Re: Magic 201: even deeper hurting

[larry@cs.com (Larry Spence)]

In article <C4tyJD.Cw2@chinet.chi.il.us> jorn@chinet.chi.il.us (Jorn Barger) writes:
>> == Larry
>  == Jorn

>Let's look briefly at the notion of the "usefulness of experiences".  You seem 
>to want a society where people don't discuss experiences unless they're 
>"useful", 

I said no such thing.  If you think "L is perservering in an argument against 
a statement by J that L thinks is untenable" is equivalent to "L is threat-
ening J if he won't shut up," then IMHO you've got awfully thin skin and/or
are creating (yet another) strawman.

>and this implies, for you, that they can be "validated by 
>consensus".  Apparently you fear that if people discuss other sorts of 
>experiences, there's a clear and present danger of imminent fanaticism?

Apparently not.  _We_ have been discussing such experiences.  If I thought
there was a danger of "imminent fanaticism," I would have activated the
Doomsday Autocanceller. %) I do not, repeat, DO NOT, invalidate or fail to
respect the sensations/emotions/experiences you experienced.  I am quite 
sure that you felt them.  Where we disagree is in your highly arbitrary 
and transparently motivated explanation as to what mechanisms are at work in
producing those experiences.  

>> >(Asimov was a shameless egotist-- did everyone run across Jack Sarfatti's
>>
>> Check your ad hominems at the door, please.
>
>Nice try, near miss.  This is an argument that's inherently ad hominem.

Speak for yourself.  I'm glad you admitted it, though.

>My 
>whole *point* is that selfishness makes one a bad scientist.  It's hard to 
>adduce evidence for that if I'm not allowed to name names.

I would claim that selfishness makes one a bad person, but that you can't
trivially invalidate someone's argument by saying "they're selfish."  Lots
of great music, scientific discoveries, etc., have been the product of
total assholes.  If you want to flame my personality or something, we should
take it to email, as I doubt anyone else really cares.  If you would like to
stick with examining each others' ideas and theories, I'm willing to continue
(preferably in email as well).

>> [...] If someone comes along and says, "er, Larry, you
>> haven't had your caffeine yet, there's a very simple physical mechanism
>> at work here," should I rail at them that they're science-obsessed boors
>> who haven't an ounce of spirituality?
>
>If you try to use Occam's razor to prove that my *experience* is delusional, 
>you're just a science-mugger.

Jorn, you keep doing the strawman thing.  I will repeat this again:

    I do not claim that Jorn's experiences do not exist.  I do not
    claim that Jorn is inaccurately reporting what he felt and per-
    ceived.  I _do_ disagree strongly on Jorn's claims as to the
    mechanism at work which resulted in his experiences.  I welcome
    any discussion of such experiences by Jorn and all other parties.

>> [...] the idea that psychic imprinting
>> can selectively record on tracks 1&2 versus 3&4 seems pretty contrived IMHO.
>
>Oh, sorry.  In the future, if my experiences threaten to tax your prejudices,

You don't feel that the need for mechanisms such as the above is a weak point
of your theory?  Doesn't it strike you more as a (shaky IMHO) construction 
of a human mind than some pre-existing thing that we're _discovering_?  How
convoluted must such a hypothesis be before you would agree that it would
require some corroborating evidence?  We're talking about your hypothesis,
not the raw experience, which could be taken as "evidence" of anything not
open to verification (maybe you're imprinting your tape deck, too -- ever
notice that the deja vu isn't as strong if the tape is played back on some-
one else's system?).

>just feel free to heap me with abuse, instead.  (Truth?  *Not to worry*...)

No thanks, I've seen how effective your swearing and frothing has been.  If
you think that stomping your feet and yelling at people about how they're
_abusing_ you gets you out of actually rebutting specific points, IMHO you
are mistaken.  

>> Hey, I'm _all for_ newer and more all-encompas-
>> sing models of reality; if the old ones don't work, throw 'em out. 
>
>I point to the current state of the world as evidence that consensus reality 
>*sucks*.

So throw the entire concept of consensus reality out with the bathwater?  You
still stubbornly refuse to address my point of "how, then are we to distinguish
genuine spritual experiences from wishful thinking, emotional self-deception,
etc."  You deleted questions that I asked, preferring instead to keep things
on a level of personal attack and perceived persecution.  Come on, Jorn, I
have said that I believe in "vibes" and possibly even telepathy -- and you
deleted every bit of it.  It says a lot about your claims that you have to
resort to painting me as this total unbeliever in everything spritual in 
order to build your strawman arguments.

