Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 32944

Directory

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>
>From:         DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison)
>Date:         1996/09/02
>Message-Id:   <322a3cd3.24263028@news.cris.com>
>Organization: Concentric Internet Services
>
>
>
>In article <322a3cd3.24263028@news.cris.com>
>DarrenG@cris.com (Darren Garrison) writes: 
>
>> Michael Varney will probably never realize that he is so screwed up.  The
>> bad news it that he will probably die thinking that he is an
>> unappreciated  genius.  The good news is that Varney will die.
>
>
>In article <3229F98B.231@holly.colostate.edu>
>Michael Varney  writes:
>

>> Michael Varney
>> 
>> Department of Physics
>> 
>> Colorado State University
>
>  Hey, you two guys, slow down there, calm down, don't be killing off
>each other or making these threats on the Net. Remember there are old
>and mature and polite people who read the Net. Besides, I need you two
>to show how good white and true I am, compared to you two dark horses,
>in German I believe that is translated Schwarz Ferd.
>
> With love, 
>Archimedes Plutonium
Okay, Archie, I'll even go so far as to apologize to you for that
remark that I made.  It was meant as a slightly witty quip, but it may
well have been tasteless. ( I would make this reply via e-mail, but
you appear to no longer be accepting it) Honestly, I don't hate you--
I pity you.  I would help you-- I really would-- if it were in my
power.  You are obviously very intelligent, which is to your credit.
You obviously care a great deal about science and knowledge, which is
to your credit.  Looking at your postings here and at your web pages,
I'd like to think that you simply have a strange sense of humor.  And
I could think that, IF you had been posting this for only a few days
or weeks in stead of years.  But I don't think that anyone could keep
a joke going that long.  So I have to come to the unfortunate
conclusion that you really do belive in much of what you say.
(Although, I must admit, I still have a difficult time beliving that
you actually believe those prayers to the atom that you have been
posting.)  Some of the stuff you publish is actually reasonable-- but
most of it that I've seen is total nonsense.  Like, take, for
instance, your Whole Atom Totality.... according to one of your web
pages, you looked up at the stars in the sky and realized that it
looked much like a diagram in a science text of the electron cloud
around an atom... but rather than realize that the dots were merely
printed representations of the areas of mathemtical probibility within
which a given electron is likely to fall, you drew the conclusion that
the dots were REAL, and that every object in the universe is a dot in
an atom of Plutonium.  And your "every photon has perfect DNA" idea--
because photons can decay into neutrino pairs (I think that's what you
said) and because DNA can break into two strands, then a photon must
contain DNA.  Apparently, you have a serious  problem seperating
analogy from reality-- if something LOOKS similar to something, it
must BE that thing.  You, in a web page, list all some people that you
concider to be geniuses who are in your lineage, and then go on to
claim your own genius.  And you very well may have a genius IQ-- I've
seen indications that it is possible.  But the problem arises from the
fact that with your genius, and with your love of science, you want to
be a revolutionary-- you want to make a basic discovery that will
leave you remembered long after you are dead.  And most of us here
would like that.  But, you, me, and most people here will never have
that.  Most of us have learned to accept that and get on with our
lives, but you haven't been able to accept that.  So you continue to
think that you have found fundamental answers to problems and that,
even if you aren't appreciated in your lifetime, then you WILL be
appreciated eventually.  You think this because you NEED to, because
any other idea would be unacceptable to you.  And again, I pity you
for that.  I wish that you could get serious psycological help and
become a healthy, mentally sound member of society and usenet.  I wish
you could learn to accept youself for who you are, Ludwig Whoever,
without having to hide behind the persona Archimedes Plutonium.
People here might have liked you if you could.  But you can't-- you
can't accept that, like most of us (myself included) your life won't
be the exciting, world-changing one that you dreamed of and planned
for in your youth.  Most of us have those dreams-- we will be great,
we will be famous, and rich, and loved by everyone, and will change
the world.  But most of us have to slowly accept that this will not be
as our early dreams slip away.  Many people find peace with that in
religion, many in a spouse and family, many just turn bitter, and
quite a few commit suicide.  But you need to be Archimedes Plutonium,
the great, unappreciated genus.  Rather than face an unplesant
reality, you withdraw into you own fantasies.
I have posted serious replys to posts of yours in the past-- like in a
thread about Jovan planets merging to become a star.  But you never
follow up those messages.  I should have known better-- I had been on
Usenet long enough to get a good idea of what your mind must be like--
but I replied anyway-- but I always felt a little cruel and petty
doing so-- you are obviously disturbed-- I felt like a cruel child
poking a sick dog with a stick (as I do with this post, but I think
you earned this when you forged and posted fake messages from myself
and Varney.)  I resolved to no longer post replies to you-- to simply
delete all messages from you as I do with mister BLOW UP THE MOON.
And I promise to you, Archimedes Plutonium, that you will never have
to worry about seeing another message from me to you again.  This is
the last one.  I forgive you for forging a message from me.  I hope
that you are able to forgive me for holding up a mirror to you.  (And
I hope the readers of these newsgroups will forgive me for this large
off-topic reply.  Please keep in mind, AP isn't accepting e-mail)

In article <322B889B.4B1A@cerca.umontreal.ca>, Pascal Tremblay says...
> > Lefty KreouzisIf it was true that life evolves toward a more optimal state 
than why
> life has evolved from the state of a bacteria ( that does not die but
> divide itself to multiply ...) to a more complexe fragile state?
> 
> Theories of evolution that suggest that adapting to the environement is
> the sole motivation for evolution are necessery flawed because more 
> complexe form of life are less stable than simpler form and yet life
> strive for higher complexity.  Furthermore, those theories do not 
> provide complete or remotely satisfying explanation of the mecanism by
> which transformation may occur (random genetic mutation is not an a 
> complete explanation, but only a specullative one).
> 
> Pascal
	Go to your nearest university library, (it, ~shudder~, should be easy 
since your using--as amazing as it seems--a university e-mail address), and 
check out a copy of _The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity,evolution, 
and Inheritance_, by Ernst Mayer.
	After you finish perhaps you will at least have some clue about the 
subject you're trying to talk about.
	Right now your ignorance is painful. It'd be easier to explain an 
internal combustion engine to an aboriginee.
	Ciao.
-- 
	Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., lawstudent	
        http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/Library/intraits.html
	*		*		*     
     He that would make his own liberty secure, 
     must guard even his enemy from oppression; 
     for if he violates this duty, 
     he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
                                             Thomas Paine

In article <50fsmn$3om@bristlecone.together.net>, Terran@pwshift.com
(Terran) wrote:
| Matt Austern  wrote:
| 
| >Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) writes:
| 
| >> I make no claim to great knowledge of science (I'm a poet) but I have
| >> read 'Origins of Species.'  Darwin himself stated that without the
| >> discovery of an intermediate form much of his theory falls apart.
| >> Granted, when pressed evolutionists will admit that Evolution is a
| >> theory, yet it is taught by lesser minds in our schools as fact.  
| 
| >What do you think is the difference between a theory and a fact?
| 
| >This isn't a rhetorical question: it's quite fundamental to
| >epistemology, and reasonable people can and do disagree about
| >the answer.
| 
| The term 'lesser minds' was unfortunate and unnecessarily provocative.
| I understand your taking umbrage and I take your point.  As to the
| difference between theory and fact?  My understanding was it was
| proof.
| 
BZZZTTT! Thank you for playing. Next contestant, please.
The difference between theory and fact is long debated and not at all
simple. Some believe that theory determines fact, as in the
Weltanschauungen philosophies such as one interpretation of Kuhn and
Feyerabend's views. Others believe that fact is exceptionally well
established belief in a web of beliefs, such as Quine. Others believe that
fact is what can be "cashed out" in practice: these are the pragmatists.
There are numerous philosophical distinctions about facticity and
theoreticity, and here is the kicker: scientists go on using relatively
plain senses of the terms anyway. But they have learned from 20thC
philosophical debates. One thing they have learned is that you cannot
"prove" any law of physical science, nor can you establish in any theory
neutral manner an observation statement. You always start _in media res_.
When Stephen Jay Gould argued that a fact is a proposition the truth of
which it would be perverse to withhold consent from, he was not being
perverse himself, but rather taking into account the complexities of
modern epistemology. But there is one thing that is true of facticity that
all agree upon; a fact is something that is very hard to abandon
rationally.
By that understanding, evolution is a fact - living things change over
time, and no rational person considering the evidence can deny it.
Explanations about why that happens are graded from fact (natural
selection occurs within populations, period) to hypothesis (some hold that
selection isn't all that accounts for above-species change).
It might help if all those "critics" of evolutionary science went and
learnt some recent philosophy of science and epistemology. Then we'd get
more intelligent rebuttals than the stock "evolution-is-just-a-theory"
crap. God help us, though: we might start hearing that trite
"evolution-is-a-tautology" crap more frequently. A little reading is a
dangerous thing.
-- 
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research

It is the glory of science that it finds the patterns 
in spite of the noise - Daniel Dennett

The Mining Geology Discussion Group is finally up and running!!!!!!
Sorry to those who have not heard anything for a while, and thanks to all 
those who have helped. 
The group is called GEOMINE and is using e-mail to conduct discussions on 
all things related to mining geology. 
The vision is to create a world wide network of mine based geologists, 
and mining related geologists, that interact through discussion to 
exchange information, solve problems, and advance the applied science of 
Mining Geology. 
The objectives are;
1. To build a network of links between geologists based at mine sites in 
order to increase communication and facilitate discussion of issues 
specifically related to Mining Geology.
2. To enhance the input into these discussions by including non-mine 
based professionals such as academics, software developers, consultants, 
and other such people interested in Mining Geology.
Thanks to the generosity of Robertson Info-Data Inc. in Vancouver, B.C., 
Canada, we have a server up and running. You can visit the site to see a 
list of mentors, other info, and subscribe from; 
http://www.info-mine.com/technomine/ege/geominesrv.html
or send an e-mail message to;
listproc@info-mine.com
with the words "Subscribe GEOMINE your e-mail address" in the content.
If you wish to post a message, article, question, etc. to the GEOMINE 
audience send an e-mail to; 
geomine@info-mine.com 
with your message in the main body of the e-mail.
All interested parties are welcome to subscribe.
Cheers
Craig Morley

jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) wrote:
>	Stan, awhile ago we talked about a combination of events 
>that may have occurred at about the K-T boundary.  The title of 
>the posts was "The K-T 1-2?".  It was either about a second impact
>crater that had been identified or re-dated (perhaps the Manson,
>Iowa site) closer to the K-T boundary, which would have made it 
>the "softening" blow;  OR a series of flood basalts that were quite
>close to, but not on, the K-T boundary that would have pushed the
>dinos over the edge.  I can't find the reference I had to this.  Do 
>you have a recollection of this?
>
I frequently mention the Deccan traps in this context.
[The Deccan's being massive flood basalts that span the K-T boundary].
I also tend to point out that the oceanic regrssion was apparently one
of the most extreme since in the Phanerozoic, other than the present
regression.
As far as I know the last revision of the date of the Manson crater
was *further* from the K-T boundary, and it can no longer be held to
be relevent.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen

jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) wrote:
>: alone? We shall never know. What is apparent is that the dinosaurs (at
>: least the non-feathered ones) could not survive the terrestrial-cosmic
>: double whammy.
>
>	It may be that mass extinctions REQUIRE such a synergy.
>
That argument has been made - and it seems likely to me to be the
case.
I can find multiple stress factors at *every* mass extinction.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen

removed_to_avoid@mail.spammers (Mike Noreen) wrote:
>I agree with this, but one thing puzzles me - why didn't the birds,
>which'd been around for a very long time, radiate BEFORE the dinosaurs
>went extinct?
To some degree, they DID diversify prior to the end of the Cretaceous.
There were quite a number of neornithan and other bird lineages in
that time.
> OK, the ground-based niches would be held by fellow
>dinosaurs, but for quite a while they were the only vertebrates which
>could fly. 
Incorrect - you are forgetting the pteroaurs.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen

Henry Hillbrath wrote:
> (snip)
> My understanding is that they use to mine copper sulfate, and roast it,
> releasing the SO2. Now, they apparently keep the SO2, what the heck
> happens to the copper?
> 
> Or, is there some other sulfate they are now mining. And, if so, what is
> the metal associated with it?
      The main mineral mined now is probably pyrite (Iron Sulphide) this
probably comprised most of the mined rock and the smelting was aimed at
removing it and anything else besides the copper.  
      Now they probably mine rock with poor copper content but high pyrite
content (too poor to mine for copper alone), and if they recover any
copper then that is a bonus.
      PS I do not know anything about Copperhill, Tenn, but I would expect
that they mined copper sulphide not copper sulphate, since copper sulphate
(Atacamite ?) is soluable and is rarely mined (the deposits in the Atacama
desert in Peru is the big exception).
            Yours Faithfully
                  Paul Davidson

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <3227B6F5.D2C@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons  writes:
> >So if we cannot devise a test to prove or disprove the existence
> >of God, then theism and atheism are equivalent in that they are
> >both based on pure conjecture.
> 
> I think we agree here.  That's why I'm not saying "I don't believe in
> God" but "I believe there is no God".  There is a subtle difference.
I think I understand this difference.  In the first assertion you admit
the existence of God, but see no sense in following him.  In the second,
you assert that a supernatural being as defined above does not exist.
It is not possibe even in theory that you could be proved wrong.
However, when I defined God as the natural laws of the universe as
above,
does your assertion change in any way?  Or do you simply reject my 
definition as specious?
> >The only way we could know whether
> >a supernatural being exists is if we were (at least in some way)
> >the supernatural beings in the universe.  Then we would know
> >that there is no one beside us (I have read this in the Bible
> >somewhere, too).
> 
> Yep, I think that logically that's the most that can be said.
By the way, I am now going to assert that we are partly supernatural,
so it is possible for us to know whether God exists, since we have a
supernatural nature just as God does.
-leonard

Bill Oertell  wrote:
>> But the complications of nearly simultaneous
>> flood basalts in India and rapid changes in sea level need to be further
>> examined to see if they, too, played a role in the overall extinction
>> pattern. 
>
>   It's my opinon that these Indian basalts are the result of the
>refocusing of the impact shock waves at the antipod of the impact site.
>The Indian subcontinent was nearly opposite the Yucatan impact location.
>                               Bill
The timing is provably wrong.
A. There are dinosaurs in intercalated sediments in the lower half of
the Deccan sequence.
B. The beginning and end of the Deccan sequence are in a norml
polarity interval, the iridium anomoly occurs in a reversed polarity
layer.
Ergo, the Deccan's CANNOT be due to the Chcxulub impact.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen

Moderation of newsgroups has evolved.
It is no longer the whim of the moderator.  Now using
automated robots programmed by group voting, we can
get rid of those who fill the group with all the off
topic stuff.
At lot of people come here execting things according
to the groups charter and what do they find instead?
   Unity of Science and Religion
   Creation v. Evolution
   One Ugly threat of violence begets another
   [various astrological predicitions]
   Utter futility of arguing with creationists
   We'd like to end the blatherings
So the survey question is.
Would you like to stop the blatherings?
Using the system proposed, the off topic stuff
is kept off the group, and the group controls
the whole process, not some whimsical opinionated
moderator.  It is completely legal for a private
group of people to do this.  A vote of the group
is far more democratic than any other form of
moderation.
Your vote on the survey is an indication that you
would or wouldn't like this for the group.  It
doesn't cause it to happen.  That takes months
and an official RFD and CFV call for votes process.
Survey: snip and mail to:
 Richard Adams 
----------------------------------------------------
(   )  Yes I think the group would benefit from
       self controlled moderation by group vote.
(   )  No, I hate the idea
(   )  Other please offer suggestions

