HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nikolay@husc10.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Idjit alert (was Re: Fund raising at the FSF)
Date: 3 Jan 93 03:25:05 GMT
 <9212300616.AA25845@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu><1993Jan2.043903.18936@husc3.harvard.edu> <C083y9.M91@demon.co.uk>
Organization: The Kremlin Wall of Harvard

gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>Followup-To: /dev/null

No way.

> In article <1993Jan2.043903.18936@husc3.harvard.edu>
> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>:
>:Flame me as only you can, rms.  After all our past arguments, I am

> A gentle warning to all our readers.  This Zeleny character is one
> of these people who stir up flame wars in groups that they're not
> really interested in just for personal amusement.  Zelany in
> particular has ruined a couple of good groups for *months*.  I
> strongly urge everyone not to rise to any bait he posts here.

On the contrary, Zeleny is the only participant in a number of
groups that makes them worth reading, Mr Taol. Get lost, amadon.

> G

Philip Nikolayev
nikolay@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:33:24 GMT

In article <92358.155839HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> HERSCH@auvm.american.edu writes:
:Many hundreds of years ago, the word "woman" evolved from "wif"
:and "man", the latter word at the time carrying no gender information.

Sounds plausible to me.  Didn't wyf-man go hand-in-hand with wer-man or
some such masculine form?  man certainly meant then what mankind means
now.

G
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: dmunroe@vcd.hp.com (Dave Munroe)
Subject: Re: K Street
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:06:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

>Any additions?

Broadway

-Dave
From: rhonda@cc.usu.edu (Tye McQueen, E.)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Dictionaries
Date: 29 Dec 92 04:11:56 MDT
Organization: Spillman Data Systems

In <1992Dec28.002712.2129@>, wkl1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Wing-Keong Loke                                               the consummate chronic prevaricator) writes:
> In <5597@daily-planet> mckay@alcor.concordia.ca (John McKay) writes:
>>
>>I have a theory of change which is that dictionaries serve two purposes:
>>they record usage - correct and incorrect - and they also act as a resource
>>in that the presence of a word and its meaning in a dictionary will often
>>be interpreted as authoritative. It is not hard to see that these two
>>interpretations lend themselves to propagating change, sometimes 
>>unnecessarily.
> 
> 	Could be.  But I've heard of people say that the pronounciation
> of a word in the dictionary is wrong, and they have got it right!  We
> get all kinds, all kinds ... .

Exactly!  There's an L in "almond" and it is there for a reason!
My dictionary doesn't even list the use of an "L" sound as an
accepted alternate pronounciation.  We'll we all don't eat no
ahmonds around here, no matter what some dumb book says!
From: rhonda@cc.usu.edu (Tye McQueen, E.)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: 29 Dec 92 04:07:19 MDT
Organization: Spillman Data Systems

Fred Lukoff lukoff@carson.u.washington.edu writes in <1992Dec27.174634.18263@>
>Sure, the suffix may seem like the words make men the norm and women
>'deviant', but what are we then to do, make up words like 'waitron'?
>Or make up words than end in -person? I actually saw a Washington State
>government notice for 'fisherperson' licenses and nearly died. So does
>anyone have any suggestions as to how we can fix this situation, BESIDES
>-person words?

Change "man" to mean what "human" does now and come up with a new
word to mean what "man" does now.  Naturally it would end in "man"
just like "woman" would (since we would all become "men").  I'd go
for a 5-letter word, second letter "i" to help distringuish it from
"wOman" and not run against A and E in "man" and "men".  "diman",
"kiman", or "timan".

It is really silly to change thousands of words when just changing
two will due.  After all, coming up with all these silly/awkward
"waitroidest" words won't change the fact the "man" is part of the
word "woman" and not visa versa.  I guess that is why "womyn" and
such have come about.  But it is silly to change every word but
"man" when it is the real problem.

Introduce the new word for "male human" and let it come into more
and more common use, slowly causing the meaning of "man" to shift
and eliminating the need for the old "human".

Too bad there isn't an ANSI standards committee to approve new
English words, etc.  And it's a very good thing that there isn't.
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 17:11:26 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language

In article <38044@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A.
Johns) says:
>
>In article <92355.112019HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> HERSCH@auvm.american.edu
>writes:
># Published references, please, showing some feminists proposing to
># replace the *word* "history" with the *word* "herstory".
>
>Cheap debating ploy, Mr. Browne.

Hey, this is Usenet for crying out loud.

>Truth is not born (or borne) on the
>pages of academic journals.

