------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain blake-d Digest Volume 1996 : Issue 28 Today's Topics: Re: Free For All Re: Cockney? Re: Cockney? Re: John Clare Re: Blake and Other Romantics Re: BLAKE & THE MODERNS (1) RE: BLAKE & THE MODERNS (1) Re: Off-topic quip Re: The Doors Re: R Dumain and Satan Re: Blake's tombstone Cockney? Conflict in Online Discourse (fwd) introduction Blake and cockneys Re: unsubscribing Re: Blake's tombstone RE: Blake and Other Romantics ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:10:47 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Free For All Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Apr 1996 HXNEWSAM@ualr.edu wrote: > I' m now going to make a humble request for suggestions. First thanks for all > the great comments on pre-existence. Now, I would like to ask for all your > opinions on the second chapter of Jerusalem. I am up on April 7 to present > Chapter two in my Independent Study class. In your opinions what do you > think are the most important points that need to made to a group of undergrads > reading it for the first time. Certain members of the list are not allowed > to reply because of their involvement, or direction of the class (you know > who you are. No fair getting to have your say twice.) > > Thanks, I'll be waiting anxiously, > Heather > > Heather-- I'm preparing for trial at the end of the month (I recently passed the California Bar), so I don't have nearly the time I wish to reread the passage in depth. However..... Possible Discussion Question: "Some have labeled this a sacred text. Use at least five rigorous and explicit criteria to defend or rebut this position. Your answer may include but is not limited to discussions of beauty, multiple levels of description, internal coherence, overpowering intelligence, and subtlety." Matthew Dubuque virtual@leland.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 14:43:38 -0600 From: jmichael@seraph1.sewanee.edu (J. Michael) To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Cockney? Message-Id: <9604032048.AA09395@uu6.psi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Cockney is not a term I've read in the context of William Blake, though I >can sort of see how it might apply. It was a contemptuous or bantering >sort of reference to a city-boy of London which later came to be >associated to the London dialect (so I'm told in the Oxford Companion). > >It also mentions the Cockney School as a "nickname given by Lockhart to a >set of 19th-century writers...of whom Leigh Hunt and Hazlitt were >representative members." I'm confused. Are you guys talking about the >same thing? The contemptuous overtone is common to both usages; Blackwood's Magazine bestowed the name on Hunt's circle by way of insult. Their motives were primarily political (Blackwood's was Tory, Hunt & friends were liberal/radical). Obviously Blake, belonging to an older generation, was not actually a part of this group. But the term "Cockney" could apply to Blake both for his city, lower-middle-class origins and for his political views. The word has an interesting history (see the OED), but in general it is applied contemptuously to a city-dweller with the implication that he is not as tough as a country-dweller. (Earlier meaning of "cockney" was "squeamish or delicate.") Marjorie Levinson, I believe, has written on the implications of the word as applied to Keats, a bona fide member of Hunt's "Cockney School." This does not, however, answer the original question whether Byron "knew" Blake or his work. From what I've been able to gather, a fair number of people knew of Blake as an artist but not as a poet. Jennifer Michael ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:34:52 -0500 From: "Jamison Ashley Oughton" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Cockney? Message-Id: <9604031634.ZM29118@eos.ncsu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Apr 3, 7:43am, William Neal Franklin wrote: > Subject: Re: Cockney? > >From what I have read and been told, Cockney is to the English very much like a redneck is to Americans. That talked differently than most Englishmen and they were not typically as educated as other people. Keats was a Cockney and was criticized for imitating Hunt, who was also a Cockney. I think that it is likely that their rhymes may have been unusual at times because of their different dialect. Actually, I didn't even know that Blake was a Cockney, but I knew that Hunt was, and that Hunt knew Byron very well and at times even lived with him, and so just because Blake was a Cockney does not mean that Byron didn't know him. I guess no one ever said it did, they only said that it made it unlikely, which may be true. Jamison Oughton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:38:24 -0500 From: "Jamison Ashley Oughton" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: John Clare Message-Id: <9604031638.ZM29124@eos.ncsu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If I am not supposed to keep bringing up poets other than Blake, then just tell me and I will quit. Does anyone know where the unpublished poems of John Clare are? I was told that there are possibly a thousand that have not been published. Jamison Oughton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:40:10 -0500 From: "Jamison Ashley Oughton" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Blake and Other Romantics Message-Id: <9604031640.ZM29140@eos.ncsu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Could anyone tell me what Blake thought about Sir Walter Scott, Thomas Moore, or Byron? Surely he knew of these writers and their works, but did he like them? Does he ver say in his letters or anywhere else? Jamison