HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Regular Expression Question
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:05:44 GMT
Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation, MME Project

In article <1992Aug13.115656.16757@cas.org> lvirden@cas.org (Larry W. Virden) writes:
>In article <sjreeves.920812075405@eng.auburn.edu> sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu (Stan Reeves) writes:
>:I need to construct a regular expression that locates all words without
>:an "@".  I've exhausted all my own ideas and was wondering if I could
>:draw on the expertise of this group.

Define "word". The definition I'd use:

	[A-Za-z][a-z]*

sort of automatically disallows '@'. Once you've defined a word, the regular
expression should follow.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                               `-_-'
$ EDIT/TECO LOVE                                              'U` 
%TECO-W-OLDJOKE Not war?                        Have you hugged your wolf today?
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.      Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012       +1 713 274 5180
From: root@ctron.com (Operator)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Point
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:21:03 GMT
Reply-To: root@ctron.com (Operator)
Organization: Cabletron Systems Inc

Hi,

	I am having a problem with Point.  I compiled the program on
my system and it initially comes up.  When I open a new window or
a csh in a window the program seg faults...... Any Ideas????


						Pete Geremia
						geremia@ctron.com
Newsgroups: comp.editors
From: mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Subject: Re: Counter in VI?
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:02:13 GMT

In article <1623@applix.com> jimr@applix.com (Jim Rouleau [ext 256]) writes:
>What I'd like to do is take something like this:
>
>  #define z 26
>  to become
>  #define z 25

Pipe the relevant lines through awk!  (Although, if you're really only
concerned with changing #defines, compilers will generate exactly the
same code given
	#define z (26-1)
as if they received
	#define z 25
and the addition of the parenthesis et.al. can clearly be done within vi.)

marshall
-- 
------- (c) 1992, Marshall Gene Flax <mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> -------
----------- 5 Joyce Lane, Woodbury, NY 11797, 516-364-9331,9379  ----------
- c/o Jack Gelfand,Psychology Dept,Princeton U.,NJ 08544,609-258-6739 (w) -
Newsgroups: comp.editors
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Why I love VI
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:23:59 GMT

mcrowley@mtholyoke.edu (Michael A. Crowley) writes:
> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
> > 
> > How can you be faster using arrow keys?  I lose almost 10 keystrokes
> > whenever I leave the home row to use arrow keys  (which is why I
> > hate DOS programs such as Wordperfect).
> > 
> You should try XyWrite and remap the keys to do exactly what you
> want under your fingertips.  Of course with vendors putting
> the control key in awkward places....  But that invites a whole new
> thread.

The thread was editors that are key driven (modified keys like emacs or
moded editors like vi) vs. editors that are function key/menu/mouse
driven.  If XyWrite can be mapped to work like vi or emacs then it
falls into the key driven camp.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: comp.editors
From: sti@cs.hut.fi (Sami-Jaakko Tikka)
Subject: Re: Why I love VI 
X-Md4-Signature: dff2962a3e13adee8734b9eb468c0271
Reply-To: Sami.Tikka@hut.fi
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:47:54 GMT

In article <714096328snx@n5ial.chi.il.us> jim@n5ial.chi.il.us (Jim Graham) writes:

>   I've even gotten comments like,
>   ``ok, so you can do in one keystroke what it takes me 15 or 20
>   keystrokes to do...what, are you TOO LAZY to do the rest?''

I was rather under the impression the old time editors usually have a
more efficient interface, at least if you only count keystrokes.  They
might even be somewhat mnemonic, but they lose in ease of use when
compared with the mice-and-menus-editors because when using them you
don't even have to remember anything.  Just open up the menu and you
can read all the options from there.  If it wasn't in this menu, just
move the mouse and you get to see the next one.  See, nothing to
remember!  Everyone can do it without reading the manualpage.

The trouble is, like many have stated, this is not always as fast as
just remembering that d is for deleting and w is for word and dw will
delete a word.

In my opinion, an editor should grow with you.  I mean that when you
are a novice, it allows you to use mice and menus (which display also
shortcutkeys for actions).  By and by you are bound to start
remembering the shortcuts and start using them because they get the
job done faster.  After that you start thinking how to speed up and
ease things further and that is when you want to learn the macro or
extension language.  Of course some people will never reach the last
stage but if the extension language is there, it'll hardly do any
damage even if you don't use it.

I know of no such editors (at least) in the unix-world.  I'm kind of
hoping that emacs might some day be like the way I described.

