Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Djshakes
Participant[quote=zk][quote=Djshakes]
The thread hit page four and was already pretty far off of its intended mark. So I got a little slap happy. Big deal.[/quote]
It’s not a big deal. I was just exposing it for what it was. Which was thoughtless, ridiculous partisan slapfighting.
[quote=Djshakes]
I suggest you read a majority of my posts before making quick snap judgments.
[/quote]
I’m not making any snap judgement. I’ve been observing our nation’s political discourse for a couple decades, and I’ve noticed over that time that, to an ever-increasing degree, the discussion is dominated by point scoring and that a real exchange of ideas is rare.
[quote=Djshakes]
I’m reading a lot of whining in your post and little of what you are whining about, suggestions to fix the problem. [/quote]
Wow, have you ever got that all wrong.
First of all, you’ll have to show me the parts that you consider “whining.” Or is that just more of your thoughtless slapfighting?
[quote=Djshakes]
I just re-read every post you had in this thread and you offered absolutely 0 to the thread[/quote]I haven’t offered my suggestions to fix the budget because I think Jerry Brown is doing it mostly right. I’d be a little harsher on illegal immigrants (if it would save money, which it might) and I’d handle prisoners a bit differently. But those are minor quibbles and, like I said, I think he’s doing a great job. He’s our first fiscally responsible governor in a long, long time. So, if I think he’s doing it mostly right, my suggestion would be to support him. Perhaps I should’ve made that more clear.
My other point would be that bitching about Jerry Brown without having any idea what you would do that would actually work subtracts from the discourse rather than adding to it.
[quote=Djshakes]
other than asking snide questions of other posters diverting responsibility to offer any original though.
[/quote]Snide questions? Asking someone what better ideas they have than someone they’re saying has bad ideas? Is that what you’re talking about? Explain how those are snide questions.
[quote=Djshakes]Contribute or STFU. We have enough whiners on here already.[/quote]
Again, show me the whining.
As far as my contributions:
I was trying to get an exchange of ideas started on the budget. My method involves asking questions. Had they been answered, they would’ve been followed by a discussion. They weren’t answered, so no discussion ensued between me and the people I was asking questions. If you want to answer what you would do, I’d be happy to have a discussion about it.[/quote]
I wasn’t around when Jerry was in office before. I hear from some that he is a loon, some say he is in the union’s pockets, some liked him. I have never heard anyone give him rave reviews….which makes me wonder why this state would elect him a second term. I’m all for giving someone a second chance. I am apprehensive as if you can’t get it done the first time than most likely the same approach won’t work a second. However, maybe he will take a different approach. We will have to see.
I don’t think the thread is about his performance as he has recently been elected. I think it is about the years of politics that got us into this mess from both sides of the isle and if it is too far gone to fix. Have we passed the tipping point? I think half would argue we have.
February 3, 2011 at 8:27 AM in reply to: OT: No worries folks, federal debt is now under control #662089Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Djshakes][quote=CA renter]
Additionally, the taxpayers pay for the majority of our medical research, either through the NIH or public universities or grants, etc. Why should the private industry reap the rewards from the research (especially the foundational R&D) that the taxpayers have paid for?[/quote]While NIH is government funded, not many institutions have access to this money. A majority of research is paid for my pharma companies through clinical trials and philanthropic funds distributed through grants.
– Previous accountant for the research department of Scripps[/quote]
The NIH, alone, provides approximately 30% of the funding for medical research:
The impact of even small NIH budget cuts is severe: The agency funds about 30 percent of all medical research in the U.S., according to the Journal of American Medical Association.
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=83157
Basic scientific research (including medical) is primarily funded by government sources. Many of our current medical innovations came from basic research conducted by government agencies not affiliated with NIH (NSF, USDA, NASA, etc.). Note that the “other” category in the following link includes government funding from state and local governments, as well as universities and colleges using their own funding:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/usba07.pdf
AND:
“When public money is invested in university-based basic research there is tremendous return on investment. Research creates jobs directly for those involved and indirectly for many others, through innovations that lead to new technologies, new industries and new companies.
The content and examples provided here illustrate some of the economic benefits the nation reaps when companies are created as a result of discoveries in federally funded university laboratories. While there are countless companies that have made use of the fruits of academic research, the roots of the companies highlighted here can be traced directly to seminal research conducted at a university and sponsored by a federal agency.
Were it not for the federally supported research, these companies – their products and services, and the jobs and economic growth that have resulted – likely would not exist.”
From the same link:
“The federal government is the primary source of funding for basic research conducted in the United States, providing some 60 percent of funding. The second largest source of basic research funding is the academic institutions themselves.”
http://www.sciencecoalition.org/successstories/
———————IMHO, the riskiest and least profitable component of scientific research is the basic research from which almost all of our technologies are developed. The majority of that research is publicly funded. Additionally, the government funds much of our applied research as well.
It is only when something has a good chance of becoming profitable that a private company will step in to carry the research further. The hard work at the basic level, and the riskiest part of the research, is already done as a result of public funding.[/quote]
Makes sense. I think dollar wise nothing compares to NIH funding. They throw huge dollar amounts around in the form of grants. However, like I said, a majority of institutions don’t have access to this money. It is an extremely rigorous process to get these funds. So a majority of this money is concentrated in few institutions. TSRI, UCSD, etc. There is still a lot of research that goes on through pharma and donated funds. The dollar amounts obviously don’t compare as the money comes from individuals and business as opposed to government spending other people’s taxes. So yes, dollar amount is greater with government, number of projects funded by the government is smaller though.
February 3, 2011 at 8:27 AM in reply to: OT: No worries folks, federal debt is now under control #662151Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Djshakes][quote=CA renter]
Additionally, the taxpayers pay for the majority of our medical research, either through the NIH or public universities or grants, etc. Why should the private industry reap the rewards from the research (especially the foundational R&D) that the taxpayers have paid for?[/quote]While NIH is government funded, not many institutions have access to this money. A majority of research is paid for my pharma companies through clinical trials and philanthropic funds distributed through grants.
– Previous accountant for the research department of Scripps[/quote]
The NIH, alone, provides approximately 30% of the funding for medical research:
The impact of even small NIH budget cuts is severe: The agency funds about 30 percent of all medical research in the U.S., according to the Journal of American Medical Association.
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=83157
Basic scientific research (including medical) is primarily funded by government sources. Many of our current medical innovations came from basic research conducted by government agencies not affiliated with NIH (NSF, USDA, NASA, etc.). Note that the “other” category in the following link includes government funding from state and local governments, as well as universities and colleges using their own funding:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/usba07.pdf
AND:
“When public money is invested in university-based basic research there is tremendous return on investment. Research creates jobs directly for those involved and indirectly for many others, through innovations that lead to new technologies, new industries and new companies.
The content and examples provided here illustrate some of the economic benefits the nation reaps when companies are created as a result of discoveries in federally funded university laboratories. While there are countless companies that have made use of the fruits of academic research, the roots of the companies highlighted here can be traced directly to seminal research conducted at a university and sponsored by a federal agency.
Were it not for the federally supported research, these companies – their products and services, and the jobs and economic growth that have resulted – likely would not exist.”
From the same link:
“The federal government is the primary source of funding for basic research conducted in the United States, providing some 60 percent of funding. The second largest source of basic research funding is the academic institutions themselves.”
http://www.sciencecoalition.org/successstories/
———————IMHO, the riskiest and least profitable component of scientific research is the basic research from which almost all of our technologies are developed. The majority of that research is publicly funded. Additionally, the government funds much of our applied research as well.
It is only when something has a good chance of becoming profitable that a private company will step in to carry the research further. The hard work at the basic level, and the riskiest part of the research, is already done as a result of public funding.[/quote]
Makes sense. I think dollar wise nothing compares to NIH funding. They throw huge dollar amounts around in the form of grants. However, like I said, a majority of institutions don’t have access to this money. It is an extremely rigorous process to get these funds. So a majority of this money is concentrated in few institutions. TSRI, UCSD, etc. There is still a lot of research that goes on through pharma and donated funds. The dollar amounts obviously don’t compare as the money comes from individuals and business as opposed to government spending other people’s taxes. So yes, dollar amount is greater with government, number of projects funded by the government is smaller though.
February 3, 2011 at 8:27 AM in reply to: OT: No worries folks, federal debt is now under control #662754Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Djshakes][quote=CA renter]
Additionally, the taxpayers pay for the majority of our medical research, either through the NIH or public universities or grants, etc. Why should the private industry reap the rewards from the research (especially the foundational R&D) that the taxpayers have paid for?[/quote]While NIH is government funded, not many institutions have access to this money. A majority of research is paid for my pharma companies through clinical trials and philanthropic funds distributed through grants.
– Previous accountant for the research department of Scripps[/quote]
The NIH, alone, provides approximately 30% of the funding for medical research:
The impact of even small NIH budget cuts is severe: The agency funds about 30 percent of all medical research in the U.S., according to the Journal of American Medical Association.
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=83157
Basic scientific research (including medical) is primarily funded by government sources. Many of our current medical innovations came from basic research conducted by government agencies not affiliated with NIH (NSF, USDA, NASA, etc.). Note that the “other” category in the following link includes government funding from state and local governments, as well as universities and colleges using their own funding:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/usba07.pdf
AND:
“When public money is invested in university-based basic research there is tremendous return on investment. Research creates jobs directly for those involved and indirectly for many others, through innovations that lead to new technologies, new industries and new companies.
The content and examples provided here illustrate some of the economic benefits the nation reaps when companies are created as a result of discoveries in federally funded university laboratories. While there are countless companies that have made use of the fruits of academic research, the roots of the companies highlighted here can be traced directly to seminal research conducted at a university and sponsored by a federal agency.
Were it not for the federally supported research, these companies – their products and services, and the jobs and economic growth that have resulted – likely would not exist.”
From the same link:
“The federal government is the primary source of funding for basic research conducted in the United States, providing some 60 percent of funding. The second largest source of basic research funding is the academic institutions themselves.”
http://www.sciencecoalition.org/successstories/
———————IMHO, the riskiest and least profitable component of scientific research is the basic research from which almost all of our technologies are developed. The majority of that research is publicly funded. Additionally, the government funds much of our applied research as well.
It is only when something has a good chance of becoming profitable that a private company will step in to carry the research further. The hard work at the basic level, and the riskiest part of the research, is already done as a result of public funding.[/quote]
Makes sense. I think dollar wise nothing compares to NIH funding. They throw huge dollar amounts around in the form of grants. However, like I said, a majority of institutions don’t have access to this money. It is an extremely rigorous process to get these funds. So a majority of this money is concentrated in few institutions. TSRI, UCSD, etc. There is still a lot of research that goes on through pharma and donated funds. The dollar amounts obviously don’t compare as the money comes from individuals and business as opposed to government spending other people’s taxes. So yes, dollar amount is greater with government, number of projects funded by the government is smaller though.
February 3, 2011 at 8:27 AM in reply to: OT: No worries folks, federal debt is now under control #662890Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Djshakes][quote=CA renter]
Additionally, the taxpayers pay for the majority of our medical research, either through the NIH or public universities or grants, etc. Why should the private industry reap the rewards from the research (especially the foundational R&D) that the taxpayers have paid for?[/quote]While NIH is government funded, not many institutions have access to this money. A majority of research is paid for my pharma companies through clinical trials and philanthropic funds distributed through grants.
– Previous accountant for the research department of Scripps[/quote]
The NIH, alone, provides approximately 30% of the funding for medical research:
The impact of even small NIH budget cuts is severe: The agency funds about 30 percent of all medical research in the U.S., according to the Journal of American Medical Association.
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=83157
Basic scientific research (including medical) is primarily funded by government sources. Many of our current medical innovations came from basic research conducted by government agencies not affiliated with NIH (NSF, USDA, NASA, etc.). Note that the “other” category in the following link includes government funding from state and local governments, as well as universities and colleges using their own funding:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/usba07.pdf
AND:
“When public money is invested in university-based basic research there is tremendous return on investment. Research creates jobs directly for those involved and indirectly for many others, through innovations that lead to new technologies, new industries and new companies.
The content and examples provided here illustrate some of the economic benefits the nation reaps when companies are created as a result of discoveries in federally funded university laboratories. While there are countless companies that have made use of the fruits of academic research, the roots of the companies highlighted here can be traced directly to seminal research conducted at a university and sponsored by a federal agency.
Were it not for the federally supported research, these companies – their products and services, and the jobs and economic growth that have resulted – likely would not exist.”
From the same link:
“The federal government is the primary source of funding for basic research conducted in the United States, providing some 60 percent of funding. The second largest source of basic research funding is the academic institutions themselves.”
http://www.sciencecoalition.org/successstories/
———————IMHO, the riskiest and least profitable component of scientific research is the basic research from which almost all of our technologies are developed. The majority of that research is publicly funded. Additionally, the government funds much of our applied research as well.
It is only when something has a good chance of becoming profitable that a private company will step in to carry the research further. The hard work at the basic level, and the riskiest part of the research, is already done as a result of public funding.[/quote]
Makes sense. I think dollar wise nothing compares to NIH funding. They throw huge dollar amounts around in the form of grants. However, like I said, a majority of institutions don’t have access to this money. It is an extremely rigorous process to get these funds. So a majority of this money is concentrated in few institutions. TSRI, UCSD, etc. There is still a lot of research that goes on through pharma and donated funds. The dollar amounts obviously don’t compare as the money comes from individuals and business as opposed to government spending other people’s taxes. So yes, dollar amount is greater with government, number of projects funded by the government is smaller though.
February 3, 2011 at 8:27 AM in reply to: OT: No worries folks, federal debt is now under control #663224Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Djshakes][quote=CA renter]
Additionally, the taxpayers pay for the majority of our medical research, either through the NIH or public universities or grants, etc. Why should the private industry reap the rewards from the research (especially the foundational R&D) that the taxpayers have paid for?[/quote]While NIH is government funded, not many institutions have access to this money. A majority of research is paid for my pharma companies through clinical trials and philanthropic funds distributed through grants.
– Previous accountant for the research department of Scripps[/quote]
The NIH, alone, provides approximately 30% of the funding for medical research:
The impact of even small NIH budget cuts is severe: The agency funds about 30 percent of all medical research in the U.S., according to the Journal of American Medical Association.
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=83157
Basic scientific research (including medical) is primarily funded by government sources. Many of our current medical innovations came from basic research conducted by government agencies not affiliated with NIH (NSF, USDA, NASA, etc.). Note that the “other” category in the following link includes government funding from state and local governments, as well as universities and colleges using their own funding:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/usba07.pdf
AND:
“When public money is invested in university-based basic research there is tremendous return on investment. Research creates jobs directly for those involved and indirectly for many others, through innovations that lead to new technologies, new industries and new companies.
The content and examples provided here illustrate some of the economic benefits the nation reaps when companies are created as a result of discoveries in federally funded university laboratories. While there are countless companies that have made use of the fruits of academic research, the roots of the companies highlighted here can be traced directly to seminal research conducted at a university and sponsored by a federal agency.
Were it not for the federally supported research, these companies – their products and services, and the jobs and economic growth that have resulted – likely would not exist.”
From the same link:
“The federal government is the primary source of funding for basic research conducted in the United States, providing some 60 percent of funding. The second largest source of basic research funding is the academic institutions themselves.”
http://www.sciencecoalition.org/successstories/
———————IMHO, the riskiest and least profitable component of scientific research is the basic research from which almost all of our technologies are developed. The majority of that research is publicly funded. Additionally, the government funds much of our applied research as well.
It is only when something has a good chance of becoming profitable that a private company will step in to carry the research further. The hard work at the basic level, and the riskiest part of the research, is already done as a result of public funding.[/quote]
Makes sense. I think dollar wise nothing compares to NIH funding. They throw huge dollar amounts around in the form of grants. However, like I said, a majority of institutions don’t have access to this money. It is an extremely rigorous process to get these funds. So a majority of this money is concentrated in few institutions. TSRI, UCSD, etc. There is still a lot of research that goes on through pharma and donated funds. The dollar amounts obviously don’t compare as the money comes from individuals and business as opposed to government spending other people’s taxes. So yes, dollar amount is greater with government, number of projects funded by the government is smaller though.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=Djshakes]Let me rant once and a while damn it. It makes me feel manly. I’ll kiss and make up with you in a bit…sexy.[/quote]
It’s unfortunate that the noisiest participants in the American debate today are the least thoughtful. Generally those on either far end of the political spectrum lack the ability to appreciate the complexity, difficulty, subtlety and nuance required to actually make a country or a state work. They have a mantra (“Small Government!” or “We need to help the underprivileged! It’s not their fault!” or whatever) and nothing that doesn’t fit squarely with that motto is accepted, whether it’s what’s required or not. And it’s easy for them to rant and rave because it’s easy to shout slogans and to insult people. But doing what it takes to actually make something work? Leave those hard decisions to the few good politicians we have and then insult them when they try.
I expect it (or at least I should) from participants on a web forum. What’s really unfortunate is that, in far too many cases, our politicians are the same way.[/quote]
The thread hit page four and was already pretty far off of its intended mark. So I got a little slap happy. Big deal. I suggest you read a majority of my posts before making quick snap judgments. I’m reading a lot of whining in your post and little of what you are whining about, suggestions to fix the problem. I just re-read every post you had in this thread and you offered absolutely 0 to the thread other than asking snide questions of other posters diverting responsibility to offer any original though. Contribute or STFU. We have enough whiners on here already.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=Djshakes]Let me rant once and a while damn it. It makes me feel manly. I’ll kiss and make up with you in a bit…sexy.[/quote]
It’s unfortunate that the noisiest participants in the American debate today are the least thoughtful. Generally those on either far end of the political spectrum lack the ability to appreciate the complexity, difficulty, subtlety and nuance required to actually make a country or a state work. They have a mantra (“Small Government!” or “We need to help the underprivileged! It’s not their fault!” or whatever) and nothing that doesn’t fit squarely with that motto is accepted, whether it’s what’s required or not. And it’s easy for them to rant and rave because it’s easy to shout slogans and to insult people. But doing what it takes to actually make something work? Leave those hard decisions to the few good politicians we have and then insult them when they try.
I expect it (or at least I should) from participants on a web forum. What’s really unfortunate is that, in far too many cases, our politicians are the same way.[/quote]
The thread hit page four and was already pretty far off of its intended mark. So I got a little slap happy. Big deal. I suggest you read a majority of my posts before making quick snap judgments. I’m reading a lot of whining in your post and little of what you are whining about, suggestions to fix the problem. I just re-read every post you had in this thread and you offered absolutely 0 to the thread other than asking snide questions of other posters diverting responsibility to offer any original though. Contribute or STFU. We have enough whiners on here already.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=Djshakes]Let me rant once and a while damn it. It makes me feel manly. I’ll kiss and make up with you in a bit…sexy.[/quote]
It’s unfortunate that the noisiest participants in the American debate today are the least thoughtful. Generally those on either far end of the political spectrum lack the ability to appreciate the complexity, difficulty, subtlety and nuance required to actually make a country or a state work. They have a mantra (“Small Government!” or “We need to help the underprivileged! It’s not their fault!” or whatever) and nothing that doesn’t fit squarely with that motto is accepted, whether it’s what’s required or not. And it’s easy for them to rant and rave because it’s easy to shout slogans and to insult people. But doing what it takes to actually make something work? Leave those hard decisions to the few good politicians we have and then insult them when they try.
I expect it (or at least I should) from participants on a web forum. What’s really unfortunate is that, in far too many cases, our politicians are the same way.[/quote]
The thread hit page four and was already pretty far off of its intended mark. So I got a little slap happy. Big deal. I suggest you read a majority of my posts before making quick snap judgments. I’m reading a lot of whining in your post and little of what you are whining about, suggestions to fix the problem. I just re-read every post you had in this thread and you offered absolutely 0 to the thread other than asking snide questions of other posters diverting responsibility to offer any original though. Contribute or STFU. We have enough whiners on here already.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=Djshakes]Let me rant once and a while damn it. It makes me feel manly. I’ll kiss and make up with you in a bit…sexy.[/quote]
It’s unfortunate that the noisiest participants in the American debate today are the least thoughtful. Generally those on either far end of the political spectrum lack the ability to appreciate the complexity, difficulty, subtlety and nuance required to actually make a country or a state work. They have a mantra (“Small Government!” or “We need to help the underprivileged! It’s not their fault!” or whatever) and nothing that doesn’t fit squarely with that motto is accepted, whether it’s what’s required or not. And it’s easy for them to rant and rave because it’s easy to shout slogans and to insult people. But doing what it takes to actually make something work? Leave those hard decisions to the few good politicians we have and then insult them when they try.
I expect it (or at least I should) from participants on a web forum. What’s really unfortunate is that, in far too many cases, our politicians are the same way.[/quote]
The thread hit page four and was already pretty far off of its intended mark. So I got a little slap happy. Big deal. I suggest you read a majority of my posts before making quick snap judgments. I’m reading a lot of whining in your post and little of what you are whining about, suggestions to fix the problem. I just re-read every post you had in this thread and you offered absolutely 0 to the thread other than asking snide questions of other posters diverting responsibility to offer any original though. Contribute or STFU. We have enough whiners on here already.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=Djshakes]Let me rant once and a while damn it. It makes me feel manly. I’ll kiss and make up with you in a bit…sexy.[/quote]
It’s unfortunate that the noisiest participants in the American debate today are the least thoughtful. Generally those on either far end of the political spectrum lack the ability to appreciate the complexity, difficulty, subtlety and nuance required to actually make a country or a state work. They have a mantra (“Small Government!” or “We need to help the underprivileged! It’s not their fault!” or whatever) and nothing that doesn’t fit squarely with that motto is accepted, whether it’s what’s required or not. And it’s easy for them to rant and rave because it’s easy to shout slogans and to insult people. But doing what it takes to actually make something work? Leave those hard decisions to the few good politicians we have and then insult them when they try.
I expect it (or at least I should) from participants on a web forum. What’s really unfortunate is that, in far too many cases, our politicians are the same way.[/quote]
The thread hit page four and was already pretty far off of its intended mark. So I got a little slap happy. Big deal. I suggest you read a majority of my posts before making quick snap judgments. I’m reading a lot of whining in your post and little of what you are whining about, suggestions to fix the problem. I just re-read every post you had in this thread and you offered absolutely 0 to the thread other than asking snide questions of other posters diverting responsibility to offer any original though. Contribute or STFU. We have enough whiners on here already.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes][quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.[/quote]
So there you go, Djshakes. The two sides are not the same. One side is better (or lesser evil) than the other, depending on your point of view.[/quote]
Well, each paper clip in the pile is slightly different if you inspect each one. How different? Not enough to give a shite.[/quote]
If the difference is not enough to give a shit, by this logic, in 2012, you should not vote for the Republican presidential candidate. Vote for the 3rd party candidate.[/quote]
I normally do. You done stating the obvious?Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes][quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.[/quote]
So there you go, Djshakes. The two sides are not the same. One side is better (or lesser evil) than the other, depending on your point of view.[/quote]
Well, each paper clip in the pile is slightly different if you inspect each one. How different? Not enough to give a shite.[/quote]
If the difference is not enough to give a shit, by this logic, in 2012, you should not vote for the Republican presidential candidate. Vote for the 3rd party candidate.[/quote]
I normally do. You done stating the obvious?Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes][quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.[/quote]
So there you go, Djshakes. The two sides are not the same. One side is better (or lesser evil) than the other, depending on your point of view.[/quote]
Well, each paper clip in the pile is slightly different if you inspect each one. How different? Not enough to give a shite.[/quote]
If the difference is not enough to give a shit, by this logic, in 2012, you should not vote for the Republican presidential candidate. Vote for the 3rd party candidate.[/quote]
I normally do. You done stating the obvious? -
AuthorPosts
