Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 34034

Directory

In article <323F3518.6A7A@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (RIchard Adams) says...
>The document I was directed to which addresses reorganization
>is located at:
>
>http://www.smartpages.com/faqs/creating-newsgroups/helper/faq.html
>
>That document says in reference to reorganizing,
>
>  "If you _really_ want to consider splitting, thoroughly
>   discuss the possible split on the affected groups before
>   even thinking about an RFD."
>
>This says that a discussion to reorganize should be
>conducted on the affected groups rather than news.groups
>as you have suggested.  As you know there has been no
>official RFD yet although I am working to get one together.
Admit it Dick, you F(*&(d up!
You posted something with the title
"RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, 
version 6"
Now, perhaps we're all stupid but we thought that this was an RFD for the 
reorganization of s.g.g and s.g.e
You also said in the (non)RFD that it was being posted to news.groups which 
one is supposed to do with a real RFD.
Now you're saying that we all know that there isn't an official RFD.
You are either very confused or a lying git.
-- 
-- 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 <323F3518.6A7A@oro.net>, RIchard Adams  wrote:
[The article of my own to which RIchard refers sought to correct errors
of fact posted by a third party.  This note addresses other issues.]
> The document I was directed to which addresses reorganization
> is located at:
> 
> http://www.smartpages.com/faqs/creating-newsgroups/helper/faq.html
> 
> That document says in reference to reorganizing,
> 
>   "If you _really_ want to consider splitting, thoroughly
>    discuss the possible split on the affected groups before
>    even thinking about an RFD."
As ever, an area where judgement is called for.  Informal pre-RFD
discussion within affected groups is normal.  However, it normally takes
the form of "We're getting flooded out with discussion about X, those of
us who want to discuss Y just aren't getting a look-in; why don't we
contemplate splitting off a group devoted solely to X (or Y)."  If the
suggestion gets a reasonable degree of support, one of the old hands 
(and there is no shartage of such around s.g.e) will usually pick the
issue up, construct a formal RFD and submit it to tale.
You, RIchard, have gone at this like a bull at a gate.  Without even
participating in the discussions to any significant degree, and no 
knowledge whatever of the group's history and culture, you marched in
with proposals to totally reorganise not just s.g.e, but a large part 
of the sci.geo hierarchy, including a set of moderation proposals which
were both technically infeasible and politically unacceptable.  (I'm
not sure that you have even yet understood why that last is the case).
Of course you are meeting strong resistance -- you are trying to cut
right across the social grain.  Although folks such as tale, Spaff, 
Mark Horton, and more lately Russ Allbery, David Wright, Una Smith and 
the rest of the Usenet volunteers have sought to lay out their wisdom
in the various "How-to" documents, Usenet is a very large social as well
as technical system, and there just isn't room for them to explain all
of the past precedent and custom in that context.
> Also the document says,
> 
>   "You really shouldn't take on the responsibilities
>    of a reorganization unless you've fully handled at
>    least one group vote."
>
> I haven't handled a group vote yet and admit that
> has caused me to stumble while doing this.  I can't
> correct the past but I will do better by enlisting
> more experienced help in the future.
With good reason, as you are finding out.  It was at one point suggested 
to me that I consider steering a minor reorganisation through the system
(not sci.geo, I hasten to add).  Although I have been a contributor to 
several of the relevant groups for years, and I have been reading all of 
the groups involved routinely for about six months, I still haven't 
reached a conclusion on what best to put forward and how.  Even small 
re-organisations can be politically explosive.  [If you want an example,
I would guess that the rec.aquaria re-organisation is still on file over
at Dejanews].
> I'm greatful that you continue to volunteer your
> own valuable experience in these matters.
I think I'm on record as having expressed misgivings at the formation of
s.g.e regarding the possibility that 
would-be earthquake predictors would take over the group and would squeeze
out other aspects of the discussion.  I wanted s.g.seismology, in order
to emphasize a scientific orientation, but the parallel with ca.earthquakes
won the day.  So I am very sympathetic to your ultimate objective.
However, 25 years as a professional seismologist actively working in the
field of prediction has taught me that it is impractical to draw a "line
in the sand" in this area.  You have to be prepared to accept that there
may just be some validity in any suggestion.  It's a field which attracts
"kooks", so you find ways to deal with them, hopefully without giving 
offence.  On Usenet, kill files work admirably well.  The "beauty contests"
which you have been advocating are likely to give rise initially to 
canvassing and later to resentment.  It seems to me entirely possible that
someone excluded from the kind of group you propose would seek redress 
through the courts, and simply that possibility would prevent me and most
other professionals from participating in any way.  The financial risk 
involved even in casting a vote would be too high.
There *is* a good case for splitting earthquake prediction and would-be
predictors off from other aspects of earthquakes.  The presence of such a
group would act as a 'lightning rod' taking at least some of the pressure
off other groups such as s.g.geology.  I believe a viable moderation 
scheme based on a simple "no cross-posting" criterion could be constructed
and would have the desired effect.  There are technical mechanisms already
in existence and in use which would permit the group to be "reader-policed"
obviating the need for an identified moderator.
I guess what I'm saying to you, Richard, is that you have got yourself 
into some pretty deep s**t on this one, and that your best course of action
is now to back off.  A little time will allow the heat that you have
generated to diffuse, and allow someone such as Chuck or Tom or myself to
come back with a workable set of proposals.  Note that the Usenet group
creation rules say that, if you press on with this and fail, no-one else
can bring the issue forward again for at least six months.  
Russ