Oughton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:39:35 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Cc: marxism2@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Subject: Re: BLAKE & THE MODERNS (1) Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 1 Apr 1996, Rahul Mahajan wrote: > Mattie, > > I haven't seen what you said about QM, but I thought I'd offer a > clarification. Heisenberg did not get a Nobel Prize for his "view" of > quantum mechanics. First, he got it for creating quantum mechanics, i.e., > he was the first to set up (a part of) the formalism and the framework in > which the problems at hand could be solved. Second, you may not be aware > that the uncertainty principle is a trivial mathematical consequence of the > formalism of QM. Physicists don't always have to speculate about > epistemology; sometimes they can derive it. > > Also, mentioning the Nobel Prize to show Heisenberg's importance is like > saying Newton was a great man because he was knighted. > > Rahul > > > Rahul- fair enough. but winning a Nobel Prize is relevant to (though perhaps not dispositive of) whether one's work should be accurately characterized as "drivel". what do you think of bohm's response to the copenhagen interpretation? matthew dubuque virtual@leland.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:42:01 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Subject: RE: BLAKE & THE MODERNS (1) Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Apr 1996 GVTUCKER@ualr.edu wrote: > Doesn't this remind some of you Sunday-school participants of another, > often-misappropriated text? > Intended. > > this is truly funny... virtual@leland.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:44:58 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: "Leslie O. Segar" Cc: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Off-topic quip Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Leslie O. Segar wrote: > On Monday, 4/1, Matthew Dubuque (virtual@leland.stanford.edu) wrote: > > > I think maybe there are two types of people in the world. > > Those that think there are two types and everybody else.... > > There are two sides to every issue. (Or maybe only one....) > > LOS > > But Blake also spoke of "threefold vision in Beulah's sleep, and fourfold vision as well... something i'd like to strive for..... virtual@leland.stanford.edu p.s. your postings are quite helpful... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:49:22 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: The Doors Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Chantell L MacPhee wrote: > I, first of all, would like to apologize for changing the course of > the recent discussions, but I saw a post a few weeks ago regarding > Blake and Jim Morrison. I currently have a student who is interested > in comparing the two, particularly the lyrics of Morrison's songs. > Could anyone please fill me in on that inforamtion? Do I have the > right group? > > Thank you > > Chantelle > > > > "he was the lizard king... he could do anything.... virtual @leland.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:51:44 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: R Dumain and Satan Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Robert M. Gray, Jr. wrote: > I don't want to get too deeply into to this, but on Mon. 4/1, Tom wrote: > > > I'm frightened of Jacobins (and Marxists) because, in pursuit of their > >theoretically correct ideas, they execute a lot of flesh-and-blood people, > >those minute particulars (and I think you hit the bullseye in the distinction > >you draw on that point between Blake and the philosophers). "A Sarajevo of > >the mind," as Gloudina Bouwer wrote, is what your posts often feel like to > >me. > > This is a good point and a valid historical criticism of the > Jacobin/Marxists/etc., but it strikes me that the Christians, to a large > degree, have a similar history (e.g., crusades, inquisitions, holocausts, > countless wars, etc.). It strikes me that the "Capitalists" aren't so > innocent or bloodless either. Is it not the zeal of the zealots of any > ideology that lead to the execution of flesh-and-blood people rather than > the ideology itself? > > Just a thought, > Rob > > Rob- "Maximize any variable to inifinity and you destroy the system..." Norbert Wiener (paraphrased...) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:55:24 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew J Dubuque To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Blake's tombstone Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, DR. JOSIE MCQUAIL wrote: > Blake does have a marker at Westminster Abbey, though. If I remember, it > says Poet, Mystic, Artist gives his name and relevant dates (1757-1827). > > An unrelated rant: could people please go easy on the excerpt key? Is it > really necessary to excerpt 5 pages in your reply to someone? I am at the > point where I hate to read mail from the Blake online group (which arrives in > almost overwhelming number already) because there is so much to wade through > of extractions and extraneous material. > > Thank you. > > Is a third of a page generally acceptable? virtual@leland.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 20:40:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Victor N Paananen" To: blake@albion.com Subject: Cockney? Message-Id: <199604040140.UAA107126@pilot03.