Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 33119

Directory

Paleontological Research
Call for Papers
Editors-in-Chief Kei Mori and Kunihiro Ishizaki
_Paleontological Research_ is the official journal of the Palaeontological
Society of Japan and will make its debut in the spring of 1997.  Awarded a
new title, an expanded scope, and a newly established international board
of Associate Editors, this replacement journal of the _Transactions and
Proceedings of the Palaeontological Society of Japan_ aims to serve better
the international paleontological community by promoting the dissemination
of fundamental knowledge in all areas of paleontological research.
Aims and Scope
€ Papers on taxonomy, evolution, ecology, biogeography, and taphonomy of
ancient biotas and their modern counterparts.
€ Papers on the faunas or floras of any area worldwide; tradition of
strong coverage of Pacific and Asian regions.
€ Papers internationally peer-reviewed.
€ A4-page format with high quality reproduction of photographs and
line-drawings.
_Paleontological Research_ will be published quarterly, in April, June,
September, and December, with a total of about 320 pages annually.
Requests for "A Guide for Preparing Manuscripts" should be addressed to:
Editor, Paleontological Research,  c/o Business Center for Academic
Societies, Honkomagome 5016-9, Bunkyo-ku Tokyo, 113 Japan
A World Wide Web page with information about the Palaeontological Society
of Japan and instructions to authors is now under construction.
Manuscript inquiries and manuscripts should be sent to: Kei Mori,
Institute of Geoenvironmental Science, Faculty of Science, Tohoku
University, Sendai, 980-77 JAPAN
The Board of Associate Editors includes:
S.M. Kidwell, Chicago, IL, U.S.A.
R.D.K. Thomas, Lancaster, PA, U.S.A.
A.B. Smith, London, U.K.
J. Bergstrφm, Stockholm, Sweden
W. Hongzhen, Beijing, China
A.G. Beu, Lower Hutt, New Zealand
J.C. Ingle, Stanford, CA, U.S.A.

Jeremy Huffman  wrote:
>Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
>> 
>> : In all seriousness can anybody identify a current complex life form 
     in a transitional state. I would think that we have many examples of 
     this phenomenon in our midst out of the tens of million different 
     species on our planet. Please do not cite single celled life forms 
     since there is no question that these mutate to adapt to their 
     surroundings. I am looking for something like monkeys with feathers, 
     dogs with scales, birds that spin  webs and have eight legs, ...etc.
>> 
>> Any species which is not in perfect equilibrium with its
>> environment is probably evolving. Since most environments are
>> not static, most species are feeling some degree of evolutionary
>> pressure. Even if the non-living components of an environment
>> are static, the ecosystem (the living components) is almost
>> always not static ("arms races" between predators and prey,
>> sexual selection, etc.). Therefore most species, as we see them
>> now, are transitional forms, since their descendants' norms will
>> not be identical to the existing norms. (If they have descendants,
>> that is: species which don't happen to keep up with the changes
>> in their environment, such as those due to global warming, will
>> become extinct.)
>> 
>> As examples of species which have apparently been nearly static,
>> I'd pick great white sharks and horseshoe crabs. Their gross
>> anatomies have not changed in 100 million years or more. But
>> they may be feeling pressures now, and their biochemistries
>> (evidence of which rarely fossilized) may have evolved
>> significantly.
>
>Good response, but I'd also like to add (and I think this will answer his 
>question more directly) many species (including humans) have what are 
>called vestigial body parts. For instance, some snakes have what look 
>like diminished hip bones, since they evolved from reptiles. Humans have 
>a tailbone. There are many other examples of this sort, which show that 
>animals are in a constant state of evolution. Although I think humans 
>have achieved a static environment. Any evolution in our species will 
>have to come from genetic engineering.
I'll make the point humans have almost stopped the physical evolution. 
The products of our brains will take away the need to have a physical 
evolution. At the moment we will only physically 'develop' as a result of 
no longer needed functions (of which the tailbone is a classic example, 
as is the appendix:  a no longer needed blood reservoir). Instead humans 
will find ways to develop faster and better the capabilities of their 
brains. They will so for a number of reasons. the most important are:
 - increasing external threats (world pollution for example)
 - a burning desire to develop one self (now that we learned to use this 
   brain, we want to exploit it to the maximum)
Any comments/views on this are welcome! I also like your views on where 
mankind will end up if you accept the above.
John Wansink, The Netherlands

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
hat's true for areas of interest where you appear as a representative
> ofa nation.  But, consider that you're doing something as a private
> citizen, not representing anybody and happen to do something
> important.  All of a sudden various nations, ethnic groups etc. claim
> you as "our own".  Don't you think that you may resentit a bit, under
> some circumstances.
Einstein seemed to have.  The famous quote about the Germans and the
British claims.
-- 
D.
mentock@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

In article <322D2325.7A80@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons says...
	
> When we look at the world around us, we see a myriad of 
> interconnecting complex rules.  It is my opinion that Moses
> took these to be fundamental and pre-existing.  There are an
> infinity of these rules that have always existed and will always
> exist.  God (the axioms), from Moses' point of view, extracts 
> himself (themselves) from this collection of rules.  He (God)
> then rules over this collection of rules which in turn control
> the world around us.  However, there are always rules which God
> has not yet understood (the extraction process is not yet 
> complete).  When the axioms are extracted from this collection
> of rules, God enlarges himself.  To Moses, this is what God has
> been doing and will be doing throughout eternity:  understanding
> the universe.
	
> God finds axioms by a process I will call discernment.  This
> is a process of _separation_ of dissimilar things into those
> that are more similar.  Rules can then be found for the 
> behavior of similar things.  If God is lucky, he will find
> something that he cannot understand.  He will then increase
> himself by making that thing a part of himself.  This process
> of separation of things in a mixture into purer forms begins
> in Genesis and ends in Revelation.  Discernment is central 
> to this concept of God.
	<'nother bodacious snip>
> So I am asserting that this definition of God is 
> the one that Moses intended and was used for 
> thousands of years.  Yet we misunderstood the
> definition (with a lot of help) and invented a 
> concept of God that was not intended by Moses 
> (and makes much less sense).
> 
	After careful consideration of the argument, I can confidetly state 
that your definition is STILL circular, tautological, and trivial.
	The only statements which do not fit that description are where you are 
reading your own preceptions into your sources.
	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

Clyde.Pearce@lescom.denver.co.us wrote:
>If you start with 3.7 E7 atoms and half these disintegrate in 6 hours, but 
>the remainiing half will only result in half as many disintegrating within 
>the next 6 hours, and so on, it seems as if the
>atoms have individual brains that tell them what size group they are a part 
>of.   How do the atoms "know" when it is their turn?
They use the same mechanism that is used in Thermos bottles to decide
whether to keep the contents cold or keep it hot.  They just "know".

In article <50ka3m$34d@crl11.crl.com>, viejo@crl.com (James G. Weston) wrote:
> References: 
<320DA3BC.6B58@ix.netcom.com> <3211EF6E.6BA6@bsa.bristol.ac.uk>
<3212F129.296F@ix.netcom.com> <32182661.3477@bsa.bristol.ac.uk>
<4va9qb$ij6@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <32191D18.BCCC83D@southeast.n
>   <50hghd$i3s@news.ghgcorp.com>


> Organization: large
> Distribution: inet
> 
> Stephen Grossman (sgross@pictac.com) wrote:
> : In article
> : ,
> :  wrote:
> 
> : > I dont think we will ever know whether God created the universe or or if
> : > it the universe always has existed, or what then created god, if time has
> : > always existed or its existence relates to the big bang and the expansion
> : > of the universe as matter (galaxies) fly through three dimensional space
> : > form one point to the next.  Are there alternate universes?  could
> : > existence be a dream inside the head of God?
> 
> : Your ignorance is not a basis for making claims. The Greeks knew this as
> : the logical fallacy of ignorance.
> 
> First, he didn't make any claims.
Yes, he did. He said  "I dont think we will ever know"
> 
> Second, your ignorance is not a basis for insulting anyone.  
> 
> Do you have absolute proof that everything you believe is true?  If not, 
> you're guilty of a lot worse than a logical fallacy.
Yes, absolute proof as understood within Objectivism.
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
.     The Internal Revenue Service says there is $62 billion in unreported income. I hereby publically praise those individuals who kept the fruits of their labor. 
____________________________________________________
                                     Stephen Grossman
                                     Fairhaven, MA, USA
                                     sgross@pictac.com
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€    

Bill Thoen wrote:
> 
> ....
> If every message that had more than three newsgroup cross-posts was
> eliminated, everything would be cool on sci.geo.geology.
> 
Excellent idea!  Can't anyone write a script or something to do this
for the newsgroup?
Roberto Anaya

