HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thaddeus@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Thaddeus R. Crews)
Subject: Re: Sleepers 
Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:24:56 GMT

In article <wjgr#nd@lynx.unm.edu> metv@triton.unm.edu () writes:
>
>Redskins - If Redskins have a better quarterback like Young, Montana, or Marino,
>they would win the game.  I'm not saying that Rypien is bad; he's an average 
>QB.  Next Week, Raiders at home, they should win this one.  I'm a Redskins fan
                                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>but I don't really think that they are a threat to Niners and Cowboys.
>
>Packers - This is a team that I want see in playoff.  Now it's down to Skins
                                                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>and them.  I want to see Packers go because they deserve it.  They have playing
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>well and winning the important game.  They would be a good match up for
>       
>Metro 

Metro, *I* am a Redskins fan.  *You* are a person who enjoys football and
is pleased by the Packers play this year, as are many of us.  But do not
go around calling yourself a fan of a team that you do not even want to
make the playoffs.  The Redskins have done a wonderful job of fighting
through an above average number of key injuries this year and have shown
themselves to be a class organization.  (There is a good story about this
in THE SPORTING NEWS this week).  Anyway, most of the folks on the net
tend to use the word "FAN" a little more seriously than you do, Metro;
perhaps you might enjoy the league even more if you find a team to stand
behind in good times as well as bad.

Just MHO.
-- 
-- Thad Crews                             (email thaddeus@vuse.vanderbilt.edu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have a friend named Void and he is really upset.  He cannot cash
any of his paychecks..." 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: tkelsey@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (todd.p.kelsey)
Subject: Re: Vikes KILL the Pack
Keywords: Vikes win, the Pack LOSES
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:28:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.171029.18651@unislc.uucp> jag@unislc.uucp (John Ganske) writes:
>tkelsey@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (todd.p.kelsey) writes:
>
	[....]
>>the Packers have faced teams with excellent
>>pass rushes before and have done just fine.  The Vikings rush was
>>not the reason why they won yesterday (they only had one sack).  It 
>>was their ability to stop the run and the Packers inability to stop
>>anything that provided the outcome.
>
>
>I really don't feel that the Vikes pass rush is that good against a good
>offensive line, but I don't think it can be said that the Vikings' rush 
>was NOT the reason why they beat the Pack.  Maybe I'm wrong, but on TV
>it did look like the Vikes pressured Favre into throwing the ball quickly
>and off balance a few times.  I seem to remember that one of those times
>he was intercepted.  
>

I thought Favre looked poised and was throwing the ball well.  The
problem was the Vikings stuffed the run and the secondary of the Vikes
was doing an excellent job.  I only remember two of the three interceptions
Favre threw and both of those were when the Packers were down by 20
and he threw long into double coverage to Sharpe.  The passes weren't
bad and I don't remember him being hurried on those plays.  It may be
that the other interception was due to pass rush.  Like I said in my 
earlier response, I thought the Vikes rush was good, but Favre doesn't
get rattled by a pass rush easily and I thought he handled it well 
again Sunday.  The main reason, IMHO,
the Packers lost was the Packers defense was terrible
(read that as "the Vikes offense was GOOD" if you prefer:-).
They picked a bad day to play their worst defense of the year.

-Todd
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: bergerson@cvdv79.mayo.edu (Chad D. Bergerson)
Subject: Re: Vikings comments
Reply-To: bergerson@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 21:15:30 GMT





In article <27000195@hpcc01.corp.hp.com>, boell@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Donald P Boell) writes:
->From: boell@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Donald P Boell)
->Subject: Re: Vikings comments
->Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
->
->Hey Chad, 
->
->Just got your private email.  Really loved it buddy.  I am sorry that I can 
->not take you up on your sweet offer.  The thought of fucking you (I assume
->your 'Fuck You' statement was an offer) just does not turn me on.  Sorry,
->I don't think you are my type buddy.  However, my uncle has a sheep that may
->be interested if you promise to be gentle.
->
->
->************************************************
->* Donald Boell - Hewlett Packard               *
->*                                              *
->* When you're chewing on life's gristle        *
->* Don't grumble, give a whistle - Monty Python *
->*                                 Life of Brian*
->************************************************
->
->
->

you sound like a real loser to me, why don't you just go away......

