🚀 go-pugleaf

Rodney,  I really don't have time to keep up with this.  I'll respond
below but it will be my last.  I will read your reply though.

cheers

"Rodney Wines" <rodney_usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3ca737c6$0$8958$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>...
> > > > One thing has nothing to do with the other, so it is irrelevant.  The
> > > > comparison is not valid.  We're talking communication, not rides to
> > > > the doctor.
> > >
> > > EXACTLY! I can't communicate with the doctor from my living room.
>  Either I
> > > should be brought to the doctor, or the doctor should come to me.  It's
>  all
> > > perfectly logical (or as logical as Mike's case ...).
> >
> > I said it was irrelevant, you said, "EXACTLY".  End of that point.
> > let's move on.
> 
> No, you said, "We're talking communication, not rides to the doctor, and I
> said, "EXACTLY", End of that point.  Let's move on.  I apparently left too
> much context before.  I'll try not to confuse you in the future.
> 

Apparently you can't see the difference between communication access
and physical access.  I really should not expect non-deaf people to
get it.  This isn't the first time and won't be the last.

> > I don't know why you keep adding things to your arguement.  It makes
> > it impossible to understand you.
> 
> My argument? I've not got an argument.  I was referring to Mike's ...
> 

Well, if there's no argumeny why have we wasted all this time?

> > > Talk about your basic "irrelevant"? You don't know the doctor(s) in
> > > question.  You have no idea what their mofives were, or how much effort
>  it
> > > would be for them to comply.
> > >
> >
> > It doesn't take much effort.  The doctor is in the DC area.  Just
> > simply pick up the phone and call for one.  It's not hard.
> 
> One of what??? What is it you call one of them things that translates
> medical information into ASL? I'd not know how to look one up in the phone
> book.  I hope that Mike would, however.  After all, it's his "life or death"
> we're talking about here ...

Interpreting agencies handle that stuff.  That's not an issue. 
Knowing whait know about Mike, I doubt that he has a problem with this
issue.

> 
> > > No, it wasn't part of his complaint, but this behavior can be
>  interpreted
> > > based upon his original logic (or lack thereof).
> >
> > His complaint is logical, your interpretation of it is not.
> 
> What's wrong with my interpretation of it.  Seems to me that Mike meets the
> classic definition of a moralist, "A moralist is someone who makes rules for
> other people to follow."  Mike is criticizing a stranger for not doing
> something for him that he won't do for himself.  I'm just looking for
> consistency here.
> 

The ADA says that the Doc pays.  This is the reality of it.  When the
doc says no then he complains.  If there were no ADA, he wouldn't be
posting it here.  That's the world we live in.

> > The law says that the Doctor pays.  So Mike does have a good reason to
> > complain.  He cares enough to insist on an interpreter.  Mike cares
> > for himself.  Logic.
> 
> Others have posted here that the law isn't all that clear on the subject
> (hell, if the doctor is breaking the law, don't call a lawyer call the
> cops!). And, he doesn't care enough to provide an interpreter.  He
> criticizes the doctor for not doing something he won't do himself, and he's
> the one who could live or die based upon the outcome.  Therefore, his logic
> is flawed.
> 

No.  The law is clear.  It's lawyer types who are trying to make it
not clear.

> > > If he can't find an interpreter, and he is a deaf person who is
>  presumably
> > > familiar with the resources available to the deaf community, then how
>  could
> > > he expect a doctor who probably never even saw another deaf person to do
>  so?
> >
> > The yellow pages?
> 
> As if the doctor doesn't have anything better to do.  Again, how's he going
> to find a good one with whom Mike can work?
> 

It's part of his job.   Still most docs have a receptionist to do
this.

> > As I said, a separate issue.  This is a certification issue, not
> > relevant to Mike's complaint.
> 
> Mike's complaint is a medical one, or he'd not be going to the doctor.  You
> seem to be a "form versus substance" kinda guy; if it's the doctor's money
> and the doctor found the interpreter, Mike won, and what difference does it
> make what kind of translation he got? If Mike dies because the interpreter
> mis-translated, can Mike's family then sue the doctor?
> 

Mike needing an interpreter and the doc saying no is an access issue.

The ability of the interpreter to interpret medical jargon is a 
certification issue.  Got it?

> > > We were talking about Mike having the information to make life or death
> > > decisions, weren't we???
> >
> > Still doesn't make sense.
> 
> Apparently not.  As long as Mike doesn't have to do the legwork of finding
> an interpreter, then problem solved.  If he ends up "dead" right, he's still
> right.
> 

Yeah, but it might help those Deaf who come after.  We could set up a
memorial  ;-)

> > > Hey, we've all got chances many don't.  Mike is whining to the world on
>  his
> > > computer about how he's going to sue some doctors, and more than half
>  the
> > > world's population has never made a telephone call.
> >
> > We're not talking about the rest of the  world, we're talking about
> > the USA.
> 
> Yes, we were talking about the USA, and even there there isn't a level
> playing field.  Not everybody can drink and party until they're 40, then
> grow up to be president.  You've got to pick the right parents in order to
> pull a stunt like that.
> 

confusing the issue again, I see.  That has absolutely nothing to do
with interpreters.

> >  In case you've never
> > > heard, "Space is a vacuum because the whole world sucks."  Get over it.
>  We
> > > didn't get a level playing field, and we ain't gonna.  If Mike can
>  afford a
> > > computer and access time, he can find an interpreter in Northern
>  Virginia.
> > > There are parts of the US (and most of the rest of the world) where
>  that's
> > > not true.
> > >
> >
> > You get over it.  I don't see why you're blowing a gasket over this
> > issue.
> 
> Hey, it was Mike who "experienced a rapid disassembly of an elastic isomer
> interfacial environmental barrier".  He's the one yelling for a lawyer.  Me?
> Go look at my original post.  I'm behind him 100%.  I told him to sue the
> bastards.  Yes, I've questioned the internal consistency of his original
> argument (generally in response to your posts), but all I've done was
> suggest that the rest of us with special needs be included as well.  If he
> applied his logic consistantly, then he'd include the rest of us.
> 

Actually, no it wouldn't.  The ADA applies to disabilities not
immigration or all the other stuff.  The ADA is not only about Deaf
needs.  There are provisions for others.  We're talking about Deaf
needs here.

> > Why do you care?
> 
> I tols you.  I don't see none too good.  I can't drive.  I can't communicate
> with a doctor if I can't get to his place.  If the doctor has to arrange for
> and pay for an interpreter for Mike, why shouldn't s/he have to arrange for
> and pay for transportation for me? It's easier to find taxis than
> interpreters, and I'd bet that taxis are generally cheaper.  The public
> transportation is excellent around here, and doctors make house calls
> anyhow, but I'll probably retire back to the States in a very few years, and
> I'm planning for the future.
> 

If that's not in the ADA then you'll have to fight for that, if you
think it belongs there.  The ADA, howwever, does cover docs providing
interpreters.

> And what about you? I replied to Mike.  How'd you end up with a dog in this
> particular fight?
> 

I'm Deaf, I've got a stake in this.  I also live in the DC area, like
Mike, though we've never met.  I also have other more recent
disabilities. (i.e. can't walk or drive, so I also understand those
needs too.

> > > > > Both Spanish and Ebonics are "spoken" by Americans.
> > > >
> > > > Yes but Spanish originated from elsewhere.
> > >
> > > And English didn't????
> >
> > Again you confuse the point.  Check your calendar, it's 2002, you
> > know.  When spanish speakers have kids guess what language the kids
> > speak?  In the USA it's almost always English.  If I move to France
> > it's my problem to find an interpreter or a doctor.  That's not the
> > same as an American in his own land.
> 
> OK, the kids of Spanish speakers almost always speak English.  Even the kids
> of English speakers almost always speak English.  Where does ASL come into
> this then? These Spanish and especially the "Native Americans" are Americans
> in their own land.

Many Deaf do not speak English.  Many do,but it's well known the Deaf
people struggle with English.  The education system has failed to
teach English to deaf people.  Why? they spend hundreds of hours
getting them to say, "waaaaaaaa-ter" instead of teaching English
grammar and rules.  That's a big reason why writing notes doesn't work
for doc appointments.

> 
> > > > Most who speak Spanish also speak English
> > >
> > > I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of Americans who speak Spanish
>  and
> > > don't speak English is higher than the percentage of Americans who speak
>  ASL
> > > and don't speak spoken English.
> >
> > Well, the Spanish speakers can be taught English.  So far the American
> > education system has failed at teaching English to the Deaf.  They've
> > improved but  still not there yet.  So someone from another country
> > has better access to health care than a Deaf American.  That's wrong.
> 
> So, you're viewing life as a two-story outhouse.  The sign on the top door
> says "English speakers, Spanish speakers, and hey, just about everybody
> else", and the sign on the bottom door says "Deaf".  And, your solution is
> to reverse the signs? Mike has better access to health care than I do (or
> did before I left) because he can just get in his car and drive to the
> doctor's office.
> 

No, I simply said that we should provide for those born and/or raised
here first.  The Deaf are human beings too.

> But I wish you'd be consistent.  Above you said, "We're talking
> communication ...".  Now you want to bring access into it.
> 

If the issue is confused, remember that it was you who brought up this
and a host of other issues.

> > > > Those who don't are immigrants.  They brought
> > > > their own problem.
> > >
> > > We're all immigrants.  I've got one great-grandmother who was Cherokee,
>  but
> > > according to DNA tests I read about, even the "native Americans" arrived
>  in
> > > four separate migration waves.
> >
> > Sorry that is not the same thing that I just said.  It's 2002 now.
> 
> OK, then what happened in 2001 or 2000 doesn't matter.  More specifically,
> it's March 31, 2002, as I write this.  What happened March 28 2002, doesn't
> matter.  Any American who became an American by the close of business last
> week is as "American" as anyone who's ancestors were hunting buffalo while
> Columbus was out raising money ...
> 

Now you're being silly.  It's 2002, not 1700, get it? 2001 is more
relevant than 1700 or 1800.

> > > But the point is irrelevant.  As Americans, no matter how they became
> > > Americans, they're entitled to the same protection as the rest of us.
>  You
> > > don't like immigrants, that's your problem.
> >
> > No, I didn't say I didn't like immigrants.  However, we should take
> > care of who lives here first before those who come later.
> 
> Lemme see.  I left the States in '92, so perhaps medical procedures have
> changed since then.  At the time I left, however, doctors took care of
> patients by appointment on roughly a "first come first served" (with
> adjustments for medical emergencies) basis.  We'd also gotten a couple of
> Doc In A Box walk-ins in my hometown, but still patients were seen in the
> order they arrived.  Nobody sorted anyone according to immigration status or
> hearing ability.  You're saying that's changed since I left?
> 

Again, you confuse the issue.  I simply said that those who were here
first, szhould be taken care of first.  How that is done, currently,
is by the ADA.  The ADA says docs pay.  Now, I don't have a problem
expecting the state to pay instead of the doc but that is not how it's
done, currently.

> > Are you saying we should provide for immigrants and just leave the Deaf
>  cut
> > off just because teir Deaf?
> 
> Me??? Lord no! I'm just saying that we shouldn't provide for the deaf and
> leave everybody else with special needs cut off.  If Mike's going to sue,
> then the vertically challenged, the calorically gifted, the insomniacs, the
> blind, the Native Americans, the non-English speakers, the Ebonics speakers,
> and the Klingon speakers should all be paid for by the doctor.  In fact, the
> financially challenged should be covered as well.  Why should the doctor be
> charging anybody money? Shouldn't s/he pay for everything?
> 

See, nobody said cut off others with special needs.  "he vertically
challenged, the calorically gifted, the insomniacs, the
> blind, the Native Americans, the non-English speakers, the Ebonics speakers,
> and the Klingon speakers" are irrelevant to this topic.  These needs are not "Special Meeds" as the term is usually used. (i.e. refers to disabilities.)

> My only issue with Mike is his attitude that his life and death is someone
> else's responsibility.  It wouldn't give me heartburn if the cost of his
> interpreter was picked up, at least in part, by the government or his
> insurance provider.  I just don't see a problem with Mike having to arrange
> for one.  As you said, there's the yellow pages.  Mike should at least know
> what to look for.
> 

Arranging for one and paying for one are also two different things. 
Other than that I agree with you on this part at least.

> > Are you a Nazi?
> 
> I thought we'd agreed I'm a cynic.
> 

Ok, fair enough.

> Your last statement would seem to indicate that you're relatively new to
> Unenet, so I'll take a break for a minute and give you a clue here.  One way
> you can always recognize the person who is losing a Usenet "discussion" is
> he's the first person to bring up Hitler and/or the Nazis.  That would
> appear to be you in this case ...
> 
> Now we'll get back to the discussion.
> 

Actualy, I've bee on Usenet for a long time now, under various names. 
I didn't call you a Nazi, I just asked.  Therefore, no loss.

> > ASL has been proven to be a language.  Ebonics is not  a proven
> > language.  Some claim it is other exerts say no.
> 
> And you'd not get any experts who'd say that ASL isn't a language? Seems to
> me that if ASL is a language (I'm not saying it isn't) then you could even
> make a good case for written English being a separate language.  And, it
> seems to me that there was quite a bit of debate about ASL back then just as
> there is about Ebonics now.  "Today's 'cult' is tomorrow's 'mainstream
> religion'".
> 

Yes, there's a lot of debate on Ebonics, but as with this one, it's
endless.  I judge the debate to actually be over, though there are
some who hold on.  ASL is a language, period.  Though there was
debate, it wasan't the same kind of debate as the Ebonics one.

> > I'm sure we all know where you stand on that.
> 
> I'm not sure who "we all" is at this point.  Even Mike seems to've lost
> interest.  I suspect that he was just venting, and now he's calmed down and
> we've seen the last of him on this subject.  Best I can tell, "we all" is
> you 'n me (unless people are commenting on lists I don't receive), and you
> seem too confused to know much of anything.
> 

Then "we all" (me) know where you stand. ;-P

> So, if Ebonics isn't a language, what do deaf former Ebonics speakers speak?
> Is there an AASL?
> 

The same as Ebonics, which is a variation of English, so there are
variations of signs.  Perhaps, one day Ebonics will fully develop into
another language, but that day isn't here, yet.  It's the same with
AAS, as you call it.

> > > > Deaf who speak ASL are Americans, born and raised here.
> > >
> > > Except for the immigrants who learned it ...
> >
> > If they learned it why can't the hearing immigrants learn English?
> 
> Why can't the ASL "speakers" learn English?
> 

That has been the problem for hundreds of years.  If you've got a
solution you'd better come out with it, because to date, it's been a
failure.  The moswt promising answer is called, "Bi/BI", but it's
another issue not related to this thread.

> I've lived in Paris for 6 years now, and I'd still not trust my French in a
> medical emergency.  There are damn near as many reasons why someone can't
> learn a language as there are people who can't learn it.  Does that mean one
> group's communication needs don't count?
> 

That is not the same.  We've already gone over this.

> > > > The speak a language developed here.
> > >
> > > And English speakers do not, so we don't have to worry about doctors
> > > speaking English.
> >
> > American English was developed here.
> 
> So was Cajun French and all the "Native American" languages. 

They were developed prior to the USA and were not developed "here"
(the USA).  so they are irrelevant to this issue.  We were talking
2002, in the USA.  I've already said that they have a complaint but it
isn't the same issue.

> The Spanish
> spoken there is quite a bit different from what's spoken back in the "old
> country" (or so I'm told), and even back in the "old country" there's
> Castillian Spanish and another flavor whose name I've forgotten.  So what?
> Remember, this is 2002 ...
> 

Well, let Spain decide how to solve that.  That's not my problem.


> > You do know that American's no longer speak the Queen's English, don't
> you?
> 
> As friends from the UK often point out ...
> 
> But, American English is no more a separate language than is Ebonics ...
> 

American English is far closer to being a separate language than
Ebonics is, nevertheless, you are righht.

> > > Much of the southwestern US was already settled by Spanish speakers at
>  the
> > > time the area became US states.  They didn't instantly switch to
>  English,
> > > and some haven't done so yet.  Whether or not this is "irrelevant to
>  today's
> > > needs", it is NOT irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  These are
>  Americans
> > > for whom life and death is as important is it is to Mike.
> >
> > Where are these people?  If you go there you'll find that they know
> > English and those who don't just got here.
> 
> Then what's all this hassle I keep seeing on CNN about teaching Spanish in
> schools?
> 

CNN?  bwahaha.  just kidding.  That's not relevant to Docs paying for
ASL interpreters.

> > > > The only people who can complain are Native Americans.
> > >
> > > OHMYGOD!!! I FORGOT!
> > >
> > > Now how many Native American languages are there? There must be a dozen
>  or
> > > so still spoken somewhere.  Every doctor must obviously have an
>  interpreter
> > > available for each of them.  Thank you for reminding me.
> >
> > Yes, they also have a right to complain.  Just like the Deaf.
> 
> Hey, great! You're beginning to come 'round.  I was about to give up on you.
> 

Oh that makes me feel better.

> > However, most, like yourself, wil not even listen to their needs.
> 
> As I said, one of my great-grandmothers was a full-blooded Cherokee, and I
> think there was quite a bit more Cherokee in my mother's side of the family.
> Of course I'll listen to their needs.  Wasn't I encouraging Mike to sue on
> their behalf? I want my share of one of those casinos ...
> 

I didn't see you encouraging Mike to sue for what the law says is his
right.  The Cherokee or whatever issue, is not his problem.  Let them
sue for themselves.  I'll support their right to do so.

> > > > Immigrants.  They brought their own problem.  They will have to learn
> > > > English or go home.
> > >
> > > Deaf people.  They brought their own problems. ... :-)
> >
> > No, they didn't  Society has screwed them for years, let sciety pay to
> > fix it.
> 
> OK, let Mike go to Dr. Society, and Dr. Society can pay for Mike's
> interpreter and make all the arrangements.
> 

Well at the moment society says the doc pay.

> I doubt that "Society" has screwed deaf people any more than it's screwed
> blind people.  In fact, "society" used to put us in schools together and the
> deaf kids would kick our asses.
> 

I'd say that society has indeed screwed blind people and I support
them as well.  As for kicking asses, that's not a yardstick for
measuring who got it worse.  They both were screwed and that's how I
see it.

> But "society" didn't "screw" either deaf or blind people.  Yes, we've had
> problems achieving our potential, but that was simply because "conventional
> wisdom" was wrong about us; they didn't know what we could do, and until
> recently there was little that could be done for some of us.  This does NOT
> mean "society" didn't care.  It often cared very much.  Don't forget that
> ADA, Affermative Action, Vocational Rehab, and other relevant legislation
> had to be approved and supported by a majority, and all of us taken together
> sure ain't that.  Many, or most, accidents and illnesses that now leave
> "disabled" would, just a few years ago, have left "dead".  It is "society"
> that changed that.
> 

Society has and continues to "screw" the Deaf by spending all of their
energy on getting them to speak, instead of teaching the basics,
reading, writing and arithmetic.  As well s History and all the other
subjects of study.  It is possible to teach these things in ASL and
teach English as a second language.  Instead, if the deaf can speak
one word, they consider it a success.

> I told you before, there ain't a level playing field.  Put more bluntly,
> shit happens. 

Well, we don't have to take it.

>We're all born with varying abilities; and varying lacks.
> Some of those lacks are recognized as disabilities, and others aren't.
> There are those of us with disabilities who're working while those with
> 20/20 and two good ears and legs are sitting home drawing welfare simply
> because we have marketable skills and they don't.  It doesn't mean "society"
> is "screwing" the rest.  I dislike that "let's blame society" attitude.

Deaf people get a late start comparedto all the others.  It is a
society problem, in this case.

> About the only group in the States which might have a point there are the
> blacks, but for years those of us with disabilities (including the deaf)
> have had Vocational Rehab, etc, while those who were healthy but
> "financially challenged" had nothing.  I got to college based on VR.  Nobody
> else in my family made it, and I'd sure not have gotten there on an academic
> (or athletic!!!) scholarship.
> 

These programs are great, but do not solve the problem.  Deaf people
have succeeded despite the challenges.  Still, there is a long way to
go to.  You speak as if VR gives them an unfair advantage.  No, it is
an attemt t give them a chance they may not have had before.

> > I'll have to dig up my source but ASL was the 3rd or 4th most widely
> > spoken language last time in the USA, the last time I checked.
> 
> But "ASL as a second language" doesn't count.  Just because a person speaks
> it doesn't mean s/he has to rely on it for "spoken" communications.  But
> even if it is 3rd or 4th.  That's 3 or 4 other interpreters Mike's doctor
> should be providing ...
> 

ASL is a first language for Deaf people.

> > > And, just speaking ASL doesn't count; there are many people with normal
> > > hearing who learn ASL for various reasons.  My brother learned it
>  because
> > > there was a deaf woman who attended his church, and the church offered
>  to
> > > teach it to anyone in the congregation who was interested.  I'm talking
> > > about people who can't hear and/or speak and for whom ASL is their
>  method of
> > > "spoken" communication.  I wouldn't expect a doctor to provide a Spanish
> > > interpreter just because a patient had the ability to speak Spanish.
> >
> > I'm talking about providing for Deaf people, not hearing people who
> > can sign.  Where the heck do you come up with these phony arguments?
> 
> That's what I'm talking about as well.  Mike's gonna provide for Deaf and
> Spanish and Korean, and ... and I'm going to be behind him 100%!
> 

Mike is concerned with the Deaf.  The others will have to fend for
themselves.

> > > Last I heard, there was no official American language.  And, a lot of
> > > immigrants (and all Ebonics speakers) are in the US because they had no
> > > choice.
> >
> > Again you're clouding the issue up.
> 
> No.  I'm trying to show you that the issue was clouded before I got here,
> and me'n Mike are gonna clear it up when we get all these other people
> "included" ...
> 

Ah I see.  Still, I don't think that the others have exactly the same
issue.  They're going to have to raise their own issues.

> > Deaf people can not flip a switch and start hearing and understanding
> > the doctor.  The immigrants are in a different situation ...
> 
> Remember, this is 2002.  What does "immigrant" have to do with it? What has
> happened before is irrelevant.  Do you think that a non-English speaker can
> learn English on demand? A non-English speaker calls a doctor, the doctor
> says, "Take two Berlitz and call me in the morning ..."
> 

No, that is not what I said.  It's simply a different issue is all I
said.

> > ... and further, there are Doctors who speak their language.  Most of them
> that is.
> 
> And, there are doctors who speak ASL.
> 

Yeah?  How many?  There just aren't enough of them.  However, there
are far more docs for those other groups.

> > BTW, What immigrants have NO choice
> > whether to come here?  Except for Taliban prsoners they all had a
> > choice.
> 
> The Taliban haven't been given immigrant status.  That's why they're being
> held in Cuba.
> 

Guantaunamo (sp?) is considered US soil.  Still, you're right they're
out of status.  But the issue was choice.  Other than them who doesn't
have a choice?

> The under-age children of immigrants had no choice.  The spouses of
> immigrants usually didn't (especially women, depending upon what part of the
> world they were from).  Others (such as big time supporters of the US in
> Vietnam, and other victims of political persecution) had no practical choice
> except the choice of immigrating or dying.
> 

They didn't have to coe here.  They could have went anywhere.  The
children are different and obviously have no coice.

> > > And the ADA doesn't deal with physical access? Access is access;
>  physical or
> > > verbal.  You're just as dead if you get the wrong information.
> >
> > There are different types of access.  Access is not Access.
> 
> If access isn't access, then what is it, and what is access??? I don't get
> that one ...
> 

Physical and communication are not the same issue.  What could be more
clear.  Otherwise the ADA would not need to spell out the need for
interpreters.

> > > No.  I'm throwing in other situations to try and show that the real
>  issue is
> > > already confused.  This problem isn't as black versus white, or good
>  versus
> > > evil, as Mike has tried to claim.
> >
> > Nope, you're throwiing in dozens of different arguments to try and
> > confuse the issue.  Isn't that what's called Straw-man arguments?
> 
> No.  A straw-man argument is where you can't debate with the other person on
> the merits of what they say, so you bring up other things that the person
> didn't say, and argue with the person about those.  Oh, issues such as the
> Nazis, providing for immigrants before the deaf, etc ...
> 

I see.

> > The issue is clear, or was, before you got involved.
> 
> The issue is still as clear as before.  Mike's going to sue to get doctors
> to pay for him an interpreter, and I want him to make sure my transportation
> is covered, as well as interpreters for all the other languages in the USA
> which are spoken as a "first language" by at least as many people as ASL.
> What's not clear about that?
> 

You and me have to fend for ourselves on the transport issue, that's
not Mike's concern.

> > > > Sorry, didn't work with me, at least.
> > >
> > > Doesn't appear to have, Scott.  I think I got to you a bit late.  The
>  damage
> > > had already been done ... :-)
> >
> > I'm glad you didn't get to me.  I'm concerned about those who you did
> > get to.
> 
> Nobody else has commented, and I doubt anyone is even reading at this point.
> Perhaps we should both feel sorry for those who pay to download stuff like
> this, but I expect you'd bust a gut if you didn't reply.

Yeah well this is the last one.  I've got things to do.  It was fun
though.

Have a great day.