THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
11/12/04 -- Vol. 23, No. 20 (Whole Number 1256)
El Presidente: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
The Power Behind El Pres: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
All comments sent will be assumed authorized for inclusion
unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
Number of Issues (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
The Limits of Multiculturalism (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Bishop Ussher (letters of comment)
OPTICAL ILLUSIONS (letter of comment by Nathan Justus)
THE INCREDIBLES (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
PHIL THE ALIEN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
BRIGHT FUTURE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
A WHALE OF A TALE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
This Week's Reading ("The Heloise Archive", "The Mystery
of the Texas Twister", and THE CATCHER IN THE RYE)
(book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Number of Issues (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
You probably did not notice the addition to the header above, but
we are now including a "whole number"--the sequential number for
each issue. This was calculated by counting up how many issues we
had published. The issues from mid-1984 were on-line, but those
previous were only in hard-copy, and were physically counted. We
do not believe there were any problems with hanging chads, and so
will not entertain any requests for a recount. :-)
By the way, the numbering by volume and number started during the
AT&T divestiture when American Bell was (briefly) separated from
AT&T. That is why the volume number does not reflect the number
of years the fanzine has been published (it is now in its 27th
year).
Does anyone know of a fanzine with more issues? [-ecl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: The Limits of Multiculturalism (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
I was born in 1950. That is less than five years after the
European Holocaust ended. Though I was not much aware of it
myself the society I was born into was rife with racial
intolerance and religious bigotry. Not surprisingly there
were wiser heads in society decided that people had to be educated
as to how destructive intolerance is. Movies delivered the
message. We saw it on TV. We got it in school. It was an
impressive piece of social engineering and it was largely
successful.
I don't remember what year it was--probably when I was a teenager
--I saw a film called THE STRANGLERS OF BOMBAY. It is a
sensationalist account of a rather interesting chapter of history.
The film is inspired by the novel THE DECEIVERS by John Masters.
A later film THE DECEIVERS was more closely based on the book and
was made by Merchant-Ivory and starring Pierce Brosnan. Both
films are about the Cult of the Thuggee which flourished in
India. This is a very interesting secret cult who worshipped the
Destroyer Goddess Kali, and I could write much more about them
than there is really room for here. For this discussion suffice
it to say that it was a devout cult that believed in a religious
obligation to murder non-believers in a ritual manner. They
killed multiple million people before the British, who were ruling
India at the time, uncovered the truth of their existence. I have
heard it claimed that the only things that the (Asian) Indians had
to thank Britain for was the building of railroads and the
suppression of the Thuggee. Individual members of the cult are
called "thugs," incidentally. The word has come into more general
usage as any brutal ruffian or assassin.
Now my interest in the Thuggee is twofold. It is a fascinating
basis for historical adventure. Notice that in INDIANA JONES AND
THE TEMPLE OF DOOM there is a cult who also worships Kali. That
cult is not the Thuggee and is fictional, but the Thuggee probably
at least in part inspired it. There is a second reason they are
interesting. Whenever anyone talked down to me and told me how
important tolerance for other religions is the Thuggee came to
mind and I knew they were oversimplifying. I felt that nobody has
any requirement to be tolerant of any religion that treats murder
as a religious requirement or even a pious action. I believe that
anyone can believe what he wants in a religion, but nobody has a
right to harm another for a religion. I decided I could not
believe in any god who could sanctify an action that would
otherwise be immoral. I could be deluding myself, but I don't
think so. But I wondered about what would happen if this culture
of professed tolerance collided with a religion that condoned
murder. The idea was a sort of a philosophical plaything. I did
not seriously believe that there was anything as dangerous as the
Thuggee that still existed. I think perhaps I was wrong.
These are the very issues that are tearing apart the Netherlands
just this week. The Natherlands is a country with a long history
of inclusion, tolerance, and multiculturalism. ABC News reports,
"Filmmaker Theo van Gogh [great grand-nephew of the painter Vincent
van Gogh] was repeatedly stabbed after being shot as he cycled to
work in Amsterdam on Tuesday. His throat was slit and a five-page
letter suggesting a 'radical Islamic' motive was pinned to his
body with a knife." They also report "several leading Dutch
politicians have been threatened with death since the killing."
