HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: james@library.nrl.navy.mil (James King)
Subject: Re: Windows Title Screen--Bypassing
Organization: NRL
Distribution: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:27:46 GMT

In article <TROYB.92Oct14090513@ivy.stat.ufl.edu> troyb@stat.ufl.edu (Troy Bleeker) writes:
>From: troyb@stat.ufl.edu (Troy Bleeker)
>Subject: Windows Title Screen--Bypassing
>Date: 14 Oct 92 13:05:13 GMT
>Is there any way to bypass the opening title screen for windows 3.1 when
>I start the program.
>Please e-mail me or post responses.
>
>troyb@stat.ufl.edu
>
>Troy
Try typing WIN :  
that should do it.

James King
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.misc:3872 comp.os.ms-windows.apps:3818
From: t06@clark.edu (Torry Schreiner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.apps
Subject: Procom Patches
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:19:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Oct15.221925.2973
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

Can anyone tell me where I can find the file that contains the patch
program to bring Procom for windows up to version 1.01.  I had it but I
lost it and now I need it.  I found the one on cica but that isn't it.
I need the one that patched 4 executables.  I need it because of the
gif viewer bug.

Thanx
-- 
The key to life is one thing.  It's up to you to figure out what it is.
                                    - Kurly in City Slickers 
     Torry V. Schreiner                                       t06@clark.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.setup
From: stebnerd@wl.aecl.ca
Subject: RE: Need Screen Blanker for Windows...
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:57:45 GMT

Hi there,
   Sounds like all you need is something like After Dark.  It's an active
screen saver with all kinds of groovy imagery and effects.  You can pick
it up from just about any software store for about 25 bucks.  There are
lots of adds for it in computer magazines as well.  I use it here at
work and it's great.
   Well, happy computing, and always remember: A Smith & Wesson beats
four aces.
   Ciao.
-Daren Stebner
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: rkl@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kevin.laux)
Subject: Re: mscdex says 'incorrect version of DOS'?!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:09:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.190226.423@netcom.com>, mbk@netcom.com (Miles Kehoe) writes:
> jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:
> 
> >rkl@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kevin.laux) writes:
> 
> <about the problem that mscdex is unhappy with DOS 5>
> 
> I've got a pretty recent version of mscdex, but it still wants
> to run on older versions of DOS. That's why they give you SETVER.

	"Pretty recent"?  Which version? 2.0, 2.1, 2.20, or 2.21?  If you
get 2.21 you won't need SETVER, and, I seem to recall some mention that it can
be loaded high (but don't hold me to that - I don't load it high because my
system configuration doesn't leave me any room).

	You can download 2.21 from Microsoft's BBS (206-936-6735).  You
will find the file cdext.exe under Windows and DOS files, submenu Windows 3.1
drivers.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
	R. Kevin Laux				Email: rkl1@hound.att.com
	AT&T Bell Labs				Voice: (908) 949-1160
	Holmdel, NJ 07733			Fax:   (908) 949-0959
From: gb03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (GEORGE PHILIP BLUHM)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS STACKING THE DECK!
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:14:46 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <7180@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Man
n) writes:
>In article <trussell.718986203@cwis> trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim
>Russell) writes:
>>
>>     What's your point?  This was reported widely in the trade rags,
>and has
>> been documented quite thoroughly in a book on Windows secrets.
>
>And what's your point?  That Microsoft uses undocumented system
>calls (which ARE documented in a number of books such as the
>one you mention)?   Is there any system out there that doesn't
>have undocumented calls/features/commands that are, from time
>to time, used in-house?
>
>I think it's
>> crap that Microsoft gets away with shit like this, and you can be
>damned
>> sure the FTC is taking notes in a big way.  I'm going to laugh my
>head off
>> when Microsoft gets pinned to the wall and broken up like Bell was.
>They
>> asked for it, and quotes like Gates' sure don't help.
>>
>
>I doubt it will happen.  Microsoft does not have a monopoly
>on small computer operating systems or in small computer
>applications.  In operating systems, there are machines running
>Unix and the Mac OS.  If you don't like DOS, go to one of those.
>There are apps that compete with any MS app.  If Microsoft has
>such an advantage, why does WordPerfect outsell Word?  Any
>judge would laugh an anti-trust suite out of court if the
>competors claimed a) unfair advantage but b) their apps are
>bigger sellers than the ones they claim have the unfair
>advantage.
>
>
>--
>Jim Mann
>Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
>
All the more reason to include such "secret code."  The fact that WP outsells
words says a lot about the people selecting word processors.  Remember Word
Star was a run away best program also.

Phyle THEE McNasty
From: hodge@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS STACKING THE DECK!
Date: 13 Oct 92 12:26:00 EST

In article <trussell.718986203@cwis>, trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:
> hodge@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Oct12.185104.1@vax1.umkc.edu>, edowdy@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
>>> MICROSOFT IS STAACKING THE DECK!!
>>>  
>>>  [ paragraphs of paranoid delusions deleted...]
> 
>>  I just love the fall, when the freshmen find the netnews...
> 
>     What's your point?  This was reported widely in the trade rags, and has
> been documented quite thoroughly in a book on Windows secrets.  I think it's
> crap that Microsoft gets away with shit like this, and you can be damned
> sure the FTC is taking notes in a big way.  I'm going to laugh my head off
> when Microsoft gets pinned to the wall and broken up like Bell was.  They
> asked for it, and quotes like Gates' sure don't help.
> 
>    Tim Russell                 Omaha, NE              trussell@unomaha.edu
>       "Who can doubt that pleasure is the only goal of a reasoned life?"
>                                                    -- Epicurus
  My point?  Actually, a few...
1) Don't believe everything you read in the "trade rags".  Do you think that
just because they are real, published works that the authors have no axes 
to grind?
2) I'm no Microsoft cheerleader, but I've had far more good experiences than
bad working with them over the past decade of developing software on top of 
their systems.
3) I've read "Undocumented DOS" and have started "Undocumented Windows" and
frankly, I'm (so far) unimpressed with the advantage that the Excel and
Word development teams are accused of enjoying.

 Until someone can show me a concrete example of where Microsoft has unfairly
used their position as a systems provider to enhance their position as an
applications provider, I think I'll spend my time worrying about more
important things.   (Perhaps I should emphasize the word UNFAIRLY)

++++  Bob Hodge  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+  I'm looking for Jim Meerbot! Please email me if you know him!   +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: duke@dion.trl.oz.au
Subject: Re: C7 simply will not run.
Organization: Telecom Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:07:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.141416.12655@cs.mcgill.ca>, storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER) writes:
> 
> 
> I installed C7 yesterday, and everything seemed to be fine -- Until I tried
> to use it.
> 
> When I typed cl under windows, I got run-time error R6914 -- It was complaining
> that it couldn't find something.386. 
> 

It is asking you to load 386MAX, an extended memory manager, which gives DPMI
support. It is 3rd party software and should be bundled in your package.

Alternatively you can run Windows and open a DOS session, and DPMI will be
provided by Windows.  If you prefer to use QEMM as your memory manager, 
Quarterdeck now have a free update to give DPMI support.  I have it.

Peter Duke

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
From: trumpet-user@a.site.name (Default Trumpet User)
Subject: Re: QVTNET, Netware 3.11, ODIPKT HELP!
Keywords: QVTNET, Netware 3.11, ODIPKT
Organization: An Organization Name
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:35:51 GMT

1st: QVTNET works fine under NW 3.11 and Win 3.1 on our system.
     We're using Version 2.7 of QVTNET.

2nd: The packet_vector must be given in hex !
       
     ==> packet_vector=69

Hope, this helps.


DvL.
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.misc:3748 comp.windows.misc:1561
From: lamastus@nova.dab.ge.com (Patrick Lamastus)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc,comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.misc
Subject: PKZIP and PKUNZIP
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:02:00 GMT
Organization: GE Simulation & Control Systems

Would somebody email me a pkzip and pkunzip  program for windows...

I don't have a ftp facility.

Thanks in advance.

Patrick 
lamastus@speedway21.dab.ge.com
From: lou@pacvax.pacersoft.com (Lou Iannucci)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: HELP!  Custom Edit Control
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:52:52 GMT
Organization: Pacer Software Inc.
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
X-XXDate: Wed, 14 Oct 92 08:03:34 GMT

HELP!

I am looking for a custom edit control (that contains multiple fonts and
styles) that I can incorporate into a Windows 3.1 C program.  If anyone
has any ideas please notify me.  (I am looking for something similar to
TextEdit on the Macintosh).


Thanks in Advance
Lou Iannucci
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: rkl@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kevin.laux)
Subject: Re: mscdex says 'incorrect version of DOS'?!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:52:50 GMT

In article <JYL.92Oct12095245@burgess.eng.sun.com>, jyl@burgess.eng.sun.com (Jacob Levy) writes:
	[deleted]

> 481189-01 from the Adaptec BBS. The driver for the Sony CD Rom installs
> fine and finds the CD Rom, but when I try to run MSCDEX (found in the same
> package) it says
> 
> 	'incorrect version of DOS'
> 
> and refuses to load.
> 
> Any clues? Any help would be appreciated, I have no idea what's wrong.
> Anyone else seen this problem?

	You're probably running IBM's PC-DOS and not MS-DOS.  You also have
an old version of MSCDEX.  You can use the DOS VER command and add MSCDEX to
it so that DOS will report DOS 4.01 when MSCDEX asks what the DOS version is.
That will get you up and running.  Then call up Microsoft's BBS (206-936-6735)
and download MSCDEX 2.21 to get the latest version.  With that version you
won't need to do the VER command.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
	R. Kevin Laux				Email: rkl1@hound.att.com
	AT&T Bell Labs				Voice: (908) 949-1160
	Holmdel, NJ 07733			Fax:   (908) 949-0959
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch)
Subject: Re: Mixing portrait & landscape in WfW2.0?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:12:42 GMT

In article <x#yzss#@rpi.edu>, gilem@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:
|> In article <mcdonald.382@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:
|> >In article <#bxzf#m@rpi.edu> kudla@acm.rpi.edu (Robert Kudla) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >>Hi.  All I want to do is have the masthead for my newsletter (with a
|> >>logo in .WMF format and two rows of TrueType text) run up the left
|> >>hand side of the page, with a line "under" it, and then have two
|> >>columns of text running down the page normally.  Subsequent pages
|> >>would have either two or three columns of text with .WMF's and text
|> >>frames thrown in here and there. 
|> >
|> >>Here are the methods I've tried:
|> >
|> >>1. Framing the text part and the logo, and rotating each of them.
|> >>Unbelievably, you can't rotate frames, even of .WMF's.  
|> >
|> >Windows just doesn't like to do this.
|> >
|> >The best solutions:
|> >
|> >1) as suggested, print the logo once, landscape, and use physical
|> >   scissors, physical glue, and there you go into a copy machine or
|> >   as camera ready copy.
|> >
|> >2) if a Postscript printer, print the logo to encapsulated Postscript,
|> >   hack that by hand (actually edit the PS code) to rotate it, and
|> >   paste that in your document. Luckily ou'll have to horrible hassle 
|> >   of the rotation only once. And its a bitch getting it positioned
|> >   properly.
|> 
|> These solutions are rediculous! Your problem is that you are trying to 
|> do this with w4w.  It is very easy to do this with AmiPro, Pagemaker,
|> or Framemaker, all of which are more desktop publishing programs than
|> word.  Next time you choose to spend you money on software, make sure 
|> you check out the alternatives.
|> 
Note that only one of these is a real word processor. Pagemaker and Framemaker
are dedicated DTP programs, and presumably, it would be nice to keep the
features found in word processors. My advice would be to get a simple DTP
program (Microsoft Publisher, etc) and use that in conjunction with WinWord.
Another possibility is using a good drawing program to create the letterhead and
rotate it, and then scan the rotated image into Word as a graphic. The DTP
solution is more elegant, and for a newsletter, more useful.

|> 
|> 
|> >
|> >Doug McDonald
|> 
|> Mike
|> gilem@rpi.edu
|> 
|> --------------
|> microsoft has done it again... reduced people to physical cut-and-paste

Daniel Silevitch                               dmsilev@athena.mit.edu
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: rkl@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kevin.laux)
Subject: Re: mscdex says 'incorrect version of DOS'?!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:54:23 GMT

	Ooops.  I meant SETVER instead of VER.  Mea Culpa.

