In a thread below, Patrick asks the nonsensical question if Sen. Roach can tell which way the winds are blowing.

I say the question is nonsensical because the fact is that all of the issues brought up by lawsuit will be addressed through the legislature. You know that little bird keeps talking, and she tells me that those bills are going to be dropped in THIS session, regardless of any Supreme Court outcome. Sort of a pre-emptive strike.

Now, if that qualifies as a case of determining wind direction, which, in this case, is insuring the implementation of the will and intent of the people, then so be it. But passage of these various bills... in an election year, are virtually assured.

Yeah, I can see it all now... each and every provision of 695 codified by individual law or constitutional amendment. Each and every legal complaint in each and every lawsuit addresses with a legislative fix. Each and every legislator to be held accountable for those votes on those provisions in an election year.

Certainly, Patrick... you may call it anything you like, but what I call it is a guarantee of the full implementation of I-695.

Westin

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

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), December 31, 1999

Answers

Westin,

If you told Patrick grass was the color of green, he would argue the point with you. He has some sort of character defect.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.

Westin (again) writes in part:

"You know that little bird keeps talking, and she tells me that those bills are going to be dropped in THIS session, regardless of any Supreme Court outcome."

Once again, it's Senator Benton leading the way as of 12/30/99 (I won't add my conjecture about re-election motives this time):

SB 6126 - Prioritizing traffic congestion relief projects

SB 6128 - Exempting motor vehicles from property tax

SB 6129 - Excluding motor vehicles from property or excise taxes

SB 6133 - Prohibiting the designation of HOV lanes

SJM 8014 - Requesting that states be allowed to spend money under the transportation equity act

SJR 8210 - Providing property tax relief

Actually there is one other that would probably appeal to The Craigster:

SB 6130 - Removing the state ferry monopoly

-- C. George (---@---.---), December 31, 1999.

Marsha really likes SB 6130 - Removing the state ferry monopoly

Marsha wonders why any conjecture would be necessary and why someone would have a problem with ANY Legislator getting off his **** and doing what the majority of voters wanted.

First we are told supporting Tim's initiatives are wrong, that it is the Legislators responsibility, then when Legislators do what the majority wants, they are subjected to some peoples conjectures about motives.

Do I sense a double standard?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.

"Yeah, I can see it all now... each and every provision of 695 codified by individual law or constitutional amendment. Each and every legal complaint in each and every lawsuit addresses with a legislative fix. Each and every legislator to be held accountable for those votes on those provisions in an election year."

Nice vision. Too bad the democrats will never let it happen. And all those republicans who bemoaned the downfall of R-49 won't vote for it either. Didn't you read the polls that upwards of 70% of elected officials voted no on 695?

Didn't you see that in pretty much all the elections where one candidate was publicly for 695, and one was against, the one against won (King County Assessor, Snohomish County Executive, etc)?

Do you really think that constitutional amendments, which require a two thirds majority, will get passed? Keep dreaming. Introducing bills doesn't mean they'll pass. In fact, I'd be shocked if they ever got out of the various committees.

-- (never@gonna.happen), December 31, 1999.

Never amused us all and showed his ignorance of politics by blathering:

"Nice vision. Too bad the democrats will never let it happen. And all those republicans who bemoaned the downfall of R-49 won't vote for it either. Didn't you read the polls that upwards of 70% of elected officials voted no on 695?"

You destroyed your own argument in this paragraph.

I know that 70% of ELECTED officials voted against this. But i also know that this is an ELECTION year.

Can you see these people running in districts that supported 695 and attempting to justify their repective "no" votes to the same population that supported 695? Particularly after the vast majority of those constituents have enjoyed the benefits of a reduced car tab fee?

Please.

These same ELECTED officials can read another set of poll results. All they have to do is go to the Secretary of State's site. It has all the numbers it needs to explain to them that if they are going to represent the desires of their constituency, they had better get with the program.

"Didn't you see that in pretty much all the elections where one candidate was publicly for 695, and one was against, the one against won (King County Assessor, Snohomish County Executive, etc)?"

If 695 didn't teach us anything else, it taught us this:

King County voters no longer rule the state.

The King County Assessor joined his breathern in publically stating he would refuse to implement the now dead, and never possible, personal property tax on motor vehicles.

That Sen. Shehan, and Rep. Cox both won.

In short, your assessment of those two races does not apply to the rest of the state, particularly in legislative races, and that 695 will become THE litmus test to determine outcomes. "Do you really think that constitutional amendments, which require a two thirds majority, will get passed? Keep dreaming. Introducing bills doesn't mean they'll pass. In fact, I'd be shocked if they ever got out of the various committees."

Yes, in fact I do. You tell me to "keep dreaming," yet what was the FIRST thing the governor announced after 695 passed? Why, wasn't it an edict that the personal property tax would not be applied to motor vehicles?

Why do you suppose he did that? What does he know, politically, that you so clearly do not?

He knows he's damaged. He's damaged both by his opposition to 695, and his handling of it. If the world was as you saw it, he'd have paid 695 no attention in his budget.

As you have shown, talk is cheap. The gov's ACTIONS on this matter, along with the AG's ACTIONS (Nah... the fact that this is an ELECTION year makes NO difference... none at all.... right?) speak far more loudly about the true state of politics at both the legislative and state-wide electoral level then your post does... by a long shot.

Westin

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

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), January 01, 2000.

Westin:

Factor in that by next November, a court will have decided on the merits of 695, and the voters will have had some "real" consequences from the loss of MVET. Only about 6% of the voters need to change their opinion about the wisdom of the initiative to change the politics on this issue. Some of the voters who bought all that bull, about 695 being only a 2% budget cut and nothing important would be lost, may have a second thought by November, 2000.

PS: I hope the legislature does adopt some of the intent of 695 into responsible legislation that is not unconstitutional. That is how it should have been done in the first place. Remember my second-best scenario? The initiative gets overturned by the courts, and the legislature deals with it in response to the public demand for action. It looks like the order will be reversed. The legislature will deal with the issues before a court decision is issued. Fine by me, as long as the legislature is able to resolve the problems.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 01, 2000.

"But passage of these various bills... in an election year, are virtually assured."

Boy Westin, I admit you had me going there. For a while I actually thought that you knew something about the legislature. I'm glad to see you make some comment like that to reassure me that you know squat about the process.

Roach's bill will be dead by the third week in February. So will most if not all of Benton's bills mentioned by George. I know it, Roach knows it, and Benton knows it. Want to know why? The rules of the legislature require all bills to be passed out of committee by a certain date. In order for a bill to be passed out of a committee it has to be scheduled for a hearing, then scheduled for executive action, then go through two steps in the Rules process, and THEN pass on the Floor. Most of these steps don't even require an open vote. So there are multiple ways that all of these bills can be quietly killed without ANYONE being called to vote on the issue.

So your little theory about how the members of the legislature will be pressured into voting for these things doesn't hold any water. They aren't even going to vote on these things on final passage, so they're not going to be pressured at all.

"That Sen. Shehan, and Rep. Cox both won."

I'm not sure where this one came from, but the fact that they both won is a surprise to no one. A Democrat hasn't won in that district since when? When FDR was in office?

All those bills are political ploys, plain and simple. It's simple because everyone who knows ANYTHING about the makeup and the workings of the legislature know that those bills are not going to see the light of day, and that includes Roach and Benton.

But you want to make it interesting Westin? I'm willing to bet you that those bills AREN'T going to be passed by the legislature, with the possible exceptions of SB 6128, since that's the only issue that there is bipartisan support for, and SJM 8014 since it doesn't actually do anything. The wager? The loser never posts on this board again.

Just so I'm clear: If ANY of the following bills: SB 6126, 6129, 6133, 6130 pass the legislature and be signed into law by the Governor, or if SJR 8210 or 8211 pass the legislature (requires a 2/3 majority and doesn't go to the Governor), then I never post to this forum ever again. But if NONE of those bills pass the legislature, then you never post to this forum again.

