Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 5312

Directory

RICHARD
	I am opposed to moderating of the EQ newsgroups.  A discrete and
insular society breeds contempt.  Attempting to control subject matter and
the people who would be allowed to post via either a human moderator or a
robot sounds like a lot of bureaucracy. It is so much easier to just hit
the delete key or form a kill file. 
	I do not think it is *democratic* to vote to exclude certain
people from a grp because you do not like what they have to say. It
resembles *killing the messenger because you do not like the message.* 
	The most peaceful and humanitarian method of dealing with unwanted
posting is very simple--just hit the delete key and go on to the next
post.
	I vote NO on the proposal to moderate the newsgroups. Kathleen
Fjermedal, Santa Monica, CA

John Taber wrote:
> 
> In article <3239A9B3.C00@oro.net>, Richard Adams  writes:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:45:44 -0700, Richard Adams wrote:
> > >
> 
> What happened to my negative response?
> 
> John Taber              Institute of Geophysics, Victoria University
> John.Taber@vuw.ac.nz    P.O. Box, 600, Wellington, New Zealand
This is a vote against moderation.
There is a small amount of traffic in this group. Half of it is related
to this silly question. If the effort expended on this debate was
expended studying seismology, we may all be wiser.
regards
-- 
Mark G Robinson | ZL2TOD@ZL1AB | +64-9-846-3296
robotech@ihug.co.nz | Box 8770, Auckland 1035, New Zealand

John Taber wrote:
> 
> In article <3239A9B3.C00@oro.net>, Richard Adams  writes:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:45:44 -0700, Richard Adams wrote:
> > >
> 
> What happened to my negative response?
> 
> John Taber              Institute of Geophysics, Victoria University
> John.Taber@vuw.ac.nz    P.O. Box, 600, Wellington, New Zealand
This is a vote against moderation.
There is a small amount of traffic in this group. Half of it is related
to this silly question. If the effort expended on this debate was
expended studying seismology, we may all be wiser.
regards
-- 
Mark G Robinson | ZL2TOD@ZL1AB | +64-9-846-3296
robotech@ihug.co.nz | Box 8770, Auckland 1035, New Zealand

A nervous hush fell over the crowd, as they anticipated the
announcement. Finally, Richard Adams   stepped to
the podium and said:
> 
> I'll be a proponent of this topic for as long as the evidence
> says its worth persuing.  The only ways to collect the current
> consensus which includes both contributors and observers is
> through surveys and posts in the group.  I'll DROP being the
> proponent in an instant if it isn't what the group wants.
> The surveys I conduct here are private e-mail.  People have a
> right to vote TO ME in private to avoid flames.  Other voting
> systems are not private, for example a CFV to pass or reject
> this whole thing.  When you vote in a CFV, your vote is part
> of the archived records.
> 
Would you please be so kind as to clarify something for me, and
perhaps for others who follows news.groups, but not necessarily the
groups you are involved with?
You are talking about voting in privte surveys that you are running.
This could easily be interpreted as your privately gathering votes for
some sort of block vote.
I think that you need to be careful in your use of the word votes now
that you have a formal RFD in the works.  To a lot of people, a Usenet
votes is a very distinct item, and discussion of your survey votes can
only serve to confuse the issue.
I further believe that you would be well served by clarifying exactly
what you mean by "votes" in the context of your survey, and further
clarify whether in your mind, these survey votes of yours have
anything to do with the formal CFV that you are trying to attain.
Thank you for clarifying your intentions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frank Vaughan is baguio@ix.netcom.com
Why do so many publications expect people to write for free? 
It is, I'm afraid, because the bean-counters of the world have taken over, and since they have no self-worth, they assume no one else is worth anything either.
If I want exposure, I'll drop my pants the next time I'm at the mall.

In article , kjn@netcom.com (Ken Navarre) says...
>
>Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) wrote:
>: Not planning on place like that.  If someone needs a forum to
>: communicate their ideas without contradiction, they can put
>: up their own web page.
>
>Or... they can use the existing newsgroups and vote to tell you to go to 
>hell!
>
>Ken
>-- 
Great idea!!
If this stupid sceme of Richard's ever gets through the I suggest we all 
vote to ban him from the group. Blimey it's almost worth abstaining just for 
the laugh value.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

