Conference hydra::dejavu

There is a very good book by an author whose name escapes me today, titled
_The Bermuda Triangle Mystery: Solved_.  The author is a library scientist
whose specialty is digging out source material.  He took many sensationalized
reports from Berlitz' book and others, and traced them down to their sources.
Some of the most baffling cases were shown to be erroneous or misunderstood
reporting.

In short, I have an extremely high doubt factor regarding the "special nature"
of the Bermuda Triangle.

On other areas:  doubtless the same is true.  The agonic line, Lake Michigan, 
and other geographic areas have at different times been reported to be as
"strange" as the Bermuda Triangle.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

I used to be a crewman in a Navy aircraft and on one occasion flew 
through the triangle. There is something slightly different there as all 
of our radios, working perfectly until that time, refused to squelch 
until we left the area. This of course is explainable in many different 
ways. However at the time it was slightly unsettling.

dave

I used to beleive that the Burmuda Triangle was a genuine mystery and that
the disappearance of aircraft and shipping was attributed to some interdimen-
sional anomollies until I say the PBS Nova presentation on the subject and
now I am doubtfull.  Nove totally debunct the whole area and showed where
book writers had misiterperated the facts or changed themto make it more
interesting.  Did anyboby else see this program.  And are there any comments?


                                         steve

I didn't see the show, but it sounds like an abridgement of _The Bermuda
Triangle Mystery: Solved_ I mentioned in .1.

In addition, another phenomenon started after the first book or two
appeared: piracy.  It seems that there was a significant rise in the number
of pleasure craft (e.g., small yachts) disappearing in the "triangle"
area for a while.  It turned out that people had befriended their owners
and had killed the owners at sea so that the boats could be used for drug
smuggling.  It was a very inexpensive way to get new boats....

Steve Kallis, Jr.

I saw the Nova show and enjoyed it greatly as it showed how myths like
this are created.  The "Bermuda Triangle" was first mentioned in True
Magazine around 1948.  Prior to that, no one had thought that the indidence
of mysterious happenings in the "area" were meaninful, despite the legend
going back for centuries.  I quote the term "area" as each book on the
subject redefines its lines to include whichever events it wishes to
emphasise.

A few things Nova reported:

	Facts were changed from what is recorded in Coast Guard
	and other records, as well as in contradiction of living
	first hand testimony.  Examples: "it was a clear day, and
	the pleasure craft's captain was an experienced sailor."
	Reality: it was nighttime, one of the worst storms of the
	year, the captain was inexperienced, and he did not have
	charts.

They reported an enormous number of such irregularities.  In many cases
there was much evidence of simple deceit for profit reasons.  Using
various technicques, they traced author's sources.  It quickly became
clear that most of the books are plagurisms of earlier books, since
the repeat the same errors.  That is, most of the sources were simply
other books on the subject, rather than actual records of events.

An alternate analysis of the area is provided by insurance rates.  The
maritime insurance companies keep statistical records of ocean areas
to compute what they will charge for ships sailing that area.

You guessed it: the "Bermuda Triangle" is one of the safer areas in
the world to sail.  That is, it is somewhat unusual, but for lack of
accidents not for mysterious events.

One element of truth in all the stories does bear repeating though.
There are many, many pleasure craft with inexperienced sailors
operating in the area.  The coast guard reports repeated occurences
of resuing would-be-sailors that are using Rand-McNally Atlases as
sea charts!  So there are a large number of accidents that can be
traced to idiocy, and drug traffic.  When you remove these, the
remaining commercial craft, and competently captained private craft
have a fairly good safety record.

The most serious unexplained tragedy in the area involves the dissapperance
of a fleet of Navy (or C.G.) fliers on a training flight.  No one knows
what happened, an no physical evidence was ever found.  However, despite
what the books say, there is also no evidence of strangeness.  It is
simply an unexplained dissappearance, and there are many non-mysterious
(but unproved) theories as to what may have happened.