I'm not "arguing against the spiritual" or anything of the sort.  I am very 
specifically arguing against your claims that you can cause an imprinting
of some sort onto analog media, but not digital media, that the imprinting
"knows" to put itself on only the half of the tape that is playing back at
any given moment, etc.  These claims imply processes that, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, are very, very implausible unless you're already 
convinced that they're true and are arguing backwards from there. 

>> But
>> until you test a model against something that other people can reproduce,
>> why should anyone but you believe it? 
>
>1) Maybe the world is constructed so that certain sorts of experience *do not 
>submit* to the reproducibility regime.

If a given experience isn't reproducible/verifiable, how can you be sure
you're not fooling yourself?  I know I keep asking this, but you still
haven't answered it -- you keep saying variations on "you have to trust your
experiences."  Maybe all of _your_ experiences are unmuddied by projections
of your own hopes/expectations/fears, but I'm not so lucky.  Now, if you
were saying that Kate Herself materialized in your room and spoke to you
("maybe September, Jorn... I'm not happy with the mixes yet..."), I would
probably not even touch this thread.  But you've admitted that these "tape
vibes" are a fleeting thing, and that experiments to test your theory 
might be difficult due to your own emotions getting in the way of picking
up others' "vibes."  So why are you so confident that what you are exper-
iencing is not internally generated?  I am willing to concede the possibil-
ity of paranormal phenomena -- why aren't you willing to admit that you 
just _might_ be out on a limb with your _hypotheses about_ (<- N.B.) your
experiences?

>2) Maybe others *share* similar-but-also-non-reproducible experiences

See, I can buy that... if two people 100 miles apart agreed to write down
the first thing that comes to mind at 1:30 PM on Friday, and they wrote
the _exact same thing_, and it was the middle ten lines of page 377 of
_Ulysses_, I would be floored.  Even if they couldn't reproduce it, the
probability of this happening by chance would be so low that I would _not_
say, "nope, couldn't be ESP, science says no."  Likewise, if out of a bin
of 1000 tapes, you could pick the one that had been "traumatized," my jaw
would hit the floor.  But what you have described is so easily explained
by other mechanisms, and is _so probable_ for you (because you expect it to 
happen, and you seem to be very uncritical about your own experiences), that
it's not IMHO especially notable or unusual.

>3) Maybe it's just fun to think about

It is!  I agree!  Isn't part of thinking about it asking questions, like
"if this really happens, what would it lead to?"  Or do you just mean
fantasizing about it in some romanticized way?

>4) When did I ever ask anyone to *believe* me? (You can show respectful 
>attention without submitting to *belief*.)

I believe that you experienced what you felt -- obviously you are the
only one who knows what you felt!  Again, for the umpteenth time, the
argument is about _why_ you experienced those feelings.  

>> I'm not _telling_ others not to believe it,
>
>You are brandishing a threat of scornful dismissal towards those who might 
>otherwise listen with respect.  It works out just the same.

How is that a threat?  I really doubt if anyone on usenet is going to feel
"threatened" by the possibility that I would scorn them -- certainly you,
if anyone, should care the least.  Can we stick with rebutting each others'
specific points, as opposed to generic complaints about persecution and
evil scientists?

>My sense is that there's healthy skepticism and toxic skepticism.  "It's all in 
>your mind" (see below) is *always* toxic, it seems to me, because it alienates 
>people from trusting their perceptions, making it easier for the liars to pick 
>their pockets.

I am saying "if it _might_ be 'all in your mind,' shouldn't you look for
evidence that will confirm to you that it's not?"  Do you just uncritically
accept every theory that pops into your head?  Again, N.B., I am not picking
at your experience, but at your post facto analysis of what was occurring 
when you had the experience.  When you claim vibes are being imprinted onto
tape, you are doing _exactly_ what scientists do: coming up with a hypo-
thesis that is intended to explain observed phenomena.  In doing so, others
(and ideally, you) may examine your hypothesis to see if it's consistent,
if it might be used to make useful predictions, etc.  You keep mistaking
this natural curiosity and discussion for a "witch-hunt."  Have you ever
had to defend a journal paper or a thesis?  Do you assume that the journal
reviewers are out to get you?