In article <51ep7h$7f1@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us>, cheshire@ridgecrest.ca.us (Dr 
Pepper) says...
>
>
>My two cents, , , , ,  :-}
>
>I have seen this problem occuring more and more on ALL of the NG's
>that I subscribe to.  I don't think that there is much that anyone can
>do about it.  I AM absolutely opposed to censorship in any form, but
>when you see some of the flame wars, it makes you wonder.  I am also
>opposed to moderators, but at least I can live with them.
>Dr Pepper  
>10 - 2 - 4
>
Most of the people cross-posting don't realise they're doing it. The best 
way to cure a spate of off-topic cross-posts such as the one we've just seen 
is the mail each a poster a copy of their post with the line...
Please remove inappropriate newsgroups when posting further on this topic.
...at the top. If 10% of the s.g.g readers did the same then it'd soon stop. 
You get a lot of apologies from people who just didn't realise that they'd 
posted to so many groups.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

If you've written a book and would like to get it published, 
you're at the right place. No one knows the publishing world 
better than we do. Come visit our web site. You won't be 
disappointed . . . and that's a promise: 
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/
homepages/James_Leonard_3

Nick Hunter wrote:
> (1) Spam the "Make money fast" type-spammers with their own spam
> repeated a dozen times into one long message.
That won't work as most spammers don't have valid return addresses.

In article <3239A9B3.C00@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (Richard Adams) says...
>My statement is substantiated by the recent survey I've
>conducted.  There are still responses coming in each
>day.  There are currently 56 responses and every one
>of them is a positive vote for the robot moderation.
>Hey Oliver, why not e-mail me a survey and be the
>vote of opposition?
Sorry to sound sceptical, but Bollocks! Virtually every message I've seen 
on s.g.g has been anti your daft proposal. If there ever was such a survey 
then I must have missed your announcing it. I suppose it was buried in one 
of your 200 line rants.
>Anyone live near Grass Valley care to come over here
>and look into my computer and count the survey responses
>in case Oliver continues his accusations?  Sorry but the
>survey responses are private e-mail and won't be forwarded
>since the survey originally promised this.  You're free
>to come and see them here, you just can't take it with
>you!
So there's no way to check up to see if these 56 responses are figments of 
Richard's imagination.
Well, you can count me as the first non-positive vote for any sort of 
moderation, robot or not.
>Later today I'll be posting a survey looking for feedback
>on the current RFD version 6.
>
>Richard
Thankfully, your surveys mean nothing. All that counts will be the final 
vote, and I doubt that you'll ever get that far. I just hope that this all 
blows over quickly so we can stop wasting time on it.
(news.groups added to follow up as this is where these discussions belong).
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

Theodore Swift wrote:
> 
> In article <3236561B.37C5@cerfnet.com>, oksi@cerfnet.com wrote:
> 
> >                         THE RATIONALE IS AS FOLLOWS:
> >
> >
> > 1) The peer-review process of scientific journals may take from many
> > months to over a year.
> >
> > 2) The review process is often arbitrary in nature.

>   It seems to me the advantage of the electronic medium is speed, and that's
> about the only important advantage.  But speed can also be a disadvantage:
> We want to produce a body of literature that the community of researchers
> can rely on for accuracy, logic, etc., and "speed" isn't the best means to
> that end.

> 
> -Ted Swift
I agree except that the most important advantage I see is that of fast
easy access.
-- 
Gary Copeland
*

In article <323998DC.36D9@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (Richard Adams) says...
>
>Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
>> >DISTRIBUTION:
>> >This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>> >
>> >news.announce.newgroups
>> >news.groups
>> >sci.geo.earthquakes
>> >sci.geo.geology
>> >
>> 
>> OH NO IT ISN'T!!!!!
>> 
>> Check out the Newsgroups list - Richard's forgotten to add in the one 
group
>> where this should be - news.groups.
>> 
>> Anybody with an interest in preserving free speech and not allowing their
>> groups to be turned into fora where only those voices agreeing with the
>> majority are allowed to be heard should head to news.groups where these
>> changes will be discussed.
>
>
>I posted the RFD to the following groups:
>news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.geo.earthquakes,sci.geo.geology
>just like the distribution list shows.
>
No you didn't.
Here's the header from the original posting of the RFD
     From: Richard Adams 
     Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology,sci.geo.earthquakes
     Subject: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12  
     Sept 96, version 6>Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:21:18 -0700
and, as we can all see from the original header it was posted only to s.g.g 
and s.g.e, no sign of news.anything.
One can't help but become suspicious about Richard not wanting this inane 
proposal to be viewed by those more au fait with Usenet workings than the 
average s.g.* readers.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

