Aaron Goldblatt makes some useful comments about the similarities and differences between NFP's and FP's. He says, though, that one of the reasons for the development of NFP status was to create protection from market pressures. As I understand it, NFP status was created as an incentive for organizations willing to undertake socially useful activities that were, nonetheless, not sufficiently attractive or profitable for business to become involved with. Herein is my concern with this. Now that certain aspects of museum work have been shown to be profitable, businesses can undertake those particular endeavors and make money. Sometimes these operations look like museums or have museum-like qualities, and therefore tend to confuse the public. But the profitability seems to depend on eliminating those those things that museums must do to be museums from the agenda of activity. In other words, doing a for-profit exhibit on birds eggs might be profitable, but not when you factor in the cost of care in perpetuity for the eggs. Businesses don't have to worry about the perpetuity part, thus can be profitable, thus cannot really be museums. I don't mean to go a long way with this but published the gist of my own feelings in a recent piece in Curator, "Are Museums Still Necessary." Not a plug for my article, mind you, but just a notice of where one view on the subject is available in fuller form. Chuck Watkins The Appalachian Cultural Museum