One of the last postings I saw on a recent threat was a downright threat. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and diversity is great, but this is continuing to degrade.

-- Matt Greenway (mgreenwa@u.washington.edu), November 07, 1999

Answers

I have to agree. I don't know if Matt is referring to Ed Bridges (aka Ed Brigdes), but his last posting (in the ***WARNING*** from the Webmaster thread) was a little too real.

I've forayed back into this forum five days after Election Day to see how much gloating is going on to find that Mr. Bridges/Brigdes, who should be feeling copacetic right now, is implying that he's still pissed off in spite of the "victory" & is now obsessed enough with a few messages I've left here that he's hacked around for my address in is gonna what--come & waste me after the Husky game?

Maybe a "joke" on his part but still a little too real, and--if the Webmaster is truly impartial--worthy of getting ahold of yahoo.com to pull the plug on him.

I've made mocking fun of certain overblown I-695 supporters, but have never gone as far as Mr. Bridges/Brigdes.

The ball's in your court, Webmaster.

-- The Phanton Liberal Menace (chez@u.washington.edu), November 07, 1999.

The Phanton Liberal Menace (chez@u.washington.edu), November 07, 1999

You must be parnoid Chez? I said I was taking a little trip. Which I did. All I posted and implied was that I found out who you were. No it did not imply any hacking of any computers, just a little checking at the DUB. Which provides the info free of charge.

P.S. I never joke when someone threatens me. Plus thank you for confessing that it was you who was using my name. And your e-mail address that you use was a dead-give-away as too yur true identity.

Ed - Already contacted the FBI, they seemed very interested.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), November 07, 1999.

"You must be parnoid (sic) Chez? (sic) I said I was taking a little trip. Which I did."

This one is way too easy, but I'm gonna take it anyway:

And what decade might that trip have been taken, Mr. Bridges/Brigdes?

-- Official Head Shrinker For All Pseudo-Libertarian Dennis Hopper Wanna-bes Of Washington State (chez@u.washington.edu), November 07, 1999.

Jeff,

If there's a menace on this site, it's you, bud. Your attempts to disrupt this board are well known and well documented, having resulted in numerous warnings against you.

Your hypocrisy in going after Ed speaks for itself.

I sincerely hope that Web passwords access, if for no other reason then to put an end to your childish idiocy.

Westin

"Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?"

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), November 07, 1999.

Westin,

"childish idiocy"

You mean as in trying to convince I-695 proponents of their hypocrisy in shifting the tax burden in this state to the bottom of the social ladder while claiming to be fighting for "the little guy"?

How about first coming into this forum trying to engage in meaningful point-counterpoint and, after getting flamed o-plenty by the likes of, well, Westin, like none other than a certain Westin, deciding to give up and just have a little sarcastic fun at the expense of clueless would-be "little guys"?

Call me guilty I guess then, Westin.

Just don't blame me when several million phone-book sized voter's pamphlets are printed up next year at (ahem) TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

Because I voted no. And when the hangover strikes for I-695 supporters, yes I will be among those doing the gloating.

And if you want to call gloating childish, then boy oh boy have YOU got a lot of gall calling me a hypocrite!

If you want to stand on a pedestal and call me "childish" and yourself "civilized", then please address the ISSUES if and when you respond to this post, Westin.

Which is a nice thought. I'm not betting on it happening, though.

-- Darth Fisher (chez@u.washington.edu), November 07, 1999.

Gee, Jeff...

I guess it can be summed up in two questions:

How many posts did *I* forge? How many times has the Web threatened to contact MY ISP?

What you refer to as "hav(ing) a little sarcastic fun at the expense of clueless would-be 'little guys'" went way, way, over the line. To suggest that this forum is here to provide you with entertainment is the height of arrogance, and if you had the maturity of a 12 year old, you'd know it.

"Call (you) guilty?" That is the least I could call you. You would like us to believe what a smart guy you are, Jeff. But your completely unsupportable positions aside ("millions of phone- book sized voter pamplets..." yeah, right) you've acted like a spoiled child. I disagree with the perspectives of others here, and they disagree with me. But none of them have stooped to your level, and engaged in conduct that should have resulted in banning you months ago (tho I understand the technical difficulties that would entail).

I have called you on it. Had the Web not slammed his foot down, I would have continued to call you on it. But it appears the message has finally gotten through, and you've made it past that adolescent phase that had possessed your faculty of judgment.

I support your right to disagree with me. I, personally, don't give a damn what you think about me, or what I say. I hope you continue to post here, to engage in meaningful debate. I realize how much the slaughter of your position has embittered you... how irrelevant the destruction of the anti side makes you feel. Of course, you can save your energy for next year's property tax initiative... which will make 695 look like a band-aid to open heart surgery.

Or, you can continue to play the role of a punk. The choice, quite clearly, is up to you.

Westin

"Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?"

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), November 08, 1999.

Darth Chez

deciding to give up and just have a little sarcastic fun at the expense of clueless would-be "little guys"?

Chez, youre the one who gave up. You started spouting about what great countries Cuba, Russia and China were and are. When you got called on it with the facts, you either responded with name calling (typical liberal tactic), attack the poster using a false name (I spell my name for you and you cant even get that right) or do not respond at all.

If you want to stand on a pedestal and call me "childish" and yourself "civilized", then please address the ISSUES if and when you respond to this post

Again Jeff, when someone does respond to you on the issues, you respond with the name calling and using fake names. However like the Unibomber, your writing style is very unique and easy too spot.

Liberal Jeff, if you want to debate, bring facts not childish behavior.

Westen writes ""Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?"

Yes, several times

Ed  planning for the Rose Bowl

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), November 08, 1999.

Westin

Re: the white house intern wannabe.

I think it may be the families of Altzheimers victims who may be looking for him after his post making fun of them.

Ricardo

-- Ricardo (ricardoxxx@home.com), November 08, 1999.

Westin,

"I hope you continue to post here, to engage in meaningful debate."

I'll ignore the usual trademark Westin rancor surrounding this quote and say: thank you, Westin, NOW we're getting somewhere!

Here's where the debate starts then:

In that last post of mine, I referred to the hypocrisy of I-695 supporters for shifting the tax burden in Washington State further towards the working poor and the disenfranchised while claiming to be fighting for "the little guy."

If there is in fact no validity to this argument, then tell me exactly why.

Another point for debate, having to do with "completely unsupportable positions.": Apparently you think it implausible that Section 2 of I-695 will require that voters' pamphlets be printed for the new style of elections which, given the increased number of ballot issues in Washington State elections after Jan 1 2000, will be ever so much more exhaustive than those which came before, and therefore ever so much costlier to Washington State taxpayers than those which came before.

Please explain to me what is unsupportable about this position.

And remember, Westin: attack the idea and not the person. You've done it before and I know you can do it again. All it takes is a little willpower.

Awaiting your civil reply...

"In the fall of 1994, just prior to the vote by the Congress on the Uruguay Round of GATT, the vote that would establish the World Trade Organization, we offered a $10,000 donation to the charity of choice of any congressperson who could do the following:(1) sign an affidavit stating that he or she had read the five-hundred-page agreement and (2) successfully answer ten simple questions about its contents.

Not one member of Congress accepted."

-- Ralph Nader and Lori Wallach, "GATT, NAFTA, and the Subversion of the Democratic Process", from "The Case Against the Global Economy" (1996, Jerry Mander & Edward goldsmith, eds.)

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), November 08, 1999.

Second time I've typed this. . .Netscape crash. . .

Jeff--"In that last post of mine, I referred to the hypocrisy of I-695 supporters for shifting the tax burden in Washington State further towards the working poor and the disenfranchised while claiming to be fighting for the little guy."

It depends on your definition of "big guy." If you believe (as I do) that tax relief has been focused on large businesses, it is then quite reasonable to see I-695 as a win for the little guy.

Similarly, it's not immediately obvious that I-695 *doesn't* provide a disproportionate break for the working poor. It's not clear to me that the working poor don't spend a higher proportion of their income on their cars and as a result, will receive a greater proportional benefit from a decrease in license fees. The stereotypical example of the 19 y/o purchasing a Z28 comes to mind.

If you view the impact of I-695 strictly on the impact of service cuts, it's still not obvious the poor are disproportionately affected. As Craig has shown adequately, the poor use public transit even *less* than the well off. FWIW, you may have a point WRT public health. . .I can't really comment on this.

If you view the impact of I-695 strictly on the impact of job cuts, it's still not obvious the poor are disproportionately affected. Personally, I think the construction boom going on (at least in Puget Sound) reduces the impact on construction workers. It's my belief that hourly government employees are the ones most likely to be hammered by cuts in I-695. Unfortunately for your position, you'll have a hard time convincing me people working for the government are part of either "the working poor" or the "disenfranchised."

FWIW, I'm not saying your position is unsupportable. I'm saying your position is unsupported.

"Apparently you think it implausible that Section 2 of I-695 will require that voters' pamphlets be printed for the new style of elections which, given the increased number of ballot issues in Washington State elections after Jan 1 2000, will be ever so much more exhaustive than those which came before, and therefore ever so much costlier to Washington State taxpayers than those which came before."

I'm not certain what your conclusion is.

Bottom line: it doesn't seem at all reasonable to say that elections will be significantly more costly *nor* numerous. There will certainly by *some* marginal cost, but it seems unreasonable to expect this marginal cost to be high as long as special elections aren't needed. Similarly, it's reasonable to believe elections will be somewhat more numerous. Given the relative infrequency of tax increases, it again seems unreasonable to say there will be a significant increase in the number of referendums. Certainly, the hyperbolic "yellow pages sized election guide" (was this your quote. . .I forget) is way off the mark.

We could probably argue about what significant means. FWIW, if you believe special elections will be required, I'd be curious to hear why.

"And remember, Westin: attack the idea and not the person. You've done it before and I know you can do it again. All it takes is a little willpower."

Mind if I call you a hypocrite (AKA Pot, Kettle, Black)?

"In the fall of 1994, just prior to the vote by the Congress on the Uruguay Round of GATT, the vote that would establish the World Trade Organization, we offered a $10,000 donation to the charity of choice of any congressperson who could do the following:(1) sign an affidavit stating that he or she had read the five-hundred-page agreement and (2) successfully answer ten simple questions about its contents.

Not one member of Congress accepted."

Ummm, you might want to try again. IIRC, Hank Brown (senator from Colorado) read the agreement, passed the quiz and gave the 10 large to his favorite charity. FWIW, he then switched sides and voted against GATT.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 09, 1999.

Brad,

Thanks for the commentary and the civility, although I was hoping it would come from Westin. No such luck, I guess.

I'll respond to your discussion of the issues later today when I'm not so hurried; in the meantime a few quick hits:

I know you've been with the forum for a while; surely you must be familiar with Westin's propensity for hit and run tactics. This is the guy who consistently responds not just to me but to all I-695 dissenters with insightful commentary such as "bend over", "go cry to your mommy" and "you need to be bitch-slapped." So, I know I was flirting with hypocrisy in chiding him about his willpower; nonetheless, was there not a grain of truth to my comments there?

And lo and behold: as always, now that I've done Westin's bidding and asked relevant questions in a civil manner, 24 hours later he's nowhere to be found. He'll show up soon enough in another thread, I suppose, bitch-slapping some phantom commie or another.

About the GATT/Nader thing: Nader and Wallach acknowledge Senator Brown's action three paragraphs later in the same essay. Nader and Wallach made their offer in Fall of '94; Brown stepped forward to accept the challenge in December '94.

The main point of that excerpt is best summarized from the same essay, two more paragraphs down:

"On December 1, 1994, Congress approved GATT in the House 235 to 200 and in the Senate 68 to 32 *without knowing what was in it*."

I think we can all agree: some of them there MF's are not doing their job and need to be taught a very civil and democratic lesson. Such as what unemployment and poverty feel like.

See you at Memorial Stadium on N30?

-- Groucho Marx (chez@u.washington.edu), November 09, 1999.

Jeff--"I know you've been with the forum for a while; surely you must be familiar with Westin's propensity for hit and run tactics. This is the guy who consistently responds not just to me but to all I-695 dissenters with insightful commentary such as "bend over", "go cry to your mommy" and "you need to be bitch-slapped." So, I know I was flirting with hypocrisy in chiding him about his willpower; nonetheless, was there not a grain of truth to my comments there?"

"flirting with hypocrisy". . .you mispelled dripping. In general, you're the only no-695 supporter on the forum who could be accused of consistently resorting to insults and ad hominem arguments. If you don't wish to do this anymore, accept my gift of a new chalkboard.

I personally don't find Westin annoying (jacqueloon and deranged William are a different story). That being said, I don't often read posts that are insulting or off-topic.

"See you at Memorial Stadium on N30?"

I don't know what I think about GATT and WTO. Personally, I'm all for free trade (and immigration too for that matter) with few restrictions. That being said, the sovereignty issues bother me.

I suppose there's a paradoxical relationship between free trade and national sovereignty--one must give up some control to participate. I suppose the relevant discussion is how much control is enough.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 09, 1999.

All other issues aside, I have yet to hear any of you explain how voting on every new tax increase, IN ADDITION to the usual ballot issues, will NOT make the voters pamphlets larger (I exaggerated to get your attention, but you get the idea -- it's called mathematics, check into it), and consequently more laborious for both our wallets and our eyelids in post-695 elections.

And damned if it ain't funny how Westin can huff and puff and play Elmer Fudd to my Bugs Bunny when I'm joking, but when I do get down to brass tacks and raise a serious question he runs off to the chicken coop.

Run out of hand grenades and kerosene, Westin?

-- Now I'm Grouchy, And Damned If Marxism Don't Look Good Right Now (chez@u.washington.edu), November 09, 1999.

I think I hear Elmer Bridges/Brigdes comin' o'er the horizon right now..

"OOOOOOOOHHH! You wasky Commwunist Wabbit!"

Never mind whether or not all my Marxist posing has been facetious; looks like I gotta fend off ol' Elmer again!

-- The Illuminated One (chez@u.washington.edu), November 09, 1999.

Dear Unintelligible One

You post "but when I do get down to brass tacks and raise a serious question he runs off to the chicken coop"

No Jeff, you're the one that takes off running. When you raise a serious question and get a serious answer (one you do not like) you're the one that starts name-calling. And when your called on about your facts (remember utopian ideas about Cuba, Russia, China) you're the one that goes into hiding. Or using one of your many names and fake e-mail addresses.

Also Chez, my last name is BRIDGES, you're the one that keeps on miss spelling it. I've only posted it with every reply. Can't you get it straight once.

I agreed with one of your comments in a earlier post, what did I get for it. More name calling from you. You do not have what it takes to debate anyone on the site as first you must have an opinion, second facts, third the ability to clearly state the first two.

As to whether you're a Marxist or not, is not the point. It is your childish behavior. I would rather debate a true Marxist as they at least have some conviction in what they spout. You just start the name calling as some as you feel cornered.

Ed - taking another trip - no Chez Liberal not to Seattle - to California to see the UCLA game.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), November 10, 1999.

Ed,

So where's Westin with his dignified and serious answer to my "childish" question, the one about the cost to taxpayers of more exhaustive elections -- remember?

*I* have raised this question several times in a serious tone and either not gotten a response from I-695 disciples or been the *target* (and not the instigator) of "name-calling".

Westin STILL hasn't answer my question, or really *any* of the serious questions I have in fact asked in this forum.

Can YOU answer that I-695-skeptical question of mine, Ed?

Or are you just gonna call me "childish" again and run off to the chicken coop, er, excuse me, the USC stadium?

-- Tristan Tzara (chez@u.washington.edu), November 10, 1999.

Jeff--"All other issues aside, I have yet to hear any of you explain how voting on every new tax increase, IN ADDITION to the usual ballot issues, will NOT make the voters pamphlets larger (I exaggerated to get your attention, but you get the idea -- it's called mathematics, check into it), and consequently more laborious for both our wallets and our eyelids in post-695 elections."

I don't think anyone thinks the voter's pamphlets will be smaller. They will, of course, be somewhat larger. The real issue is will they be signficantly larger. Personally, given that tax increases are relatively infrequent, it's reasonable to assume the voter's pamphlet will be significantly larger. If you think there will be a huge number of ballot issues (I don't), you might try explaining why you think this is true.

Personally, I've no idea why they don't try to convince people to opt- in for online voter's pamphlets (conversely, opt out of receiving a dead tree in the mail). . .but that's a different discussion.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 10, 1999.

Where am I? Why... I'm right here.

Jeff wrote:

"Ed, So where's Westin with his dignified and serious answer to my "childish" question, the one about the cost to taxpayers of more exhaustive elections -- remember?"

I'm sorry, Jeff, given the number of times I've exhaustively answered this question I didn't take it being asked again seriously.

I will answer it AGAIN, and for the LAST time.

The costs of elections will be MINIMALLY increased. Get that? MINIMALLY. The requests for increased funding can take place along with every other regularly scheduled election. Presuming our elected representatives have the intelligence of a board fence, the questions can be presented, supported and opposed with SHORT summaries.

The financing questions themselves can be of SMALL size for verbiage, presuming bureaucrats are capable of writing small size summaries.

The idea put forward by your side of this issue cpncerning the expense of elections is ENTIRELY unsupported. When some anti election office pogue tells us "a special election in King County will cost $100,000," that begs the OBVIOUS question of the NECESSITY of special elections. Adding a few more holes to the punch card in a REGULARLY scheduled election will NOT cost $100,000 in King County or anywhere else.

No matter WHAT the cost, it can, in NO WAY, approach the savings to the taxpayer when these requests are turned down.

Now Jeff, I've said this repeatedly, in a variety of ways, and in a variety of places. The question is ANSWERED.

OK?

You go on:

"*I* have raised this question several times in a serious tone and either not gotten a response from I-695 disciples or been the *target* (and not the instigator) of "name-calling"."

Yeah... you're just an innocent lamb with the forged posts... right?

This question has been answered REPEATEDLY. That you have yet to read any of the answers posted is really not my problem... not anyone elses, perhaps, except yours.

"Westin STILL hasn't answer my question, or really *any* of the serious questions I have in fact asked in this forum."

Jeff, you're not quite telling the truth here (a main characteristic of the anti side) and would you like me to provide the various posts where I have answered your questions?

You go on:

"Can YOU answer that I-695-skeptical question of mine, Ed?"

Anyone with a basic knowledge of government elections can answer it, Jeff. Even you could... if you tried.

"Or are you just gonna call me "childish" again and run off to the chicken coop, er, excuse me, the USC stadium?"

Jeff, are you going to sit there with a straight face and DENY any childish behavoir on your part?

Please.

Perhaps you could stop obsessing with me, and get on with your life?

-- Tristan Tzara (chez@u.washington.edu), November 10, 1999.

Westin

"Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?"

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), November 10, 1999.

Westin,

Thank you -- sincerely and un-ironically -- for finally answering the question.

But really, why couldn't you have just answered it immediately after I asked it, instead of engaging in your usual phantom-bitch-slapping?

Just for the record, I recently sent an e-mail to the State Treasurer's office requesting info on the possible impact of Section 2 of I-695 on the cost of future elections in Washington State. If you yourself have any such concrete info beyond the usual "don't worry, this'll be great for the little guy, trust me" rhetoric of the Eyman Army, feel free to share it. If it's documented and legit and shows that the impact will indeed be MINIMAL, I'll drop that subject then. But I won't "admit" that you've been right because all you've been able to offer so far (when you've remembered to take your meds) is "assurances".

I don't have any *proof* that post I-695 elections will cost more for the average WA taxpayer than the average WA motorist will save on their yearly tabs, but I'll put money down on the elections costing at least something more for sure.

Will the increased costs be minimal? Or will they prove to be The Hangover for the I-695 Gang of Four?

Awaiting the State Treasurer's reply...

"It's deja vu all over again" -- Al Gore

-- Grover Cleveland (chez@u.washington.edu), November 10, 1999.

Jeff

Its not the USC stadium (Memorial Stadium), it is The Rose Bowl (UCLA plays there).

As to your question on whether the voters pamphlets will be bigger, I think this would be a given. But if there will be a page dedicated to each and every tax and fee increase, I doubt it.

What I see happening is that if a taxing district whats to raise a number of fees (inspection, permit) then these will be lumped together in one section. However the individual wording for the fee may take up from one line to several paragraphs.

Also as too the size of the pamphlet, I think the size of it can be reduced by not putting of the extraneous wording that goes long with the tax, fee, referendum or initiative. Put in the language of the ballot measure only. If more research is required by someone or a group, then this can be made available either at the public libraries, city hall, county seat, or online.

As to the extra cost for the elections, I dont see why this should raise the cost so much. If there is now campaigning done by the local governments, which legally cant campaign, then the only cost would be in printing up the voter pamphlets, and informational flyers.

The people that work the polls are volunteers, so there is no cost there. The county auditor is already a salaried employee and counting ballots is part of the job, so there is no added cost there.

What I would like to know is where the money for putting on an election comes from and goes to. The Yes on I-695 crowd did not spend $2 million. Can you tell me how much it cost to print up the voter pamphlets? The way I see it, this is the only out of pocket cost that the state had to pay.

As to Westin answering your questions, I can not speak of that, as I have no control over anyone except myself (and future taxes).

run off to the chicken coop

Gave up raising chickens years ago. Cant stand them. Always get a few mean ones in the bunch, which you have to watch out for when picking up the eggs. Would much rather raise cattle.

Last item: The misspelling of my last name, Bridges/Brigdes. I owe you an apology on this one. I did not realize that one of my computers had the wrong spelling. As the cookie this site uses automatically fills it in for you, I was not paying attention to it, until last night. My name is Ed Bridges.

As to you or anyone on this site using your real name, I really dont care. I have replied to dbvz several times and have never asked him why he doesnt use his real/full name. Its not important. What is is his ideas and opinions. As long as the discussion is kept civil and you dont use someone elses name.

Ed  tried to keep it brief but youre the one that wanted a serious answer.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), November 10, 1999.

"Ed -- tried to keep it brief but you're the one that wanted a serious answer"

And this time I got one -- thank you muchly Ed.

You are currently off of my s**t list. :)

"Can you see the real me, can ya?

can ya?" -- Roger Daltrey (or was it Pete Townsend?)

-- TV Smith (free 16 oz. beer for any poster who can identify this one) (chez@u.washington.edu), November 10, 1999.

Tommy?

Ed - not much of a "WHO". but like Townsend's "Rough Boys".

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), November 10, 1999.

Tommy?

That last line should have read "not much of a "WHO" fan. but like Townsend's "Rough Boys".

Ed - if I win, you can collect my 16oz beer. don't drink. due to head injury. (no joke, if you want you can joke about it though)

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), November 10, 1999.

How about a good-natured joke, "off the topic":

I was going to send the beer to the winner through this new technology being developed at here at the UW to send actual physical matter through the Internet (ala Star Trek), but since I-695 passed & funding for UW research got cut so drastically, well...

dreams die hard

-- George "adj.: high; expensive" Takai (chez@u.washington.edu), November 10, 1999.

"dreams die hard " When the dream dies, what of the dreamer?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 10, 1999.

You'd make a great lyricist for a rock band, zowie.

Come to think of it, that name sounds familiar...say, aren't you...

...yeah! Hey, you're that guy on MTV, aren't you?

-- (Hats Off To) Roy Harper (chez@u.washington.edu), November 11, 1999.

WHEW!!!

Nice to see that you boys kissed and made up.... it was getting a little bit tense for a while there!

-- Diane (SSSTANG@aol.com), November 11, 1999.

HE KISSED! (I merely bent over)

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 11, 1999.

So, you're one of the proponents, right, zowie?

Score another point, I guess, for the pro crowd being "more intelligent and civil" than the anti crowd.

Sad, truly sad.

-- Todd Nelson (locotoddo@hotmail.com), November 15, 1999.

Come on Todd. Chez has a better sense of humor than you do. Given the subject of this thread is alleged threats, a joking risque reference HARDLY constitutes something for you to TSK-TSK over. You have no sense of humor. Sad, truly sad. zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 15, 1999.