Richard Adams  wrote:
>Ken Navarre wrote:
>
>> Why don't you start a sci.geo.moderated.maillist and receive the posts as
>> they come off the USENET feed. 
>
>Because a mailing list is not a newsgroup, the rest of your
>questions are irrelevant.
>Why do you complain about a moderated newsgroup when the
>proposal includes a non-moderated one?
>Most specifically, what is your own agenda here Ken?  Do you
>feel that some posts that you would want to make or see would
>not be accepted by the proposed system?  If so please identify
>such, or are you arguing merely for the sake of argument?
>Richard
Here again is dick the propagandist at his most obvious; when finally
cornered by questions he cannot answer,  he reacts by implying that
his opponent has a hidden agenda. (He has applied almost exactly the
same words before; it's a stock item in his repertoire  - it's also as
close to sounding human as he gets.) Never mind that Ken Navarre has
been around these newsgroups a whole lot longer than dick, and that
Ken has been a major contributor here of information actually of use
in real earthquake situations, learned on the ground from other
non-robotic people in the real world.  The insult to  Ken is laughable
to anyone familiar with him - those who don't know this should
consider the source (also the source of this transparent attempt to
censor and control, for purely personal reasons, a part of the net) -
true blue dick.
              Flame away - I've got nine fire engines at my back,
                                                 Oliver Seeler

In article <323C76D2.5A16@twics.com>, Rene v. Rentzell  wrote:
>'xactly. The Islamic world is still in the Middle Ages (in more than one
>sense...); something like 1350 or so, I believe. The Buddhists are advanced
>(again, I tend to think they have a point); something like 2200. Japan is
>currently in the year 8, in words: *eight*.
Buddha was around in 600BC, so that would be 2600.
Why is Japan in the year 8? Do they count centuries as years? Anyone care
to explain? (although this has nothing to do with sci.image.processing,
it is interesting enough ... :)
>
>So, what gives? All this 2000 hullaballohh seems to make very little sense.
Just thinking all the new year resolution types who crowd the gym in
January, i hate to imagine the scene on Jan. 2, 2001 ... :)
lakshman
p.s. to add to the creation myth and Darwinian theory, there is the old
Hindu evolution myth where evolution goes in a _cycle_.  This is the last
stage of the cycle, began around 4000BC and will end 245,000 years hence.
Then we'll all go back to being fish and start off all over again.

Quoting from article <323C42E1.2FDC@oro.net> by Richard Adams 
:
[on voting to ban posters from the the newsgroup]
>Can you identify some potential cases where, in your opinion,
>the group will have difficulty in coming to an overwhelming
>...say 90% majority?  These would be the ones that could cause
>a controversy.  If there is a discussion, should it take place
>in an unmoderated area such as news.groups?
Please, no.  Discussion in news.groups about the moderation of existing
groups stems from groups with major conflicts over moderation policies.  
Now it looks like you're planning to deliberately *create* groups with 
that kind of conflict?  If that's a possibility then this moderation
proposal needs to be changed.
I'd prefer to see more standard moderation policies for these groups 
anyway.
Followups set.
--
Rebecca Graham McQuitty

In article <51i6j4$4vj@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU
(Chuck Karish) wrote:
: In article <323C8CD1.4BEA@oro.net>, Richard Adams   wrote:
: 
: >I back up my claim that I support the First Amendment through
: >actions and not mere words, as evidenced by the lawsuit filed by
: >my daughter that I stand behind her on.  Its a matter of public
: >record.  
: 
: Sorry; I was under the misapprehension that your previous
: statement was meant to be interpreted in the context in which
: it was offered.
: 
: >People in newsgroups have a right to meet and discuss the topics
: >they choose, not the topics foisted upon them by a few uncooperative
: >others.
: 
: Is that in your copy of the Constitution?  On usenet we have the
: privilege to choose the amount of bureaucracy we layer on our
: discussions.
: --
: 
:     Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
:     (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Mr. KArish,
Every time the subject of moderation is brought up, someone chimes in with
the First Amendment argument. Perhaps a few of them should read it.
The USENET is a medium carried over private carrier, not administrated
under government supervision. Therefore the constraints of the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution do not necessarily apply.
It should be noted that the First Amendment refers to laws abridging
Freedom of Speech, not to informal rules set up to govern private
carriers.
The first requirement of any of the Freedoms is responsibility.
-- 
 David A. Stinson   Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves/index.html 
Product Integration Work E-Mail      : daves@procom.com
     Engineer       Personal E-Mail  : dstinson@ix.netcom.com   or
Procom Technology                      dastinson@aol.com
**** OPINIONS ABOVE ARE THOSE OF D.STINSON, AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF PROCOM TECHNOLOGY ****