In article <323F97E7.65FE@oro.net>, Richard Adams  wrote:
> Spam is a fact of our everyday existance in nearly every
> form of communication were exposed to.  Should each person
> be required to protect themselves or should the system have some
> built in protections and if so, at what levels?
> 
> It's an interesting and relevant discussion that either
> should have or already has a group to discuss it in.
> Anyone want to point to where that is?
It does -- news.admin.net-abuse.misc and its relations.
> I wonder if the discussion there is moderated...
> (just kidding)
news.admin.net-abuse.announce is moderated, but it's not a discussion
group.  IIRC news.admin.policy was moderated.  I didn't pay great
attention to the formation of the news.admin.net-abuse hierarchy, but
I have a feeling that the whole thing fell apart in controversy over
moderation policies in news.admin.  An excellent example of the need 
for consent in the policing of Usenet.

I want to use Vistapro to render views of Africa. Unfortunately I do not
posess any Vistapro DEMs for this area. I believe that ASCII DEMs can be
converted to Vistapro format - is this true? Does anyone know where I can
obtain either ASCII DEMs of Africa or ,better still, Vistapro format DEMs
of Africa.
Thanks, Ian (ian@virtek.com)

1. NO
2. NO
kb
Russ Evans  wrote in article
...
> In article <51lup7$sfe@seismo.CSS.GOV>, salzberg@seismo.CSS.GOV (David
> Salzberg) wrote:
> 
> > The survey posted by R. Adams is biased.  I am conduncting
> > a simple survey.  It is:
> 
> Excellent suggestion, David.  Put me down as NO to both.
> 

Russ Evans wrote:

> I think I'm on record as having expressed misgivings at the formation of
> s.g.e regarding the possibility that 
> would-be earthquake predictors would take over the group and would squeeze
> out other aspects of the discussion.  I wanted s.g.seismology, in order
> to emphasize a scientific orientation, but the parallel with ca.earthquakes
> won the day.  So I am very sympathetic to your ultimate objective.
> 
> However, 25 years as a professional seismologist actively working in the
> field of prediction has taught me that it is impractical to draw a "line
> in the sand" in this area.  You have to be prepared to accept that there
> may just be some validity in any suggestion.  It's a field which attracts
> "kooks", so you find ways to deal with them, hopefully without giving
> offence.  On Usenet, kill files work admirably well.  The "beauty contests"
> which you have been advocating are likely to give rise initially to
> canvassing and later to resentment.  It seems to me entirely possible that
> someone excluded from the kind of group you propose would seek redress
> through the courts, and simply that possibility would prevent me and most
> other professionals from participating in any way.  The financial risk
> involved even in casting a vote would be too high.
> 
> There *is* a good case for splitting earthquake prediction and would-be
> predictors off from other aspects of earthquakes.  The presence of such a
> group would act as a 'lightning rod' taking at least some of the pressure
> off other groups such as s.g.geology.  I believe a viable moderation
> scheme based on a simple "no cross-posting" criterion could be constructed
> and would have the desired effect.  There are technical mechanisms already
> in existence and in use which would permit the group to be "reader-policed"
> obviating the need for an identified moderator.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying to you, Richard, is that you have got yourself
> into some pretty deep s**t on this one, and that your best course of action
> is now to back off.  A little time will allow the heat that you have
> generated to diffuse, and allow someone such as Chuck or Tom or myself to
> come back with a workable set of proposals.  Note that the Usenet group
> creation rules say that, if you press on with this and fail, no-one else
> can bring the issue forward again for at least six months.
> 
> Russ
I agree that the best course is to back of for a time while the effort
itself is reorganized.
I'm curious about the possibility of redress through the courts you've
suggested.  Who would be the defendant(s)?  What would be the cause of
action?  Why does what was proposed lend itself to more exposure than
other systems already in use?
I appreciate that you have fairly identified not only the deficiencies
of the proceedings, but also the positive aspects of my objectives.
Richard

Ken Navarre wrote:
<>>
> One finaly note. I apologise for getting too whimsical with my sarcasm
> and leaving out the appropriate smilies. I trust that we've had enough
> dialogue that you could "see" them even though I managed to send off the
> post without proper editing. Just ran out of time. Not really an excuse but
> perhaps an explanation...
The Canadian in me is glad that this discussion is finally coming around
to the civilized side of the spectrum.  I've supported Richard's
efforts, since I can see the potential of the destruction of this
group.  The old methods of email retaliation and kill files just don't
work anymore.  So maybe we should back off from this Clintonian proposal
of healthcare, and just discuss (in a civilized manner) how we can
improve the health of this group.  (for God's sake, don't go into a
discussion on health care :)
-- 
Harold W. Asmis        harold.w.asmis@hydro.on.ca
tel 416.592.7379  fax 416.592.5322
Standard Disclaimers Apply

Richard Adams wrote:
> I'm curious about the possibility of redress through the courts you've
> suggested.  Who would be the defendant(s)?  What would be the cause of
> action?  Why does what was proposed lend itself to more exposure than
> other systems already in use?
> 
> I appreciate that you have fairly identified not only the deficiencies
> of the proceedings, but also the positive aspects of my objectives.
Now that I think about it, a couple of years ago our company had a
dispute with a (fringe) scientist.  Our company said, in effect, that
this guy was an idiot, and nobody should pay any attention to him.  He
sued that we destroyed his scientific career, and won some big bucks. 
Makes me think now that I can't touch this with my ten foot keyboard.
-- 
Harold W. Asmis        harold.w.asmis@hydro.on.ca
tel 416.592.7379  fax 416.592.5322
Standard Disclaimers Apply

EEVL, the new free UK based virtual library for Engineering, now 
live!
http://www.eevl.ac.uk/
The Edinburgh Engineering Virtual Library (EEVL) went live 
on Friday 13th September.  The EEVL gateway to Internet resources 
in Engineering will be extremely popular with the engineering 
community and will solve one of the main problems facing users of 
the Internet - locating useful resources from the millions 
available.
Earlier in the summer EEVL launched two useful services for 
engineers, the EEVL Engineering Newsgroup Archive, and the 
Offshore Engineering Information Service, both of which have 
proved successful.  Now EEVL's Main Service, its searchable 
database of high quality engineering networked resources, will be 
freely available to anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet 
connection and appropriate World Wide Web browsing software.
The database, containing descriptions and links to over 1300 
Internet resources in engineering, has an extremely user friendly 
interface, and allows practising engineers, academics, 
researchers, students, and information specialists to search or 
browse for engineering resources by title, keyword, or subject.  
The database is actively managed by a team of engineering 
information specialists, with headquarters at Heriot-Watt 
University Library, in Edinburgh, UK.  Resource 
descriptions and links are checked regularly, making EEVL the 
premier site on the Internet for locating UK engineering sites.  
Resources in the EEVL database include Web sites for engineering 
e-journals and electronic newsletter, engineering 
companies, professional societies and institutions, engineering 
departments within higher education, government sources, 
engineering email lists, resource guides and directories, 
research centres, recruitment services, software, and more.
EEVL fills a large gap for engineers and industrialists as far 
as Internet resources are concerned and it is likely that EEVL 
will become the first port of call for anyone looking for 
Engineering information on the Internet.
EEVL is funded through the Electronic Library Programme (eLib), 
managed by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) on 
behalf of the UK Higher Education funding councils.  The EEVL 
Project lead sites are Heriot-Watt University Library, and the 
Heriot-Watt Institute for Computer Based Learning 
(ICBL).  Partner sites are the University of Edinburgh, Napier 
University, Cambridge University, Imperial College of Science, 
Technology and Medicine, the Nottingham Trent University, and the 
Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE).
For more information, see the Web site at: http://www.eevl.ac.uk/
or
email eevl@icbl.hw.ac.uk

In article <50kre4$5bu@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, Jim Carr says...
->mccoy@sierra.net (John McCoy) writes:
->>
->>It is utter futility for atheists to argue with creationists, because 
->>atheists are wrong. 
->
->How about theists, Deists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, or Christians? 
->
->I would be happy to find a creationist who will state what s/he thinks 
->is the proper theory to explain the distribution of species and the 
->fossil record.  Tried when this thread started and got the usual 
evasions. 
->But I will settle for the creationist answer to this question: 
->
-> What appeared first, cattle or man? 
->
	Oh, and when they answer that, please tell us if you are a "young 
earth/Noachan flood creatonist, or an old earth/recent creation of man 
creationist, or the rare old earth/man evovleved via directed evolution 
creationist.
	Saves a lot of confusion later.
-- 
	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

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Suzane Oliver wrote:
> >-> So your deity is able but unwilling to save his followers from hurricanes?
> >-
> >-This really misses the point. 
> 
> No, you missed the point. This was in response to some one who posted that, if
> one asked, ones wishes were granted. Follow the thread back. 
> 
I was taught that whatever I asked for, in Jesus' name, I would receive.
Well, I asked for a Ferrari, and I didn't get it. Therefore, I was fed a
load of shit by my minister.
Why should I believe anything else he tells me?

Dear Netters,
Could somebody suggest me a good summary article on epicontinental seas
of Africa ?
		Thanx in advance,
				Cs. Csuzdi

Richard Adams  wrote:
>Charlie Moody wrote:
>
>> What we *really* need to be talking about here is how to deal with spam,
>> not not just in [newsgroup.name],
>Good point.
>Spam is a fact of our everyday existance in nearly every
>form of communication were exposed to.  Should each person
>be required to protect themselves or should the system have some
>built in protections and if so, at what levels?
>Richard
Here's dick acting locally but thinking globally - the logical next
step in his goose-stepping march to power. Scarey.  All of a sudden
we're not discussing the fate of a couple of arcane newsgroups, but
now he's talking about "nearly every form of communication" and  "the
system." Beware, beware.
                   Oliver Seeler 

Greetings,
In article <323F200E.64C8@nb.net>, S Downs  writes:
> I'm a non-geologist doing some research on karst, and I'm curious about 
> some information and terminology I've run across. Perhaps someone here 
> would be kind enough to clarify.
> 
> Q: Can any type of limestone form karst terrain, or only specific types 
> of limestone? I understand the limestone must be both permeable and 
> porous.
> 
Generally, yes, any type of limestone can form karst. Of course, there are some
limitations. The formation of karst topography results from the dissolution of
limestone by carbonic acid. Limestone generally dissolves more readily in humid
climates than in dry or arid climates. Rock strata overlying the limestone can
limit the amount of carbonic acid that reaches the limestone. The solubility of
the limestone can be affected by its purity (for example, a shaly limestone
probably wouldn't dissolve as fast as a pure limestone in the same conditions).
However, I think the porosity and permeability of the limestone itself is not
a factor. In the Ozarks, where I work, the limestones have very little primary
porosity or permeability. The limestones are very fractured (secondary
porosity), however, which allows acidic water to percolate into and 
dissolve them.
> Q: Is there a difference between a doline and a sinkhole, or are they 
> just different words for the same thing?
According to the AGI Glossary of Geology, they are synonymous.
> 
> Q: Would you consider the pitted, creviced limestone floor of the 
> Everglades to be a good example of visible karst? 
I've been to the Everglades a couple of times and must confess I never saw any
bedrock. However, there are some excellent examples of karst features in central
Florida including some very nice springs and sinkholes. And I'll plug the Ozarks
as having some very nice and scenic karst features, too. 
> 
> Thanks for your help. E-mail me directly if possible; the postings here 
> seem to be way-off-topic for geology :(
> 
They sure are. But, one way to counteract that is to post lots of on-topic
articles:)
Take care,
Jim
Standard and extra strength disclaimers

The Mineralogical Society of America is planning to market a
mineralogical calendar featuring 12 large format mineral images
suitable for framing. These will be images of superlative specimens
from major mineral museums around the world. The calendars will
also include a smaller inset image and text of a scientific nature in
the actual calendar page, making it educational as well as
aesthetically pleasing. 
All proceeds from the calendar will be used to sponsor academic
scholarships, further outreach to the mineral enthusiast community,
and the advancement of the mineral sciences. We ask for your input to
help us research the market and plan for our calendar.   Our simple
survey is located on Bob's Rock Shop Home Page at
http://www.rockhounds.com/rockshop/table.html
Thank you!
Mineralogical Society of America Arts Council
__________________________
Charles A. Weiss, Jr., Ph.D. - Research Geologist
USACE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS  39180
Phone: (601) 634-3928   FAX:  (601) 634-2873

One could further speculate how much "deep life" influences geological processes,
i.e. life in sediments for the last three billion years, perhaps down to
crystalline basement.  (The SciAm article said microbes have been found in
igneous formations too!)
1) Life assisted in the geochemical concentration of some economically important
deposits- petroleum, natural gas and coal for sure; some types of iron and uranium;
ans possibly other brine and hydrothemally associated metals.
2) Life help return carbon as carbonate back into the crust.  Otherwise carbon may
pretty much completely leach into atmosphere like on Venus and Mars. This carbonate
is important for certain mineralization chemistry.  Also it lowers the melting point
of some rocks, perhaps "lubricating" plate tectonics in places like subduction zones.
See the "Global Geochemical Carbon Cycle" in March 1989 Scientific American.

mwfisher@cts.com (Michael W. Fisher) wrote:
>	Be very cautious about the inferences you try and draw from a 
>footnote. There are too many unaswered questions.
OK.   I agree that there are lots of unanswered questions.   I
basically took Professor Sokal's word for it.   I don't have the
Gallup Poll results myself.
However, I do point out that Sokal is no fan of religion.   Thus
his expression of surprise that the Gallup results were (in his
analysis) independent of religion.
So let me put it this way.
Suppose it turns out that the creationist view is indeed
independent of religious belief, as Sokal fears.   Would that
effect the conclusion that creationism was a religious doctrine?
Do you know of any properly conducted surveys that, when
corrected for other factors such as education, age, &c; that might
be correlated with both a belief in creationism and religion,
have shown that the creationist view depends on religious belief?
Shack

spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) wrote:
>are the MAJORITYof Creationists RELIGIOUS ??
>wether they be christian ,buddists , lutheran or Diabolists or whatever.
I should think so.   The majority of the population is religious.
Certainly the question ought to be whether those who are
non-religious are less likely (when corrected for other factors)
to believe in creationism than those who are religious.
I am not sure that most non-religious people are atheists, BTW.
Anyway, according to Sokal the correlation doesn't hold.
Do you know of any studies that show that contradict him?
Shack