-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
	R. Kevin Laux				Email: rkl1@hound.att.com
	AT&T Bell Labs				Voice: (908) 949-1160
	Holmdel, NJ 07733			Fax:   (908) 949-0959
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: doc@magna.com (Matthew J. D'Errico)
Subject: Re: Mixing portrait & landscape in WfW2.0?
Organization: Magna Software Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:17:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.202043.17910@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Robert Stephen Rodgers) writes:
>In article <#bxzf#m@rpi.edu> kudla@acm.rpi.edu (Robert Kudla) writes:
>>- Or, I could go and spend $70 on Bitstream MakeUp, which supposedly
>>  supports all kinds of nifty text functions and exports .WMF's.
>>  Another draw program would probably manage to at least rotate the text
>>  90 degrees, but since EB has MakeUp for 70 bucks, it wouldn't be *too*
>>  painful. 
>
>	Just say _no_ to Bitstream MakeUp.  It's the worst piece of software I've ever had the displeasure to be suckered into buying.  You're much better off with almost _anything_ else.  Include Adobe Type align.  It's awful.  If you really want it, I'll sell you my copy.  I pulled it off the machine two weeks after purchase.

It sounds to me like a better investment would be MicroSoft Publisher...

With the tools Robert has, (assuming that he's working with only the
base Windows stuff, and no add-on drawing packages), a "kludge" is in order.

Create a 3 column document, and in the first column, put a one column,
two row table...  Size the row hight according to the relative size of
the text and the logo respectively...  Insert the WMF logo into the
correct row...  You can rotate the logo in MSDraw applet.

Use Windows Paintbrush to create the text...  Size the font according
to the height you'll be expecting...  Then you need to cut&paste into
PaintShopPro (or some other shareware package) to do the rotating...

Without some other big-name package, this is about the easiest (and
cheapest) way I can think of...

Regards --

-- Doc
From: christos@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: mathematica for windows
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:03:13 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Hello there,

	Has anybody used mathematica for windows? How does it run? Is it
possible that you can use a math cooprocessor emulator instead of a mth chip to
run it?

I would appreciate any relevant response.

SEnd e-mail to 
Christos@kuhub.cc.edu.ukans
From: kaustell@viikki.Helsinki.FI (KIM OLAVI KAUSTELL (MATEK))
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: mscdex says 'incorrect version of DOS'?!
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:42:36 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki, Fac.Agric.For.

In article <JYL.92Oct12095245@burgess.eng.sun.com> jyl@burgess.eng.sun.com (Jacob Levy) writes:

>This problem is a bit esoteric, but any help will be greatly appreciated:

>What I did: I have installed ASPI drivers for the Sony CD Rom no problem,
>and I got the ASW-410 ASPI CD Rom module for DOS Version 2.1 Rev A P/N
>481189-01 from the Adaptec BBS. The driver for the Sony CD Rom installs
>fine and finds the CD Rom, but when I try to run MSCDEX (found in the same
>package) it says

>       'incorrect version of DOS'

>and refuses to load.

>Any clues? Any help would be appreciated, I have no idea what's wrong.
>Anyone else seen this problem?

>Thanks, --JYL

I have had the same problem using CD-ROM via our LAN. I'm using DOS 5, so I 
figured out MSCDEX needs some older version. I configured the DOS device 
driver SETVER to tell MSCDEX it's running on DOS 3.30. This seemed to help 
in my case, hope it works for You too !

Greetings from Finland !

 

                        y-=p Kim Kaustell p=-y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HELSINKI UNIVERSITY                     Tel.      +358+0+70851
Dept. Agric. Engineering                Fax.      +358+0+7085491
And Household Technology                Internet : Kim.Kaustell@Helsinki.Fi
Helsinki, Finland                       EARN     : KAUSTELL@FINUH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: ARGHH!-WFW2.0 Sucks big time!
Keywords: Crashes problems wfw
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:25:16 GMT

In article <mcdonald.368@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:

>TeX, for example, has no bugs.

Wow! After all those arguments about bugless programs in comp.sys.
amiga.advocacy too..  9-)


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: terryh@cae.wisc.edu (Terry Henning)
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS STACKING THE DECK!
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:42:38 CDT

In article <79npb7@lynx.unm.edu> tkeitt@algodones.unm.edu (Timothy Keitt) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.185104.1@vax1.umkc.edu>, edowdy@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
[Bunch o' stuff deleted]
>
>I think we should be carefull not to persecute MS
>too quickly. Any OS has undocumented features -- its
>the only way to maintain standards. Another factor to
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What a great way to maintain standards - Don't tell anyone else about them. :)



Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: james@library.nrl.navy.mil (James King)
Subject: Re: Interesting and unusual problem...
Summary: Wierd thing. Can you help?
Organization: NRL
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:28:45 GMT

In article <nauman.719156648@hq> nauman@Pt.hq.af.mil (Stratton D Nauman) writes:
>From: nauman@Pt.hq.af.mil (Stratton D Nauman)
>Subject: Interesting and unusual problem...
>Summary: Wierd thing. Can you help?
>Date: 15 Oct 92 13:44:08 GMT
>Ive had a very unusual problem crop up on my machine.
>
>I purchased a new machine, in June, loaded MSWindows 3.1
>at the same time, and have used it every day since then.
>My problem:  3 days ago, 32 bit disk addressing all of a sudden
>refuses to work.  Mind you, No problems at all when I turn it
>off, but when its on, the Disk times out.  To the best of my
>knowledge, nothing has changed, no new programs have been added
>no new hardward, no new nothing.  I have run a surface scan quite
>a few times, and although the first time I ran it, I came up with
>a hardware data error, that hasnt happened again.
>
>The disk seems to run just peachy keen under DOS.
>
>Wierd.  Comments?
>
>Dave.
>

Is it possible that something like SMARTDRV is now stomping on the 32bit 
addressing?  I would try stripping your bootup to the minimum 
configuration. Then if that doesn't work, try changing the address that 
SMRTDRV is on.  Also, if you are running EMM386, try excluding the address 
ranges that you know are being used.  Have fun!

JAMES KING
NAVAL RESEARCH LAB
WASHINGTON, DC
From: khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu (Little Kenny Hamer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS STACKING THE DECK!
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:29:52 GMT
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

In article <1992Oct14.162619.21833@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Death of DOS predicted (again)!  Film at 11.

I did not mean to imply that DOS will die, just that with new operating
systems available, the major issues of the day will probably change.  I.E.
people will be screaming about the newest intolerable bug in NT or OS/2
and about how IBM or Microsoft is screwing the public and/or their
competitors in that way, rather than about the same thing vis-a-vis DOS.

As far as the MS/DR-DOS thing, I could be wrong, it's not like I was
there. Anyone who was there want to comment?  However I _was_ "there"
(paying attention, so-to-speak) when during the beta program they fixed
the stuff for Adobe's fonts.  They were using Truetype, yet the Adobe stuff
was fixed in time for the first release.  Even if they did not put DR
on high priority for fixing, I do not believe that they purposely
sabotaged it, either.  Besides, it works now, so why complain?

Someone also took issue with my assertion that if MS is using special
codes under DOS and WIN their software ought to show some advantage in
the marketplace attributable to those calls (as opposed to interface or
marketing).  I will try to restate that in a clearer manner:

IF one is going to accuse Microsoft of using the undocumented calls to
gain an advantage, or even using their manufacture of DOS to their
(unfair) advantage, one ought first to show A)  that a signifigant advantage
due to these factors exists (unarguably true for the DOS market, not so for
the function calls). B) One ought to show that Microsoft intentionally
uses these advantages in an attempt to take unfair advantage of their
competitors (Not the case with DOS...  There were no competitors for a
long time).  

It is not enough to just say that some unfair advantage must exist because
they are doing so well, or even that some unfair advantage must exist
because their competitors say so, or because you don't like them.  Not
that I am accusing anybody in particular of these.

What has been going on in the media is akin to saying that Colonel Mustard
must have done it, because everyone else says he has the candlestick (even
though you can't be sure that it IS a candlestick) and besides, he has
experience and is ruthless and nobody likes him anyway.  Grounds for an
investigation, yes.  Grounds for summary execution, no.

-KEN
 khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu