WHAT LIST MEMBERS THINK ABOUT THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK:



I find it a useful perspective to my other catastrophic interests. It
compliments them and adds texture to the big picture. Most of what
you  post is what I would like to read if I had the time. So you are
saving me the work and pointing me in directions which I hadn't known
would be so interesting (Amy Acheson, USA)

I have mixed feelings. Occasionally I find some of the debate
interesting, but often I feel like reading the postings are a waste of
my time. Too many topics appear again and again, and frankly I don't
think some of them are very much about science--more about
personalities/schools of thought/etc. This can make for interesting
reading, of course, but I sometimes feel like I'm watching people air
dirty laundry (Marcel Agueros, UK)


Brilliant (Alan Alford, UK)



I think it fills a valuable niche by presenting new ideas in a
rapidly evolving field.
(Chris Aikman, USA)


I have found that the most interesting areas for me are: a. Discussions
regarding the 1997-XF11 controversy and the general problem of NEO
impact prediction. b. Submissions regarding meetings that were attended
and that contain a candid synopsis of the discussions, especially NASA.
c. I find Brian Marsden's posts very enlightening and appreciate them
very much (M Anderson, USA)



I feel that the amount of contributions is too large; I would
appreciate the length and number of contributions being limited in
some way. An number of two digests per week would be suitable for me.
Ususally the letters are not as useful as the digest, but there are
also very good letters. I don't like discussions about policy and
'philosophy'. Thanks a lot for your efforts with the list. I
basically enjoyed many of the postings.
(Rainer Arlt, Germany)


I'd probably try to make sure all the postings stay within the
subject of, say, `the terrestrial/extraterrestrial interaction'. I
think CCNet has to date been pretty well in accordance with this, I'm
just making this point because there have been various comments about
the material of CCNet having expanded a lot since it began.
(David Asher, UK)


This is a very thoughtful, community-building service. Everybody
whose work involves NEOs should be a subscriber. Unfortunately, as
just that is happening, the network is undergoing the present growth
pains. Some more structuring (much more democratic than filtering)
would be a great help, for instance opening up a "Features" section.
(Erik Asphaug, USA)



A VERY VALUABLE, TIMELY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION ACTIVITY - SUFFERS
FROM SOME GENERAL E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DIFFICULTIES.
(Timo Assmuth, Finland)



Would be nice if we could use CCNET to co-ordinate an educational
outreach programme to the general public relating to the NEO threat
(Austen Atkinson, UK)



An excellent service, though the flood of information is occasionally
overwhelming. (Mark Bailey, UK)




I like and value the wide range of material covered and value it for
news snippets and interesting ideas from various people. Sometimes it
gets too narrowly focussed on NEO research and if this took it over
completely it would be much less interesting. The combination of
astronomy, geology, space probe findings and thoughts about mythology
can be very stimulating. (Alasdair Beal, UK)



Great to have "real-time" commentary from some of the great minds in
this group. One certainly must be careful to sort the wheat from the
chaff... but that's the story of life, eh? (Jim Bedient, USA)


The ratio of quality content to absolute nonsense borders close enough
to zero that I have very frequently come to the point of asking to be
removed from the list. I have stayed on in the hopes that you would
improve it. (Richard P. Binzel, USA)



It is good but too extensive. I am unable to read everything.
(Jiri Borovicka, Czech Republic)



Useful and interesting at times. Some submissions, though, could
stand some significant editing. I also find some of the topics highly
speculative -- supporting evidence should be demanded from all
submissions. (William Bottke, USA)



Useful, interesting and occasionally entertaining. The football
chitchat is very jolly but you should be careful not to alienate those
of us who HATE FOOTBALL AND ALL IT STANDS FOR. But seriously, it is
a v v informative list and it is fascinating to see what issues get
researchers in the field really worked up. (Sue Bowler, UK)



Interesting and useful; as mailing lists go, it seems to stary fairly
well on-topic, which is a good sign that it is both well-admninistered
and read (and commented to) by a good mix of participants.
(Simon Bradshaw, UK)


I find the CCNet quite useful in providing a broader understanding of
issues that aren't publicised indepth elsewhere.  Here in Australia,
coverage of NEO issues are limited to "press releases" in the main.
(J. Bryant, Australia)


Keep it coming. There is a lot out there we don't know about. NEOs
are a classic example of history repeating itself. Unless we learn
all we can about them, we are going to be very surprised by the next
one that drops in and society will be totally unprepared for the
consequences. (Ted Bryant, Australia)


I do appreciate the editorial input you apply in preparing the
mailings. It's all too easy for us out here to sit back and request
this feature or that without much regard for the work it entails.  So
I'll just say I think you're doing a wonderful job on the list, and I
am glad to have it in any form (Robert Burnham, USA)



I like the meeting reports and debates which are more characterful
(sometimes too much so!) than those which typically appear in
publications. I like the abstracts of scientific research across the
broad spectrum of fields covered in CCNET, many of which I would
probably overlook if they were not mentioned here. I like the extracts
from the popular press about NEO-related topics which offer a
perspective on how good a job NEO "advocates" are doing in educating
the press and public (Phil "Pib" Burns, USA)


Fills an important role. (Greg Canavan, USA)


As the editor of a newsletter for a small amateur astronomy club I
recently included a CCNET article (after contacting the author and
recieving permission)in the newsletter and hope to continue doing so
from time to time. (Jim Carlson, USA)


I am not a careful reader, and sometimes I feel bored when the pop-up
message announcing a new CCNet message appears on my screen. On the
other hand, I think it to be an interesting (and sometimes funny)
facility (A. Cellino, Italy)



Thank you Benny, for doing this. Many of the topics treated are not
my personal preference, but that's OK. I wish that you had been more
effective in striving toward scientific understanding on some recent
controversial topics. (Clark Chapman, USA)


Good clean fun! (Sir Arthur C Clarke, Sri Lanka)



Very helpful and informative (J. Steven Cochrane, USA)


Enjoyable & interesting
(Robert Clements, Australia)


Somehow informative, however it is clear that most of the established
scientists dealing with impact effetcs and consequences are not part of
the network. Therefore the level of debate stays rather low and remains
marginal. (Marie-Agnes Courty, France)



It provides a valuable service to keep someone like myself who is on
the periphery of the activity informed. I wish however that it had
greater brevity. (Les Cowley, UK)


I appreciate it being there and the hard work you put in for the
community. As an amateur I can't afford to go to the conferences,
so CCNet gives me the latest developments in NEO research and related
topics, as well as the insightful debate. (Malcolm Currie, UK)


Where else can one find interesting commentary and exchange of views
by Chandra Wickramasinghe, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, David Levy, Brian
Marsden, and others? Only on CCNet did I see Marsden's account of the
XF11 affair. (Bill Dillon, USA)


I enjoy it as a source of stimulating information and ideas but I don't
want to be overwhelmed by too much material.. I know that moderating
this list is a difficult job which probably started small and grew
unexpectedly large. (David H. Doff, Ireland)


It frequently draws my attention to interesting material that I might
otherwise not have known about. I find the network interesting and
useful in general, although, of course, not every posting is in line
with my interests.  I feel interaction between colleagues helps us all
to see different aspects of any issue, especially those outside our
personal areas of expertise, but I do believe disagreements should
remain civil (Jerry Ennis, USA)


I like it because is seems to me (an amateur without a degree but a
great deal of interest) like a public forum of quite a high level, as
internet forums go (Barron Family, USA)



TOO MANY PERSONAL QUARRELS. TOO MUCH SPACE DEVOTED TO 'PERIPHERAL'
ISSUES THE 'COHERENT-NEOCATASTROPHIST' WORLDVIEW GETS A
DISPROPORTIONATE EMPHASIS COMPARED TO THE SHARE OF THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY WHICH SUPPORTS IT. (Paolo Farinella, Italy)