> By what miracle of physical chemistry do the ions spiral down
> the magnetic lines of force in exactly the correct proportions
> to form minerals?  That sure doesn't happen in a laboratory
> mass spectrometer.
The purpose of mass spectroscopy as performed in the laboratory is to
create physical separations of the elements and isotopes that are present
in mineral samples.
In the TLL, there was a preselection of the types of elements and isotopes
that were converted to plasmatic ions.  This "preselection" occurred
because the proto-Earth and the Mars-sized planet that collided were both
relatively mature planets that had undergone core-mantle segregations. 
Most of the material converted to plasma derived from the crustal
structures of both planets.  Take planetary crustal rock, convert it to
plasma, and then allow it to cool: it reforms the same basic minerals that
were previously present.  The shifts that were produced in the radiometric
series do not affect the bulk mass, other than to produce correctable
errors in the rock dates.

The Journal of the Geological Society
Vol. 153, Part 6, November 1996
Specials
PEARSON, D. G., EMELEUS, C. H. & KELLEY, S. P. Precise 40Ar/39Ar age for
the initiation of Palaeogene volcanism in the Inner Hebrides and its
regional significance   815
BROWN, M. & RAITH, M. First evidence of ultrahigh-temperature
decompression from the granulite province of southern India     819
EVANS, R. H. S. & TANNER, P. W. G. A late Vendian age for the
Kinlochlaggan Boulder Bed (Dalradian)   823
Papers
MANNING, D. A. C., HILL, P. I. & HOWE, J. H. Primary lithological
variation in the kaloinzed St Austall Granite, Cornwall, England 827
EDMUNDS, W. M. & KEY, R. M.  Hydrogeochemistry as an aid to geological
interpretation: the Glen Roy area, Scotland     839
LAMBECK, K. Glaciation and sea-level change for Ireland and the Irish
Sea since late Devensian/Midlandian time        853
CRUICKSHANK, A. R. I., MARTILL, D. M. & NOÈ, L. F.  A plesiosaur
(Reptilia, Sauropterygia) exhibiting pachyostosis from the Middle
Jurassic of England     873
RIPPON, J. H. Sand-body orientation, palaeoslope analysis and basin-fill
implications in the Westphalian A–C of Great Britain    881
GLOVER, B. W., LENG, M. J. & CHISHOLM, J. I.  A second major fluvial
sourceland for the Silesian Pennine  Basin of northern England  901
WRIGHT, V. P. & MARRIOTT, S. B.  A quantitative approach to soil
occurrence in alluvial deposits and its application for the Old Red
Sandstone of Britain    907
MORTON, A. C., CLAOUE-LONG, J. C. & BERGE, C. SHRIMP contraints on
sediment provenance and transport history on the Mesozoic Statfjord
Formation, North Sea    915
FÆRSETH, R. B. Interaction of Permo-Triassic and Jurassic extensional
fault blocks during the development of the northern North Sea   931
LISLE, R. J. & VANDYCKE, S. Separation of multiple stress events by
fault striation analysis: an example from Variscan and younger
structures at Ogmore, South Wales       945
TURNBULL, M. J. M., WHITEHOUSE, M. J. & MOORBATH, S.  New isotope age
determinations for the Torridonian, NW Scotland 954
YAMAMOTO, H. & NAKAMURA, E.  Sm–Nd dating of garnet granulites from the
Kohistan complex, northern Pakistan     965
JACOBS, J. & THOMAS, R. J.  Pan-African rejuvenation of the c. 1.1 Ga
Natal Metamorphic Provice (South Africa): K–Ar muscovite and titanite
fission track evidence  971
KEEP, M. The Pinal Schist, southeast Arizona, USA: contraction of a
Palaeoproterozoic rift basin    979
PICKETT, E. A. & ROBERTSON, A. H. F. Formation of the Late
Palaeozoic–Early Mesozoic Karakaya Complex and related ophiolites in NW
Turkey by Palaeotethyan subduction–accretion    995
SANTANACH, P., PALLÀS, R. SÀBAT, F. & MUÑOZ, J. A.  From small-sclae
faults to plate kinematics: palaeostress determinations in a fragmented
arc complex (SE Livingston Island, S Shetland, Antarctica)      1011
Discussion
BUCKLEY, R. C. & HARBURY, N. A. Discussion on the Lower Palaeozoic of
Oman and its context in the volution of a Gondwanan continental margins;
reply by MILLSON, J. A., MERCADIER, C. G.  L., LIVERA, S. E. & PETERS,
J. M.   1021
For further details please contact:
Geological Society Publishing House
Unit 7, Brassmill enterprise Centre
Brassmill Lane
Bath BA1 3JN, UK
Tel: 44 1225 445046 Fax: 44 1225 442836
-- 
Mike Collins
Publications Manager for The Geological Society
Please visit us on http://www.geolsoc.org.uk