Well, first, I didn't ask for citations from academic journals.
I asked for *published* references, since these are the only ones
I would be able to verify. Mandar is more than capable of merely
saying "I've heard lots of women say the word 'history' is sexist",
and then referring back to his assertion endlessly as if it were
proof of something.

>
>I too have heard a *few* women object to "history", singing "hymns",
>etc.  It never occurred to me that they represent feminists as a
>group, but neither did it occur to me that they didn't exist despite
>the evidence of my senses.  Every movement has its lunatic groupies.
>

I certainly can't argue with your final sentence. As to the rest,
if you say so. I don't know you, but so far I have no reason to
doubt your truthfulness. All I can say is that *I* have never heard
this kind of thing proposed seriously, in print or otherwise.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: "peter curran" <peter.curran@canrem.com>
Subject: Re: Jam, Jelly, Marmalade
Reply-To: "peter curran" <peter.curran@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: alt
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:54:04 EST


mcoffin@IASTATE.EDU (Marie Coffin) writes...

MC>And then there's preserves...even lumpier than jam.  I believe jam is made
MC>from fruit that has been crushed as much as possible, while preserves are (!)
MC>made from whole fruit.

As I understand it, preserves are made with much less sugar than
jam.  (People are often astonished at the amount of sugar that
goes into jam, the first time they see it made.  The fruit is
almost incidental!)

Peter Curran
Usenet: peter.curran@canrem.com     RIME: CRS (#118)
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #12339  
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Idjit alert (was Re: Fund raising at the FSF)
Followup-To: /dev/null
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 11:01:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.043903.18936@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:
:Flame me as only you can, rms.  After all our past arguments, I am

A gentle warning to all our readers.  This Zeleny character is one of these
people who stir up flame wars in groups that they're not really interested
in just for personal amusement.  Zelany in particular has ruined a couple
of good groups for *months*.  I strongly urge everyone not to rise to any
bait he posts here.

G
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Standards
Date: 29 Dec 92 01:14:23 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <BzMtxB.F8w@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

# And, *most* of them agree that the Queen's English is the highest
# standard of English.

Mandar, you aren't really naive enough to think that "The Queen's
English" means English as spoken by the queen, are you?

Are you???

# When countries are considered, the English spoken in England is the
# highest standard (now don't say "By whom in England?". I mean the
# common characteristics of the English accent.)

Good God.

You've never been to England, have you.  Or if you have, you must
never have stepped out of your hotel.  The "common characteristics of
the English accent" wouldn't fit in a thimble.

David




Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:43:55 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites

In article <1hnr3hINNga1@shelley.u.washington.edu>,
lukoff@stein.u.washington.edu (Fred Lukoff) says:
>
>"Fisherperson" certainly does not make me feel less of a person. One, it
>sounds funny, as you said. Two, it is made up, and is not a natural
>construct.

Well, in this case, why not call the thing a bleeding fishing license?

> Sure, the primary meaning of the word 'man' *is* male
>human being, but the suffix means human. Perhaps it is the inability of
>people to deal with this fact....

Can you name an occupational kind of noun with the suffix -man where
traditionally the people involved have been female?

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.folklore.urban
From: barth@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barth.richards)
Subject: Re: Twatology (was Andy the Canadian twat)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:56:42 GMT


In article <1992Dec21.155859.23475@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Perhaps I'm just falling for the bait here, but I don't believe the two words
>to be related.  "Twit" comes from the Old English "witan," meaning "to
>reproach,"

That's *aetwitan*, you twit!

-- 
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
88  Barth Richards                  "Language is a virus from outer space."  88
88  att!ihlpf!barth                           - William S. Burroughs         88
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sgcclmj@citec.oz.au (Liz Jones)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Organization: CITEC
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 07:05:49 GMT


Oh dear.  I can't wait for the day when the word "man" becomes archaic in
some of its supposed meanings.
My dictionary, the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, has the following:
    "man (pl. men).  1. human being...; (in indefinite or general application)
      person; ... 2. the human race; " ... etc etc.

These are the ones I am interested in.  Oh.  except for no.4: "adult human male".

"Mankind" does not seem to be listed.
Therefore, when wishing to make our meaning clear, why  can't we use
       man = male person
       people = > 1 human being
       men = > 1 male person
       and spell out "the human race" in various ways to fit the application?

Because it would spoil many classic and quotable quotes that have been ground
into us and help to create a base for our outlook on life (forgive me for not
using the pre***ice word, mandar might notice ;)?

