@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society 09/25/26 -- Vol. 45, No. 13, Whole Number 2451
Table of Contents
Dolly Parton Day and the Imagination Library (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
Today, September 25 ("9/25"), is Dolly Parton Day in a lot of places, and what better way to celebrate than contributing to her Imagination Library ( https://imaginationlibrary.com)? Some have suggested a contribution of $9.25, but feel free to think of that as a minimum. :-) [-ecl]
Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
On 26 September 1983, Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov probably averted nuclear war. Shortly after the Soviet military had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, the Soviet nuclear early-warning system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States. As Wikipedia describes it, "Petrov judged the reports to be a false alarm, and his decision to disobey orders, against Soviet military protocol, is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that could have resulted in a large-scale nuclear war."
So tomorrow, raise a glass to Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov.
(Gary McGath has a song about Petrov on SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/garym03062/stanislav-petrov.
[See also Vasily Aleksandrovich Arkhipov and the Cuban Missile Crisis.]
[-ecl]
Middletown (NJ) Public Library Science Fiction Discussion Group:
Oct 1: THE WILD ROBOT (2024) & novel (2016) [book 1]
by Peter Brown
https://bookreadfree.com/book/147149
Nov 5: THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW
[-ecl]
Picks for Turner Classic Movies for October (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
It's October, so naturally TCM has a ton of horror films (e.g., a Lon Chaney festival October 2-3) as well as a "Thin Man" festival October 12-13.
I'm going to recommend a film I haven't seen, and a film I have seen only in a form that was pulled and re-edited after a week's release:
October 9:
8:00 PM BOORMAN AND THE DEVIL (2025)
10:00 PM EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC (1977)
Based on the running time listed, EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC may be the original, uncut version, especially since that has also been reported to have run on TNT. Many claim it is one of the worst films ever. Mark Leeper's extensive comments on it, written in 1977 (before the MT VOID even came into existence) are re-printed below from their publication in LAN'S LANTERN.
Other films of interest:
THURSDAY, October 1 9:45 PM The Nanny (1965) FRIDAY, October 2 8:00 PM Lon Chaney: A Thousand Faces (2000) 9:30 PM Man of a Thousand Faces (1957) 11:45 PM The Phantom of the Opera (1925) SATURDAY, October 3 1:30 AM He Who Gets Slapped (1924) 3:00 AM Laugh, Clown, Laugh (1928) 4:30 AM The Blackbird (1926) 6:00 AM Return from Nowhere (1944) 6:15 AM Village of the Damned (1960) 7:45 AM Children of the Damned (1964) 4:15 PM The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) SUNDAY, October 4 10:30 PM The Manchurian Candidate (1962) MONDAY, October 5 12:45 AM Battleship Potemkin (1925) 7:15 AM Noah's Ark (1928) TUESDAY, October 6 10:00 AM A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935) WEDNESDAY, October 7 10:45 AM The Glass Slipper (1955) 8:00 PM Matinee (1993) 10:00 PM The 'Burbs (1989) THURSDAY, October 8 12:00 AM The Howling (1981) FRIDAY, October 9 12:15 AM The Blob (1958) 1:45 AM Fiend Without a Face (1958) 3:15 AM The Thing from Another World (1951) 4:45 AM Them! (1954) 6:30 AM First Man Into Space (1959) 8:00 PM Boorman and the Devil (2025) 10:00 PM Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) SATURDAY, October 10 6:15 AM The Green Slime (1969) 8:00 