What do you think Westin? "As you have shown, talk is cheap." So are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? This should be an easy bet for you shouldn't it? After all, if I'm just a college dropout who doesn't know a THING about politics, and you have a VASTLY superior political knowledge compared to me, your prediction should be MUCH more accurate than mine. And besides, only ONE bill needs to pass for you to win. By the numbers the odds are certainly in your favor.

Time to see just how politically smart you are. Are you man enough to take the bet?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 02, 2000.

Patrick, showing a little of that book learning but lacking any real involvement in the process he's rattled on about entertains us thusly:

"'But passage of these various bills... in an election year, are virtually assured.'" "Boy Westin, I admit you had me going there. For a while I actually thought that you knew something about the legislature. I'm glad to see you make some comment like that to reassure me that you know squat about the process."

Hopefully, as I take his bizzare statements apart, he'll actually LEARN something, pull his foot out of his mouth and then remove his head from that OTHER region.

"Roach's bill will be dead by the third week in February. So will most if not all of Benton's bills mentioned by George. I know it, Roach knows it, and Benton knows it. Want to know why? The rules of the legislature require all bills to be passed out of committee by a certain date. In order for a bill to be passed out of a committee it has to be scheduled for a hearing, then scheduled for executive action, then go through two steps in the Rules process, and THEN pass on the Floor. Most of these steps don't even require an open vote. So there are multiple ways that all of these bills can be quietly killed without ANYONE being called to vote on the issue."

First of all, the explaination provided by Patrick above does not explain "why" any of these bills could be killed... just how the attempt to kill them COULD be made.

Secondly, the idea that these bills will not receive a vote is one of the more absurd fantasies that ol' Patrick has ever written.

There are ways, of course, to GUARANTEE an open vote, ON THE FLOOR, ON EVERY DAMNED ONE OF THESE BILLS.

Had you actually paid attention in those Poli Sci 101 classes, Patrick, you may have actually learned about that process, which you completely; either as a deliberate oversight but more then likely due to ignorance, overlooked.

Think HARD on the process, lad. RESEARCH the way it works. Had you done so here, it could have saved you a great deal of painful embarassment and humilitation.

"So your little theory about how the members of the legislature will be pressured into voting for these things doesn't hold any water. They aren't even going to vote on these things on final passage, so they're not going to be pressured at all."

I told you Patrick. Think HARD. I'll hold the quiz, say, Monday night. You get until then to discribe exactly what I'm talking about. Of all the times you've been wrong (and their have been so--- many---times) you are DEAD wrong about this.

"That Sen. Shehan, and Rep. Cox both won."

"I'm not sure where this one came from, but the fact that they both won is a surprise to no one. A Democrat hasn't won in that district since when? When FDR was in office?"

And HOW much did you people waste trying to take Cox's seat?

If it was such a done deal, then why did you idjits make $250,000 disappear into thin air in YOUR efforts to win it?

Or have you let your party's philosophies infect your politics so much that you'll waste money by the tens of thousands in slam dunk lost causes, particularly if ol' Duane is at least as SMART as you are?

Actually, Patrick, your positions are so delusional and out of touch that you sound like you work for him.

"All those bills are political ploys, plain and simple. It's simple because everyone who knows ANYTHING about the makeup and the workings of the legislature know that those bills are not going to see the light of day, and that includes Roach and Benton."

In your dreams, frat boy. They're going to hit. And, as I said, if you actually THINK a teensy bit about it, (if that brain is capable) even YOU can figure out how.

And when they DO hit... those who vote against them WILL be held accountable. Get used to it. Get over it. Find a job OUTSIDE the Leg. I'm sure there will be a Burger King or something that will hire you.

"But you want to make it interesting Westin? I'm willing to bet you that those bills AREN'T going to be passed by the legislature, with the possible exceptions of SB 6128, since that's the only issue that there is bipartisan support for, and SJM 8014 since it doesn't actually do anything. The wager? The loser never posts on this board again."

Ohhhh.... "Possible exceptions?"

Here's the deal.

I can't say, with 100 percent certainty, that these bills will pass. After all, you democrats have been known to pour gas on yourselves and light it for worse reasons then this.