Adams continues his obfuscation. Note the refusal to follow  the
standard internet/usenet ettiquette of limiting quotation of preceding
articles. This is calculated. What he's doing is intentionally bulking
up the discussion - already enormous - to make it virtually impossible
for anyone  lacking the amount of free time he seems to have to make
sense of his schemings. This is an ancient ploy used by bureaucrats
who wish to hide their activities/motives, and another of Adams'
classic series of what to him must seem subtle propaganda techniques.
Richard Adams  wrote:
[snip - entire previous post]
>After reading and analyzing Oliver's ongoing
>contribution 
[blah blah blah]
>Applying the above organization to Oliver's
>post here, it is found that:
>  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
>     existing proposal.
>    [Oliver has none, but his example clearly
>     shows the rest of us what NOT to do]
That's right, because the proposals are utterly without worth. Who are
"us"?  All of my private mail to date - every bit of it - reflects my
view, often in much less kind terms than I've been using here, that
Adams is the problem.
>  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
>     argument by attacking the persons rather
>     than discussing the issues.
>    Oliver's personal attacks against me and
>    against others who support the discussion
>    are numerous within this post, in spite of
>    his above claim to the contrary.
What "others"? The problem is and continues to be Adams - period. 
This is an attempt by an individual to effect damaging changes in the
Usenet structure for  apparently entirely personal reasons. It is
largely the result of an administrative oversight, which is now in the
process of being corrected (thanks to the efforts of others who see
the dangers revealed by Adams' actions). It is also the result of the
freedom still here, which Adam would deny us.
>Such requests for self control are like trimming the
>fruitless wood off an old fruit tree.  If you have the
>pruning scissors and can reach the branches to prune,
>in time your labors are rewarded through a bountiful
>harvest.  Often, those that erode the group will not
>stop.  The group lacks the tools to prune, and the
>branches die, dragging the whole tree down.
This sounds exactly like something from certain European propaganda
specialists, circa 1937. Scary, scary - Adams stalking around with
giant gleaming scissors. Whew!  At least he's only talking about a
newsgroup - for now. 
>Then there are times when you need to plant a new young
>tree, and prune it correctly as it grows.  
Sort of a Jugend Verband, eh?
  In astonished disbelief,
                                  O.S.

Frank  wrote:
>Bernhard Schopper wrote:
>> 
>> tomitire@vegas.infi.net wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> >Takes design, intelligent design.
>> 
>> And the designer "takes design, intelligent design."
>> 
>> Bernie
>What does this mean? You are not making sens.
It means that one person may simply assert that the existence of the
universe requires an intelligent designer (God,) while the next may
just as simply assert that by the same logic, the existence of God
requires an intelligent designer (God²?)
I'm not sure if this makes sens [sic], but it sure seems to make
sense.
JeffMo

John Wansink wrote:
> 
> Jeremy Huffman  wrote:
> >Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
> >>
> >> : In all seriousness can anybody identify a current complex life form
>      in a transitional state. I would think that we have many examples of
>      this phenomenon in our midst out of the tens of million different
>      species on our planet. Please do not cite single celled life forms
>      since there is no question that these mutate to adapt to their
>      surroundings. I am looking for something like monkeys with feathers,
>      dogs with scales, birds that spin  webs and have eight legs, ...etc.
> >>
Some people think that as we develop computers we are building our own
 successors.
If self-awareness is some sort of "existence" then an evolutionary path
is plain to me.  Is the "life form" climbing out of an inability to control the
environment to sustain life?  One could question that, but again the degree
of sophistication is clear.
For example, the Dinosaurs didn't make it, even after a "stable" existance over
millions of years.
Entropy is served if not examined on a physical level, but on a level that
measures risk of survival.
So is God!
> 
> Any comments/views on this are welcome! I also like your views on where
> mankind will end up if you accept the above.
> 
> John Wansink, The Netherlands
Depends upon the tax structure...
73 de Bill, AB6MT
bilsmith@crl.com

References: <50ka3m$34d@crl11.crl.com> 
Organization: large
Distribution: inet
Stephen Grossman (sgross@pictac.com) wrote:
: > First, he didn't make any claims.
: Yes, he did. He said  "I dont think we will ever know"
You seem to have a fundamental problem with language.  By definition, to 
say "I don't think" is to say that "I don't know", and any such statement 
is in no way a "claim".  
: > Second, your ignorance is not a basis for insulting anyone.  
: > Do you have absolute proof that everything you believe is true?  If not, 
: > you're guilty of a lot worse than a logical fallacy.
: Yes, absolute proof as understood within Objectivism.
Which is about as reliable as absolute proof as understood within 
Pentacostalism.  
Ayn Rand worship doesn't qualify as proof for anyone who has ever even 
tried to think for herself, but I do understand that thinking is one of 
the acts proscribed by the tenets of Objectivism.
-- 
Viejo         viejo@crl.com         |Nunca entra en disputas.
                                     Pues, de vez en cuando...

CC. Bird wrote:
> I thought that was the essence of the theory of relativity: 
> Everything is relative (apart from the speed of light).
The original name of the theory was "The Theory of Invariances".
As the name suggest, the theory says that certain things are
not relative; speed of light and natural laws by assumtion,
several other things as consequences of these assumptions.
Einstein changed the name for better parallel to some political
ideas, but did not make any adjustments in the content of the
theory.
Some things are relative in the Theory of Relativity (now
called "Special Relativity" or "Restricted Realtivity").
For these the theory says, not only that they are relative,
but also what are the details of the relation.
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
   Mikko J. Levanto            ! Before 1996-10-11 21:00 UT 
   VTT Electronics             !          Tel. +358 81 551 2448 
   P.O.Box 1100                !          Fax  +358 81 551 2320 
   FIN-90571 Oulu, Finland     !  After 1996-10-11 21:00 UT  
                               !          Tel. +358 8 551 2448 
Internet: Mikko.Levanto@vtt.fi !          Fax  +358 8 551 2320 
----------- VTT - Technical Research Centre of Finland -----------

Bill Oertell wrote:
> 
> > What reconstruction is being used here? Yucatan and India were at least
> > 30 deg away from being antipodal according to Smith et al "Phanerozoic
> > paleocontinental world maps" Cambr Univ Press 1981. Subsequently Molnar
> > et al 1988 (Basin Res. 1 23) redid India relative to Africa, and
> > Klitgord & Schouten 1986 (The Geol. of N. America, vol. M, Geol. Soc.
> > Am., Boulder CO) redid Africa relative to the Americas, but this work
> > didnt change things vastly.
> >
> 
>    Actually, I don't recall what sources were used to speculate that the
> Indian subcontinent was antipodal to the Yucatan 65 million years ago.
> Certainly, were I actually putting forth a valid scientific claim, I
> would have those references, but this is just enternaining conjecture.
> It seems worth considering, especially since an impact powerful enough
> to create the Chicxulub crater (180 Km--one of the largest impact
> craters in the solar system) should have caused an antipodal formation
> of some sort.  The Deccan Trapps seem a likely canditate.
>                                    Bill
I have a question:
The Pacific plate is subducting on all sides and has been doing so for 
over 100 Ma. How did the Deccan Traps drift to their current position 
from the Yucatan if there is a plate in the way?
(And don't say it went the other way round the globe coz Africa and Asia 
didn't slide apart to let them thruogh...)
Duncan
-- 
Duncan Irving
Alpine and Periglacial Processes
Earth Sciences
UWC Cardiff & ETH Zurich

> L. Joseph Bachman wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to order some nautical charts and topo maps of verious Canadian
> > territories.  I tried looking up the website for the topo maps, but it
> > wasn't optimized for my Web Browser, and looked like gibberish. and nobody
> > answers the toll-free ordering number after work hours.  (and during work
> > hours I'm supposed to be working myself, no?)
> >
> > Could someone provide me with an e-mail or snail-mail address for the
> > agencies who publish these.  Are there seperate agencies that publish the
> > nautical charts, as opposed to the topo maps?  Thanks for any help in how
> > to get catalogs and then order.
Nautical charts are produced and distributed by the Canadian Hydrographic
Service, part of the Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans. They have a
(rather large) number of Web pages accessible through
http://www.chshq.dfo.ca/
including lists of dealers and (for the Pacific region anyway) lists
of available charts.
--
Rich Pawlowicz,             ph: (604) 363-6339  fax: (604) 363-6798 
Acoustical Oceanography Research Group, Institute of Ocean Sciences,  
PO Box 6000, 9860 West Saanich Road,  Sidney, B.C. CANADA   V8L 4B2  
email: rich@ios.bc.ca      WWW: http://pinger.ios.bc.ca/people/rich

