I am running a small unix network that has had the privilage of running the absolutely flawless wordprocessing package put out by Word Perfect and have about reached wit's end with it. Has anyone had similar negative (or positive) experience with The Unix based version of Word Perfect. We have spent litterally thousands in third party service on this program due to Word Perfect's obnoxious lack of effective user support. And the system is still not dependable.
We are considering giving the package back and going with a totally new product. Does any one have any suggestions of unix based word processing programs that you have been at least satisfied with and perhaps very happy with?
We have had a number of deadlines delayed because of our inability to print among other things and we need to put and end to this.
So if you have WP on a Unix based system and have been satisfied maybe we could exchange notes.
|> I am running a small unix network that has had the privilage of |> running the absolutely flawless wordprocessing package put out by |> Word Perfect and have about reached wit's end with it. Has anyone |> had similar negative (or positive) experience with The Unix based |> version of Word Perfect. We have spent litterally thousands |> in third party service on this program due to Word Perfect's |> obnoxious lack of effective user support. And the system |> is still not dependable. |> |> We are considering giving the package back and going with a |> totally new product. Does any one have any suggestions of |> unix based word processing programs that you have been |> at least satisfied with and perhaps very happy with? |> |> We have had a number of deadlines delayed because of our |> inability to print among other things and we need to put |> and end to this. |> |> So if you have WP on a Unix based system and have been satisfied |> maybe we could exchange notes. |> |> Thanks in advance, |> |> Doug |> |>
Before you write WP off consider this...
I installed WP on a DG 88000 server for 20 users. It is not easy but do-able. First, WP uses their own printer scripts. It used an ENVIRONEMENT variable to tell if the print job is theirs or not. If not, is passed it to the original script. Also, WP has drivers for many printers. As far as terminals are concerned, WP has vt100, vt220, and wyse50/60 emulations. They were all used when I installed it. Use the program wpgen to adjust the configuration. Also, make sure the printers are usable before installing with lp/lpr.
Be more specific and maybe I can assist. Flaming about the package tells me you did not read the installation manual carefully and don't understand the UNIX spooler. Before you blast WP, take a look in the mirror and brush up on your own skills first.
- Rod.
-- Roderic D. Bennett | "A man's got to know his UNIX Specialist | limitations" - Academic Computing Center | University of Virginia | Dirty Harry (Clint) Internet: rd...@virginia.edu -or- rd...@holmes.acc.virginia.edu
In article <1992May15.153257.11...@samba.oit.unc.edu>, corb...@riddle.med.unc.edu (Doug Corbett) writes:
> So if you have WP on a Unix based system and have been satisfied > maybe we could exchange notes.
> Thanks in advance,
> Doug
We have used in the past, re: before "company policy",CrystalWriter and WordMarc word processor packages, both were easy to use and easy to maintain. After the company decided that we didn't have any idea what we were doing they mandated SAMNA, for our unix boxes, this didn't sit well with the users and was a real pain to set up.
Otherwise, I personally like NROFF, and vi, but then again...
------------------------ James F. Van Valkenburg a.k.a. "van" AT&T Attmail: !jfv j...@cbnewsk.att.com Atlanta, GA. Voice 404-493_5360 =========================================================================== ====
---- Standard Disclaimers included -- Just another grunt at AT&T ----
In article <1992May15.153257.11...@samba.oit.unc.edu>, corb...@riddle.med.unc.edu (Doug Corbett) writes: |> I am running a small unix network that has had the privilage of |> running the absolutely flawless wordprocessing package put out by |> Word Perfect and have about reached wit's end with it. Has anyone |> had similar negative (or positive) experience with The Unix based |> version of Word Perfect. We have spent litterally thousands |> in third party service on this program due to Word Perfect's |> obnoxious lack of effective user support. And the system |> is still not dependable. |> |> We are considering giving the package back and going with a |> totally new product. Does any one have any suggestions of |> unix based word processing programs that you have been |> at least satisfied with and perhaps very happy with? |> |> We have had a number of deadlines delayed because of our |> inability to print among other things and we need to put |> and end to this. |> |> So if you have WP on a Unix based system and have been satisfied |> maybe we could exchange notes. |> |> Thanks in advance, |> |> Doug
The mechanical engineering department up here has been running WP on their Sparc //s for quite some time now, and have had some problems. On several occasions, WP will just totally lock up the machine (the keyboard is locked, monitor is black, the internal drive light is on, and no one can rlogin in) resulting in having to cycle power. From what I understand, there is a bug in the kernal and I think that WP will ship you a fix.
---Jason
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Jason Gilchrist jmgil...@mtu.edu Mechanical Engineering Student/ME Consultant jgilc...@mtu.edu Michigan Tech University jmgil...@mtus5.BITNET Houghton, MI jmgil...@mtus5.cts.mtu.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
In article <1992May15.153257.11...@samba.oit.unc.edu> corb...@riddle.med.unc.edu (Doug Corbett) writes:
>I am running a small unix network that has had the privilage of >running the absolutely flawless wordprocessing package put out by >Word Perfect and have about reached wit's end with it. Has anyone >had similar negative (or positive) experience with The Unix based >version of Word Perfect. ... >We are considering giving the package back and going with a >totally new product. Does any one have any suggestions of >unix based word processing programs that you have been >at least satisfied with and perhaps very happy with? >We have had a number of deadlines delayed because of our >inability to print among other things and we need to put >and end to this. >So if you have WP on a Unix based system and have been satisfied >maybe we could exchange notes.
Well I have been less than happy with WP, I do have it running. My current project is to be able to print multiple WP documents from within a data-base. Don't know if we can make that one work properly. Works for root but not others.
While I don't care for WP, I have made is workable and running on non-standard terminals by copying and modifying the term descriptions using wpterm. The problem there is that there appear to be about dozen or so command that default and aren't in that file.
But it works. I have a couple of users cranking out a lot of stuff on it.
Have had lockkups but that appears to be the terminal problem. The biggest problem is that some user key-sequence will take the keypad out of application mode and into number mode.
At that point you are hosed. Our solution to that was to wire all the terminals to act like modems. The user, if in a document, waits until the automatic backup takes place - set at 5 minutes, poweroff the terminal causing a getty to be respawned, and retreives the timed backup.
I was just informed last week that we are going to try PC's in that environment with terminal emulation, as the terminals we are required to use don't have key-stroke sequence that match the manual - and the users don't/won't use the keyboard templates that match the functions. Only F6-F10 are useable on these terminals.
In short, WP is workable in a non-standard environment it you work at it a bit.
There aren't as many word processors out there now as a few have fallen by the wayside because of the "WordPerfect Syndrome".
This same installation used to use Lex by Ace Microsystems, distributed by Trajectory in the US. Some users want that back.
That has to be the most programmable word-processor I have ever seen. You can make it work with any terminal or printer if you have the specs. And you can write programs that do almost anything in it's internal language. But it is one of the stranges animals you will run into.
To do multiple column labels you generate single columns and then the system does cut and paste, and uses the screen area memory to do this, so it is all visible on the screen and slow. This wordprocessor is the father & grandfather of Unixplex and SCO's Lyrix.
There isn't a lot of choice out there.
Why not describe you system in detail, and your problem in detail, and then I suspect that there will be enough of us who have banged our heads on some arcane part of WP to be able to get you going. -- Bill Vermillion - b...@bilver.uucp - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
I have had the regrettable experience of being involved at a site trying to run WordPerfect (V5.0) on a SunOS and Ultrix network. The SunOS version works, just. It has some charming habits and a number of irritating bugs - resize the window and WorPer keeps dropping a line of the bottom until it shrinks back to the size it wants, it will rewrite the screen up to four times when one rewrite is required. We have yet to get an Ultrix version that works. We have however spent substantial staff time tracking down what is wrong. A bug, making the Ultrix program unusable, that we reported in December 1991 has yet to be fixed. The WordPerfect Corp internal communication appears to be almost non-existant as confusion usually reigns as to what is likely to happen, what has happened and what might be fixed.
I would give it back if I had my choice (but see my comments on 5.1 below). Island Graphics works a lot better and gives a WYSIWYG display. It doesn't have as many functions as WordPerfect but it is possible to work out how to use them and they work when you do. Other packages that may be good are Asterix and Rhapsody (no personal experience). Alis is very dated and, last time I looked at it (now some time back), Uniplex was also. The other packages that occour are publishing style - Interleaf, Framemaker and DECwrite.
It is possible that the 5.1 version may be OK. The Beta test seems to be a lot better and to have replaced most of the user hostile features. In fact, much as it pains me to say so, it may be a good product. Support - well that probably is still a worry. This will be available on SunOS real soon now but WordPerfect seems to have a very long product development/porting cycle so don't hold your breath.
In article <1992May15.153257.11...@samba.oit.unc.edu> corb...@riddle.med.unc.edu (Doug Corbett) writes:
>We are considering giving the package back and going with a >totally new product. Does any one have any suggestions of >unix based word processing programs that you have been >at least satisfied with and perhaps very happy with?
Whatever you do, do not get Uniplex.
We dream of having Wordperfect problems - at least the underlying word processor is not as horrible as the one on Uniplex! -- Thomas Farmer | tfar...@datamark.co.nz or | Love is a bucketful Datamark Intl Ltd | tfar...@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz | of still warm beagles. Technical Writer | +64-4-233-8186 (work) | & Dos Wrangler | +64-4-479-6306 (home) | Share and Enjoy
In article 11...@samba.oit.unc.edu, corb...@riddle.med.unc.edu (Doug Corbett) writes:
>I am running a small unix network that has had the privilage of >running the absolutely flawless wordprocessing package put out by >Word Perfect and have about reached wit's end with it. Has anyone >had similar negative (or positive) experience with The Unix based >version of Word Perfect.
>We have had a number of deadlines delayed because of our >inability to print among other things and we need to put >and end to this.
We evaluated WP on our Sun network and found it to be woefully lacking. As the administrator for the network, most frustrating for me was WP's use of its own printing system. It is the biggest flaw in the whole system, in my opinion. I have enough trouble keeping the 2 dozen printers we have distributed via terminal servers and a WAN from frustrating my users - I don't need WP to throw a whole new set of problems at me.
The other thing that was disliked by my users was the lack of WYSIWYG in WP. It seemed to be just another MS-DOS product that, like Lotus, was ported kicking and screaming over to UNIX, with limited success.
We went with Island Graphics Write, Draw & Paint.
=========================================================================== ==== Joe Hartley | j...@cadre.com - Whenever you find that you are on the Cadre Technologies | side of the majority, it is time to reform. - M. Twain 222 Richmond St. | -------------------------------------------------------- Providence, RI 02903 | Overman 1st Class - the Kilgore Trout Memorial Clench (401) 351-5950 x266 | of the Church of the SubGenius =========================================================================== ====
corb...@riddle.med.unc.edu (Doug Corbett) writes: >I am running a small unix network that has had the privilage of >running the absolutely flawless wordprocessing package put out by >Word Perfect and have about reached wit's end with it.
While we have no real experience in networked UNIX boxes using WP, we do install a number of such packages in a regular UNIX (shared CPU) environment on SCO based platforms. We have up to 30 user systems installed in legal offices that do lots and lots of WP. They have wy60 and PCs as terminals.
Our users would scream bloody murder if their systems didn't do as advertised. We have also found several systems that were installed by non-expert (except for the shingle) people who literally drove the users into a throw-the-damn-thing-out mode. It does seem to have something to do with how much you know about the product. WP seems to work just fine if you know how to install it properly. Perhaps you should look for a new vendor in your area who knows enough about the product to make it work properly?
Fred
-- Fred Rump | 'A little learning is a dangerous thing/Drink deep CompuData, Inc. | or taste not the Pierian spring' Alexander Pope 10501 Drummond Rd. | SCO Advanced Product Center Philadelphia, Pa. 19154| Internet: f...@COMPU.COM (215-824-3000)
In article <1992May18.142916.3...@fripp.ri.cadre.com> j...@cadre.com writes: >We evaluated WP on our Sun network and found it to be woefully lacking. As >the administrator for the network, most frustrating for me was WP's use of >its own printing system. It is the biggest flaw in the whole system, in >my opinion.
Jeez, if you're going to complain about something, make the beef legitimate. Complaining because you don't understand a particular feature, or don't know (or are willing to take the time to learn) it or why it exists, is no excuse.
>I have enough trouble keeping the 2 dozen printers we have >distributed via terminal servers and a WAN from frustrating my users - I don't >need WP to throw a whole new set of problems at me.
A whole new set of problems? Give me a break.
The WP print queue exists for a reason very distinct from the UNIX print queue. Some print jobs want to print letterhead on the first page, blank paper on subsequent pages, yet your printer has only one bin. Or you want to print a legal-sized document on a printer that normally holds letter size. Whatever.
To someone with a religious attachment to the UNIX way of doing things, the WP print system is indeed strange. It took about four separate installations until we really got the hang of it. But now it works just fine everywhere we've put it.
Maybe there's some advantage buying WP (or any software product) from someone who has some experience with it. That may ease the unavoidable frustration encountered when working with something that doesn't make all the assumptions that you do.
>The other thing that was disliked by my users was the lack of WYSIWYG in WP. >It seemed to be just another MS-DOS product that, like Lotus, was ported >kicking and screaming over to UNIX, with limited success.
>We went with Island Graphics Write, Draw & Paint.
It's a legitimate beef that WP has no GUI support to speak of, though that's in the works. On a system using mainly character terminals, it's a reasonable compromise between the limited capabilities of most terminals, and the substantially greater capabilities of most printers.
-- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario e...@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504 Sunday In Ontario: you can lose your shirt gambling, but you can't buy a new one
e...@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >It's a legitimate beef that WP has no GUI support to speak of, though >that's in the works. On a system using mainly character terminals, it's >a reasonable compromise between the limited capabilities of most >terminals, and the substantially greater capabilities of most printers.
Our WP5.0 for sun has a motif version that is WYSIWIG for the layout, though it won't display pictures in your editing window, just boxes.
-- Eric Brunson These opinions are mine alone, e...@vistachrome.com but they could be yours for a low monthly fee! "He's a genius, eh, he hooked up our stereo."
>>We evaluated WP on our Sun network and found it to be woefully lacking. As >>the administrator for the network, most frustrating for me was WP's use of >>its own printing system. It is the biggest flaw in the whole system, in >>my opinion.
>Jeez, if you're going to complain about something, make the beef >legitimate. Complaining because you don't understand a particular >feature, or don't know (or are willing to take the time to learn) it or >why it exists, is no excuse.
>The WP print queue exists for a reason very distinct from the UNIX print >queue. Some print jobs want to print letterhead on the first page, >blank paper on subsequent pages, yet your printer has only one bin. Or >you want to print a legal-sized document on a printer that normally >holds letter size. Whatever.
So just load the printer with one page of letterhead and the rest blank.
Since administering the network the word processor is to run on is my "second" job which I do in my spare time (all 2 minutes per week!), I didn't have time to determine if the reasoning behind the WP print queues was valid. I had enough trouble getting it installed without doing analysis as well. I have installed a number of programs on this network now, including Interleaf, Island WD&P, Wingz, Lotus, Informix RDBMS and the Minx accounting/MRP system. None were as difficult to install as WP (although Lotus 1.0 came awful close - it got better in 1.1). I think I've got a legitimate beef here.
[stuff deleted]
> To someone with a religious attachment to the UNIX way of doing things, > the WP print system is indeed strange. It took about four separate > installations until we really got the hang of it. But now it works just > fine everywhere we've put it.
Four installations? And you don't have a problem with that???
>>The other thing that was disliked by my users was the lack of WYSIWYG in WP. >>It seemed to be just another MS-DOS product that, like Lotus, was ported >>kicking and screaming over to UNIX, with limited success.
>>We went with Island Graphics Write, Draw & Paint.
>It's a legitimate beef that WP has no GUI support to speak of, though >that's in the works. On a system using mainly character terminals, it's >a reasonable compromise between the limited capabilities of most >terminals, and the substantially greater capabilities of most printers.
We're looking at a product strictly for workstation users, so the terminal capability is a non-feature to us.
It just goes to show that different people are willing to put up with different things. That's why there's more than one text processing package available!
=========================================================================== ==== Joe Hartley | j...@cadre.com - Whenever you find that you are on the Cadre Technologies | side of the majority, it is time to reform. - M. Twain 222 Richmond St. | -------------------------------------------------------- Providence, RI 02903 | Overman 1st Class - the Kilgore Trout Memorial Clench (401) 351-5950 x266 | of the Church of the SubGenius =========================================================================== ====
In <1992May22.123100.4...@homebase.vistachrome.com> e...@homebase.vistachrome.com (Eric Brunson) writes:
>e...@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >>It's a legitimate beef that WP has no GUI support to speak of, though >>that's in the works. On a system using mainly character terminals, it's >>a reasonable compromise between the limited capabilities of most >>terminals, and the substantially greater capabilities of most printers. >Our WP5.0 for sun has a motif version that is WYSIWIG for the layout, though >it won't display pictures in your editing window, just boxes.
My WP 1.0.1 (5.0+ compatible) for the NeXT has a real fine GUI. It will also display any EPS, TIFF or WPG picture which you can drag-and-drop. These pictures can be seen and moved and resized as you wish. WP is not my favourite wordprocessor, but the NeXT version is bearable. -- wie...@ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda) || I speak for myself and not for my employer. (+31) 2154 84415/(+31) 35 833539 || Support the League for Programming Freedom! "If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there." Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland".
JH>We evaluated WP on our Sun network and found it to be woefully lacking. As JH>the administrator for the network, most frustrating for me was WP's use of JH>its own printing system. It is the biggest flaw in the whole system, in JH>my opinion.
EL>The WP print queue exists for a reason very distinct from the UNIX print EL>queue. Some print jobs want to print letterhead on the first page, EL>blank paper on subsequent pages, yet your printer has only one bin. Or EL>you want to print a legal-sized document on a printer that normally EL>holds letter size. Whatever.
EL>To someone with a religious attachment to the UNIX way of doing things, EL>the WP print system is indeed strange. It took about four separate EL>installations until we really got the hang of it. But now it works just EL>fine everywhere we've put it.
That's interesting. SCO Lyrix is set up similarly here. We never need to print legal-size documents, but when we print on letterhead, our Laserjet pauses when appropriate and says "Feed Letter." Our print spooler? [Turns and gives the camera a big smile] Unix's own lp. I can cancel any print job I want, Lyrix or not, without having to go into Lyrix and use any clunky menus.
The catch is, Lyrix interposes an extra level between the word processor proper and the spooler; to our secretaries, it looks like they have several printers, with names like "laser-ltrhead" and "laser-envelope". But buried in the configuration files is the command line to use to get to the printer, "lp -d laser".
I don't know anything about WordPerfect. Perhaps they do something similar?
jh doesn't seem to have a "religous" attachment to lp to me. lp is a standard. Standards help developers to write their programs so that they don't collide with other programs on the system. Letterhead handling seems a petty reason to deviate so wildly. I think they'd probably have to come up with some pretty bizarre features to get something that couldn't be handled in the printer's shell script. (isn't /usr/spool/lp/admins/lp/interfaces a silly- sounding path?) Forgive me if other Unixes differ.
If WordPerfect REALLY and TRULY implements an entirely new print spooler, it would probably require a printer dedicated to WordPerfect, wouldn't it? Our accounting system couldn't share it, because it uses the UNIX spooler, y'see? That would be too inefficient for us.
JH>The other thing that was disliked by my users was the lack of WYSIWYG in WP. JH>It seemed to be just another MS-DOS product that, like Lotus, was ported JH>kicking and screaming over to UNIX, with limited success.
I've run across this before, and it seems to be fairly typical of MS-DOS ports. DOS programmers are so used to having to do everything themselves that they tend to want to reinvent the wheel when they do a Unix port.
One of the more miserable DOS transplants on our system brazenly assumes a 25-line screen. Useless over ProComm, useless on a Qume, useless on a true-blue VT102, or anything that only has 24 lines.
An especially silly communications package that will remain nameless looks at the first character or two of the TERM variable to determine the terminal type. If it doesn't recognize you as a wyse, at386, or xterm, it assumes you have a VT100. Completely useless on anything wierd. It doesn't mess with termcap, and so doesn't realize that my wyse clone has a meta key. (Okay, okay, here I'm just complaining. Sorry.)
In article <1992May22.133004.6...@fripp.ri.cadre.com> j...@cadre.com writes: >In article 4...@telly.on.ca, e...@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >>In article <1992May18.142916.3...@fripp.ri.cadre.com> j...@cadre.com writes: >>The WP print queue exists for a reason very distinct from the UNIX print >>queue. Some print jobs want to print letterhead on the first page, >>blank paper on subsequent pages, yet your printer has only one bin. Or >>you want to print a legal-sized document on a printer that normally >>holds letter size. Whatever. >So just load the printer with one page of letterhead and the rest blank.
Oh no! That doesn't work in the real world. I don't know how many times I've seen that happen in the areas that don't have dual sheet printers.
A person will put in a sheet of letterhead, go to their terminal, and in the meantime someone else has printed something, and gotten the letterhead, and have had to reprint because the letterhead obscures their report, while the person who put in the letterhead has do the job again because it all came out on white paper.
And then there are the times that someone needs to do a couple of multi-page jobs, so they interleave the paper. And in a system that uses a spooler, and the jobs are cued separately someone else gets a job interleaved, and it starts all over again.
My objection to WPs way of handling the spooler (and maybe I'm missing something here) is that it permits you to cancel on page by page basis, just like the standalone. That makes it run much slower - or something is making it slower. For all the other aps you can print something and walk to the printer and have the job printing by the time you get there. Doing the same with WP means you go to the printer, and then you wait awhile before first page, then you have pauses between pages.
It's slow, but it does work. But not the way I'd like it to.
>It just goes to show that different people are willing to put up with different >things. That's why there's more than one text processing package available!
The problem is that there appears to be WP packages available now than a couple of years ago. The 'WP Syndrome' has caused a couple to disappear.
-- Bill Vermillion - b...@bilver.uucp - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
In article <1992May22.133004.6...@fripp.ri.cadre.com> j...@cadre.com writes: >In article 4...@telly.on.ca, e...@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >> To someone with a religious attachment to the UNIX way of doing things, >> the WP print system is indeed strange. It took about four separate >> installations until we really got the hang of it. But now it works just >> fine everywhere we've put it.
>Four installations? And you don't have a problem with that???
He's probably religiously attached to the DOS way of doing things: machines crashing several times a day, reinstalling corrupted software, etc.
P.S. If your looking for a good package, get FrameMaker. It's as cheap as WP for Unix, and it's a billion times better. It's even available for MS Windows now, although why you would want to punish yourself like that, I'll never know :-)
-- /*************** pjan...@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Philip J. Anglin) **************/ /* Disclaimer: My employer doesn't speak for me, and I don't speak for them. */ /* Views expressed are mine alone... Boy, are they ever! ;-) */ /* Cute Quote: "Intel: Putting the 'backward' in 'backward compatibility'." */
I have no experience of WP on UNIX. We got IslandWrite, Draw and Paint version 2.1 for HP9000 series 300/400 and were very disapointed with the reliability. The software seemed very promising in its graphics support and facilities but it just kept going wrong. We evaluated version 3.0 but this added more facilities, went slower and still had several bugs. From seeing SUN users comments I think IG just dont put enough effort in the HP specific bits.
After Island we got FrameMaker 3.0. This has many more document and text management facilities and a particularly good table facility. The graphics integration is not quite as flash as Island but it works. This package is fast and reliable. -- Steve Fosdick Post: Room 210, B67, BT Labs, E-mail: ste...@aom.bt.co.uk Martlesham Heath, Tel: +44 473 642987 IPSWICH IP5 7RE Fax: +44 473 644607 England
We've been using WordPerfect on a Starserver S for about four months now, and we're pretty happy with it. It's much easier to use than our previous package, Crystal DMS on a 3B2/400.
About the only quirky part to it is its method of handling parallel columns -- it doesn't seem to handle page breaks well...
A definite improvement over the previous package is that a document's layout on the screen accurately reflects (though not true WYSIWYG) what will be printed, even in postscript.
We never had to go through "four installations"; one was enough for us.
Adam Andrews -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Adam Andrews "When the going gets weird, we get even weirder." uunet!rexago8!aa or a...@rexago8.UUCP -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Adam Andrews "When the going gets weird, we get even weirder." uunet!rexago8!aa or a...@rexago8.UUCP