Now some of the same questions I asked myself about the Thugs are
being asked about the one million plus Muslim Moroccan immigrants
in the Netherlands.
See http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=228595 for
the story, by the way.
Certainly not all Muslim immigrants are to blame. While probably
nobody believes that a high percentage of Holland's Muslim
immigrants are violent terrorists, I don't think anybody doubts
that a high percentage of their terrorists are Muslim immigrants.
The result is some very serious internal questioning of the Dutch
traditions of free speech and multiculturalism. That is
unfortunate. Even among radical Muslims the majority are
law-abiding citizens who have a right to believe anything they
want. And it would be a perversion of justice to punish the
innocent.
The problem many nations face is that someone sufficiently radical
can go from being an apparently law-abiding citizen, albeit a
radical, to being a murdering terrorist in just a few minutes.
That puts an impossible responsibility on the shoulders of law
enforcement. The police had no reason to suspect the Oklahoma
City bombing until it happened. What is the alternative? One
possible alternative is surveillance of radicals suspected to be
likely to attack. But how much surveillance is enough? We can
never know and not knowing surveillance will inevitably grow to
Draconian proportions. And don't we in the United States have
constitutional protection from being so closely observed? We
cannot expect surveillance to be sufficient.
Can we keep the weapons of destruction out of the hands of
potential terrorists? Probably not. It is hard enough to keep
nuclear weapons out of the wrong hands. And we have shown
ourselves vulnerable to terrorists armed with modest weaponry like
handguns and box-cutters.
No, we face some very serious problems. Do we know how to solve
them? I don't think so. We don't seem to be very good at finding
solutions. We are really good at finding people to blame. The
Democrats blame the Republicans. The Republicans blame the
Liberals. Lots of people blame Israel, probably for no more
reason than that they were geographically the closest to radical
Islam and were one of the first and most continuing flash points.
Radical Islam is not strong. It probably does not have a whole
lot of real combatants and so far it does not seem to have very
powerful weapons. If it is fighting a winning game, and for what
it is worth, my opinion is that it is, it is because we just don't
have very good defenses against it and perhaps never will. I
think we have to make some hard choices and to just what
boundaries we can afford to put on religious tolerance. We did
not allow the Mormons to practice polygamy, so there is one
precedent. We have to decide what limits we place on our
multiculturalism.
That is my assessment of the situation. Comments are encouraged,
though I reserve the right not to get into twenty different
arguments. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Bishop Ussher (letters of comment)
We had several letters on Mark's comments about Bishop Ussher.
Bill Thacker wrote regarding the statement that Bishop Ussher took "the
book of Genesis [and] started adding up the ages of the Patriarchs.
Coming up with a figure and counting backwards he came up with the date
and time of 6PM, October 22, 4004 BC." Bill says, "Ussher did not state
the time. He reasoned that God would have created the solar system with
the Earth/Sun relationship at a 'significant' point; one of the
solstices or equinoxes. Since Adam and Eve awoke to find the Garden of
Eden full of fruit, he figured it had to be autumn, and concluded the
universe was created on the evening before October 22nd, 4004 BC. One
could presumably estimate the latitude of Eden and thus, what time
sunset on the 22nd would be, but Ussher apparently did not do that. The
time was later added by Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge
university. He concluded that Adam was created at 9:00 am (London time,
I think) on the 23rd."
Bill cites http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/ussher/errors.html and
as
further sources.
He also responds to Mark's statement, "So really the first day of the
world must have started at sundown. Or rather at when sundown would be
when God later created the sun," but noting, "Of course. It would have
been too hot to handle if he'd created it during the daytime. :-)"
Art Kamlet notes, "The ancient rabbis place the current year as 5765,
not terribly far off, on some scale. Some of the more mystical rabbis
are predicting all sorts of monumentous events for the year 6000,
including the first coming of the messiah. And Rabbi Hillel the
Younger, writing in Talmudic times, which is a long gone era not a
newspaper, worked out a complex Hebrew calendar that inserts a
leap month into the calendar in 7 of every 19 years, and adds additional
days to certain months to make certain holidays occur only on certain
days of the week. But he stated these calendar rules would work
only until the year 6000, after which all bets are off."