    Re: -.1
    
    The "debunking" book mentioned in an earlier note went into the
    Navy fliers incident in great detail, including transcripts of the
    radio transmission tapes that were made in the tower.  It was a
    student flight headed up by one instructor.  Something was wrong
    with the compasses on all of the planes ( I don't remember the details)
    but it seemed pretty clear that they had flown south and on the
    return the instructor thought they were west of Florida but some
    of the students thought he was wrong - that they were actually east
    of Florida.  The instructor insisted that they fly east to reach
    land - which they did - and it appeared that the students were right
    - they simply ran out of fuel still flying east.
    				Bill
    
    

re: .6

Yep, that sounds a lot like what Nova reported, though they left it
in the category of "one theory".

-g

    I've read quite a bit about the "triangle" And as mentioned in 
    other responses, pure sensationalism. 
    For instance, The Marine Sulfer Queen, according to the papers,
    Disapeared without a trace in calm caribean seas. She had
    a "safe" cargo. Actually if you read the Coast guard reports of
    the incident you'll see something entirely different.
    The Marine Sulfer Queen carrying a cargo of liguified sulfer
    [kept liguified by heater coils at approx 250 degrees f] 
    The seas were reported at the time to be 8 ft swells a tropical
    storm was moving in and out of the area slightly north of the MSQ
    Her last reported position was somewhere north/east of Rio.
    Two days after her disapearance life jackets and preservers were
    found with her name on them. 
        Stories like this don't sell unless you "spruce em up".
    Also note her last position. The "triangle" gets bigger? Moves?
    I don't buy it.  For real mysteries how bout we try to figure
    out how Three's company is still on the tube. Now that's a mystery!
    
    
    
    
    Skeptically yours;
       Rob

    I also have many doughts about the Bermuda triangle stories. I lived
    on a sailboat for many years around Florida, Bahamas, Atlantic,
    and Carribean Sea when I was a teenager. I saw many strange things
    that could explain the misterious happenings. I would like to mention
    three characteristics of the area that I think explain most of the
    problems. Two were mentioned previously.
     
    1) High numbers of inexperienced 'Sunday boaters'. I saw many boaters
    do many stupid things with their boats, such as tieing them to docks
    in rough storms so the boat beats it self to death against the wharf.
    A lot of the people are drunk, stoned, and think they know what
    they are doing. They make mistakes, and either drown or sink.
    
    2) Modern drug pirates. If you go about two miles up the Miami river,
    you will find an erea where the Cost Guard keeps the boats they
    bust for carrying drugs. There are a lot of them. Many boats are
    pirated just off of Miami, and brought to South America, used to
    run drugs one or two times, and then sunk. Who would expect to find
    a boat sunk off of Columbia that was sunday sailing off of Miami?
    
    3) Intense thunderstorms. I was very intersted when I read about
    the cases of everything turning white, no horizon, and no sense
    of direction in the 'stories'. These stories claim that it happens
    all of a sudden, and out of now where. I had that exact thing happen
    to me three times when on the boat. They are what is known as 'White
    Squalls'. They are very intense, fast moving thunderstorms that
    occur in the tropical and humid regions such as southern Florida.
    They spring up very quickly, and usually don't last more than 10-15
    minutes. Fortunatly the boat I was one was large and seaworthy and
    able to handle the weather. However, I could easily see where a
    smaller boat, or a plane could be damaged by a white squall. The
    last one I saw before moving back to the states was at night off
    of off Grand Cayman Island. I was on a friends tri-marine sailing
    at night. When it hit, it hit so hard it knocked the mast off, and
    nearly flipped the boat. 
    
    I think the above reasons explain most of the disappearances in
    the Bermuda Triangle.
    

    If I recall correctly, the training flight was discovered not too
    long ago.  Apparently, the crew became confused and instead of flying
    towards Florida, they flew out to sea until they ran out of fuel.
    
