In article <19971003021700.WAA25185@ladder02.news.aol.com>, owsw@aol.com (Owsw) wrote: > Why not? Your claiming that 2000 is *still* the 20th century :) Well it is, but I suppose that discussion is off topic for c.s.a2 -- W. Sheldon Simms III | 2000 is *still* the 20th century sheldon@atlcom.net |