Stacie Crowther
Guest
Oops, typo AGGRESSION.
Dreams
- Thread starter Brandon Whited
- Start date
Inger Sheil
Member
Stacie, I appreciate that your post was written out of a spirit of conciliation, but I have to disagree with you. I believe you underline one of the points that Kate made in her brilliant post - that no one wants to call a spade a spade in this matter because they don’t want to be seen to be adversarial. What you see as aggression is actually a keen sense of extraordinary frustration. This is isn’t the first time the board has been subjected to this blatant game playing and manipulation, and more than a few people are utterly fed up to the gills with it - hence the bluntness of the posts we’ve seen in this thread.
I would have commented earlier in support of Randy and Parks’s comments, but after Phil ‘love bombed’ this thread into submission thought it would be rather poor form to reignite it. Teri, however, did that herself with her attempt yet again to claim victimhood status.
A big hole was wedged in my heart, and I was deeply hurt by both of your posts.
I was so gullible to think that no one would come after me on this thread since it was a Titanic reincarnation thread.
Oddly enough, I do not hold anything against you. I still love the both of you very much.
Sniff sniff…more than a whiff of burning martyr in the air there! And this in spite of the fact that she stresses that she is taking responsibility on herself for her own posts and the reaction they inspire. How many times do we have to go through this cycle of Teri issuing abject apologies, and then trundling on in the same manner as before? Her passive/aggressiveness is beginning to wear very thin, as the posts in this thread show. I know Parks, Randy and Andrew quite well - I know none of them bears Teri any form of personal malice, and indeed if anything they have a deep concern for her. Kate I don’t know as well, but I have been very much struck in the short time I’ve been in contact with her by her poise and her clear-sightedness - her ability to cut through to the heart of an issue, as she did in her post above. I also know she’s a warm-hearted, kindly person who has been terribly frustrated by this cyclical nightmare of drama queen posts - that someone like Kate should be driven to voice her concerns as she did in this thread is indicative of how deep the problem is.
I realise even that by posting this I’m giving Teri what she seems to so fervently desire - attention. Whether ‘good’ attention or ‘bad’, she doesn’t care as long as she’s the centre of it. In my own contact with her I’ve gone to some trouble to outline to explain her research options to her, and how, for example, she can investigate her ‘memories’ of past voyages on WSL ships. I had even agreed to undertake to do some of this research for her gratis, until certain slighting comments she made about my work elsewhere caused me to withdraw the offer. I, like the others who have posted here, are willing to consider her claims if she can provide the material to support them. But as Parks has pointed out in other threads, it is extremely offensive for her to draw on the work of other researchers on the one hand while dismissing their knowledge with claims to preternatural knowledge, unsupported by historical fact. Doesn’t it bother you that in this thread she has, without a shred of supporting evidence, attacked the historical reputation of the man she claims to have been in a past life? It certainly disturbs me.
I also believe Randy has some very valid points from the point of view of someone who holds a very profound belief in the doctrine of reincarnation. Teri seems to claim a special dispensation to spout whatever she likes as it is based on her ‘beliefs’. I’ve seen nothing in her posts that indicates any coherent theological system of belief. It’s rather like a person who quaffs a pint of red wine, chews on a loaf of ciabatta, then claims to be a Roman Catholic and offers to show you their marks of stigmata with no understanding of the theological system of belief behind the doctrine of transubstantiation. As with so many others who claim to have been famous in a past life, the religious doctrine of reincarnation strikes me more as a vehicle for their wish-fulfilment fantasies than anything else. I have seen absolutely nothing in her many posts that would lead me to belief that Teri is J Bruce Ismay - quite the opposite, in fact. I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise by something factual, but as time goes on this possibility seems more remote. Teri is of course entitled to believe anything she likes - just as anyone may believe that the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, or that UFOs are probing their bodily orifices (or, if you find these comparisons objectionable, then draw your own from the stock of thus-unproven far but profoundly held religious doctrines…the seas giving up their dead on Judgement Day, Resurrection, Immaculate Conception etc). However, in an historical forum she can certainly expect to find herself challenged like any other contributor. The more outlandish her claims (‘Ismay was a sleazy opium fiend!’) the more emphatic the challenge. Her faith in her beliefs does not gain her a special dispensation from this scrutiny.
