HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: news.groups,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: RFD soc.religion.mormon -- PROPOSED CHARTER
Date: 21 Jan 1993 20:45:25 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <ANDRE.93Jan20161039@king.slc.mentorg.com>, andre@king.slc.mentorg.com (Andre' Hut) writes:
> 
> Of the 5 current soc.religion groups, 4 are moderated.  So based on
> those figures, (or lack of) soc.religion.mormon could be moderated
> or un-moderated, that point can still be debated.  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.

However, when a moderator is discussed, the moderation should be along the
lines of keeping the signal-to-noise ratio up. Subjects should not be censored
but noise should be. 
-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
From: trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:49:17 GMT
Organization: ASCI

>>>>> "gseidman" == gseidman@math14.math.umbc.edu
>>>>> <gseidman@math14.math.umbc.edu> writes:

gseidman> I favor a comp.sys.mac.laptop newsgroup as a separate entity
gseidman> from comp.sys.laptop (which is centered on IBM and clones)
gseidman> and comp.sys.mac.* which tend to be too general to serve the
gseidman> needs of Mac portable users.  As for complaints about

Why not comp.sys.laptop.mac?  The main point that the discussion should
center around is how it is different for a laptop machine, wouldn't that
fit better on comp.sys.laptop?

gseidman> comp.sys.mac.{ii,iix,xi,fx,cx,ci,si,vx,...}, while there
gseidman> certainly are enough users of each model to warrant a
gseidman> newsgroup, the actual models are transient as would be any
gseidman> newsgroup pertaining specifically to them... including

I can see it now......
From: ignoramus@silly.edu (THIS IS K00L!)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.ii,comp.sys.mac.iix,comp.sys.mac.fx,comp.sys.mac.classic,comp.sys.mac.vx,comp.sys.mac.lciii,comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: What machine should I get.......

:-)
Xref: sparky news.groups:26364 misc.jobs.offered:16459
From: weinss@rs6406.ecs.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein)
Newsgroups: news.groups,misc.jobs.offered,news.announce.news.announce.newgroups
Subject: RFD: misc.jobs.offered.moderated
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:46:50 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY

#5.  Someone else suggested this during the discussion of the
1st RFD on the reorganization of misc.jobs.*.  It wasn't really 
included in that RFD and I don't think
they posted an RFD, so its 30 days probably start now.  

Read the earlier posts in news.groups for the details.
Basically, the moderators would screen out everything except job
offers and standardize the subject lines.

The unmoderated group would continue to exist in addition.
(Articles should probably be cross-posted to both groups.)

Stephen Weinstein
weinss@rpi.edu
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,rec.arts.poems,soc.culture.karnataka
From: dea@jec309.its.rpi.edu (Anirban De)
Subject: Re: Super computers from India...way to GO guys
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:11:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.180335.12279@chpc.utexas.edu> byab314@chpc.utexas.edu (Srinivas Bettadpur) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.153645.10113@bnr.ca> uipooper@bcars123.bnr.ca (UI Pooper 2) writes:
>>I hope some a day a Muslim can become the Commander-in-Chief of the
>>Indian Army (this will be another of the great idea for secularism).
>>
>  We have already had at least one I can think of : Air Chief 
>Marshal I.H. Latif.  At one stage during his tenure, there was a Hindu 
>at the head of Army, Muslim at the head of Air Force and a Christian 
>at the head of Navy.  Obviously, they used to be called Amar Akbar 
>Anthony.  Can anyone remember the names of the other two ?  This
>was sometime during 1980-84.
>                                                Srinivas
>-- 
>Srinivas Bettadpur        Internet : byab314@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu
>P.O. Box 8520, Austin, Tx. 78713-8520, U.S.A.  Tel. (512) 471 4332
>BITNET : byab314@uthermes



I think the Navy chief was Admiral A.S.Dawson.
General Sundarji could have been the Army chief (I'm not too sure about this).


Anirban
From: gk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Gavin Kerr)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: RE: RFD: comp.cs.undergrad (Forwarded message)
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:53:59 GMT
Reply-To: gk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Gavin Kerr)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U


Received: from fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca by dcs.ed.ac.uk id aa06675;
          28 Jan 93 0:27 GMT
Received: from fsf.cpsc.ucalgary.ca by fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (4.1/CSd1.2)
	id AA24913; Wed, 27 Jan 93 17:19:09 MST
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 17:19:09 MST
From: David Gomboc <gomboc@ca.ucalgary.cpsc>
Message-Id: <9301280019.AA24913@fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Received: by fsf.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (4.1/cs1.0)
	id AA27373; Wed, 27 Jan 93 17:19:41 MST
To: gk@uk.ac.ed.dcs
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.cs.undergrad
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal
Organization: University of Calgary Computer Science
Cc:  
Status: RO

Hello there.  I was reading the message posted suggesting the creation of
a newsgroup for computer science undergraduates.  While I think this is a
fantastic idea (being an undergraduate myself :-), it would also be
necessary to allow undergraduates to post articles on the internet!
Perhaps this inability is merely characteristic of my particular university,
and others world-wide are not so stodgy?