On 3 Sep 1996 12:24:44 -0400, jbachman@access2.digex.net (L. Joseph
Bachman) wrote:
>I'd like to order some nautical charts and topo maps of verious Canadian
>territories.  I tried looking up the website for the topo maps, but it
>wasn't optimized for my Web Browser, and looked like gibberish. and nobody
>answers the toll-free ordering number after work hours.  (and during work
>hours I'm supposed to be working myself, no?) 
>
>Could someone provide me with an e-mail or snail-mail address for the
>agencies who publish these.  Are there seperate agencies that publish the
>nautical charts, as opposed to the topo maps?  Thanks for any help in how
>to get catalogs and then order.
>
Try www-nais.ccm.emr.ca 
It's a Canadian mapping page, and goes into all aspects of mapping in
Canada.  It has links to topo- and hydrographic units.
Norm Cherkis

  I gather rock formations on the sea floor produced by rapidly cooled 
molten rock spouting upward from pockets of magma near the mantle core 
boundary produce reliable radioactively dated estimates of the time of 
cooling and magnetization but it would be nice to know the inspection 
criteria that pieces of such formations did not change orientation with 
respect to one another;
  I gather that if the formation as a whole changed the relative 
orientations of course would not change. I have still to look at a good 
book on Paleomagnetism but I am under the impression that the directions 
of magnetization associated with different times of cooling perhaps a few 
thousand or tens of thousands years apart vary about an average value but 
are not 180 degree reversals. Is this true, what is the averge degree 
variation about the averge and what is the margin of error in the dating 
procedures. I gather it is less the more recent the date. There is 
perhaps other evidence of magnetic reversals.??
  (I read recently in Sci News  summary of Mike Macwilliams et al paper 
on a Pluton in South Africa that gave evidence of changes in the earth's 
magnetic field over an unspecified interval of time related to the time 
of cooling of the molten rock that had spouted upward through a dyke 
through sedimantary rock and possibly to different radisotope dating 
procedures giving different ages for the outer and for the inner parts of 
the formation and later dykes cutting the formation from 3.214 to 3.142 
billion years ago with errors of 4 to 20 million years.
 This large rock formation solidified together and  remains together and 
I gather there is no indication of some sort that pieces of it did not 
crack and move within the larger piece. By choosing such a large 
structure and having the evidence that temperatures did not rise enough 
to reset the radioisotope clocks there is a strong case that the 
magentization directions did not change since then. It appears that the 
directions of magnetization are opposite,positive at the margin and 
antipodal at the interior, which means perhaps 180 degrees opposite or  
perhaps less)

Dear Sirs,
I represent a group of investors interested in silver deposits in 
Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Czech and Eslovakia Republics.
They are willing to invest risk capital in exploration
for silver also to invest in ongoing silver mines.
I will apreciate your cooperation sending the information about 
possibilities in these countries to my e-mail address.
Thank you very much.
Alejandro Dorta.
e-mail: alejandro.dorta@mad.servicom.es

I'm doing research on the use of local minestone as roadbed material in
constructing rural roads. As there is a vast dearth of info on this
subject, I'd appreciate any leads or information anyone on this list might
provide. TIA.
S.Mills

Can anyone tell me where I can get the following tests done:
1) Detail chemial composition of rocks
2) Quanitiative minerology composition of rocks
3) X-ray structure analysis of rocks (debyegrams) and noncristalline
phase quantity in rocks
4) Structure of rocks through optical microscope (phase analysis)
5) High temperature optical microscope temperature range from 900 to
1500 C
6) Melt viscosity in temperature range from 1000 to 1500 C
I aprreciate any information!!! I really need to have all of these
tests done!
Thank-you
Deborah Reid

We could probably bring the uselessly repetitive argument about our
origins [why the fixation on BIOLOGICAL evolution in a GEOLOGY forum?]
to a quick close if  we could somehow compel the 'creationists' to
explain why the unknowns and uncertainties of the evolutionary process
are inherently less than the corresponding lack of knowledge of how and
why [A] their particular creator would exist and [B] they know who and
what that creator is. If we accept the need for supernatural originef is
equally valid if it is not falsifiable and a self-assembled plasma-based
ultimate computer is as legitimate a concept as a creator deity. The
debate is really not over the abstract notion of whether we must have
been designed, which would hardly motivate 'creationists,' but rather
whether we must accept their personal beliefs. This is about control,
not concepts.
The overwhelming problem with all arguments asserting 'design' is that
logic then necessitates explaining why the 'designer' does not itself
need designing. Greater mysteries cannot be used to solve lesser ones.
Also, an appeal to 'design' must explain the entirety of the natural
world and I have yet to see 'creationists' informing us why we have so
many genetic defects or pathogens that cripple or otherwise  debilitate
without killing their victims. Perhaps it is too easy to forget in our
wealthy and technology-driven societies that uncontrolled nature is
precisely what would be expected of an absolutely unguided evolutionary
process.
I emphatically agree with the 'creationists' that evolutionary theory is
badly incomplete and in need of fundamental breakthroughs. These may
emerge as we understand more about cellular biology, but meanwhile I
don't have any problem in stating there is much I simply don't
understand. As the renowned astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge of UCSD
said to me in a conversation last year, "There is a lot we will probably
NEVER understand." I suggest we all agree to live  with uncertainty
about our biological origins, and return this forum to discussions of
GEOLOGICAL processes that in fact ARE explicable.
David Johnson
Chula Vista  CA