I realise this is a lengthy post but, as others have pointed out, enough is enough. I like Teri - she seems a personable individual with a lot of spark, and I’m sure that she can be quite engaging and charming when she desires to be so. But this isn’t the first time a thread has undergone this sort of corruption - it’s like a rot infesting the board. I applaud those who in this thread who have taken a stand against it - risking, as they did so, the charge of ‘aggression’.
While I disagree with you, I appreciate your sincere desire for peace and goodwill. I hope that is what we ultimately have, but some of us are not willing to sacrifice our own principles on research methodology to get it.
With warm regards,
Inger
I would have commented earlier in support of Randy and Parks’s comments, but after Phil ‘love bombed’ this thread into submission thought it would be rather poor form to reignite it. Teri, however, did that herself with her attempt yet again to claim victimhood status.
A big hole was wedged in my heart, and I was deeply hurt by both of your posts.
I was so gullible to think that no one would come after me on this thread since it was a Titanic reincarnation thread.
Oddly enough, I do not hold anything against you. I still love the both of you very much.
Sniff sniff…more than a whiff of burning martyr in the air there! And this in spite of the fact that she stresses that she is taking responsibility on herself for her own posts and the reaction they inspire. How many times do we have to go through this cycle of Teri issuing abject apologies, and then trundling on in the same manner as before? Her passive/aggressiveness is beginning to wear very thin, as the posts in this thread show. I know Parks, Randy and Andrew quite well - I know none of them bears Teri any form of personal malice, and indeed if anything they have a deep concern for her. Kate I don’t know as well, but I have been very much struck in the short time I’ve been in contact with her by her poise and her clear-sightedness - her ability to cut through to the heart of an issue, as she did in her post above. I also know she’s a warm-hearted, kindly person who has been terribly frustrated by this cyclical nightmare of drama queen posts - that someone like Kate should be driven to voice her concerns as she did in this thread is indicative of how deep the problem is.
I realise even that by posting this I’m giving Teri what she seems to so fervently desire - attention. Whether ‘good’ attention or ‘bad’, she doesn’t care as long as she’s the centre of it. In my own contact with her I’ve gone to some trouble to outline to explain her research options to her, and how, for example, she can investigate her ‘memories’ of past voyages on WSL ships. I had even agreed to undertake to do some of this research for her gratis, until certain slighting comments she made about my work elsewhere caused me to withdraw the offer. I, like the others who have posted here, are willing to consider her claims if she can provide the material to support them. But as Parks has pointed out in other threads, it is extremely offensive for her to draw on the work of other researchers on the one hand while dismissing their knowledge with claims to preternatural knowledge, unsupported by historical fact. Doesn’t it bother you that in this thread she has, without a shred of supporting evidence, attacked the historical reputation of the man she claims to have been in a past life? It certainly disturbs me.
I also believe Randy has some very valid points from the point of view of someone who holds a very profound belief in the doctrine of reincarnation. Teri seems to claim a special dispensation to spout whatever she likes as it is based on her ‘beliefs’. I’ve seen nothing in her posts that indicates any coherent theological system of belief. It’s rather like a person who quaffs a pint of red wine, chews on a loaf of ciabatta, then claims to be a Roman Catholic and offers to show you their marks of stigmata with no understanding of the theological system of belief behind the doctrine of transubstantiation. As with so many others who claim to have been famous in a past life, the religious doctrine of reincarnation strikes me more as a vehicle for their wish-fulfilment fantasies than anything else. I have seen absolutely nothing in her many posts that would lead me to belief that Teri is J Bruce Ismay - quite the opposite, in fact. I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise by something factual, but as time goes on this possibility seems more remote. Teri is of course entitled to believe anything she likes - just as anyone may believe that the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, or that UFOs are probing their bodily orifices (or, if you find these comparisons objectionable, then draw your own from the stock of thus-unproven far but profoundly held religious doctrines…the seas giving up their dead on Judgement Day, Resurrection, Immaculate Conception etc). However, in an historical forum she can certainly expect to find herself challenged like any other contributor. The more outlandish her claims (‘Ismay was a sleazy opium fiend!’) the more emphatic the challenge. Her faith in her beliefs does not gain her a special dispensation from this scrutiny.
I realise this is a lengthy post but, as others have pointed out, enough is enough. I like Teri - she seems a personable individual with a lot of spark, and I’m sure that she can be quite engaging and charming when she desires to be so. But this isn’t the first time a thread has undergone this sort of corruption - it’s like a rot infesting the board. I applaud those who in this thread who have taken a stand against it - risking, as they did so, the charge of ‘aggression’.
While I disagree with you, I appreciate your sincere desire for peace and goodwill. I hope that is what we ultimately have, but some of us are not willing to sacrifice our own principles on research methodology to get it.
With warm regards,
Inger
Teri Lynn Milch
Member
Parks,
I'm sorry but I did not understand your post. Could you explain?
(never mentioned leaving the Board. A short vacation maybe sounds good though.)
Addison,
Very nice to see you again. Haven't seen you in a while...
Stacie,
See, you're getting the hang of this typo thing!
Don't worry, I PROMISE (big bolded letters) ~ ~ no more Ismay for me unless I quote a passage from a book.
Happy Holidays to all the Board Members and Phil Hind.
Very Sincerely,
Teri
I'm sorry but I did not understand your post. Could you explain?
(never mentioned leaving the Board. A short vacation maybe sounds good though.)
Addison,
Very nice to see you again. Haven't seen you in a while...
Stacie,
See, you're getting the hang of this typo thing!
Don't worry, I PROMISE (big bolded letters) ~ ~ no more Ismay for me unless I quote a passage from a book.
Happy Holidays to all the Board Members and Phil Hind.
Very Sincerely,
Teri
Parks Stephenson
Member
Teri,
My post was self-explanatory. If you have trouble understanding what I was saying, go back and re-read every post that you have ever directed at me. And I never suggested that you leave the Board, either...just responding in kind to your "Here I go ..."
Parks
My post was self-explanatory. If you have trouble understanding what I was saying, go back and re-read every post that you have ever directed at me. And I never suggested that you leave the Board, either...just responding in kind to your "Here I go ..."
Parks
Kritina Johnston
Member
Is it okay to come out now? Have the bombs stopped bursting overhead?
Kate Bortner
Member
I think it's okay to stop talking about things other than the title of this thread (Dreams), if that's what you mean. Are we safe from more derailments? Only time will tell.
Brandon Whited
Member
Hello everyone,
I guess I'm mainly to blame for getting this whole darn ruckus started on this thread! It was I who asked to have Teri's opinion on the subject of my dream, and that is why she began posting here. I'll have to admit that at the time, I at least partially believed Teri's statements. However, I know nothing about re-encarnation, and I no longer believe that she does (not trying to stir things back up with that statement!). The Cedric side-step was what made me lose interest in her "memories." I hope this post isn't going to make things worse, but if it does, then I apologise. I on the other hand am going to quit following this thread and simply hope things work out for the best.
Cheers and Merry Christmas,
-B.W.
I guess I'm mainly to blame for getting this whole darn ruckus started on this thread! It was I who asked to have Teri's opinion on the subject of my dream, and that is why she began posting here. I'll have to admit that at the time, I at least partially believed Teri's statements. However, I know nothing about re-encarnation, and I no longer believe that she does (not trying to stir things back up with that statement!). The Cedric side-step was what made me lose interest in her "memories." I hope this post isn't going to make things worse, but if it does, then I apologise. I on the other hand am going to quit following this thread and simply hope things work out for the best.
Cheers and Merry Christmas,
-B.W.
Teri Lynn Milch
Member
Brandon,
That was no side-step on my part, it really wasn't, but think what you will, for you are going to anyways.
It's really not a matter of whether I am right or wrong about reincarnation. It's a matter of letting other people have their own beliefs about reincarnation and not making them wrong about it. You are entitled to whatever conclusion you come to, whether it be mine, Randy's or Joe's down the street. At this point I really don't care what belief you take, as long as you are comfortable with it that's all that matters.
Teri
That was no side-step on my part, it really wasn't, but think what you will, for you are going to anyways.
It's really not a matter of whether I am right or wrong about reincarnation. It's a matter of letting other people have their own beliefs about reincarnation and not making them wrong about it. You are entitled to whatever conclusion you come to, whether it be mine, Randy's or Joe's down the street. At this point I really don't care what belief you take, as long as you are comfortable with it that's all that matters.
Teri
Teri Lynn Milch
Member
Brandon,
Quick addendum:
Wanted to re-iterate what you said: You are right that you DID ask me for my opinion in this thread and that was the ONLY reason I posted in here.
I must say that I highly respect those that left me alone even though they might have disagreed with me. They had tact to let me have my opinion. I was asked my opinion by you and I gave it. There was nothing wrong in that.
Teri
Quick addendum:
Wanted to re-iterate what you said: You are right that you DID ask me for my opinion in this thread and that was the ONLY reason I posted in here.
I must say that I highly respect those that left me alone even though they might have disagreed with me. They had tact to let me have my opinion. I was asked my opinion by you and I gave it. There was nothing wrong in that.
Teri
Joanne Seiferlein
Guest
Hello everyone,
I have been reading this thread over the past week or so and it seems to me is that Teri was trying to see if researchers could verify her memories. Instead, the minute she mentioned her alleged past life as J. Bruce Ismay, everybody got all anal and jumped all over her!
As I understand the concept, reincarnation is rarely a neat, rational little package which sticks to someone's preconceived notions. I do not know a lot about memories, but I should think that times and places can get very muddled when viewed through the eyes and mind of a subsequent incarnation. Just because Teri was wrong about one detail that doesn't mean that she is necessarily wrong about everything else!
It would be nice if people could respect other people's opinion, Parks and Kate not withstanding!!
I have been reading this thread over the past week or so and it seems to me is that Teri was trying to see if researchers could verify her memories. Instead, the minute she mentioned her alleged past life as J. Bruce Ismay, everybody got all anal and jumped all over her!
As I understand the concept, reincarnation is rarely a neat, rational little package which sticks to someone's preconceived notions. I do not know a lot about memories, but I should think that times and places can get very muddled when viewed through the eyes and mind of a subsequent incarnation. Just because Teri was wrong about one detail that doesn't mean that she is necessarily wrong about everything else!
It would be nice if people could respect other people's opinion, Parks and Kate not withstanding!!
Randy Bryan Bigham
Member
Teri,
Just stop it already. Besides I thought you were moving on. What was it you said? "Here I go."
I guess it's curtain-call time - "Here I come again."
Joanne,
You may have followed the thread for a week but many of us here have followed this crappola for many many months. Teri hasn't been wrong in one detail. She's wrong all over.
If you read my post, you'll see that I am a believer in reincarnation, so the inference that she's been assaulted by the "non-believers" is bogus. Teri is a dabbler and an attention-getter and she's proven this over and over. This is well-addressed in Kate's message and Inger's last post.
So don't just duck your head in and cry foul; you apparently haven't been around for the past stupidities this board has been subjected to by Teri's antics.
Randy
Just stop it already. Besides I thought you were moving on. What was it you said? "Here I go."
I guess it's curtain-call time - "Here I come again."
Joanne,
You may have followed the thread for a week but many of us here have followed this crappola for many many months. Teri hasn't been wrong in one detail. She's wrong all over.
If you read my post, you'll see that I am a believer in reincarnation, so the inference that she's been assaulted by the "non-believers" is bogus. Teri is a dabbler and an attention-getter and she's proven this over and over. This is well-addressed in Kate's message and Inger's last post.
So don't just duck your head in and cry foul; you apparently haven't been around for the past stupidities this board has been subjected to by Teri's antics.
Randy
Jemma Hyder
Guest
ANYWAY.........
Seeing as I'm not involved in your row I thought I'd just post on the original subject, one of my friends humours me and reads this site occassionally, and not being a Titanic fan herself she read this thread and suggested that the reason we are all so obsessed is because we are all Reincarnations of Titanic related people....... She did however follow that by saying we are all nutters regardless so take it as you will....... Either way Most of the people on the board are here because they spend a great deal of time and effort working very hard to uncover unfound information on our favourite subject, no one said the board couldn't be fun but it's not nice for anyone when it gets violent lol!
Seeing as I'm not involved in your row I thought I'd just post on the original subject, one of my friends humours me and reads this site occassionally, and not being a Titanic fan herself she read this thread and suggested that the reason we are all so obsessed is because we are all Reincarnations of Titanic related people....... She did however follow that by saying we are all nutters regardless so take it as you will....... Either way Most of the people on the board are here because they spend a great deal of time and effort working very hard to uncover unfound information on our favourite subject, no one said the board couldn't be fun but it's not nice for anyone when it gets violent lol!
Parks Stephenson
Member
Has anyone else ever dreamed they're onboard her?
To answer the original question posed in this thread: Yes, I had dreams about being on Titanic. Don't remember much about them, though, as they weaved their way through my sleep about 30 years ago. Nowadays, I don't remember many dreams, especially when I only get a few hours to sleep every night.
It's a matter of letting other people have their own beliefs about reincarnation and not making them wrong about it.
Reincarnation? The insinuation seems to be that I'm a non-believer. To set the record straight (again), I keep an open mind on the subject of reincarnation. What I do not believe in is the religion of Teri. It does not follow that just because I don't believe Teri's claims that I reject the concept of reincarnation.
It would be nice if people could respect other people's opinion, Parks and Kate not withstanding!!
Respecting other people's opinions? I always try to. In fact, out of respect for that opinion, I'll address the accusation seriously. I take Teri to task because she's not expessing opinions...she is actively trying to push her own unrealistic fantasies into the historical record. That I will oppose wherever I am able. Why? Because her distortion of history appeals to some who are susceptible to sensationalism. Without a dose of reality to counter the insanity, the lunatics might take over the asylum. Don't think so? It has happened before on other discussion lists. I like this list...I'd hate to see the "Ship of Dreams" fanatics corrupt or even interrupt the steady progress being made by Titanic enthusiasts and historians here.
Ever wonder why the "big guys" of the Titanic community don't actively participate in these lists (a question asked recently in another thread)? After the umpteenth debate where years of experience has been matched against someone's unsupported fantasy with no constructive effect, the ones I know have lost interest and spend their time pursuing more productive activities. Now, instead of hearing what going on with the latest wreck exploration, we are left with the lurid fantasy of Smith lining up his officers (only the ones who were eventually lost had time from their duties to attend, evidently) on the bridge and ordering them to shoot themselves. What a shame.
Still think I'm a bad guy? Go cry your case to Dan Butler over on the Titanic newsgroup. From what I've seen forwarded to me, "The Hammer" is a much more forgiving soul, one whose sympathetic words are sure to provide comfort to those who seek to speculate without doing their homework first. (wink)
But I digress. Why don't I believe Teri? Gosh, it's just because she's so darn wrong about everything. Somewhere in my mail archives, I have the initial correspondence between the two of us. I politely gave her the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to prove herself, same as I did for Bill Barnes. I don't reject reincarnation claims from the outset...the person usually (but not always) proves by his/her own words that they're just shining me on (and for the ones who have had something truly interesting or intriguing to say...well, none whom I have talked with have wanted to be public about it). I never expected Teri to correctly resurrect details, only that she demonstrate a basic understanding of the environment that Ismay lived in. Not only did she spectacularly fail to do that, she insisted on "recounting" sensational details that ran blatantly counter to the historical record. When I countered with known facts, she either maneuvered around them or claimed victimhood. Ever wonder why she has a special place in her heart for me?
Teri's getting better, though...now that she has friends to help with her book learning, we should all see some added detail in her memories. Expect updates to her website.
Her contempt for the rest of us is sometimes mind-boggling. She isn't content to being just Ismay...her image of a slain and bloody officer was a "vision," not a mere "Ismay memory." This gives Teri an ominpresence that rivals that of the Sear kid in "The Sixth Sense." In her words, "possibly the person who was dead came to me and showed me the picture." That, along with the newly-coined "Cedric side-step," only proved to me that Teri refuses to be pinned down by reality. That's why I stopped trying to debate her. Nowadays, I'll just present whatever facts that I have that can be compared with her assertions.
Teri has convinced me beyond doubt that deja vu is a real phenomenon. Dealing with her arguments always puts me in mind of my first wife, the one I wed aboard the Queen Mary. All the frustration I experience with Teri, I've experienced before.
Parks
To answer the original question posed in this thread: Yes, I had dreams about being on Titanic. Don't remember much about them, though, as they weaved their way through my sleep about 30 years ago. Nowadays, I don't remember many dreams, especially when I only get a few hours to sleep every night.
It's a matter of letting other people have their own beliefs about reincarnation and not making them wrong about it.
Reincarnation? The insinuation seems to be that I'm a non-believer. To set the record straight (again), I keep an open mind on the subject of reincarnation. What I do not believe in is the religion of Teri. It does not follow that just because I don't believe Teri's claims that I reject the concept of reincarnation.