>   mainframe at work, I use vi on my workstation and ftp to the mainframe
>   (or use snarf-n-barf courtesy of the twm window manager under X11R5).

Would you care to tell me what exactly is this snarf-and-barf -feature
of the twm window manager.  I found nothing like this in twm's manual
page (or am I missing something here...)
--
Sami.Tikka@hut.fi                                  "Live Long and Prosper!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think there's a world market for about 5 computers."
        - Thomas J. Watson, Chairman of the Board, IBM (around 1948)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Why I love VI
Keywords: vi, speed, power
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:39:49 GMT

In article <fortony.713602130@murphy> fortony@sonne.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>messina@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
>
>>fortony@sonne.cso.uiuc.edu responds to Barbara Vaughan:
>
>>>I only type around 130 wpm, but I guarantee that I with vi can outperform
>>>anyone using one of those silly mouse or F-key editors as long as they
>>>type less than 150 wpm.
>
>>I find those "I'm a touch typist and with vi I can type 130 words a
>>minute" to be as meanigful as a yesteryear's snow.  Do you *program*
>>at 130 words per minute?  Do you write your reports at 130 words per
>>minute?  Who the hell cares how fast you can pound the keyboard?  It's
>>the ease of use with ergonomic designs that allows users to employ
>>their editors at a speed that doesn't slow them down and that doesn't
>>force them to spend two years to learn the commands and doesn't force
>>them to interrupt their thinking to remember the stupid commands that
>>matters.  While I also prefer editors to word processors and don't use
>>menus (unless I happen to go completely brain-dead and suddenly forget
>>all commands) and despise rodents next to my computer, I find such
>>declaration to be amusing at most. 
>
>I don't see that you're disagreeing with me.  The bit about typing
>130 wpm was not a dick size contest move, it was peripheral.  Typing
>speed is correlative with programming speed, but that's not the issue.
>
> [ deleted text ]
>
>How long do you intend to be a novice that requires mice/menus/
>F-keys?  If you're a serious programmer/writer, you can learn enough
>vi to be capable in five (5) minutes and enough to be great in 5 (five)
>days.  If it takes you longer than that, then you might well be in the
>wrong field.  vi is not really great for computer illiterates.  Fine.
>This, we have established.  vi in the right hands is as close as you
>can get to hooking your mind up to the computer without wiring.
>
>>t.
Bravo! :-)  I have been a UNIX user (about 4 years) and I would not
trade VI for the world.  If you have the knowledge of a few basic commands
and learn from there, the power of VI is at your finger tips.  Combine
Vi with Eroff(Tm) and I can produce a document that other users think I
used a MAC to produce. Yes, I agree, it takes a person with some bit of
effort.

-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Using vi to edit columns (was Re: Why I love VI)
From: chermesh@chen.bgu.ac.il (Ran Chermesh)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 00:06:47 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel



riskit@x400gate.bnr.ca (Reg Foulkes) writes:
: In article <Bsu0EG.73F@root.co.uk>, gwc@root.co.uk (Geoff Clare) wrote:
: >
: > In <riskit-100892113813@47.201.0.36> riskit@x400gate.bnr.ca (Reg Foulkes) writes:
: >
: > >  My main objection is that you cannot use vi to edit columns.
: >
: > Which is why I wrote some macros to do "block delete and copy".
: > They are available from the worldwide vi archive sites.

Can you elaborate? What name do they carry? How do we use it? (I'm a novice
in the vi world and would appreciate help in installing the macros, not only
in facilitating their retrieval).
--
Ran Chermesh                                  E - M A I L
Behavioral Sciences Dept.                     ===========
Ben-Gurion University                  Internet: CHERMESH@BGUVM.BGU.AC.IL
Beer-Sheva 84105                                 CHERMESH@CHEN.BGU.AC.IL
Newsgroups: comp.editors
From: kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz)
Subject: Re: Switching fields in vi
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 21:26:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug12.013235.28265@nuscc.nus.sg> ccechk@nuscc.nus.sg (Heng Kek) writes:
=Hello everyone
=
=In my file, I have 2 columns of corresponding data, e.g.:
=
=name1	num1
=name2 	num2
=name3	num3
= :	:
=namen	numn
=
=Question:  What's the best way to switch the 2 cols in vi?
=I.e. to 
=
=num1	name1
=num2 	name2
=etc
=
=Further to this problem, how does one switch cols given an arbitrary
=number of columns to start with?  E.g. if I have 5 cols and I want
=to switch cols 2 and 4, how do I do it?  I've thought about piping
=the data through some one-line perl command from within vi, but
=don't quite know how to begin.  I.e. something like '!G perl -e
=...'.
=
=Thanks in advance for any responses.
=
=Kek
=
First answer,

!}awk '{print $2 " " $1}'


Second answer,

!}awk '{print $1" "$4" "$3" "$2}'

Newsgroups: comp.editors
From: bvaughan@lotka.Princeton.EDU (Barbara Vaughan)
Subject: Re: Why I love VI 
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:13:11 GMT

In article <714096328snx@n5ial.chi.il.us> jim@n5ial.chi.il.us (Jim Graham) writes:
>In article <Bt0BJG.HAv@cs.psu.edu> ward@math.psu.edu writes:
>> In an old(er) article, bvaughan@lotka.Princeton.EDU (Barbara Vaughan)
>> writes:
>>> I'm always amazed at the fact that the most rapidly evolving field of the
>>> 20th century attracts so many people who adamantly refuse to evolve with
>>> it.
>>> I've known people who refused to abandon their punch cards when tapes came
>>> along;
>>> who refused to abandon their tapes when disks came along,
>> 
>> I can put 5 gigs on a little 5 buck videotape. I just don't see your point.
>
>ummm, I might be mistaken, but I believe the reference was to cassette
>tapes (like the old trash-80 computers used).  and, again, if my
>interpretation is correct, we're not talking for things like backup...
>we're talking for normal, everyday storage...just like lots of people
>use their hard disk for.  

Yes, that's (almost) what I was referring to, but in the IBM mainframe
world.  People who have 500 files they use every day on a 2400' reel tape
and waste 1/2 hour many times a day getting the tape mounted so they can
read 30 records from the 499th file.

Some people had the mistaken impression that I was trashing vi, which I
never mentioned in my posting.  What originally caught my eye was a snide
reference to menus, mice, cursor keys, function keys, meta keys, etc.  I
myself haven't come to like mice and menus (yet), but I've come to see the
value of cursor keys and function keys.  And I'm not going to dismiss mice
and menus out of hand, because I can see that's the way the world is
moving.  Some of the software I've been supporting for years (SAS for
instance) is coming out with XWindows versions with full GUI splendor and
if I insist on sticking with what I already know, I'll soon be an
obsolescent SAS support person.
Newsgroups: comp.editors
From: sjane@bmers248.bnr.ca (sjs)
Subject: elvis 1.6, Sun Sparc and cursors keys
Keywords: elvis 1.6 cursor key troubles on Sun Sparc
Organization: Irrelevant, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 20:13:52 GMT

My sysadmin just upgraded to elvis 1.6 from elvis 1.5.  One of the 
changes in 1.6 is:
  The :ks=:ke=: termcap strings aren't used anymore.  Those strings are
  supposed to be used to put the keypad in "application mode", but it seems
  that editors aren't applications in the eyes of termcap entry writers.
  The :ks=: string was making the arrow keys send goofy codes instead of the
  normal codes defined in :ku=: etc.
 
What this meant to me, running elvis on a Sun Sparc II, OW2, X11R4, from an
xterm, is that my cursor keys stopped working.  Completely.  They just
beeped at me.  

If you run into this problem, you can either get your sysadmin to change back
to elvis 1.5 or you can alter your .termcap file (ask a guru) to change your
:ku, :kd, :kr, :kl to be \E[A, \E[B, \E[C, \E[D.  I'm not absolutely positive
if the latter solution will solve all your problems, because my sysadmin added
:ks & :ke back into elvis 1.6 for me.

-sjs
--
It's not irrelevant; it's a hippopotamus.   sjane@BNR.CA
From: carlj@muppet.bt.co.uk (Carl Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: vi - too much macro text (yet again)
Keywords: vi, macros, error message
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:54:04 GMT
Reply-To: carlj@muppet.bt.co.uk
Organization: BT

Hi all,
	I'm getting this old favourite, in the past my method
of finding the problem was to delete bits from the .exrc until
it went away and then slowly reinsert bits, however before I
start this again I thought I'd post and find out if anyone has
a more efficent method.  