Richard Adams wrote:
>> 
>> My statement is substantiated by the recent survey I've
>> conducted.  There are still responses coming in each
>> day.  There are currently 56 responses and every one
>> of them is a positive vote for the robot moderation.
>> 
John Tabor replied:
>What happened to my negative response?
And I must ask what happened to my negative response. Is it because you 
have posted so many surveys that after several replies many of us have 
just given up? As I watch the number of your posts and the resulting 
discussion soar to new bandwidth levels, (exceeding Dr. Turi's, I 
believe), I'm beginning to wonder if we in these groups aren't just the 
victims of a new kind of seemingly reasonable but tireless spammer.
Marnie Gannon

In article <51ci5a$kkl@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi) wrote:
: Mr. LincMad:
: Just because Dr. Turi misses an earthquake doesn't make him a fraud or 
: a charlatan, just makes him human.  You know not like the god you are 
: pretending to be by judging.
: 
Just one, and then I won't answer any more on this thread - 
Have you noticed "Doctor" Turi is now speaking of himself in the third person???
By the way, "Doctor". As the degree was bought, not awarded by an
accreditted instituition (and the Universal Life Institute is not an
accredited educational institution, last time I looked - and I believe
they inform you of that when you pay their fee), you may be committing an
act of fraud by using that title for professional purposes.
Follow-ups set.
-- 
 David A. Stinson   Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves/index.html 
Product Integration Work E-Mail      : daves@procom.com
     Engineer       Personal E-Mail  : dstinson@ix.netcom.com   or
Procom Technology                      dastinson@aol.com
**** OPINIONS ABOVE ARE THOSE OF D.STINSON, AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF PROCOM TECHNOLOGY ****

In article ,
David Stinson  wrote:
>Every time the subject of moderation is brought up, someone chimes in with
>the First Amendment argument. Perhaps a few of them should read it.
That's why it's important to answer with a clear and concise
summary of the different flavor of freedom of expression that
we've come to expect on usenet.
>The USENET is a medium carried over private carrier, not administrated
>under government supervision. Therefore the constraints of the First
>Amendment of the U.S. Constitution do not necessarily apply.
The relationship is not clear cut, as the recent AOL mail
filtering flap illustrated.
>The first requirement of any of the Freedoms is responsibility.
Both usenet and the US justice system tolerate a high level
of irresponsibility before cutting off someone's speech.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

In article <323CACF8.4A21@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Oertell writes: 
>> Bill,  
>>   
>> The better question would be;  
>>   
>>     How many predictions has he missed on?  
>>   
>> Dennis 
> 
> 
>   Huh...I believe I said that. 
Yeah, I believe your right.  :-( 
Darn it. 
Dennis

gentryd@pipeline.com wrote:
> 
> In article <323719EF.446B9B3D@andreas.wr.usgs.gov>, Andy Michael writes:
> >However, sometimes when we release information too fast it is wrong.
> >This happenned with premature release of possible faults under
> >San Francisco Bay.
> 
> Slow-earthquakes can't be treated the same as regular earthquakes?
> I sympathize with releasing information prematurely, though.
I think they could be treated the same.  Although how you get from the
data to the interpretation is different and this could contribute to
less certainty about the result when the observation is first made.
Basically we are very good at observing ground shaking and figuring out
things about the earthquake, but for a slow earthquake observed only
on deformation instruments things are a bit fuzzier.
> >In the case of the Bay faults the incorrect interpretation
> >threatened the expansion of San Francisco International Airport
> >which could have had a dramatic impact on the economy of this
> >area.
> 
> You've lost me on this one.  Is this a hypothetical case?
No, unfortunately this was a real and very embarrassing case for the USGS.
A few researchers released maps at a press conference showing a large system
of faults under San Francisco Bay, including faults that lead directly into
the airport.  These faults did not exist and would not have survived the
scrutiny of our usual peer review system.  In the end they did not survive
this scrutiny, but the press conference took place before the paper was written.
The press conference was
widely reported in the media and was used by oponents of the airport expansion
to say that it shouldn't take place.  Very simply this was a case of poor
data interpretation that should have never gotten out the door.
> >Science is complicated.  Peer review is the basis of maintaining
> >quality.  It takes time.  If we released every new idea or possible
> >observation as quickly as possible you would see a lot of dreck
> >and your confidence in us would (hopefully) deteriorate.  The
> >time is critical to maintaining our usefulness.
> 
> I agree.  But I also stand behind providing timely information as
> it occurs.  Even if we don't know what it means due to the lack of
> historical data.
> 
> If something is occurring, lets keep everybody informed.
Obviously there is a balancing act we are attempting here.  Given that
we will do better in some cases than others and in some peoples views than
others.
> Personnally, my confidence in the USGS wouldn't change one iota.
> In fact, my confidence would increase if I knew that all possible
> information, that may or may not be anything, was being made
> available.
Hopefully, you will settle for more and more info coming out faster and
faster.  The WWW is doing that and with some new policies in place now
it will do it more and more.
> And I'm not saying that you guys don't try and educate the public.
> Far be it from me to say such a thing.
Thanks.
Andy