It would be nice if people could respect other people's opinion, Parks and Kate not withstanding!!
Respecting other people's opinions? I always try to. In fact, out of respect for that opinion, I'll address the accusation seriously. I take Teri to task because she's not expessing opinions...she is actively trying to push her own unrealistic fantasies into the historical record. That I will oppose wherever I am able. Why? Because her distortion of history appeals to some who are susceptible to sensationalism. Without a dose of reality to counter the insanity, the lunatics might take over the asylum. Don't think so? It has happened before on other discussion lists. I like this list...I'd hate to see the "Ship of Dreams" fanatics corrupt or even interrupt the steady progress being made by Titanic enthusiasts and historians here.
Ever wonder why the "big guys" of the Titanic community don't actively participate in these lists (a question asked recently in another thread)? After the umpteenth debate where years of experience has been matched against someone's unsupported fantasy with no constructive effect, the ones I know have lost interest and spend their time pursuing more productive activities. Now, instead of hearing what going on with the latest wreck exploration, we are left with the lurid fantasy of Smith lining up his officers (only the ones who were eventually lost had time from their duties to attend, evidently) on the bridge and ordering them to shoot themselves. What a shame.
Still think I'm a bad guy? Go cry your case to Dan Butler over on the Titanic newsgroup. From what I've seen forwarded to me, "The Hammer" is a much more forgiving soul, one whose sympathetic words are sure to provide comfort to those who seek to speculate without doing their homework first. (wink)
But I digress. Why don't I believe Teri? Gosh, it's just because she's so darn wrong about everything. Somewhere in my mail archives, I have the initial correspondence between the two of us. I politely gave her the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to prove herself, same as I did for Bill Barnes. I don't reject reincarnation claims from the outset...the person usually (but not always) proves by his/her own words that they're just shining me on (and for the ones who have had something truly interesting or intriguing to say...well, none whom I have talked with have wanted to be public about it). I never expected Teri to correctly resurrect details, only that she demonstrate a basic understanding of the environment that Ismay lived in. Not only did she spectacularly fail to do that, she insisted on "recounting" sensational details that ran blatantly counter to the historical record. When I countered with known facts, she either maneuvered around them or claimed victimhood. Ever wonder why she has a special place in her heart for me?
Teri's getting better, though...now that she has friends to help with her book learning, we should all see some added detail in her memories. Expect updates to her website.
Her contempt for the rest of us is sometimes mind-boggling. She isn't content to being just Ismay...her image of a slain and bloody officer was a "vision," not a mere "Ismay memory." This gives Teri an ominpresence that rivals that of the Sear kid in "The Sixth Sense." In her words, "possibly the person who was dead came to me and showed me the picture." That, along with the newly-coined "Cedric side-step," only proved to me that Teri refuses to be pinned down by reality. That's why I stopped trying to debate her. Nowadays, I'll just present whatever facts that I have that can be compared with her assertions.
Teri has convinced me beyond doubt that deja vu is a real phenomenon. Dealing with her arguments always puts me in mind of my first wife, the one I wed aboard the Queen Mary. All the frustration I experience with Teri, I've experienced before.
Parks
Joanne Seiferlein
Guest
Dear Parks,
And what, pray tell, is Dan Butler's Titanic Newsletter's URL?
And what, pray tell, is Dan Butler's Titanic Newsletter's URL?
Parks Stephenson
Member
Joanne,
Sorry...I can't answer that question. The main reason why I have never joined the Titanic newsgroup is that I haven't had the time to figure out how to make newsgroups work on my computer. I don't think it's a simple matter of entering a URL into your browser, but I could be wrong about that.
Based on an earlier message, I believe that John Feeney has access to the NG. That would make him the only member of this list who I know that subscribes to it. Occasionally, somebody will forward a message posted on the NG to me if it looks like it would be of interest (or mentions my name), but that doesn't happen all that often.
Parks
Sorry...I can't answer that question. The main reason why I have never joined the Titanic newsgroup is that I haven't had the time to figure out how to make newsgroups work on my computer. I don't think it's a simple matter of entering a URL into your browser, but I could be wrong about that.
Based on an earlier message, I believe that John Feeney has access to the NG. That would make him the only member of this list who I know that subscribes to it. Occasionally, somebody will forward a message posted on the NG to me if it looks like it would be of interest (or mentions my name), but that doesn't happen all that often.
Parks
