Bob Billings wrote:

> Feedback from MMD'ers would help here.  I think about how I read the
> Scientific American, for instance (or for that matter, the MMD!).  I
> don't read every article in detail, only those in which I'm interested.
> Others I may scan, or skip altogether.  We don't know who may be
> interested in what, so I'm inclined to present more than less.

Mr. Billings has a very good point.  The scope of MMD is very great.
Many things are legitimate subject matter.  I favor the technical
entries, even though I can't or don't understand much of them.  As it
has been with my labored acquisition of computer skills and knowledge,
I suspect that the info I see today and don't understand may one day
'register' and start to come together in some sort of 'bigger picture'.
I should know, but would the word 'gestalt' be appropriate in this usage?

I guess restoration appeals to me as a general concept.  Many of my
interests in life revolved around "good old something-or-other..."  My
premise is, if something was made once it can be made again.  I see the
MMD as, in part, a vehicle/vessel for the knowledge and perspective
someone will need one day so that something worthy can be made again.

I noticed the request for double spacing in submissions.  I never saw
anything about it before.  I'm wondering, how does this note appear to
you?  I did not double space but will in future if you say it is desired.

Best wishes

Richard Danzey

 [ It's already double-spaced as I received it, Richard.  Send a Cc to
 [ yourself to see what I see; it looks nice.  Thanks for inquiring.
 [ -- Robbie