rz
**
  B00000000000000

In article ,
   davids@amsci.org (D. Schoonmaker) wrote:
>
>In article <50ijsa$kcb@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU
>(Chuck Karish) wrote:
>
>> In article <322CB0FC.1D4B@oro.net>, Richard Adams   
wrote:
>> 
>> >Its a good point that killfiles could be used, but
>> >they are not universally available for all news
>> >readers, and present another layer of difficulty
>> >for newcomers.
>> 
>> Too bad for them.  The usenet custom has always been
>> to be permissive when there's a technical solution.
>> Let them get better news readers.  They're available.
>
>> "Anyone" who is using a capable news reader would not
>> see cross posted articles more than once.
>
>Ah, could one more wise than I tell me how to set up a killfile in
>Newswatcher for the Mac--my operation's institutional newsreader? Back in
>the days when I had a Unix shell account, I had killfiles. With
>Newswatcher, I'd love the same capability.
If the problem is off-topic spam, the /correct/ technical solution is to 
send a complaint to the spammer's postmaster/root/newsadmin with the entire 
article appended and get the spammer "spanked."  My boilerplate looks like 
this for commercial crap (I have a different one for chainspam):

The following inappropriate commercial excessive cross-post originated at 
your service.  Please issue a cancel for the message and take action to 
prevent further abuse.

If the problem is simply chatter, there are really only three options (in 
order of decreasing difficulty, and probably decreasing results in terms of 
satisfaction):
(1) Submit an RFD to convert to a moderated newsgroup.
(2) Find a newsreader that does support a killfile, or get your sysadmin to 
support a universal killfile on the proxy server.
(3) Unsubscribe.
If there are other options (besides "live with it," which I consider 
totally unsatisfactory), I'd be interested in reading them.
My bookmarks:  http://www.3rdplanet.com/~starship/atari.htm
Remove the * from my email address to reply.  Spammers are foiled!
*!* Opinions expressed herein are those of the writer only and *!*
*!* probably frightening to my employer and other authorities. *!*

Chris G. Perrott  wrote in article
<322E7132.33A4@pacific.net.sg>...
> when did the base 9 new millenium take
> place, assuming all counting started at the present base 10 year 1?
> Anyone?
Jan 1st 1459
(In base-9 notation, that's 2001.)
  Okay, and so I suppose that the day before was Und 34, 2000 -- right?
-- 
--     __Q       Stefano MAC:GREGOR   Mi dankas al miaj bonsxancigaj
--   -`\<,      (s-ro)  \ma-GREG-ar\    steloj, ke mi ne estas
--  (*)/ (*)   Fenikso, Arizono, Usono    supersticxulo.
------------    ---

roberto anaya wrote:
> 
> Bill Thoen wrote:
> >
> > ....
> > If every message that had more than three newsgroup cross-posts was
> > eliminated, everything would be cool on sci.geo.geology.
> >
> 
> Excellent idea!  Can't anyone write a script or something to do this
> for the newsgroup?
> 
> Roberto Anaya
I'm doing that.  Its called an RFD or Request For Discussion.
It will allow the group to vote on it through a CFV or Call
for Votes process.  It'll be at least a month (likely more)
before the thing comes to a vote.  Prior to that it will
be an open disucssion.  I am the the "proponent" of the
reorganization, which means I'm the one submitting this
to the administrators at uunet.  I plan to combine this
with a reorganization of the sci.geo.earthquakes group.
It'll be a day or two before the RFD and its associated
stuff is posted here.
Richard Adams

Michael Varney  wrote:
A lot of Archie's words interspersed with his own comments.
Look Michael my boy, your comments were completely inane and the whole
post a waste of bandwidth.  If you just ignore Archie we will be all
better off.  GET A LIFE; ignore him.