Dave Gomboc.
gomboc@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thumper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: PowerBook Newsgroup
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:12:13 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1k4lc2INNgbm@mizar.usc.edu> genzuk@mizar.usc.edu (Michael Genzuk) writes:

>I have seen many more notes in favor of the PB newsgroup and only one
>opposed.  I sure would like to see more dialog on this issue.  

I've seen more reasoned support for a more general portable computing
comp.sys.mac.* group. There have been plenty of newbie "Yeah, great idea,
lets create it now!" posts but they don't contribute much to the
discussion and count for very little at this stage of the game.

I would like to see one of the original proposers of
comp.sys.mac.powerbook provide reasoning why their idea is superior to a
comp.sys.mac.{portable,laptop,notebook}. The arguments for such a shift in
the tone and content of the RFD are on the table and no one has been
willing to challenge them.

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

                "Things tend to go better if you don't screw up."
                              - hades@dartmouth.edu
From: msmallwo@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (M. Lee Smallwood)
Subject: Re: r.a.s.c Split - survey
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Richmond)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 05:04:00 GMT

Yes, but .misc would have a NEW purpose. It would be for good
discussions from .current that no longer belong there AND for
synopses, reviews, etc. of shows, books, films, and movies that
are more than 4 months old AND anything else that does not fit
into .info, .fandom, .current, .characters, and .tech . If all
of the users automatically start to use the correct group say,
tomorrow, then ,misc will be the HUGE group of the bunch. It
will need splitting. With this, it takes *a lot* of traffic out
of .current and out of .misc and solves both problems.

By the way, I do want to see the DSN:, TNG:, and whatever else
convention work. It is needed, even after the .characters split
(which will hopefully occur). I also think that eventually a
.reviews (moderated) group will need to be established. IMHO,
the size of .current is THE BIGGEST problem with the ras
structure. It needs to be solved before we start a push for a
.reviews group. Also, the people pushing for .reviews might
just see that .reviews is not badly needed if we split the
traffic. Just a thought...

---
Lee Smallwood	msmallwo@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu	Tazewell HS

		KEEPER OF THE TIDE
                (Tazewell and Va-Pen chapters)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: wwalker@qualcomm.com (Bill Walker)
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:00:10 GMT

In article <1jvvolINNeq1@rodan.UU.NET>, Tim Rigg <rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
wrote:
> 
>                         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.  

I see no reason for any of these groups to be transferred to the
rec.outdoors hierarchy.  How about rec.outdoors.football,
rec.outdoors.baseball, rec.outdoors.driving?  They make as much sense. 
Check your newsstand:  in magazines, at least, the term "outdoors" has been
co-opted by the hunters and fishermen.  These are the "outdoorsmen".  The
rest of us just happen to do things outside.


----------
Bill Walker - WWalker@qualcomm.com - QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA
All opinions expressed are mine, and do not reflect those of my employer.
"First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers." - Shakespeare
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: pevans@sanjuan (Patricia Evans)
Subject: Re: proposed rec.arts.startrek.current split
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. CANADA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 00:44:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.114602.19858@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:  

 [edited to improve S/N and readability]
>
>Also, if confusion alone explains why .current is so big, the how
>do you account for the fact that the volume of traffic in .current
>has grown so much in the weeks since DS9 premiered?
>Confusion still existed before DS9, presumably.

Many posters seem to think that any comment about something new belongs
in .current . DS9 is new, so there's a lot of new things about it to
comment on, and much of it is going straight into .current, including
stuff about Odo's nose and who likes Kira, which should go elsewhere.
Discussion *about* recent episodes belongs in .current; discussion
which only references them in discussing something else does not.
Unfortunately it seems to be too fine a line for the average ras.*
poster to discern. Discussion also tends to mutate from the first
sort into the second sort without being moved.

Although the division between "tng" and "ds9" may seem to be more
clear than other divisions, it will really only be so for the first
type of discussion, those about the episodes. Discussion about anything
else which might have something to do with recent episodes, which is
what over half of the articles are, cannot be filed so easily. Any
discussion about Klingons, Cardassians, or Bajorans would reference
*both* series, so would probably be crossposted at some point. The
same goes for the interminable discussions on O'Brien's rank, the best
and worst overall lists, and the "XXX is a babe" droolings. These
threads are misfiled now, and the further division won't stop this.