>Yes, people do hallucinate, but you should deal with that by encouraging them 
>to *look more closely* at their experiencing, not by encouraging denial.  

I am requesting that you look more closely at your experiencing _and_ your
explanation for your experiencing.  Why is the experience worthy of close
scrutiny, but not your thoughts about it?

>Phony rationalism says "*Think about this*.  Doesn't this *argument* convince 
>you that what you experience must be a hallucination?"  This is exactly the 
>mechanism of denial: to supplant direct experience with *thoughts*.

Well, you're in deep denial then, because where IMHO you left the tracks was
when you made the leap from describing your direct _experience_ of deja vu 
(which I respect and believe) to your _thinking_ about what was causing 
those feelings to occur.  If you just reported your pure emotional response,
I doubt if anyone here would raise an eyebrow.  

>> I'm claiming that if you took two identical tapes, but played one in your
>> room while experiencing some trauma, while the other was ten miles away,
>> then later tried to pick the "traumatized" tape (assuming nice double-
>> blind conditions, etc.), that you couldn't do it by just listening to it,
>> at least not more often than by chance.  If you consistently picked the
>> right tape even 5% more often than predicted by chance, I would be floored.
>
>So you're making claims about an experiment that's never been tried?  Very 
>scientific!

Very, very similar sorts of experiments have been tried.  If someone claims
to be able to convert tin to gold, can you blame me for being skeptical,
seeing as how all the claims about converting lead to gold (without a
particle accelerator) have proven unfounded?  Do you uncritically believe 
anyone who says they can escape from handcuffs and chains "unaided"?  The 
burden of proof is on you, but you said that you don't care whether we 
believe you, so I guess it's no problem.

>> This is going to sound like a rehash to anyone who reads rec.audio, but...
>> why do you automatically discount the possibility of self-deception? 
>
>Look, Lar, it's you who's automatically *assuming* self-deception in me.  You 
>have absolutely no grounds for impugning my perspicacity regarding evidence, 
>and it *ain't nice*.

Sure, I have plenty of grounds.  You even quote some of it, although you
conveniently deleted the part about "you know whether you're listening to
a tape or a CD, so you already have heavy cues" :

>> [...] You know that you are predisposed to look for a spiritual
>> mechanism (because we need more of that sort of thing). 

>(For the 999th time, all I ask is a 
>little room for the imagination to roam, hyena-free...)

You sure don't need to ask anyone's permission to imagine things.  But if
you don't want to discuss them, why did you even mention it (please resist
the temptation to twist this into "he is telling me _not_ to mention it" --
I am asking a question)?  Just some sort of one-way sharing?  "Here's my
painting, please don't tell if you don't like it or I'll have to call you
an asshole"?  Are you asking _me_ to shut up?  Hmmm?

>> Please... you're not dealing with some robotic scientist in a white lab
>> coat, believe me.
>
>*Show* me.  You talk like one who's swallowed the conventional viewpoint, 
>h-l-and-s.

You are barking up the wrong tree.  You have _no clue at all_.  I have 
bookshelves _packed_ with books about magic, spiritualism, Gurdjieff, 
esoteric religions, Crowley, the whole nine yards (if this sounds like 
bragging, I apologize, but you said "show me").  I have always been utterly
fascinated by this sort of thing.  I have said, repeatedly, that I do 
believe in some of what you're talking about (vibes, some ESP).  Yet, 
because I disagree with this specific, highly arbitrary theory that you 
have proposed (I'm sorry, I forgot, you were just _exhibiting_ it, we're 
not supposed to analyze it), you jump all over me, calling me nasty things
and trying to make me out to be some closed-minded nerd.  Part of the
reason that I'm continuing to follow up is that it is amazing to see you
digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.  You beat Kurt Strain (in rec.
audio) hands down, and _that is not easy_.

>> Yo, Jorn, I am _not_ "just denying" them!  I am trying to argue logically. 
>
>So, you're trying to *deny them* 'logically'.  That puts you barely half-a-
>notch above various others...

Gosh, I'm so flattered.

>> If there is some shared basis other than logic and experiment that you would 
>> like to use to determine who's right, please tell us exactly what it is.
>
>Well, let's start by relaxing a tad about this being a fight of Jorn-is-right 
>vs Jorn-is-wrong.

My misstatement -- should be "who's theory is right."  Apologies.

>Maybe just start by extending to me the *gentlemanly* 
>benefit of the doubt, for the sake of good science?  (Note, all, that this 
>ought to be reasonable scientific procedure, but, in the contrary case of 
>neurotic denial mechanisms, would be severely threatening, because they depend 
>on closing out consideration of the phenomena-denied.)

OK, surely there are things that if someone told _you_, you would be highly
skeptical, right?  E.g., I tell you that I can psychically influence the
outcome of the Texas Lottery.  Maybe you're really polite, and you will give
me the benefit of the doubt for starters.  But are you saying that you're not
going to want to see some evidence to back up my claim eventually?  That if
I say, "well, I tried to win this week, and it didn't work, but you know,
these sorts of things come and go like the wind," you're not going to down-
grade your opinion of my claims after a while?

>*Then*, Mr Impersonating-Momentarily-a-Nice-Guy, 

Oh great, Jorn, I try to pull back from this abyss of nastiness you're trying
to drag us into, so I'm "impersonating a nice guy."  You must have been up
all night baiting hooks, eh?  %)

>instead of "arguing 
>logically" that since my experiences 'can' be explained away, they *should* be 
>explained away, how about inquiring what might be gained or lost by keeping an 
>open mind on the subject?

I am all for this (the "inquiring" part).  I have already said (and you 
deleted it!) that I do believe in the possibility of some paranormal phenom-
ena.  But are you really saying that if there is a simple, consistent 
explanation for something, that we should "remain open" to the infinite
number of other possible (but completely arbitrary) explanations, in the
absence of any events/evidence that don't fit in with the current theory?
Let's say I go to a football game (yow, this is really hypothetical), and
since I hate football, I'm in a nasty mood.  Each time I get into a snit
with my wife during the game, I notice that these two mobs of men down on
the field hurl themselves at each other with great anger, just seconds later.
Hey, clearly, my anger is some sort of psychic force that is causing those
guys to beat up on each other!  Oh, sure, there is the feeble conventional
explanation of what's going on, and I can't _prove_ this to anyone, but I 
feel it, and you can't deny my experience, right?  Seriously, isn't this
really just the most basic case of projection?  Why are your claims any
different?  

>> Again, lots of (not all!) things that appear to jibe with "daily 
>>experiencing"
>> are b.s. -- people used to think the earth was the center of the universe.
>
>Yeah, I heard about that.  And somewhere along the line, this became a 
>globally-applied argument used to alienate people from their direct, 
>impassioned sense of reality, and the consequence was our current planetful-
>o'-apathetic-conformist-drones...

You're digressing again (not that I'm trying to suppress you, I know you're
sensitive about that %).  I'm talking about your specific claims.  Just
because "the world needs more direct experience" or "people need to pay
attention to their experiences" doesn't mean that any theory that involves
some psychic/emotional mechanism should get some sort of "affirmative action
for spiritually-oriented theories," does it?

>> As far as "what 'Known Science' should allow" -- just because it _could_
>> happen (via some undescribed mechanism) doesn't make it any more probable
>> than other things that _could_ happen, except by force of your biases.
>
>My, you sure do have a thing about my "biases", don't ya?

I have admitted to belief in some areas that you have brought up, but you
haven't convinced me (not that you're trying, I know, I know) on the 
particular theory that you've put forward.  You, on the other hand, appear
convinced that this specific theory is unassailable, in the face of a lot of
points that you have failed to rebut.  So either you're extremely biased or
you're just arguing for the sake of arguing (maybe it's that territorial thing
you keep mentioning %).

>Truth to tell, I 
>quite resent the prejudice this implies, in *you*.  So how 'bout we show some 
>respect for the bottomline final arbiter of direct experience (hold the 
>"repeatable")?

P-u-t t-h-e s-t-r-a-w-m-a-n a-w-a-y p-l-e-a-s-e.  I will just copy what I
wrote above:

    I do not claim that Jorn's experiences do not exist.  I do not
    claim that Jorn is inaccurately reporting what he felt and per-
    ceived.  I _do_ disagree strongly on Jorn's claims as to the
    mechanism at work which resulted in his experiences.  I welcome
    any discussion of such experiences by Jorn and all other parties.