--
*******************************************************************************
Chad D. Bergerson                            Internet: bergerson@mayo.edu
Mayo Clinic                                  Voice: (507) 255-7567
200 First Street SW                          FAX: (507) 255-5484
Mail Stop 2D-334 STM            "In my dream I was drowning my sorrows  
Rochester, MN  55905             But my sorrows they learned to swim..." - U2
*******************************************************************************
From: satish@a.chem.upenn.edu (Satish Nair)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Dan Reeves is gone!
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:16:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec29.162859.16748@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>
>
>What coach, especially one of Reeves' stature, would want to work for
>Bill Bidwill?
>
>
>Don Pajerek
>
>Standard disclaimers apply.

Well, if Bidwill gives him everything that Reeves is asking for (i.e.
control over draft picks, player personel, etc.) well, why not?  There
wouldn't be any tremendous amount of pressure on him: all he'd have to
do is outdraw the Phoenix Suns :-).  

Realistically, though, Reeves in Seattle!

satish nair
ray is gone!
From: sue@dracut.keps.com (Sue Klimowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Green Coach of Year? I don't think so.
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:36:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Originator: sue@dracut

First, let me point out that I have been a Viking fan since Billy Kilmer
(weebles wobble but they don't stay down) was QB for the Redskins. I would
have probably been a Vikings fan for longer but I'm not that old, old but
not that old. So the following is not a flame of the Vikings just how I
view the situation.

I don't think that Dennis Green deserves Coach of the Year. Yes, they are
in the playoffs but their defense got them there. Yes, the defense has
improved under Green... Let me take that back, the defense has gotten their
act together under Green. The potential was always there. I can not
discredit Green for the defense in anyway. However...
 
The offense sucks. It has not improved and has gone downhill. They don't
have good receivers, good play calling and now they are in the playoffs
they definitely don't have a QB. I blame this on Green. One poster stated
that Green put Gannon in when he should have had Salsbury (sp) and vice versa.
Yes Gannon may have an ego problem but completely destroying his
confidence isn't the way to solve that problem. I don't understand how
Green or anyone can say that the offense played well against the Steelers
and in the same interview Green also mentioned that his goal for the year
was to get to the playoffs. At what expense??? No offense and playing mind
games with his QBs?  He (IMO) should have been more concern about building
a team to dominate their conference for years and all his has now is a team
that is going into the playoffs without an offense. 

Getting a new QB isn't going to solve the problem and he has no choice now
but to get a new QB. Salisbury is not franchase material and Gannon who I
believe has alot of potential, (Wade Wilson didn't have many Vike
supporters and look at him now) is most likely finished with the Vikes. If
a team take him and works on his ego I think we will be hearing more of him.

I do want the Vikes to win the SB but until they get a offense
it is not going to happen. I am very optimistic for next year especially
if they get a QB AND a offense.

GO VIKINGS!!
From: hjjcl@usho77.hou281.chevron.com (J.J.Clyde)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: It wasn't Pretty (49ers WON)
Keywords: da saints
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:14:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: .

(Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
> >
> >True, but putting it in Cowboy terms. Which would you rather have, Steve
> >Young, or Troy Aikman? I think most people, excluding Cowboy fans, would
> >chose Young. And not just because of statistics.
> >
> >Tom Wolf
>
>Troy was a first round draft choice, was Young even drafted ?

If he wasn't, it was because he was building a personal mint with the
USFL's L.A. Express.

>Clearly most coaches would take Aikman also except SF maybe.
>After last nights game ? compared with Saturdays niners game ?
>Aikman hands down....

Yeah, Young just hasn't had any success against the Falcons this year.

>Troy Aikman will be a NFL QB long after Mr Young is history....
>Scramblers don't have a long life in the NFL.

Oh, well said.  We all know, Tarkenton and Roger the Dodger were merely 
'flashes in the pan' of NFL history.  Right?  WRONG.

Just standing up for my Fantasy MVP and NFL nemesis!


