HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:53:41 EDT
From:         "(Nicholas J. Simicich)" <scifi!njs@UUNET.UU.NET>
Subject:      To compute or not to compute
              "uunet!RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU!awpsys"

>  Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:24:10 GMT
>  From: uunet!RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU!awpsys
>
>  Every instructional book on tables that I have seen states that the
>  bottom time of a dive begins when you leave the surface heading
>  for the bottom and ends when leave the bottom and head for the
>  surface. Safety stops are considered part of the ascent and do not
>  need to be counted as part of the bottom time.

Interestingly enough, at least one interpretation of the 'direct
ascent to the surface rule' indicates that the direct ascent to the
surface starts at the *end* of the safeyty stop.  Leaving the bottom
is subject to strict interpretation, for the US Navy tables, and
ascent rates that deviate from 60 FPM have to be adjusted for.
Personally, I prefer a slower ascent rate, and an interesting theory
was presented on relative fast compartment overpressures that seemed
to me to be a good argument for a slow ascent rate (and safety stop)
when discussing ascent rates.

Nick Simicich - uunet!bywater!scifi!njs - njs@watson.ibm.com
SSI #AOWI 3958, HSA 318, NAUI #14065
Join the movement ---  turn 'to bush' into a verb.
Words of wisdom from Zippy:
Am I elected yet?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:30:37 EST
From:         Jon Innes <INNES@UCC.UWINDSOR.CA>
Subject:      Re: UW Foto Housings
              5 Oct 1992 18:54:41 LCL from <tundra@ESKIMO.CHI.IL.US>

While I am unsure if your about your particular model of camera, the
Stromm company makes housings for a variety of models.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"SCUBA-L@BROWNVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:47:00 EDT
From:         ZIBLUK@HARTFORD.BITNET
Subject:      SAFETY/STANDARD VIOLATIONS

FOR US ALL.  I WAS ASSISTING ANOTHER INSTRUCTOR (I VOLUNTERRED), IN
A DEEP DIVE FOR PADI ADVANCED TRAINING.  WHEN THE DIVE WAS OVER, WE WERE
MAKING A SAFETY STOP WHEN ONE OF THE DIVERS DROPPED A CAMARA.  THE STUDENT
WENT AFTER THE CAMARA AND I WENT AFTER THE STUDENT.  I STOPPED THE STUDENT
AT 60 FEET AND SIGNALLED TO LET THE CAMARA GO.   AT THIS POINT WE WENT BACK
TO 15 FEET TO MAKE ANOTHER SAFETY STOP.  WHEN IT WAS TIME TO ASCEND THE
STUDENT, KICKED TO THE SURFACE AND TRIED TO POWER INFLATE TO MAINTAIN
BOUYANCY.  UNFORTUNATELY, SHE HAD RUN OUT OF AIR.  PANIC SET IN.
I WENT OVER TO HER, DITCHED HER WEIGHT BELT, AND ORALLY INFLATED HER BCD.
I THEN TOWED HER BACK TO SHORE.

TWO WEEKS LATER I WAS INFORMED THAT MY SHOP AND MYSELF WERE BEING THREATENED
WITH A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT.  THE STUDENT WANTED A REFUND FOR THE CAMARA
THAT WAS LOST, FOR THE MISSING WEIGHT BELT, AND FOR THE COURSE OTHERWISE
SHE WOULD SEE US IN COURT.  I IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED PADI WHO INVESTIGATED
INCIDENT.   ONE DETAIL THEY UNCOVERED WAS THAT THE STUDENT NEVER COMPLETED
A PADI MEDICAL FORM OR A RELEASE AGREEMENT, AND AS A RESULT MY INSURANCE
WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY FOR ANY PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS.

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED:
1)  READ YOUR INSURANCE PAPERS CAREFULLY.  IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW YOUR
    ORGANIZATIONS STANDARDS, YOU MAY NOT BE COVERED AGAINST A CLAIM.
2)  DO NOT BE A NICE GUY.  I VOLUNTERRED AS AN ASSISTANT, ASSUMING THE
    INSTRUCTOR WAS AS METHODICAL AND ORGANIZED AS MYSELF.  IF THAT
    INSTRUCTOR MAKES A MISTAKE,  YOU THE ASSISTANT ARE ALSO LIABLE.