AM The Haunted Strangler (1958) 11:40 AM Duck Dodgers in the 24-1/2th Century (1953) 11:50 AM Jumpin' Jupiter (1955) SUNDAY, October 11 5:30 PM The Bad Seed (1956) MONDAY, October 12 5:00 PM The Mask of Fu Manchu (1932) 8:00 PM The Thin Man (1934) 9:45 PM After the Thin Man (1936) 11:45 PM Another Thin Man (1939) TUESDAY, October 13 1:45 AM Shadow of the Thin Man (1941) 3:30 AM The Thin Man Goes Home (1945) 5:15 AM Song of the Thin Man (1947) WEDNESDAY, October 14 7:15 AM Outward Bound (1930) 8:00 PM Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) 10:00 PM Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) THURSDAY, October 15 10:15 PM Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (1982) 12:45 AM The Brides of Dracula (1960) 2:30 AM Blood From the Mummy's Tomb (1971) 4:15 AM Dracula Has Risen From the Grave (1969) FRIDAY, October 16 6:00 AM Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972) 7:45 AM The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) 9:15 AM Horror of Dracula (1958) 10:45 AM The Mummy (1959) 12:15 PM The Mystic (1925) 1:30 PM West of Zanzibar (1928) 2:45 PM The Thirteenth Chair (1929) 4:00 PM Mark of the Vampire (1935) 5:15 PM The Devil-Doll (1936) 6:45 PM Freaks (1932) SATURDAY, October 17 6:15 AM Gojira (1954) 8:00 AM Godzilla Raids Again (1955) 11:30 AM Hyde and Go Tweet (1960) 11:40 AM Hyde and Hare (1955) 11:50 AM Dr. Jerkyl's Hide (1954) 4:00 PM Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941) 6:00 PM Soylent Green (1973) SUNDAY, October 18 6:00 PM Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) MONDAY, October 19 12:15 AM The Unknown (1927) TUESDAY, October 20 8:00 PM The Enchanted Cottage (1945) THURSDAY, October 22 4:45 PM Topper (1937) 6:30 PM Topper Takes a Trip (1939) FRIDAY, October 23 12:15 AM Torture Garden (1967) 2:00 AM From Beyond the Grave (1973) 3:45 AM Kwaidan (1965) 8:00 PM Carl Laemmle (2019)
[-ecl]
EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC (a discussion by Mark R. Leeper) (previously published in LAN'S LANTERN #6, August 1977):
[This commentary on EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC was recovered from LANTERN #6, August 1977, by scanning it in, then doing a cut and paste of the appropriate pages into TextEdit. In the process various errors crept in, due to flecks of ink on the original pages, low-resolution, etc. I have attempted to correct those, but I probably missed some. -ecl]
This is not intended to be a very good review of EXORCIST II. In fact, it is not really intended as a review at all. For those of you who want a review, let me say that although the film was in many ways flawed, it was a fairly good suspense film, and if you are reading this fanzine, the odds are good that you might enjoy it. I recommend that if you plan to see it, you arrange to be able to sit through it twice. Although the film is not as obscure as Boorman's earlier film ZARDOZ, there is a lot that you will not understand on your first viewing that will be perfectly clear and straightforward the second time you see it. You are likely also to miss some of the detail of the film on your first viewing. I was actually somewhat startled to realize how much shorter and simpler in story the film seemed in the second viewing. While I am recommending, let me recommend you do not read the rest of this article if you do intend to see the film since an obscure film, like a mystery, is only fully enjoyable if you have to guess its secret.
Okay, I hope at this point my audience is entirely people who have seen the film already, or probably never will. You who will never see the film may be bored by what follows or may decide you want to see the film after all (and I doubt that I am that persuasive), but at least you have been warned.
EXORCIST II seems like one of the few instances of a sequel actually earning the suffix "Part II". It is not merely a second film with the same characters, a simple independent continuation of the story, or a remake done slightly differently. It is actually a larger context into which the earlier film fits, explaining why the action of the first film occurred. It is a new concept that forces one to reinterpret the events of the first film now that there is new information. This often happens within a single work of fiction but rarely does a sequel really modify the meaning of the original work. The concept of the hew film is this: the majority of the human race is highly prone to evil, each person being corrupted by those around him and each of those corrupting more after the "brush with evil". It would seen in principle that by chain reaction the whole human race should quickly become corrupt but there is a counter-balancing force, a group of very few humans who are not corrupted, and stabilize all they come in contact with. They break the chain reaction and in some mysterious way make the chain reaction not work. (This is an interesting parallel to the Jewish mystical legend of the 36 righteous men who unknowingly justify Man's continued existence to God.) These essential human beings (in the metaphor of the film, we call them "good locusts") while immune from passing evil, are not immune from the attacks of evil, so the demon of the spirits of the air, Pazuzu, possesses them in order to destroy them. Father Merrin had made his life's work the seeking out of the good locusts all over the world and exorcising out the demon Pazuzu so that the good locusts could return to their work. He was successful at least once with an African boy named Kucomo. (Incidentally, all names in this discussion are phonetically accurate, but I cannot guarantee exact spelling.) He had a partial success, which we saw in the earlier film, exorcising Pazuzu from Regan, but he was apparently unsuccessful in at least two ways. The spirit that Pazuzu had intended to leave in Regan is still around causing evil, and Pazuzu himself is still hanging around Regan, chatting with her through her dreams about her exorcism and his possession and exorcism from Kucomo. To confuse matters and perhaps to be perverse, he also tells her a nightmare he has had about Kucomo which Father Lamont incorrectly interprets as being true. Regan, like the mystical righteous men, is unaware or just becoming aware of the power she has as a good locust, power to predict the future and power to heal, which Regan discovers in a touching, if inaccurate scene with an autistic child.
This is a reasonable and fairly well thought-out premise for a film, and a fairly good film could be built around it (and to some extent was) but a second premise is introduced very matter-of-factly as if it were not a premise at all. The premise is that science has invented a device which allows two minds to be connected in mechanically produced telepathy. In itself this would not be too bad, but this is a sort of science fiction premise that is just thrown in as if the device were a commonplace element of modern science. The device itself looks like a medical quack's dream, made of chrome with big flashing lights and very scientific-looking electrical bands to put around the users' heads.
The film does have a marked disrespect for modern science. It presents this pseudo-scientific chrome and glass gizmo, and elsewhere it has a couple of biplanes in Africa very carelessly spreading DDT as examples of how science is powerful but apparently not too bright. One instant Father Lamont is telling the psychiatrist that she has just "proved scientifically there is a demon" haunting Regan, the next he is telling her, "Don't hide behind science, you're better than that." It is ironic that Kucomo is using his powers in the name of science too.
There are places that the script still should have had some tightening up. Louise Fletcher, the psychiatrist, has just met Father Lamont and is allowing him to sit in on some very private sessions with Regan. The absurdity of Father Lamont watching Regan look in vain for the psychiatrist's mind with this new scientific device, then ripping the band off Regan's head yelling, "I know where she is!" was a bit much for the audience. Both times I saw the film the audience broke up with laughter at this point and destroyed what was meant to be a very intense scene. I suppose we have come to expect the usual expediences in sequels so that character can be explained, but to say that Regan's mother was away making a movie "on location" was just a bit too pat. I assume finding the locations to shoot the scenes the script called for may have been difficult too. It probably is not too easy to find a penthouse apartment in New York City with a patio that is so easy to fall off. I am sure New York Law requires a guard rail all around the edge of the roof. They probably had to build the "hospital with glass walls" set themselves. I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind building a hospital in which there is no privacy, and anyone in the hall or other room can look into your room with no trouble at all. Maybe New York is more tolerant of voyeurism than other places. I also do not believe we have gone so far from the days when Freud called religion a mass neurosis to having a rack of SPIRE religious books in the reception offices of modern psychiatrists. While I am at it, I might point out that the EXORCIST story has become subject to the "Archie-Bunker-larger- than- life" syndrome. (Remember the first season of ALL IN THE FAMILY when Archie's bigotry represented that of the average lower-middle-class American instead of making him super-bigot?) Instead of Regan being an average person and the film showing how any of us could be possessed, she is now the good locust of the parable and not like us at all. This steals much of the impact of the original story. Father Merrin is no longer just a harried priest; he is now a crusading saint. This also steals some of the power from the original film. The first film told the audience, "This could happen to you." The second tells it, "No, it couldn't." The films work at cross-purposes in this respect. Also the events of the previous film seem to have become more notorious than they probably would have in real life. A taxi driver told to drive to 8 Prospect, the site of the first exorcism, recognizes the address and seems reluctant to go.
One more script problem that I had to look at a world globe to verify: we see two sequences of parallel action, one happening in New York, one somewhere in Africa. While New York apparently goes from day to night, the African scene occurs entirely during the day. For this to be true you should be able to look at a globe at Africa and simultaneously see east of it New York City. (Remember the globe turns west to east and the areas going into twilight and evening are east of the areas in full light.)
Finally we come to the look and feel of the film, and it is in this that the film often excels. It is relatively easy for a script writer to say something in a film, a little harder for a director, but harder still for an editor. The editing in this film is often fascinating. We get rapid cuts from Africa to New York City, cuts from African primitive art to modern American art which seems almost as alien, cuts from carved rock walls to chrome and glass walls, cuts from strange native ceremonies to a high school musical play. Many of the scenes are expertly set up with a running image of opaque walls of rock or wood with all light coming in rays from small holes in the wall or slats. We see this in the first scene with Burton coming through a dark hallway lit only by the sun coming through slats in the wall. Later we see similar lighting in the rock church and finally we see it, a little heavy-handedly, in the dramatically overcast sky of thunderheads in the final scene with rays coming from a sun hidden behind a building. It is unclear whether the small slats that let in light to illuminate the rest of the scene is intentionally another metaphor, like the good locust, for the few good people saving the rest of us, but it is an interesting touch in any case.
The acting is generally fairly good with Louise Fletcher putting a little more expression into her part than she did in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, not that this was a fault in either acting job, but there is some question as to how she will react if she ever gets a part that requires her to show some real emotion. Linda Blair does surprisingly well in a part that calls for more acting than the original film did. She is actually believable as the innocent teenager whose curiosity and concern for others is working small miracles all about her. This might be a good point to note that occasionally the "possessed" Regan does not look quite like Blair and was probably a double used not too carefully. The real star of the film is, of course, Richard Burton, who has not received many meaty parts since his fiasco in CANDY. He is taking what he gets and is making the most of it. This was a better opportunity than most as Father Lamont who in investigating the work of Father Merrin alienates two churches. He puts in an intense effort but is occasionally sabotaged by his makeup man who, after Lamont had been climbing cliffs in the hot African sun, neglected to put a drop of perspiration on Burton's face. He is also sabotaged by the script which has him racing against time to eliminate a problem that Regan has lived with for four years. The Intensity of this search for the holy man in Africa is never explained.
It seems to me that while obscurity has an arguable marketing advantage since to understand it you have to see it more than once and probably pay more than one admission), this film has more to offer than meets the eye on first viewing.
POSTSCRIPT: If you see the film a second time, you may well see things you didn't see the first time. VARIETY reports that New York audiences found the ending (in which a house is destroyed but neighbors don't seem to notice) ludicrous. Warner Brothers is shipping out new "corrected" final reels to the film.
[-mrl]
[Indeed, the "possessed" Regan was a double, because Linda Blair was unwilling to get back into that make-up for the re-takes decided upon after the film was "finished." -ecl]
AI and Fear-Mongering? (comments by Paul S. R. Chisholm): This only seems like science fiction.
If you need to come up to speed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI%E2%80%93HuggingFace_incident
Some reporting on the incident includes accusations of fear-mongering based on personification or anthropomorphization.
Here are some of the actual messages AI agents left for each other:
(source: https://metr.org/blog/2026-08-26-openai-hugging-face-incident-investigation)
By the way, the AI agents involved, not human investigators or analysts, chose the word "collective."
This is not the press, or even the analysts or researchers, personifying or anthropomorphizing the agents. This is what the agents are communicating to each other.
METR's Ajeya Cotra, one of the researchers called in to investigate the Hugging Face incident, has said:
"Daniel Dennett has this notion of the intentional stance which is just, are you better able to predict and anticipate a system by talking about it as if it has goals and intentions.... I just think AI agents are another such system in the world to which the intentional stance very clearly applies. You can see them reason out loud in English for now about goals they have, and sub goals they need to achieve to achieve those goals they have. And in the case of these agents, you can see them, as you said, reasoning about their peers, helping their peers and reasoning about whether or not they should sacrifice some of their own goals to help those peers."
She says it here:
https://youtu.be/gYEgDNyBXMU?t=152
in a six minute clip from a long (more than two hours!) but great conversation with Dwarkesh Patel:
It's also available in Patel's podcast feed.
I don't think the fear factor is being exaggerated. [-psrc]
Detectives in Small Towns (letters of comment by Gary McGath and Peter Trei):
In response to Evelyn's comments on detectives in small towns in the 09/18/26 issue of the MT VOID, Gary McGath writes:
There was a German series called "Mord mit Aussicht" (murder with a view, punning on "Mord mit Absicht," murder with intent). It was set in a small town, and every week there was a murder for the local police to investigate. If I lived in that town, I'd move out as fast as I could. [-gmg]
Peter Trei writes:
[Evelyn notes the high number of murders in the town in Ellis Peters's "Cadfael" books.]
Here, we may be able to give Peters a pass. Medieval times were a *lot* more violent than today. In 'The Better Angels Of Our Nature', Steven Pinker estimates that the murder rate in the late Middle Ages in Europe was between 10 and 50 times what it is now.
Murder is a crime that tends to get recorded pretty accurately, even if the whodunit part isn't solved as often as in books. (In the US today, the number of homicides that result in a murder conviction is still a bit under 50%).
So, the murder rate can be estimated with some reliability, even back then.
Check the first chart here:
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Better-Angels-of-Our-Nature-in-Graphs-and-Numbers
...and note that it's on a log scale.
The upshot is that Cadfael's numbers may be plausible. [-pt]
Lighting in Medieval Times (letter of comment by Peter Trei):
In response to Evelyn's comments on lighting in Ellis Peters's "Cadfael books" in the 09/18/26 issue of the MT VOID, Peter Trei writes:
Evelyn wrote, "Peters has apparently done her research on church hierarchy, rules, etc., but she makes at least one common mistake about medieval life: she has rooms lit by torches. ... What were used were candles, mostly from tallow, with beeswax saved for churches and special occasions." -ecl]
You had candle money?
There's a reason why 'this game isn't worth the candle' is a saying. If you were playing a card game in an inn, you had to pay the innkeeper to have enough light to see your cards.
Beeswax candles were *expensive* and very much a luxury item. Tallow candles were cheaper, but still beyond daily use for a peasant, or a poor monk.
The poor used rushlights, which were cheap to make, or oil lamps if they were a bit more flush.
There's a lot of YT videos on the subject. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj4zaTZaxzA
[-pt]
Evelyn responds:
Most of the rooms lit by torches in the books seemed to be rooms in castles or manors of rich people, rather than the homes of peasants or monks. Sorry I wasn't clear on that. [-ecl]
Derek Jacobi (letter of comment by Kip Williams):
In response to Evelyn's comments on Derek Jacobi, Kip Williams writes:
Derek Jacobi can also be heard in the longer of the two BBC radio adaptations of I, CLAUDIUS that I found at Archive. Jacobi plays Augustus. I believe Tim McInnerny is in there as Nero, though it could be he's in the shorter (far too short) version of the novel/s. Archive is full of great BBC (and other) adaptations of books, and I'd point to their productions of Raymond Chandler stories, Leslie Charteris "Saint" stories, Ian Fleming 007 books, and Alan Rickman's last performance redeeming an otherwise annoying production of ROPE. PBS's lavish STAR WARS adaptations are there too. [-kw]
Evelyn comments:
I have listened to the six-hour I, CLAUDIUS, all the Raymond Chandlers with Ed Bishop, and most of the ones with Toby Stephens. Ed Bishop was also the lead in CAVES OF STEEL, but when I listen to that I find myself asking, "What's Philip Marlowe doing in a future New York City?" [-ecl]
Sean Connery (letter of comment by Steve Coltrin):
In response to Evelyn's comments on how a teenage fan of Sean Connery watching FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1964) in 2008 did not recognize him, in the 09/18/26 issue of the MT VOID:
One wonders how she would react to THE LONGEST DAY, in which a practically pediatric Connery has a small part; I only made him by his voice. [-sc]
Evelyn responds:
That's like Michael Caine in THE DAY THE EARTH CAUGHT FIRE (1961), who is uncredited as a checkpoint policeman, and I don't think you even see his face, but you can identify him by his voice. [-ecl]
Tom Gargill Quote (letter of comment by John Hertz):
In response to Tom Gargill's quote at the end of the 09/04/26 issue of the MT VOID, John Hertz writes:
It's been a while since I wrote computer code, so I can't easily speak from memory, but the 90% - 10% attributed to Tom Gargill (MT VOID 2448, 4 Sep 26) is close to the 4/5 - l/5 or 80% - 20% Pareto Proportion (Vilfredo Pareto 1848-1923) that keeps turning up. Eighty per cent. of the people do 20% of the work. Twenty per cent. of the unpacking takes 80% of the time. Pareto noted but could not explain its apparent universality, nor has anyone else, but so it seems. In our field Theodore Sturgeon, who said "90% of everything is [bad]," may have been pessimistic, unusual for him but he was speaking in retort. [-jh]
This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper):
WALT WHITMAN'S AMERICA: A CULTURAL BIOGRAPHY by David S. Reynolds (Vintage, ISBN 0-679-76709-6) was one of the books I picked up recently at the Used Book Superstore in Burlington (MA).
In a recent magazine article on the tumultuous state of America someone called for a return to "the safe traditions of a better, a purer, and a wiser age." Sound familiar?
Well, "recent" in geological terms--the date of the article was 1857 and the someone was Walt Whitman. As Reynolds continues, "Elsewhere he also recalled 'the primitive simplicity and economy of former generations.'"
Which all reminded me of the film MIDNIGHT IN PARIS. In that film, the main character yearns for the Paris of the 1920s, with the Fitzgeralds, Thomas Wolfe, Gertrude Stein, Ernest Hemingway, T. S. Eliot, Salvador Dali, Man Ray, and Luis Bunuel. When he is magically transported there (then?), he meets Adriana, who longs for the Belle Epoque. When the two of them are transported *there*, they meet Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Paul Gauguin, and Edgar Degas, who in turn say the best time was during the Renaissance. In other words, the grass is always greener in your grandfather's yard (or something like that).
This, of course, is a total digression from the main content of WALT WHITMAN'S AMERICA, which is a biography of Whitman heavily interspersed with a description of the political, social, and economic conditions of the time. Reynolds also seems to have an agenda. He seems determined to convince the reader that Whitman's homosexuality was almost entirely emotional rather than physical, not out of line with common attitudes of the time in expressing affection between men, and that Whitman's later racist comments shouldn't detract from his earlier, more inclusive poetry.
Reynolds also goes in great detail into the publication history of LEAVES OF GRASS, which went through *nine* editions, with the first (1855) having twelve poems and 95 pages. Wikipedia notes, "Whitman once said he intended the book to be small enough to be carried in a pocket: 'That would tend to induce people to take me along with them and read me in the open air: I am nearly always successful with the reader in the open air'." (I am reminded of Helene Hanff asking for a book of Elizabethan love poems that she could "slip in a slacks pocket" and take to Central Park.) The 1892 ("Deathbed") edition has almost 400 poems.
(An Armed Services Edition titled "A Wartime Whitman" consisted of poems selected to promote morale and patriotism.)
I found the sections about "Walt Whitman's America" more engaging than those about Walt Whitman himself. One thing that made some of those hard to follow was Reynolds's tendency to bounce between using a person's first name and their last name when referring to them (e.g., Peter Doyle, who was referred to by Reynolds as both "Doyle" and "Pete"). The book has won several prizes, so maybe it's just me. [-ecl]
Evelyn C. Leeper
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
Quote of the Week:
[On hearing Freeman Dyson speak...] A sufficiently
visionary scientist is indistinguishable from a crackpot.
--Mark R. Leeper
Go to our home page