--J.J.
(worshipcosletnow)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: v066pwk9@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (BRUCE YAEGER)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Hey Ed Lor, Bills 4-0 vs NFC, one more NFC team to beat,(positive)
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:58:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec21.152313.10233@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes...
>In article <BzLBCD.A1q@acsu.buffalo.edu> v066pwk9@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (BRUCE YAEGER) writes:
>>Well, I think this is perhaps the biggest win of the season
>>for the Bills because they showed the nation what type of
>>team they were.  
>Don't worry, the Bills have already shown the nation what type
>of team they were in the past two Januarys.

Boy Ed you sound like a guy on the radio sports shows in this
area called "Mr. Negative".  Always referring to the past.  This 
team has grown and matured since those two Superbowl losses.
At least Bills fans will always have that Raiders Championship 
game to remember.  The final score 51-3 Bills.  If you didn't
see the game, then you shouldn't comment on the Bills of this
season because they played their best defensive game in a
couple of years.  Two bad your Patriots (Giants and Jets) can't
win the tough games on the road like "AT New Orleans" and
"AT San Francisco" like the Bills did this season.  By the
way, there are no NFC teams except Dallas that is undefeated
against the AFC.  So much for dominance.  I checked the papers
today and there are 7 teams in NFC with losing records compared
to the 6 teams in the AFC.


> 
>Biggest win of the season is an interconference game in the regular
>season? It's like somebody saying that the Eagles have already played
>their SB on Oct. 5, did the Bills play theirs yesterday?

Well, it could be said that it was Superbowl 26.5, and the
Bills won it in the opposing terf.

Bruce, a Bills fan

> 
>-- 
>                                          Edward Lor
>                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
>                                          
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: gidi@Hilbert.Stanford.EDU (Gidi Avrahami)
Subject: Re: Next Year's Schedules (no dates)
Organization: Brotherhood Of Breath
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:06:10 GMT

lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>This is the most puzzling part of the new schedule. Does the NFC East
>#3 plays the #1 in NFC West or the NFC Central? 

Next year, E3 plays C1 (i.e., Washington plays Minnesota).
This past season, E3 played W1 (Philly played N.O.)
A year before, E3 played C1 (Washington played Chicago)
And before that, E3 played W1 (Washington played S.F.)

Hmm, looks like we got a yearly rotation here.


Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: schmke@cco.caltech.edu (Kevin Todd Schmidt)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Schmidt Computer Rankings through 29-Dec
Date: 29 Dec 1992 19:48:44 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

schmke@cco.caltech.edu (Kevin Todd Schmidt) writes:

>Here are my computers rankings through the end of the regular season.

I forgot to mention that I was 8-6 against the spread and 12-2 picking
winners this week.

Kevin
-- 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory | schmke@cco.caltech.edu
4800 Oak Grove Dr.        | schmidt@spc5.jpl.nasa.gov
M/S 525-3684              |
Pasadena, CA  91109       |
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN)
Subject: UPDATES - Early scores
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 21:28:46 GMT

New Orleans  20		NY Jets   0 * FINAL SATURDAY
LA Raiders  21			Washington  20 * FINAL SATURDAY
Green Bay  7			Minnesota  27  * FINAL
NY Giants  10			Philadelphia   20  * FINAL
Cleveland  13			Pittsburgh  23  * FINAL 
Denver  20			Kansas City  42  * FINAL
Indianapolis  21		Cincinnati  17  * FINAL
Miami  16				New England  13  **OT FINAL
 Aren't the FISH the luckiest team alive. :-)
-- 
 ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know
everything or nothing about it."   Olin Miller
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: gidi@Hilbert.Stanford.EDU (Gidi Avrahami)
Subject: Re: Pro Bowl Selections
Organization: Brotherhood Of Breath
Distribution: net
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:22:48 GMT

Since I typed the whole list, here's how the teams stack
up in numbers.  I counted starters on offense and defense
first, then alternates, then special teamers:
========================================================
	Hou	4 + 5
	Buf	4 + 4 + 1
	SF	4 + 3
	Minn	4 + 2
	NO	4 + 1 + 1
	SD	4
	Mia	4
	Dal	2 + 4
	Pitt	2 + 2
	GB	2 + 1
	Atl	2 + 1 + 1
	Det	2 + 0 + 1
	Phil	1 + 2
	Sea	1 + 1
	Rdrs	1 + 1
	KC	1 + 1 + 1
	Den	1 + 1
	Phx	1 + 0 + 1
	Wash	0 + 1
	NYG	0 + 1
	NE	0 + 1
	Cin	0 + 1
	Ind	0 + 0 + 2
	Chi	-
	Clev	-
	NYJ	-
	Rams	-
	TB	-
========================================================
When was the last time Chicago didn't have any player in
the Pro Bowl?