FOR FURTHER DETAILS ON LIABILITY PLEASE SEE, LAW AND THE LEGAL
PROFESSIONAL, AVAILABLE AT MOST PADI STORES.

KEVIN ZIBLUK
PADI 0WSI 56306
UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:36:06 PDT
From:         Dave Waller <dave@HPDSM0B.PTP.HP.COM>
Subject:      Re: To compute or not to compute
              12 Oct 92 13:38:34 PDT." <9210122042.AA10290@relay.hp.com>

> >
> > Steven G. Lanaghen writes:
> >
> > >         As long as you are ascending (or holding a calculated
> > >         safety/decompression stop) you are off-gassing and this should no
t
> > >         be considered bottom time (on-gassing).
> >
> > This means that, while ascending, it is still possible (indeed, very likely
)
> > that one or more compartments in the model are ongassing during all or a
> > portion of the ascent. This is particluarly true for slow compartments, whi
ch
> > are likely to have an inert gas loading that is below that of the partial
> > pressure of inter gas inthe breathing mixture for all but the shallowest
> > few feet of depth.
> >
> > Dave Waller
>
>         You're right.  I was generalizing on the fast compartments and I
>         stand corrected!  I'd still be interested in any references or
>         interpretations you have regarding counting ascent time as bottom
>         time.  Does anyone out there teach this school of thought?  I was
>         taught (and teach) that there is:
>
>                 Bottom time - from begining of descent to beginning of direct
>                                                 ascent to the surface
>                 Ascent time - from begining of direct ascent to the surface t
o
>                                                 reaching the surface (include
s
>  stops)
>                 Surface interval - from time at surface to beginning of (next
)
>                                                 descent (except for the less
>  than 10 minute case)
>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
From: "cheryl applebaum" <cheryl.applebaum@canrem.com>
Subject: to compute or not to comp
Reply-To: "cheryl applebaum" <cheryl.applebaum@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: bit
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:08:31 EST

SB Well, there has been much talk of computers vs. tables, and we all know
SB which are easier to use, but there has been very little/no discussion
SB of PADI's wheel.
SB         For those of you unfamiliar, the Wheel allows calculations
SB for Multi-Level diving, and eliminates the need to deal with residual
SB nitrogen through RNT, TBT and ABT caculations.
SB         It's easier to use, teach, and in my opinion, safer for new
SB students because misreading generally (I hope!) ends up in a more
SB conservative dive.
SB         In my classes, and the classes that my fellow instructors teach,
SB we only use the wheel. The tables are explained in the book, but we only
SB have the students read that, and answer their questions.
SB         What do all of YOU feel about the wheel, as it is a wonderful
SB backup for a computer provided you dive the plan.

Gee.. do I call you "Darren" or "Hal" ?  :)

Anyways, I find the Wheel is easier to use, but people need to know the
rudiments, which means the tables.  I took my o/w using the tables, then
picked up a wheel to take my advanced o/w.  Yes, it certainly is easier.

Then I decided to cover all the angles an also invested in a Marathon
computer!  But I STILL plan my dive using the wheel.

Does that make any sense? <grin>

L8TR, alligator,
~CA~

---
  CNET v1.0  [\] THE WETTER THE BETTER [\]
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: ray@tsw.UUCP (Ray Izumi)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Subject: Re: UW Foto Housings
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:57:52 GMT
Organization: The System Works, Redmond, WA

In article <E523D51796FF01445C@cc.weber.edu> TSCWHITEHEAD@CC.WEBER.EDU (Clarke Whitehead) writes:
>On the same line as Tim's message, I would like to know if there is a
>good, yet affordable housing for a Minolta Maxxum camera.  I'd like to
>get into UW photography.  I may just have to invest in a Nikonos.
>
Unfortunately, "good" and "affordable" are mutually exclusive when referring
to UW camera housings. The cheapest ones, like the Ikelites, will run you
about $350 from a mail order house (I'm not sure they make one stock for the
Maxxum, but they will custom-make one if you like). An "investment quality"
aluminum housing will cost $1500 or more, not including lens ports.

But, having used a Nikonos, I'd recommend going with a housed system if you're
serious about photography. They have a much bigger selection of lenses, in-
cluding zooms, than the Nikonos. Generally, they are much more flexible
than the Nikonos system. For instance, there are no zoom lenses for the Nikonos.And, of course, it seems like you always have your wide-angle lens when that
nudibranch you've been hunting for for years appears.

