"The right course to take is to augment long-term contracts by adopting a pricing scheme more closely related to the cost of production, and where demand is sensitive to price signals." Thorsten Fischer

Reregulating in California

Governor Davis, It's Time for Rate Hikes

Solving California's Energy Mess

Powerless in California

I do not have time today to address the multitude of flaws in Doc Paulie's "Ten Myths." Fortunately, they are common enough so even a modest knowledge of market economics will allow one to spot the obvious errors.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 16, 2001

Answers

Price controls => shortages => black market => rationing => bureaucracy => crime and corruption => the limited commodity/service goes to the wealthy and connected => demogogy => price controls =>..

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 16, 2001.

Lars you forgot the part where these Capitalist Pigs drop a bomb or start a war to cover their theft depending on how aware the sheep are.

-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 16, 2001.

Ah yes, the infamous capitalist pigs, flying no doubt over the head of doc and dropping unmentionable brown bombs upon his tax-lovin' noggin.

-- capitalist pigs be us (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), February 16, 2001.

"unmentionable brown bombs" Is that something like a chemtrail?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 16, 2001.

Doc, do you mean "Wag the Dog" wars as in Clinton "peacekeeping"?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 16, 2001.

You people are cracking me up today. Who knew life without chemicals could be this entertaining?

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 16, 2001.

Last sentence first link:::If consumer advocates and environmentalists are looking for a viable solution, they should embrace complete deregulation and real-time pricing, rather than the re-regulation that is under way currently.

Already have tried "real-time pricing", nice result tne times the going rate. Complete deregulation is impossible in a market open to a few controlling parties. A KNOWN going in but many bought the crud the "market" would take care of these apparent imbalances,,,it didn't as this is no FREE Market. It is a MONOPOLY.

Now knowing this why would I give a crap what the other links have to say? These folks are CLUELESS. They are about wrapping their whitewing extremist agenda around some factoids which are complete and utter baloney but are believed by many as indeed fact.

Is this website reflective of the Logic you endorse Jose? If so I will have to say no thanks. And add I think your logic model has a serious BUG in it.

I have had "it up to here" with you dumbass Capitalist Whores and your attempts to wrap your selfish schemes around sound freemarket principles. Yes the Market works to the exact degree it is BALANCED. Stick that into you logicmeter.

-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 19, 2001.

BTW, the deregulation of the Telecommunications area sure has proven a boon, lol. Did for a few years before the Monopps did again what they always do...suck marketshare and thus dictate direction and policy.

To the point now where these rebuilt Monopolies have even killed all new Internet growth. Broadband? are you kidding me? can you say Iridium? can you say we cannot allow our "interests"(our wires and junk)to be set aside so you alls can have full speed anything internet? like using satellite?

Why has the Internet tanked? The bandwidth never showed. Why is that? In fact, why is there even an internet? Gee cause for a couple of years these Monoploies had to like open their freaking pipes?

Pipes be closing again.

-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 19, 2001.

With reckless abandon I ask a question of Doc. What? What are you talking about?

"Why has the Internet tanked? The bandwidth never showed. Why is that? In fact, why is there even an internet? Gee cause for a couple of years these Monoploies had to like open their freaking pipes?"

What do you mean the internet tanked? How has the internet tanked? Do you mean those stupid businesses that wall street threw tons of $ at, that had no chance in hell of making it? What monopolies have restricted internet access? Some how this is a conspiracy and I don't get it Doc, please enlighten me.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 20, 2001.

Without speed we have buggy Real players and 30 second Flashes. We have shopping which is stripped catalog pages. Catalogs numbering 50 for stores which could provide thousands of feature rich informative content at speeds approaching realtime.

No question many of the start-ups would have tanked anyhow. But what never showed was the bandwidth not lack of ideas, drive, money or even the how-to. When it became clear the broadband would not arrive anytime soon, the dream died and apparently now so too the entire economy with it.

The bandwidth can never come over "the wires" and infrastructure of the phone companies monoply alone. It is my belief there has been a consorted effort by some, to stifle any integration and use for increased bandwith over what they think is their infrastructure. Infrastructure bought and paid for by the users.