Valliappa Lakshmanan  wrote in
article <51jmnr$845@frazier.backbone.ou.edu>...
<>
  No, it's because their current year-numbering system started in (by
our reconing) the year 1989.  Whenever the Emperor dies, a new
year-numbering system is begun for the new Emperor, starting with the
following New Year's Day.
-- 
--     __Q       Stefano MAC:GREGOR   Mi dankas al miaj bonsxancigaj
--   -`\<,      (s-ro)  \ma-GREG-ar\    steloj, ke mi ne estas
--  (*)/ (*)   Fenikso, Arizono, Usono    supersticxulo.
------------    ---

salzberg@seismo.CSS.GOV (David Salzberg) wrote:
>sci.geo.geology and sci.geo.earthquakes
>Keywords: 
>
>The survey posted by R. Adams is biased.  I am conduncting
>a simple survey.  It is:
>
>1) Should sci.geo.earthquakes be moderated? 
>2) Should sci.geo.geology be moderated? 
My votes:
   1. NO
   2. NO
My thanks to David for an elegant solution to the anonymous survey 
problem.
Marnie Gannon

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <32349509.5740@netrover.com>, Gaetan Jobin  writes:
>>Michael W. Fisher wrote:
>>First : In so-called pre-technologicial societies they had very high
>>mortality rate for babies. As in our society we are just on the verge of
>>trying to keep the placentas alive. So the low age death is not a true
>>mesure at all. In fact in the "old" times people lived just as long as
>>we do. 
>No, not quite.  There were individuals who reached an advanced age, 
>but these were rather exceptions.  Among the rural population (which 
>was the vast majority) very few people reached past 50.
I feel I must support the first statment above, I have also seen, on TV,
results to surveys that say in the since records began that the average age
for people who die from natural causes, has stayed rougthly the same.
If you don't get run over or catch AIDs, resistant flu, etc you are
going to live as long as 50 years ago.

Okay.  I have this question.  We have resolved that there is indeed and 
inner, iron-based solid core, about the size of the moon, rotating at a 
slightly faster rate than the outer shell of the earthand between the 
two, is the molten outer core.
Since there is no physical connection to the inner core and outer shell, 
would it be possible, due to the pull of the moon or an asteroid or 
even forces as yet unforeseen perhaps, for the outer shell to slide a 
little occasionally off center, maybe as much as 5 or 10 degrees?
Just a thought.
Ben

burnsdm@UWYO.EDU wrote:
> 
> Hello...
> 
> I hope someone can help me...I am beginning a project on the Sacramento
> Basin, CA and need to obtain as many sonic logs on the area as possible.
> Where would I go/whom should I contact to get copies of these logs??
> 
> Any help, suggestions, etc. would be greatly appreciated.  It would
> also be appreciated if you responded to my email address directly,
> instead of posting to the newsgroup.
> 
> THANKS!!
> 
> Diane Burns
> burnsdm@uwyo.edu
Hi:
If it were me, I would:
1. Contact PI log service (Petroleum Information);
2. Contact the State of CA, Department of Natural Resources in
Sacramento.
Both should/may have wells logs for sale, or inspection.
tedd
___________________________________________________________________
sperling@geophysics.com