#Is collecting proper?
33 messages in this thread
Hi, folks–
One forum member CISmailed me an opinion that mineral/fossil collecting on
public lands in some sense resembles stealing from the public. He evidently
felt this opinion would not be too popular here where collectors hang out,
which may be true to a point, but the message in question would have been
welcome here as far as I am concerned anyway. It is reasonable to discuss what
the difference might be; if nothing else it gives us something to talk about,
and it might keep some of us from getting too complacent in our views.
Picking over the dump of a privately-owned or claimed mine without permission
from the owner is indeed burglary and theft, and may get you shot at,
deservedly.
Public lands are a bit different. I figure if the majority of the people (the
owners of the land) choose to make collecting illegal there, then it is
improper. If the people do not choose to make it illegal, there is no theft.
Should the people choose to forbid collecting? Since I am an amateur collector
myself, no one should be surprised if I think collecting should not be banned
entirely.
I do prefer that there be limits. No collecting in a national park is a
reasonable limit, and I observe that rule, though I have been tempted.
Vertebrate fossil collecting might reasonably require licensing, to insure the
site information is not lost for important finds. But the Baucus bill has
language that could let a bureaucrat deny a license for no good reason, which
carries it too far in my mind.
But the government owns a large fraction of the western states, and there are
people who would like to seal off most or all of that land to almost any use.
Some of these people belabor the government so it responds without having heard
from those of us with other views, and bit by bit move the law toward their
end, which is why I have lately been mentioning the ALAA often – it is a voice
for the collector viewpoint, taking positions not far from what I am outlining
here, as near as I can tell.
Conservation of lands is a worthy cause; I want future generations to have some
wild places to visit. But not if I can visit none of those places myself. And
I do not want to see mining shut off – the economy would go also. If my
generation cannot use public lands, why should any generation be allowed to?
Who, then, would we be saving it for?
If I remove a specimen from a public land, everyone else had his/her chance to
find it or a similar one before I got there, and will have plenty of other
chances after I leave. Those specimens removed are generally not lost forever;
they keep turning up in displays, estates, gifts. I was not hooked on
mineralogy by something I ran across in the wild places; it was a collection of
specimens given me by my grandfather, as best I recall. That collection might
have been much more expensive and less inclusive had all public lands been
sealed to collectors long ago; without commercial collectors, I might never
have received it at all. A museum display might have done the job of capturing
my attention, but most people do not visit a museum as often as a youngster
might look at his/her collection. Museum displays are not as effective for
everyone (kids are more likely to learn from "hands on" things, a phrase I hear
mostly from educators). I want these wonders to be seen and handled by future
generations, not all of them buried forever!
Science owes a lot to amateur collectors, and even to commercial collectors,
who may give more than they take as far as science goes. Exposed specimens will
often weather away, never to be seen by anyone, if there are no legions of
collectors out there looking for them. The knowledgeable collectors spot
things that need attention by the scientists. Without collecting activity,
there would be no opportunities to spot these things, and no knowledgeable
collectors to spot them.
I invite those who disagree with me, in part or in toto, to come forward and
make their views more clear. This is not meant to be a collectors-only forum.
–Doug
Doug
Lapidary Journal has been covering this issue to some extent for
several issues, most recently making the point that amateur
collectors in some cases are the only viable source of manpower to
locate and preserve fossils erroding out and being destroyed by
exposure to the elements.
The corollary issue of commercial collecting for profit is IMO
debatable, but to block all access is a frightening prospect to say
the least!
I couldn't agree more that it's critical to be responsible and careful with our
environment but to shut it down is patently absurd.
-Russ
Hi, Russ–
I quite agree!
This subject is getting a stiffer debate in the Internet rocks-and-fossils
mail-list – I may be preaching to the converted, mostly, here, but there are
definitely some people not yet converted over there. I uploaded RM0006.ARC
recently, but most of the action will be in RM0007.ARC this Sunday.
–Doug
The "tragedy of the commons" is an important economic and political concern.
It says that any good, be it land or health insurance, that is free for all to
use will eventually be ruined because no one person regards it with the same
concern as if it were their own.
From this perspective, it does explain why Yosemite will eventually be paved to
make way for RV parking lots. 🙂
As a fossil collector, I'll second that concern that without regular
collecting, many fossils will weather away. I have a friend in Montana who saw
large dino bones hanging from a weathering shoreline on a lake on public land.
He alerted the authorities, but by the end of summer, the bones had melted
away.
I'm a big fan of the approach taken by groups like the Nature Conservancy. If
you think something should be protected, buy it and protect it the way you
like. This might include harvesting the fossils that are exposed this year, or
it might mean putting a non-invasive foot path through the property, or it
might mean doing nothing at all. I sincerely think we'd be better off if the
government sold the immense public lands in the West. The Sierra Club's
donations for a single year could buy up all the old-growth forest left in the
Northwest, if that was their priority.
One of the best sites for collecting trilobites in the Milwaukee area was an
old quarry. The city of Milwaukee used it as a landfill and the fossil strata
was covered around 1989. If you ever see a trilobite for sale that says
"Hartung Quarry, Milwaukee" on it, rest assured it was collected many years
ago.
Hi, John
> I'm a big fan of the approach taken by groups like the Nature Conservancy.
Hear, Hear! I've been a Landmark member for several years. I like the work
they do – no chaining oneselves to old growth trees, just buy the forest.
BTW, I've been hearing the scuttlebut about shutting down the use of dredges
for collecting gold, presumably due to siltation of fish spawning areas.
Here is an interesting counterpoint. Prime Sports Network has been running
infommercials by an outfit calling themselves Gold Prospecters Association
of America. GPAA has been showing scenes where the dredges have been
recovering free mercury that was lost by the old-time gold miners. In most
cases the mercury was so loaded with gold that it wouldn't even roll around
in the pan! GPAA claims that they are helping clean up the environment by
getting this pollutant out of the streams. I would appreciate comments about
this point. BTW2, they have been removing lead shot pellets also.
Regards, Guy
Hi, Guy and John–
I agree also that Nature Conservancy is a far better approach to conservation
than lobbying for laws. Laws are prone to backfiring or clobbering innocent
bystanders.
I would be very interested to know how often/much mercury and lead are picked
up by gold miners. One wonders what it would cost to remove them without help
from gold miners. They could serve as good ammunition for use in defending
against the more dangerous bills.
I remember an article about cases where the "tragedy of the commons" principle
can actually work in reverse; I'll keep an eye out for it.
–Doug
Doug, Russ, John, and others,
On America On Line, a member called "Pete22309" (who in an earlier message said
he was a geologist working at the Smithsonian) made similar comments about
collecting in the wilds as being possibly improper. He also commented on the
fact that geologists are now recognizing that they typically should be very
protective of outcrops (its the only data available) and should only take
readings and take samples only when absolutely necessary. That thinking is like
the prestent bill in Congress to turn most of Idaho into a designated
Wilderness area. Some of these people have no grasp of the real world.
Very little real damage is done by most mineral, gem, and fossil collecting. On
a site by site basis, one can find examples where a significant(?) amount of
land has been "damaged", but all in all, this is minor and probably
insignificant compared to the expanse of land we have. Afterall, we disturb
many times more than that each year just building shopping malls!
All these rockhounding activities are enjoyed by thousands of individuals and
families each year. We shouldn't take this really fun activity away from the
public. If you don't like, and don't want to do it, then don't, but please
don't tell me I have to stop. I live for it. And I won't tell you we should
plant trees in and rehabilitate your ski runs or remove your condo from the
lake. We all have our impacts on the lands, public and private.
Please don't sell the public lands. They are the only access we have. Private
land owners often don't allow us to even walk across their lands. The public
lands should continue to belong to the people, and they should be managed for
multiple use. There are some very good regulations and laws in effect now to
keep people in line and prevent destruction and waste. We don't need to kick
people off the land.
Minerals belong to the people, let us find them and look at them, and study
them. I've noticed that as a group, mineral, gem and fossil collectors are
great teachers. We have symposiums and shows, and share our information and
teach. I am presently packaging up two bunches of minerals I have found to send
to school kids who have requested them for their classes. They don't have many
supplies (budget problems) and I have material to send a student in a school in
Morristown,TN and another in a school in South Gate, CA.
Some people complain about destruction and rock hogs, etc. Definitely there are
problems, but remember, even commercial collectors are not taking mineral, gem
or fossil specimens for their own selfish use, they are producing the specimens
that others who are not collecting them in the field can buy to satisfy their
intersts.
Nough said for now.
Lanny
Lanny,
Your points are well taken. What good does it do a geologist to leave an
outcrop untouched so that delicate minerals within are lost to weathering each
year? (That's not really a guestion, people.) What difference does it make
if rocks are broken off an outcrop by mere amateur rockhounds or if they fall
off from the effects of freezing ground water, etc.
Your point about rock collectors serving the community as teachers is a good
advocacy rejoinder to the nature uber alles folk. Most people are not going
into the field to collect and so they learn from museums and elsewhere. These
days, however, many museums have cut back severely on mineral displays. Snail
darters get much higher billing at museums of natural history. Furthermore,
museums rarely have micromineral displays. (The Carnegie's is pretty feeble,
and it's the exception that proves the rule.) Amateur mineral collectors thus
fill a big void. When I set up a scope at our town's local science fair, the
exhibit generated a lot of interest. I have routinely taken local cub scout
dens on collecting trips, and I have given presentations to them on basic
geology and mineralogy.
We who collect ought to be quite outspoken against this insanity that
suggests that collecting is improper. Most minerals can't be appreciated in
the form in which they are found in the field. Usually, excavation, removal,
cleaning, trimming, mounting, etc., are necessary to give the armchair
naturalist the thrill of seeing a well-formed mineral specimen.
Doug, sometimes you hear a suggestion that is so perverse, that you know
it's wrong even before you can articulate all the reasons. This one is off
the wall, and it scares me that people would take it seriously.
The debate reminds me of a fine geologist at Franklin and Marshall (who
often leads field trips in SE Pennsylvania) who pointed out that the earth
feels no pain when we excavate a quarry. The quarry is quickly (in geologic
time) assimilated into the earth's superficial features, and while it is
visible, often provides tremendous insights into the geology, stratigraphy, and
mineralogy of the earth. The point is that commercial exploitation of the
earth is not inconsistent with advancing our understanding of earth science.
Amateur mineral or fossil collecting is not inconsistent with preserving
wildlife or important geologic features, whether on private or public land.
Nathan
NS> Your points are well taken. What good does it do a geologist to
NS> leave an outcrop untouched so that delicate minerals within are lost
NS> to weathering each year? (That's not really a guestion, people.)
NS> What difference does it make if rocks are broken off an outcrop by
NS> mere amateur rockhounds or if they fall off from the effects of
NS> freezing ground water, etc.
Reminds me of the old Charlie Brown series where Lucy Van Pelt runs around for
several strips telling people to stop walking off the sidewalks because the
earth would erode away to nothing if they didn't. <g> Some people don't
understand ….
Yours in freedom,
-=< Angus Scott-Fleming >=-
GeoApplications
Tucson, Arizona
* TANSTAAFL * Punk rock: outcrop with attitude.
Hi, Nathan–
You and Lanny have given me more ammunition in case the opposition in
rocks-and-fossils gets tougher, especially when it comes to giving a break to
miners and commercial collectors. The quarry as a source of scientific info is
a good image; I had spoken of how amateurs help scientists, but not how miners
do – I should have known from the way they give us collectors a lot (even if we
may have to wait until they abandon the mine).
–Doug
Hi, Lanny–
If you run across any groups of geologists and/or collectors on other services
like America On-Line, I would be interested to know of it. I like to collect
info on all sorts of computer aids for rockhounds, so I can steer others toward
what they want/need.
I agree with almost everything you said, though I will remark I am not sure a
sell-off of some public lands would necessarily be terrible for collectors.
Bear in mind the collectors could gang up and buy many collecting sites.
Alliances could be formed among many types of users of the lands to buy large
quantities and keep them open for assorted uses. At least no one would be as
easily able to pass laws to forbid collecting on the sold lands.
–Doug
Doug,
Have you heard of GeoInfoNet? The number is 916-327-1208. This Mustang Board
has a large group of Geology sigs all echoed to this board. They have Usenet,
Cavenet, etc. In fact I have considered calling this board instead of using
Delphi for Internet.
Rgds,
Jeff Coon
24-Mar-94 at 7:45a EST
Traverse City, Michigan
Hi, Jeff–
That sounds like the GeoInfo which Angus described in GEOINF.* in the library
of this forum. Having noted no number near me in OK, I am guessing it would
not be an economical way for me to deal with the Internet; I am still figuring
to get organized with Delphi soon, and after exploring, study GeoInfo. Thank
you for giving me a notion of an alternative; I did not know what a usenet was
(and still have a fuzzy idea) when I read GEOINF.*, and thus had not picked up
on the notion of using a GeoInfo node as a full gateway into the Internet. I
hear rumors CIS is already beta-testing expanded Internet access.
–Doug
Doug,
I'm not sure that we are talking about the same board. I'll have to try and
read Geoinf.* again. Geoinfonet is a board funded and maintained by the State
of Califorinia Department of Natural Resources (Thats not actually the name of
the dept. but I can't remember). I don't remember any other nodes like the one
on the Gif file.
Anyway this board is not an access point for Internet, but it has most of the
newsgroups that you would go to Internet for including Usenet. And these boards
are all ready echoed to one place. You can also automate, so even though you
are calling California it may be cheaper than a commercial service. I'll let
you know more about it as I find my way around.
I just bought a new computer and am having difficulty logging on to anything!
Cheers,
Jeff Coon
25-Mar-94 at 6:58a EST
Traverse City, Michigan
P.S. I am glad to see the increased traffic on this forum.
Hi, Jeff–
I searched GEOINF.ZIP's text files for the phone number you gave and found it
in HUBS.TXT; it is a part of that same GeoInfo network.
Since my CIS use is fully automated, I do not expect long distance rates could
beat it even with automation, except maybe at the highest modem speeds (I see
the phone number you gave is the fast 14400 bps rate; I am still using a 2400
bps modem)
My laptop's built in modem connects easily from most phones, but from my
apartment the connection is "dirty" unless I power-on an external modem my
desktop computer has or unplug it from the phone line. I am guessing I have
too many things connected to the phone line and it has a feebler power than in
CA, so the line voltage is dropping too low. You might try disconnecting
something, as your new computer's modem might have been the last straw.
–Doug
Doug,
>> I searched GEOINF.ZIP's text files for the phone number you gave and
>> found it in HUBS.TXT; it is a part of that same GeoInfo network.
Thats good to know. I'll use one of the closer numbers. >> Since my CIS use is
fully automated, I do not expect long distance
>> rates could beat it even with automation, except maybe at the highest
>> modem speeds (I
I was talking about using GeoInfonet as an alternative to another commercial
service that you would sign up for Internet access. I just quit Delphi as I
wasn't happy with the connect speeds or the front end program. The only reason
I want Internet right now is to access sci.geo.geology in the usenet.
You can get the various usenet groups along with cavenet and bravnet(sp?) from
GeoInfoNet. I have to figure out where I can get a program to automate the BBS
though. D-lite for Delphi was very clumsy. I may try Netcomm as a commercial
provider of Internet. I wish that CIS would get there act together in this
regard!
Cheers,
Jeff Coon
27-Mar-94 at 8:55a EST
Traverse City, Michigan
P.S. I am following the Mineral Database subject with great interest.
Regarding the demand for minerals and fossils… It had been a long time
since I'd seen the price of minerals and fossils. I bought a few items as a
kid, but recently I saw someone selling copper and silver mine specimens…
many were $50-100, some even more. And of course we all know the price of
fossils particularly dinos have gone through the roof. In a day when the
government will sell trees for a couple dollars, you'd think they'd be
interested in at least *charging* to allow people to collect on public
lands. Would you pay a buck a pound?
Hi, John–
A buck a pound for collecting on public lands would be quite reasonable, and
seems at first blush to offer a simple mechanism to slow down the more
rapacious commercial collectors, without so much dependence on the efficiency
of bureaucrats.
–Doug
Or maybe there could be a "bag limit", as in fishing or hunting. They do that
in the petrified forest, right? Or maybe a limit on how much material you
could remove from the surface in a certain amount of time. Or maybe the ranger
has to videotape your assortment as you leave the park, and maybe they sell you
required tags to mark and track the fossils. The more you think about it, the
more you realize this problem has been "solved" many times before.
Doug
A buck a pound huh, and who measures it and where? I have contact with a lot of
collectors and no full will that commercial collectors are collecting by three
methods– 1) valid operations with plans of operation on mining claims 2)
"mining" operations, including blasting on public lands without any contact
with the land managing agency and not approved plans of operation 3) intense
hand tool work which is essentially a small mining opeartion.
Considering type 2 & 3 would probably be considered illegal mining by the land
management agencies, and the commercial collector knows this, you $1 a pound
fee will have the desired effect on a lot of commercial collecting.
Lanny
Hi, Lanny–
Several times I have gone to a campground with no officials in sight, just a
drop box and a bulletin board asking one to deposit a few bucks in the box in
an envelope with your name & car license. I do not know how much money they
get that way, but if it is enough, since it need not pay for a person to
collect the fees, it may pay for roving rangers who might put the illegal types
at a higher risk.
Especially if it could be as effortless as the drop box, I would cheerfully
accept more use fees like a collecting fee if it could mean a reduction in
income taxes and other taxes not well connected to government services. Even
without less taxes, I would prefer this fee to licensing (here the fee _must_
be effortless or it is just as bad – say, is there a fee with these licenses in
the Baucus bill? Grrr…). If the fees were used on better enforcement (rather
than wasted as is entirely too likely), this would address the scofflaw problem
better than any licensing regime. I am not holding my breath waiting for this
to happen…
Your point about taking it home before you know if you want it is well taken; I
have no good answer for now. Maybe if you put it back you don't pay? 🙂
Irresponsible collectors sure do make a lot of trouble for the rest of us. The
most irresponsible of all is someone who ignores "no trespassing" or "danger"
signs, injures himself, and sues. That jerk raises the insurance rates at
_all_ sites, not just the one.
–Doug
I'd rather deal with a private owner than the government, any day. I'm sure
you know how it works: a smile, respectful or helpful appearance, a
friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend, and you can get permission to visit many
sites. But at my local office of the USGS, it's tough work to get these
people to get out of their chair to approach the counter to "serve" me.
Where's the outcry about the devastation and neglect of fossil and mineral
sites that are already on private land? In another message, I mentioned the
loss of the Hartung Quarry in Milwaukee. It's now a city landfill, but for
years, it's provided zillions of trilobites with nearly zero scientific
value but immense value in terms of educating people about science and
geology. I've seen these trilobites for sale in shops around the country.
And I know of another quarry nearby that has soft-bodied fossils
reminiscent of the Burgess Shale… Morris has been there, S.J. Gould
mentions it in "Wonderful Life", yet it's a working quarry that's crunched
a lot of this layer into oblivion.
I don't like the provisions that require licensing and permits for
collection. It smacks of elitism. It's better for who? Certainly
self-interest and "profit" in different forms raise their head in both
situations. An "academic" can be movitivated by greed for recognition, or
by the desire to increase ticket sales because they have a new dino
exhibit.
John, Doug and others,
Selling the publis land is not the answer. Sure mineral collectors could buy
some, but probably not much. And I don't know where you have been getting all
this good luck about getting access, but in magazines I read, and letters I get
to the Mineral News, all I see is a steady stream of localities "lost" because
some private land owner closed it. Often this is just because the land was
recently sold and the new owner doesn't care if the previous owner had not
problems, he just doesn't want others on his land. Talk to the unting groups
about private land, closed lands are their biggest complaint. Sure, there are
reasons (gates left open, signs, cows, etc. shot up,) but do you think their
aren't similar problems with that certain small percentage of mineral
collectors.
I am not really against permits/fees of some sort. But it would be difficult. A
typical trip for me consists of driving all day south into the main part of
Idaho, then over tree days, collecting at three to five or six different
obscure sites I've decided to prospect from a little hint in the geologic
literature, and these are on three or four different National Forests and BLM
lands.
Some sort of fee for minerals removed is worth consideration, but a lot of what
I take home has nor monetary value, it is scientific (I look for those little
things not known or reported from a locality, as well as look for a decent
specimen), so is it really worth paying for? I will have to think about if I
want to pay $2 a pound for ugly matrix pieces & "pocket" debris that *may* have
some tiny crystals, or most likely will be tossed after a careful search under
the scope. We need to teach the regulators that collecting minerals is not the
same as picking berries or cutting trees or fishing–you generally don't know
what you have until you get home, clean it up, and carefully look at it.
No matter what is done, it won't be obeyed by those who cause the problems now.
It will just cost us honest collectors. The commercial collectors who blast and
mine without permits and approved plans of operations now will still do it the
same.
Lanny
One of my favorite explanations of the way the mind works goes like this: For
thousands of years, man has had myths about dolphins saving drowning swimmers,
by pushing them back towards land. But we never hear from the swimmers that the
dolphins push out to sea, right?
It's much more dramatic to tell someone that a great site has been closed. And
if a savvy collector finds out about a few site littered with valuable rocks,
something tells me they'd haul away a few pails before they send a press
release to the Mineral News.
I think if you were paying even as little as a buck a pound, you'd think twice
before hauling something home. Wasn't "preservation" one of our grand
objectives? Or does "collecting" mean hauling away anything that glints?
John
A lot of people will not write an article for the Mineral News just because of
that problem of a few collectors overdoing it at every new site they learn of.
Yet, others write about everything they think is interesting. There are all
types.
If you had to pay for it to take it home, there certainly would be an interest
in being selective. Unfortunately, that to brings up a problem if you are
interested in the mineralogy of a site and not just collecting specimens for
your cabinet. To study the mineralogy, you generally have to take home
everything from a cavity to carefully study after it is cleaned. If you don't,
you will not spot a lot of tiny and micro minerals that only occur in tiny
sizes. Often they only occur on ugly pieces of other minerals and matrix. Is
there a solution to this conflict?
Lanny
Hi, Lanny–
While the irresponsible collectors and general orneriness of owners may cause
a lot of private-land collecting sites to be lost, I wonder if more are not
lost because of present liability laws (often indirectly through insurance
rates/requirements). Clearly a significant number are, and tort reform could
stop or even reverse that loss of sites. Nathan has confirmed liability issues
are at least a significant factor. I seem to remember Nathan indicating that
it is virtually impossible to write a liability release (to promise the owner
will not be held responsible if we fall down a mineshaft or whatever) that
cannot be broken in court, limiting its value. Surely some owners/insurance
companies will forbid entry even with a release as a result of the weakness of
contract enforcement these days.
–Doug
Doug
Certainly the liability problem does cause the closure of a lot of lands. But,
there is no reason a private individual should allow anyone else on his
property for any reason except to be a nice guy. And that does not give me much
faith that a lot of collecting sites would remain open.
Also, sites are closed because people are so careless with other peoples
property — cut fences, open gates, dumped garbage, etc.
Unfortunately mineral/fossil collectors are not all sensible nice people.
Lanny
John,
In the past, we have bemoaned the loss of many good collecting localities on
private land, but my experience has also been very positive with private land
owners.
I am a lawyer, and I have negotiated on behalf of the Delaware Valley Earth
Science Society for access to some old mines and mine dump sites. As you
described the process, I have cajoled, urged, pleaded, remonstrated, and,
occasionally, bought my way onto the premises of private land owners who
(knowingly or unknowingly) harbored valuable mineralogical treasures. I have
drawn up releases and covenants not to sue to show our good faith and good
will. These are things you cannot generally do with federal or state
bureaucrats for several reasons. First, they have no desire to please you. If
they give you permission, from their perspective they can only get in trouble.
(Much like the FDA's reluctance to allow a new drug on the market. The
possible benefits to people are outweighed by even remote possibilities that a
latent problem with the drug will manifest itself and thus "embarass" the
agency.) Third, regulatory schemes and the practicalities of agencies that
have their own "agenda" make it unlikely that front line federal officials will
be generous with their discretion to allow a use such as collecting on public
lands.
Contrary to the suggestion of one of our correspondents, this is not an
issue of such personal importance that I'd be inclined or prone to rationalize.
Indeed, here in the east virtually no collecting takes place on federal land.
I am opposed to greater regulatory limits on collecting, solely as a matter of
principle .
Nathan
Well, I married a lawyer, and I even liked lawyers before I did. 🙂 On a
somewhat related topic, I don't own a copy of a good permission / liability
contract that I could use when attempting to gain permission to poke around on
someone's property. Care to upload a pro bono example to the library? I'll
take the ASCII text and convert it to several popular word processor formats
and/or PostScript so others can access a nice copy. We can make Doug happy by
adding a little footnote plugging the Science Forum, and we could let any rock
club redistribute it, too.
John,
I'd be glad to upload the release, as long as no one construes it as the
giving of legal advice. (Always covering the hindquarters….)
I will have to look for it. We switched to SoftSolutions at work, and old
documents had to be imported. I hope the release/covenant not to sue made it.
Nathan
A lawyer making a disclaimer? Hard to imagine! 🙂 Any sort of document
format would be fine, I should be able to rescue the bytes regardless.
Hi, John and Nathan–
I like the idea! Nathan, if you cannot get it into an ASCII text form, you
might CISmail it to John or myself; we can likely binary-edit it to strip out
the non-ASCII stuff and upload a prettified result.
–Doug