He then muses, "I would assume part of the calculation of the biblical
year, working backwards based on people's ages at death, would include
Adam. And there might have to be some assumption of Adam's age on the
day he was created. That is, if he died at age 930, did he spend 930
years on earth? If not how old was he at birth. I assume no one
assumes he was a new-born infant, so how old was he? The rabbis assumed
he and Eve were teenagers -- and I seem to recall a figure like 17 or
so?"
Don Blosser asked about the calendar changes: "Wasn't there a calendar
change several centuries back, that added several days to bring the
official calendar back in sync with the solar (sidereal??) calendar. As
I recall from history, Russia did not go along with the new calendar
until sometime in the 20th century. That's why the October Revolution
actually took place in November, in the rest of Europe and the New
World? So, was that accounted for in Bishop Ussher's or the Geological
Society's calculations, or maybe it doesn't matter?"
Mark responds:
Well, yes and no. There definitely was a change from the Julian to the
Gregorian calendars. The change happened in different places at
different times. Russia did not go to the new calendar until 1918 after
the Revolution. In fact Napoleon's victories at the Battles of Ulm and
Austerlitz in Austria were because the Russians were still using the
Julian Calendar and everyone else in Europe used the Gregorian. The
Russian army did not arrive on time for the Battle of Ulm and the battle
was lost. This was Napoleon's first major victory in the Austrian
Campaign. His other big victory was at Austerlitz. That time he won
because he had already destroyed the Austro-Hungarian army at Ulm so had
to face little more than just the Russian Army at Austerlitz. This tiny
regrettable mix-up in dates gave Napoleon two very major victories.
In Ireland the calendar was changed in 1752, so all of Bishop Ussher's
calculations were with the Julian calendar.
But now comes the curious question of what do we really mean by an
anniversary. In Ireland was Christmas, 1753 on the second anniversary
of Christmas, 1751? Or do you count it by exactly where the Earth is
when it is in its orbit around the sun? The latter might seem more
correct, but recognize that then only part of Christmas, 2004 will be
the first anniversary of Christmas, 2003. If the Earth will hit that
position at noon GMT on Christmas, 2004, it will hit it at about 6AM GMT
on Christmas, 2005. Four times around and you would lose a whole day
had you not added one for Leap Year. So only 18 hours of that day would
be true anniversary. Six hours would not be. Eventually you have to
decide that you are going to do a lot of work or go strictly by whatever
are the prevailing calendars. I think you go by the calendar date as
poor a device as the calendar is.
[See also Evelyn's comments on Mary Gentle's use of the calendar in her
novel 1610: A SUNDIAL IN A GRAVE at
http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/VOID0220.htm#1610.]
===================================================================
TOPIC: OPTICAL ILLUSIONS (letter of comment by Nathan Justus)
Thanks for mentioning the "Optical Illusions" book in MT VOID.
Even though I've been gone from AT&T for eight years--I left about
six months after trivestiture was announced--it was a fascinating
read.
There were several things that kept going through my mind as I
read through it:
- These people killed what was once the best R&D machine in the
world. Well, they presided over its final death. It was really
already gasping its last by the mid-1980s. AT&T didn't handle
post divestiture very well.
- The whole Telecom/Lucent crash nearly brought down the US
economy. Does anybody realize how close we came to losing it all?
- Lucent is really a microcosm of the USA. Can a nation that
chooses not to concentrate on things that matter, but instead lose
itself in stupid maneuverings (political, legal, social, economic)
and chooses not only to lose its competitive edge, but to cast it
forth unwanted, survive for long? How can we outsource EVERYTHING
and still remain viable?
- Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" has come to pass in the trappings of
corporate America, not in the halls of a socialist government.
The idea of productive industry creating wealth has been replaced
by slash and burn economics.
