telephone:   (+46) 13 28 2570
Department of Electrical Engineering          Telefax:     (+46) 13 13 9282
Linkoping University   
S-581 83  LINKOPING                          
SWEDEN                                        "Skydiving -- gravity powered adventure"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: manga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Peter Michael Betz)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD rec.games.miniatures
Date: 27 Jan 1993 15:55:40 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1jpshoINNgip@werple.apana.org.au> bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett) writes:
><repost from news.groups as original had not appeared in this group as
>intended, please follow up to news.groups...Bob.>
>                        REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
>
(Well-rationed statement of purpose deleted)

Place a vote in the 'yes' column from me.
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Proposed startrek split and ambiguity
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:24:49 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

I would like to make one addendum to my previous post in favor
of splitting r.a.s.c. along ds9 and tng lines.  I am not 
claiming in any way that there will not be any ambiguity between the
two groups.  There is ambiguity in everything.  I do contend that
there will be much less ambiguity that many people are predicting,
and, more importantly, that there will be *far less* ambiguity
than in having to weed through a melange of ds9 and tng posts
in r.a.s.c. all the time.
From: kwun@css.itd.umich.edu (Michael Kwun)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 22 Jan 1993 21:31:29 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan - ITD Consulting and Support
NNTP-Posting-Host: stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Brian Hughes (hades@coos.dartmouth.edu) wrote:

:     Yes you are correct. There are many issues that concern Powerbook
: owners, as well as owners of other laptop class machines. That is why
: there is a comp.sys.laptop. But I see no reason that there should be
: another newsgroup to cover this topic. Why is comp.sys.laptop not
: considered sufficient?

..because the powerbook uses a mac OS
because IBM compats don't use CPU, NPE, GUM or other PB specific utils
because IBM compats don't have 160/180/dock video out
because IBM compats use different batteries
because IBM compats don't have revA/B keyboard concerns
because IBM compat owners don't care that King Memory is the place to
   go for duo memory


+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|  Internet:  Michael.Kwun@umich.edu  |  I speak only for myself.      |
|  Bitnet:    userW0ZA@UMICHUM        |  Support a local cooperative.  |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thumper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: News Groups Censors REC.ARTS.POEMS.URDU
Date: 28 Jan 93 21:42:55 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1993Jan28.112815.26599@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> mahesh@elcaro1.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Mahesh Zambani) writes:

>Mr. an6966@anon.penet.fi has been told by  proper Authority exactly why News 
>Groups censored rec.arts.poems.urdu.

Which would be who? The vote-taker?

>And  Mr. Tim Pierce has no authority on behalf of News Groups to care or not 
>care. 

Oh. Did we take a vote to elect someone else? I must have missed it :-)

This Net Cabal is being run very poorly, I protest!

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business

	Gasp!  New flavor!  Triple chocolate!
	   - Homer Simpson, "The Simpsons"
From: davidb@gdfwc3 (David Brynell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.harris
Date: 20 Jan 93 23:42:00 GMT
Organization: General Dynamics, Fort Worth Division

In article <1993Jan18.223532.19025@midway.uchicago.edu>
popelka@odysseus.uchicago.edu (Glenn Popelka) writes:
   anneser@pwa-b.uucp (Dean Anneser) writes:

     >The newsgroup 'comp.sys.harris' would be a forum for discussing
     issues >relating to Harris Computer Systems' Night Hawk family of
     computers.

    How will you keep out the riff-raff with their H800's and H1200's?
    (there
   probably aren't too many /6's or datacraft left...)

    Why not comp.sys.nighthawk?

I agree with that suggestion.  About the only similarities between
the H-series and the Nighthawks are the manufacturers names and the
poor quality of the system software.  In my opinion, those two
similarities are not enough to have discussions of the two archi-
tectures going on in the same newsgroup.

Vote your conscience, vote comp.sys.nighthawk.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David Brynell			"GD - Proudly serving as one of the
General Dynamics, Fort Worth	 largest government-funded adult
gdfwc3!davidb@uunet.uu.net	 day care centers in the world!"
brynell@gdwest.gd.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,rec.arts.poems,soc.culture.karnataka
From: an6966@anon.penet.fi
Subject: News Groups Censors REC.ARTS.POEMS.URDU
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,rec.arts.poems,soc.culture.karnataka
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:17:41 GMT

I wish to state that I am VERY ANGRY at the annoucenemtn that News Groups
censored rec.arts.poems.urdu despite its passing fair and square in a
valid vote.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Why split startrek, and which way
From: hooverb@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Bruce Hoover,Armstrong)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:37:15 GMT
Organization: Concurrent Engineering Research Center
Originator: hooverb@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu

From article <rawdon.727422196@cs.wisc.edu>, by rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon):
> In <1j6mfvINNb4l@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy) writes:
>>Steve, IMO, what we want to do is MINIMIZE the number
>> of startrek groups and keep the larger ones within a
>> reasonable size.
> 
> Based on this logic, I propose we vote to eliminate rec.arts.startrek.info
> Any opposed?

Damn, I just had a great idea! Every month we keep track of who has the
most posts to each group. Then we find them and shoot them. Voila! no
more posts from that source. Then next month we do the same, etc. I am
sure that it wouldn't take long before we could have the volume down to
a very REASONABLE size...



Bruce Hoover
 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver)
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated and proposed rec.arts.startrek split
Organization: Haverford College Computer Science Department
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:28:55 GMT

In article <C1D7r4.G8K@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>In <1993Jan23.080716.23448@cbfsb.cb.att.com> forbes@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Scott Forbes) writes:
>
>>I think the article-by-article analysis posted here recently shows that
>>the volume of *on-topic* traffic in r.a.s.current is not The Problem.
>>The Problem is the amount of r.a.s.current traffic that should be in
>>r.a.s.misc, but isn't.
>
>And, I think, it can be argued that a chunk of the traffic in .current and
>.misc also properly belong in .tech and .fandom.
>

Also, if we "force", or strongly suggest, that people use the
abbreviations: TNG, DSN/DS9, TOS and so forth in the subject line of
their postings, it will go a long way to making kill files easier.
People who don't watch/like DSN can just add a kill line to DSN/DS9,
people who aren't intrested in the original Trek, could add TOS, reviews
could have the word REVIEW: TNG:  etc, and everything would be a lot
simpler.

I personally don't think a split is necessary though since i think a
little effort on behalf of posters can make things easier.

-Erik