Contents:

• The scenario: starting writing for the Daily Aztec
• First draft
• Comments
• First submission
• Second submission
• Non carfree op-ed 01
  
• Conclusion: lessons learned

The scenario: starting writing for the Daily Aztec

Alright. So the opinion editor of the Daily Aztec, Karla Saia (I just found her website. I should have guessed--) was in one of my literature classes this spring. We got to talking in part because I had a book by one of her favorite authors, Joseph Campbell, with me one day. Later, upon hearing of the new bill regarding draft reinstatement, I asked her if they were writing anything about it. In fact, she had, in her first column of the year (I only found that now, as well).

In general, I looked down on op-ed writing, because I thought it unwise to be required to write something about something every week. I thought it better to keep one's silence until one has something to say, sort of like a monk or hermit. In the other class I was taking that semester, however, I was introduced to the likes of J. S. Mill and Thomas Carlyle, and the concept that "men of letters" are secular priests, and that...

I also wanted to mention the new NYTimes columnist, David Brooks. Reading his work I was reminded that he is in fact a teacher... If I were to be a teacher it would be that kind. Earlier I'd thought I had nothing to teach... but now I had things that SDSU students could benefit from reading.

I asked Karla how much she paid: nothing. The next class I asked how I could get started. I then went to an op-ed writers' meeting and told them I'd write about the carfree movement and the role of vision in individual and societal development.

If they published one of my columns, it might get picked up by uwire and then carried in other campus papers! Even if I were not a student at SDSU, I could write for them as a guest editorial (something like that).

I missed getting a column in the first week (I spent a lot of time trying to do research for the column and updating this site in preparation for more visitors). The second week I got one in, but they really wanted something shorter (under 700 words, not under 850 as I'd first been told). I got two more in the following week but then it was practically finals week, and they didn't print it then. So I haven't gotten a column printed... yet.

First draft

currently at 874 words incl. title.

The carfree movement (this is not about road safety)

Road traffic crashes kill more people each year worldwide than war and suicide combined, according to a World Health Organization report on injury-related deaths released in May of 2003. This year, the theme of the WHO's World Health Day on April 7 was "Road Safety is no accident." Traffic crashes are the leading cause of mortality among young people in industrialized countries. The global toll each year adds up to almost 1.2 million dead and 20 to 50 million injured or disabled. In the US, our share is 42,000 dead each year in traffic crashes--115 each day--and perhaps 20 times that are non-fatally injured. WHO projects that from 1990 to 2020 road traffic deaths will increase by more than 80% in low- and middle-income countries, while declining by almost 30% in high-income countries. "Without appropriate action, by 2020 road traffic injuries are predicted to be the third leading contributor to the global burden of disease and injury," the first two being heart disease and major depression. War and HIV, not in the top 10 at all in 1990, are projected to become the 8th and 10th leading contributors to disease and injury.

But this is not about road safety. I'm writing about the carfree movement. There are people, and I'm one of them, who don't need statistics to tell them that cars and the places built for them--however safe they are made--are a problem. They are a problem that contributes not only to traffic crashes but also to heart disease, war, respiratory infections, and depression. Members of the carfree movement do not wish to live in or near the places built for cars and the people who use them, and we're working to make that kind of future possible for us and for your children.

If you're not one of us yet--and judging from the full parking lots surrounding campus, you're not--look around. Look at the suburban streets wide enough to fit four cars abreast. Look at the seas of pavement and the multi-story parking garages surrounding San Diego State. Listen to the ever-present hum or roar of cars and trucks and the buzz-throb of traffic helicopters. Breathe the ozone air, and feel the smog set in.

Then think of all the great carfree places you know: campus--but for stationary or speeding utility carts and trucks--is one example, Black's Beach is another, and if you've visited Venice, Italy, Fez, Morocco, Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, or 7th Avenue at Penn Station, NYC at rush hour, you have some ideas of what the carfree movement is about. You can also consider all that goes in to making and maintaining a car and the places where it can be driven, and what happens to these components as they wear or break, and the implications of public policy that caters to car-users, and the effects on lower-income countries as they attempt to emulate those already well-paved. Cars and roads disproportionately harm and isolate those who do not drive: children, the elderly, the poor, and the conscientiously-carfree. Car use may one day be looked on as slave ownership is now.

So what can you do? If you agree with what I'm saying, arrange your life so that you don't need to use a car, and then don't buy a car. When choosing places to live, choose developments that were built with carfreedom in mind. Often these will be apartments or row houses near transit stops, not single-family homes on half-acre lots, but there is no reason that carfree living cannot be practiced in rural locations. Work with others to create conditions good for carfree people, like more shared green space near apartments, dedicated, separated bike and pedestrian paths, enforced noise ordnances (e.g., car-alarm bans), road closures and depaving, and wide outside lanes for animal-drawn carriages in not-yet-carfree rural areas. What you spend your attention and money on throughout your lifetime will have far greater effect than your vote in any national election. Make sure your life-practices help realize a vision you value.

In the U.S. outside of Manhattan, it can be lonely and freakish to be carfree, though with the advent of New Urbanism and Smart Growth, this is changing. In San Diego, notable new urbanist projects include the whole "City of Villages" plan, as well as "The Paseo" project adjacent to the SDSU trolley stop. New urbanism emphasizes mixed-use development--apartments above stores, for example--and multi-modal transit. They are not carfree, but give the experiences of pedestrians and cyclists some consideration instead of next to none. Also, even while living in a suburban hell-hole a carfree person can find like minds on the internet. The most famous site is carfree.com. I run carfreeuniverse.org, which has a section devoted to San Diego, and also links to U.S. pro-car groups dedicated to "preserving the American Dream."

The carfree movement is not just about cars. It is about reducing the resources--time, space, silence, natural materials, lives--devoted to moving stuff around. At its root, it is about carefully considering where and how we wish to spend our time, and restricting our use of technology to the service of those values.

Comments

I sent this to some of the carfree lists and got some feedback. I'll paste that here. In my rush, I forgot to read any of the comments from the yahoo carfree list till later, but did come to some of their conclusions in my own revision. Here's what people had to say:

hey there--good job. i like it. i would suggest that you change "for
us and for your children" to "for us and all of our children."

one thing that i work on in my bicycle advocacy is to establish the
sense that we are all in this together, so if you say it the first
way, it comes across as saying that they don't care about their
children or they would stop driving, or at least some might take it
that way.

also, the part "so what do you do if you agree with me?" i'd say
something like, "if you think these make points make some sense, then
give riding a bike or walking a shot, even if only part of the time."
to many people, if given the choice of all or nothing, they'll take
all, and keep driving. i think it probably has to be done in
incraments, especially for those who are skeptical about it in the
first place. there is a group of people that i don't even try to
convice because it would be futile. it's the ones who obviously might
give it a shot who i talk to, because if they start riding a bike 1/4
of the time, that to me is a huge success.

you can also use my homepage for some reference if you feel like it,
which gives reasons for riding a bike. maybe you can put some of that
in there if you find something that fits.

keep up the good work,

scott larkin
www.gobybicycle.com

I like it, but maybe mentioning something like Reclaim the Streets or something
instead of New Urbanism, because I have seen New Urbanism at it's worst in
Orlando. It is barely slightly better than urban sprawl.

leto

i like your article.  it is well written.

i think you could cut in the statistics about the evils of cars, and also mention more of the benefits, especially in terms of kids and money/ time savings in an ideal carfree area.  you should mention our site also!

david

Colin:

Since paragraph 1 is not your subject matter, I'd cut that at least
in half. I would omit the side comments about war and HIV.

The rest is adequate to arouse curiosity, and that is about all you
can do in the space alloted. Just make sure they don't omit the
contact info.

And don't expect much success with motivating new converts. The
problem with cars is that they give us such great rewards, in spite
of their shortcomings. We're bought and paid for, and that is a
difficult trap to escape from. Good luck though.

Steve

> ... Members of the carfree movement do not
> wish to live in or near the places built for cars and
> the people who use them, and we're working to make
> that kind of future possible for us and for your
> children.

This sentence is awkward. "That kind of future" refers to...?

> ... ordnances

Should be "ordinances"

> What you spend your attention and money on throughout
> your lifetime will have far greater effect than your
> vote in any national election. Make sure your
> life-practices help realize a vision you value.

A very important point, I think!

> The carfree movement is not just about cars. It is
> about reducing the resources--time, space, silence,
> natural materials, lives--devoted to moving stuff
> around.

This is also awkward. Silence doesn't move things around. I know what
you're getting at, but I think you need to find a different way to phrase
it.

At its root, it is about carefully considering
> where and how we wish to spend our time, and
> restricting our use of technology to the service of
> those values.

I like that. I think most people don't think about what they really
value. If questioned about their values they just repeat what they've
been told to value, but they don't really think about it. It's just
words. Their actions speak louder than words. People should think about
what they *really* value and then be willing to live in accordance with
those values.

Riin Gill

> Below is my draft of an op-ed I'll be submitting to
> http://dailyaztec.com by 6am PST on Saturday April 23
> (tomorrow).

TF: Oh how I wish that today, Friday, were only the 22nd instead of
the 23rd. Perhaps you mean Saturday April 24?

(snip)
> There are people, and I'm one of
> them, who don't need statistics to tell them that cars
> and the places built for them--however safe they are
> made--are a problem. They are a problem that
> contributes not only to traffic crashes

TF: Cars, and places built for them in accordance with competent
engineering principles, do _not_ contribute to traffic crashes! A
certain incompetent faction of _drivers_ does!

Saying that a car or a road contributed to a traffic crash, is like
saying that your nose contributed to its own bleeding by being there
when my fist impacted it.

In a snippet further down that I accidentally deleted, Colin
advocates "separated" bike paths.

TF: You mean, as in, bicycle facilities built for the _purpose_ of
being separated? That's _not_ in accordance with competent
engineering principles, and therefore _does_ contribute to traffic
crashes!

(snip)
> Also, even while living in a suburban
> hell-hole

TF: Well at least there's _one_ thing that I can agree with Colin on;
"hell-hole" _exactly_ describes what suburbia (which I enjoy visiting
but would _never_ move back to; farms and skyscrapers are more land-
efficient) is! On the other hand, the only suburbanites whom I _tell_
that to are the ones who insult _my_ chosen lifestyle. Therefore, I'd
leave the epithet out of the Op-Ed article.


- Tom Frost Jr.

I've thought about writing one of these many times.
I usually forget about it before the next time I'm at the
computer. Someday I will finish one. I think if you need
to shorten it the place to look is anything negative.
Here are a few suggestions.


> The carfree movement

(this is not about road safety) no need to say what it's not.

> Road traffic crashes kill more people each year
> worldwide than war and suicide combined,

If you edit this, as Steve R suggests, you may want to
add the numbers of wildlife killed. I don't have a link
but I think it's about 1 million birds and mammals per day.

> What you spend your attention and money on throughout
> your lifetime will have far greater effect than your
> vote in any national election. Make sure your
> life-practices help realize a vision you value.

Delete this! It may be true in the way that you mean it but
only because the car-free (by choice) are a such minority now.

> In the U.S. outside of Manhattan, it can be lonely and
> freakish to be carfree,

Change 'be lonely and freakish' to 'seem lonely'.

> Also, even while living in a suburban
> hell-hole a carfree person can find like minds on the
> internet.

Change 'a suburban hell-hole' to 'suburbia'.

Don't to have someone proof read for you because you never your own
mistakes.

Jim

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 RIIN GILL writes:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Colin Leath wrote:
>
> > What you spend your attention and money on throughout
> > your lifetime will have far greater effect than your
> > vote in any national election. Make sure your
> > life-practices help realize a vision you value.
>
> A very important point, I think!

I think the subjects in these sentences are important too.
I just think it's wrong to suggest something that takes
so little time to do should be pushed aside. How much time
does it take to vote once every four years? The only other
thing you need is some education (it's been proven you don't
even need that). My first thought was to have him change
'than' to 'and' but I don't see how he could do that without
making it even longer.

Jim

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 JamesJFitz@J... wrote:

> I think the subjects in these sentences are important too.
> I just think it's wrong to suggest something that takes
> so little time to do should be pushed aside. How much time
> does it take to vote once every four years? The only other
> thing you need is some education (it's been proven you don't
> even need that). My first thought was to have him change
> 'than' to 'and' but I don't see how he could do that without
> making it even longer.

Oh dear, I didn't mean to imply that I don't think people should vote! I
registered to vote when I was 18, and I think I've voted in every election
since then, even school board elections, and I don't have kids. I just
mean a lot of people think if you vote that's *all* you need to do. I
think there's far more to being a responsible citizen than voting. What
do people devote their time and energy and money to? Watching tv or
gardening? Recreational shopping or reading a good book? Driving an SUV
or riding a bike?

***********************************************************
Riin Gill

On 23 Apr 2004 at 21:30, tomfrostjr wrote:

> TF: Cars, and places built for them in accordance with competent
> engineering principles, do _not_ contribute to traffic crashes!

That depends on whether people drive on them in the same way that they
did on the old roads. The major failure of road builders is to think
that they are dealing with machines, when they are in fact dealing with
human drivers.

> A certain incompetent faction of _drivers_ does!

The drivers are simply being human. If someone provides them with a
nice straighter road then they will drive faster than they did on the
old road. The overall effect will be to tend to replace one sort of
crash with another. Those inside cars will benefit from the process,
those outside will probably not.

--
David Hansen

First submission

Like I said, I missed the latter group of comments (after the first three) before revising it to this point.

This comes in at 845 words.

Editor: Do not change "crashes" to "accidents." The numbered links at the bottom are for your reference, not to print.

The carfree movement (this is not about road safety)

Road traffic crashes kill more people each year worldwide than war and suicide combined, according to a World Health Organization report released in May of 2003. This year, the theme of the WHO's World Health Day on April 7 was "Road Safety is no accident." Traffic crashes are the leading cause of mortality among young people in industrialized countries. The global toll each year adds up to almost 1.2 million dead and 20 to 50 million injured or disabled. In the US, our share is 42,000 dead each year in traffic crashes--115 each day--and perhaps 20 times that are non-fatally injured. WHO projects that from 1990 to 2020 road traffic deaths will increase by more than 80% in low- and middle-income countries, while declining by almost 30% in high-income countries. "Without appropriate action, by 2020 road traffic injuries are predicted to be the third leading contributor to the global burden of disease and injury," the first two being heart disease and major depression.

But this is not about road safety. I'm writing about the carfree movement. There are people, and I'm one of them, who don't need statistics to tell them that cars and the places built for them--however safe they are made--are a problem. They are a problem that contributes not only to traffic crashes but also to heart disease, war, respiratory infections, and depression. Members of the carfree movement do not wish to live in or near the places built for cars and the people who use them, and we're working to make that kind of future possible for us and for all of our children.

If you're not one of us yet--and judging from the full parking lots surrounding campus, you're not--look around. Look at the suburban streets wide enough to fit four cars abreast. Look at the seas of pavement and the multi-story parking garages surrounding San Diego State. Listen to the ever-present hum or roar of cars and trucks and the buzz-throb of traffic helicopters. Breathe the ozone air, and feel the smog set in.

Then think of all the great carfree places you know: campus--but for stationary or speeding utility carts and trucks--is one example, Black's Beach is another, and if you've visited Venice, Italy, Fez, Morocco, Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, or 7th Avenue at Penn Station, NYC at rush hour, you have some ideas of what the carfree movement is about. You can also consider all that goes into making and maintaining a car and the places where it can be driven, and what happens to these components as they wear or break, and the implications of public policy that caters to car users, and the effects on lower-income countries as they attempt to emulate those already well-paved. Cars and roads disproportionately harm and isolate those who do not drive: children, the elderly, the poor, the disabled, and the conscientiously-carfree. Car use may one day be looked on as slave ownership is now.

So what can you do? Arrange your life so that you don't need to use a car, and then don't buy a car. When choosing places to live, choose developments that were built with carfreedom in mind. Often these will be apartments or row houses near transit stops, not single-family homes on half-acre lots, but there is no reason one cannot live carfree in rural locations. When thinking of row houses, envision and demand them with thick walls and surrounding shared courtyards--courtyards like you see at Yale or at some spots on this campus. Work with others to create conditions good for carfree people, like bike and pedestrian paths separated from traffic, enforced noise ordnances (e.g., car-alarm bans), depaving, and traffic-calming. What you spend your attention and money on throughout your lifetime will have far greater effect than your vote in any national election. Make your life-practices contribute to a vision you value.

In the U.S. outside of Manhattan, it can be lonely and freakish to be carfree, though with the advent of New Urbanism and Smart Growth, this is changing. In San Diego, notable new urbanist projects include the whole "City of Villages" plan, as well as "The Paseo" project adjacent to the SDSU trolley stop. New urbanism emphasizes mixed-use development--apartments above stores, for example--and multi-modal transit. It is not carfree, but gives the experiences of pedestrians and cyclists some consideration instead of almost none. Also, a carfree person can find like minds on the internet. The most famous site is carfree.com. I run carfreeuniverse.org, which has a section devoted to San Diego, and for balance, links to pro-car groups dedicated to "preserving the American Dream." There is an inspiring project to create a carfree city: carfreecity.us.

The carfree movement is not just about cars. It is about reducing the resources--time, space, silence, natural materials, lives--devoted to moving stuff around. At its root, it is about carefully considering where and how we wish to spend our attention, and restricting our use of technology to the service of those values.


[1] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/releases/2003/pr40/en/
[2] http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liroad073744252apr07,0,3325157.column?coll=ny-linews-headlines
[3] http://www.who.int/entity/world-health-day/2004/infomaterials/world_report/en/summary_en_rev.pdf (World report on road traffic injury prevention: summary)
[4] City of Villages http://www.sandiego.gov/cityofvillages/index.shtml
[5] The Paseo http://www.sdsuniverse.info/story.asp?id=13899
[6] http://purl.oclc.org/net/cfu/l/i/San%20Diego

Second submission

So, the first submission wasn't printed. One of the opinion editors (not sure of his actual role), Bill, mentioned that you probably won't get to choose your title (that's the copyeditor's job, or perhaps the layout person's). The following week I sent a shorter version (645 words) in:

Editor: please don't change crashes to accidents.
If this op ed is still no good to publish, can you
give me some hints for next week? How short is too
short? Thanks, Colin

If you hate your car and the paved places made for it, you're not alone. If you don't, you should. I'll mention some reasons why cars--whether Prius or Hummer--are not good, and then suggest how to partially free yourself from car culture.

People driving cars hurt and kill others. Traffic crashes are the leading killer of young people in industrialized countries. In the US 42,000 people die each year in traffic crashes--115 each day--and perhaps 20 to 50 times that are non-fatally injured. I haven't looked up the number of animals killed by motor vehicles, or deaths and reduced health due to motor vehicle air pollution, but I did notice that San Diego recently earned an "F" in air quality from the American Lung Association. It wasn't because of smokers.
 
Urban environments built for cars are ugly and unhealthy. We don't need statistics to tell us that. Look at suburban streets wide enough to fit four cars abreast. Look at the seas of pavement and multi-story parking garages surrounding campus. Listen to the ever-present hum or roar of cars and trucks and the buzz-throb of traffic helicopters. Breathe the ozone and feel the smog.

Landscapes built for cars are confining and depressing. Walk through San Diego neighborhoods and count the people you see outside of a car. Cars and roads disproportionately harm and isolate those who do not drive: children, the elderly, the poor, the disabled, and the conscientiously-carfree.

Also consider all that goes into making and maintaining a car and the places where it can be driven, what happens to these components as they wear or break, the implications of public policy that caters to car users, and the effects on lower-income countries as they attempt to emulate those already well-paved.

Now, think of carfree places you know: campus--except for police cars and utility trucks--is the most accessible example, and Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica and Venice, Italy, are others. In fact, most of the outdoor places we enjoy visiting and would live in if we could have little or no cars or asphalt.

So what can you do? Make a point of arranging your life so that you don't need to use a car, and then don't buy a car. When choosing places to live, choose developments that were built with carfreedom in mind. Often these will be apartments or row houses near transit stops, not single-family homes on half-acre lots. Admittedly, at present there is a lot of car-centric housing, but you can help change this. When requesting new housing ask for row houses that have thick walls and surround shared courtyards--courtyards like you find on this campus. Also lend support to bike and pedestrian paths separated from traffic, enforced noise ordinances, street closures, street narrowing, and other means of reducing traffic and making it less harmful.

In the U.S. outside of Manhattan, it can seem lonely to be carfree. This is starting to change. In San Diego, notable carfree-friendly projects include the whole "City of Villages" plan, as well as "The Paseo" project adjacent to the SDSU trolley stop. These developments emphasize mixed-use development--apartments above stores, for example--and multiple transit modes. Also, a carfree person can find like minds on the internet. The most famous site is carfree.com. I run carfreeuniverse.org, which has a section devoted to San Diego, and some links to pro-car groups if you want to hear what the other side has to say. There also is an inspiring project to create a carfree city: carfreecity.us.

The carfree movement is not just about cars. It is about reducing the resources--time, space, silence, natural materials, lives--devoted to moving stuff around. At its root, it is about carefully considering where and how we wish to spend our attention, and restricting our use of technology to the service of those values.

Non-carfree op-ed 01

Here's another op-ed I submitted that day, that for now, I'm pasting here for my records. It is sort of on war-tax resistence:

This is at 746 words, but there's plenty of cuttable
parts.

Again, if it's no good, please give me pointers.
enjoy the party!
Colin

You may have noticed that the US spends a lot on the military. You may have noticed that steps have been taken to reinstate the draft by 2005. And you may be aware that food you buy has often been imported from thousands of miles away or was grown using chemicals that not only kill bugs but fieldworkers and streams as well. Maybe you hate cars, but you know a huge amount of any local tax dollars you pay go to build roads or to pay for personnel to deal with problems caused by car drivers. Or maybe you believe the Bible is It, and you resent paying to educate people otherwise. Whatever your leaning, you have to deal with systems that compel you to support things you do not believe in. I'll discuss some methods of coping with living in a world which seems to force you to do things you'd rather not.

First, we need to be clear that to live is to kill other things. To breathe, for example, is to inhale yeast and most likely digest some of it. That said, there is no reason we have to live. We almost always have the choice of whether to be here or not. I'll be condemned by the pious and responsible for mentioning this, but a lot of good could be accomplished with a well-orchestrated, expressive suicide, and after motor vehicle crashes, you're more likely to kill or hurt yourself by trying kill yourself than by other way. If that's how you're going to go, make it count. Rev. Chris Korda and his or her Church of Euthanasia is an excellent resource on this subject. Killing one's self is an extreme measure, and before undertaken you might as well ask if there are not any other extreme actions that would achieve greater good. The rest of this column is for the living.

We'll pretend you're an anarcho-primitivist because that means you hate just about any system where people aren't living like they did 200,000 years ago, and whatever your pet issue is you can learn something from considering the anarcho-primitivist viewpoint. Unfortunately you live in 2004. You don't know how to live in the forest off nuts and chipmunks, and you don't know of any tribe you can join that can teach you. So you begin to make compromises.

First you realize that if you make money at all "on the books," some of it goes to the Federal government. If you make over $7,500 or so per year, income tax kicks in. Using the library internet connection, you find out about "war tax resistance," a practice undertaken by people who do not wish to pay for war. According to the War Resisters League, about 50 per cent of every tax dollar--including any amount paid for Social Security and Medicare--goes to support past, present, and future military spending. War tax resisters take various approaches, but the one appearing most safe from government molestation is to make less than the minimum taxable income per year, to declare yourself exempt on any W-2s (once you can legally do so), and to not file an income tax return.

Second, if you spend any money at all, there's a good chance you'll be supporting products that were not sustainably foraged from the local forest. A partial resolution of this shortcoming is to live on an ecovillage or farm where residents attempt to grow or buy locally grown everything they require. You can also begin to learn and practice primitive skills and to find places where you can in fact live in a wigwam and eat beaver you personally trap all winter.

Another approach, you realize, is to go ahead and make lots of money but attempt to manage your money in such a way as to balance out or minimize the negative effects of what your money is used for. Ecologist Dev Carey of Paonia, Colorado details such an approach in what he calls his "Cabbage Manifesto." The gist of it is that if he buys food or clothing that was not locally, organically produced, he taxes himself and donates the taxes to a worthy cause of his choice.

Now you are aware of some alternatives to feeling that you are a helpless sheep in a hateful or self-destructive system. Someday we may be dependent upon institutions that do only what we wish and nothing more, but until that time these work-arounds will be useful.

Conclusion: lessons learned

What did I learn? I do like writing these things, and I'll work on getting better, and on actually getting printed somewhere besides this website. I'll think about what I learned more later. For now, I wanted to get these pieces on-line with their comments so I can return and study them more carefully in the future.