Jake,  that's the correct approach to take.  :>

====

On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 0:38:10 +0000, J J Young wrote:

> ======= On 2003-02-28 at 19:02:00 L.D.Best wrote: =======

>> Whether or not the story were true, I would feel far better if
>> recognized "legit" sources provided the information on the purported
>> crime or hoax, whichever it might be.

> The Christian Science Monitor is still considered authorative and
> non-partisan, isn't it?

> Take a look at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.htm

> Best regards,

> Jake Young

> 2003-03-01  00:37:01 GMT

-- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/

Reply via email to