The story of Iridium about sums up, and shows what the plan was IMHO,,,kill all that threatens the Monoply. KILL anything which will bypass their monopoly on trade. Send a message to all that you must come thru them with any plans or we will squash you and your trailblazing innovations.

While few doubt Iridium would ever amount to anything beyond what it was, mobile phone structure, this did not stop investors like Bill Gates from stepping up. Iridium burned up in the sky and so did any hope for what this medium could hope to be, a truly integrated internet of many avenues. I believe Iridium was more than just "phone service". It was the internet structure in space is what it represented. No doubt crude, but I believe this is what it was and why it had to be killed.

Iriduim died for a variety of legitimate reasons of course. None more than the fact they were unable to get the cooperation, the integration necessary in what is referred to as "the last mile". MaBell does not want her nice little profit-center messed with.

It should also go without saying things like the FCC stand as guardians of the old school(the lastmile). Defenders of the Monopoly. They put-on exclusive auctions selling "our" airwaves to a handful of Monoploy shells. They dictate how one can integrate. They have stood for decades and not even allowed folks like DirecTV to offer local TV stations to their customers. To think they would allow this internet thingee to expand beyond the wires of MaBell is a stretch into the place of dreams. They will do as they are told and paid to do,,,stall, roadblock, and defend their clients interests according to their schedule and desires.

TelcoAct 1996 opened the door. Sadly this door and the draft it created has now been largely shut and the draft contained. The babybells have once again found mamma.

The broadband never showed. Why Maria? Lack of will? lack of "smart" money? lack of brains? no, lack of Free Enterprise is what is standing in the way. FCC-MaBell-and vested interests in the status quo beatback the market for now. Ain't over, but with Dubya around, don't expect the situation to change anytime soon.

-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 20, 2001.

Here's a good one....http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/

Last article? Hmm...bout the time the economy went into the crapper, Halloween 2000.

How on earth is it possible the last freaking article on an FCC webpage dealing with BROADWIDTH ACTIVITIES is 3.5 months old? Oh sure click-thru some links and you get more recent stuff i.e., AOL/TimeWarner merger stuff. But come-on, does one need further evidence to what is going on here? Out of mind out of sight.

Which is more pressing? Gov/Charity integration or communications integration?

-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 20, 2001.

ATTENTION ALL INTERNET 'SURVIVORS':

Pope paulie has spoken. He knows all and sees all.

Listen well to his baffle-gab.....its good for a laugh.

(SOMEBODY autta save this rant and repost it in about 2 years......jez so ole doc knows he is NOT infallible....)

-- (pope_paulie@hotmale.com), February 20, 2001.

Doc,

"Without speed we have buggy..."

I agree we need speed and we don't have it.

"... ideas, drive, money or even the how-to."

What never showed was the marketability of shopping on the net. Why would people shop on the net? Bad idea from the beginning. The dream died not from lack of bandwidth but from lack of market share. Most people would rather go to a brick and mortar, pay, and take it home. Catalogues aren't that big a business because of the same reasons. I do agree with the drive and money (certainly wall street threw all kinds of $ for any inane .com. The how-to is questionable.

"The bandwidth can never come over "the wires" and infrastructure of the phone companies monoply alone. It is my belief there has been a consorted effort by some, to stifle any integration and use for increased bandwith over what they think is their infrastructure. Infrastructure bought and paid for by the users."

First, I don't think phone companies is a monopoly. Second, the infrastructure isn't theirs and they know it, they don't charge for it and it's against the law to charge for it. How do you think MCI became number two?

"The story of Iridium about sums up, kill all that threatens the Monoply. KILL anything which will bypass their monopoly on trade. Send a message to all that you must come thru them with any plans or we will squash you and your trailblazing innovations."

I don't agree that iridium died because they tried to "buck" the monopoly. It died because the market wasn't ready and it wasn't ready for the market, too expensive and bulky. If the "monopoly" thought this was "trailblazing innovations", it would have tried to buy Motorola's idea or become partners with them or build their own copy of the idea. Sixty-six satellites is a huge cost, at close to half a billion per copy.