Cheers,
Carl
From: ward@math.psu.edu (Brian Ward)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Why I love VI
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:01:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bt9C6C.JuH
Organization: The Society for Green Traffic Lights

In article <dn!1Hv4c19@atlantis.psu.edu> barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr) writes:
|Now if only my tape of WordPerfect 5.1 would arrive.  I say that,
|crossing my fingers hoping that they've fixed the dozens of bugs and
|problems with 5.0.

we got ours, and yeah, it fixes a lot of bugs.

too bad, though. it still can't even keep up with my typing. vi can.
Newsgroups: comp.editors
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Why I love VI 
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:23:25 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of Sami.Tikka@hut.fi:
:In article <714096328snx@n5ial.chi.il.us> jim@n5ial.chi.il.us (Jim Graham) writes:
:
:>   I've even gotten comments like,
:>   ``ok, so you can do in one keystroke what it takes me 15 or 20
:>   keystrokes to do...what, are you TOO LAZY to do the rest?''
:
:I was rather under the impression the old time editors usually have a
:more efficient interface, at least if you only count keystrokes.  They
:might even be somewhat mnemonic, but they lose in ease of use when
:compared with the mice-and-menus-editors because when using them you
:don't even have to remember anything.  Just open up the menu and you
:can read all the options from there.  If it wasn't in this menu, just
:move the mouse and you get to see the next one.  See, nothing to
:remember!  Everyone can do it without reading the manualpage.

Go read "GUIs Considered Harmful" in alt.religion.computers for
more on this.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist


        "EMACS belongs in <sys/errno.h>: Editor Too Big!" -me
Newsgroups: comp.editors,comp.os.minix,comp.os.linux
From: juengst@boss1.physik.uni-bonn.de (Henry G. Juengst)
Subject: Re: New ftp location for the folding editor Origami
Keywords: origami
Organization: Universit"at Bonn, Informatikinstitut, R"omerstr 154, W-5300 Bonn 1
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:58:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.214639.4442@amhux2.amherst.edu>, twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1992Aug17.170914.20108@olymp.informatik.uni-bonn.de> juengst@boss1.physik.uni-bonn.de (Henry G. Juengst) writes:
> 
> >Very nice. What do you think how long will anybody wait until the official
> >MINIX does have features like virtual memory, long file names, network
> >file system, X11 etc. ? I can't even use these technics today under MINIX
> >if I would buy a much better system (not 8088 PC). And why should I pay for
> >a new compiler, libraries and bug (!) patches again and again ?
> 
> If you're going to be running things like virtual memory and X on your
> PC, it's absurd to use anything less than a 386.  If you have a 386,
> you can run Linux.  What's your problem?

The problem is that MINIX has a micro kernel but it isn't a modular system
because there are no moduls (like X etc.).  :-(

> [...]

Henry

-- 
juengst@boss1.physik.uni-bonn.de [131.220.221.30]
juengst@saph2.physik.uni-bonn.de [131.220.221.12]
juengst@pib1.physik.uni-bonn.de  [131.220.221.2] (strange particle)

I'm only speaking for myself, but not for anybody else !
From: s-fujii@sra.co.jp (Seigo Fujii)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Solutions to using CTAGS in VI..
Keywords: recursive call, pop, stack, vifs
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:20:38 GMT
Reply-To: s-fujii@ext46.sra.co.jp (Seigo Fujii)
Organization: Software Research Associates, Inc., Japan

In article <1992Aug19.223146.12348@bnr.ca> mschee@bcarh600.bnr.ca (Michael SamChee) writes:
>sub makepopex {
>    open(POPEX, ">$POPEXFILE") || die "can not open $POPEXFILE\n";
>    if ($file && $line) {
>         print POPEX "e +$line $file\n$line\n";
>    } else {
>         print STDERR "edit-file stack empty\n";
>         print POPEX qq/" edit-file stack empty\n/;
>    }
>    close(POPEX);
>}

The 4th line of subroutine makepopex is not correct.
	print POPEX "e +$line $file\n$line\n";
Last "$line\n" is unnecessary.
	print POPEX "e +$line $file\n";
is correct.
--
Seigo
Newsgroups: comp.editors
From: hunt@dg-rtp.rtp.dg.com (Greg Hunt)
Subject: Re: Why I love VI
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 13:28:20 GMT
Reply-To: hunt@dg-rtp.rtp.dg.com
Organization: Data General Corp., Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <2991@isgtec.isgtec.com>, robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
> genef@netcom.com (Gene Fornario) writes:
> #ian@bvsd.co.edu (Ian Nelson) writes:
> #>I know how to use VI pretty well and I still think it sucks.  Why can't
> #>they port a good editor like Qedit or MultiEdit to UNIX?  I admit that
> #>vi is powerful and it is pretty quick, but behind Qedit (with menus and
> #>arrow keys) I can produce stuff much faster,  when I use the hotkeys, I
> #>go even faster.
> 
> How can you be faster using arrow keys?  I lose almost 10 keystrokes
> whenever I leave the home row to use arrow keys  (which is why I
> hate DOS programs such as Wordperfect).
> 
> #I'm a relative newcomer from the DOS to the Unix world, and I would say
> #Unix for all of it's power above and beyond DOS lacks the user-friendliness
> #of DOS software such as Q-Edit (My fav!).  Some engineers and programmers
> #may frown on this attitude, but I'm more interested in getting down to
> #business.  Q-Edit's menus have proven invaluable in that respect.  
> 
> Most programmers spend most of their day in their editors; so they are
> concerned with efficiency.  Mouse/function keys/menus are not efficient
> they are easy to learn.  The 'getting down to business' attitude is the
> exchange of long term gains for short term ease of use.

