>5. Jim has pointed out how you might get to your assertion. I had avoided
>attributing that path to you; I should think that "National Inquirer" thinking
>would be an embarassment to anyone here. It is up to you, of course, to correct
>him, if you are up to it.
>
>Burgy
I thought Jim's analysis was sound. If you disagree, why not point out his
errors rather than resorting to invective?
Jim Hopper