> Theories of evolution that suggest that adapting to the environement is
> the sole motivation for evolution are necessery flawed because more 
> complexe form of life are less stable than simpler form and yet life
> strive for higher complexity.  Furthermore, those theories do not 
> provide complete or remotely satisfying explanation of the mecanism by
> which transformation may occur (random genetic mutation is not an a 
> complete explanation, but only a specullative one).
   This statement only demonstrates the complete ignorance the author
has on the subject of evolution.  Evolution doesn't strive towards
anything.  Rather, environmental changes allow certain pre-exisiting
mutations to become advantages, which in turn allows those mutations--or
recessive genes--to become dominant.
                               Bill

> Not so. The Deccan Traps began eruption almost a million years before
> the Chicxulub inpact. The Chicxulub iridium forms an identifiable layer
> near the top of the Deccan basalts. There was a paper about this a
> couple of years ago in Geophysical Research Letters.
  I'd read that the Deccan Trapps had been dated before the Chicxulub
crater, but I hadn't heard that the iridium layer had been layed down
upon the Deccan formation.  This would almost certainly rule out that
formation to be the antipodal consequence of the Chicxulub impact. 
Still, it seems that there ought be such a formation.
                                 Bill

Richard Adams  wrote:
>Oliver Seeler wrote:
>> 
>> Richard Adams  wrote:
>> 
>> >  B) The existing discussion is not limited to topics
>> >     solely about Calif.
>> 
>> Nor, thanks to Mr. Adams, does much of the existing discussion have
>> anything to do with earthquakes but rather with his own endless
>> Byzantine scheming,  condescending and patronizing rationalization and
>> (attempted) manipulation of this and related newsgroups.
>> 
>> Oliver Seeler
[Snip snip snip - another utterly unintelligble  pile of newspeak
gibberish]
>Hi Oliver,
Note the patronizing greeting. I don't know this person.
>Now I'll apply items 1-3 to the recent discussion with
>Oliver Seeler.
There has never been nor will there be any "discussion" with me.  I'm
not discussing anything with Adams,  rather,  since he's chosen to
present himself as a publicly meddlesome figure who has his thumb in
my soup ,  I'm commenting on him. The implication that I have had any
dialoge with Adams is misleading (and  offensive).
>  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
>     existing proposal.
>    [Oliver offered nothing]
There is nothing to offer other than to repeat the often-heard
request that  Adams cease his attempts to tamper with Usenet
newsgroups. I've already offered that and unlike Mr. Adams I see no
reason to repeat myself endlessly.
>  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
>     existing proposal.
>    [Oliver offered nothing]
To the contrary I offered, though obliquely,  the observation that
this "existing proposal" exists only because of one  individual with
unknown - and perhaps quite unusual - motives. 
>  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
>     argument by attacking the persons rather
>     than discussing the issues.
>    Oliver says,
>    "Nor, thanks to Mr. Adams, does much of the
>     existing discussion have anything to do with
>     earthquakes but rather with his own endless
>     Byzantine scheming,  condescending and
>     patronizing rationalization and (attempted)
>     manipulation of this and related newsgroups."
>So we're left with nothing said about the proposal,
>just more attacks against the proponent. 
Exactly. In my view, and the view of quite a number of other long-term
participants in this group, the primary issue is not the dead-anyway
proposal(s) per se but rather the singularly devious and obtuse way in
which the "proponent" is  attempting to sell his doomed ideas.  Among
other things it seems that an effort is underway to create a climate
in which control and censorship (direct or de facto) seem desirable,
even to  some of those who would ordinarily resist the concept.  Such
tactics are of course common in other arenas - for example irrational
hysterias regarding crime,  illegal immigration, smut on the net and
so on are each intentionally fanned by those who have something to
gain - usually morally bankrupt politicians who have no legitimate
claims to the power they seek. The issues themselves are in a sense
less threatening and dangerous than the personalities exploiting them.
> Hearing
>from Rev. Bob about the close friendship between
>Oliver and the Rev., perhaps Rev. Bob & Oliver
>view the proposed new groups as a negative from
>their perspective. 
Well, we've now heard all about Mr. Adam's family matters and so next
he's apparently going to expand into gossiping about others'
relationships.  Why? Read on.
> They haven't revealed why this
>is a negative in their own application. 
Note here how  cleverly Adams has  tied me to Bob, moving smoothly
from a bit of hearsay to referring to  "their" and "they."  The
presumption is that anyone who has written Bob off will thus classify
me likewise. A classic propaganda technique, applied by someone with
obvious experience. For the record,  I speak for myself here, period.
I don't even subscribe to Pinpoint, although Bob is indeed an old
friend. I have only one application for this newsgroup - the rapid and
free exchange of ideas and information concerning earthquakes, and
Adam's proposals - all of them - are detrimental to that end  (an end
that is of more than casual concern to me, aside from issues of
freedom, as a firefighter and EMT (20 years and counting).
>I'd give any such concerns complete consideration.
What?! The arrogance! Who is this who condescends - who has the gall-
to think that he is in a position in which his "complete cosideration"
is of the slightest import to anyone?  Are we to petition some
medieval inquisitor? Madness! The March Hare lives. 
>I have nothing against Rev. Bob Shannon or Oliver
>Seeler.  If we met in person, we'd probably all
>find a common interest and enjoy each other's
>company.
I have no reason to disbelieve the first sentence - or it's opposite -
but I am most certain that the second sentence is inaccurate. 
>Actually, not having anything positive or negative
>to say about the proposal means that it has evolved
>to the point where the only thing the opponents
>have left to do is attack the proponent.  I believe
>that's a good indication.
I think so too. It means that people are beginning to see through the
obfuscation to what lies beneath.  Or should we stay with the Marge
Schott school of ethics...?  Also, it may be recalled that my reaction
from the very beginning was that the "proponent" is the only
significant problem in this newsgroup.  Adams could be selling
girl-scout cookies, and most of us still wouldn't bite.  Hands off
Usenet! 
Oliver Seeler 