I find it extremely useful to follow current debate. In my position I
have frequent contact with professional astronomers and it has been
of immense help in keeping me aware of current topics.
(Guy Fennimore, USA)


It's one of the best services I know on the Internet, and I wish
other fields of science would have news & discussion fora of
similar quality! (Daniel Fischer, Germany)


Can be fun, but has obviously strayed a bit from its initial remit.
(Alan Fitzsimmons, UK)


In my opinion, the CCNet is the best mailing list I know. Perhaps,
sometimes it goes off-topic, but I think that words cannot be managed
at all. If we want that the debates are alive, we cannot restrict too
much of the writings.
(Luigi Foschini, Italy)



Very useful, but should be limited to NEOs. (Walter Flury, Germany)


Thanks for a very informative news digest on some of the most
important topics in current research/policy discussions. (Dwayne Free,
USA)



In general I find it to be a useful and interesting maillist to be on.
(Gordon Garradd, Australia)


IT'S GREAT!  RIGHT ON!
(Tom Gehrels, USA)


As someone who has partially dropped out of the loop (my "day job"
consists of programming and research on co-integration based investment
models, nothing to do with planetary science) this network is a great
resource. I am still able to work anywhere between a few hours and 3-4
days a week on science, so I need to stay in touch without having to
check in every day (as would be the case with a unsenet news group).
The discussions between the learned and generally civilised
contributors help remind me of some of the reasons I enjoy space
science and the community ("Go Paolo! Go Andrea!") as well as providing
a real scientific resource. Like a round table discussion but with
coffee breaks whenever we want and a library on hand for those
all-important facts. (Ian Giblin, USA)



I find CCNet a most informative and interesting bulletin -
my congratulations to the coordinator/moderator - who is doing an
excellent job. There will be a need for vigilance to avoid the
"creeping-in" of "popular science" - in view of the existence of a grey
area between innovative (and often not yet proven) scientific ideas on
the one hand and science fiction on the other hand - the two are not
always easily distinguishable. However, to date I am pleased to note
that science fiction has been kept to a minimum.
(Andrew Y. Glikson, Australia)


It is a good place for debate.
(Javier Andres Licandro Goldaracena, Spain)



The CCNet is very heplful in giving new and condensed information
about NEOs and delated topics (I would not have the time to search
for all that by myself). It is a meeting point for the NEO community.
(Christian Gritzner, Germany)


I have heard of several important developments on CCNET days before it
appeared in other news sources I follow. I would not be aware of a lot
of important information without CCNET. (Joel Gunn, USA)



EXCELLENT! (Walt Hadley, USA)



Amusing at times, tedious at others. I skip the abstracts. Worth it to
get news releases on various scientific issues (Heidi B. Hammel, USA)


Very interesting informative and thought provoking
(Joyce Hedges, USA)



It allows me to keep in touch easily and time-efficiently with a
research domain (NEO-research and neo-catastrophism) I am deeply
interested in and has provided me with lots of clues towards further
readings. (Patrick Helminger, Luxemburg)


Gives access to information that otherwise would require a lot of
effort on my part to gather. I feel that if anything important is
going on in NEO research, fireballs observed etc. it will be
mentioned on the network in a timely fashion and I can follow up
appropriately.  I would post something to the network e.g. in the
case of a meteorite fall in Canada, to point interested researchers
to where they can get information in a timely fashion. It is also
interesting to be on a list with people like David Levy and Arthur C.
Clarke.... (Richard Herd, Canada)


I enjoy it and wish to continue with it (Heather Hill, USA)



I believe that the controversies are the main purpose such a group
should exist. As long as it is not reduced to unproductive finger
pointing, controversy is the test of the scientific process. As such,
having a forum such as this to argue out topics helps build better
science. I am generaly a lurker rather than a participant. However, I
find the dicussions stimulating and every so often lead me into new
projects. (James L. Hilton, USA)



Very good and useful. My own interests/areas of research include
asteroids/comets/planetary satellites and oddballs (like Pluto) so
I'm very content with things as they are. (Andrew Hollis, UK)



I appreciate your effort! I generally scan CCNet quickly, but nearly
every posting has something worth reading carefully. (Dave Hostetter,
USA)


VERY INTERESTING INFORMATION SOMETIMES, AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIND
PEOPLE TO EXCHANGE INFORMATION (Ken Hsu, Switzerland)



It's fun to read, and useful in a general sense for possible future
classes. (Don Hunten, USA)


I am broadly happy with the present postings if unchanged.
(Guy Hurst, UK)



Excellent (J.B. Hutchison, UK)


This is a fantastic venue, and I enjoy getting it, as the debates and
information exchange are great. The network is probably one of the
best subscriptions I have made on the net in some time, it presents
the day to day thoughts and opinions of a  range of people in and out
of various scientific fronts. It's a great sounding board, sort of
small symposiums, a few times a week, keeps the creative juices
flowing... (David J. Johnson, USA)


I find the whole thing absolutely brilliant.
(Morton Jurgensen, Norway)


The best thing is that the articles are new and you sometimes get
hints where to look for more information. The worst is that many
articles contain lots of unnecesary words, which slows down the
reading. (Ola Karlsson, Sweden)


A real service to IAU Commission 22
(Colin Keay, Australia)


I'm glad that I am a member (D.J. Keenan, UK)


As a daily review of what is going on it is of tremendous value.
This aspect needs to be preserved and amplified. (Mark Kidger, Spain)



Very good, so far. However, all successful mailing list forums tend
to broaden their scope over time if unchecked, since subscribers are
tempted to exchange off-topic smalltalk and divert into other areas
of common interest. The CCNet moderator should watch out for articles
which obviously overlap other space-related fora. Subjects such as
the ISS, Galileo, MIR, and the Space Shuttle are definitely not
called for, because to most of us these areas are already covered.
(Jens Kieffer-Olsen, Denmark)



The CCNet is an excellent means of stimulating interest in this new
area of research and also a great way to share ideas.
(Bob Kobres, USA)


Unique platform for interdisciplinary quick-look information.
(Wolfgang Kokott, Germany)



I appreciate being able to read the opinions of list members.
Sometimes it is hard to evaluate the important developments reported
in the popular press. The exchanges in CCNet Debates are especially
helpful in giving me a sense of what the professional community says
about selected developments.
(Steven N. Koppes, USA)



Very educational! (H. Korado, Hungary)



Interesting, informative. Allows me to obtain a broader view of fields
that aren't directly related to my interests or my list. In other
words, it allows me to see "more of the trees in the forest", so to
speak. The larger (and somewhat different) readership than on MPML
allows me to see what others in minor planet research are "thinking".
As you mentioned when I was subscribed, I do find it a good balance to
MPML. (Richard Kowalski, USA)


Thanks for doing a good job (Ian Lyon, UK)



I quite new to this list so I can't give answers to all the questions.
I do enjoy the list but sometimes find it too long.
(Michael J. MacDonald, Australia)


Very, very positive, and I am recommending to colleagues to subscribe
(H. M. Maitzen, Austria)



Very usefull, because of its scientific reports and honesty (like
posting a follow-up explaining the first message's weak points) And
because I think the topics are somewhat connected to each other (a
NEO is part of the solar system, an impact crater has to do with a
meteorite, a mass extinction could be caused by an impact,
astronomical effects that influence the climate and course of
evolution, archeology explaining historical conditions, etc. Thanks
to space science we can try to answer questions like that. And
archeology? I think it's very important, it can show how a
civilization suddenly collapsed or started, and why (changing
environment, climate, disaster, etc.) and it can also explain why
mankind has been obsessed whith astronomy fot the last 4000 years,
and why it was so important to the ancients. (B. Maltha, Holland)


I find the CCNet to be invaluable, both as a source of news and
information and as a stage for debate and discussion regarding
controversial issues. Granted, there are subjects which I am not
interested in - I simply skip those items and don't make much fuss
about it. I would rather have more information which I will trim to my
requirements, than missing an important issue. (Ilan Manulis, Israel)


It's a fantastic facility to have around, I don't think it needs to be
more restricted, if people have ideas then it's good to hear them
discussed. (Scott Manley, UK)



As a non-scientist, but rather a journalist/publisher with a keen
interest in the topics covered, it's great to be able to sit on the
sidelines (mostly) and just observe and learn from the scientific
forum/debate you have successfully created. The professionalism of
the editorial process and final packaging is what makes CCnet one of
the best space lists on the Net today, and should be used by other
list publishers as a blueprint for how to do it right. A similar SETI
research report is urgently needed to better exchange the new pace of
information now starting to appear in this field. (Simon Mansfield,
Australia)



You're doing a great job, have successfully eliminated the most
egregious ad hominem remarks and have been extraordinarily patient in
ensuring that all reasonable sides of an issue are covered. Keep up the
good work. (Brian Marsden, USA)



The existence and growth of this Network in all its aspects is
encouraging. If we are to make an impact on society - as I believe we
must one day - this Network, and others all benefit from the research
data, and cross-fertilization of ideas and disciplines. The ultimate
prize - a rapprochment between Science and Religion, in their best
senses, on the vast new frontier of Space - is of inestimable value for
all who wish to see Humanity grow and develop to its full potential. In
time, I believe, we should reach out to other unlikely communities who
can share some of our interests. We should not be too narrow or
specialized, if we are to eventually carry the public, and its
all-important moral and financial support, with us!
(Michael Martin-Smith, UK)




Very good to excellent. Opens our mind on some other aspects of this
vast problem. I like reading things on (pre)historical perspectives;
paleontology, etc..., even though this is not my field.
(Alain Maury, France)


Fine - but your activity outpaces my time available for assimilation!
(J.A.M. McDonnell, UK)



Must be focussed to be manageable. (Alfred McEwen, USA)


I think it is great! (James McGaha, USA)



A unique medium - I do not subscribe to many other listserves and the
CCNet covers a lot of my interests, both professional and amateur.
(Robert McMillan, USA)



Some aspects of the network are very useful, so far as keeping
informed of the latest work, especially those of European and
Australian researchers.
(Jay Melosh, USA)



I am a journalist, but I find it useful for the news. It's very positive.
It's an excellent example of science communication!
(Mario Menichella, Italy)


I find that it provides a good forum for those who are dissatisfied
with the standard explanations of prehistory whatever their discipline,
and feel that the inter-discplinary approach is the way forward for a
better understanding of the mysteries of the past.
(John Michael, UK)



It's useful for my research and also helps in keeping in touch with
people interested in these topics.
(Andrea Milani Comparetti, Italy)



I teach solar system material in both fundamental and advances classes,
and so appreciate up to date views on the topics covered. My research
work in this area benefits, but I do not really publish in this field.
(Gene Milone, Canada)



I WOULD CERTAINLY MISS IT NOW IF IT CEASED!
(Jacqueline Mitton, UK)


The quick and timely release of the postings is very helpful
particularly as the state of our knowledge of objects changes. I like
very much the fact that the CCNet postings are "news-y" and current,
and not always archives of information which are invested only after a
situation has stabilized. I also like very much the controversies
which rage on occasion among we NEO people. Please retain this
open-forum for such controversies to air in public. The moderator may
sometimes have to set limits, but please do that only after the
situation goes somewhat wild and some recipients complain: please
don't do it in advance! This forum is, well, "somewhat unique." It's
great that scientists feel OK about getting on each other's case as
much as they do. This is a necessary outlet in our field. I have
never seen it to harm, only to help. (The controversy over XF11, for
example, has only clarified things, not clouded them. A great chapter
in CCNet!). (Joe Montani, USA)



Makes what appears to be a unique contribution to a possible major
scientific paradigm shift.
(Brian Moore, UK)



The cross-disciplinary nature of the postings - I have found it
extremely useful and interesting to be informed of what scientists in
other disciplines are working on.
(Jared R. Morrow, USA)



THE MODERATOR APPARENTLY LIKES TO MAGNIFY AND STIMULATE CONTROVERY,
ESPECIALLY BY PROMOTING MINORITY (EVEN FRINGE) VIEWS. WHILE THIS MAY
MAKE THE MATERIAL MORE INTERESTING TO AN OUTSIDER, IT DEGRADES ITS
USEFULNESS TO SCIENCE AND IS DISTASTEFUL TO MANY SCIENTISTS. CCNET IS
TO SCIENCE AS A TABLOID IS TO REAL NEWS. IT IS AN ECLECTIC MIXTURE OF
SCIENCE AND PSEUDOSCINECE, OF NEWS AND VIEWS, OF RESPONSIBLE
INFORMATION / REFERENCE MATERIAL WITH POORLY-INFORMED SPECULATION.
CAVEAT EMPTOR. (David Morrison, USA)



I'm sure that the CCNet mails have contributed to the research on solar
system astronomy, especially concerning NEO research. I'm impressed by
your dedication to this work! (Akimasa Nakamura, Japan)



If it didn't exist it would have to be invented. (Bill Napier, UK)



It's great! - But everything can always be improved. (Andy Nimmo, UK)


Moderation and the high quality of the writers plus the influential
audience makes this almost a unique place for information dissemination
and discussion. (Timo Niroma, Finland)



Very informative and enlightening.
(Eric Olson, Sweden)


Useful, interesting but some filter should be included to avoid too
long contributions or too many one-to-one discussions
(Paolo Paolicchi, Italy)



The network has enabled me to "come up to speed" with the issues of
NEO research and the possible effects of impacts on Earth. This has
been very useful for enhancing the Australian Spaceguard Survey
website and I am grateful to all to subscribers who have directly or
indirectly provided assistance in this regard.
(Michael Paine, Australia)



I am very happy about reading these messages. I am not what you may
call a practicing scientists/astronomer. I had been an amateur and I am
one of those "lucky" people who get paid for what they like to do
in their spare time. Yes, I think some of the mails could be
"refereed". For a person like me it is indeed very interesting to read
the arguments put up by both the sides but then if someone could sum
up the discussion (after a few exchanges) that would be better.
(Arvind Paranjpye, India)



Very interesting and informative but the "in-depth" contributions are
sometimes too comprehensive for people like me who are specifically
interested in  m e t e o r i t i c s.
(Bernd Pauli, Germany)



I like the insight behind the 'news' as in the recent Pluto debate
comments. So I think the 'letters to the editor' are particularly
interesting. And thank you Benny for running the service. I look
forward to your messages. (Margaret Penston, UK)



Some things are more interesting than others, but there is usually at
least one article in each digest that I clip and save.
(James Perry, USA)


This network is an outstanding and unusual resource for all aspects
of the space science, providing a forum for a diversity of views
seldom seen elsewhere. Its naturally evolving nature, expanding to
test and develop new topics and formats, is a good sign of its
robustness and ability to grow and include the energies and interests
of many people, without taking away from their own unique
contributions. This is the time to nurture and encourage the full
diversity of the network's possibilities, not the time to nip it in
the bud. Let it flourish, and I am sure we will all be better
rewarded, and I am confident that we might come one step closer to
creating a humane, flourishing civilization in space.
(Lewis Pinault, USA)



Be careful it doesn't become just another newsgroup. Short & succint
please, use HTTP references if a long article requires it or can't be
cut. It's a good concept and I don't see how you get the time to do it!
(Brian Portlock, UK)



It is very informative and it is a big help in my work
(Andrei Razvan, Romania)



I am frankly surprised CCNet has lasted this long. When you first
started it, I would have thought it dead from lack of readership in a
few months. (Kevin Reed, USA)


I like the media press releases and 'chit chat'. I think most
scientists tend to get immersed in their own research world without
considering the public perception of their results. Reading media
pieces and impressions from amateurs gives a good new perspective on
our work. CCNet also helps me to be kept informed of fields related to
but slightly outside my own. (Sara Russell, UK)


IT'S CHURNING OUT TOO MUCH MATERIAL. I DON'T HAVE TIME TO SORT
THROUGH IT ALL LOOKING FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS THAT ARE OF INTEREST
TO ME. (Scott Sandford, USA)


A good service, but avoid the chit-chat
(Bradley E. Schaefer, USA)



Keep up the good work. (Joel Schiff, New Zealand)


Please keep up the good work; it's a valuable resource.(Ed Scott, USA)



It's a bit redundant with other lists and sources of information with
the posting of press releases - I get some of those 3 or 4 times in
addition to catching them from other sources.  The posts are often very
long and discourage reading them thoroughly - I often skim for
highlights, so maybe a brief summary of content would work as well as
shorter posts, maybe organized by content.
(Jim Scotti, USA)



I LIKE THE NETWORK BEING A LITTLE BIT WILD, UNCONTROLLED. IF IT WOULD
BE TOO ORGANIZED AND EDITED IT WOULD LOOSE ITS CHARM. I HAVE FOUND
MANY PEARLS BECAUSE OF THIS SUBSCRIPTION. FOR THE CRAP, I USE THE
DELETE BOTTOM. I APPRECIATE THE NETWORK A LOT. (Birger Schmitz, Sweden)



It gives me the opportunity to be informed about the latest
developments and publications in the field.
(Viktor A. Shor, Russia)



I value the network highly, I read most articles some more in depth
than others. Having an inclusive program as it is, is most valuable for
those scanning Catastrophism, being an exclusive network I feel woould
detract from the Networks function. Let's face it, where on the net can
one be informed about impact craters in various parts of the world,
space elevators, mythological evidence of catastrophism, space
programs, dendrology,  tsunamis etc etc etc. What a valuable potpouri
of information. Please do not change, the format ! (Peter Snow, New
Zealand)


Better than many other e-mail lists. (Emilio Spedicato, Italy)


I find it helpful as the editor of Astronomy Now to keep in touch
with what is going on in the astronomical community. (Pam Spence, UK)


AS AN 'UNOFFICIAL' FORUM IT DOES A USEFUL JOB. IT KEEPS ME IN TOUCH
WITH LOTS OF IDEAS. (Duncan Steel, Australia)



I like the wide variety of topics. I find it very helpful with regard
to information on new scientific research that would need a lot of
Internet searching and reading to obtain otherwise.
(A. Sulli, Germany)



Some articles are just for the propaganda of writers, but not for
the NEO community. (Isobe Syuzo, Japan)



I appreciate the energy you put into it. (Jeremy Tatum, Canada)



I find the network never less than thought provoking and at times it
can kick start thinking along fresh lines.
(Richard Taylor, UK)


I am "just interested" - not a scientist. It broadens my horizon.
(Sveinung W. Tengelsen, Norway)



We are three astronomers who read CCNet messages on this address,
working on observing programme of minor planets (including follow-up
astrometry of NEOs) at the Klet Observatory in the Czech Republic. The
CCNet seems to be very useful for us, partly from scientific point of
view (abstracts of new papers, scientific debate, news from observing
programmes and so on), on the other hand CCNet brings us interesting
and important information about the attitude of mass media,
statesmansand public towards hazards due to asteroids and comets and
towards a support of NEO research in other countries. (Jana TICHA,
Milos TICHY, Zdenek MORAVEC, Klet Observatory, Czech Republic)


In my opining, this network is very important because it lets you
read some new information and keeps you informed easly every day
about results of research in the world. (Hamid Touma, Morocco)


A valuable view of the isssues affecting this important area.
(Richard Tremayne-Smith, UK)



When the list started I doubted that many people would join because
it seemed too specialized. But the list has attracted world renowned
researchers who post very interesting comments.  Please continue the
good work. (Carlos Trenary, USA)


I thoroughly enjoy it. (Roy Tucker, USA)



It gives me essential information that I cannot get here otherwise in
a small town in the Ural region with the virtual absence of scientific
journals and with very limited access to the Internet. I have been
subscribed to the CCNet for 10 months and learn a lot. I have the
impression that CCNet is self-educating in a highly non-homogeneous
community. I am really happy to have this excellent opportunity to see
the opinion and results of various scholars in a wide area problems
which are so important for the next step the civilization should take
in its development. (Simonenko A Vadim, Russia)



PROVIDES ME WITH UP TO DATE INFORMATION REGARDING THE ISSUES, WHICH
IS VERY USEFUL WHEN GIVING PUBLIC LECTURES AND ALLOWING ONE TO
FORMULATE A CLEARER PICTURE OF THE TRENDS IN NEO RELATED RESEARCH. A
MARVELLOUS RESOURCE. (Gerrit Verschuur, Memphis)


I like it. (Tonu Viik, Estonia)


I suspect that you have a number of readers like myself who want to
be informed and want to help inform the general public, not necessarily
on the specific issue of death and destruction from the skies. We are
not specialists, not researchers in NEOs or even in fields which are
closely related to NEOs. You might bear the issue of public
understanding in mind. I find the net fascinating and I love it. I
cannot speak too highly of your work on it. (Jasper V. Wall, UK)



I am a big believer in the saying, "Those who do not learn from
history are condemned to repeat it."  Therefore, I'd like to see this
information more generally available to the public. Perhaps that
would help build support for the research programs that are in
desperate need of funding. (Joy Warren, USA)



Excellent (Clark Whelton, USA)


Its a great idea, but there is too much debate on NEO probabilities
of impact. Perhaps a separate group could be set up for this
particular field of study? (James Whitehead, Canada)


This is an excecllent service to scientists, and I think foreshadows
the way science communication would go in the future.
(Chandra Wickramasinghe, UK)


I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE SOME INFO NEARLY EVERY DAY ABOUT NEOS. I LIKE
THE PARTICIPATION OF ACTIVE RESEARCHERS, AND ALTHOUGH MY MAIN
INTEREST IS THE ASTRONOMY SIDE, I ENJOY THE PROVOCATIVE PIECES ON
POSSIBLE RECENT IMPACT EVENTS. (Charles Wood, USA)


Refreshingly original, unfiltered by journalists.
(Tom Woolner, UK)


Great Job -- Keep it up.
(Pete Worden, USA)



FIVE STARS!! IT'S THRILLING TO LEARN ABOUT THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN
CRATERING AND CATASTROPHISM. I VALUE THIS A LOT. IT IS ALSO VERY
WELCOME TO GET UP-TO-THE-MINUTE INFORMES OF PUBLIC MEDIA RELEASES.
I'M NEVER CAUGHT OFF-GUARD. (Jeff Wynn, USA)



CCNet shines as having the highest quality of scholarly research,
news and discussions about neo-catastrophism on all the Net.
(Juan Zapata-Arauco, USA)



I like this network and it is quite informative. I like the email
distribution method, but it would be better if the message could just
be sent in ordinary text, not by MIME-format attachment - I don't use
PINE or in Windows usually. (Jin Zhu, Beijing Astronomical Observatory,
China)


HOME CCCMENU CCC for 1999 CCNet Survey Results

The content and opinions expressed on this Web page do not necessarily reflect the views of nor are they endorsed by the University of

The content and opinions expressed on this Web page do not necessarily reflect the views of nor are they endorsed by the University of Georgia or the University System of Georgia.