On a personal level, I realize how much I miss the "bell system"
(having worked at BTL and Bellcore I was on both sides of the
fence). It's a pity that it's gone...
Anyway, thanks for the read. [-nj]
===================================================================
TOPIC: THE INCREDIBLES (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Pixar does it again with a comedy/action film about a
family of superheroes. Just when they thought they were out of
the superhero business they get pulled back in. Of course, as a
film from Pixar it is computer-animated, but that is just the
gimmick. The writing is the real attraction. Rating: low +2 (-4
to +4) or 7/10
I think the creative minds at Pixar periodically just look around
the office and see what their people's hobbies and interests are.
Then they build their films around those interests. They have
built films around toys, insects, tropical fish, and now comic
book superheroes. I suspect this is different from other
animation studios that probably start with a high concept. Pixar
probably starts with a yen to play with some kind of gizmo (fish,
insects, monsters, toys, whatever) and then let the gizmos suggest
the story. Curiously it is a formula that works well. One really
had the feeling with FINDING NEMO that the animation people wanted
to play putting realistic looking tropical fish on a computer
screen and that drove the story. SHARK TALE, Dreamworks's fish
animated film, just seemed to want to retell "The Reluctant
Dragon" with fish. (Probably they chose fish because Pixar was
using them.) But SHARK TALE lacked the joie des poisson that
FINDING NEMO had. With THE INCREDIBLES comic book heroes get the
Pixar treatment.
In the comic books Superman never seemed to have much of a
personal life. Out of the blue suit Clark Kent had about as much
personality as a bowl of oatmeal. Originally none of the DC
superheroes seemed to have much personal life of interest. That
was the revolution of Marvel comics. In the Marvel Universe even
superheroes have complex private lives and strong personal
problems. THE INCREDIBLES is a film mostly about the personal
lives of superheroes. We have a family of superheroes dealing
with each other and deciding how they fit into society.
Fifteen years ago Mr. Incredible, secretly Bob Parr (voice by
Craig T. Nelson), was a superhero at the top of his form. He
spent his day doing super-good-deeds. But too often he found his
good deed were getting him into legal problems. A superhero with
a spandex suit is no match for a lawyer with a lawsuit. Bob quits
the hero business and marries Helen, a.k.a. Elastigirl (Holly
Hunter). Together they go into something like the Witness
Protection Program to be incognito and to try to have some
semblance of a normal life even if they are very abnormal people.
He becomes another frustrated cog in a giant corporate machine.
They have two super-children: the aptly-named Dash (Spencer Fox),
who runs like The Flash, and Violet (Sarah Vowell), who can make
herself invisible and who can create impenetrable force fields,
just what the Shrinking Violet in her needs to avoid the world.
There is also the baby, but he is "normal," Helen insists. With
everyone in the family trying to be normal, Bob can talk superhero
only to his friend and confidant Lucius Best (Samuel L. Jackson),
formerly the superhero Frozone. Both would love to get back into
full-time action and still an occasional heroic feat with the help
of a police scanner. Then a mysterious offer from a secretive
organization might just give Bob a chance.
The script written and directed by Brad Bird tells a real story.
The Parr family goes through changes in this film. Essentially
they learn the value of synergy and teamwork. Michael Giacchino's
score is usually fun and when the action gets thick it lapses into
a delicious pastiche of John Barry's "James Bond" action music.
Previously Pixar seems to have been doing everything they could
not to do human figures. The tropical fish look very realistic,
but they probably could not fool a tropical fish. Pixar's few
human characters just do not feel human. This is the first film
they have done in which major characters are human. But still
they are still exaggerated caricatures.
Pixar turns out one good film after another and each time they
manage to make a film that can be appreciated by just about all
ages. THE INCREDIBLES is subversive, heart-warming, and fun. I
rate it a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: PHIL THE ALIEN (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Amateurish and low-budget skit on film has its moments,
but mostly in its first half. The film outstays its welcome.
Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10
The Toronto Film Festival has an understandable de facto policy of
encouraging new Canadian filmmakers. Rob Stefaniuk is a promising
local talent. He wrote and directed this film as well as took the
title role and then edited the result. That is a lot for a single
young filmmaker. He manages each task with professional
competence. He has a good wit and there are many clever touches
in this film. But this extended skit more shows promise than
really delivers.
PHIL THE ALIEN is a low-brow film about what happens when an alien
invades a hard-drinking Northern Ontario town. The film is shot
less than artfully on grainy 16mm. It has one redeeming virtue as
a film. It is in genuinely funny. It wears thin in the second
half, but I was laughing out loud in the first half.
The title creature comes from outer space as a horrible, ugly
thingee, but quickly shape-shifts into looking (gasp) like a
typical good-old-boy Canadian. After a run-in with a talking
beaver he ends up in a bar sharing his depression with other
typical good old boys. The film satirizes small-town life where
the big entertainment comes in bottles. Graham Greene, the one
actor of more than local stature, plays the bartender.
Phil makes several friends in town including an intelligent
talking beaver. Things would go well except for the United States
Government getting involved. From a secret base under Niagara
Falls they send out agents to capture the alien. The film has
more action later in the plot, but the humor wears a little thin.
This film could be a lot more polished but the Canadian humor is
genuinely funny. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: BRIGHT FUTURE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
[This review originally ran in the 10/31/03 issue of the MT VOID
as part of the Toronto International Film Festival coverage, but
is being re-run now, since the film is finally getting a US
release.]
Rating: high 0 (-4 to +4)
For quite a while I have been claiming that the two best horror
film directors currently working are Guillermo del Toro and
Kiyoshi Kurosawa. While other horror film directors seem to feed
off of older ideas and styles, these two are inventive. And of
the two Kurosawa is probably the more inventive. Truly his films
are weird enough that they frequently leave the viewer behind. I
have seen his SEANCE, CURE, and PULSE, and would definitely
recommend CURE and PULSE. His new film is certainly a weird
story, though not strictly speaking in the horror genre.
With A BRIGHT FUTURE Kurosawa says that he is making a non-horror
film. However if this is not a horror film it is something very
much akin. It certainly is bizarre.
Yuji and Mamoru are two workers in a laundry who are friends. As
a hobby Mamoru has a project to take poisonous jellyfish and adapt
them so that they can live in fresh water. Their supervisor at
the laundry picks these two out to be friends in spite of their
disinterest in them. He starts insinuating himself on them more
and more. He visits Mamoru's apartment and watches sports on
Mamoru's television. When he sees the jellyfish he wants to poke
fingers into its water. Yuji is ready to warn him that the
jellyfish is very dangerous, but Mamoru gestures to Yuji not to
interfere. But nothing happens. The boss discovers that the boys
almost let him be killed and realizes they hate him. He fires
them both. Yuji is so angered that he goes to the boss's hose to
kill him, but when he gets there he discovers that Mamoru has been
there already and has murdered the boss.
Mamoru is convicted of the murder and sentenced to be executed.
In prison Yuji and Mamoru's long-lost father visit Mamoru. Yuji
determines to finish Mamoru's project to adapt the jellyfish to
fresh water. Mamoru commits suicide in prison, but Yuji is still
dominated by Mamoru's vision. The dead man's spirit still seems
to dominate Yuji and Mamoru's father.
In spite of Kurosawa's claims and the title, this is a very bleak
film. The jellyfish is filmed hypnotically and the film carries
us to the conclusion that seems inevitable. This film may not
have the appeal of Kurosawa's CURE or PULSE, but it nonetheless is
like no other film I have ever seen. Kurosawa's greatest gift is
his originality and uniqueness. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: A WHALE OF A TALE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A whale vertebra found in Toronto? How did it get there?
This film is a history of man and whale as the filmmaker searches
for how the bone got where it was found. While the film seems
mostly aimed at visitors to the Royal Ontario Museum, there is
more than enough of interest along the way. The documentary seems
a little more like a disorganized scrapbook than a real narrative,
but it is an interesting scrapbook. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or
6/10
Documentary filmmaker Peter Lynch goes on a quest for the origin
of a whale bone, a vertebra, originally found in Toronto. Found
on April 14, 1988, in Toronto on dry land, it ended in the Royal
Ontario Museum where Lynch found it and decided to go on a quest
to find how a whale bone could get to Toronto. His quest turns
into a study of the history and study of the relationship of man
and whale.