But I'll make you an even better offer.

I'll bet you that every word, in EACH of these bills is voted on, with rollcall votes, on the floor of the Seante.

You've told us that it will never happen. I, of course not only know that it will, but HOW it will.

You've made your claim. You ready to back it?

EVERY WORD OF ALL OF THOSE BILLS WILL HAVE FLOOR VOTES IN THE SENATE.

And I will post PROOF of it, how it can be done, IRREFUTABLY, Monday night.

If I'm wrong,I will never post again.

If YOU are wrong, YOU will never post again.

And you ARE wrong.

You up for that?

"Just so I'm clear: If ANY of the following bills: SB 6126, 6129, 6133, 6130 pass the legislature and be signed into law by the Governor, or if SJR 8210 or 8211 pass the legislature (requires a 2/3 majority and doesn't go to the Governor), then I never post to this forum ever again. But if NONE of those bills pass the legislature, then you never post to this forum again."

While the all or nothing approach has it merits, I would think that you'd accept my offer. The suspense will be over shortly, and you can get on with your life and find something else to do.

"What do you think Westin? "As you have shown, talk is cheap." So are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? This should be an easy bet for you shouldn't it? After all, if I'm just a college dropout who doesn't know a THING about politics, and you have a VASTLY superior political knowledge compared to me, your prediction should be MUCH more accurate than mine.

Accept MY bet stud. And you'll see how much more accurate it is.

"And besides, only ONE bill needs to pass for you to win. By the numbers the odds are certainly in your favor."

I REALLY, REALLY do prefer my bet. Not because I don't think those bills will pass, but because you have gone so completely far out on a limb to tell us they won't even get a vote. It will be much more merciful to end your suffering now then to wait 9 weeks or so. "Time to see just how politically smart you are. Are you man enough to take the bet?"

As you have overlooked a key option for bills that I happen to know of, the issue of being "smart" is a nonstarter. As for my measure of manliness, there are, of course, a great many more ways to measure it then usenet.

Know what I mean?

Westin

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

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), January 02, 2000.

What's wrong Westin, getting a little nervous? Someone who didn't know better might miss the fact that you're hedging on your claim that these bills are going to pass.

Oh I'm sure you think you've got me on pins and needles wondering just what you're talking about. But once again you underestimate me. It's rather easy to at least attempt to bring a bill to the Floor for a vote, thereby bypassing the rules. All one has to do is request that the rules be suspended and that bill X be relieved of further consideration in Y committee and be placed on the second reading calendar. Then someone gets up, requests a roll call vote on the motion, I think only 1/3 of the members need to agree to that but in any event it's a small number, and there you have the recorded vote. Did I blow the suspense that you were attempting to build?

So yeah, it is incredibly easy to ATTEMPT to bring it to a vote on the Floor. But of course that wasn't what you originally said. You said that the passage of these bills was virtually assured. THAT'S the bet that is on the table. What you are attempting to do is waffle on your original statement and lure me into taking a MUCH easier bet for you. The only problem is that your attempt hinges on your hopes that I don't know much about the inner workings of the legislature. For your own sake I suggest you revaluate that assessment of me.

I agree that such a stunt that I described above may in fact occur on the Floor of the Senate, however it will still fail to pass the bills.

Come on Westin, I've called your bluff. Are you going to take my bet or not? Continued attempts at making the odds more favorable to you will only further show your cowardice in backing your words with action. You aren't going to let me show you up are you?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 02, 2000.

This thread resembles something that belongs in a schoolyard of children or tavern full of drunks. It also is pretty stupid seeing as how you both could still post under an assumed name and email. Patrick should at least come up with a better settlement than "not posting in the forum ever again."

Might I suggest the loser write a 1000 word essay supporting the winners viewpoint and an apology?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 02, 2000.

Well thanks for the CRITICISM Marsha, but there is a little something more to it all. Westin has repeatedly called into question my knowledge of politics, so I would have to say turn about is fair play. He made a fairly blunt, and I believe naive, political opinion, and I'm calling him on sticking to it.

As for posting under an assumed name, I believe that both of us have a fairly unique writing sytle that would easily be picked up by the others on the board.

And come now, wouldn't you rather see me never post here again than have to read through a 1,000 word essay? Besides, that would tend to favor Westin as he has a knack for babbling on and on without coming to a point.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 02, 2000.

"Westin has repeatedly called into question my knowledge of politics," There isn't any real question here, I've been reading your posts, and you are dumb as a box of rocks.

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), January 02, 2000.

Patrick,

It doesn't matter to me if you never post here again or if you continue.

I would like to see either one of you have to think from the others perspective JUST ONCE! I think it would be a good excercise for you.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 02, 2000.

Patrick...

Speaking of "getting nervous," are you going to accept the bet? What are you worried about? Obviously, your knowledge is so utterly superior to my own.

Yes or no will do nicely.

(BTW, your response isn't... even... close. My way guarantees a vote on the language of the bills... not on the question of pulling them to the floor. And my "assessment" remains accurate.)

And, for purposes of review, this is what you regailed us with:

"Boy Westin, I admit you had me going there. For a while I actually thought that you knew something about the legislature."

Well, gee... I guess I DO know "something" about it, since you've contradicted yourself about the bills "ever seeing the light of day." Now you admit that they, in fact, CAN see the light of day... which has kinda put the lie to your "All those bills are political ploys, plain and simple" notions. I am refering specifically to MORE then an ATTEMPT. I am refering to a direct vote.

"So there are multiple ways that all of these bills can be quietly killed without ANYONE being called to vote on the issue."

The sound level of a bill's death is entirely dependent on the bill in question. Did last session's gun-lock bill, for example, die a quiet death?

What you and many in your party fail to understand is that the people of this state have spoken. As the legislative body, it is THEIR duty to implement that will. I note the irony of a democrat disregarding democracy, but it won't be the first time.

And if you people vote these bills down... or do anything to stop them from coming to a vote... the noise level will be quite high... quite high indeed.

"So your little theory about how the members of the legislature will be pressured into voting for these things doesn't hold any water."

If my theory "doesn't hold water," then clearly, yours is bone-dry.

There WILL be an up or down vote. I submit that holds all the water it needs.

"All those bills are political ploys, plain and simple. It's simple because everyone who knows ANYTHING about the makeup and the workings of the legislature know that those bills are not going to see the light of day, and that includes Roach and Benton."

Has the sun come up yet, Patrick? Have I shed any "light" on your problem? Dented your ego? Perhaps made you write a letter to Matchbook Cover University requesting a refund? Maybe go back and take another Leg orientation class?

"Time to see just how politically smart you are. Are you man enough to take the bet?"

Back at you, stud.

I like these comments of yours, Patrick. Childish, obnoxous... politicaly inept... yet die-hard superior.

I am betting you that I can prove where every word of those bills will get the exact, same thing that you have guaranteed us they won't get... through your superior knowledge... and that is an up or down, roll call vote.... a vote that even the democrats will realise can hang them.

So, come on, stud. Show us what you've got.

Westin

Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher-ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), January 03, 2000.

"So, come on, stud. Show us what you've got."

Oh I think it's quite apparent that I've got you by the family jewels. You made a politically questionable prediction, I called on you to back up that statement, and you are quite transparently attempting to back your way out of it by throwing up your own wager that is so incredibly lop-sided in your favor that only a fool who doesn't know the legislative process would take you up on it.

As I detailed above, there are very simple ways to get the entire Senate to vote on the bills in question. You can also attempt to amend the bills onto other bills while on the Floor as long as they fall under the same scope and object of that bill. I conceed that there will probably be several sucessful attempts at getting some of these bills to some sort of recorded vote on the Floor. The basic rules of the Senate make such an attempt fairly simplistic. So essentially your proposed bet is a test of my knowledge of legislative maneuvering. Only if I didn't know how easy it is to get a recorded vote would I be willing to take your bet.

So the answer is no, I will not take your bet. I know it will happen, and I'm not about to take a bet that I know the outcome will not be in my favor.

The ball is back in your court now big guy. Are you going to stand by your statement "But passage of these various bills... in an election year, are virtually assured."? Are you willing to bet that a forced vote on the Floor will also force a majority of the Senators to vote in favor of these bills? That the same will happen in the House, and that the Governor will feel compelled to sign them or have the legislature override his veto? That's pretty much what you committed to when you made your statement.

So I figure you have three options here: You can conceed that these bills are not "virtually assured" of passing, you can stand by your words and take the bet, or you could do the thing I imagine you'll do, do some more retreating from your statement while contending that you are sticking by it, fire off some more insults, and probably offer another counter-bet that is more lop-sided in your favor than your last one.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 03, 2000.

No problem, Patrick.

I have shown you (and the rest of the world) that you don't know nearly as much as you think you do, overlooking the simple realities of a legislative system that CLEARLY will result in the bills in question "seeing the light of day," and that will CLEARLY result in a roll-call vote in an election year.

You have proven yourself to be an egomaniacal, shot-first-and-ask- questions-later type, so blinded by your biases that you'd jump out of your shoes to attack someone you disagree with without thinking anything through.

I said the lawsuits won't matter. I stand by that.

I said that these bills will anticipate and fix any court related issues, with the end result being the implementation of the people's will.

You assured us all that the bills in question were all "political posturing." I have proven that you don't have a clue, and you have as much ability to grasp political strategy as you do Sanskrit.

For me, the only question is: will the democrats have the guts to defy the will of the people in an election year, giving Republicans 7 months or so of free shots at those idiots that may vote against those bills?

As the leader of your party, Locke has shown how one can be a leader and a coward at the same time. My guess is that the democrats will be scared poopless, and go along with the program. The votes will be there.

While I note that you lacked the courage to back up your words, so rashly and ineptly spoken as a result of your blinding need to discredit me (and man, did you make yourself look like a fool, or what?) I am a member of the party of personal responsibility.

I will do that which you lacked the testicular fortitude (in keeping, of course, with so many of your political ilk and your party) to do.

Even if I loose this bet, catching you in your lie; watching you try and squirm out of it; confirming that when it comes to the way things run that you are a rank amateur... will all have been worth it.

The language of one or more of those bills will pass.

While you knew you were wrong when you wrote this garbage, unlike yourself, I will stand by the outcome.

If it doesn't, I will stop posting.

Damned shame that type of character so eludes you. But then, given the damage you've suffered here, obviously I expect too much.

Westin

Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher-ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), January 03, 2000.

Ah yes, the latest in a never ending litany of Patrick shooting off his mouth, getting nailed for his inaccuracy, than coming back with a comment that the other person is right BUT .......................... and descending into increasing arrogance and obnoxiousness. If he weren't such a perfect foil, such a poster child for the arrogant liberal, he wouldn't even be worth responding to. Is he REAL? Or is he just ghost-written by a conservative doing his/her best to make the liberals look ridiculous?

Mikey

.

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), January 03, 2000.

Once again Westin takes about 20 paragraphs to say something that any normal person would take 2 sentences. I know what you said, and that's why I'm calling you on it. But of course you've already hedged quite a bit there. Originally you assured the passage of these bills. Now you've set up a fall back position where in the event of the failure of these bills you can at the very least attack the Democrats for ruining your prediction. Oh well, it only took several days of guilting you into it for you to finally take responsiblity.

Oh, I see you didn't explain the secret way in which these bills would pass (you did say that you would reveal it Monday night you know). Did I perhaps expose the plan by that inclusion through amendment method? That would take just a little wind out of your sails wouldn't it?

And Mikey, if you'd care to get into the wager, that's fine by me. I stand by my comment that these bills WON'T pass. Watch and learn.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 03, 2000.

Patrick,

You were thoroughly wipped on the following threads.

We know LINK is a loser, but what about Sounder? and

Are WSF fares too low?

Why did you run off to do battle with Westin? Just couldn't hold your own against Craig huh? LOL.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 04, 2000.

Oops, whipped, I meant whipped!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 04, 2000.