gentryd@pipeline.com wrote:
> Question though.  Do the seismologists go thru the same process
> when they are posting information about an event that has
> occurred?
We do have exceptions in place for releasing information about
developing situations such as earthquakes, eruptions, and floods.
Overall, I believe that we do a lot to get info out but we
can always do more.  In the case of something like a slow
earthquake its just a judgement call between how certain people
are of the interpretation and how important it is to let people
know.
Mostly, I've delved into this (these?) threads when I have seen
us criticized for hiding things we actually advertised.
Andy

Frank Vaughan / Spectre Gunner wrote:
>
> Would you please be so kind as to clarify something for me, and
> perhaps for others who follows news.groups, but not necessarily the
> groups you are involved with?
> 
> You are talking about voting in privte surveys that you are running.
> This could easily be interpreted as your privately gathering votes for
> some sort of block vote.
> 
> I think that you need to be careful in your use of the word votes now
> that you have a formal RFD in the works.  To a lot of people, a Usenet
> votes is a very distinct item, and discussion of your survey votes can
> only serve to confuse the issue.
> 
> I further believe that you would be well served by clarifying exactly
> what you mean by "votes" in the context of your survey, and further
> clarify whether in your mind, these survey votes of yours have
> anything to do with the formal CFV that you are trying to attain.
The surveys I conduct consist of a list of questions posted in
the newsgroup which invite people to e-mail their responses to me.
I use the answers as a guideline to understand the desires of the
group as a whole.  These "votes" aren't used for any other purpose.
The surveys I've posted contain statements identifying their usage
and that the vote will not directly cause any changes.  Therefore,
there should be no confusion as to their purpose when someone is
e-mailing a response to me.
To avoid potential confusion when I refer to the RESULTS of these
surveys in the future, I'll clarify that the survey was not an 
official one.  It was a vote to serve as a guideline to the proponent
which the proponent used as a basis to mold the proposal.  Thank you
for pointing out the need for this clarification.
There are many participants in the group that often read posts, and
yet never post anything themselves.  These non-vocal people constitute
a voting group.  Each participant, vocal or not, has an equal vote
when the official CFV occurs.
The similarity between my survey and a formal CFV is that people
are not subjected to attack during the process.  After all voting
results are in, a formal CFV archives the votes and the voter's info
into a public place for final scrutiny, but then it is too late for
a potential harasser to make a difference.
Just as a CFV protects the voters during the voting process, surveys
such as these protect the non-vocal group members during the discusssion
phase.  They remain out of reach and unknown.  Their vote gives them a
voice in the discussion through me.  I thereby become the target for
the opposition, which is what we see going on here.
Richard

Please followup through email as I don't get this newsgroup
generally...
A recent Rolling Stone article about earthquake had a map that showed
hundreds of fault lines in the continental United States.  I guess I
realized that there were more faults than just the California ones,
but I didn't realize there were that many.
One of the lines on the map looked as though it comes through Madison,
Wisconsin, where I live.  Is this true?  If so, where can I go to see
the fault?
Thanks,
Jason (a geological idiot)

In article <323ac0b6.0@news.iea.net>, Bob Shannon writes: 
>Jerry is a fine teacher, loved by his many students over many years. He 
>nears retirement. He was also one of the first people involved in Project 
>Migraine, directed by a US Government research team. It involved many 
>physical and mental tests and over the course of a few years, continued 
>reporting of pre-earthquake activity. I have a copy of the Project 
>Migraine report which is very interesting...It was stopped due to a lack 
>of funding, but similar research is still going on with Dr. Marsha Adams 
>of Stanford. 
Bob, 
I wasn't aware that Jerry was also part of project migraine and had 
only thought it was Charlotte King that was involved. 
Do you know how many other people were involved and what their 
results were? 
Thanks, 
Dennis

Bob Shannon wrote:
> Jerry is a fine teacher, loved by his many students over many years. He
> nears retirement. He was also one of the first people involved in Project
> Migraine, directed by a US Government research team.
"Project Migraine" was not directed by a US Government research team.
It was a private project of a single person conducted on his own time.
That person happenned to work for the Library of Congress, but this was
not part of his work.
Andy