He talks about the history and lore of displaying whales and whale
skeletons in sideshows and in Barnum's museum. In that museum
live whales were put on display and were killed by being put in
fresh water. They were replaced and given brine. Then when the
museum caught fire the brine was used to fight the fire and the
whales burned to death.
Lynch gives us a description of various breeds of whale. He talks
about Moby Dick in book and on screen. I have a few nits to pick
with the film. Lynch narrates in a near monotone dropping his
voice at the end of each sentence. The material is engaging
enough but his delivery sabotages his efforts. At one point he
says the early history of Toronto is mostly unknown. What does
that mean? The history of Toronto yesterday is mostly unknown.
Lynch goes everywhere carrying a plastic cast of the vertebra,
regardless of whether it would be useful. Carrying it he looked
like Diogenes with his lantern. He hopes to find a matching
vertebra to identify the species. Lynch explores all sorts of
possibilities for how the bone could have gotten to Toronto
including the possibility of "red-lighting," or thrown as waste
from a carnival train.
In the end he still has only theories to explain the strange
discovery. Bones, Lynch concludes, last beyond our lives and live
a life of their own after we are gone. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
I have begun the long slog through the complete LIVES by Plutarch
(including the parallels he drew between pairs), and since that is
1296 pages, I will be occupied for a while.
But I never read just one book at a time. At any given point, I
usually have at least three books in progress: a novel, a
collection or anthology, and a non-fiction book. And there are
also novellas and other shorter works that get slid in as well.
(And my inter-library loan requests are starting to come in.)
For example, I read two novellas, L. Timmel Duchamp's "The Heloise
Archive" and Michael Moorcock's "The Mystery of the Texas Twister",
for the Sidewise Award. Both, alas, fell victim to
political/social agendas.
"The Heloise Archive" (in LOVE'S BODY, DANCING IN TIME, ISBN
Aqueduct Press, 0-974-65591-0) has Heloise (of Heloise and
Abelard) have a visitation by an "angel" (apparently the image of
either a time traveler or someone from another world-line or
both). This visitation convinces her to reform the Catholic
Church to be much more feminist. Since this feminism is of the
sort that emphasizes a Goddess rather than a God, I cannot help
but feel that the scenario is somewhat unlikely.
Moorcock's "The Mystery of the Texas Twister" is part of his
Moorcock's "Multiverse". (A previous one featuring the same
characters was "Sir Seaton Begg, Metatemporal Detective", which
appeared in Michael Chabon's MCSWEENEY'S MAMMOTH TREASURY OF
THRILLING TALES. The first story in which Sir Seaton appeared was
THE WAR HOUND AND THE WORLD'S PAIN.) This might have been better
had Moorcock not decided to use it as a way to attack current
American politics and political figures. (I am getting really
tired of authors creating names of characters by spoonerizing the
real names of the characters they are satirizing. Harry
Turtledove did it in his novel IN THE PRESENCE OF MINE ENEMIES
with "Kurt Haldweim", and Moorcock does it here with "Wolfy
Paulowitz".) This novella appeared as part of issue one of the
new "Argosy" magazine (which has a UPC of 0-74470-57968-7, but no
ISBN I could find).
J. D. Salinger's THE CATCHER IN THE RYE (ISBN 0-316-76948-7) was a
book that everyone but I seemed to have read, so I read it. I'm
sure that in 1946 the frankness about sexuality, and the
opposition to authority was quite new and arresting, especially
when being read someone in its apparent target audience, teenage
boys. But it's now 2004, everything in the book (and then some)
has been on primetime television, and I'm a middle-aged woman.
Which is a long way of saying that while I can recognize it was an
important work, it did not do much for me. [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Miller's Law of Strange Behavior: To understand
any apparently baffling behavior by another human,
ask: what status game is this individual playing,
to show off which heritable traits, in which
mating market?