>                         Therefore, it is plausible that DS9's
>premiere accounts for much of the traffic in .current.  I would
>add that this is a reasonable hypothesis in that traffic there
>has skyrocketed since the premiere.

Sure, the traffic skyrocketed after DS9 premiered. In a new show
there's a lot of new stuff to talk about. Once DS9 becomes more
familiar the traffic should go down. Why not wait and see if this
will be a permanent problem before panicking and creating new
newsgroups.
>
>Sorry, but you have failed to account for why traffic skyrocketed
>after the premiere of DS9, assuming of course that "lack of 
>knowledge" is a constant both before and after the premiere.

I've accounted for that above. What you fail to account for is that
this skyrocketing will not be permanent. In a few months (probably
before the .tng and .ds9 groups could possibly be created) the traffic
will change. Splitting newsgroups because of an immediate change
in traffic without seeing what it will be like a few months later
is a _very_bad_idea_.


Patricia Evans           (usually a lurker)
pevans@sanjuan.uvic.ca
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Status of soc.religion.mormon?
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:54:44 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <732@caritas.cotdazr.org>,
 zaft@caritas.cotdazr.org (Gordon C. Zaft) writes:

> Okay, I guess I missed it.  What's the status of the
> soc.religion.mormon?  Has it been RFD'd?

Yes.

But it hasn't been CFV'd yet.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: adair@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Jonathan Edward Adair)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.miniatures
Keywords: miniatures figures ancients napoleonics renaissance naval
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:00:57 GMT
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.ai.mit.edu

In article <1jmsclINNh24@rodan.UU.NET> bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett) writes:
>                        REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
>
>RFD for creation of rec.games.miniatures group for tabletop miniature
>wargamers in any period. Also mailed to Harpoon, Figures, Conflict
>Simulation, Squad Leader, Pre-gunpowder, EIA and SFB mailing lists for
>distribution to their readership.
>

One of my (minor) concerns is that there are quite a few gamers interested
in miniatures for use with games such as Dungeons and Dragons, etc.,
with little or no interest in wargaming.

How would this group handle discussions of topics such as:
  What color is a bugbear's fur?
  Who makes the best drow miniatures?
  Where can I get neat-looking cardboard floor tiles?
  

Personally, I think the traffic level will be low enough to not
worry about discussions of these topics, but they may be irritating
to people only interested in period wargaming.


My other concern is the discussion of miniatures rules.  If 40%
or more of the traffic in the group is on various rules systems,
and the majority of the readers only have interest in one or
two particular systems, there is going to be a lot of noise
for those readers.  

At the very least (and probably the best way to deal with it),
posters should be strongly encouraged to include the rules
system on the subject line for kill files.


Overall, it sounds like a good group, and one that I'd try
to keep up with.  I just hope that when the CFV comes out,
it makes it to REC.GAMES.FRP.DND or REC.GAMES.FRP or another
group with a lot of miniature buffs reading it, like myself.

--
Jonathan E. Adair  -  Programmer at Large                          /\
adair@gnu.ai.mit.edu             <-  Best choice                  /<>\
adair@eggo.csee.usf.edu          <-  Almost as good              /    \
adair@cfrrisc1.cfr.usf.edu       <-  Works for now              /______\
adair@psycho.fidonet.org         <-  Read yearly             The Illuminati
From: wanagin@kingkong.escape.de (Ulf Bahrenfuss)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: r.a.s.c Split - survey
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:59:23 GMT
Distribution: world
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0

I would like to see a ras.ds9 group rather than a character group. This
rank and who is hottest diskussions are for .misc and we should try to free
.current from that type of nonsense.

Ulf
--
Ulf Bahrenfuss                        wanagin@kingkong.escape.de
Xref: sparky news.groups:26142 rec.games.board:13569
From: marlatt@spot.Colorado.EDU (Stuart W. Marlatt)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: RENAME several groups to rec.outdoors.*
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:21:13 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <93025.122808YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> Yaakov Kayman <YZKCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>While not being a specifically backcountry-oriented person, I do greatly
>enjoy both hiking and camping. I'm therefore in favor of the creation of
>groups r.o.camping and r.o.hiking.
>
>Yaakov K.
>--------

Which is currently possible now, under rec.backcountry - without having
to post to and read from two separate groups!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are the eagles and the trumpets?                                    
  --T.S. Eliot, A Cooking Egg                                             
..............................................................................
s.w. marlatt, <><  &  *(:-)               Prov. 25.2
University of Colorado:                   marlatt@spot.Colorado.edu  492-3939
National Center for Atmospheric Research: marlatt@neit.cgd.ucar.edu  497-1669
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: scotth@cs.umr.edu (Scott Hayes)
Subject: Re: RFD soc.religion.mormon -- to moderate or not
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:35:12 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

>I favor a LDS moderator for two reasons.
>
>1.  Signal to Noise
>2.  To often non-mormons want to offend Mormons.  To some, freedom of speech
>implies the freedom of good manners. 
>
>jason

As a non-Mormon, I agree with Jason.  Some people are not really interested
in discussion but in posting some impish insult and then running away.

However, I also hope that the moderator will allow dissension from time
to time, just as on soc.religion.christian we have occasional atheist
postings which make us think and can start good conversation about the
nature of God, etc.

Scott
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: maierj@edmund.cs.andrews.edu (Joey Maier)
Subject: rec.outdoors.scuba - BAD IDEA
Organization: Andrews University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:41:50 GMT

If rec.outdoors.fishing is the only rec.outdoors  group, why not have
them change to rec.fishing.  It seems more logical to change the name of
one group than to change the names of groups for backpacking, scuba,
rock climbing, boating, scuba diving, etc.  IMHO, the .outdoors. is
rather redundant anyway.  (I don't scuba dive indoors, and I doubt that
the fishermen fish indoors either.)
From: robla@ids.net
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Looking for World Hunger Newsgroup??
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:11:20 EST
Organization: IDS World Network, (401) 884-9002 <data>, [155.212.1.2]


Hello All,
	Is there a newsgroup out there that
is on the topic of World Hunger?  I am 
a teacher at a jr high in RI and we produce
a newsletter on This topic.  I tought it
would be great for the students to post and read
in such an area.
	Any help or direction will be great! 
Thanks,
    Rob
Robla@ids.net]

Newsgroups: news.groups
From: kells@daimi.aau.dk (Kell S|nnichsen)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.outdoors.orienteering
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:34:28 GMT

ahill@boi.hp.com (Andy Hill) writes:

>Richard H. Miller (rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu) wrote:
>
>> and the consensus was that the rec.sport was PRIMARILY for 'spectator' 
>> sports in that most of the discussion was about other people who participated
>> in the sport rather than active participients.
>> 

>Also, I find it hard to believe that the denizens of rec.sport.disc,
>rec.sport.triathlon, or rec.sport.swimming (e.g. among many) are primarily
>watchers.

The same goes for rec.sport.paintball and (I believe) rec.sport.snowboarding.
Orienteering *is* a sport and should be placed in rec.sport. The discussion
whether rec.sport.* is for spectators or for participators seems, to me, to
be a funny attempt to overcategorize.

> It would seem to me that arbitrarily dividing recreative sports
>into primarily-non-participative and primarily-participative is unnecessary
>logic-chopping (is the rec.sport level overly full?).  Beyond that, naming the
>primarily-participative level .outdoors. is just plain confusing.

Yep!

>> 4) It is normally better to try to fit into an existing hierarchy if it
>> makes sense. 
>> 
>So just put orienteering in rec.sport.  Existing hierarchy, makes sense to
>more people.  Good choice.

I'll vote for rec.sport.orienteering as well and I think it makes sense, too!

				/Kell Soennichsen
-- 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 _/ Kell S|nnichsen             _/_/_/_/   The two most abundant things in _/
 _/ Computer Science Dept.       _/_/_/_/  the Universe are Hydrogen and   _/
 _/ University of Aarhus, Denmark _/_/_/_/ stupidity.                      _/
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.startrek.misc,rec.arts.startrek.current
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thumper)
Subject: Re: rec.arts.startrek.current - split survey
Followup-To: news.groups
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:12:13 GMT

In <93021.091146JSP6@psuvm.psu.edu> Jeffrey S. Payne <JSP6@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>...And here are the results:

>Yes, split as above:                     61
>Yes, split, but with some other plan:     4
>No, do .reviews as an alternative:        3
>No, don't do any stinkin split:          21

>I was wrong, and the majority grew to a 3 to 1 margin, SHOWING CLEARLY TO ALL
>that there is considerable support for a split of some form.

If you think anyone is going to care about a poll with less than 100
replies then you are quite mistaken. It means nothing.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
    "An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible,
     whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
		-Spock, "STVI:TUC", Stardate 9523.8
From: jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.sys.mac.powerbook
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:54:05 GMT
Organization: USC-ISI
In-reply-to: perdue4575@iscsvax.uni.edu's message of 21 Jan 93 14:59:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.222613.10056@iscsvax.uni.edu> perdue4575@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

>I support a newsgroup on the Macintosh Powerbooks. It'd save me
>a lot of time sifting through all the articles in the other 
>sections.

I agree.  There are a lot of concerns about PowerBooks that no other
Mac CPU has, and separating them would be a boon.

jas
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Sullivan             | Research Scientist et al.
jas@isi.edu (Internet)          | Information Sciences Institute
72511,402    (Compuserve)       | University of Southern California