<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1291</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	11/1/99 3:50:52 PM Pacific Standard Time<BR>
From:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
Sender:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Reply-to:	traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
To:	traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
Traveller-digest      Monday, November 1 1999      Volume 1999 : Number 1291<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.<BR>
All rights reserved.<BR>
<BR>
The following topics are covered in this digest:<BR>
<BR>
Re: Re Imperial Known Space<BR>
Re: [OT] One Day In Peace 2<BR>
Re: A Day of Peace<BR>
Re: A Day of Peace<BR>
Re: A Day of Peace<BR>
Re: A Day of Peace<BR>
UFO contact illegal?<BR>
Re: Niven Books<BR>
Re: UFO contact illegal?<BR>
Re: UFO contact illegal?<BR>
Re: Idea for honouring J. Andrew Keith<BR>
Re: Website revamped and Deckplans up<BR>
Re: Taxation (off topic then back on topic)<BR>
Re: [OT] One Day In Peace<BR>
Re: A Day of Peace<BR>
Re: A Day of Peace<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:40:25 -0700 (MST)<BR>
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU><BR>
Subject: Re: Re Imperial Known Space<BR>
<BR>
Hmmmm....I wonder what _else_ is in the Library data files that didn't<BR>
make it into Imperial Encyclopedia...<BR>
<BR>
<sigh> _more_ oop CT stuff I gotta find. Marc's reprints are going to be<BR>
very welcome...when were those coming out?<BR>
<BR>
Hmmm...there was a grayscale map I saw a loooonngg time ago, posted on the<BR>
old home of the Traveller Chronicle...was _that_ the map you're talking<BR>
about?<BR>
<BR>
there are copies of that at:<BR>
<BR>
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~bjohnson/images/Sectmap.jpg<BR>
<BR>
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~bjohnson/images/Sectmap2.jpg<BR>
<BR>
I was under the impression that this stuff was non-canon...just cool.<BR>
<BR>
Bruce Johnson<BR>
University of Arizona<BR>
College of Pharmacy<BR>
Information Technology Group<BR>
<BR>
Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Chris Seamans wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> <BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU><BR>
> To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
> Date: Monday, November 01, 1999 9:21 PM<BR>
> Subject: Re: Re Imperial Known Space<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> >Which of the Library data books was this in? Also, where did you get the<BR>
> >wall size version??<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> The smaller one is in both of my Library Data volumes. The wall-sized one<BR>
> was a promo item, I think, and Marc gave out a number of them some time ago<BR>
> to interested parties.<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 15:56:21 -0500<BR>
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca><BR>
Subject: Re: [OT] One Day In Peace 2<BR>
<BR>
>I have never heard of the five minutes rule; however, I do know that getting<BR>
>in someone's face and screaming is legally considered assault-- I was told<BR>
>this when my lawyer advised me to take a restraining order out against<BR>
>someone and I said, "but they've never hit me" and he said "They don't have<BR>
>to!"<BR>
<BR>
In Canada, a picket line must be moving, and it may not obstruct people for<BR>
more than five minutes. The usual laws regarding assault still apply (to<BR>
both picketers and line-crossers).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>I do not actually think that picketers should be allowed to obstruct people<BR>
>physically because it comes too close to behavior that borders on assault<BR>
>and I prefer there to be less of a gray area.<BR>
<BR>
Depends on how you define "obstruct", doesn't it?  If you say "move" and I<BR>
am s---l---o---w---l---y moving, am I obstructing you?  What if I'm moving,<BR>
but the chap behind me is following so close that you can't slip between us<BR>
(and so on)?  If you push through, are _you_ assaulting _us_?  (After all,<BR>
we're just walking around the block.) That's why Canadian law defines a<BR>
legal limit (for the whole line, not per protester): anything longer than<BR>
five minutes _is_ obstructing, and grounds for having the line shut down.<BR>
I think it's a reasonable compromise, because I can't think of very many<BR>
cases where someone whould absolutely need to cross a line in less than<BR>
five minutes, and these can be handled by simple negotiation. ("Look, I'm a<BR>
doctor and there's someone with a heart attack in there"  qualifies; "Look,<BR>
I'm a lawyer and I have to make a phone call" doesn't.)  There are lines<BR>
where this doesn't work, and there are legal methods for shutting those<BR>
lines down.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>I may not think that they are Nazis but as Cynthia said, there are lots of<BR>
>ways to convey a message to such a degree that no one will ever want to hear<BR>
>it.<BR>
<BR>
Yup.  But I find it ironic that exercising my legal and democratic right<BR>
should somehow make me a Nazi. According to this woman, we went to war so<BR>
that people would follow their leaders!  (I wonder who she thinks won,<BR>
anyway.)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>ObTrav:  I wonder about different protesting styles in the cultures of the<BR>
>Third Imperium.  How do the Vilani protest ANYTHING?  Do the Vargr and the<BR>
>Aslan even have demonstrations?  Do the K'Kree throw paint on old ladies in<BR>
>furs?<BR>
<BR>
Vilani?  No idea, but if they do all the permits are in order. A question<BR>
for the TravCulture list, I think.<BR>
<BR>
Vargr? Yes, definately. Part of a leader's charisma is how big a crowd<BR>
follows you.<BR>
<BR>
Aslan?  Probably not. Individual Aslan will act as their honour dictates,<BR>
including challenges to _personal_ duels. (One reason we have mass<BR>
demonstrations is that the ordinary person feels a need to group together<BR>
against the massed force of the opposition.  If your average British Green<BR>
protester could challenge the chairman of Monsanto, it wouldn't take long<BR>
before Monsanto listened to local opinion.)<BR>
<BR>
K'kree? Paint? Stomp them into the ground.  (Parenthetically, the first<BR>
time I see an animal rights type throw paint on the leather jacket of a<BR>
biker, because they oppose killing animals for clothing, I'll conceed that<BR>
they are serious about their beliefs.)<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:12:28 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net><BR>
Subject: Re: A Day of Peace<BR>
<BR>
> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 16:10:58 -0500<BR>
> From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu><BR>
> <BR>
> Many believe that humans have an intrinsic need for an outlet for<BR>
> violent emotions.  By releasing such emotions through violent but<BR>
> non-destructive ways may it may be possible reduce the actual<BR>
> destructive violence.  One interesting theory is that exposure to<BR>
> representations of violence (art, music, movies, etc.) may be a<BR>
> sufficient outlet for these emotions.  Following this theory, in order<BR>
> to limit violence, this "Day of Peace" should encourage people to watch<BR>
> the most violent possible movies instead of actually hurting other<BR>
> people. <BR>
<BR>
A case in point:  I work in a very high-pressure software company (is that<BR>
redundant?), in which members of different groups often have grossly<BR>
different and frequently conflicting priorities, just due to how quickly<BR>
things change and management's inability to keep things coordinated.  As a<BR>
result, despite everyone doing their best, tensions and resentments can<BR>
run very high.<BR>
<BR>
So, several evenings a week, we all play Quake for a couple of hours.<BR>
Firing a salvo of rockets at fleeing members of the Marketing team has<BR>
calmed my nerves and soothed my anger many, many times.  It's hard to say<BR>
from obviously anecdotal evidence, but I think our Quaking has helped<BR>
significantly in making our company work better, and the people in it<BR>
happier with themselves and each other.<BR>
<BR>
It's hard for me to reconcile this with the view that violent video games<BR>
(and movies, and so forth) cause real violence.  I think it's more the<BR>
opposite.  After all, movies have never been bloodier, and ultra-violent<BR>
and realistic immersive games are new this decade, but violent crime in<BR>
America continues a precipitous multiyear decline.  And as others have<BR>
mentioned, in Japan, where the content is even more horrific, the society<BR>
is less violent.<BR>
<BR>
My take on the whole affair is that we are suffering from yet another side<BR>
effect of the all-seeing media eye.  These days, when a few whacked-out<BR>
kids shoot up their schools, all the world knows about every detail,<BR>
instantly, exhaustively, for weeks.  There's no escaping the story, and<BR>
the impression "kids are shooting up our schools" gets into the collective<BR>
psyche despite the fact that 99.99999% of our kids are in fact *not*<BR>
shooting up our schools.  A hundred years ago, there were mass murders in<BR>
rural America that make for stomach-churning reading, but few people knew<BR>
about them, and *nobody* outside the legal system knew as much about them<BR>
as we all would if they happened today.<BR>
<BR>
> This is not meant to be a flame.  I am simply trying to point out that such <BR>
> actions as eliminating violent movies may actually cause destructive <BR>
> violence.  After all, the goal isn't to eliminate all violent <BR>
> thoughts/deeds/emotions, it's to eliminate the destructive ones....<BR>
> <BR>
> For an amusing treatment of this theory, see Alan Dean Foster's "Quotzl".<BR>
<BR>
Or for a cheesier but also interesting take, the original Trek episode<BR>
featuring "the Red Hour" (shame on me, can't remember the title...god, I'm<BR>
slipping already). <BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net<BR>
 --*--  http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html<BR>
   |   "They do not preach that their God will rouse them<BR>
      a little before the nuts work loose." - Kipling<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:17:02 -0500 (EST)<BR>
From: Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca><BR>
Subject: Re: A Day of Peace<BR>
<BR>
This is way OT at this point, so this will be my final send to the list.<BR>
Replies are most welcome off-list.<BR>
<BR>
<Kiri><BR>
I do not care to have my reaction characterized as "knee-jerk" when I have<BR>
thought these issues through long before this piece of internet spam made<BR>
its way into my box, Charles.<BR>
</Kiri><BR>
<BR>
One can think things through thoroughly and still have knee-jerk<BR>
reactions.  I have thoroughly thought through many issues but still react<BR>
to them in a reflexive way.  I'm not accusing you of this, I wasn't<BR>
picking on anyone in particular, but it seemed to me that one person said<BR>
"Hey wouldn't a day without violence be a good idea?" and many responded<BR>
"You'll have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand!" or "I'll say<BR>
what I want when I want you tyrant!"  Non-sequitur, IMO.<BR>
<BR>
<Kiri><BR>
Violence is a part of the human nature.  I believe that by censoring it<BR>
you drive it into the underground where it can only come out even worse.<BR>
I'm not willing to do that even for one day.  I'm tired of the notion that<BR>
we can improve ourselves by cutting off bits.  Violence is necessary, it<BR>
</Kiri><BR>
<BR>
A couple of people have expressed this old catharsis idea.  The literature<BR>
on violence shows that "letting it out" can both reduce and cause<BR>
violence.  Also, "keeping it in" can have the same effect.  In short,<BR>
there is no clear relation one way or the other. Saying we need an outlet<BR>
is just a cop-out. Violence is most certainly _not_ necessary.  Many<BR>
cultures have survived for long periods with minimal violence.  The fact<BR>
that these cultures tend to get plowed under by others only says that the<BR>
universe is a tough place. But once you let your values drop and declare<BR>
that violence is okay because "it's natural" you open the door to just<BR>
about any behaviour.  Racism, rape and just about any evil act you can<BR>
think of can be justified as "natural" (whatever that means, since<BR>
all things are part of nature).<BR>
<BR>
<Kiri><BR>
is what impels us to defend our loved ones and family and selves when<BR>
required.  I am not anti-violence.  I am against the misuse of violence,<BR>
but I will never become the sort of person that is so against violence<BR>
that they'd allow their spouse to be raped, for example, rather than<BR>
fight.  Violent movies, for the most part, celebrate heroism-- the person<BR>
who endures violence in order to defend or help others.<BR>
</Kiri><BR>
<BR>
The fact that you consider rape wrong means that you are in fact<BR>
anti-violence.  Otherwise, what rule is their to condemn this act? <BR>
Because it is a "misuse of violence"?  What constitutes a "proper use of<BR>
violence"?  Maybe lynching the guy you think committed the rape?  This<BR>
sort of justification has led to all sorts of innocent death.  All<BR>
violence is a misuse of action.  Defending yourself is sometimes the best<BR>
course of action available, but that doesnt' make hurting your attacker a<BR>
"good thing".<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<Chris Seamans><BR>
If they did, it can't be blamed entirely on the audience. The piece itself<BR>
was written in the same "anonymous appeal" style that is all too popular<BR>
these days on the internet. It was written in a fashion that (almost<BR>
cleverly) hides its aims behind deliberately non-insulting "peace and<BR>
love"rhetoric.<BR>
</Chris><BR>
<BR>
Well, I'm not sure about this particular post, but the idea seems to be to<BR>
celebrate peace to me.  The way you celebrate family is to get them<BR>
together, the way you celebrate charity is to give gifts, the way to<BR>
celebrate peace is to practice it.  Watching violent shows on such a day<BR>
would be the equivalent of watching "Killing Zoe" on Xmas or watching "The<BR>
Krays" on Thanksgiving...<BR>
<BR>
<Chris><BR>
To make things even more confusing, there is no yard stick by which to<BR>
measure what is meant by "violent content", which is interesting since<BR>
what<BR>
does and what does not constitute "violent content" is still hotly<BR>
debated.<BR>
</Chris><BR>
<BR>
Well, clearly the yard-stick would be your own.  I mean that each person<BR>
could choose what they considered violent content.  A football game would<BR>
not qualify in my house, but might in others.<BR>
<BR>
<Chris><BR>
This has plenty to do with the First Amendment, since it advocates<BR>
"voluntary" censorship. Why would participation in this act have any<BR>
</Chris><BR>
<BR>
What's "voluntary cencorship"?  The capacity for _me_ to decide what _I_<BR>
will watch is what freedom of speech is all about isn't it?  Others have a<BR>
right to suggest what I should say, but I needn't obey them.  The "Day of<BR>
Peace" concept seems to me a perfectly reasonable suggestion.<BR>
<BR>
<Chris><BR>
The problem is that "anti-violence" in today's American vocabulary means<BR>
(if<BR>
you identify with the left) "anti-gun", or (if you identify with the<BR>
right)<BR>
"anti-free speech".<BR>
<BR>
This piece leaves us with the burning questions of what constitutes<BR>
"violent-content" and exactly what end this piece hopes to attain by the<BR>
actions it advocates.<BR>
</Chris><BR>
<BR>
So you're saying it's impossible to simply be anti-violence?  Again, I'm<BR>
not sure about your theories regarding ulterior motives here, but taken at<BR>
face value, the idea of a day to celebrate peace seems like a good one to<BR>
me.  Sorry you don't feel the same way.<BR>
<BR>
Charles C.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:44:21 -0500<BR>
From: "Jory Earl" <j-man@iname.com><BR>
Subject: Re: A Day of Peace<BR>
<BR>
>One can think things through thoroughly and still have knee-jerk<BR>
>reactions.  I have thoroughly thought through many issues but still react<BR>
>to them in a reflexive way<BR>
<BR>
All humans act in this manner, its genetic/instinctive; however not all<BR>
humans react in this manner all the time.  The science of General Semantics<BR>
addresses this issue.<BR>
<BR>
___________________________________________________________<BR>
 J-Man<BR>
 ICQ# 2843475<BR>
 New Hampshire - U.S.A.<BR>
 Email : j-man@iname.com<BR>
 Home Page : http://www.geocities.com/~jman037/<BR>
___________________________________________________________<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:38:18 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kiri Aradia Morgan <tiamat@tsoft.com><BR>
Subject: Re: A Day of Peace<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Charles Collin wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> <Kiri><BR>
> is what impels us to defend our loved ones and family and selves when<BR>
> required.  I am not anti-violence.  I am against the misuse of violence,<BR>
> but I will never become the sort of person that is so against violence<BR>
> that they'd allow their spouse to be raped, for example, rather than<BR>
> fight.  Violent movies, for the most part, celebrate heroism-- the person<BR>
> who endures violence in order to defend or help others.<BR>
> </Kiri><BR>
> <BR>
> The fact that you consider rape wrong means that you are in fact<BR>
> anti-violence.  Otherwise, what rule is their to condemn this act? <BR>
<BR>
The fact that it is a violent act which is not being committed in order to<BR>
defend oneself or someone else.  I believe that those are the right uses<BR>
of violent behavior.  I think that people who decide not to defend<BR>
themselves or their loved ones are complicit in what happens to them,<BR>
because they could have done something to stop it, but chose not to.<BR>
<BR>
> Because it is a "misuse of violence"?  What constitutes a "proper use of<BR>
> violence"?  Maybe lynching the guy you think committed the rape?  This<BR>
> sort of justification has led to all sorts of innocent death.  All<BR>
> violence is a misuse of action.  Defending yourself is sometimes the best<BR>
> course of action available, but that doesnt' make hurting your attacker a<BR>
> "good thing".<BR>
> <BR>
I very much disagree.  I don't think that we should be teaching people<BR>
that you can rape, kill, loot, misuse innocent people and nothing will<BR>
happen to you.  When you refuse to defend yourself and those who depend on<BR>
you, you are letting the world know that your own life and the lives of<BR>
those you love are not worth the discomfort to your conscience and stomach<BR>
that doing something about it would cost you.<BR>
<BR>
If someone comes into my house bent on harming me or my loved ones, I can<BR>
and WILL defend myself and those I love or go down fighting.  That way,<BR>
whatever happens, I'll know that I did my best to take care of myself and<BR>
the people I love.  And if my attacker gets hurt, maybe it will make him<BR>
think twice.  If my attacker gets killed, perhaps in his next life he'll<BR>
be more cautious.  Call it removal from the game for unnecessary<BR>
roughness.<BR>
<BR>
Violence is a part of human nature.  I believe that human nature is<BR>
basically good.  Violence, like all other parts of human nature, has its<BR>
place.  Rape and other acts of unwarranted violence are wrong; not because<BR>
they do or do not occur in the animal kingdom (you brought that up, not<BR>
me) but because we are intelligent enough to be the master of our nature<BR>
and to use all of its parts appropriately rather than suppressing them or<BR>
letting them run hog wild.<BR>
<BR>
I personally like human beings.  We are capable of horrific atrocity, but<BR>
show me an animal who can create so much beauty...<BR>
<BR>
Kiri<BR>
<BR>
******************************************************************************<BR>
Kiri Aradia Morgan                                  93!  Thou Art God<BR>
tiamat@tsoft.com<BR>
<BR>
"If time passes, everything turns into beauty<BR>
If the rains stop, tears clean the scars of memory away<BR>
Everything starts wearing fresh colors<BR>
Every sound begins playing a heartfelt melody<BR>
Jealousy embellishes a page of the epic<BR>
Desire is embraced in a dream..."              -- X-JAPAN <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:48:21 -0600<BR>
From: Loren Wiseman <lkw@io.com><BR>
Subject: UFO contact illegal?<BR>
<BR>
Gentle beings:<BR>
<BR>
I assume we have someone on the TML who is acquainted with legal web<BR>
searches and government regulations who can track this down for us? This<BR>
was recently sent to Steve Jackson:<BR>
<BR>
>This is interesting. It looks bogus, but then the government is full of<BR>
>idiots. I could not find any such law in the CFR web database, but that<BR>
>database is not exactly user-friendly, and the goober who wrote the article<BR>
>didn't use standard CFR notation. nybody want to surf a bit and see if<BR>
>there is<BR>
>something to this?<BR>
><BR>
>><BR>
>>Interesting story about it being illegal in your country to contact aliens.<BR>
>><BR>
>>http://www.crs4.it/~mameli/ALIEN/leggeUSA.html<BR>
<BR>
Any light that can be shed on this topic would be appreciated.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Loren Wiseman<BR>
     Art Director  / Traveller Line Editor<BR>
     Traveller Guru-in-Residence<BR>
     SJ Games<BR>
     LKW@IO.COM<BR>
     (512) 447-7866 VOX<BR>
     (512) 447-1144 FAX<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:41:20 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Niven Books<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> At 03:00 PM 11/1/1999 -0500, you wrote:<BR>
>>Hi all.  A little late on this, but I thought I'd note that Niven's latest<BR>
>>book, "Destiny's Road", takes place in the same universe as "The Integral<BR>
>>Trees", "The Smoke Ring" and "A World Out of Time".  DR is a pretty good<BR>
>>book, too!  Not his best, but with Niven that still puts it way ahead of<BR>
>>most of the crap out there.<BR>
><BR>
> Actually, we don't know if Destiny's Road (or it's two bretheren stories<BR>
> Legacy of Heorot and Beowulf's Children) are set in the State.  For one<BR>
> thing, the colonists in LoH used cold sleep to get to Tau Ceti, with some<BR>
> severe side effects, something that what's his name in AWooT didn't have to<BR>
> deal with.<BR>
<BR>
Actually, from statements in "Rammer", corpsicles are *not* revivable<BR>
with the tech available to "The State". They merely extracted his<BR>
memory RNA from the "mush" left by the freeze/thaw damage and dumped it<BR>
into a brainwiped criminal. He's *not* in his original body.<BR>
<BR>
But I seriously doubt that "The State" existed when the ships in<BR>
"Legacy of Heorot", "Beowulf's Children" and "Destiny's Road" were<BR>
launched. It may have sprung up *later* (which might explain the<BR>
communications breakdown), but given the way "The State" planned, I<BR>
don't see them abandoning those colonies. I think this is yet another<BR>
Niven universe. It's not like he didn't *already* have several!<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:25:16 -0700 (MST)<BR>
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU><BR>
Subject: Re: UFO contact illegal?<BR>
<BR>
This was listed on slashdot this weekend, and exposed as urban legend<BR>
almost immediately.<BR>
<BR>
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/10/30/1256237&mode=nested<BR>
<BR>
A big hint comes in the citation listed...it is in 'The Star', whihc is<BR>
basically the colorized version of 'The Weekly World News'. They have also<BR>
warned us about the Aliens advising the President, often with photographs!<BR>
<BR>
This is, however, only when he isn't heeding Elvis' advice.<BR>
<BR>
fnord<BR>
<BR>
Bruce Johnson<BR>
University of Arizona<BR>
College of Pharmacy<BR>
Information Technology Group<BR>
<BR>
Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Loren Wiseman wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Gentle beings:<BR>
> <BR>
> I assume we have someone on the TML who is acquainted with legal web<BR>
> searches and government regulations who can track this down for us? This<BR>
> was recently sent to Steve Jackson:<BR>
> <BR>
> >This is interesting. It looks bogus, but then the government is full of<BR>
> >idiots. I could not find any such law in the CFR web database, but that<BR>
> >database is not exactly user-friendly, and the goober who wrote the article<BR>
> >didn't use standard CFR notation. nybody want to surf a bit and see if<BR>
> >there is<BR>
> >something to this?<BR>
> ><BR>
> >><BR>
> >>Interesting story about it being illegal in your country to contact aliens.<BR>
> >><BR>
> >>http://www.crs4.it/~mameli/ALIEN/leggeUSA.html<BR>
> <BR>
> Any light that can be shed on this topic would be appreciated.<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> Loren Wiseman<BR>
>      Art Director  / Traveller Line Editor<BR>
>      Traveller Guru-in-Residence<BR>
>      SJ Games<BR>
>      LKW@IO.COM<BR>
>      (512) 447-7866 VOX<BR>
>      (512) 447-1144 FAX<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:25:16 -0700 (MST)<BR>
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU><BR>
Subject: Re: UFO contact illegal?<BR>
<BR>
This was listed on slashdot this weekend, and exposed as urban legend<BR>
almost immediately.<BR>
<BR>
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/10/30/1256237&mode=nested<BR>
<BR>
A big hint comes in the citation listed...it is in 'The Star', whihc is<BR>
basically the colorized version of 'The Weekly World News'. They have also<BR>
warned us about the Aliens advising the President, often with photographs!<BR>
<BR>
This is, however, only when he isn't heeding Elvis' advice.<BR>
<BR>
fnord<BR>
<BR>
Bruce Johnson<BR>
University of Arizona<BR>
College of Pharmacy<BR>
Information Technology Group<BR>
<BR>
Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Loren Wiseman wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Gentle beings:<BR>
> <BR>
> I assume we have someone on the TML who is acquainted with legal web<BR>
> searches and government regulations who can track this down for us? This<BR>
> was recently sent to Steve Jackson:<BR>
> <BR>
> >This is interesting. It looks bogus, but then the government is full of<BR>
> >idiots. I could not find any such law in the CFR web database, but that<BR>
> >database is not exactly user-friendly, and the goober who wrote the article<BR>
> >didn't use standard CFR notation. nybody want to surf a bit and see if<BR>
> >there is<BR>
> >something to this?<BR>
> ><BR>
> >><BR>
> >>Interesting story about it being illegal in your country to contact aliens.<BR>
> >><BR>
> >>http://www.crs4.it/~mameli/ALIEN/leggeUSA.html<BR>
> <BR>
> Any light that can be shed on this topic would be appreciated.<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> Loren Wiseman<BR>
>      Art Director  / Traveller Line Editor<BR>
>      Traveller Guru-in-Residence<BR>
>      SJ Games<BR>
>      LKW@IO.COM<BR>
>      (512) 447-7866 VOX<BR>
>      (512) 447-1144 FAX<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:36:15 +1000<BR>
From: david.d.jaques-watson@centrelink.gov.au<BR>
Subject: Re: Idea for honouring J. Andrew Keith<BR>
<BR>
Dear Folks -<BR>
<BR>
Andrew said:<BR>
>Up till now<BR>
>the name of the Terran ship that made first contact with Vilani has been<BR>
>given as the Starleaper I. As far as I can tell this name only appears in DGP<BR>
>material, which puts it very firmly into the forbidden canon...<BR>
<BR>
There was a later Challenge scenario that dealt with the PCs meeting a female<BR>
crewmember from that first contact ship. Supposedly she had gone through a<BR>
spatial misjump.<BR>
<BR>
For anyone at home with their references, was the first contact ship given a<BR>
name in the Challenge article?<BR>
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson        Beowulf Down (Tavonni/Vilis/SM 1520)<BR>
http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw                       davidjw@pcug.org.au<BR>
"I file things in historical order, with a hashing algorithm of gravity"<BR>
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
REQ'D DISCLAIMER - material & opinions contained within are solely those<BR>
of the author and do not necessarily represent, in whole or in part, the<BR>
position of Centrelink or any other Commonwealth Government agency.<BR>
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:09:00 -0500<BR>
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca><BR>
Subject: Re: Website revamped and Deckplans up<BR>
<BR>
>>Sorry, you've just lost me. I can only _run_ Netscape 2.0 (3.0 >crashes).<BR>
>><BR>
>>I don't see what's wrong with simple text and graphics, but it's your<BR>
>>website, not mine.<BR>
><BR>
>Rob, why not move to IE 5.0?  I finally had to dump Netscape because with<BR>
>every succeeding incarnation the code got sloppier and more crash-prone.<BR>
<BR>
Not enough memory.<BR>
<BR>
Call me a dinosaur, but I resolutely refuse to buy a new computer just to<BR>
surf the web. My LC III does quite nicely for everything I need, so I see<BR>
no need to upgrade. Andy's web site may be the cat's pajames, but I refuse<BR>
to believe it's worth several thousand dollars for a new computer system<BR>
(plus upgrading all my software to run on the new computer system).<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:13:48 -0500<BR>
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca><BR>
Subject: Re: Taxation (off topic then back on topic)<BR>
<BR>
>Ob Trav:  It appears that schools and universities are generally<BR>
>free in the OTU as well.  Otherwise, PC's would have the strong<BR>
>possibility of having outstanding loans after graduating.  Frankly,<BR>
>I think, a lot of us play the medical system as being pretty much<BR>
>free as well.  When's the last time you asked a PC for an insurance<BR>
>card or denied them medical care until they paid, or showed that<BR>
>they could pay for the care? <g><BR>
<BR>
I've let them die in the street on one planet, then assessed the estate for<BR>
cleaning fees (to get the blood out of the concrete). A _really_ nasty<BR>
trick is a planet where _everything_ is user-pay, right down to asking<BR>
directions (and that should have been a clue that medical care wouldn't be<BR>
provided on credit...).<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:21:37 -0500<BR>
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca><BR>
Subject: Re: [OT] One Day In Peace<BR>
<BR>
>Yes, it's obvious that our attempts to destroy Canadian society and turn<BR>
>it into a shadow of the United States have met with repeated failure.<BR>
>Our scientists continue to study methods of dealing with the Menace of<BR>
>the North.<BR>
<BR>
Comrade Hudson, our infiltration of the evil capitalist propaganda machine<BR>
is vorking. Zoon it vill be time for our zecret pre-emptive counterattack...<BR>
<BR>
And zey zuspect not'ing....<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:35:25 -0500<BR>
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca><BR>
Subject: Re: A Day of Peace<BR>
<BR>
>Many believe that humans have an intrinsic need for an outlet for violent<BR>
>emotions.  By releasing such emotions through violent but non-destructive<BR>
>ways may it may be possible reduce the actual destructive violence.  One<BR>
>interesting theory is that exposure to representations of violence (art,<BR>
>music, movies, etc.) may be a sufficient outlet for these<BR>
>emotions.  Following this theory, in order to limit violence, this "Day of<BR>
>Peace" should encourage people to watch the most violent possible movies<BR>
>instead of actually hurting other people.<BR>
<BR>
If this were true, there would be fewer fights after a sporting event, not<BR>
more.<BR>
<BR>
What seems to happen, according to Watson (in "Dark Nature"), is that the<BR>
folks who's team/boxer/whatever won go home happy, and the losers go home<BR>
and pick fights. (Note: this is a statistical thing, like hot weather, and<BR>
applies to groups not individuals). Vicariously winning seems to remove the<BR>
need to win in a conflict, vicariously losing leaves all the original<BR>
aggression entact.<BR>
<BR>
I strongly urge people to read "Dark Nature". I found it an excellent book<BR>
on the biological components of evil. Think of it as a cross between<BR>
science and philosophy. Even if you don't agree with Watson (and I do),<BR>
you'll get a lot of neat ideas for Traveller cultures out of it.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 18:46:19 -0500<BR>
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu><BR>
Subject: Re: A Day of Peace<BR>
<BR>
At 05:35 PM 11/1/99 -0500, you wrote:<BR>
>What seems to happen, according to Watson (in "Dark Nature"), is that the<BR>
>folks who's team/boxer/whatever won go home happy, and the losers go home<BR>
>and pick fights. (Note: this is a statistical thing, like hot weather, and<BR>
>applies to groups not individuals). Vicariously winning seems to remove the<BR>
>need to win in a conflict, vicariously losing leaves all the original<BR>
>aggression entact.<BR>
><BR>
>I strongly urge people to read "Dark Nature". I found it an excellent book<BR>
>on the biological components of evil. Think of it as a cross between<BR>
>science and philosophy. Even if you don't agree with Watson (and I do),<BR>
>you'll get a lot of neat ideas for Traveller cultures out of it.<BR>
<BR>
I can believe this.  However, this seems to be a further argument for <BR>
violent movies, at least for the kind in which the hero wins....<BR>
<BR>
           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
jg42@cornell.edu        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will<BR>
                          defend to the death your right to say it."<BR>
                                              -- Francois Marie Voltaire<BR>
#include <disclaimer.h> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"<BR>
                          			     -- Albert Einstein<BR>
for PGP public-key and<BR>
more quotes, http://gerfalcon.tzo.com/plan.htm<BR>
WWW Page: http://gerfalcon.tzo.com/                <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1291<BR>
***********************************<BR>
<BR>
To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:<BR>
<BR>
unsubscribe traveller-digest<BR>
<BR>
in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".<BR>
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is<BR>
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that<BR>
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe<BR>
"local-traveller":<BR>
<BR>
subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net<BR>
<BR>
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to<BR>
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"<BR>
in the commands above with "traveller".<BR>
<BR>
Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com<BR>
</XMP></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0f0f0f" BACK="#fffffe" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
<BR>
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------<BR>
Return-Path: <owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Received: from  rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (rly-yd02.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.2]) by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v62.15) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Nov 1999 18:50:52 -0500<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Nov 1999 18:50:34 -0400<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id SAA91549;<BR>
	Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:49:20 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:48:50 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id SAA91497<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:48:49 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:48:49 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199911012348.SAA91497@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Subject: Traveller-digest V1999 #1291<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
