Name: amber baum
Username: abaum@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Greetings
Date: Tue Sep 2 12:21:07 EDT 1997
Comments:
Welcome, students in bio 103! This is your friendly neighborhood undergrad TA. I look forward to getting to know you this semester, and to reading and contributing to discussion on this forum. (Since I have a class at 11 MWF, I can't attend lectures, so you'll have to fill me in). You know where to find me...I'll see you in lab next week!
aeb
Name: Mindy Boyce
Username: mboyce20@aol.com
Subject: life vs. no life
Date: Thu Sep 4 10:27:19 EDT 1997
Comments:
Hi guys-
I was pondering our discussion of how we distinguish living from non-lining things yesterday, and I actually stumbled on something relevent. Of course this is not an original idea, but I thought I'd share it anyway. We were watching a movie called MINDWALK in my senior conference for political science. Towards the end of the film, the main female character tried to explain life. She said all living things are "self-maintaining"- that is they are dependant on but not determined by their environment. i took this to mean that there is something wholly enclosed by a living organism that tells it what it is to be. In scientific, philosophical or religious terms this could be DNA, spirit, mind, etc, but they way I see it is that every living creature has something that is innate or distinct that is not determined by its surroundings. It has something of its own.
of course I need to think this through more, but I thought I'd throw it out here and maybe it will help us get closer to putting into words this almost intangible way we distinguish life from no-life.
Mindy
Name: dena bodian
Username: dbodian@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Bio 103
Date: Sat Sep 6 13:28:37 EDT 1997
Comments:
I finally got onto the web, and it was really worth it! There's a site about frog dissection which looked very interesting, and you can check out sites about suggested books, as well.
I think that having a website is a really cool way to incorporate an exciting class with out-of-the-classroom interaction. Thanks for making this available!
Name: Andrea Lobato
Username: alobato@brynmawr.edu
Subject: scale and diversity of life
Date: Mon Sep 8 17:11:42 EDT 1997
Comments:
I like the part in the lecture notes where we left off during class on Monday, (9/8). Has anyone else ever considered that we as a planet, solar system, or even a universe, may be part of some greater, intensely complex organism? I mean, what if our universe acts as some sort of organelle for this huge *thing* that exists? What is our role as humans in this setup? Or, to turn the tables, what if there are entire universes contained in the atoms that we are made of? I don't know what sort of observations are possible to support this, but I suppose the point I'm making is that this whole organization of life thing is never going to end. How could we possibly scientifically explore something like this?
Name: amber baum
Username: abaum@brynmawr.edu
Subject: response to mindy
Date: Mon Sep 8 17:43:56 EDT 1997
Comments:
I came across an interesting idea the other day, also related to the question of how we distinguish life from no-life. In short, the idea was that life isn't a thing, it's a process; it's what we call the interaction between organisms and the environment. No interaction: no life. So, life is what happens when the organism and the environment interact (and, I'd add, change each other, too). This definition has a few holes, I think (e.g. it would call computers alive, which I think few of us would do) but it's interesting to find them, and in thinking about it getting closer to an idea of life.
see some of you in lab tomorrow,
aeb
Name: Sara Davis
Username: srdavis@brynmawr.edu
Subject: the source of life
Date: Mon Sep 8 21:32:57 EDT 1997
Comments:
Thinking about life as "the highly improbable assembly of physcial elements" is a difficult concept to grasp. The thought that all life is merely intricate patterns and systems of organized atoms seems impossible, even if there is no proof to otherwise deny this. When you break it down scientifically from organ systems, to organs, to tissues. . . all the way down to atoms, it becomes easier to comprehend. Yet when I think about life from a more abstract point a view I feel that there must be something else there, some kind of source of life, whatever that may be. Sara
Name: suzanne warren
Username: swarren@ada.brynmawr.edu
Subject: Response to S Davis'comment
Date: Tue Sep 9 16:25:52 EDT 1997
Comments:
In response to the last part of your comment--I too find it difficult to reconcile any kind of religious feeling with this conception of a living organism as an aggregation of atoms and nothing else--no soul, no divine energy, etc. But then again, the sense of awe I experience when I realize just how complex even a little plankton is is close to a religious feeling. The debate also points to the inadequacy of science as a mode of inquiry--if there is such a thing as a divine energy, science probably isn't going to find it. It's just the wrong kind of "net" for some things, like trying to scoop water with a butterfly net.--Suzanne W.
Name: Jen
Username: jwu@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Solipsism
Date: Tue Sep 9 21:48:34 EDT 1997
Comments:
"highly improbable assembly . . . of physical elements"
honestly i didn't have a problem with this grobsteinesque statement until he started ranting and raving about the importance and how it should boggle our minds. yes, it's a little scary to think that all we are all just dirt, but thats not news. "ashes to ashes, dust to dust . . . "
but what did disturb me was the whole idea that we are nothing when we are disassembled. wait! let me rephrase that: we are nothing, but have the potential to be anything.
i want to make an analogy here to legos (do i need copyright permission?). its like getting that box, let's say that new caribbean pirate ship in their new series, and pouring all those multi-colored blocks (i.e. our elements) out. yes, it can be that super-duper caribbean pirate ship (i.e. me), but it has the same potential to be . . . let's say, the mission base on mars (i.e. you). or a house (i.e. prof. grobstein). or nothing but a box of multi-colored blocks (i.e. our elements). are there specific instructions (i.e. DNA)? of course, but somebody has to build it.
i guess all i'm getting at is this: who or what is responsible for our highly improbable assembly of physical elements?
Name: Andrea Lobato
Username: alobato@brynmawr.edu
Subject: re: Solipsism
Date: Tue Sep 9 22:42:11 EDT 1997
Comments:
That was a really excellent analogy. Just as you out the legos together for the Carribbean dream ship, somebody has to put our legos (atoms)together. Who? Why? How is it determined that my group of atoms should be me and not some elephant? I suppose I really shouldn't be saying "who". I must take into account all of the people out there who don't believe in a "who", or perhaps even a "what". However, I personally am uncomfortable with the idea of an absence of a "who". Are there any atheists out there who would like to share an opinion with me?
Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Quiet thoughts
Date: Wed Sep 10 10:28:22 EDT 1997
Comments:
ME? Rant and rave? Never .... But I too like the Lego analogy, with the associated thought that one can put pretty much the same blocks together in different ways and get dust, a cat, an elephant, me, thee, and anything else. There is, one caveat, which I'll try and make clear in lecture this morning. If one is talking about atoms as the Legos, the analogy holds (as far as we know). But keep in mind the multiple scales. Atoms combine to form molecules, molecules to form molecular assemblies, assemblies to form cells, cells to form ... and so forth. Each level is an improbable assembly of the elements at the previous level (boxes of boxes). So accounting for me or thee is a problem of accounting for improbable assemblies of atoms, and THEN of improbable assemblies of molecules, and THE of improbable assemblies of cells, and then ... and so forth. All of which is to say there is almost certainly not ONE explanation of how a particular person comes to exist but rather necessarily a whole series of explanations. Which is, I suppose, also nothing new (like "dust to dust"), but it is nice to have some concrete basis for one's intuitions (summaries of observations, preconceptions). And, while it doesn't (and can't) say whether there is a "who" out there doing some putting together, it does bear on the question of whether one does or doesn't need to PRESUME a "who" to account for what's seen. A problem we'll bump into in a variety of different contexts as the semester goes on.
Name: Jeff Oristaglio
Username: joristag@brynmawr.edu
Subject: alternative views on improbable assemblies
Date: Wed Sep 10 11:05:52 EDT 1997
Comments:
Amber, you raised an interesting issue by bringing computers into the
discussion of life. I agree that most people would not consider computers
as living entities, however, there are mechanical "insects" in this building which can actually do some of the things that real insects do. Not nearly as well, of course, but they're getting better all the time. I believe that in the not so distant future that computer controlled entities may force us to rethink the criteria we commonly use to categorize living organisms. At the moment, to most people atleast, there appears to be a comfortable boundary between the two. But it's getting smaller all the time. Our conceptions of what life is, like any idea which arises from a collection of observations, will continue to change as more observations are made.
In response to Sara, Jen and Andrea, who feel that there MUST be something else besides the particles that make us up, I would have to agree. I do however disagree with you on what this "something else" is and with the idea that someone or something must be responsible for these improbable assemblies. I will not spoil all the fun yet to be had this semester by addressing the first issue. The nature of the "something else" has already been touched upon, but we will examine many concrete examples of it as the course progresses.
With regard to second issue, I believe Jen has unsuspectingly painted herself into a corner. If you contend that highly improbable assemblies require someone (or thing) to do the assembling, then you must be prepared to account for the assembly of the assembler, and the assembly of THAT assembler, and........ (This assumes of course that the assembler is also a highly improbable entity. The rejection of this assumption will NOT extricate you from the corner- see below.) This is the ever popular "who created God?" question. In essence, insisting that any highly improbable assembly must have had a creator really doesn't get us anywhere. At some point we are logically forced to conclude that at sometime, way back when, SOMETHING (a less improbable assembly) arose from nothing (i.e.- randomness). But if we accept that argument, why must we insist that the "something" was a superior being who then, in turn, created all we see. This is much more improbable than postulating that all we see evolved slowly (over billions of years) from a random beginning.
Name: Jen
Username: jwu@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Santa and his helpers
Date: Wed Sep 10 18:46:55 EDT 1997
Comments:
in regards to jeff's comment on a "toymaker" (in connection with my whole Legos analogy -- see "solipsism" comment above) of improbable assemblies, and the assembler of the assembler of the assembler, i kinda think of prof. grobstein's "boxes within boxes" philosophy -- or one lego box set within a whole series, i.e. Legos community. it's all on a grander, more infinite scale. of course, it does ultimately come down to "who/what was the first?" and maybe it was all random, but what was the random thing that acted as the catalyst and can it be replicated?
Name: kate stephenson
Username: kstephen@haverford.edu
Subject: wow! scale.
Date: Wed Sep 10 21:31:00 EDT 1997
Comments:
In response to Andrea's question, I have to admit that I also feel uncomfortable trying to find a "who" or even a "what" that can explain all of this stuff. It may be a bit ignorant to say this, but so far I have subscribed to thr theory of randomness. Despite the inherent complexities of life, is it not possible that these things just happened?
On another note, today's lecture was totally mind-boggling. The way scale was presented posed many questions and really made me think. I guess what I mean to say is that although it can be extremely frustrating, one does not always have to find the answer to one's question.
Kate
Name: felicia
Username: fmunion@erols.com
Subject: the painting and the painter
Date: Thu Sep 11 09:09:13 EDT 1997
Comments:
My big problem with the whole thing is that I have trouble imagining that space would suddenly just exist and start expanding. Grobstein was talking about how there is no "where everything started", so there was no begining point, no center. But I really don't grasp the concept of nothing not even excisting. I think for that reason, it makes sense to believe that there was and is something that created everything. As far as the whole size/scale thing--I know some people get disturbed when considering how insignificant they seem in relation to everything. But I look at it more as how everything is essential to everything else that exists in the world. I'm not being very clear on this, but I'm trying. We are so small in that Hubble deep field image, but would it even matter that all of that stuff wwas out there if we weren't here to appreciate the immensity of it all? So it doesn't really matter if we are the only life out there, or if we are cells of some giant, inconceivable being. It just matters that we are. Another thing to think about the whole "who created everything": Can we really ever understand that? Can creation ever understand the creator? Think of a painting. As beautiful as the finished work is, does it compare in any way to the complexity of the painter, and will it ever understand the painter?
Felicia
Name: amber baum
Username: abaum@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Who created god/improbable assemblies?
Date: Fri Sep 12 14:00:11 EDT 1997
Comments:
That is a very good question, and a natural one to ask when pondering life and its beautifully interlocking complexity. To answer that question for myself, I majored in chemistry. My rationale was that organisms were just cells, which were just macromolecules, which were just atoms(I stopped here lest I get into physics and too far away from life)--so how do atoms get to be arranged in such improbable ways?
Kate, I don't think it ignorant at all to appeal to randomness to answer this question. What happens in a test tube filled with chemicals is random. all kinds of atoms and molecules are flying around, constantly in motion, reacting with each other. It's not hard for me to imagine a bunch of phospholipids forming and getting together, and from there to imagine other molecules accidentally being inside that membrane, and from there....and so on. Life is complex now, sure--we're incredibly far away from its origins.
Jen asked "what was the random thing that happened as the catalyst and can it be replicated?" I believe it has been replicated, but I can't remember the name of the scientist who did it(if I remember correctly, he made a "primordial soup" and got some peptides out of it). The random thing had to be an act of chemistry, and in proper conditions have to be replicable.
wish I could type more, but I have class now,
aeb
Name: felicia munion
Username: munionfj@erols.com
Subject: cooperation
Date: Fri Sep 12 14:37:36 EDT 1997
Comments:
Why aren't there any large single celled organisms? It seems that everything tends towards interaction and cooperation. All things seem to strive towards greater accomplishments, from plants growing to humans trying to discover their origins. These are more easily attained through specialization and diversification. Why this is, I don't know. Any thoughts?
felicia
Name: Blythe Milbury-Steen
Username: bmilbury@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Of Improbable Assemblies...
Date: Sat Sep 13 17:07:09 EDT 1997
Comments:
Browsing in the forum, and especially from reading Sara's and Suzanne's comments, I wonder: if life is an improbable assembly of elements, is a probable one then an inanimate object? Isn't any assembly, any lump of matter, living or otherwise, improbable (although to varying degrees) since molecules tend towards lowest energy and little organization? Are any there probable assemblies? Would such an assembly be an atom? If elements are usually in random motion (i.e, unassembled) does this mean that chaos is the probable state of elements? But chaos, by definition, wouldn't be probable, or predictible. It's that same tricky negation in the statement "the only uncertainty that exists is uncertainty." Blythe
Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject: probable assemblies
Date: Mon Sep 15 17:55:57 EDT 1997
Comments:
There are probable assemblies. To get to what (I think) they are, here's a kind of hint/riddle: Erwin Schrodinger called life an aperiodic crystal.
Feeling cryptic today,
aeb
Name: suzanne warren
Username: swarren@ada.brynmawr.edu
Subject: life, frankenstein, etc.
Date: Tue Sep 16 14:41:37 EDT 1997
Comments:
Re Blythe's comments, my understanding of the reason why "not all assemblies, living or otherwise, are improbable" is that some assemblies are purposely created. By us. Like plastic, and paper. In other words, they didn't just come together by chance, they were assembled by somebody for a specific purpose.
But now I'm wondering, can inanimate (ie nonorganic) objects come together randomly? I think so--I think you could say various gases are improbable assemblies of elements. And can life be assembled ("created")? All that's coming to mind is Frankenstein. Any other examples?
Suzanne
Name: Anneliese
Username: abutler@brynmawr.edu
Subject: re: boxes, legos, and toys
Date: Sat Sep 20 23:12:10 EDT 1997
Comments:
I was reading through everyone's postings for (almost) the first time and just wanted to suggest this thought I had after reading Jen's comment on Sep. 10- we always think of a Creator, Supreme Being, creative force as something unfathomably great in size and power; yet, taking Prof. Grobstein's explanation of boxes consisting of boxes consisting of more and more boxes, wouldn't it be more logical to look for more "roots", to keep discovering more constituent building blocks of the smallest ones known to us, and to hope to find the answer as to what "started it all" there? The thought of a Creator or Creative Force can seem so daunting; there's something that attracts me to the idea of there being something incredibly tiny, which would be no less awe-inspiring for its size.
Name: Dorothy (Dot) Sood
Username: dsood
Subject: no particular subject
Date: Mon Sep 22 22:29:07 EDT 1997
Comments:
This is a pretty cool idea! I like seeing what everyone else has to say, and it's a great way to keep us all thinking outside of class. I've been thinking about the question 'How do we distinguish life from non-life?' and this is what I've been thinking, biologically, philosophically, religiously and what have you. What if there Is this greater energy -- call it the Creator or spirit or just plain energy or what you will. And the tiniest particle in all living things that makes them living is just a tiny piece or extension of this bigger energy. And life is a phase of this energy and when something disrupts the equilibrium, death is just a transfer of this energy from point A to B, or pt J to K. And what was once the organism is reduced to the same elements of "non-living" things that are in the environment, as it no longer has that piece of the greater energy to hold it together.
Also, there's this great Far Side cartoon where Gary Larson shows this great UFO size shadow hovering down over the earth, and it's actually an alien just resting his beer can on the nearest planet. He and his alien friend are tipsy and randomly are using different planets as a firing range for their guns. It was a funny cartoon, but it was scary too as it made me think that a) size is all relative and what if, amidst all our brazenness, we are really just the size of someone's drink coaster. b)WE act like those aliens, i.e. we "shoot up"/ disrupt smaller environments, and we ourselves are destroying tiny worlds.
Whew! on that note, that's it for my comments today.
-Dot Sood
dsood@brynmawr.edu
Name: Anneliese
Username: abutler@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Dot's theory
Date: Tue Sep 23 21:16:39 EDT 1997
Comments:
So if every tiniest particle is an extension of this greater energy, this energy would be like a giant web of invisible connections between all particles in, on, and around this earth, right? I like the image.
Name: Lisa Liguori
Username: lliguori@haverford.edu
Subject: MUTATION
Date: Wed Sep 24 00:30:19 EDT 1997
Comments:
Hi y'all! On Monday we talked in class about non-random selection as a way to begin explaining improbable assembly. It wasn't really making much sense to me until I learned something really interesting in Anthropology. We were talking about the problem of having no intermediary forms in the fossil record (the big gaps) and the possibility of quick and major change occuring through mutation. But since mutations are random, how probable would it be that two of the same mutation, a fluke, would occur in two different organisms that could reproduce and pass on the different variation? Not probable at all. But....what if mutations were NOT RANDOM? (this is the part I had never heard of) We talked about "hot spots" on chromosomes that might be likely places for mutations to occur frequently in the same spot. If that's the case, then the lack of intermediary species is not such a big problem, and the improbable assemby seems at least a little more probable.
Name: amber baum
Username: abaum@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Dot's energy idea
Date: Mon Sep 29 16:11:59 EDT 1997
Comments:
Like the Force in Star Wars. :)
But seriously. I think you have something there, dot. I don't mean to be a spoilsport and take all the poetry out of what you are saying....but to me that energy that some call god, some call spirit, etc. is simply that--energy. The thing that made the planets, the thing that was the big bang, the thing that the second law of thermodynamics is all about.
The more science I learn, the more I see how scientists have names for religious concepts that they do not think to use. What is so mundane about biology that makes people think that we need a God to make it special? It's pretty extraordinary to me, whether someone/thing got the ball rolling or not. It may even be more beautiful for not being "consciously" created.
philosophically yours,
aeb
Name: Kate Stephenson
Username: kstephen@haverford.edu
Subject: Note
Date: Fri Oct 3 16:58:34 EDT 1997
Comments:
A quick note- the anchor at the top of the forum page which says "Go to Last Comment" is not working.
So... I don't have anything terribly insightful to share, but I wanted to say that this week talking about macromolecules I started to realize how comples our bodies are. I knew that we were made up of a zillion atoms, but never knew the steps in between atoms and cells. The incredible complexity of each protein, carbohydrate, lipid is amazing... and how the configuration of the different atoms can alter the properties of the substance so significantly. I'd never gone into that much detail before on the structure of molecules- it's very interesting!
Kate
Name: jen
Username: jwu@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Walt Whitman and such
Date: Wed Nov 5 10:40:08 EST 1997
Comments:
"I CELEBRATE myself;
And what I assume you shall assume;
For every atom belonging to me, as good belongs to you."
gee, this forum seems to have gone down the drain since i last remembered... i don't exactly have anything insightful to say, but posting is rather nostaglic.
Name: amber baum
Username: abaum@brynmawr.edu
Subject: office hours/study session/discussion/Q&A
Date: Wed Nov 5 21:12:09 EST 1997
Comments:
In response to suggestions from the Tuesday lab class, I'm going to hold a session this thursday (the 6th) for people to ask questions about lab or lecture. All are welcome! I'll be in the leccture room (229 I think is the number) from 7pm to 8 at least.
aeb
Name: Andrea
Username: alobato@brynmawr.edu
Subject: hey
Date: Wed Nov 12 15:08:36 EST 1997
Comments:
Am I the only apathetic one that always comes here to see of anyone has posted something new, and not finding anything, I pause for a moment to think of something....nothing pops up in my head that seems worthy of posting, so I leave this forum, disappointed at the apparent lack of interest. Does anyone else do this? At least I'm honest. Someone has to have an interesting point.....For the record, I thought Lab this week was rather exciting....
Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject: final
Date: Fri Nov 28 16:39:39 EST 1997
Comments:
Is the final exam a take home or self scheduled or what?
Name: Kate Stephenson
Username: kstephen@haverford.edu
Subject: the sad state of forum
Date: Mon Dec 1 08:55:08 EST 1997
Comments:
It's too bad that this forum hasn't initiated any discussion. My other classes have wild and lively forums. My only guess is that since we are able to pose our questions in class, there aren't many which go unanswered to bring up in a forum. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything related to Biology, I do believe that our exam is a take home, and I enjoyed working on the www project- a perfect excuse for surfing the web for hours on end!
Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Class, forums, and whatnot
Date: Mon Dec 1 09:59:28 EST 1997
Comments:
Yes, final a TAKE HOME (apologies for misstating on course schedule). And yes, share regret that forum not more lively. But thanks, Kate, for thought that much of discussion has actually taken place in class. Think that's actually true, and have very much enjoyed it. Thanks to you all. Glad (at least some of) you enjoyed the opportunity to web search. Haven't had time yet to post your contributions, but have looked quickly through them. Am impressed, and will post. Thanks to each, all of you.
Name: jen
Username: jwu@brynmawr.edu
Subject: behind the sets
Date: Wed Dec 3 20:45:26 EST 1997
Comments:
well, i just thought it would be fitting to post one last comment on the forum before we all disperse into our randomness... i just wanted to ponder over something that we discussed briefly in our lecture today (12/03) about the whole dino DNA in "Jurassic Park".
is it possible to actually conceive a dinosaur embryo with engineered DNA and a frog's egg? i find that a bit odd, and off-base, since there seems to be more to life than some scrambled mix of nucleic acids... from what i gathered from this course, wasn't there something about the importance of the mitochondria? and how does the frog egg contain all the key, but "highly improbable", ingredients for the formation of a dinosaur? does the Hammerling experiments explain all this?
it all seems a bit sci-fi to me. ...maybe Hollywood just wants us to go on the premise that everything is random and there is no set explanation (or way) to duplicate the same results... kinda like the Academy Awards.
Name: felicia
Username: fmunion@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date: Wed Dec 3 23:23:52 EST 1997
Comments:
Well, I don't know about the whole Hammerling thing, but about sci-fi...I am not a big Aliens fan, in fact, I've only seen the newest one. In it, Sirourney Weaver gives birth (well, it's actually a c-section) to an alien. However, she has been recreated from dna found in her blood that was frozen on some planet. So, she is an exact replica of the her that died over 200 years previously. She has some of the memories of what happened, and she claims that it's because they passed down in the cells or something. Anyway, what if we start having ourselves reduplicated from cloning using DNA from our blood in some perverted attempt at eternal life? Kind of like those people who have themselves frozen right after death so that hopefully sometime science can figure out that intangible thing that animates life, and doesn't animate non living things. But what I really wanted to talk about was that in the movie, Weaver had alien blood. I don't understand if she was cloned using a mix of her DNA and some alien stuff so that she could be a compatible host, or if she was just somehow part alien, and if so, then what are the chances of her looking exactly the same, huh?
Also, I find the whole cloning thing disturbing not for the scientific aspect, but for the human development/maturity level aspect. I believe that eventually we will be able to use cloning in a way that is beneficial to humanity. BUt I don't think that right now we have enough of a grasp on what exactly life is to justify making it on our own. Someday we will...but not now. So, our moral development needs to catch up with our mental development. Children don't always have the knowledge of how to best use the tools that they find, and often hurt themselves because they don't know how to use them at all.
Little long winded, but there it is.
Name: Anneliese
Username: abutler@brynmawr.edu
Subject: cloning
Date: Sat Dec 6 23:33:48 EST 1997
Comments:
I was just browsing through the NYTimes and came upon this...thought you might be interested.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/review/120797science-review.html
~Anneliese
Name: Andrea
Username: alobato@brynmawr.edu
Subject: study group
Date: Wed Dec 10 13:45:51 EST 1997
Comments:
Is anyone interested in forming a study group for the final with me? I would like to get notes that I missed, and share mine with anyone who cares. E-mail me or post a response.
see ya, and good luck w/finals!
andrea
Name: Suzanne
Username: swarren@ada.brynmawr.edu
Subject: bye, thanks
Date: Fri Dec 12 11:18:53 EST 1997
Comments:
I just wanted to say: I'm not a science person, but--surprise, surprise, I had fun in this class. Thank you!
Happy non-denominational holiday--
Suzanne
Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject:
Date: Thu Nov 26 17:03:35 EST 1998
Comments: