yes;
note/correction, ff.:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:53:50 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can dig up the reference for this statement -- but who in the world thinks this is some kind of problem? ..the 22 [apparently/actually out of 510 wks, over a 5 yr period] weeks was certainly not talking about all of this body of work...
||