" a truly integrated internet of many avenues."

I agree with you there. The potential is enormous.

"this is what it was and why it had to be killed." It died under its own weight not from the monopoly.

"MaBell does not want her nice little profit-center messed with."

What do you believe is her profit? Have you seen the value of her stock? $19, down from somewhere near $70 a year ago. Again what profit? Long distance charges are almost non-existent these days.

"To think they (FCC) would allow this internet thingee to expand beyond the wires of MaBell"

So you think that the FCC is trying to protect mabell interests. Sorry, I can't go to that conspiracy theory. Mabell doesn't have a monopoly on the internet. The FCC isn't controlling the internet. I think the problem is NO ONE is controlling the internet.

"The babybells have once again found mamma." Did they? I don't understand your reference here. The babybells can sell long distance, an integrated bill to the customer. Most babybells have merged. There used to be eight biggies, now I think there are only two or three. Can't remember, I lost track.

"The broadband never showed. FCC-MaBell-and vested interests in the status quo beatback the market for now. Ain't over, but with Dubya around, don't expect the situation to change anytime soon." Why? You cited some of the problem, integration. No standards with the internet makes integration very hard. Too many companies with their own way of interfacing, makes life unique. Everyone is trying to beat the competition to the market. My son-in-law works for a company with a wonderful product. The competition has their own version of the same wonderful product, networking hotels for internet access. These products don't talk to each other; further they are totally incompatible with each other, making building any kind of interface impossible. This has nothing to do with the FAA or Mabell. Free enterprise at its finest. Free enterprise also did away with eight-track too.

The gov doesn't update their web pages. Wow what a shock! I've seen some gov sites that haven't updated since 1997.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 20, 2001.

Maria you would NOT agree to the sky being blue if I said it.

I presented my theory, what is yours????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

That the best we can ever hope for is AOL version whatever? Because that is what the market wants? Cause a bunch of dumbass dreamers miscalculated? Well guess what, they did, and there are deeper reasons than "they just blew it". Millions "just blew it", ya real logical.

One look at the Cable industry should be ones clue to what stands in the way of all this, VESTED INTERESTS. Call it conspiracy if you like, facts are facts.

Freaking WASTE of TIME chatting with morons is what this webboard is. Just about EVERYTHING you thru back at me is ALREADY been factored into my post, been there and done that, and way beyond your arrival.

The gov doesn't update their web pages. Wow what a shock! I've seen some gov sites that haven't updated since 1997. GEE no kidding? ya think? them be Pages dealing with the freaking CUTTING EDGE of technology have not been updated in 3 and half freaking months? BULLSHIT SQUARED. Toss this crap out and expect it to be believed?

MaBell doesn't charge, gee again, ya think? Guess who does Maria? try here for one one might be. Wow I am shocked,,,Enron.

-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 20, 2001.

So according to you Enron with their specialized equipment will be beat down because the FAA-Mabell monopoly doesn't like it.

Freaking WASTE of TIME chatting with morons is what this webboard is.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 20, 2001.

I think the problem is NO ONE is controlling the internet.

Got that right, can't have that.

-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 20, 2001.

Oops meant FCC above not FAA.

Last post here for you Doc,

I read about it on the internet; so it must be a viable alternative, a trailblazing innovation. What do you mean I can't find it on the FCC web page. Oh I see, they are trying to keep me in the dark. They aren't doing their job of keeping up with the latest innovations. Why not? Oh I see they want to continue to keep me in the dark. What do you mean I can't have fast connections. Oh I see it uses the same wires as my telephone so that must mean the Mabell has something to do with it. It has nothing to do with my modem, my modem is not responsible for fast connectivity to the net. What do you mean you can't provide DSL to my neighborhood. Oh I see, you're from the phone company, so Mabell must be preventing my "broadband" connectivity. What do you mean I can't mix analog and digital. Of course they can go over the same wire and connect the same way. It's through a wire that's just like my telephone wire. Oh I see, Mabell owns the wire so they won't allow any other traffic besides what they can control. What do you mean iridium is going away? What's wrong with putting sixty-six new satellites up there? There's plenty of space after all. Oh I see, the FCC has control over space and they have to keep special interests in Mabell. It's a conspiracy. No, I don't believe that space is crowded already. Putting sixty-six birds in orbit is such an inexpensive and easy task. Anybody can do it, after all I saw an article about it on the net. What do you mean, these rockets can blow up on the pad? Oh I see, Mabell wants to protect her interests; she blew them up.

Geez, I know I did this "with reckless abandon" but I tried to understand Doc's points. Sorry Doc I promise I won't do this again.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 20, 2001.

Doc:

This is confusing enough to make an attempt at translation almost interesting. So let me see...

[Maria you would NOT agree to the sky being blue if I said it.]

If it were blue according to universally accepted definition, there would be no argument. When you are basing pure speculation on unsupported assumptions and expecting all of it to be obvious to everyone else, then feeling persecuted when your assumptions are not shared. But your case is less than airtight.

[I presented my theory, what is yours????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????]

If you are asking Maria to speculate as to why internet transmissions aren't being sped up as fast as YOU think they could have been, that's one thing. If you are implying that your speculation must be correct *because* she presents none to your liking, this is illogical. It is entirely permissible to demonstrate one hypothesis to be unlikely without postulating another to take its place.

[That the best we can ever hope for is AOL version whatever? Because that is what the market wants?]

Nobody said this. And access is in fact speeding up. DSL and cable modems are becoming more and more prevalent. The browser wars have been fierce enough to threaten Microsoft's existence as a single company. Cost-effective speed sells well.

[Cause a bunch of dumbass dreamers miscalculated? Well guess what, they did, and there are deeper reasons than "they just blew it". Millions "just blew it", ya real logical.]

No, there are market forces. First, you say nobody will sink the necessary billions into broadband on speculation because the conspiracy prevents this. Then you point out that Iridium did exactly that, so now the conspiracy acted to kill Iridium. The notion that people didn't want to spend $3000 a pop for suitcase-sized phones, and then 5 cents a minute to use them, doesn't seem strong enough to you to prevent widespread acceptance. So did you buy an Iridium phone? Why not?

Are you really trying to imply that the FCC/Ma Bell conspiracy was sufficient to first cause everyone to sink billions into the dot-com craze, and then cause all those startups to bomb out? Why? What we saw is far more likely explained as CYA feedback. Everyone thought that at least some of these dot-coms would hit it big, and nobody wanted to be left behind. So they all copied one another. No hidden conspiracy "making" them do this is necessary.

[One look at the Cable industry should be ones clue to what stands in the way of all this, VESTED INTERESTS. Call it conspiracy if you like, facts are facts.]

Which facts are you talking about? Bringing rapid broadband to everyone takes demand (people willing to spend money), it takes physical plant (cables and people stringing them, sophisticated switching equipment, etc.), it takes investment (and don't back the wrong horse, right?).

Slowly, this is taking place. What is slowing it down is that nobody has all the pieces. The phone companies have the switching ability for peer-to-peer every which way, upload and download symmetrical. But their wires can't handle the bandwidth. Meanwhile, the cable companies have the coax physically out there, but they are set up for broadcast only, no upload or switching capability in place. For either one (or for someone with *neither*) to put all the pieces together would cost many billions. This kind of cost doesn't get spent overnight.

What you are saying is (1) IF we really wanted to, we could give everyone a T1 line. (2) Everyone wants T1 speeds, so we really do want to (3) But it hasn't happened yet and you think it should have, (4) THEREFORE some vested interests must be preventing this. And thus you have followed a chain of assumptions and misinterpreted observations to arrive at a "fact". But it's not factual.

Now, back here in reality, not everyone really wants rapid access. About half the US adults don't have ANY access, so how badly can they want it? T1 speeds don't come cheap nor do they come quickly. You can't rewire the country overnight either. Yet it is happening, at about the speed you'd expect given the public demand and the current cost.

[Freaking WASTE of TIME chatting with morons is what this webboard is. Just about EVERYTHING you thru back at me is ALREADY been factored into my post, been there and done that, and way beyond your arrival.]

But the main thing you factored into your posts is the *assumption* that the desire (and willingness to pay) for universal broadband *must be present*, because you BELIEVE it is, so you INSIST that we accept this. And your entire explanation (that Big Players With Vested Interests are stifling development) is a natural outgrowth NOT of observed development, but of your assumption that development OUGHT to be much faster, therefore it must be getting snuffed!

Meanwhile, I talk to my neighbors, and they say, well, maybe someday they might try out the internet, but since they get along fine without it now, they don't want to pay for an extra phone line, or for an ISP, or for the installation fee, or hassle with all those network settings on the computer that they'll get around to buying one of these years. THAT's demand in the real world.

[The gov doesn't update their web pages. Wow what a shock! I've seen some gov sites that haven't updated since 1997. GEE no kidding? ya think? them be Pages dealing with the freaking CUTTING EDGE of technology have not been updated in 3 and half freaking months? BULLSHIT SQUARED. Toss this crap out and expect it to be believed?]

What makes you think that the cutting edge of the internet is more important than the cutting edge of anything else the government is involved in (which is damn near everything). Laws and regulations change constantly, people change, there are many technologies beyond broadband also. And ALMOST NONE of these cutting edges have been updated very often. 3 1/2 months is pretty good by government standards, and EVERYTHING has a cutting edge, to those who take it seriously enough.

OK, if YOU were in charge, you'd update all these web pages every single day, and that's fine. But you look ONLY at one technology, you look at some fairly recent pages, you decide they aren't recent enough to suit you, and you conclude that "somebody up there" must be deliberately targeting your pet technology to prevent updates! And then you label "bullshit" ANY OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION why these updates fail to meet YOUR preferred schedule!

Sorry, but your conspiracy is (as usual) an artifact of false assumptions. And rather than correct your assumptions, you design a suitable conspiracy to explain why your assumptions must be true despite lack of evidence. And somehow all this becomes "facts" in your own mind. Very sad.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 20, 2001.

As far as I can tell, Doc, you're right on the money. It ain't conspiracy, its just good "business" sense. Most folks like the Flinster and Maria Testosterone are too enamored with their bread & circuses to understand what real money is all about (case in point: Marc Rich. Nice surname huh?)

BTW - great spot outting "Josie" as Decker. Excellent.

-- The invisible hand (dollars@nd.cents), February 20, 2001.

Doc, for a guy who had pretty good logic and critical thinking skills during the y2k debate, you sure are making yourself out to be a jackass now.

why not simmer down a bit?

-- Psych Major (psychob@b.le), February 20, 2001.

Congress on Collision Course With Energy Issue

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=004eY7

-- (in@the.news), February 21, 2001.

I have to agree with Maria on this one. What new economy Doc? Just how much commerce do you think would occur with broadband? People don't buy pants and suitcoats over the net because you can't try it on. Homefurnishings.com? Yeah, sure, that will happen, let me buy this couch from a picture on the net from a company in Oshkosh, if I don't like it I can send it back....big fun. Who needs a test drive when I can buy my new Explorer over the net? Give my Visa number to an unknown dotcom over the web? Love to do it! I like to live on the edge.

I fell for the Y2K hype, seems that you have fallen for the new world economy via the internet hype.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.

Maria and Flint got ya here, Doc.

A lot of people woke up...that's why the NASDAQ is down to more reasonable numbers.

The only thing I might ever consider buying online is something I absolutely cannot buy at a brick and mortar store. Why would *anybody* buy pet food on the iternet? We have to go to the grocery store anyway! I certainly wouldn't take the time to boot up my computer, look for a reputable site, order and then sit and wait for it to arrive.

The internet wasn't ever designed to be commercial...it was designed to be educational because the risks inherent with the internet are too great.

Of course, if you want to play that game, go ahead. We tend to be risk aversive anyway.

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), February 21, 2001.

I guess I should have made myself clear. Pet food is just an example. The same goes for all food, personal care products, tools, books or anything else.

IMHO, the only thing the internet is good for is information (and most of that is BS!).

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), February 21, 2001.

The Web's biggest domain name registrar said Tuesday it would offer a new service turning telephone numbers into Web addresses, hoping to ease the pain of having to type letters while Net surfing on a wireless phone. VeriSign's domain name registrar division opened a beta version of its WebNum service Tuesday, hoping to capture a new slice of the domain name market focused specifically on wireless Web surfing. In the process, it stands a chance of regaining a small portion of the monopoly it once had on worldwide domain name registration.

Its all about the mono-pollies

-- (blah@blah.blah), February 21, 2001.

by the by, software and music are two excellent examples of what the net can do, especially with CDburner technology where it is right now.

Egghead software went completly digital a few years back....how are they doing now?

-- (blah@blah.blah), February 21, 2001.

Have to disagree with you Netty.

Much of the population lives outside major metropolitan areas. For example, I have to drive two hours roundtrip to find a decent bookstore. And even then more often times than not the book I want isn't on their shelves. I can order virtually any book I desire online. Same with CDs.

I purchased my Baygen radio online. No retail outlets carried it. I buy the supplement Triphala online. No retail outlet I know of carries it.

Same with computer peripherals.

On and on. The list is long.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 21, 2001.

Rich,

I bought my Baygen online too. And my Baygen flashlight. I've bought a few books from Amazon as well. I do not totally discount web shopping, far from it. For purchases like the above it is fine. For tracking down items that you cannot buy locally the web is great. I just recently bought some 1/32nd scale decals for an F-86 Sabre fighter model that I am building. The model came with Japanese markings and I wanted Korean War U.S. Aces markings, I could never find this stuff around here. A hobby shop in Ohio had them, yahoo!

But to blame the downfall of the web economy on the lack of broadband connections is silly, IMHO. The web is a revolution still in progress.

G'day Bruce!

This here's the Wottle, it's the symbol of our land...

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 21, 2001.

Now you KNOW I would sooner swap spit with the hawk menagerie than get tangled in a DP "discussion". But Netty blew off internet commerce as unnecessary and that's just plain wrong, IME.

Another area where e-commerce has been invaluable to me: I've found products for my company to resell and make tidy profits on numerous times strictly through research and purchasing on the internet. I haven't picked up a hard copy of Thomas Register in over a year. For one it's available online. For another it's more productive to hop onto Google or Dogpile and have at it.

G'day Bruce!

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 21, 2001.

I must have missed something along the way...who's Bruce?

Rich, I didn't say NO one uses the internet for e-commerce, obviously some do. In my opinion, (and I said it was my opinion earlier) there isn't enough business to warrant all the dang dotcoms that sprung up. Clearly, the big boys like ebay and Amazon are going to do a ton of business because they're well established. IMO people DO shop there for stuff that is difficult to find.

But, I think most people who use the internet live in cities and can shop in their cities.

I also said I (and I assume most people) shop online when I absolutely can't get something at a brick and morter. Who is so cavalier with their credit card number that they shop online on a regular basis? Like I said earlier, if they want to do that...more power to them. WE are risk aversive.

Rich I also live 2 hours round trip to a major city but I jump in my car and make the trip at least twice a week. I don't know, maybe you can't afford to do that and that's why you shop online. (No disrespect intended there...just thinking outloud.)

I'd really like to know the answer to this (how many people shop online much...not just the ocassional purchase because that won't keep dotcoms afloat). Maybe I'll ask the question tomorrow in a new thread.

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), February 21, 2001.

That's a boffo idea, Netty. Should be interesting.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 21, 2001.

"G'day Bruce!"

Refers to the "Bruces" sketch, from Monty Python's Flying Circus.

-- Full Monty (monty@python.circus), February 24, 2001.

And NO POOFTAS!!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 24, 2001.

When did the word Boffo sneak into my vocabulary? How embarraskin!

Might as well blame Lars. Or maybe it's a flora-ism?

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 24, 2001.

{Nobody expects the Spainish Inquisition}

-- flora (***@__._), February 24, 2001.