The jury's not yet in on the $5000 Nikonos RS AF yet, though it looks like a
winner. But I'm going to wait a year for the price to come down and for
some of the bugs to get worked out.

Hope this helps.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ray Izumi, The System Works, Redmond, WA     206-823-4685      uunet!tsw!ray
"No amount of not finding something proves it doesn't exist."
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
From: awpsys@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: To compute or not to compute
Reply-To: awpsys@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:24:10 GMT

In article <SCUBA-L%92100413261595@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU>, 
 RFLNG@CLEMSON.BITNET (Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)) writes:
>In response to 21329KAD@MSU.BITNET (Kim.Dyer) on
>
>
>...  Note that Tables not only credit you NOTHING when you do your
>safety stop (when you're outgassing) you treat such time as if you were
>still diving at your maximum depth for that dive -- a gross distortion
>of BT accounting.
>
Every instructional book on tables that I have seen states that the
bottom time of a dive begins when you leave the surface heading
for the bottom and ends when leave the bottom and head for the 
surface. Safety stops are considered part of the ascent and do not
need to be counted as part of the bottom time.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL4]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:09:29 PDT
From:         "(David Duis Story)" <story@BENT.WPD.SGI.COM>
Subject:      Re: To compute or not to compute
              "SCUBA-L@BROWNVM.brown.edu" at Oct 1, 92 12:11 pm

>
> Me:  I dive with a computer and love it.  I also dread the day it fails and I
>      have to fall back to tables.

I'm curious to see how folks plan on falling back to tables.  What's
your plan?  Will it work midway through a week-long dive trip?

Cheers,

Dave Story@bent.wpd.sgi.com           NAUI AI Z9588, PADI DM 43922, EMT
    Spearfishing on SCUBA is like hunting bears from a helicopter.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: RSID08A@SAUPM00.BITNET (DAVE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Subject: Multiple dives
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:09:52 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <RSID08A@SAUPM00.BITNET>

Since the discussion seems to be tables lately I'd like to ask a quick
question.  We are about to start an extensive sampling program that will
require us to do 10-12 dives a day in 30-40 ft for 20-30mins. Water will
be fairly warm (20C) and the dives will be of a medium stress level.
Surface interval will vary from 20-40mins.  The tables say 'no problem' but
I vaguely remember years ago hearing about 'safe' repetative dives causing
problems.

I would appreciate hearing anyones words of wisdom on this. Thanks.
DAVE LENNON
RSID08A@saupm00.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL4]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:14:07 PDT
From:         "(David Duis Story)" <story@BENT.WPD.SGI.COM>
Subject:      Re: Dive Table Origins
              "SCUBA-L@BROWNVM.brown.edu" at Oct 13, 92 2:46 pm

SCUBA-L@BROWNVM.brown.edu
>
>         There has been lots of discussion lately about the different
> versions of dive tables out an about - Navy tables, SSI derivations,
> PADI original derivations and newer PADI versions, etc.  Does anyone
> know what the basis for the individual tables are?  As I understand,
> Navy tables were originally mostly (educated) trial and error with
> a statistical safety factor thrown in.  Doppler limits on the Navy
> table are empirically derived safety factors gathered from doppler
> medical analysis of "silent bubbles" that are not symptomatically
> noticable.

This is all pretty much correct.  The Navy Tables are actually based
on a modified Haldanean algorithm, with the *parameters* tuned by
intuition as well as field and chamber trials.

>         Most dive computers, on the other hand, are based on compartment
> saturation algorithms.  I know that the Beuhlman tables are also
> based on an algorithm rather than empirical data.

These are all modified Haldanean algorithms, they simply implement the
model directly, rather than pre-computing fixed increments (10fsw, 5
minutes, etc..) in order to fit on a small set of pages.  Buehlmann
models are the same as Haldanean with the addition of an altitude
correction factor.  They can be converted back and forth easily, and,
contrary to the belief of some, Haldanean models can be adjusted
parametrically for altitude.  That's how the EIT/Orca Delphi does
altitude calculations.

>         So what are the PADI, NAUI, SSI, etc tables based on?  And if
> they are derivatives of some other table, how was the derivation
> (like a "safety factor") determined?

The current PADI tables are based on the work of Powell and Rogers at
DSAT, now a subsidiary of PADI.  The underlying model is very similar
to that of the US Navy model, but with a faster controlling
compartment, and thus they effectively model offgassing as happening
faster.  Therefore you see that the PADI tables consider you
completely offgassed from ANY series of dives after only 6:00 hours,
whereas the US Navy tables believe it takes 12:00 hours.

NAUI, SSI, and others use various adaptations of the US Navy tables,
with additional safety factors added.

For a longer, written history of this, you might check out John
Lippmann's book, _Deeper Into Diving_.  There is an abridged version
called _Essentials of Deeper Diving_ available as well.  The history
of computers is covered by Karl Huggins in Ken Lloyst/Watersports
Publishing's _Dive Computers: A Consumers Guide to ...._

Cheers,

David Story                        NAUI AI Z9588, PADI DM 43922, EMT
story@bent.wpd.sgi.com		  Every dive is a decompression dive.
From: WVANDERC@BENTLEY.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Subject: Re: UW Foto Housings
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:22:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: SCUBA-L@BROWNVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"SCUBA-L@BROWNVM.BITNET"
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was WVANDERCLOCK@BENTLEY

The real question is, how much do you love your Minolta?  I don't get real
attached to cameras but some people do and won't use anything else.  I won't
take anything underwater that I can't afford to get wet. That includes
cameras, lights, computers and me (I usually use a dry suit).  In 12 years of
diving (I know I shouldn't say this, my dive Saturday will be a mess as a
result) I have never flooded a camera.  I've used housings, Nikonos, Sea&Sea,
video, etc. I've settled on a Nikonos II because I can flood it and recover.
I'd like a III but they are hard to find now. I'd never use a IV or a V
without insurance, they are finished if they flood.  I like the Ikelite
housings but it's a lot more work than my Nikonos II and I like things simple
underwater.  I'm not picky about TTL and other fancy stuff that I wouldn't
work without on land.  It does take a while to get the focus on a Nikonos
correct every time but once you reach that point you are golden.  In spite of
what people tell you (including me), it really comes down to personal choice
and the size of your wallet.

Bill VanderClock     PADI OWSI #200330
WVANDERC@BENTLEY     "Dr. Deep"
From: TROTTA@UNCG.BITNET (Never is the Dreamer or the Misfet so alone)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Subject: Re: Multiple dives
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:57:54 GMT
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: SCUBA-L@BROWNVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"SCUBA-L@BROWNVM.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Date sent:  14-OCT-1992 08:52:16
The only thing I remember about 'Bounce' diving is the multiple stresses
placed on the ears.  I don't remember the exact discussion but refer to the "
silent bubble" feed we had a while back, I memory serves me the conditions for
silent bubbles are increased with the number of multiples a day.  I reccomend a
3min/15ft stop on all of those dives even if the tables say one's not needed.
   Good luck and Save Dives!
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Matthew Trotta            |  "Would you know my name, if I saw you in     |
| Trotta@UNCG.Bitnet        |   Heaven"                                     |
| Trotta@Iris.irc.uncg.edu  |               -Eric Clapton ,Tears in Heaven  |
|---------------------------|_______________________________________________|
| PADI Rescue Diver 9109204379| "I'm just a poor boy nobody loves me, He's  |
| PADI DiveMaster (no number, |  just a poor boy from a poor family"        |
|        I can't afford the   |             -Queen Bohemian Rhapsody        |
|________________Insurance!) _|_____________________________________________|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL4]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:52:17 PDT
From:         "(David Duis Story)" <story@BENT.WPD.SGI.COM>
Subject:      Re: To compute or not to compute
              92 2:09 pm

Let's finish this one off, if we can, and move on.  Our
noise-to-content ratio is dropping....

Bob "Reef Fish" Ling writes:
> Also, Tables do not account the first 10 minutes of
> your surface interval in repetitive dive-group computations, ...

I objected to this statement, since a surface interval of 40 minutes
begins at the time you surface, not 10 minutes later.

My point was simply that if you stay out of the water 11 minutes, you
are credited with 11 minutes of surface interval, not one minute, as
Bob's statement appeared to indicate.

Bob has a valid point in that -- on US Navy-derived tables --- you may
not begin another dive unless your surface interval is >=10 minutes.
(Quick trivia question: what is the exact minimum USN surface interval and why?)

Bob "Reef Fish" Ling subsequently writes:
> But not so for PADI Dive Tables, if you follow their prescriptions.  In
> fact, if you SURFACED for 9 minutes and re-entered water to dive, you're
> still in the FIRST dive.  That's what prompted my comment

If you look at any version of the PADI "Recreational_Dive_Planner",
you will find that surface intervals as short as 3 minutes can move
you into a new letter group.

If these are not the tables you've been calling the "PADI Tables",
it's no wonder things are confused.  PADI issued entirely new tables
not directly based on the US Navy tables.  Take a look at the
transition from a "Z" diver to a "Y" diver.  It takes 3 minutes on the
RDP.  The US Navy tables have no "P" to "Y" repetitive groups.

Bob "Reef Fish" Ling most recently writes:
> The quote was taken from MY latest PADI Diver Manual (1984, p.120) which was
> written before the Wheel [...] was invented.  I don't think the conventional
> definition of a dive or the use of those tables have changed since 1984.

Since then the PADI tables themselves have changed, the underlying
model is drastically different, letter groups are redefined, and
surface intervals are significantly shortened.

Cheers,

David Story                        NAUI AI Z9588, PADI DM 43922, EMT
story@bent.wpd.sgi.com		  Every dive is a decompression dive.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:21:09 -0400
From:         CCGO001@UTXVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: UW Foto Housings


A Nikonos V is not necessarily finished after a flood.  I speak from
experience on this one.

Xavier Jones
PADI DM-43381
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:09:00 EDT
From:         "Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)" <RFLNG@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: To compute or not to compute

On the accounting of safety stop time for using tables, I wrote

>> But not so for PADI Dive Tables, if you follow their prescriptions.  In
>> fact, if you SURFACED for 9 minutes and re-entered water to dive, you're
>> still in the FIRST dive.  That's what prompted my comment

>> Also, Tables do not account the first 10 minutes of
>> your surface interval in repetitive dive-group computations, ...

"(Nicholas J. Simicich)" <scifi]njs@UUNET.UU.NET> said,

> The instructions that came with my Wheel do not make any mention of
> this.  As far as I can tell, your next dive starts as soon as you
> surface.  Or perhaps I've just missed it?  Other people have looked.

I had mentioned

>>  Just look at any PADI or NAUI Surface Interval Time/Credit Table.  The
>>  minimum time starts at 0:10 because of the DEFINITION of a DIVE.

"your next dive starts as soon as you surface" does not apply even to
COMPUTERS.  Nick, look up your COMPUTER manual(s), and see how it counts
dives.   However, computers, unlike tables, DO continuously credit surface
interval time, irrespective of the def. of the dive number.

When I used the term "dive tables", I was referring to the generic,
rectangular plaster cards called "tables", and implicitly excluded the
Wheel.  I quoted in the same post the source of my comment about the
10-minute surface interval (or not counting the first 9):

>> "If a surface interval is less than 10 minutes, treat the dives as a single
>> dive, adding the Bottom Times together and using the deepest depth attained
>> on either dive to determine the Group Designation."

The quote was taken from MY latest PADI Diver Manual (1984, p.120) which was
written before the Wheel (which some call "Wheel of Fortune" and some call
"Bend-O-Matic"  :-) ) was invented.  I don't think the conventional
definition of a dive or the use of those tables have changed since 1984.

-- Bob.

From: craig@cattnts.canada.ncr.com (Craig Campbell)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
Subject: Re: To compute or not to compute
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:01:31 GMT
Organization: AT&T / NCR Canada Ltd., Toronto, Canada

In article <01GPL8C5EHY88Y8CQT@ITHACA.BITNET> MCCABE@ITHACA.BITNET (Scuba Buddha) writes:
>        What do all of YOU feel about the wheel, as it is a wonderful
>backup for a computer provided you dive the plan.

Well, you asked....

	I feel that the "wheel" is an overpriced marketting gimick, forced 
	on students, with no serious bennefits.  As to safety, I feel that
	much safer tables, which do not require nuclear science doctorates
	to use, are readily available at a fraction of the cost.

	In summary, the wheel has an extremely poor cost/bennefit ratio.

	These are my (and possibly only my) feelings.  You asked... :-)

>Darren P. McCabe "Hal"

craig
-- 
Craig Campbell		|	These opinions are entirely the result of a 
Systems Engineer	|	small butterfly crashing into the far side
NCR Canada,		|	of the planet.  Chaos Rules.
an AT&T Company		|	I speak for no one, except, possibly, myself.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU