>The whole archive is missing for those periods. 

No, it isn't, IDIOT!  Yes, there are two major time periods between about March and July 1995 which were apparently during periods in which most if not nearly all of the discussion was probably on AP.   I remember!  I WAS VERY BUSY during this, answering clueless comments such as yours today!

I just explained to Tom Busby (who, oddly, still hasn't replied...) that if the tamperer's tactic was to remove any thread or message that might have included reference to AP, the number of NON-AP-subject postings would probably have dropped to near-zero, as it apparently had,.  Given that reality, it would have seemed more 'logical' for him to simply erase the very few remaining messages during those time frames, simulating a 'total loss', rather than allowing a few valid messages to remain.  (Somebody still needs to graph the number of postings made during each month, or week, or day, during say February-August 1995.  It will show how much the discussion of AP 'crowded out' other commentary.  

You still ignore the fact that there were probably hundreds of subscribers to CP during that time, any one of whom could have the entire 1995 archive (at least, in the form of email messages, otherwise unprocessed).   Which we will eventually find.  And then we will further document the precise pattern in which emails were deliberately deleted.    Naturally, when that happens you'll concoct an excuse.  

>The fact that some of the individual emails survived on some other server doesn't mean shit.

Precisely as I claim!   The problem is that you cannot explain why _all_ the messages were lost, of the ones that were lost!    You cannot explain why the string "Jim Bell" doesn't appear until November 1995, nor the string "AP", (it its meaning "Assassination Politics", until Nov I995).  Yet, the archive ISN'T entirely missing during the period of, say, July 1995 through October 1995.   And 'AP', under OTHER meanings, nevertheless still appears in the archive.  So, your two 'missing periods' clearly are vastly unsufficient to explain these undeniable selective omissions.  You are not entitled to focus on two periods which, hypothetically, and only because you CLAIM it (you are guessing), might have resulted from an 'innocent' loss of data, and selectively ignore other periods where it is now truly obvious were tampered with.

I don't exclude the possibility of SOME loss of data in 'innocent ways'.  YOU, however completely ignore the evidence for loss of data in 'guilty' ways.  Who is being more 'logical', here?  Certainly not you!

I, instead, have an excellent explanation, one that can be tested with further study, to whatever extent anyone today is unsatisfied with the evidence I'm uncovered and shown in the last few days.  I've suggested a few ideas:  Start by graphing the number of (remaining) postings, say from February to August 1995.  If the archive data was simply 'lost' during some days, then the number of postings per day would drop from "normal" level to "nothing" almost instantly.  And those figures return back to 'normal' levels just as rapidly.  But if I'm right, the AP threads will have 'crowded out' the other postings, so there will be relatively gradual reductions, which would not be explained merely because a hard disk crashed, or was lost, or a floppy was mislaid, etc.  

Give it up!  You are just destroying whatever tiny sliver of credibility that I sadly doubt you still possess!  

In fact, you are a 'reverse barometer'.  

          Jim Bell