Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) June 9, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 11 Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup. Back issues and a report on the number of CAF readers is available via anonymous ftp from eff.org. See file academic/README. [This compilation includes a call for student and faculty participation in policy formation and application. The call is endorsed by a sys admin at Berkeley's Open Computing Facility, a place where such participation is the standard operating procedure. Also, the question "Should users be automatically suspended from the computer if they are suspected of an infraction?" is discussed. There is a critique of the (soon to be revised?) Ohio State CIS email policy. Due process is discussed with examples of punishment without due process from UMCP and Ohio State. Pragmatic benefits of due process are asserted. Finally, the question "Does the availability of GIF images of nude people constitute sexual harassment?" is discussed. - Carl] In this issue: Carl M. Kadie 29 >Canceling someone else's article cgd 49 >Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies) kadie 56 >FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article kadie 28 >Ohio State University CIS Policies mojo!russotto 52 sbrack 51 >Ohio State University CIS Policies kadie 29 >Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies) sbrack 98 - jgreely 32 publicly-readable "adult" gifs kadie 53 jgreely 38 >publicly-readable "adult" gifs The addresses for the list are now: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list or caf-talk@eff.org listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions (send email with the line "help" for details.) caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 00:19:13 -0500 From: "Carl M. Kadie" Message-Id: <9106030519.AA25909@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Subject: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kadie From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Canceling someone else's article Message-ID: Nntp-Posting-Host: herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL References: <1991Jun1.164136.4553@herald.usask.ca> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 01:36:39 GMT In <1991Jun1.164136.4553@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes: [...] >The UNIVERSITY bought the equipment. The UNIVERSITY owns the equipment. The >UNIVERSITY gets to say how the equipment is to be used, who can use it, and >what rules these users have to follow. [...] I would only add that it is the policy of most universities to create and administer rules with the participation of faculty and students, to respect the privacy of faculty and students (by, for example, allowing searches of office space under certain very controlled conditions), to make rules clear and specific, to give students accused of violating rules a formal hearing (if the student so wishes), to promote free expression by saying that "[t]he institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship." In my opinion, any university employee who violates this policy should be disciplined. For example, a sys admin who expels a student from the general university computer system without recourse to a formal hearing should find him or herself subject to a formal disciplinary hearing. And, of course, any university computer policy that contradicts general university policy (i.e. almost every university computer policy I've ever read) is null and void. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Received: from USENET by eff with netnews for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org); contact usenet@eff if you have questions. Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1991 10:35:30 GMT Message-Id: Organization: UCB Open Computing Facility From: stanford.edu!agate!agate!cgd@uunet.uu.net References: , <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu>, Subject: Re: Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies) In article <1991Jun8.035801.11343@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) writes: In article <1991Jun6.200457.7743@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes... >In the past, I have tried to argue for due process and participation >rights with appeals to idealism and authority (e.g the Joint Statement >on Rights and Freedoms of Students). >This thread of conversation highlights the pragmatic reasons for >supporting these rights. Due process gives the disgruntled user a >nondestructive path. It may also helps keep the policy enforcer honest >(to use an expression from poker). User participation in the >formulation and application of policy gives the policy a feeling of >legitimacy. It also helps fight us vs. them attitudes. No. That's not adequate. What happens with "student participation in the setting of policy" is that only brown nosers get appointed to the policy committee. Even among large groups of students (student governments), problems have arisen recently with the imposition of political correctness doctrines. You say that "only brown nosers get appointed to the policy committee." I don't think this is true, especially where the students have any say in who represents them on the policy committee. And if the general body of students (or users) has no say, then it cannot be said that they really participate, or are represented. I honestly don't think that comments on the wonderful subject of "political correctness" (the topic amuses me...) are relevant to this discussion - in some things, such as academics, and funding situations, arguments can probably be made in favor of PC or against. However, in the world of computers, i've yet to see an opinion biased by race, creed, color, etc - it simply is not relevant. If you will attempt to argue that students who *ARE* *REPRESENTED* by peers on a policy-making committe (or whatever) are not better off (in most cases) than if they were not represented, well, let's just say that i'll be very amused. cgd UCB OCF Staff - Though these are my words, and mine alone... -- < Chris G. Demetriou | "Everybody's playing the game, > < cgd@ocf.berkeley.edu | But nobody's rules are the same. > < ...!ucbvax!ocf!cgd | Nobody's on nobody's side." - Chess > <=============================================================================> < Annoyance for hire. Name a time. Name a place. Name a target. I'm there.> Received: from USENET by eff with netnews for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org); contact usenet@eff if you have questions. Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 16:16:30 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jun3.161630.10523@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie References: , Subject: Re: FYI: Re: Canceling someone else's article SKAPUR@ccmail.SUnysb.EDU (Sanjay Kapur) writes: [...] >I agree that a formal hearing should be required before expulsion from the >general university or departmental computer system. >Do you agree that suspending computing privileges pending a formal expulsion >hearing is a responsible and required excercise of the powers of a System >Administrator? To quote the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students (JSRFS): "C. Status of Student Pending Final Action Pending action on the charges, the status of a student should not be altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend classes suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or university property." >Do you also agree that if the hearing finds the student guilty, this finding >should be put in the individual's permanent record (transcript) and, depending >on the incident, may even lead to expulsion from the University itself? Quoting the JSRFS: "To minimize the risk of improper disclosure, academic and disciplinary record should be separate, and the conditions of access to each should be set forth in an explicit policy statement. Transcripts of academic records should contain only information about academic status." So, I don't think that *any* disciplinary info should be on a student's academic transcript. On the other hand, computer infractions are no less important than other infractions, and so should be treated the same (possibly leading to expulsion from the University). >Can we build an archive site which contains the complete text of University >policies ? I encourage everyone to get a copy of their university's student code. And if the typing or scanning muse hits you, please email to me whatever you feel like putting on-line. >University Policies may state freedom of expression >as a goal in the first paragraph, but, by the time you get to the 187th (say) >paragraph, they normally have thirty (say) limitations on it. Also local and >federal laws sometimes override general University Policy making the general >policy null and void while leaving the Computing policy intact. I haven't seen this. Can you give examples? - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. Received: from USENET by eff with netnews for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org); contact usenet@eff if you have questions. Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 17:35:50 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org> Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies (I understand that these polices will revised soon.) The policies are better than most. The privacy policy is especially good. In my opinion, the weakest policy covers email and netnews. It says that undergrads are prohibited from posting or emailing off campus. This rule is enforced very selectively. To quote an OSU sys admin: "it's just something that's usable as a weapon against the occasional real jerk." (I think such selective enforcement is despicable.) The policy justifies email and netnews censorship by referring to "a specific obligation to the organizations that operate our computer networks". It does not identify an organization or reference an actual contract or policy that requires censorship. (I understand the general policy of OSU prohibits censorship.) It is vague, prohibiting "other unsociable [email] acts". The fatal flaw in the policies is the lack of any notion of due process. It looks like a student or a faculty member could be suspending or expelled from the computer system at the whim of sys admin without recourse to a formal hearing. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. Received: from USENET by eff with netnews for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org); contact usenet@eff if you have questions. Date: 4 Jun 91 16:09:47 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu> Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park From: mojo!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu References <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu> Subject : Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies In article <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes: >In article <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes: >> >>The fatal flaw in the policies is the lack of any notion of due >>process. It looks like a student or a faculty member could be >>suspending or expelled from the computer system at the whim of sys >>admin without recourse to a formal hearing. >> > >Why, oh why, is *everything* turning into a "formal" or "due >process" situation? We've never had any problem with a student >that wasn't solved with a face-to-face conversation. I've >stopped chain letters, obscene files, and email flood wars with >a simple "please drop by to see me" message. Sure, users have >been locked out here; this only occurred when the student ignored >several requests to come in for a meeting. I haven't had to lock >anyone out yet; those few occurances were several years ago. > >I realize that "due process" is a student right; however, aren't >we getting just a bit too stringent in its application? Heck, >I guess I'll have to schedule a hearing to kill user processes >that are using > 75% of the available system, since it's their >final project and I'm infringing their rights. > >Let's step back, take a deep breath, and look at this from a >new perspective, shall we? I was barred from use of the computer systems at the UMCP computer science center without warning. The message put up when I attempted to log on told me to talk to "the System Administrator", whoever the heck that might be. So I called the guy I knew logged on as 'root'--- he told me that I had been locked out by a different guy, the "accounts administrator". I talked to this 'accounts administrator', who told me that he had heard reports that I had been 'bothering people' (by messing with X-windows), but that to get my account back, I would have to talk to the 'system administrator'. I talked to him again, and was sent back to the 'accounts administrator', who sent me back to the 'system administrator'. I got sick of the obvious runaround, and went and applied for a number of new accounts under phony names. Eventually, they brought me to the judicial programs office or having all those accounts, and I was found responsible for 'theft of services'. If there had been some sort of due process in the first place, perhaps I wouldn't have had such trouble. Informal stuff only works when both sides are trying for a real solution-- not when the side with more power only wants to avoid what they percieve as a problem by getting rid of the student involved. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus. Received: from USENET by eff with netnews for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org); contact usenet@eff if you have questions. Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 17:22:58 EDT Message-Id: Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4]) From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!bluemoon!sbrack@uunet.uu.net References: , <1991Jun4.160947.7193@eng.umd.edu> Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: > In article <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) > >In article <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes > >> > >>The fatal flaw in the policies is the lack of any notion of due > >>process. It looks like a student or a faculty member could be > >>suspending or expelled from the computer system at the whim of sys > >>admin without recourse to a formal hearing. > >> > > > >Why, oh why, is *everything* turning into a "formal" or "due > >process" situation? We've never had any problem with a student > >that wasn't solved with a face-to-face conversation. I've > >stopped chain letters, obscene files, and email flood wars with > >a simple "please drop by to see me" message. Sure, users have > >been locked out here; this only occurred when the student ignored > >several requests to come in for a meeting. I haven't had to lock > >anyone out yet; those few occurances were several years ago. > > > >I realize that "due process" is a student right; however, aren't > >we getting just a bit too stringent in its application? Heck, > >I guess I'll have to schedule a hearing to kill user processes > >that are using > 75% of the available system, since it's their > >final project and I'm infringing their rights. > > > >Let's step back, take a deep breath, and look at this from a > >new perspective, shall we? > When I was locked out of my class account early this quarter, I made 15 phone calls to 10 different people, not counting being transferred all over campus. Apparently the policy of our system administration is to keep students from solving problems on the local admin level. My account priveleges were restored after I met with the chair of the department that owned, but did not manage, the system in question. My telephony took me all the way from my professor to the local system manager to the director of Academic Computing Services, then to the Dean of the Engineering College. I finally called our University Ombudsperson, who helped me determine who I should have been talking to, as none of the people I talked to directed me to the right place. =========================================================================== Steven S. Brack sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu =========================================================================== Received: from USENET by eff with netnews for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org); contact usenet@eff if you have questions. Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1991 20:04:57 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jun6.200457.7743@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie References , <1991Jun5.143833.21547@eng.umd.edu>, Subject : Re: Due process and computer policies (was OSU Policies) In ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: [...] >the use of the word `against' is symptomatic of very deep structural >problems in the organization. once it gets to the point where system >administrators consider users to be trouble to be avoided, and users >consider system administrators to be obstacles to be bypassed, then >there is essentially no hope for constructive action. In the past, I have tried to argue for due process and participation rights with appeals to idealism and authority (e.g the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students). This thread of conversation highlights the pragmatic reasons for supporting these rights. Due process gives the disgruntled user a nondestructive path. It may also helps keep the policy enforcer honest (to use an expression from poker). User participation in the formulation and application of policy gives the policy a feeling of legitimacy. It also helps fight us vs. them attitudes. It may seem counterintuitive, but a overly strict policy may encourage the very problems it tries to solve. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. From: sbrack Just another expatriate MAGNUS user... 8) Message-ID: References: Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 15:03:41 EDT csmith writes: > sbrack writes: > > > Seriously, if you want to know interesting facts about magnus & > > Ohio State, e-mail me. > > We're listening ... Well, I had an account on HPUXA, OSU's predecessor to MAGNUS. I had news & mail access, along with a UNIX command shell. It was much like having my own UNIX box. I could write & run programs on it, I could up- & down-load files from all over the world (through the InterNet), & I could gain experience in how large machine operating systems work. I made two mistakes. First, I ran a command called "fixman," which I, by default, had permission to run. This command reformatted the manual pages (like help files) on HPUXA. I thought it only worked on my manual pages, but the command instead reformatted the manual pages for the entire system. OSU was not pleased 8). I had a meeting wherein I basically agreed not to do it again, & to only run a small selection of commands. I did that. But, I got into trouble on news. HPUXA recieves about the same news groups that bluemoon does. They cut out some groups, like alt.sex.pictures, but the pretty much allow a large number of news groups. Well, I was having an argument with a man in alt.flame. He posted an article to a group called control (which is where cancel messages & other news "control" messages are supposed to go.) I posted a followup to that article. What I did not notice until too late was that the author of the original article had set followups to go to 3 or 4 completely inappropriate newsgroups. My followup contained some "not so polite" language, & OSU's systems people received e-mail about my crossposted article. When I finally heard whwt had happened, my account had been suspended, so I couldn't even cancel my original article. I had another meeting. This time I was told I would not be getting my account back. Period. No dicussion at all. So, I was just a little bit upset that I had lost my account over a prank pulled by someone half-a-continent away. I posted an article in news.admin, from another InterNet account I had at Ohio State, detailing what had happened, & asking their opinions. I thanked those that agreed with me (my e-mail ran about 10 to 1 in my favor), & attempted to persuade those that didn't to my point of view. Owing to several less-than-scrupulous people, the discussion degenerated into a flame war. I was called "an ME freshman who thinks he has the world by the sensitive appendages" by Karl Klienpaste, OSU's resident net.god. That was not exactly the epitome of proper conduct, but because of his reputation, he was allowed to get away with it. Shortly thereafter, I realized it was a losing battle, packed it in, & left the debate in news.admin. At about the same time, I was denied access to my engineering workstation account, which I had been using for news & mail, as well as classwork. Not having access to that account would have made it impossible to pass my engineering course. I got that account back, after calling everyone from my prof to the Dean of the college of Engineering. We finally agreed that I could have my account back, provided I did not access news or mail, or any other "non-class-related" fuctions, from that account. I didn't, & instead started using bluemoon for mail & news. (No FTP or telnet, though 8() OSU's people have harrassed my friends who were using (with my permission) my account at Denver University. These people jumped to the conclusion that I was using these accounts, rather than simply letting others do so. OSU suspended three of my friends acounts, & sent a letter "warning" about me to another. If you wish to get Ohio State's perspective on this matter, you may write to the parties involved on the OSU side: Bob Dixon rdixon@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Bill Miller bmiller@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Clifford Collins ccollins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Bob DeBula bobd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Karl Kleinpaste karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu I guarantee that they won't have anything good to say about me, but their responding to what I say about the situation is the only way those of you who are interested can gain an unbiased view of the situation. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Steven S. Brack The Ohio State University | | | |"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for | | your right to say it." | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. Received: from USENET by eff with netnews for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org); contact usenet@eff if you have questions. Date: 7 Jun 91 22:23:41 GMT Message-Id: Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science From: cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely@uunet.uu.net References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>nucodon Subject: publicly-readable "adult" gifs In article <1991Jun7.180227.4515@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >In jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes: >>A combination of university rules and state law. >Can you be more specific? What rules? What law? The university's sexual harrassment rules, and the state law on making "pornography" available to minors (we *do* get some). After one incident, the chairman (in response to a threatened lawsuit) was quite prepared to order all questionable images deleted, and future offenders treated harshly. Fortunately, that didn't happen, but it could. >It sounds like you selectively enforce your disk quotas based on >how much the content might embarrass the department chairman. It sounds like you don't read too well. If you're within your quota, we don't care what you have in there, but in the specific case of R- or X-rated graphic images, we care about the file permissions. The only "selective enforcement" of disk quotas is based on the relevance of the files to the funded purpose of the system (computer science instruction). If you're over quota because of course work, we'll work with you to solve the problem (possibly increasing your quota). If it's because of saved news or GIF files, we'll tell you to get rid of them. How much it "embarrasses the chairman" has *nothing* to do with it. "Sexual harassment at work -- is it a problem for the self-employed?" -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely) Received: from USENET by eff with netnews for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org); contact usenet@eff if you have questions. Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1991 02:51:46 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jun8.025146.16881@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie References , Subject : Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies) >In article <1991Jun7.180227.4515@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (that's me) writes: >>Can you be more specific? What rules? What law? jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes: >The university's sexual harrassment rules, and the state law on making >"pornography" available to minors (we *do* get some). [...] >[I]n the specific case of R- >or X-rated graphic images, we care about the file permissions. [...] (I'll respond with two notes.) So the question is where does free expression end and harassment begin? Just as I have a right to speak, write, listen, and read; so, I also have a right not to speak, not to write, not to listen, and not read. The denial of my right not to listen or my right to to read is harassment. Thus, a campus meeting or rally by American's Against the Left-Handed (AALH) does not harass me because I don't have to attend the meeting and I can avoid the rally. On the other hand, if AALH members following me home, calling me a "dirty lefty", I am being harassed. Similarly, if you look at a picture of a nude person or show that picture with someone who wants to see it, no one is harassed. When, you display that picture in the office or on an unwilling person's X-terminal, you are harassing the unwilling people who must view the picture. You cannot harass me merely by setting file permissions such that others can view material that I find offensive. Finally, I note that Ohio State subscribes to Playboy magazine. (They really do; I checked). By collecting these pictures of nude people, the library harasses no one. Allowing you to see the pictures, harasses no one. On the other hand, if you photocopy the pictures and put them on an unwilling person's desk, you harass that person. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. Received: from USENET by eff with netnews for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org); contact usenet@eff if you have questions. Date: 8 Jun 91 21:26:37 GMT Message-Id: Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science From: cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely@uunet.uu.net References: , <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org>, <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org>nucodon Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies) Carl responded in e-mail (with permission to repost): |>Correct. That's why I started this whole thing by saying "a |>*combination* of university rules and state law". |Can you clarify this? At the moment, no. I've defended things about as far as I can based on my understanding of the situation. To put the whole thing to rest for good (on the net? hah!) I'll have to meet with the people who started this whole mess and read the relevant rules and laws for myself. Since I'll be away at Usenix next week (and, I believe, the chairman will be gone when I get back), I don't know when that will be. Maybe I'll get lucky and the whole thing will expire :-) |(You can post a reply to the net, quoting this note if you wish.) It |seems that the harassment rule might prohibit public display, but |would not require restrictive file permissions. I agree that "public access" to the files does not itself seem like it constitutes sexual harrassment, but I do not have the university rules to quote from. Hell, there's always the chance that my explanation of the reasons behind this is dead wrong. I don't *make* policy. I've been known to suggest it, and I'm occasionally forced to improvise, but I'm not on the computer committee. "But *sniff*, you will come back to play with us again, won't you?" "Of *course* I will! On the second Tuesday of next week." "Hooway! Hooway!" "Wait! The *second* Tuesday?" -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)