>> So, anything that anyone suggests should be _assumed true_ until proven
>> otherwise? 
>
>To the extent of not abusing them for their 'heresy', definitely!!!

Straw is highly flammable, Jorn. %)  I have not used the term "heresy,"
nor told you to shut up, etc.  If I'm "abusing" you, then what do your
profanity-laden insults count as?

>(Forgve my french, Larry, you're a *worm*.)

Ad hominem attacks, a sure sign of someone who's run out of steam.  Go
ahead if it makes you feel better.

>> I'm not saying "proven impossible," but rather
>> "shown highly improbable until reproducible evidence to the contrary is
>> discovered."
>
>How do you "show" something to be highly improbable?

You perform all the thousands of experiments that have been performed in
an attempt to prove similar hypotheses.  You note that they have not found
anything that would convince anyone who's not already convinced.

>> At any rate, I'm glad you haven't been "roused to venomous defense" like 
>> those cold, unfeeling scientists.
>
>This is just sloppy and self-serving.

Sort of like you deleting the parts of my followups where I clearly take
what some _really_ hardnosed scientists would consider a "wacko" position,
namely that vibes and possibly telepathy might exist, in order to paint me
as an extremist asshole?  Probably just an accidental deletion brought on
by the pain of my abuse, I guess...

>I made an argument.  I got brutally 
>flamed by a bunch of jerks who thought they knew shit from shinola.  I gave 
>them back their asses.  Which step was the one you have a problem with???

First, the step you left out before the "brutal flaming" (brutal? ha!) --
the step "I did not respond to their specific questions and demonstrations
of inconsistency in my argument, except in such a fashion as to merely
reassert my position more vigorously."  Then, the last step, where you
appear to imply that your childish insults constitute "[giving] them back
their asses."  

>> Perhaps the point is to _expand_ consensus reality to encompass things 
>> which,
>> unlike the "traumatized tape" phenomenon, are not explainable by current
>> science.  Excursions outside consensus reality only serve a useful purpose
>> if they can be demonstrated to others..
>
>Thank you Mr Reality-Policeman.  In the future I will try to be a better 
>conformist.  Artists, take note: no more 'risky' themes unless you check with 
>Larry first...

I have to assume at this point that your tactic is to hope that I'll 
lose my temper at your silly distortions of my statements, so that we
would move away from the specific points that you are IMHO unsuccessfully
trying to defend and degenerate into name-calling (on both sides, that is).
Sorry, can't oblige you.

>> I would think that you'd be anxious
>> to show us evidence that this isn't just "all in your head." 
>
>(Jesus Fucking Shithole!  I await your men-in-white-coats...)

Good, you don't care whether we believe you, so I guess you probably won't
waste your time following up, then (this is your cue to come in with the
"supressing heretics" bit again)? %)

>The 
>argument you seem to want to make here is that I'm a pathetic wishful-thinker 
>and self-deluder. 

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt (you're welcome %) and leave out the
"pathetic" part.

> >And the rampant
> >Denialism in the world is more than likely the major villain behind her
> >recent timidity about publishing.
> 
> Do you have any more evidence for that theory than for your claim about
> magical recording tape? 
>
>TWW booklet: "Please be kind to my mistakes, because I'm not."

Phewwwweeeee... really reaching here, aren't you?  The box has two CDs of 
b-sides and "odds & sods" tracks - you don't think she was referring to 
those, or to her earliest work (she _did_ rerecord the vocal to WH, remember),
do you?  If Kate couldn't tolerate criticism, she would've stopped recording
a long time ago.

>KateCon: [story about panic-attacks in the grocery store]

I think this says more about Kate than The World.  It's almost like she's
got Jimmy Page Syndrome -- secluded wealthy rock star becomes more and more
phobic and cautious, works slower and slower, creative output stagnates...
anyway, that's a whole 'nother topic.

>Cathy-in-front-of-the-TV story

I don't know that one.

>"magical recording tape" is insulting to me, btw.  It's a sleazy attempt to 
>caricature my argument.

OK, I'll retract and apologize for that perceived insult.  Will you retract
and apologize for all the muck you've been throwing around?  I would say that
"Jesus F*cking Sh*thole" is about as sleazy as I've seen in L-H recently --
I guess you don't mind not respecting _organized_ religions, since they 
aren't Real Jorn-Style Spirituality, huh?  Oh, I forgot, you're being "bru-
tally flamed," so you can be as offensive as you like in responding.