Why don't people realize that different people like different types
of editors (control key, function key, mouse, menu, etc.) because they
think about things in different ways?

I believe it's just like how programmers think.  Different people will
come up with different solutions to the same problem because they
approach it differently.

I don't see why it should be any different with how people think about
editing.

We should have different types of editors so different people who think
about editing tasks differently, will all be able to get their work
done in the ways that they prefer.  Trying to force everyone to use the
same editor will just frustrate lots of people who don't think about
editing things the way that particular editor requires.

-- 
Greg Hunt                            email: hunt@dg-rtp.rtp.dg.com
DG/UX Core Development
Data General Corporation
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA      These opinions are mine, not DG's.
Newsgroups: comp.editors,comp.os.minix,comp.os.linux
From: juengst@boss1.physik.uni-bonn.de (Henry G. Juengst)
Subject: Re: New ftp location for the folding editor Origami
Keywords: origami
Organization: Universit"at Bonn, Informatikinstitut, R"omerstr 154, W-5300 Bonn 1
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:09:14 GMT

In article <15774@star.cs.vu.nl>, philip@cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) writes:
> In article <9208153116@gandalf.moria> u31b3hs@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Michael Haardt) writes:
> %The folding editor Origami is no longer available under the minix
> %directory, because it doesn't run on MINIX any longer.  It is too big for
> %16 bit MINIX and I don't know any 32 bit MINIX hackers.  (Guess why :)
> 
> I think that if you can keep Origami more or less POSIX complient, porting
> it to a (my) 32 bit version of Minix is not much work. At least the diffs
         ~~~~~~

Very nice. What do you think how long will anybody wait until the official
MINIX does have features like virtual memory, long file names, network
file system, X11 etc. ? I can't even use these technics today under MINIX
if I would buy a much better system (not 8088 PC). And why should I pay for
a new compiler, libraries and bug (!) patches again and again ?

POSIX ? I've got MINIX 1.5.10 (plus patches up to 1.6.16) for a PC, but if
it has to eat some POSIX source it says after some hours "!@#$%^&*()+". I
will remove MINIX from its hard disk some days later and just use it to play
chess and as silly terminal. A much better system (hardware + OS) is on
its way. Please, don't tell me anything about any patches. I know them all
and can't see them any more. MINIX _was_ a nice idea. Sorry.

> for 1.6.34 were very small.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 						Philip Homburg
> 
> 
> 
> Philip Homburg 			   			<philip@cs.vu.nl>
> Vrije Universiteit / Dept. of Math. & Comp. Sci.	+31 20 5483546
> Amoeba project / De Boelelaan 1081A
> 1081 HV Amsterdam / The Netherlands

Henry
-- 
juengst@boss1.physik.uni-bonn.de [131.220.221.30]
juengst@saph2.physik.uni-bonn.de [131.220.221.12]
juengst@pib1.physik.uni-bonn.de  [131.220.221.2] (strange particle)

I'm only speaking for myself, but not for anybody else !
From: glauber@vpnet.chi.il.us (Glauber Ribeiro)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: ELVIS spotted at Simtel
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:48:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: vpnet.1992Aug20.054804.17164
Organization: Vpnet Public Access

The King is dead! Long live the King!

For those who don't know, the latest encarnation of Elvis
(1.6) is at Simtel20.

PD1:<MSDOS.EDITOR>ELV16EXE.ZIP
PD1:<MSDOS.EDITOR>ELV16SRC.ZIP


Kudos and many thanks to Steve Kirkendal.


				Glauber


-- 
Glauber Ribeiro - Wheaton College, IL (USA)
  email: glauber@vpnet.chi.il.us
  big files and uuencoded stuff: gmribeir@david.wheaton.edu