    I don't remember how they discovered the missing planes, but I
    distinctly recall it.
    

    No they have not been found.  Nova some time ago looked up all the
    people involved in the incedent and looked any remaining records.
    it turns out that all the evidence shows that the students got lost
    and ran out of fuel.
    
    Steve

    
    There was also a couple of storys about the "devil's triangle"
    in the south sea of japan.  
    Supposed to be 10 or 12 of these "spots" world wide.
    

    The Bermuda triangle is supposed to have been started by a bored
    reporter raking through the archives one weekend when there was no
    news. He found the report of some pilots going missing and, carefully
    omitting the fact that they were student pilots on a training flight
    and ignored their final radio message that they were ditching, he
    cobbled together a story about planes and ships going missing over the
    centuries.

    Despite many people proving that the area in question had no higher an
    accident rate than any other with a similar amount of traffic, this tale
    has been dear to the hearts of the gullible for decades. 

    About a month ago a diving team found what appears to be the submerged
    wrecks of the planes the student pilots were flying when they ditched
    into the sea having run out of fuel. They are exactly where they should
    have been, in deep water near the coast.

    They hope to go back later and make doubly sure of the find.

    What are the chances of this indisputable evidence finally sinking the
    Bermuda triangle farce?

    Jamie.

Jamie, nearly everyone in this conference is
interested in information. But, speaking for
myself I don't like your "aggressive debunking"
style. Would it be asking too much for you
to try to moderate the emotional content of
your notes?

Also, as far as references go, your assertions 
in the previous note are as questionable as anyone
elses. Have you got any references? Instead of 
just hearsay.

John D.

    re: .14 (John)
    
         And even with *that* notwithstanding, the information
    he gave was flawed to begin with.  For one thing, the Bermuda 
    Triangle stories had more than just one flight of students to
    report about.  Some of the flights of missing aircraft were
    seasoned, professional U.S. military pilots.
         Anyway, I'm not "into" this stuff, but it would be helpful
    that if you are going to "debunk" that at least you do it with
    a semblance of accuracy.
    
    
    Frederick
    

    The story started with the missing student pilots. The pilots planes
    have now been found on the sea bed exactly where they would have been
    had they ditched as their last radio signal indicated. As this is the
    cornerstone on which the whole thing was built, and it has now been
    found to be a totally normal thing, does not the rest begin to look a
    even a pit shaky to your uncritical minds. Or do you unresistingly
    swallow any tale that is told to you without questioning it in the
    least.

    I am sorry that you find my style aggressive. 27 years of figuring out
    what is wrong with computers tends to make one very observant, critical
    and removes any tendency to blind faith in what someone says happened.

    Jamie.
                                                                      

    re: .16  (Jamie)
    
    Actually, they have since determined that the planes they found
    are not the famous missing squadron.  As often happens, the
    find was on page 1, the identification on page 20 or so.
    
    Anyway, I like your style.  I do not see why it's ok to take
    the "agressive" of-course-anyone-can-do-anything approach
    but not ok to call a spade a spade when that's what it is.
    
    The Bermuda Triangle is a non-issue.  Berlitz's theories have
    nothing to recommend them.  Urban myth.  Though it does sell
    books.  Jamie is pointing this out.
    
    Joel
    

Well, it's necessary to discriminate some different
threads here.

I've seen no good evidence one way or the other for
Bermuda triangle stuff - so, for me it's just an interesting
story.

Jamie's style, for me, interfere's with his message. 
I *like* him to be in here communicating - but I don't
like the volume of the static that goes with it.

And, since I've chased Jamie all the way here from 
that other note ;-), let me reiterate - in my 
opinion it's sometimes wiser not to 'call a spade
a spade' - you never know it might be an intrusion
from another reality, put there by the white mice. ;-)

John D.

    
    Re. the last few,
    
    Since Jamie used the "find" of the missing squadron as "proof" that the
    Bermuda Triangle theory was just myth, and has since found out that the
    found squadron was not in fact the one to which he initially
    referred, does that make the theory any more likely to be true?
    
    I don't have a problem with Jamie's style, just with his extracting
    enough of a story to "prove" that what he believes is true, or
    conversely, that what he chooses not to believe is false. Please inform
    yourself enough to contribute worthwhile material and don't continue
    doing what skeptics always accuse the charlatans/mentally ill/believers
    in the metaphysical of doing.
    
    
    Marilyn

    re: .19  (Marilyn)
    
    First, Jamie did not say that the supposed find of the infamous
    Lost Squadron was "proof" that the Bermuda Triangle "theory"
    was myth.  He said that the Lost Squadron was the cornerstone,
    and finding it would make the cornerstone rather shaky.
    
    Second, I am constantly amazed at the differing standards
    of evidence required in the conference of skeptics.  One can
    state without a single shred of evidence that Found Squadrons
    of Intergalactic Space Commanders are parked outside Jupiter
    (or wherever) with nary an eyebrow raised nor evidence
    demanded.  But let a skeptic raise and eyebrown and the calls
    for "proof" rain down like phaser guns on an Orcian Mork.
    
    Third, the Lost Squadron's still-lost status does not change the
    fact that Berlitz's little classic is bunk, through and through.
    
    Would you like chapter and verse?  Let me know - I've got it
    at home and would be delighted to post it.  Not the whole
    chapter and verse, time being rather constrained, but sources
    you can consult (since you prefer, laudably, to contribute
    "worthwhile material") that quite explain the non-mysterious
    mystery.
    
    As someone, no doubt a filthy, rotten skeptic once pointed 
    out, it is odd that boats and planes disappear, but never
    trains.    ;^)
    
    Joel
    

    
    Re .20 (Joel)
    
    Begging to differ Joel, but if you will look at entry no. 13 by Jamie,
    the title states "The Bermuda Trianlge proved to be a fraud".
    
    Additionally, in the same note we find:
    
    >What are the chances of this indisputable evidence finally sinking the 
    Bermuda Triangle farce?
    
    This, to me says that Jamie *did* say that the finding of the lost
    squadron was "proof" that the BT theory was a myth.
    
    Secondly, there should be no reason to be amazed at the differing
    standards applied to the skeptics and the "believers". The skeptics are
    the ones that call "foul" everytime a claimant makes statements based
    on incomplete or inaccurate data, "believers" do no such thing. I am
    merely trying to point out that skeptics should at least be careful
    enough not to the the very thing that causes them so much pain when
    done by others.
    
    If you will look at my past notes, I have not stated that I believe a
    lot of things that are stated here. I look at them with interest and
    extract from them what is consistent with my own beliefs, as I believe
    most others do. I think that differing opinions are valid to state
    where different people stand on a subject, but "rat-holes" that keep
    getting passed from note to note "debunking" claims which, in fact, do
    nothing of the sort are valueless and timewasting.
    
    
    Marilyn

re: .21  (Marilyn)


    
>    Begging to differ Joel, but if you will look at entry no. 13 by Jamie,
>    the title states "The Bermuda Trianlge proved to be a fraud".
 
	You're right.  See how we skeptics are driven by evidence?  ;^)
	I was looking at .16 in this string.

    
>    Secondly, there should be no reason to be amazed at the differing
>    standards applied to the skeptics and the "believers". The skeptics are
>    the ones that call "foul" everytime a claimant makes statements based
>    on incomplete or inaccurate data, "believers" do no such thing. I am
>    merely trying to point out that skeptics should at least be careful
>    enough not to the the very thing that causes them so much pain when
>    done by others.
 
	Yes, skeptics and "believer" alike need to find some common
	ground around evidentiary standards.  Though I am not optimistic
	this will happen.

	a. Skeptics in this conference do not cry foul "everytime"
	they see unsupported claims.  If they did, the conference would
	be tedious, even to me.  In fact, only a small percentage of
	such claims generate skeptical response.  These tend to be
	claims with exceedingly high a priori unlikeliness.  Like
	Bermuda Triangle.

	b. As always, it is the job of the claimant to supply the
	evidence to support the claim.  In this conference, requests
	for such evidence do not always bear fruit.  On both sides.
	
	c. I think you'll find that an unsupported skeptical claim
	is more likely to be examined critically than an unsupported
	paranormal claim.  But, again, I do believe we need to 
	do what we can to support our claims, skeptical or otherwise,
	to the best of our abilities.
   
>    If you will look at my past notes, I have not stated that I believe a
>    lot of things that are stated here. I look at them with interest and
>    extract from them what is consistent with my own beliefs, as I believe
>    most others do. I think that differing opinions are valid to state
>    where different people stand on a subject, but "rat-holes" that keep
>    getting passed from note to note "debunking" claims which, in fact, do
>    nothing of the sort are valueless and timewasting.
 
	Whether or not "rat-holes" waste time depends upon whose time.
	I do not feel my time is wasted reading either your notes or
	Jamie's notes.  Nor do I feel either you or Jamie add no
	value.  In this matter we must outright hold differing
	opinions.  

	IMO, Jamie jumped the gun a tad on the Lost Squadron discovery.
	He has been called on it, by me and by you and by others.
	I believe he made a mistake - sort of like, you know, we all
	do, eh?  Should we vilify him for this?  

	Joel

re .last_few:

You might want to check 59.1.  There was a whole book on the "nonunconventional"
explanations of the Bermuda Triangle "mystery."

Sometimes things being discussed near the end of a series of replies has
already been covered earlier.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    Why don't we just call this the "Skeptical Inquirers Notes Conference"?
    More time is spent having to deal with 'point/counterpoint' exchanges
    rather than the sharing of ideas and experiences, which is what this
    conference is about, imo.
    
    Carole

Re .24 (Carole):

I guess it's a matter of diverse perspectives.  Sometimes point/counterpoint
results in what Hegel called "synthesis"; he meant it politically, but it has
some validity in other arenas.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE:.24 (Carole)

>    More time is spent having to deal with 'point/counterpoint' exchanges
>    rather than the sharing of ideas and experiences, which is what this
>    conference is about, imo.

    Carole, I agree completely that this conference is about the sharing of
    ideas and experiences.  I think that what you refer to as
    "point/counter- point exchanges" (when we avoid the
    "only-a-fool-would-think-that" and "how-dare-you-present-an-idea-
    contrary-to-the-one-I-just-expressed" nonesense) engender some of the
    most fruitful and stimulating presentations of differing ideas that
    occurs in this conference.

				Topher

    Re.22 (and others)
    
    Joel,
    
    I did not mean to imply that I do not value anyone else's notes. I do
    *if* they are entered in the spirit of that person's opinions. I do
    not, however, care to be *enlightened* by some who make absolutist
    claims and demand that their position be accepted as the "truth".
    Please note the word demand. There are many in this notesfile that make
    claims which I also find unsuppoted enough not to make a judgement on,
    given the data they present. These people, however, rarely make
    demands, either overtly or subliminally, that their
    opinion/position/claim is believed as the only right answer. This goes
    for both skeptics and "believers". 
    
    I will defend anyone's right to express their own opinion in this
    forum, and read their perspective with interest, but will not be
    dictated to as to who is "right" or "wrong". There are simply too many
    unanswered questions from both sides on most of these discussions to
    make a definite choice. I reserve the right to defer my position to a
    later time. 

    re: .27  (Marilyn)
    
    Unless I've misread an earlier note of yours, you seem to 
    agree with just about everyone else here on the topic of
    the BT, namely, that paranormal things are not happening.
    
    Now Jamie states his position very strongly.  (BTW - you
    still out there, Jamie?)  More strongly than is the norm
    for skeptics in this conference.  Naturally, he gets flack
    for that, and even from me on issues where I disagree as to
    the facts of the case.
    
    But is Jamie's statement `this is what *is*' [in effect]
    quite the same as "demanding" something from you?  In fact,
    how is any noter here in a position to demand anything from
    anyone?  We can ask, and hope for the best...
    
    I guess we must disagree on this, Marilyn.  I see no fundamental
    difference between Jamie saying what he says, and someone else
    complaining about how the poor unenlightened skeptics are so
    limited in their views, bound to an old reality, etc...
    
    Joel
    

>    Now Jamie states his position very strongly.  (BTW - you
>    still out there, Jamie?)  More strongly than is the norm

Actually, he's "walked-out". I've been toying
with the idea that he's really a vehicle for
the Great Anchovy. He was channelling John
DECWET Mitchell. And now we've disbelieved
him out of the conference.

Oh well.

    First an apology for not returning to this file for a while, but work
    called. Next is an apology for jumping the gun. My information came
    from the BBC World Service news, a normally reliable source. But in my
    defense I think that I did point out that positive identification had
    yet to be made. BTW what flight did the planes come from.

    Next my style. Sorry about that but I am totally incapable of blind
    faith and tend to be cynical in the extreme. I too dislike the idea
    that someone can make an outrageous claim without a shred of evidence
    to back it up and then others must produce 100% solid evidence to
    disprove it.

    Way back about 1975 a book was written by Adi-Kent and Thomas Jeffrey
    on the Bermuda triangle. It was followed by one called, I think, "The
    Bermuda Triangle Solved". Unfortunately my library has some of the
    alleged properties of the said triangle and I couldn't find it. I
    suppose that it went the way of most of my missing books, a friend
    "borrowed" it.

    However it thoroughly debunked the whole issue. One point that it made
    was the pilots in question were students out with their instructor.
    This fact has been confirmed and is now accepted by most people. I
    would like to quote you the relevant passage from the first book and
    you will no doubt notice a few interesting bits.

    "Everyone of them was well experienced having racked up between 350 and
    400 hours of flight time"

    And

    "All fourteen men involved in that now-famous Flight 19 had a lot of
    navigational flight experience ranging from 13 months to six years"

    Also absolutely no mention is made about the radio message saying that
    they were low on fuel, in fact to the contrary we are told that they
    had enough fuel for 1,000 miles and their flight plan was for less than
    500 miles.

    I did try to find a copy of the second book but it was not available in
    either of the two English language bookshops in Amsterdam. We have an
    American one and a British one. However in my hunt I found several of
    Mr Berlitz's books in the American shop. Some humorist had placed them
    in the Science section.

    Apparently the nice guy is still using the tried and true old ploy of,
    "Anyone who asks too many questions is first warned and then disappears!"

    Actually if you look at it is is a very well thought out line. 
    
    It appeals to the natural paranoia of those who are sure that the
    Government are deliberately hiding information on the subject. 
    
    It gives a nice sense of importance to the subject in that there must
    be something in it if the Government is going to such lengths to cover
    it up. 
    
    And lastly it nicely saves Mr Berlitz from having to provide any proof
    to back his claims.

    One point on which to ponder. If the Government wished to keep this
    whole thing supper hush hush would not their most efficient move be to
    make Mr Berlitz disappear. It is he after all who is bring it to the
    public's attention by writing all these books.

    Another point to ponder. He makes a good living out of writing.

    Jamie.

    
    RE: .25 Steve

    
    I agree about the diverse perspectives.  Guess I would like a little
    more respect from 'all' sides for them.
    
    
    RE: .26 Topher
    
    Maybe you are right.  Certainly there has been more activity in this
    file  recently than there has been in a long time!
    
    Maybe it's just the tone of some of the notes that bothers me.
    
    Carole

    Re. 28 (Joel)
    
    First I will apologize to all for having to read this note which even
    to me looks a lot like continuing a rathole, but....
    
    What I meant by demanding, Joel, is the statement on note .13 (again)
    that states
    >What are the chances of this *indisputable* evidence finally sinking
    >the Bermuda Triangle farce?
    
    Now, to me, using the word indisputable is a demand for belief, albeit
    a subliminal one. Namely, if, after this display of evidence which
    cannot be disputed (never mind that it was faulty to begin with) you
    still choose to believe in the BT "mystery" you're a fool. I know I'm
    reading between the lines, but Jamie's style leads one to make these
    types of assumptions. 
    
    I, as you have seen, do not in fact, believe there is anything to the
    BT theory, but I must play Devil's Advocate with those of you who set
    up rules and then disregard them.
    
    Now (as someone [Gloria?] so amusingly stated yesterday) back to your
    regularly scheduled program.......

    Well, Marilyn, why don't we leave it at that. 
    
    I won't dispute there are more interesting avenues to explore!
    
    Joel
    

    Joel :^)

    I do not in any way imply that anyone is a fool. 
    
    I do imply that Mr Berlitz is making a fortune out of writing books
    that make claims he cannot back up. 
    
    I also think that some people like to think that there is something out
    there waiting. Thus Mr Berlitz caters for their tastes. 
    
    However do not expect me to swallow his stuff uncritically. 

    Jamie.
                     

    
    Re.35
    
    Who was expecting you to swallow it, Jamie?
    
    Cindy

    >Who was expecting you to swallow it, Jamie?
    
    Sigh, let me rephrase it then.

    I find that Mr Berlitz tells lies, whopping great lies, lots of them.
    He writes them down and has them published. For this service he is paid
    well. However do not expect me to accept his lies as the truth just
    because he says it is so.

    I trust that this clears up your point.

    Jamie.

    Well, fortunately Jamie it doesn't look like anyone here
    expects you "to accept his lies as truth."
    
    I doubt Berlitz even cares - so long as you buy the book!
    
    Joel
    

    
    Re.37
    
    Jamie,
    
    >do not expect me to accept his lies...
    
    I'll try to resist the temptation of expecting you to do this, Jamie.
    
    In fact - just for you, I'll even ask the rest of the DEJAVU participants
    not expect you to accept his lies either.
    
    OK DEJAVUites - everybody in favor of not expecting Jamie to accept his 
    lies, signify by raising your hand.
    
    Cindy

    Ah ha! Caught you Cindy!  Clearly you are *expecting* me to not expect
    Jamie to accept his lies!

					Topher

    And Topher - are you expecting me to expect you not to expect 
    either me, or Jamie?  Good grief!
    
    Anyway, my hand is raise.  ;^)
    
    Joel
    

RE: .42 (Joel)

    I should have expected that.

				    Topher

    ;^)
    
    Joel
    

    
    In this case I don't expect, nor do I except, but I'll accept.
    
    But my hand isn't raise or raisin - I'm a-typin.
    
    gloria

    What am I expected to expect?
    
    In any case, expect my acceptance.
    
    
    Marilyn  (wanting to waste some valuable space and time)

    
    
    oops, that title should have read expectorant.
    
    MAM

    And Charles Dickens would have had...?
    
    Joel
    

    
    cough, cough
    
    Cindy

    I expected that.

    Jamie.

    Has any of you heard of "Freedom of Speech"?  (I guess in this
    instance, tho, it's "Freedom of Typing")  It seems to this reader of
    Notes that there are many of you jumping all over Jamie's butt ---
    why?  Does he not have the right to offer his views on subjects without
    being beaten up?  
    
    
    

re: .53

Who are you anyway, POCUS::1TFTEMP - then we
can jump all over yours too. ;-)

John D.

    He is also thick skinned.