>> Again, you seem to believe something based solely
>> upon the fact that it's what you'd _like to believe_.
>
>1) I said "more than likely"

You're backing down. %)

>2) your prejudices gleam like eyeteeth

Please state them and rebut them in a manner that someone who's not
already convinced (e.g., moi) might see some validity in.

>3) stop fucking diminishing my *experiences*!!!

I'm not going to block-copy that indented paragraph again (cheers from
the peanut gallery).

>4) stop fucking judging my motivations!

But you've _told_ us what some of them are -- that you think we need to
bring more spirituality (a term we haven't really pinned down, it could 
mean anything from Born-Again Christianity to astral projection) into the
world.  The point is not so much "judging" your motivations as recognizing
that you are in fact _motivated to believe a certain way_ -- that you are
not a wide-open, unclouded observer of "imprinting" as an external phenom-
ena.  

>> >You t.b.s are a blight on human reason,
>> 
>> Har, har, har!  Here we (some of us) are trying to argue logically, and
>> you're calling us a "blight on human reason"!?!  I thought _you_ were
>> arguing against the oh-so-stifling bonds of reason...  ROFL^2
>
>(The bark of the puling hyena:  Har, har, har!)

I suppose that means you don't feel up to rebutting that criticism. 

>Look, Lar:  there's reason and there's reason. (At this point, LS tunes out.)

Nope, still here.  What's wrong, did you sense less "empathic closeness?" %)

>> I _respect_ your experiences, I just totally disagree with your theories
>> that attempt to explain them.
>
>Well, no, I don't count "all in your head" as respecting my experiences, no 
>way.  In fact, I would call that *distilled, malevolent, unconscious evil*.

Aww, gee, don't I even rate "premeditated, conscious evil"? %)  Come on,
I've said that I can possibly believe in imprinting and receiving some sort
of "trace" from an imprinted object, but that in your specific case, I
think you're just a wishful thinker who's inclined to interpret certain
easily and consistently explainable experiences in an unnecessarily
convoluted and improbable, but personally satisfying, manner.  When I look
up at the sun, I feel a warmth and a pleasing, positive feeling.  Does this
mean that there is a Sun God who is transmitting benevolent thoughts into
my head from without, or just that I'm warmer and the weather feels nice?

>> >Well, piss on you back!
>> 
>> More spirituality... that's what the world needs, by gum.  %)
>
>Denialist classic (#2 in a series): If B tries to do something good, attack 
>him.  If he fights back, argue "B can't be doing good, because he's fighting 
>back."

Spirituality (as I understand it) is a Good Thing, but I don't think that
means that it's necessarily something that we therefore need to go around
injecting into everything we find.  Something about "when you've got a
hammer..." comes to mind.  

>> >This is an *arts* forum, your preconceptions carry no weight here,
>> 
>> ..but yours do.  Got it.
>
>Denialist classic (#3, collect 'em all): If B states an opinion you disagree 
>with, he's trying to impose his prejudices on you.

I don't perceive you as trying to "impose" anything on me, I think you
probably realize that that would be a lost cause.  %)   But anyway, you
haven't even explictly stated your preconceptions, whereas I've tried to
go to some lengths to state mine, and to show that I have an ear for _some_
of what you believe.  When I have asked questions like "if we throw out
consensus, repeatability, and experiment, how do we separate truth from
self-deception and wooly thinking," you've deleted those questions and
chosen to foam at the mouth about how I'm a concentration-camp shrink.
Why is it that you're unable to show me implications of my side of the
argument that are contradictory, as opposed to just millions of comments
to the effect of "I don't agree with you, or like your kind" (this is
the impression I'm getting, please correct me if I'm wrong)?

>Larry, you're a *disease*... WAKE UP.

Well, that's an effective form of argument, isn't it now?  "I'm right,
your wrong, and the sooner you realize it, the better."  Much easier
than trying to patch your argument's gaping holes, isn't it?

Any further followups from me will be via email to Jorn (crowd breaks into
wild applause and sighs of relief), where I suspect that, without an aud-
ience, he will ignore them.  

-- 
Larry Spence
larry@cs.com
uunet!csccat!larry