--Gidi

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: doug@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Doug Risher)
Subject: Re: Playoff question
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:25:46 GMT

vxb8773@ritvax.isc.rit.edu wrote:
: this is the way the playoff would go (and my predictions):
: minnesota over washington 
: new orleans over philadelphia
: minnesota over dallas
: san fran over new orleans
: san fran over minnesota
: san fran over any AFC team

I agree with your predictions except dallas will probally play san fran in
the nfc championship game.

 - Doug
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Wild Card in Super Bowl ( was Redskins Repeat)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:25:40 GMT

In <sterbenc-211292095425@150.130.23.185> sterbenc@ivhs.mot.com (Joe Sterbenc) writes:

>In article <1992Dec20.100458.23579@math.ucla.edu>,
>rfedkiw@olympic.math.ucla.edu (Ronald Fedkiw) wrote:
>> 
>> In Article 41611, jason writes...
>> 
>> >i do not believe a wild card team has EVER made it to the superbowl...
>> >this would immediately disqualify a championship game between two
>> >wildcards... but i could be wrong on that... i don't know for sure if
>> >a wild card team has made it to the superbowl... i remember hearing a
>> >couple years ago that no AFC wildcard team has ever made it to the
>> >superbowl... but i am not so sure about the nfc...

>Actually, the Flores/Plunkett Raiders WON the Super Bowl as a wildcard. 

And, more recently (though only slightly), the Patriots made it to the
superbowl on a wildcard, only to be trounced by the Bears.

AFAIK, the Raiders are the only team to win the SB as a wildcard.  As
for the comment that no AFC team has made it to the big dance as a
wildcard, perhaps this is backwards.  I can't name any _NFC_ team that
has done this.  Although I seem to remember something about Washington
in the early '80s.  I don't know...
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Imaginary guitar notes [...] exist only
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |  in the imagination of the imaginer" --FZ
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN)
Subject: Re: It wasn't Pretty (49ers WON)
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:19:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.153417.28166@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>gr> Gary Rosen
>gs> Gary Strand
>
>gs> If a team favored by ~3 TDs can just barely beat a turd 4-10 team, they 
>    don't deserve to be in the NFL.
>
>gr> Then where do the AFC *conference champions*, who have not only lost the
>    SB the last 8 years but in six of those years got their sorry butts
>    whipped like a high school team, belong?
>
>  I don't know; tell me, Mr. Big Man.
>
>  Wait, don't tell me -- you're a "the NFC is god, and SF are his disciples,
>  and Joe is his one and only son"-type dickheads.
>
>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

Witness to ALL: Mr Gary Strand, who whines and wimpers and accuses others
of name calling, etc., is the FIRST to initiate the jabs, barbs, and
name calling, to wit: "type-dickheads".  I will NOT reply in kind. Just
a note to ALL r.s.f.p netters out there, who started the naming calling?!! 
-- 
 ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know
everything or nothing about it."   Olin Miller
From: sjsmith@cs.umd.edu (Stephen Joseph Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Humble Defensive Backs [was Re: Over-rated players???]
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:57:42 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Maryland at College Park

ric@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ricardo.g.irvin) writes:
>I may not agree with [Deion Sanders's] cocky attitude, but, name a good
>defensive back who isn't cocky. 

Just to make this clear, I definitely agree that Deion Sanders is, by far,
NOT an overrated player.

However, I will present Rod Woodson of the Pittsburgh Steelers as an
example of a good defensive back who isn't cocky, or who at least doesn't
show it on the field.

Rod will make an interception, run it back as ferociously as he can, and
then calmly toss the ball to a ref and walk off the field.

Anyone who doesn't bleed black and gold want to back me up on this?

- Stephen
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Sleepers
Date: 23 Dec 92 14:03:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <BzoGpL.4IG@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> thaddeus@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Thaddeus R. Crews) writes:
>Metro, *I* am a Redskins fan.  *You* are a person who enjoys football and
>is pleased by the Packers play this year, as are many of us.  But do not
>go around calling yourself a fan of a team that you do not even want to
>make the playoffs.

Jesus Christ, calm down!

>Anyway, most of the folks on the net
>tend to use the word "FAN" a little more seriously than you do, Metro;

No, we don't, most of us realize that football is (are you sitting down?)
a GAME.  There are a lot more important things in the world, Thad; turn off
the television and look out the window.

Daniel Welch
From: jwc@icf.hrb.com (John W. Cieply)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Playoff teams vs Playoff teams
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:24:38 GMT
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.

There are currently 10 teams that are in the playoffs, lets see how
they stack up against each other.  The following is the current list
of playoff teams, their overall record and there record against teams
that have made the playoffs:

	San Francisco	13-2	5-1
	Buffalo		11-4	4-1
	Philadelphia	10-5	3-2
	Pittsburgh	10-5	3-2
	Minnesota	10-5	2-2
	Dallas		11-3	1-1
	Miami		10-5	2-3
	Houston		 9-6	2-3
	New Orleans	11-4	1-4
	San Diego	10-5	0-2

It looks like San Francisco and Buffalo are able to win clutch games.

New Orleans chokes against the better teams.

Dallas and San Diego have good records against mostly the poorer teams
in the league.

   -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
   |	John Cieply			|	HRB Systems		     |
   |					|	An E-SYSTEMS Company	     |
   |	Mail code: 07f			|	PO Box 60		     |
   |	Internet: jwc@icf.hrb.com	|	State College, PA 16804-0060 |	
   -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
From: caeser@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Robert Michael Trotter)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: NFC playoff picture questions
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:54:10 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <3197@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
>The other question is:  if the Saints lose next week and the Eagles win,
>then they play each other in one of the wildcard games.  Who will host
>this game, since they both finish with 11-5 records?

	I would think that the Eagles would host this game, since the
	Eagles beat the Saints in week one right?

	Mark
	GO VIKINGS!
-- 
Minnesota Vikings	NFC Central Division Champions 1992-93!

Gannon back in the pocket, DRAW to Allen, Allen bursts up the middle,TOUCHDOWN!
From: deanb@cray.com (Dean Barker)
Subject: Playoff tiebreakers...Pack/Eagles/Skins
Date: 23 Dec 92 08:30:58 CST


At the bottom of the playoff tiebreakers is this little paragraph:

NOTE: If two teams remain tied after a third or additional teams are eliminated,
the tiebreaker reverts to step 1 of the applicable two-club format. When the
first wild-card team has been identified, the procedure is repeated to name the
second wild-card, i.e., eliminate all but the highest-ranked club in each 
division prior to proceeding to step 2, and repeated a third time, if necessary,
to identify the third wild card. In situations where three or more teams from
the same division are involved in the procedure, the original seeding of teams
remains the same  for subsequent applications of the tiebreaker if the top-
ranked team in that division qualifies for a wild-card berth.



Now, somebody tell me what that just said.

I think what that is saying is...If Green Bay, Philadelphia, and Washington
all tied with 10-6 records, then Wild-card tiebreaker step #1 is applied.
This describes head-to-head sweep, since Green Bay didn't play Washington it
does not apply here. So now before proceeding to step #2 we must "eliminate
all but the highest-ranked club in each division". Therefore, we eliminate
Washington and use the two-club tiebreaker for Green Bay and Philadelphia.
This gives Green Bay wild-card #2 and Philadelphia wild-card #3.

This also sets up the situation that if Philly beats the Giants Sunday, then
they face New Orleans in the playoffs, but if Philly loses, then they get
to face an easier opponent in the playoffs (Minnesota) and they get to keep
their hated rivals (Washington) out of the playoffs. Interesting. Of course
this is all under the assumption that Green Bay defeats Minnesota.

Have a great holiday everybody!!

GO PACK!!

-Dean