In article <32290DC3.4F21@pacific.net.sg>, Daniel & Denisa Tan says...
> 
> Let us just try to doing something even closer to finding proof of 
> evolution. Suppose we take a frog and put it in a blending machine. 
> What's blended will have all the necessary ingredients of life, correct? 
> Now, submit this blended frog through lightning or whatsoever to bring 
> life as evolutionists claims. What do we have? Do we expect the frog to 
> crawl out of the container? I am sure all of us will know that we do not 
> expect this to happen. Unless a Superior Being does the construction.
> So where does the evolution theory stands now?
	Hmm.
	And just, please tell me, what does putting a frog through a blender 
have to do with the change of gene freqencies in a population over time?
-- 
	Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., lawstudent	
	*		*		*     
     He that would make his own liberty secure, 
     must guard even his enemy from oppression; 
     for if he violates this duty, 
     he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
                                             Thomas Paine

In article ,
mwfisher@cts.com (Michael W. Fisher) wrote:
|         Right now your ignorance is painful. It'd be easier to explain an 
| internal combustion engine to an aboriginee.
Retract that. Most aborigines I've met understand internal combustion only
too well, better than I do (I'm a mechanical clutz). Jared Diamond
observes that the second generation descendents of Papua New Guinean
cannibals are now jet pilots.
Be careful - your cultural norms are showing.
BTW, I heartily second the Mayr ref.
-- 
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research

It is the glory of science that it finds the patterns 
in spite of the noise - Daniel Dennett

"Anne Veling"  wrote:
>Hi,
>I am doing some research on a book I am writing. Is there anyone who can
>give me some clues about how a bad guy may stop the earth from rotating
>around its axis (making China forever dark e.g.)?
>If the answer is somewhat infeasible, that is no problem. What magnitude of
>strength is necessary for something like that?
One thing you ought to consider is that the earth's rotational
velocity at the equator is roughly 1600 km/hr. If the planet stops but
the people don't stop with it, everyone will be killed. The only way
to avoid that would be to have the force that stops the planet also
act directly on the population and everything around them. The only
force that would act simultaneously on the planet and the people would
be gravity. I'm not sure what sort of gravitational field, if any,
would stop the earth's rotation.
I don't know if this helps but it may be something to think about.
Sincerely yours,
Richard B. Winston
Dept. of Geology and Geophysics		rwinsto@lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu
Louisiana State University	http://aapg.geol.lsu.edu/rbwinsto.htm
Baton Rouge, La 70803		ftp://aapg.geol.lsu.edu/pub/winston
U.S.A.
504-388-2337
Fax 504-388-2302

Oliver Seeler wrote:
> 
> There has never been nor will there be any "discussion" with me.  I'm
> not discussing anything with Adams,  rather,  since he's chosen to
> present himself as a publicly meddlesome figure who has his thumb in
> my soup ,  I'm commenting on him. The implication that I have had any
> dialoge with Adams is misleading (and offensive).
> 
> >  A) Discussion about any relevant aspect of the
> >     existing proposal.
> 
> >    [Oliver offered nothing]
>
>  <<<-magnitude 6.5 snip->>
...each attempt to communicate with Oliver has
   been met with an incremental Richter magnitude
   attack against my personage.  So why bother,
   except for the sake of humor?
Richard

>    Are we looking at stopping the earth dead in its tracks or slowing it
> down over a period of time.  If the latter, how long a period of time?
I mean stop the rotation around the axis of the earth itself (so that there
is no day and night anymore).
Richard B. Winston mailed me suggesting that to do so, we would need to
stop the people on the surface as well, because otherwise they would be
launched into space.
But what if we slow the earth's rotation gradually, so that everybody is
lifted a little bit (like in a very fast elevator) but not too much? Would
that be a solution?
Thanx,
Anne.

Viejo (tomitire@vegas.infi.net) wrote:
It is utter futility for atheists to argue with creationists, because 
atheists are wrong. You can't win an argument if you are wrong, and that 
is why atheists constantly veer away from my posts and that's why you 
admit that it is utter "futility" to argue with us. 

Brian Sherry wrote:
> 
> The Outdoor Bookstore has 2 new lists of geology books available.  They can be
> viewed at
> 
> http://www.outdoorbooks.com/cat96c.htm
> 
> Thanks,
> Brian
> --
> ******************************************************************
> Brian Sherry                                The Outdoor Bookstore
> e-mail: skoob@outdoorbooks.com                  1425 S. Higgins
> phone: 406-543-3663                        Missoula, Montana 59851
> on-line catalog of new & used books - http://www.outdoorbooks.com/
Are you sure that URL is correct? My Netscape couldn't find it.

In article <506tc3$nt5@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>, dmurphy1@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca (Dan Murphy) writes:
>I will be teaching Geology this term ( high School ) and would like to 
>intergrate computers into the course. Any suggestions for software that 
>might be available on the net? Does Gemcom have a demo package available?
>Thanks
Try the shareware site    http://www.wit.com
Also Rockware             http://www.bart.nl/~rockware

Ken Navarre (kjn@netcom.com) wrote:
: Wil Milan (wmilan@airdigital.com) wrote:
: : I was surprised he didn't declare Martians a new protected minority and
: : announce a new multi-billion dollar spending program to curry votes from 
: : them. 
: 
: He couldn't do *that*. If he did then he'd have been obliged to have the 
: voters pamplets for each of the states printed in Martian as well as the 
: other languages. It just wasn't feasible to get all the diction for 
: the off-planet vocabulary correct before the election...  :)
: 
: Ken
: -- 
Be careful, lest Clinton labels you as 'right wing radical astronomers'
;-)
Andy

In article <508d5m$n25@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, rrb1@ix.netcom.co 
says...
>
>In <507um1$e20@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: 
>>
>
>
>        
>
>>
>> Sorry but famous or Revolutionary people just cannot have a normal
>>emailbox.
>
>OR flakes with delusions of grandeur, I suppose...
And I'm wondering which one Mr. PU is: famous? Revolutionary? or abmormal?
Steve Feldman

(normal emailbox)