Liz.
From: mikulska@crux.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:10:08 GMT
Reply-To: mikulska@astro.princeton.edu (Margaret Mikulska)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <8040@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM writes:
>
>Mandar, save this humble acceptance shit for Chaucer. Anything after that is
>merely a corruption.
>
>Why Chaucer, you ask? Why not earlier? Well, Mandar, it's arbitrary. Chaucer
>was about the earliest of the evolution of our languages that is generally
>agreed on as recognizable modern English. 
			   ^^^^^^
Excuse me, but Chaucer's English is an example of _Middle_ English.
_Modern_ English is later - starting around something like 16th C or so.
Maybe a bit earlier, but definitely after Chaucer.


-Margaret
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: 'Professor' in Canada - what does it mean?
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:21:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.032323.15100@philmtl.philips.ca> ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:
:Now the interesting question.  Is Graham's correspondent pretentious in
:using the title (quite a lowly one in Canada) or is Graham overreacting
:because to his ears the title is much more prestigious.

Good question, but the answer is the guy is just plain pretentious.
I mean, a 10-line sig surrounded by stars?  Draw your own conclusion...

G
PS It *was* on a list where the _average_ qualification is PhD... (though
you have to dig hard to find that out since most people don't use their
titles or qualifications)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: K Street
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:16:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.135624.11003@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>> 
>Smith Square (Conservative party HQ), Walworth Road (Labour party HQ).

Downing Street.  Also Fleet Street, but I think this one's been mentioned.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
From: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: American English
Date: 1 Jan 1993 00:57:11 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <92366.155916HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>, by <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>:
> In article <1htsi8INNe5a@uwm.edu>, jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) says:
>>
>>Riddle me this:  The word "person" contains the word "son".
> 
> No it doesn't. It does contain the letters S-O-N, but not the
> word "son", neither etymologically nor phonetically. Consult
> a dictionary.

Unfortunately, the radical feminists _don't_ acknowledge that.  
At least, not those that I've seen quoted.   Sigh....  :-(

-- 
John G Dobnick                          ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
Computing Services Division             INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee     UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: chaps
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:59:47 GMT

Can anyone tell me whether the gender neutral use of chaps in the UK
or elsewhere has met any resistance?  The analogous use of *guy* or
*guys* in the US has had a split reception, some people arguing that
it is perfectly neutral, others saying it is yet one more example of
a masculine doubling as a generic.

Dennis

--

debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: pel@resntl.bhp.com.au (Paul Osborn)
Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
Keywords: scatology, slang
Organization: BHP Research - Newcastle Labs
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:01:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.124925.26127@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> tariqh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Tariq Hamid) writes:
>From: tariqh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Tariq Hamid)
>Subject: Re: Excrement in the English Language
>Keywords: scatology, slang
>Date: 18 Dec 92 12:49:25 GMT
>In <1992Dec18.032256.26457@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser") writes:
>
>>kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com writes:
>>>
>>>"Horse shit" and "Bull shit" are nouns and adjectives meaning "extreme
>>>falsehood".
>>>
>>>"Ape shit" and "Bat shit" are adverbs(?) meaning roughly "irrational",
>>>"non-linear", possibly "crazy".  They seem to only be found as the
>>>object of the verb "go".
>>>
>>>"Chicken shit" is an adjective meaning "insignificant".
>
>>Or "inconsistent," or "insufficient," or "cowardly."
>
>>Also, "rat shit" and "lizard shit" seem to be roughly synonymous with "chicken
>>shit" in the first sense, though not in the others.  I think.  (I've only ever
>>heard them used by forrunners, i.e., people from the Southwest.)
>
>>And what about "pig shit"? I *think* it's an adjective indicating disrespect
>>("...that pig-shit boyfriend of hers...."), but I'm not sure.
>
>And not forgetting:
>
>		"diddly squat" - little shit.
>
>As used in, "I don't give a diddly squat", in other words "I don't give a damn".
>
>I've  heard "diddly squat" being used by in Scotland, I also heard it being used
>in some american tv shows and films by characters when they want to sound quaint.
>
>What I'd like to know is where does it come from ? (Honest question :)!)
>
>Another phrase I'd like to know the origins of is, "Hunky Dory".
>
>Cheerio
>
>tariq
>--
>
>Tariq Hamid	                 	Internet:  tariqh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk
> Department of Computer Science  	JANET:     tariqh@uk.ac.qmw.dcs
>  Queen Mary & Westfield College  
>   Mile End Road                   	  Telephone:  +44 71-975 5245
>    LONDON, E1 4NS, UK             	  Fax:        +44 81-980 6533

In Australia, rat shit (usually abbreviated RS) is mostly used to mean 
unserviceable or broken, as in "You can't drive that car, the fuel pump's 
RS"

-------- PAUL R OSBORN, Research Scientist, Sensing Technology --- /\/\ --
                BHP Research - Newcastle Laboratories, Australia  / / /\
Snail   :       P.O. Box 188, Wallsend, NSW 2287                 / / /  \
Tel     :       +61 49 51-0605  Fax : +61 49 50-2126            / / / /\ \
Telex   :       AA 28768                                        \ \/ / / /
Internet:       pel@resntl.bhp.com.au                            \  / / /
----------------------------------------------------------------- \/\/\/ -
From: mckay@alcor.concordia.ca (John McKay)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Dictionaries
Date: 27 Dec 92 21:01:31 GMT
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Originator: mckay@alcor.concordia.ca


I have a theory of change which is that dictionaries serve two purposes:
they record usage - correct and incorrect - and they also act as a resource
in that the presence of a word and its meaning in a dictionary will often
be interpreted as authoritative. It is not hard to see that these two
interpretations lend themselves to propagating change, sometimes 
unnecessarily.
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Goodbye
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:33:02 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <BzwE6o.3LA@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
> Hello,
> 
>    I think I am just plain tired of continuing to argue with
> people. I wish I could reply to all your individual articles but
> I have grown excessively weary of debate.

HURRAH!!!!

> I'll henceforth flame
> only those morons who challenge the spelling of "favour". I feel
> I am just wasting my energy on this newgroup. A short break
> will do me good.
> 
Feel free to take as long a break as you want. I'm sure we'll find *something*
to talk about in your absence.

> Goodbye...and oh, yes...I almost forgot....
> 
> WISH YOU ALL A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!
> 
Without ludicrous Mandarisms? I'm sure we will.

-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Who are `we'? (was: Comments in source code)
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:18:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.205947.28195@news2.cis.umn.edu> charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
:This is an essential usage guide for writers of mathematics.  It should go
:in the FAQ with the other usage guides.  Where is the FAQ anyway?  How long
:have we been hearing about it?

Two years, I think.  Every now and then I ask for a copy of the IPA/ascii
table that I saw a draft of about a year ago.  I could really use it now...

Pretty Please?

G
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: K Street
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:43:13 GMT

In article <1htup2INNec2@uwm.edu> jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
:From article <Bzqz8z.2Jt@techbook.com>, by dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque):
:> This also reminded me of a short list that I have of streets that have
:> become metonyms or toponyms.
:> 
:> Any additions?
:
:Cannery Row?

Have we had Saville Row?  (& Carnaby St?)

G
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: 27 Dec 92 03:46:24 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <BzMxsK.HnF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

# Those who oppose words such as "stewardess", "heroine", "hostess"
# are hypocrites. Their explanation  is that these words further the
# notion that being a man is the norm and being a woman is a deviant.
# i.e. there aren't different words for the male *and* the female.
# Yet, they accept the word "woman". The word "woman" comes from
# "man". (wif-man or literally "wife of man")
#
#        I feel disgusted.......Bah!
#
#
#
#                                                          Mandar.


You're not just worried that someone might object to your name, are
you, Mandar?

David Johns



Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger)
Subject: Re: Twatology
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:11:10 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 12-23-92 10:08
On Dec. 22, Jeremy Mathers wrote:

P(>>just as the harsher word for the female genitalia may be applied to either,
P(>>but in practise is more commonly applied to males.

P(>Now, I of course, am probably falling for the bait (nominee for motto of
P(>the week, anyone?), but I think it is only on the net that one could
P(>even imagine using "the harsher word for the female genitalia" to refer
P(>to a male... (*)

P(>(*) Assuming that we are both talking about the same harsh word for the
P(>female genitalia.  One of my favorite words in the language, BTW.

NOT only on the net - on the street, every day. (Usually succeeded by a
fight.)

As any Australian - it's on a level with 'fool' or 'jerk' - I heard it ALL
the time, and it was extremely irritating.

                                                Cheers,
                                                Greg.

Greg Grainger
Toronto, Ontario.
greg.grainger@rose.com
9:56:32 am, Wed 12-23-1992.

        Personal policy statement: Neither flames nor flame-bait
        will be responded to.
---
   OLX 2.2   <- You've got the right reader baby.  UH-HUH!
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english