PipeChat Digest #1590 - Sunday, September 3, 2000
 
Medinah Temple Organ
  by <RSiegel920@aol.com>
Re: Medinah Temple Organ
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Contacting me (x post)
  by <ScottFop@aol.com>
Re: Contacting me (x post)
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Grist for the rumor mill (x posted)
  by <SProt82850@cs.com>
Re: Contacting me (x post)
  by <Innkawgneeto@webtv.net>
Re: Contacting me (x post)
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Contacting me (x post)
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Contacting me (x post)
  by "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com>
The Wedding Song
  by "Karl E. Moyer" <kmoyer@marauder.millersv.edu>
Re: Contacting me (x post)
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: Grist for the rumor mill (x posted)
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Austin to Immaculata?
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: The Wedding Song
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: Austin to Immaculata?
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
George Kirkwood's e-mail address
  by "Ron Pearcy" <ronniep@clear.net.nz>
Re: Grist for the rumor mill (x posted)
  by <OrganMD@aol.com>
 


(back) Subject: Medinah Temple Organ From: <RSiegel920@aol.com> Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:23:01 EDT   In a message dated 9/2/00 4:00:46 AM Central Daylight Time, pipechat@pipechat.org writes:   << Several people questioned the availability and specifics of the Austin Pipe Organ. I have not been able to find out if the organ has actually been = put up for sale. >>   I noticed for several months Organ Clearing House had a 5 manual Austin listed for sale and I kind of presumed this was the Medinah instrument. As = of today I could not find that listing on the sight. "Things come and go so quickly around here!" regards R. J. Siegel  
(back) Subject: Re: Medinah Temple Organ From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 07:51:24 -0700   Think that's the Memphis KIMBALL, as I recall ...   Cheers,   Bud   BTW - I have music for you, but no snail mail address.   RSiegel920@aol.com wrote:   > In a message dated 9/2/00 4:00:46 AM Central Daylight Time, > pipechat@pipechat.org writes: > > << Several people questioned the availability and specifics of the = Austin > Pipe > Organ. I have not been able to find out if the organ has actually been = put > up for sale. >> > > I noticed for several months Organ Clearing House had a 5 manual Austin > listed for sale and I kind of presumed this was the Medinah instrument. = As of > today I could not find that listing on the sight. "Things come and go so > quickly around here!" > regards > R. J. Siegel > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: Contacting me (x post) From: <ScottFop@aol.com> Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 17:59:43 EDT   Dear listers,   Herr Goward has removed me from Organchat because of my response to some political comments made last evening. I always find it amazing how those = in favor with list owners can run amuck and say whatever they wish and others =   get warnings and booted because we're either not in the "in crowd" or our opinions don't sit well with some in receipt of them.   That is not the issue (although I'll try not to loose TOO much sleep over = not being on "the friendly list" anymore) nor do I want any rallying to get = back on that list. However, I will remain on Pipeorg-L and Pipechat-L. They at =   least seem to keep topics on track and dont have thread after thread about =   things such as "The Wedding Song" that never terminate and are allowed to fester until tempers flare, out-of school / imflammatory statements are = made and then people get angry.   Scott Foppiano  
(back) Subject: Re: Contacting me (x post) From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 15:10:35   At 05:59 PM 9/2/2000 EDT, you wrote: >Herr Goward has removed me from Organchat because of my response to some >political comments made last evening.<snip>   ROFLMAO! ...and you say this with any sort of surprise??   >However, I will remain on Pipeorg-L and Pipechat-L.<snip>   Pipechat's da best...no bout a doubt it.   Now then...I've been ruminating about this soon-to-be-doomed Medinah Austin. WHERE could one put an organ of that size and power? Convention center?? Ballpark?? ANOTHER Spreckles? Hmmm...it IS a puzzlement. I'd hate to see this fine ol' timer broken up for parts/slag, but it don't = look good.   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: Grist for the rumor mill (x posted) From: <SProt82850@cs.com> Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 19:11:45 EDT   Dear fellow listers,   As a number of people have contacted me and asked about the rumors they've =   been hearing, I wish to write this post and set the record straight.   As many of you know (and for those who don't), I have been the primary = visual designer at Reuter for the last few years. I resigned a week ago by my = own choice. It was not a mutual parting of the ways and the management is not =   pleased over my departure, but they did not fire me nor dismiss me nor = were there serious design problems with several recent installations.   As to my next job as a pipe organ designer, I have had several interesting =   offers but have not reached a decision as yet. I will let you know as my "trip down the yellow brick road" takes me out of Kansas and on to my = next destination.   Wishing you all well over this Labor Day weekend,   Steven Protzman Still a pipe organ architect and consultant  
(back) Subject: Re: Contacting me (x post) From: <Innkawgneeto@webtv.net> Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 19:27:23 -0400 (EDT)   I don't know about OrganChat, but I think I have enough "chat" to do me. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why I am no longer on PipOrg. People have actually written me saying they missed me.   Can someone tell me how I can get back on PipOrg?   Cheers Neil Brown    
(back) Subject: Re: Contacting me (x post) From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 17:03:10 -0700   BAD Bob (grin) ...   George, it might fit in The Immaculata (grin) ... then they'd FINALLY have = an organ big enough for the building. Maybe put some of it in the unused side chapels?   Cheers,   Bud   Bob Scarborough wrote:   > At 05:59 PM 9/2/2000 EDT, you wrote: > >Herr Goward has removed me from Organchat because of my response to = some > >political comments made last evening.<snip> > > ROFLMAO! ...and you say this with any sort of surprise?? > > >However, I will remain on Pipeorg-L and Pipechat-L.<snip> > > Pipechat's da best...no bout a doubt it. > > Now then...I've been ruminating about this soon-to-be-doomed Medinah > Austin. WHERE could one put an organ of that size and power? = Convention > center?? Ballpark?? ANOTHER Spreckles? Hmmm...it IS a puzzlement. = I'd > hate to see this fine ol' timer broken up for parts/slag, but it don't = look > good. > > DeserTBoB > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: Re: Contacting me (x post) From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 17:04:03 -0700   HOW did I see GEORGE'S name in that? DUH ... just woke up from my nap.   Bud the Bleary-Eyed   Bob Scarborough wrote:   > At 05:59 PM 9/2/2000 EDT, you wrote: > >Herr Goward has removed me from Organchat because of my response to = some > >political comments made last evening.<snip> > > ROFLMAO! ...and you say this with any sort of surprise?? > > >However, I will remain on Pipeorg-L and Pipechat-L.<snip> > > Pipechat's da best...no bout a doubt it. > > Now then...I've been ruminating about this soon-to-be-doomed Medinah > Austin. WHERE could one put an organ of that size and power? = Convention > center?? Ballpark?? ANOTHER Spreckles? Hmmm...it IS a puzzlement. = I'd > hate to see this fine ol' timer broken up for parts/slag, but it don't = look > good. > > DeserTBoB > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: Re: Contacting me (x post) From: "Noel Stoutenburg" <mjolnir@ticnet.com> Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 19:35:23 -0500       Innkawgneeto@webtv.net wrote:   > I don't know about OrganChat, but I think I have enough "chat" to do me. > But for the life of me, I can't figure out why I am no longer on PipOrg. > People have actually written me saying they missed me. > > Can someone tell me how I can get back on PipOrg?   try <http://www.albany.edu/piporg-l/>   ns    
(back) Subject: The Wedding Song From: "Karl E. Moyer" <kmoyer@marauder.millersv.edu> Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 20:46:50 -0400 (EDT)     One of the organ msuic lsits is discussing this tgroublesome piece. For those interested, let me share this attempt at a theological analysis of "The Wedding Song" according to Christian theology.   Those who do not care for lengthy, painstaking discussions ought not to read any further.   I see two areas of concern in almost any piece of Church music, including this one:   1. the integral content of the piece This is especially clear when it has words, but it can be deduced to a degree even from instrumental music.   2. how the piece comes across to those listening or singing, regarding of its integral content. This area involves matters of far greater subjectivity than the first, particularly as regards the manner(s) of perception of those listening or singing. I seek to interweave both areas of concern as I proceed below.   Let's begin with specific lines of the text:   I. "He is now to be among you at the calling of your hearts":   A. As others have pointed out, we have no antecedent for the pronoun "He," leaving things vague. I'll discuss this particular problem later as well, but for now, we can begin to realize that "He" is either God or Jesus, given the 'His" in the fourth verse line "..Is acting on His part." But the capital H on _His_ is totally lost on those hearing it. So who is "He": God, Jesus, the groom, Joe Paterno (whom some Pennsylvanians hold next to God), perhaps Bruce C ornely? We can't tell.   B. While it's O.K. to call on the Lord through the Holy Spirit--we should do so--the text here runs the risk of suggesting, in the absence of anything else, that it is WE who initiate God's presence by our calling. This is a very subtle point of great theological importance and on which various theological systems disagree. Calvinists and many free-church-tradition Christians understand the approach to God as elevating the person to God in a relatively greater man-initiated action, while classical Catholic/Lutheran theology thinks more in terms of God coming DOWN to mankind in an action relatively more initiated by God. In this latter notion, God is present at ALL TIMES, even when we do not call on Him. Thus, at least to some of us, this very opening statement and its subtle implication is questionable, if not downright troublesome.   II. "The union of your spirits here has caused Him to remain..."   A. Not so. God remains with any who invoke his presence and guidance, and the notion that marriage _per se_ causes God and Jesus to remain with the couple is downright heresy. It may wink at the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic doctrine of marriage as sacramental, but even THAT does not undo the heresy of this statement. There are lots of "united spirits" among whom God does not dwell, partly becuase those spirts are agnostic. (!!) Emphatically: God remains with us because he chooses to do so and NOT OF ANY ACTION OR WORTHINESS OF OUR OWN. This line begins to imply works-righteousness, couched in sentimental terms. It presumes that when WE do a given thing, in this case when we unite our spirits, then God will remain with us. Heresy!! We should have none of it!!   B. I'm not quite certain just what is implied in "The union of your spirits..." There's a foolish notion, exemplified in a partly-foolish candle ceremony at marriage services, that "the two shall now become one," supposing, somehow, that the two are no longer two. It's fine for the couple to light a "unity candle" from their individual candles; it's bad theology and psychology to snuff out their individual candles, as though they are no longer individual persons. That absolutely denies the reality of human existence and sin and prepares the path for real trouble when the couple discovers, in moments of marital stress, that they still are individuals whose personalities have not fully melded together after all. The line of text "the union of your spirits..." comes out of the same wide-eyed sentimentality as does snuffing out the individual candles at the unity candle ceremony and just downright irresponsible. Sounds like a genuine "flower-people" line to me!!   III "when two or more of you are gathered in his name there is love.":   A How many church staff meetings or conventions might we recall where all concerned gathered in the name of Jesus and found it difficult to love one another the same way they loved themselves as per the biblical command? It was the lack of such love that finallyl split the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and came perilously close to splitting the Episcopal Church a month or so ago. This line hardens back to the '60's line "..they'll know we are Christians by our love," which is utter rubbish. True love exists among persons who do not believe in Christ at all and fails to exist among some who do. The presence or absence of evident love is NOT an indication of one's faith. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints, and trying to claim a cause-and/or-effect relationship of love and Christianity is fraught with problems arising from sin. Lest I not be clear: yes, we are commanded to love each other in response to Christ's love for us, but it's not an automatic reflex in the manner of the text in question here. This, again, is borders on heresy.     IV. "They shall travel on to where/The two shall be as one."   See item II above. More of the same bad thought.     V. "As it was in the beginning, is not and 'till the end..."   A. This is a REALLY subtle problem: as we'll point out later, the entire song ultimately focuses on the couple and on romantic love--a neat thing to do at the wedding reception!! -- but the slightly altered quotation from the Gloria Patri subtly seeks to suggest a sort of religiosity that seems to cast Christian Trinitarian piety over it by quoting a common line from the liturgy. Ultimately, of course, this is no better than reading "and Cain slew his brother Abel..." and then turning to the New Testament and reading, "Go, and do thou likewise." This line of text is all but nonsensical within the context of this song.   VI, "Woman draws her life from man/ And gives it back again..."   A. Others have commented on line about this, but I join them in utter perplexity as to perecisely what it means. Its power of suggestion, of course, has to do with both spiritual and perhaps even physical reciprocity between husband and wife. Its vague meaning contributes to a greater problem I'll discuss below.     VII "Well then, what's to be the reason/for becoming man and wife? Is it love that brings you here/ Or love that bring you life? For it loving is the answer,/ Then who's the giving for?"   A. What a bunch of sentimentality couched as quasi-philosophical questions!!! First and foremost, the bible makes clear the purposes of marriage, and this silly little stanza thumbs its nose at the bible's teaching.   B. "...loving is the answer..."; Answer to what? More vague, ethereal nonsense.   VIII "do you believe in something /That you've never seen before?"   A. This is only several steps away from the heresy called modalism, i.e., the notion that God's very existence is to be seen as modes of action: "Creator...Redeemer...Sanctifier," rather than as PERSONS: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The three great ecumenical creeds (Nicene, Apostles, Athanasian) all address this heresy. While we *do* believe in the Church as the Communion of Saints, we most primarily believe in God as expressed in PERSONS, not "things." Even the Church is feminine and thus personal: die Kirche or La Eglise (contracted into l'Eglise), or the "Bride of Christ" This line approaches the de-humanization of God. Such dehumanizing, of course, is the lot of feminists who can't abide the male imagery for God and thus end up singing, at the close of the Doxology, "Creator, Savior, Holy Ghost" instead of Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost." That's the modalist heresy in action, and the text line under question is not far away.   The broader problem with this song and many others: trying to experience as quasi-religious something which really does not address biblical or theological truths much at all or at least not very carefully, and then trying to pretend that we have had a real experience with God. Doing so permits one to INSULATE HIMSELF against the God in Three Persons more than to have a meaningful engagement with God. It's a problem of going through nice forms and motions without really having the "force," without really being involved with God. As such, this subtly turns the person on to himself or, in a way in this particular song, on to other persons, specifically bride and groom. That's O.K. at the reception but hardly in church, where God shoudl lremain central and the purity of bible and doctrine should be observed in manner of the particular church body.   People like attention to themselves, of course, because it makes them feel nice and fuzzy inside. And the music of this particular song contributes mightily to this sentimental set-up. That's why it's popular in shopping malls, etc. But the Church at worship should have absolutely nothing to do with this song or these problems.   The Church is charged with the responsibility to proclaim faithfully, clearly and boldly the saving works of Christ in all their implications. This song hardly states anything of substance, much less prays or praises God or engages in proclamation. It simply engages in sentimental rhetoric that invites the dreamy-eyed person to supply his own answers, too often in place of the bible's answers as the particular Church body understands them. Thus, God is no longer either the subject or object--to use Marva Dawn's excellent guideline--and is replaced by a focus primarily directed toward one or more persons). Putting ourselves in God's place is, of course, the Original Sin. This, it seems to me, is the worst problem of all about this piece.   The realities at weddings are all too often that people come not for God but for the bride and/or groom, seeking to turn a house of worship into a theatre for the couple's glory. I don't decry people coming to church weddings because of the folks getting married; that's fine. But they could just as well observe a wedding by the mayor at city hall, by the captain on his ship, by a justice of the peace in a rose garden, etc, etc. Those who do not hold marriage as a sacrament have no theological trouble with this idea, but We ALL need to have great theological trouble with a song or process that diverts appropriate attention from God to huyman beings.   (Now be careful here, and don't someone go off half cocked about the Church being impersonal, lacking warm feeling, whatever. That has nothing to do with these statements, and weddings can be done with LOTS of warm feelings, yet without the troubles I've enumerated. It's the people who subtly want it THEIR WAY who quickly criticize the Church when good theology tells the people they can't always have their own private, favorite thing. They are the very people for whom the Church needs to have strong backbone, much as a son needs and often really, subtly wants a father who at times serves as a stone wall against which the son can test his limits.)   When the marriage comes into the church, the Church's agenda is also there and to be exercised with care, and if people come into the church and have not been somehow confronted with the Gospel, we've been bad stewards of the Gospel. As I have been at pains to show, this song detracts from all of that.     Related to all this: many folks have very little understanding of these principles and need to be taught. I find the hour or 90 minutes of counseling with couples about their wedding music a very valuable one-on-one teaching ministry that sends them away knowing more about the Church and theology in general and not merely about music for their wedding. THAT may be a more important process than attending the rehearsal. An impersonal, mechanistic process of handing a list of available music and perhaps a tape recording of the music and asking people to select--AND THAT'S IT--misses this teaching opportunity. If we do things like that, we need not wonder on some other day why our services in ministry are not highly regarded.   I've been interested in the number of persons who have written that they use this song in places where theology would appear to be carefully controlled, a claim the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod seeks to make for itself at the drop of a hat. Let me invite any interested person to print out my comments and place them before his pastor for evaluation. Perhaps I'm too heady about my thoughts here, but I suspect that many theologically-astute pastors--some are not!!--and particularly their professors of systematic theology at seminary will find much of what I have written to be sufficiently responsible to warrant attention.   Notice; I've made almost no point whatsoever about musical style and do not wish to protract this discussion any longer by doing so. We need not discuss that; the theology is rotten enough to ban the song for its theological poverty and false teaching.     Finally, and in a different mode:   Among other things, I'm a music history professor emeritus. I can't help but draw attention to the dumb line in this song "...Rest assured this troubadour is acting on His part." The implication might seem to be that "this troubadour" is the singer at the wedding. But, as some of us know, French Gothic-era troubadours and trouveres did not do their own singing; minstrels and jongleurs did. So this is a mess-up of historical fact, and while the Church does not exist chiefly to preserve historical fact in the process of worship, I don't think it's wrong to have all our statements correct, even those brought in from the secular world as illustrations. This line about troubadours just illustrates the sloppy thinking rampant in the song generally.   I would graciously seek others' comments which might heighten our sense of this whole issue.   Cordially,   Karl E. Moyer Lancaster PA        
(back) Subject: Re: Contacting me (x post) From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 17:46:47   At 07:27 PM 9/2/2000 -0400, you wrote: >Can someone tell me how I can get back on PipOrg?<snip>   Could it be you were unceremoniously "tossed", like many of the rest of = us?   dB  
(back) Subject: Re: Grist for the rumor mill (x posted) From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 17:50:42   At 07:11 PM 9/2/2000 EDT, you wrote: >I have been the primary visual >designer at Reuter for the last few years. I resigned a week ago by my = own >choice.<snip>   All of which makes me wonder what is going on at Reuter these days. I'd hate to see them fold, as the Reuters I've encountered over the years were pretty good, honest organs, free of "retro-faddiness" and tonally fairly even. Word has been circulating for a long time about near financial insolvency, but they keep plugging on, and good for them. Anyone have any info about any of their recent work?   In the dark about things Kansan, DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: Austin to Immaculata? From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 18:07:45   At 05:03 PM 9/2/2000 -0700, you wrote: >George, it might fit in The Immaculata (grin) ... then they'd FINALLY = have an >organ big enough for the building.<snip>   No kiddin'! The Immaculata, a collosal monument to RC waste and unchecked privilege, has got to be the biggest church barn in California, with a fairly nice reverb time, although it could have been a lot better without some of the materials they stuffed in there. Although the Austin might be a BIT on the huge side scaling wise, I'm SURE that it'd be better than the Conn Artist I remember being in there circa 1967! I remember = parishioners in the then-huge Diocese of San Diego referring to this place as "Buddy's Basilica" back in the '50s, as Bishop Buddy almost bankrupted the diocese with this and many other excesses...none of which were decent organs!   DeserTBoB    
(back) Subject: Re: The Wedding Song From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 18:05:12   At 08:46 PM 9/2/2000 -0400, you wrote: >One of the organ msuic lsits is discussing this tgroublesome >piece. For those interested, let me share this attempt at a theological >analysis of "The Wedding Song"<snip>   Actually, I rather found this in-depth analysis to be rather interesting and scholarly. My sister used this piece of garbage at HER wedding (over my vehement objections), and I wish I had such an organized theological critique on hand to do battle with. This isn't to mean that I or any = other Pipechatter care to hear MORE about this thing...it's a non-issue to me (other than the fact that it's crummy music), but I guess those OrgoBuchananChat people need SOMETHING to occupy their time....   Adding this to my "anti-geetar" file this fine day, DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: Re: Austin to Immaculata? From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 19:12:31 -0700   Bob - it now has the little Beckerath tractor that the Franciscans pitched = out of Mission San Luis Rey in favor of an Allen (!). The friars were "tired" of = the Beckerath, which is totally inadequate in The Immaculata, of course.   Cheers,   Bud   Bob Scarborough wrote:   > At 05:03 PM 9/2/2000 -0700, you wrote: > >George, it might fit in The Immaculata (grin) ... then they'd FINALLY = have an > >organ big enough for the building.<snip> > > No kiddin'! The Immaculata, a collosal monument to RC waste and = unchecked > privilege, has got to be the biggest church barn in California, with a > fairly nice reverb time, although it could have been a lot better = without > some of the materials they stuffed in there. Although the Austin might = be > a BIT on the huge side scaling wise, I'm SURE that it'd be better than = the > Conn Artist I remember being in there circa 1967! I remember = parishioners > in the then-huge Diocese of San Diego referring to this place as = "Buddy's > Basilica" back in the '50s, as Bishop Buddy almost bankrupted the = diocese > with this and many other excesses...none of which were decent organs! > > DeserTBoB > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: George Kirkwood's e-mail address From: "Ron Pearcy" <ronniep@clear.net.nz> Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 15:07:35 +0000 (GMT)   Greetings,   Would be most grateful to find an e-mail address for George Kirkwood (former Rodgers engineer). Can anyone help please?   Thanks, Ronnie   -- ----- Ron Pearcy <ronniep@clear.net.nz> 17 Donegal Crescent, = Greenswood, Greenmeadows, Napier, New Zealand -------  
(back) Subject: Re: Grist for the rumor mill (x posted) From: <OrganMD@aol.com> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 00:16:38 EDT   Hi Steve...   What is going on in your life? I still remember with some fondness our project for Ric in Boise.   Write back when you have a minute.   Bill Hesterman