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 206 I have not seen Peter Ackroyd's new book on Blake, but I am told that in it he does argue that Blake was a Cockney. G. E. Bentley, Jr., who told me this, did not find the evidence convincing. Vic Paananen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 20:21:36 -0600 (CST) From: Darlene Sybert To: blake@albion.com Subject: Conflict in Online Discourse (fwd) Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > But please, Ralph, can we stop the excessive > vituperation now.Although maybe, just maybe, > you picked up this bad habit from the late, great > William Blake himself. Gloudina Bouwer The recent exchange of acrimony on this list prompts me to post the following essay that came to me from Crawford Kilian (ckilian@hubcap.mlnet.com). I'm fairly new to this list so if this has been posted to the list earlier, I apologize. Darlene Sybert http://www.missouri.edu/~c557506/index.htl University of Missouri at Columbia, English Dept In slightly different form, it appeared in Technos (Summer 1994, vol. 3 no. 2, pp 18-19) as "The Passive-Aggressive Paradox of Online Discourse." Education Digest reprinted it in October 1994. Something is wrong online. For all the hype about information highways and the explosive growth of the Internet, relatively few people are using the online medium for genuine communication. While only a handful of people may be seriously abusing the medium, depressing numbers are engaged at only a trivial level. For four years I have been teaching "writing for the medium" or "interactive writing" to students in the Applied Information Technology program at Capilano College. For even longer, I have taken part in various kinds of online communication: mentor in distance-education projects, contributor to newsgroup discussions, and so on. While the experience of online communication is often addictive, it is not always rewarding. Many exchanges of information are baffling, tedious or trivial. Far from feeling edified by sharing information with people in Sydney or New York or Paris, we may well feel annoyed, frustrated, insulted or plain bored. A newsgroup discussion starts out with a fresh and vigorous attack on a genuine issue; within 24 hours it degenerates into a flame war of insults, nitpicking and abuse. Or it veers off into a blind alley of aimless debate. "Highjackers" take over, uploading torrents of incoherent prose about issues unrelated to the newsgroup's purpose. It doesn't happen all the time, but often enough to frustrate users who want to use the group for its stated purpose. Yet here too, something can go wrong: discussion turns into abuse; *making* an argument (as a journalist recently put it) turns into *having* an argument; and no one learns much except that they must talk for victory or fall silent. For a technology that could do so much to bring people together, online communication seems instead to be driving them apart: Either we are attacking one another in futile "debates," or we are keeping silent for fear of someone overhearing us. [text deleted] Current users *tend* to be rational, ritualistic, addictive and solitary. (I am not, I hope, using these terms judgmentally. In any case, I am prepared to wear the shoe if it fits me also.) The computer demands its own arbitrary rationality: *If* A, *then* B. If not A, then B doesn't happen. The logic of this process is itself attractive in a world that often seems deeply nonrational. Getting from A to B is a matter of ritual: hit the right keys in the right sequence, and you get the desired response. That response, in turn, becomes the purpose of the ritual. The sequence of keystrokes or mouse-clicks delivers a "jolt"--an event on the monitor that in some way rewards the user. A window pops open, a text scrolls into view, a file downloads. This leads to further jolts: the window displays a nude, the text mentions one's own name, the file when launched does something surprising and interesting (maybe even useful). Like lab rats with electrodes wired into their brains' pleasure centers, some computer users keep looking for more and bigger jolts: a flame from a debating opponent, a faster response to a command, the illicit thrill of reading banned or private information. Furthermore, the activity that produces these jolts is solitary. The user sits at home, or at a workstation, engaging with other people at a very great distance. One's co-workers, if any, are not part of the transaction. One is not, despite all the hype, part of a *community* when one communicates online; one is profoundly isolated. The stimulus to communicate may be a message hours or days old; the response may be hours or days away. It is like sending a message to Mars--especially when one is "chatting" in real time and the exchange soon degenerates into statements that scarcely relate to one another. Compulsive inwardness, in turn, suggests a greater concern with the message than with its receiver. In a flame war, an incoming flame is not merely an insult, but a disrupter of some vital sense of self. Only another flame, another re-statement of the original message, will restore the balance. And the message is always, and only: "I am me." The advent of telecomputing has been so rapid that we have adopted it without waiting to understand how it differs from other discourse. We use metaphors ("net," "bulletin board") that mislead more than explain. A net's purpose, after all, is to thwart the desire of fish to travel where they please. A bulletin board is a public place for one-way messages. The telecomputing net, however, functions best when it enhances freedom to explore; electronic bulletin boards are interactive, and we use them in privacy with no one jostling our elbows and reading over our shoulder. Because we do not yet understand the circumstances under which we telecommunicate, we risk another problem. It is not enough to write in the reader's language; we must also write in the proper *register.