SOLAR ALERT JUST ISSUED... SOLAR MAGNETIC STORM LEVELS FOR SUNDAY may impact satellite communications and even the power grid.

Not saying it will happen...we lack sufficient data just yet but depending on which way the wind blows the solar particles...it could bring about a taste of what Y2K might bring us... IF the SUN Don't get us all first. We are now seeing the potential for one or more deadly planet-buster flares/CME's that could impact over the next 4 to 12 days. Maybe emergency preparedness for Y2K wasn't so silly after all? IF an "X" Class flare or a strong M-class hits just right some folks could be without power for quite a while... and or some folks might get french-fried even with sunscreen. Why?

Well, it seems that the sun just continues to explode ... now another M-class flare went off. We had one Saturday, now another Sunday and maybe more to come? Yes, in fact one region now has some of the experts rather worried about the deadly "planet buster" X-class flares. Planet Earth just missed a deadly one earlier in June. Now there are 7 "filaments" in one region showing harbingers of a potential series of devastating flares. This doesn't mean that such massive flares will occur...but it is very ominous. Also Sun spot activity has tripled in ten days and is now off the charts at 310 sun spots and counting. This is all major activity that has mushroomed in the last 5 days since Comet H1 Lee slipped out of our view and behind the sun. Some astronomers theorize that this comet like others can interact with the sun and stimulate extra solar activity. So far these astronomers holding that theory appear to be seeing the proof develope before their eyes as the solar activity has virtually exploded.

One prominent solar watcher is Stan Deyo... Stan is a physicist who's primary claim to fame is that he was the first one to predict the now infamous "El Nino" weather phenomenon, several years back, based on his observations of solar interaction with ocean seawater temperatures...especially related to solar and magnetic activity. This also has led him to advance some earthquake prognostication theories that are as darn near accurate (if not more so) than some of our TV Weatherforecasters.

Stan has just issued a whole series of DISASTER ALERTS...

He starts with a sobering news brief regarding the sun. His post is dated from early morning hours of Sunday June 27th. You will want to read his comments on the sun at:

http://www.millennium-ark.net/Geophysics_News.html#Hot_News

Now below is a link to the newsletter that Stan publishes: http://buddyebsen.com/standeyo/News_Files/Newsletters/News270699.html

From those pages you can link to live real-time solar activities sites and also to his Weather Climate and Quake updates...or as he calls them "Shake and Bake" forecasts.

Stan also has some fascinating documents where he names the names of Oil company executives who are now admitting serious problems with Y2K failures of embedded systems. I'll post those on a separate thread.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999

Answers

Thanks for the info...I guess!! Be sure and follow through with the posting re the Oil companies, etc.

Taz

-- Taz (Tassie @aol.com), June 27, 1999.

Hi Taz,

It's up now on the thread directly above this one.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999.

Thanks R.C. for the info. Was planning to go to the beach this afternoon.

If you want to see the projected path of Comet Lee here is the deal:

go to http://www.astroarts.com and click on comets, then comets in 1999, then scroll down to July and click on Lee. Then click on simulation. Go down to zoom feature and make it bigger. Then start clicking on day+ and watch the comet on its way back from behind the sun. Here is the kicker....watch where the comet is on 9-9-99.

BTW, astroarts is a Japanese website that is popular and credible. b

-- bb (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 27, 1999.

bb----

You must view from different perspectives on the X-Y axis.

The comet is millions of miles away from earth on 09-09-1999.

-- cb (perspectiveB4@ssumptions.com), June 27, 1999.

Speaking of perspectives, look where it is on August 10... Hmmm, Mercury isn't inhabited but what would the ramifications be for us if a comet that big struck it? Hmmm

-- (html@guy.com), June 27, 1999.

August 11 is supposed to be a day of solar eclipse? And a focal point of various predictions ...

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 27, 1999.

Perhaps you should take a look at Naza's take on the Lee comet.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/

takes you to http://198.116.1472.33/97is.vts

click on "Comet Observation Home Page"

As always, do your homework and draw your own conclusions.

-- Do your research (no@email.com), June 27, 1999.

The closest point of contact of comet lee and earth will be September 9, but if there is an effect on earth, it will be September 11...perhaps earth's orbit will put earth on collision course with comet's tail?? Check it out yourself: (1) go to http://www.astroarts.com; (2) click on comets; (3) comets in 1999; (4) click on July 11 Lee; (5) click simulation; (6) click days & months to observe movement between now and September 11.

Keep in mind: major historic events have occurred on Biblical feasts and festivals. September 11 is Rosh Ha

-- b.p. (gotsunscreen@spf.com), June 27, 1999.

Sorry above info. didn't work. Forgot to say under Nasa search box to type in Comet Lee. Worked for me. But when I went back in it wouldn't work.

Try - http://encke.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html

-- Do your research (no@email.com), June 27, 1999.

Dictionary:
Rosh Hashanah
Etymology: Late Hebrew rOsh hashshAnAh, literally, beginning of the year
: the Jewish New Year ...
How ironic! Does the Chinese New Year also collide with Armageddon-type possibilities?

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 27, 1999.

A & L,

Very interesting point concerning Jewish Holidays. I have always followed them and felt there were very significant to upcoming events. I have been extremely busy recently and had neglected to observe dates for upcoming Holidays. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. Felt like a tap on the shoulder......hmmmm

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), June 27, 1999.

Actually, our attention was sparked by the tail end of b.p.'s post above: "Keep in mind: major historic events have occurred on Biblical feasts and festivals. September 11 is Rosh Ha " ...

Hhhmm, another person who "felt they were very significant to upcoming events." Gotta make another mark on calendar ...

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 27, 1999.

Rosh Ha'shanah, according to Jewish tradition, reveals a four-folded meaning: (1)New Year's day; (2)the day of Remembrance; (3)the day of Judgment; (4)the day of blowing the Shofar (ram's horn)by the High Priest of the Temple to announce new beginnin

-- r.d. (watchfestivals@Tishri.com), June 27, 1999.

I don't know why I continue to do this...nobody pays any attention.

From the NOAA/USAF gopher site: "Alerts and Warnings Issued in the Last 24 hours":

:Data_list: ALTS.txt :Issued: 1999 Jun 27 1830 UT # Prepared by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Space Environment Center. # Please send comments and suggestions to sec@sec.noaa.gov # Updated hourly and as Alerts and Warnings are issued. # # # Alerts and Warnings Issued in the last 24 Hours #--------------------------------------------------------------------- :ALERTS:

Sudden Impulse observed at Boulder 26 Jun 1999 20:20 UT 38 nT Comment: None

10cm Radio Burst 250 F.U. 27 Jun 1999 08:36 UT Duration 6 Minutes Comment: Latest Penticton Noon Flux was 200 sfu.

Type IV Radio Emission 27 Jun 1999 08:36 UT Comment: None

Magnetic K-Index of 4 Observed 27 Jun 1999 from 12:00 to 15:00 UT Comment: None

Magnetic K-Index of 4 Observed 27 Jun 1999 from 15:00 to 18:00 UT Comment: None

:WARNINGS:

none

.

URL: gopher://solar.sec.noaa.gov/00/forecasts/ALTS

And from the NOAA SEC web site page, "Today's Space Weather":

3-day Solar-Geophysical Forecast issued Jun 26 at 22:00 UT

SOLAR ACTIVITY FORECAST: SOLAR ACTIVITY IS EXPECTED TO BE MODERATE. REGIONS 8598 AND 8602 ARE EXPECTED TO BE THE MAIN ACTIVITY CENTERS FOR THE NEXT THREE DAYS. THERE IS A SLIGHT CHANCE FOR MAJOR FLARE OR PROTON PRODUCING ACTIVITY FROM REGION 8598.

GEOPHYSICAL ACTIVITY FORECAST: THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD IS EXPECTED TO BE MOSTLY UNSETTLED FOR THE NEXT TWO DAYS. HOWEVER, THE NATURE OF THE PLASMA AND FIELDS BEHIND THE 20/1925Z SHOCK AT ACE IS CURRENTLY UNKNOWN AND COULD BE GEOEFFECTIVE. THEREFORE THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF DISTURBED CONDITIONS FOR THE NEXT 12 HOURS. AN INCREASE IN GEOMAGNETIC ACTIVITY IS ALSO POSSIBLE ON THE THIRD DAY IN RESPONSE TO THE PARTIAL HALO CORONAL MASS EJECTION OF 24/1200Z.

URL: http://www.sel.noaa.gov/today.html

There are also some very colorful charts and graphs over there that you can ogle at.

To summarize the above:

a few long range radio operators may have some problems, but, other than that, there's nothing really earth-busting to look forward to.

Sorry, folks, but you're going to have to find some other reason to go running in the streets wearing shoulder boards with the words, "THE END IS NEAR!"

-- LP (soldog@nohotmail.com), June 27, 1999.

Can anyone really believe that this fellow (Stan Deyo)is objective with the Solar Activity Data? Have you surfed his site in any detail -- he is definitely "out there". Aliens (lizards), Face on Mars (alien tech), Majestic 12 are some of the issues he deals with...I would like to see his C.V. as it really mystifys me that a fellow "physicist" could print such drivel with his training in the Scientific Method.

-- paul dirac (pdirac@hotmail.com), June 27, 1999.

Thank you, LP. I, for one, appreciate your posts and I look for them anytime someone posts about the solar flares.

Jeannie

-- jhollander (hollander@ij.net), June 27, 1999.

Paul Dirac

Stan Deyo was involved in a special black ops program for the US DoD involving special designs of top-secret craft...sometimes referred to as "flying saucers." This fellow now spends a significant amount of time following meteorological, climatological events in relation to solar activity. Stan is the fellow who first predicted the El Nino's of a few years ago (I can't remember just when) ... but he was ahead of the curve on the forecast by at least 3 months. He is a frequent guest on numerous radio talk shows including national shows like Art Bell and Jeff Rense.

He's also been developing and proving so far that there seems to be a relationship between rapid changes in ocean temperatures and subsequent earthquake and volcanic activity. He's only got a few short years of data...and the track record isn't perfect, but he may be about as far along in predictions as the US Weather service was 20 years ago in predicting tornadoes via radar. This man is NOT a "nut" as you wish to try and characterize him.

You should read his books he goes into great detail about his life in Black Operations. The man is honest, intelligent and humble. Which is more than I can say for a lot of folks including most of his critics.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999.

R.C.,

You still have yet to address his stand on the issues referenced within my post. I am supicious of anyone trying to to sale books dealing with issues that have little to no scientific backing. It tends to cast doubt (within the Scientific Community) on any other theory or message espoused by the speaker/author. As far as, El Nino/La Nina - I would need to spend sometime in the "stacks" at the University's Library before accepting his claim. Would you happen to know the article or letter to the editor (Nature, Journal of Applied Physics, et al) in which Mr Deyo laid out the connection between Solar Activity and the above weather phenomenon? Would gladly retract my statement if one could provide me with a reference or citation...By the way, would you care to comment on his dream (visions) or the article on Independence Day and Contact - movies are intended to "soften" us up for the upcoming alien invasion. One final note, I worked at Los Alamos, Sandia National Lab and China Lake (with a Q Security Clearance) on projects related to the Auroa Inertial Confinement Fusion Project and SDI Weapon Systems (Satellite Power Conditioning: read "Brilliant Pebbles", etc.) - never saw any evidence of futuristic or alien technology. Just hard working scientists/engineers slowly making progress in understanding the natural laws governing the Univerise and applying such knowledge toward engineering applications (nothing really mysterious).

-- paul dirac (pdirac@hotmail.com), June 27, 1999.

Sorry to disagree LP--

But I don't think you've read up enough yet, or you wouldn't be so comfortable with terms being thrown around like "Photon, X class flares, IV sweep, Cornal Holes, CME's

of a quantity and measure not seen since the fifties (knocked out several areas of communication),

and many other similar "geo-effective" occurrences. Now I'm no physicisisist (sic), but I can read,

and in fact, probably have accumulated enough info in the recent past, to see through some of the spin being served up.

These may indeed, not be more than extenuating circumstances, but we really don't need any more right now anyway. Loss

of communication would never be *"nothing to worry about"* and especially right now!!

Please place both our comments in the "opinions are like a..h...s, every one has one" file. I OK with it! ...{:^}`

PS.. We're not even close to the solar max dates yet and we have already surpassed the cycle 23 predicts (of last year) by 30+- %

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), June 27, 1999.

Since I have this impending burning sensation because of that last post, perhaps now would be a good time to ask, does anyone know the date Cassini will be whizzing by Earth for some more slingshot rpm's. I think it will be about August 14th or 15th. Could be a lot of stuff to look at this summer. Keep looking UP!! .^.

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), June 27, 1999.

Comment added at 11:41 UTC on June 27: The geomagnetic field has been quiet to unsettled so far today, however, the IMF has over the last half hour or so swung strongly southwards and geomagnetic activity should increase to at least active within a couple of hours. Region 8592 was the source of an M1.0 flare peaking at 08:44 UTC. A strong type IV sweep was observed associated with the flare. A large CME is likely to have occurred as well and it is likely to be geoeffective.

Comment added at 20:24 UTC: The geomagnetic field has been quiet to minor storm today. The M flare earlier today was associated with a partial halo CME (perhaps a full halo CME, however, material movement below the south pole was very difficult to observe) and has a good chance of impacting earth sometime from late on June 29 to noon on June 30. Active to major storming is likely. A full halo CME was observed in LASCO C2 starting sometime between 20:30 and 21:54 on June 26. As there was no suspicious front side activity at the time, this CME may have had a back side origin. Regions 8598 and 8602 have developed weak magnetic delta configurations.

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), June 27, 1999.

Paul,

Sorry for the oversight, I guess.

Regarding Stan Deyo. First of all, if you read carefully, he refers to the infamous popular movie "Independence Day" a.k.a. "ID4". He thinks that someone is trying to defraud the American people regarding the notion that there may be lizard-like aliens coming to attack us. He's not sure just what is going on in regards to any kind of alien agenda. He just knows something is up. Regarding the face on Mars... he's not sure what is up with that. He's not pleased with the Malin Lab's quality of workmanship regarding the Cydonia picture. But he's open to consideration that there might be something to it. He's not a proponent of the Face on Mars theory.

Regarding the Solar activity related to climatology... check out this page and the links to his other related

subjects...http://www.millennium-ark.net/Geophysics_News.html

Take a look at his US Navy maps of current ocean sea surface temperatures...and follow his "shake and bake" discussions... OR>>>

OR... better yet, E-Mail him. I suspect he'd be happy to exchange emails with you, with your background. He's a very amiable fellow.

I just found out that he's on the radio right now on the Jeff Rense "Sightings" radio-talk show... at 8:50 pm Pacific time right now. I'm not sure how long the show lasts... but you can go to the website and get live streaming audio and listen... or pick up the archive show on Monday. He's talking about the climatology...and predicting this new massive hyper-version of El Nino. http://www.sightings.com/

Also, I suspect Stan will be on the Art Bell radio show, probably on Tuesday night.

http://www.artbell.com

But... Paul... feel free to E-Mail him... I'm sure he'd love to chat with you and answer your questions.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999.

"Please place both our comments in the "opinions are like a..h...s, every one has one" file. I OK with it! ...{:^}"

Michael,

I'm not sure what you mean here, but if you're saying that you agree to disagree, then I can live with that.

Thank you Jeannie. Nice to know my feeble efforts are not a complete waste of time.

-- LP (soldog@nohotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

R.C.,

Please stop contributing to the hype about "planet-buster" flares and Comet Lee. There is nothing magical or otherwise so influential about this comet as to allow it to make any noticeable difference in the activity of the Sun.

The term "planet-buster" was a spur-of-the-moment exclamation by someone in response to seeing the size of a recent flare, but there is nothing really planet-busting about it. The particles these flares emit have certain effects when they meet or pass the Earth, but they're not especially "deadly" unless you're out in space above the Earth's atmosphere.

>Also Sun spot activity has tripled in ten days and is now off the charts at 310 sun spots and counting.

This is not unprecedented. Similar spurts of activity have occurred during past solar cycles.

>This is all major activity that has mushroomed in the last 5 days since Comet H1 Lee slipped out of our view and behind the sun.

But Comet Lee has _NOT YET_ "slipped out of our view and behind the sun"!! That won't happen until late July, not now in late June.

So you can't blame a line-up with Comet Lee and the Sun as the cause of recent solar eruptions. Face the reality: these eruptions happen all the time, in greater or lesser magnitude, and there is no correlation with the positions of any comets.

>Some astronomers theorize that this comet like others can interact with the sun and stimulate extra solar activity. So far these astronomers holding that theory appear to be seeing the proof develope before their eyes as the solar activity has virtually exploded.

Oh yeah? Show me where they forecast a specific verifiable cause-and-effect action (not just some generalized mumbo-jumbo) that can be explained only by influence of Comet Lee, not any other known influence. (Hint: Those so-called astronomers didn't make any such forecast.)

>Stan has just issued a whole series of DISASTER ALERTS...

>He starts with a sobering news brief regarding the sun. His post is dated from early morning hours of Sunday June 27th.

... i.e., just AFTER he got observational data and forecasts from NASA or elsewhere.

Why, if he actually had any useful theory of how Comet Lee would interact with the Sun, didn't he publish his predictions _BEFORE_ the eruptions occurred? Hunhh? Could it be because he CAN'T actually predict anything, because his "theory" isn't worth a hill of beans?

>You will want to read his comments on the sun at:

>http://www.millennium-ark.net/Geophysics_News.html#Hot_News

Gee, why is it that his astronomical comments simply echo the forecasts of conventional astronomers who don't predict that Comet Lee is having any special effect?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

"August 11 is supposed to be a day of solar eclipse? And a focal point of various predictions ... "

Isn't Friday August the 13th the notable Mayan precursor to "something big......."

Also the GPS rollover around the same time...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 28, 1999.

NIGH! LP, nigh

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 28, 1999.

"He's also been developing and proving so far that there seems to be a relationship between rapid changes in ocean temperatures and subsequent earthquake and volcanic activity. He's only got a few short years of data...and the track record isn't perfect, but he may be about as far along in predictions as the US Weather service was 20 years ago in predicting tornadoes via radar. This man is NOT a "nut" as you wish to try and characterize him.

You should read his books he goes into great detail about his life in Black Operations. The man is honest, intelligent and humble. Which is more than I can say for a lot of folks including most of his critics.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), June 27, 1999."

Well said RC!!!

I have had the pleasure of listening to Stan many times, he was recruited by the best of the best and went down to a top secret location in the outback of Australia where he worked on allegedly alien craft and designs, some man made, some not.

He strikes me as an exceedingly honest person - make your own mind up.

It ticks me off that fools come along and try to out somebody as a "nut" (myself and also a on this forum for example) because we have open minds and have extensively studied this type of phenomena.

As for our so-called rigorous "scientific method" - this is an oxymoron in the extreme, originality is constantly quashed by the mainstream scientific establishment, "they" don't want us getting too uppity, after all Knowledge IS Power...

wise up folks

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 28, 1999.

bb and (html@guy.com),

As cb (perspectiveB4@ssumptions.com) pointed out, if you use the slider at the bottom of the AstroArts display to swing your viewpoint of the August 10 and September 9 comet positions around so that you're looking at them from a different angle, you'll see that there is a big distance between the comet and the planets on each of those dates. The apparent closeness from the default viewpoint is merely an optical illusion.

- - - - -

b.p. (gotsunscreen@spf.com),

>The closest point of contact of comet lee and earth will be September 9,

No, the closest approach of Comet Lee to the Earth already occurred back in May. In September, Comet Lee will be much farther from Earth than it was in May. Take a look at the positions from different viewpoints as mentioned above by cb and myself -- don't be fooled by apparent close approaches that are just illusions from a fixed point of view of a 3-D situation on a 2-D surface.

- - - - -

Ashton & Leska,

As explained above, Comet Lee's position on August 10-11 is _not_ close to Mercury, and its position on September 9-11 is _not_ close to Earth.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

Maybe No Spam could listen to the horses' mouth so to speak before roundly attacking and condemning Mr. Deyo...

Tonight's sightings appearance is ALREADY in the archives at

http://www.broadcast.com/shows/endoftheline/99archives.stm

Joe Bob says check it out,

and No Spam,

please do a little research before beginning your periodic character assassinations - thank you.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 28, 1999.

Andy,

>As for our so-called rigorous "scientific method" - this is an oxymoron in the extreme,

The scientific method is designed to help folks keep from being fooled by illusions and wishful thinking.

To keep yourself from being fooled by the happenstance optical illusion of the apparent close approach of Comet Lee to Mercury and Earth when viewed from the default direction on ther AstroArts display, please use the bottom slider as I recommended to the others to rotate the view so that you can get a more accurate picture of the 3-D relationships of Comet Lee and the planets on the dates of August 10-11 and September 9-11.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

Andy,

I've DONE the research.

Tell us when YOU've used the slider bar at the botton of the AstroArts display to see for yourself that Comet Lee is far from Mercury on August 10-11 and farther from Earth on September 9-11 than it was in May at its closest approach. Show us that YOU have examined the relevant data that smashes all these bogus predictions based on the erroneous supposition that Comet Lee will come close to the Earth in September. Okay? You got the courage to face those facts?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

Andy,

I will pose the same statement and question to you that was posed to R.C. regarding Mr Deyo's "controversial" positions. Lets see some proof that the govnt is hiding alien space craft or evidence countering the discrediting of the Face on Mars theory, etc.

Concerning the "nut" statement - If you felt that I was insinuating Mr. Deyowas (as you put it) a nut - then I apologize for the inference. But being a scientist and schooled in the fields of physics and electrical engineering, am a little suspicious of any scientist who in one breath makes a very bold statement regarding solar activity and its potential effects on the earth - and on the same web page, state that our government may be in collusion with ALIENS...I for one would have to defer to my colleagues working on the SETI Project with regards to the possibility of E.T. lifeforms - am presently not too convinced that we have been visited by E.T.s.

Yes, your statement alluding to originality has some merit - I am sure that Galelio and Einstein would have agreed in principle to your position. But in the end the method that you so scorned helped substantiate two very radical theories: Earth orbiting the Sun, Special and General Theories of Relativity. Moreover, Scientists are not the repressive monsters that you make them out to be - there are plenty of journals (refereed and non-refereed) that will accept articles or op ed pieces as long as one can present data to back up your theory. Is it such a crime to require that a scientist provide evidence supporting their theory or undergo intense scrutiny? This methodolgy has helped us to weed out the Charlatans and Fakes (read Uri Gellar, Transmutation, Cold Fusion - Pons and Fleschmann, etc.) and I for one am very appreciative for the ongoing efforts of scientists who serve on the journal commitees and govnt advisory boards. From the posts seen at this site, one would believe that most participants expect or demand the same from the Fed/State Govnts and Businesses with regards to their Y2K remediation efforts. Lets dispense with the personal attacks (see the statement in first paragraph) and assess the theories or statements based on hard evidence.

-- paul dirac (pdirac@hotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

Andy, I've DONE the research.

####### Oh no you haven't. You haven't listened to any of Stan and Holly Deyo's appearances on either art Bell or Jeff Rense - have you read any of his books? Perused his web site? #######

Tell us when YOU've used the slider bar at the botton of the AstroArts display to see for yourself that Comet Lee is far from Mercury on August 10-11 and farther from Earth on September 9-11 than it was in May at its closest approach. Show us that YOU have examined the relevant data that smashes all these bogus predictions based on the erroneous supposition that Comet Lee will come close to the Earth in September. Okay? You got the courage to face those facts?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

####### I bow to your superior "knowledge" of Astronomy, warped as it is by you having gone through the US educational system with all its attendant belief prerequisites... I doubt if you are capable of opening your mind wide enough to even "consider" alternatives... your loss pal...#######

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Andy,

I will pose the same statement and question to you that was posed to R.C. regarding Mr Deyo's "controversial" positions. Lets see some proof that the govnt is hiding alien space craft or evidence countering the discrediting of the Face on Mars theory, etc.

####### You want proof? I don't have any. Neither do I have any proof that there is a God or Christ force, but there is (IMHO).

As you know UFO researchers have been looking for proof for 50 years or more - do your own research, I cannot hand hold you...#######

Concerning the "nut" statement - If you felt that I was insinuating Mr. Deyo was (as you put it) a nut - then I apologize for the inference.

####### Apology accepted. Allow me for example to insert here a pertinent piece regarding alien life forms. Perhaps No Spam would also be interested.

Theorists Predicts Life in Universe is Common, Waiting for Discovery

www.kalmbach.com 6-27-99

The hypothesis that life is unique to Earth could prove to be just as implausible as theories of Divine Creation. Chemist Robert Shapiro suggests that the laws of nature might favor the generation of life throughout the universe.

Cellular life may arise as a predictable result of organic chemistry and the physics of self-organizing systems. Pat Rawlings, for JPL

Shapiro's arguments are presented in "Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life," in the April 13, 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University, also lays out his argument in a new book entitled Planetary Dreams, published by John Wiley & Sons. In the book and paper, Shapiro argues that standard origin-of-life theories are badly flawed. Such theories are dependent on a miraculous event: the once-in-a-universe spontaneous generation of nucleic acids DNA or RNA that make up plant, animal, and microbial genes or some related molecule.

Shapiro, a specialist in the chemistry of DNA and RNA, marshals an array of data to argue that the simplest kind of cellular life may arise as a predictable result of organic chemistry and the physics of self-organizing systems whenever planets exist with the right constituents and conditions: a liquid or dense gas medium (not necessarily water), a suitable energy source, and a system of matter capable of using the energy to organize itself. He calls this hypothesis the "life principle." Furthermore, he argues that no predictable directions exist for life's later development from these basic beginnings.

In addition, he argues that humankind's search for life beyond Earth should continue to focus on those nearby worlds -- Mars, Jupiter's moon Europa and Saturn's moon Titan -- where the conditions appear to support the development of life.

This artist rendering shows a proposed ice-penetrating cryobot and a submersible hydrobot that could be used to explore the ice-covered ocean on Jupiter's large satellite, Europa. Robert Shapiro argues that humankind's search for life beyond Earth should continue to focus on Europa as well as on Mars and Saturn's moon Titan. Pat Rawlings, for JPL

He writes, "The debate over extraterrestrial life has been carried out with a great deal of passion, but with little progress, for centuries. Only in the last decades have we gained the ability to move it forward by collecting data at close range. We can send robots to inspect likely worlds such as Mars, Europa and Titan, and return photographs, information and samples, or, if we choose, we can go there ourselves and look around. We may find existing life, remnants of extinct life, or chemical systems evolving in the direction of life. Alternatively, we may encounter monotonous wastelands, lacking any sign that a process relevant to life has taken place there. The results will help decide which of two very different views of the Universe is more nearly correct."#######

But being a scientist and schooled in the fields of physics and electrical engineering, I am a little suspicious of any scientist who in one breath makes a very bold statement regarding solar activity and its potential effects on the earth - and on the same web page, state that our government may be in collusion with ALIENS...

####### Why? Why, if there are indeed Aliens visiting us as many believe (the latest poll in the UK for example registered that over 50% of the population believed in UFO's and extraterrestials, as did Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan et al...), wouldn't it be logical to assume that a certain cadre of earth representatives would have made contact? Is this not a possibility? As Deyo says, the Aliens are real, the agenda is unknown to him at any rate... I have an open mind, I don't discount any of this, neither do I rabidly believe anything I read or hear (No Spam...)#######

I for one would have to defer to my colleagues working on the SETI Project with regards to the possibility of E.T. lifeforms - am presently not too convinced that we have been visited by E.T.s.

Yes, your statement alluding to originality has some merit - I am sure that Galelio and Einstein would have agreed in principle to your position. But in the end the method that you so scorned helped substantiate two very radical theories: Earth orbiting the Sun, Special and General Theories of Relativity. Moreover, Scientists are not the repressive monsters that you make them out to be - there are plenty of journals (refereed and non-refereed) that will accept articles or op ed pieces as long as one can present data to back up your theory. Is it such a crime to require that a scientist provide evidence supporting their theory or undergo intense scrutiny? This methodolgy has helped us to weed out the Charlatans and Fakes (read Uri Gellar, Transmutation, Cold Fusion - Pons and Fleschmann, etc.) and I for one am very appreciative for the ongoing efforts of scientists who serve on the journal commitees and govnt advisory boards. From the posts seen at this site, one would believe that most participants expect or demand the same from the Fed/State Govnts and Businesses with regards to their Y2K remediation efforts. Lets dispense with the personal attacks (see the statement in first paragraph) and assess the theories or statements based on hard evidence.

-- paul dirac (pdirac@hotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

####### Paul, to understand where I am coming from you will have to take the time and effort to read one or two of David Icke's books, "The Robot's Rebellion" goes into great detail on how the scientific establishment since antiquity has surpressed knowledge to further their own ends - this is continuing today. his latest book "The Biggest Secret" is also essential reading. i urge you to locate one or both of these book. No Spam and I have parried and sparred over this for a while now, but being the tight-arsed curmudgeon that he is he refuses to buy the books or order them through the library for nothing - I've even offered to send him via UPS my own personal copies - No Spam declined... you cannot debate with an Ostrich... Go awy, read one or both of these books with particular emphasis on Science and lets talk... that's the best I can do Paul and I'm certainly not ducking the issue here...

Regards to you both,#######

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 28, 1999.

Paul,

If you don't usually, please check your hotmail email...I just emailed you with some questions. Thank you.

-- Kristi (securx@succeed.net), June 28, 1999.

Hot off the press.. No need to panic, lots of people are watching this stuff.

Magnetic Event Update 06.28.99 1400 UTC

The third disturbance in the recent series arrived at around 0300 UTC as a sudden impulse of 20 nT was observed at Boulder CO. The planetary magnetism readings quickly jumped into the red levels of 5 and 6 for six consecutive hours following the latest impulse.

The SEC has issued alerts for K=6 readings this morning, and confirmation that the Magnetic-A Index did exceed 20 yesterday (6.27.99)

While it appears that this latest disturbance is subsiding, there have continued to be daily M-Class events and CMEs... with another large ejection, visible in LASCO imagery, starting at around 1230 UTC this morning.

As long as this general pattern of moderate flares and CMEs continues, we will see the periodic arrival of more energetic disturbances. As the main regions producing these events become more geoeffective in the next several days, the disturbances may become stronger due to more direct impact. The potential for major flares will remain high for the next several days.

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), June 28, 1999.

FWIW again. My uncle worked many years for Westinghouse (worked with NASA). He was Maryland's scientist of the year one year. He stated quietly but emphatically that he "knew" that there were aliens. He was not a wild character by any means. He said this one month before his death last year. I suggest that you look at Chuck Missler's new book on Aliens. http://christianbooks.com/shop/cb/process?s65UtqVZ;;119

-- Mumsie (Lotsakids@home.com), June 28, 1999.

"Please stop contributing to the hype about "planet-buster" flares and Comet Lee. There is nothing magical or otherwise so influential about this comet as to allow it to make any noticeable difference in the activity of the Sun."

"The term "planet-buster" was a spur-of-the-moment exclamation by someone in response to seeing the size of a recent flare, but there is nothing really planet-busting about it."

No Spam Please,

Thanks for the supporting post, but I'm not sure that it will have the desired effect on some folks. I've posted on Comet Lee, complete with a URL address, and several times, both here, and elsewhere, on solar cycle 23. Based on the reaction I get, I have the distinct impression that there are some folks that already have their minds made up, and nothing will change them.

I post now (although I should know better, I suppose) for those that are new to the subject, and haven't done the archival research to find those old posts. And want more than one point of view, of course.

-- LP (soldog@nohotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

paul dirac,

Interesting name! I wonder if you were at LA when I was at LBL at the HILAC. Anyway, one thing I've noticed about responses to my input on this issue is that, when I make a post that includes data, I include a URL(s). As I'm sure you know, the SEC at the NOAA, and the USAF have a host of researchers that contribute data to their reports, which are supplemented with data from researchers around the world. That's a lot of people, compared to one (extraordinary?) man.

I recall a report I made for a writing course many years ago in which I submitted only one reference. The instructor commented that my paper would have gotten a higher mark than it did, and would have been considered much more creditable, if I had used more than one source in my reference list. She had a good point.

From my experiences and observations, I wonder if Deyo has ever succeeded in publishing any of his theories in a publication such as Nature, Physics Today, or the Journal of Astrophysics? If he ever did, I sure wouldn't want to be one of the peer reviewers. Especially if I was applying for a grant.

-- LP (soldog@nohotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

paul dirac: you said

This methodolgy has helped us to weed out the Charlatans and Fakes (read Uri Gellar, Transmutation, Cold Fusion - Pons and Fleschmann,

Cold Fusion is not "fake" and Pons and Fleschmann are not "charlatans". They discovered a new effect, subtle and still unknown in origin, but reproducible. There are patents on it and several marketing ventures. It's similar to the room-temperatiure superconductor craze. But its not a hoax, as you would lead one to believe. Search the web, the info is there.

I will leave reconsideration of Geller and the puzzling world of psi as an exercise for you.

-- a (a@a.a), June 29, 1999.

a,

I believe that you may have not done enough research yourself on cold fusion. The results (neutron emissions and calorimeter readings) that Pons and Fleischman claimed within their initial reports (press releases and abstracts) could never be reproduced. I myself was employed as a Research Scientist at the University of Texas at Austin (in the Physics/Chemistry Depts) and worked with a group trying to duplicate their work. Last update (in the late '80s) on the two researchers had them retreating from initial claims and admitting that their research methods were very sloppy. This is not too say that a physical phenomenon is not occuring in the experimental setup but then again I would not advise anyone to go out and buy a cold fusion reactor to power a house. The only real benefactor from all the hype was the rare metals market (read paladium - catalyst used within their experimental setup) which had a runup in the price/value of futures. One victim of the cold fusion debacle was the reputation of the State University located at Salt Lake City, UT. If need be I can dig up my copies of research journals and other assorted materials if you would like some citations.

Regarding Uri Gellar and the puzzling world of psi - dont believe that I need to take it up as an exercise. The burden of proof rests on those who make claims of "supernatural" powers...Additionally, Uri was proven to be a "hoaxer" by two individuals: The Amazing Randi and Richard P. Feyman. Randi was more direct in his exposing Uri's supposed spoon bending abilities whereas Dr. Feyman was more subtle in his efforts in debunk this area of junk science. For more information regarding either Feyman or Randi consult the following books and websites: "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feyman" - R. Feyman and

http://www.randi.org/

Moreover, I believe that Randi and his foundation are still offering a 1 million dollar prize for anyone that can demonstrate authentic psi powers. That should be incentive enough for any "real" pyschic to come forth and exhibit their talents..

-- pdirac (pdirac@hotmail.com), June 29, 1999.

One of you astrophysical types, help me out here. I just checked NASA's Sunspot Site and saw that today's "Sunspot Number" is 268. This seems extremely high. The historical data in their archives rarely reported numbers above 200. What am I missing?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), June 29, 1999.

Mr. Dirac -

I'm sure you get asked this a lot, but are you related to the Nobel laureate (1933, Physics) of that name? I remember reading and enjoying a piece written by Robert Heinlein about Mr. Dirac's work a while back. Just curious.

In the fight between you and the world, back the world. --- Paul A.M. Dirac (1902-1984)

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), June 29, 1999.

Mac,

>I just checked NASA's Sunspot Site and saw that today's "Sunspot Number" is 268. This seems extremely high. The historical data in their archives rarely reported numbers above 200. What am I missing?

That the historical data in their archives are monthly averages, not daily numbers.

Earlier in June, the daily sunspot numbers were under 120 for a while.

Nevertheless, the average for June 1999 will be one of the highest monthly averages on record. From an eyeballing of the chart at http://dxlc.com/solar/ ("Solar Terrestrial Activity Report") my estimate is that June's average will be about 210, thus qualifying it to join the rare over-200 class.

(Disclaimer: I'm not sure that the sunspot numbers at dxlc.com come from the same observatories as the numbers at the NASA site. So the June average to be added to the NASA archive might not match my estimate from the dxlc.com chart.)

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 30, 1999.

Mac,

The highest *yearly* sunspot number average on record was 190, for the year 1957. During that year, the monthly averages ranged from 130 to 254. The daily numbers ranged from 86 to 355. (BTW, the highest daily number -- 355, which occurred on two consecutive days in December 1957 -- did not occur during the month of 1957 with the highest average, which was October.)

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 30, 1999.

Mac,

No Spam Please has it right, and thank you No Spam Please. FYI, this comes from another NOAA site:

"An observer computes a daily sunspot number by multiplying the number of groups he/she sees by ten and then adding this product to his total count of individual spots, same way that Wolf did. Many refer to the sunspot number as a Wolf number or count (or as a Zurich Sunspot Number). Results, however, vary greatly, since the measurement strongly depends on observer interpretation and experience and on the stability of the Earth's atmosphere above the observing site. Moreover, the use of Earth as a platform from which to record these numbers contributes to their variability, too, because the sun rotates and the evolving spot groups are distributed unevenly across solar longitudes. To compensate for these limitations, each daily international number is computed as a weighted average of measurements made from a network of cooperating observatories."

The URL of this site is:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/stp.html

and the title of the site is:

"Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division of the National Geophysical Data Center"

The site is frames-organized, so when you get there you will have a bit of navigating to do. Look for the link: "Solar and Interplanetary Phenomena," then, once there, click on the link: "Sunspot Numbers" to get the above quote.

Hope this helps.

-- LP (soldog@nohotmail.com), June 30, 1999.

Thanks, No Spam and LP. Reading comprehension wasn't as good as usual. Appreciate the clarification. Shades of Heinlein's Year of the Jackpot. 8-}]

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), June 30, 1999.

Mac,

No, I am not Paul Dirac the Nobel Laurate (sp?) whose contributions to atomic physics were immense. I was named after a maternal uncle and just happened to share a surname and an interest/career in Physics and Electrical Engineering with the Physics legend.

Prof Dirac passed away back in 1984 after retiring from the University of Copenhagen and emmigrating to Florida where he held a position at Florida State University. Dr. Dirac's most noteworthy contribution is the bra-ket notation used to determine the energy associated with a particles at a particular state.

My own career has included the earning of advanced degrees in both Physics and Electrical Engineering and employment in both the Public and Governmental sectors. By the way, could someone enlighten me on the individual that posts under the handle of "a". I have read a few of his responses/posts and am curious about his background or motivations.

-- paul dirac (pdirac@hotmail.com), June 30, 1999.

To the scientists here:

Am inexplicably compelled to respond to this thread. Advance apologies for this angry little masturbatory slice of life viewpoint. Ignore at will.

Yes, science is wondrous, fantastic, necessary and important. I appreciate it, I respect it, I've benefitted from it in more ways than I'll ever know. But, IMHO, it is also limited, myopic and ever-evolving. It is not the only answer. It is not ALL.

Science can't explain how I've known in advance of the deaths of four (at least; I've stopped counting,) loved ones in my life , and one regular patron in the bar I was tending (his name was Marko- -"you name the game, I'll play it." BTW, he had a cameo in the Coen Brothers' brilliant debut, "Blood Simple.")

Science can't explain how I knew, sitting-up-in-my-seat-suddenly, while riding a train from Rome to Amsterdam fifteen years ago, that back home in Texas, my sister was pregnant, and my cat had died. She aborted (twins,) and my cat (named Norman, cause he was psycho,) had been hit by a car.

Your Scientific Method can't explain how I've known for at least ten years, that I would get MS, (diagnosed two DAYS ago,) but science will enable me to get treatment, and I obviously appreciate that.

There's so much more, of course, and would love to chat with you about it over a pint. I AM as intelligent as you, though educated in different areas, but my point is: regarding the comet and the solar flares, aliens, whatever--why must you CONDESCENDINGLY slag that which you cannot comprehend? That which is not yet proven? Do you even realize what you're saying is, "I don't know it to be true, therefore it isn't?" Can't you see the arrogance of this? In your education, you must have learned about the critics of Galileo, Tesla, Einstein ??

Are you really so sure? Do you not know that moment of terror, when the lights go out, before you fall asleep? That instant of DOUBT? The one that the Scientific Method can't fix? I know it all too well. And I love it, because it reminds me that I'm alive, I'm human, and in truth, I know nothing. I will, though, on the other side.

Okay, enough wanking. I'm getting off now ;^)

-- Icanseeformiles (dovetailer@earthlink.net), July 04, 1999.

Icanseeformiles,

>IMHO, it is also limited, myopic and ever-evolving. It is not the only answer. It is not ALL.

As I said to Andy, the scientific method is designed to help folks keep from being fooled by illusions and wishful thinking. It is a way of determining objective truth about certain things.

One tactic of those who want to disparage the scientific method because it will not support some belief of theirs is to set up the straw-man argument that science or the scientific method is supposed to be "all". This supposition is easy to shoot down, but that rhetorical trickery has no bearing on the validity of the scientific method. Science never claimed to be "all".

>Science can't explain how I've known in advance of the deaths of four (at least; I've stopped counting,) loved ones in my life , and one regular patron in the bar I was tending

Science can explore the phenomenon of premonitions, and can test the validity of various theories of cause-and-effect relationships. For instance, it has found that the majority of premonitions that are reliably and consistently recorded (and specific enough to be verifiable) do not turn out to come true. It has found that the human mind remembers premonitions that come true far better than premonitions that don't.

Science doesn't say that your premonitions about deaths didn't exist. It says that you, like everyone else, have probably had lots of premonitions that did not come true, which you subsequently forgot.

>Your Scientific Method can't explain how I've known for at least ten years, that I would get MS, (diagnosed two DAYS ago,)

It can explain that lots of people have premonitions or fears of such things, and that the people for whom those premonitions or fears come true are far likelier to remember those premonitions or fears and to communicate them to others than the people for whom those premonitions or fears do not come true.

>regarding the comet and the solar flares, aliens, whatever--why must you CONDESCENDINGLY slag that which you cannot comprehend?

Are you sure you're attributing the condescension to the proper side?

I comprehend solar flares. I comprehend comets. I almost majored in astronomy at California Institute of Tehnology (you know, the one associated with Palomar Observatory and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory), and although I changed my major to math instead I have continued to keep informed about astronomy and related sciences. Are the advocates of the Comet-Lee-has-unconventional-properties theory actually well-informed about the relevant sciences?

Notice that those who posted speculations, earlier in this thread, about potential damage that Comet Lee would cause when it supposedly closely approached Earth in September were basing their speculations on an optical illusion. When they looked at a diagram of the three-dimensional positions of that comet and the planets at the AstroArts site, they misinterpreted the necessarily-two-dimensional projection there as showing that the comet would approach Earth closely in early September.

But since "cb (perspectiveB4@ssumptions.com)" pointed out, and I reinforced, that to get the proper idea of the real 3-D situation one needed to view the positions from different perspectives by using the controls that AstroArts provided, apparently the advocates of the close-approach-in-September idea have been too embarrassed to admit that they were fooled by a simple optical illusion.

Notice how my direct request to Andy to tell us when he had used the slider bar to see for himself that Comet Lee did not closely approach Earth in September has gone unanswered. (Typically, Andy posted a response in which he quoted my request but instead of admitting anything about whether he took a look at the data he just made a sarcastic remark so as to pretend that he was still in some sort of superior position -- putting _knowledge_ in quotes, for instance.)

So what we have in this very thread illustrates a common phenomenon -- people speak up when they think they have support for some oddball theory, but when someone (scientist or not) points out clear evidence that reality does not support that theory, the very real emotions of embarrassment and desire to save face take over, and so the literature about the theory is one-sided in terms of volume. It's all quite understandable from the viewpoint of psychology.

>That which is not yet proven?

But the available data _DOES prove_ that the Comet-Lee-has-extraordinary-properties theory is false. The available scientific data already shows that there is no cause-and-effect connection between Comet Lee and solar flares.

What has happened is that the advocates of that theory have cited supposed evidence in favor of their theory which, upon closer examination, has turned out not to be valid.

>Do you even realize what you're saying is, "I don't know it to be true, therefore it isn't?"

That is not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is "I know it not to be true. Here's the evidence. Here are the flaws in the arguments for the theory."

>Can't you see the arrogance of this?

If what you attribute to "the scientists here" were actually accurate, it would smack of arrogance.

But your attribution is mistaken.

>In your education, you must have learned about the critics of Galileo, Tesla, Einstein ??

Sure.

What distinguishes Galileo, Tesla, and Einstein is that it was shown that their theories _explained the observed facts_ better than the mainstream-at-that-time theories did. But that is not true of the Comet-Lee-has-extraordinary-properties theory!! It does _not_ explain the observed facts better than today's mainstream theories.

>Are you really so sure? Do you not know that moment of terror, when the lights go out, before you fall asleep? That instant of DOUBT? The one that the Scientific Method can't fix?

Actually, the scientific method _has_ fixed a number of terrors for me and others. E.g., it has eliminated general fear of the polio that crippled one of my acquaintances who as a youngster contracted that disease just before the Salk vaccine was available. Or are you too young to remember when polio was a fearsome disease?

Shucks, just in the science of preventive medicine I could go on and on. Vaccines have "fixed" the terrors of quite a few diseases that used to be a common worry of parents everywhere.

Are you really aware of just how much the scientific method has done to raise the quality of your life above that which people had just a few generations ago by "fix"ing a number of terrors that used to be common elements of everyday life but which are now forgotten? Have you confused lack of awareness of past scientifically-conquered terrors with their nonexistence?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), July 04, 1999.

Hello No Spam,

Your response raises some good points, and makes me realize I did not express my views quite clearly enough. Let me begin by saying thanks for your good wishes on my current situation, even though we disagree. Oh no, wait, nevermind--you didn't send any. Sorry, my mistake.

Am not interested in perpetuating a line-by-line debate. Some people work better that way, some don't. I don't. I feel context is at least half of every communication.

I find it interesting (but not surprising,) that you skipped right over my initial expression of high regard for the general topic of science.

I understand your argument about my statement that science is not ALL. I should have specifically stated (for those unable to make the leap,) that science is not ALL, because the physical world is not ALL. I should have spelled it out: M-I-C, see ya real soon, K-E-Y...oh, forget it.

BTW, thank the gods that the scientific method exists to save me from myself. It's undeniably unacceptable to have an illusion or worse yet, suffer from wishful thinking.

Regarding premonitions, I have had some that didn't come true, duh, but that doesn't lessen the value of the ones that did. Well, not to me, but apparently it does to you. That many people have had such experiences... blah, blah, blah, toodley-do. How, exactly, does science explain such things?? You casually dismiss my own personal experience, filing it away in some category, that can later be explained, or more importantly, DISPROVED, as though you knew anything about anything.

Frankly, I don't even have an opinion about comet Lee. It couldn't be any lower on my list of priorities. I simply find it interesting to ponder, much in the same way that I go to a movie, say, "Contact," or "Alien 14," or whatever, then go home and make dinner. I do wonder what it is, though, that troubles you enough to spend your time telling me I shouldn't ponder it as a possibility. (Okay, I like that word, ponder.)

My derision of you is based on my observation that you assume YOUR reality is THE reality. You are thinking in terms of science, physics, etc. and I am thinking in terms of physicality AND spirituality.

I'm sure you could beat the shit out of me in a debate of SCIENTIFIC "reality," and I couldn't care less.

If I seemed condescending to you and yours, it's probably because I was. I am genuinely sorry for you. I caught and ignored your insult about my age: 36, post-polio, as though it mattered; (meaning: as though YOUR generation had sole title to pain.) BTW, have YOU ever worried about getting AIDS, mister "you can't possibly know suffering?" Have you any idea how many people I've seen die of AIDS in my eight years as a volunteer?"

Sir, you'll either step gracefully down off that high horse, or you'll fall off and hurt yourself. If you opt for the latter, I'll probably be nearby with a bandaid and a nice warm hand to hold.

I realized from your response to my query about fear in the darkness of the night that you haven't a clue what I am referring to. It wasn't about any disease, or anything tangible at all. It was about the UNKNOWN. To you, the unknown is something to be studied and explained. To me, it is something wonderful, to be enjoyed for wht it is.

icnseeformiles.

-- icanseeformiles (dovetailer@earthlink.net), July 06, 1999.

icanseeformiles,

I apologize for not having more explicitly incorporated into my previous response an understanding that you would still be in the early stages of reaction to your recent MS diagnosis. I hope you'll eventually forgive me for the compression of my following response to your current situation: I'm sorry to hear of your MS diagnosis, and sincerely offer you best wishes on as good an outcome as possible. However, among these wishes I feel obliged to note that I was not appointed to participate in your "Pity Party" (as I heard someone once express it recently). You'll have to deal with your anger and self-pity in various ways, with which I hope competent professionals are assisting you. Perhaps I am wrong about the following, but I think you'll find that those professionals who are helping you will not agree that sarcastic remarks directed to those who fail to immediately volunteer sympathy upon learning of your situation are a constructive means of improving your life. You got a serious problem, okay. Now deal with it -- others have.

Your mistaken attributions of ideas, phrases, and attitudes to science, scientists, and me seem likely to be related to spilling over of your anger. Continuation of this habit can be detrimental to your communications with others.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), July 06, 1999.

Mister Spam,

No,no,no,no, you're not off the hook that easily. Although I'd been forewarned that you had responded cruelly to my last post, I am pleased to say that I am actually amused. It never occurred to me that someone ELSE could use my MS to get out of a tough spot. I was reserving that right for myself, for practical reasons, like getting friends to help me move or maybe buy me dinner when I'm broke. Now I feel cheated.

A friend and I already had a good laugh, BTW, when after the recent 5.5 shaker, he said "no, it wasn't the MS, we really did have an earthquake."

It was a good try on your part, but still I'm glad you're not a therapist of any sort.

My initial mention of the MS was included to further my point. My second mention of it was to express genuine shock that someone could so clinically respond to such a personal admission without any humane acknowledgement (ie, empathy, not sympathy--it's different.)

Yes, I use sarcasm quite frequently. Everyone knows sarcasm is the lazy person's form of humor, and I'd be surprised if there were eight or ten people on the planet lazier than I. I'll spend fourteen hours trying to figure out how to get out of an hour's work. Sometimes, I'm even successful.

You're assuming I'm angry. Whom, exactly, would I be angry at? As it is, I'm spoiled rotten. You couldn't know this, of course, but I am immensely grateful for every day I get on this earth. My brother died at 26, my stepbrother at 20, my sister's best friend at 25, my best friend at 34, and countless acquaintances with AIDS of varying ages younger than my own. Sorry, darlin', but anger may be the only emotion I haven't felt since this diagnosis.

Nope, I'd have made all the same remarks and observations a week ago, regarding folks who can't see outside the box.

Strangely, I must say that your comments of good wishes did seem genuine. Am I losing my edge?

P. S. Do you think they have Pity Party invitations at Wal-Mart?

It's my party,

icanseeformiles (it's true, I can.)

-- icanseeformiles (dovetailer@earthlink.net), July 08, 1999.

icanseeformiles,

>Mister Spam,

"Spam" (not to be confused with the Hormel SPAM trademark which is to be written entirely in uppercase) is my middle nym. For readers' general reference, not just you in particular, the correct forms are "Mister Please" (formal), "No" (informal but too short for some folks' comfort), "No Spam" (the most comfortable for most folks), and "No Spam Please" (technically formal, but many respondants find it comfortable for informal use, perhaps because all three nyms have homonyms in common English usage :-) .

>you're not off the hook that easily

Pardon my density and failing sight. Please point out the hook to me.

>I'd been forewarned that you had responded cruelly to my last post,

Those who thought it cruel did not understand it. As I warned, it was compressed -- those who've not experienced the appropriate context, which it was not practical for me to take the bandwidth and time to provide, could easily misunderstand. I would've misunderstood it myself at a sufficiently younger age.

>someone ELSE could use my MS to get out of a tough spot

I look forward to your pointing out of the "hook" also explaining the "tough spot".

>My initial mention of the MS was included to further my point.

I understood that. I included it in my quotation of your sentence, but chose not to comment on it, instead concentrating on what I perceived to be the principal part of your sentence, not suspecting that you would make an issue of my omission of comment on MS.

>My second mention of it was to express genuine shock that someone could so clinically respond to such a personal admission without any humane acknowledgement (ie, empathy, not sympathy--it's different.)

You could have chosen to straightforwardly express that shock (e.g., "I'm shocked that ..."), but instead chose to use sarcasm ("Let me begin by saying thanks for your good wishes on my current situation, even though we disagree. Oh no, wait, nevermind--you didn't send any. Sorry, my mistake."), which communicated principally the emotion of anger rather than that of shock. That choice made your response less likely to evoke empathy.

>You're assuming I'm angry.

Not an assumption. Anger was, and continues to be, communicated by your choices of words.

>My brother died at 26, my stepbrother at 20, my sister's best friend at 25, my best friend at 34, and countless acquaintances with AIDS of varying ages younger than my own.

I'm sorry to hear of those. I choose not to comment further for various reasons.

>Sorry, darlin', but anger may be the only emotion I haven't felt since this diagnosis.

Now, that is an angry statement.

>I must say that your comments of good wishes did seem genuine.

Thank you.

>Am I losing my edge?

Depends on which edge; some need to be lost.

>Do you think they have Pity Party invitations at Wal-Mart?

If not, try Hallmark.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), July 08, 1999.

Mister Please,

Am pleased to see you have a sense of humor. Am sorry to learn I am not as funny as I thought I was. That's a blow.

Uncle. You win. I quit. I'm bored. And now I have an ego to nurse.

Peace, icanseeformiles (and it's "something wonderful...") --you may be too old for that reference

-- icanseeformiles (dovetailer@earthlink.net), July 09, 1999.