* "Register" in this context is a term of sociolinguistics and stylistics. According to the Oxford Companion to the English Language, "The term was first given broad currency by the British linguist Michael Halliday, who drew a contrast between varieties of language defined according to the characteristics of the user (dialect) and those defined according to the characteristics of the situation (register)." In other words, I may always speak with my own accent, intonation and vocabulary; but I will not speak the same way, or about the same topics, at a neighborhood barbecue and at a neighbor's funeral. I will not chat with my barber just as I chat with a student. The Oxford Companion goes on to subdivide register into "field of discourse" (a subject under discussion; for example, science or advertising); "mode of discourse" (either speech or writing); and "manner of discourse" (reflecting the social relations between the participants). So I am not likely to discuss advertising the same way in speech as I do in writing; I am not likely to discuss it with my wife as I do with my students. If I did, my wife would think I had sunk into a kind of pedantic lunacy. Or my students would recoil from my bizarrely intimate way of lecturing them. We have not yet found the correct register for online discourse. We read and write in solitude, which makes the message an intimate one. So we may expose more of ourselves than we would if we were, say, speaking in a crowded church or classroom. But the messages are public (either overtly, or at least open to scrutiny by the system's operators). The effect can be like saying, "Darling, I love you" over the PA system of a hockey rink, or "That ought to hold the little bastards" over a radio microphone we think is dead. Online we read and write quickly, often spontaneously, and make allowances for typos and spelling errors resulting from haste. We are really trying to emulate speech, which is a sloppier, vaguer, but much more redundant form of communication. If we don't get the message verbally, we get it nonverbally--or we get it on the third repetition. Sloppy, vague, redundant writing, however, is in the wrong register. We expect, when we read words on paper, to see the result of care and organization. When the message reads like a transcript of the Watergate tapes, with expletives undeleted and sentences going nowhere, reading becomes more difficult and misunderstanding becomes much easier. The response is equally sloppy, vague and redundant, and the ratio of signal to noise drops rapidly. The medium at best seems to tolerate no more than about three paragraphs of text per screen. When the paragraphs are incoherent expressions of misunderstood ideas, it becomes impossible to develop a thought of any complexity. The attention span shrinks and we forget why we started communicating. It is as if the mourners at a funeral service launched into a general discussion on the sports interests of the deceased and then into an argument about American League batting statistics in 1947. The image might seem comic (and much comedy portrays people communicating in the wrong register for the circumstances), but in practice it is more often painful and alienating. Many evangelists of online communication have praised its democratic and egalitarian nature. We are all supposedly the same; as the cartoon in The New Yorker put it, "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." In practice that means we do not have a "manner of discourse" that actually deals with the individual *as an individual.* We address the precocious 12-year-old just as we do the world-famous scientist...until we learn who is who. Then a kind of stereotyping sets in: If you're opposed to more money for education you're a right-wing jerk. If you do want more money for the schools, you're a left-wing jerk. Your only traits are those you reveal in discussion. So once they do know you're a dog on the Internet, that's how most people will deal with you--and the only way they will deal with you. Maybe you're also a hell of a cook, a doting parent, a deadly Scrabble player; to the Internet, you're just another dog. The larger, offline community is just as fond of stereotyping, and it now sees telecomputing as the domain of the "socially challenged" (mostly male) who would rather deal with a computer than get a life. To the larger community the online world's rationality seems arbitrary, the rituals meaningless (and threatening if you get them wrong), and the jolts are a poor payoff for all the trouble: teenagers' inane praise for horror novelists, access to agriculture databases, and the opportunity to download bad software created by people who write code better than they can spell. Stampeded by all the "info highway" hype, however, more people are coming into cyberspace. They may stampede right out again when they see how the natives behave. I hope they don't. Our Huck Finns have a valued place, but we are overdue for "sivilization." As an educator I am eager to see more of my colleagues settle down here because I think they can eventually do their jobs better through computers. As a writer I see the potential for improved literacy through the sheer practice this medium demands. Improved technology will help. So will the growth in numbers of people who use the computer as a tool rather than an end in itself. They will create a more humane online culture because the present culture gets in their way. In many cases, especially in education BBSs, moderators will be crucial. Without them discussions will ricochet far off topic, abuse will creep in, and the function of the BBS as a learning tool will largely cease. So the moderator's role will be sometimes to nudge participants back on topic, and sometimes to delete inflammatory or irrelevant postings. In both cases, the moderator should be "visible" at all times--taking part in discussions, answering questions, solving problems. On the moderator's property, users will behave like well-mannered guests or find themselves shown the door. The issue of privacy may vex us for a long time. Many more people would use the computer if they felt their messages were truly secure. And much of the information that organizations deal in should be secure indeed from casual snooping (not to mention serious espionage). Yet a strong element of the present online culture is that secrets are there only to be revealed--whether phone codes or the details of the Karla Homolka trial. If sysops are to enjoy access to everyone's files, they are going to need to take a priestly vow not to reveal what they learn in the electronic confessional. Finally, we need to get beyond mere "netiquette" to find the real registers of online communication. Are we alone, able to speak freely about intimacies? Are we on a balcony overlooking St. Paul's Square or Tiananmen, our speech limited to public abstractions? Or are we in a very new space indeed? So far, we have found that it is easier to put a person on the moon, or in virtual reality, than to answer that crucial question. Crawford Kilian Communications Department Capilano College North Vancouver BC Canada V7J 3H5 ckilian@hubcap.mlnet.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 21:52:32 -0600 (CST) From: Greg Sturgeon To: blake@albion.com Subject: introduction Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I've been lurking for a while, almost fearful of saying anything, given the--vigor--of some of the contributors. I am currently in the MA program at the University of Missouri, where my interest has yet to be fully worked out. Any suggestions? Greg Sturgeon c647679@showme.missouri.edu enggreg@showme.missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~c647679/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 21:56:36 -0600 From: tomdill@womenscol.stephens.edu To: blake@albion.com Subject: Blake and cockneys Message-Id: <96040321563623@womenscol.stephens.edu> Jennifer is quite right to refer the issue of cockneys to the OED since the range of definitions preceding the 18th century is fascinating and explains why the term had a derogatory connotation. (Interestingly, its pejoration seems to be closely associated with its use as an insult directed at women, which is a characteristic development as some linguists have demonstrated.) I have been thinking all along that the traditional definition I have always heard is that a cockney is one born within hearing of the sound of Bow Bells, and the OED confirms that, with the indication that the term implies the general inferiority of those born in the city of London. And by the way, though I have not finished reading the book yet, I see no specific reference to Blake as a cockney in Ackroyd's biography, though he does lovingly develop the ties to his London environment in Blake's early years. I also see no entry in the index for "cockney," so I see no reason yet to expect to find it in the book. Someone earlier mentioned the unattractive artwork on the dustjacket of the American edition. Certainly it is neither pretty nor beautiful, being a collage of several images drawn from Blake's art. What is perhaps more disappointing is the book itself--the pages are pleasantly broad and the typeface is attractive, and for that one is grateful; but the Knopf imprint used to be a fair guarantee that the book would be a fine specimen of the bookmaking art, and though the printing is attractive, and there are some nicely chosen illustrations, the book is itself a disappointing object, definitely not up to Knopf's traditional standards. AS for the text, I find nothing much to object to, but I am only one-third through it. I should admit that I am a fan of Ackroyd s novels, especially _Chatterton_ and _Hawksmoor_, so I am probably better disposed to his narrative style than might be some others. But honestly, I can't imagine a Blakean who would not at least indulge the curiosity of reading it. Tom Dillingham ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 23:09:41 -0500 From: HodosMedia@aol.com To: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: unsubscribing Message-Id: <960403230940_184353271@emout04.mail.aol.com> Unsubscribe Jesse Abbot ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 23:24:03 -0500 (EST) From: Jonathan Epstein To: James Zahradka Cc: blake@albion.com Subject: Re: Blake's tombstone Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, James Zahradka wrote: > Jennifer: > > It would be great if you could take a look at your snapshot and tell me > what you can read off the marker. Also, the homeless person as > reincarnation of Blake is quite intriguing . . . > > Thanks > > James Zahradka > jfzahradka@ucdavis.edu > Actually, would there be any way to scan the photo, and send it to the list? This way, we can all see (after appropriately getting the image off the message). Also, please tell me (us) about the homeless man... Thank you. Jon Epstein ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 22:45:45 -0600 (CST) From: RPYODER@ualr.edu To: blake@albion.com Subject: RE: Blake and Other Romantics Message-Id: <960403224545.202ac132@ualr.edu> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Interesting that you should mention Scott. Blake's _Ghost of Abel_ is addressed to Lord Byron; Byron's _Cain_ is dedicated to Scott. I don't know what this means, but clearly something is going on. rpy -------------------------------- End of blake-d Digest V1996 Issue #28 *************************************