I just got back from a week-long driving trip in Southern California. I saw a lot of flags. No big news seems to have happened.

I decided to read all the posts of the last week, and now my eyes hurt. I also decided to post something myself again.

On 2001-09-28 07:48, Justin'79 wrote:
Leslie...great post.
America, I have looked at our union, and I have declared it weak.
The crisis hasnt come yet, but man, its coming. Theres alot of things that need to be worked out, before we continue to drown ourselves in World War II patriotism.
America needs a new vision. We cant continue to keep plumbing the past for our national conscience. Were gonna have to dig deep and find it.
In short, the USA needs a diaper change.

I agree with Justin. A related observation I had this past week, after seeing "United We Stand" and a flag on a T-shirt for the 100th time, was that there is a second part to this phrase, namely...

"Divided We Fall".

On 2001-09-28 13:14, Barbara wrote:
Greetings, all. Whew, I need to take the time to say that I've really been enjoying sitting back and reading your posts here. I love to see those of you questioning and supposing. Hopefully, we'll all hang in there with our divergent views and coexist, for the better.

Glad to see you back posting, Angeli. We need your perspective, that of an honest-to-goodness observer via your time overseas and your excellent writing talent. So many others to mention, too.

Stonewall Patton, Justin'79, Justin Long, Leslie, Bob Butler, Chris'68, Craig '84, Smcd, Kjirti75, Ben Weiss: fabulous posts. I hope you give us more to read along those lines. Again, I like it that you are questioning, as have Donna, Robert Reed, Virgil, Marc, in their own ways. And others, certainly, your names just escape me right this second, sorry.

HopefulCynic, to answer the questions you had of me yesterday, I think you and I may share more views than not on this, dear. While I've had for some time now the impression that Kennedy was hoping and looking hard for a way to rid us of the Vietnam quagmire, let me suggest a quite engrossing and excellent book I'm now reading, by our own Prof. David Kaiser, titled American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, Harvard U Press, 2000. I heartily chorus Virgil's recommendation of this book. If you can't or don't choose to purchase it, get it from your library, get an inter-library loan for it if you have to.

So far, Kaiser's extent of nitty-gritty research appears to rival the other book I'm currently into, James Bamford's Puzzle Palace, which I'm also trying to finish so I can read his newest book, Body of Secrets. While Bamford's books concern the NSA and intel communities, both authors should be admired and respected for their exhaustive use of FOIA in bringing forward what I consider to be indisputable Truths. I respect that. It ain't easy.

Hopeful, I share your Nomadic respect for Ike. I voted for him twice (and I also voted for Goldwater, curiously enough). I was being cynical in my post about Ike's golfing(I've posted before of my admiration for Ike in another thread, before 911, and erred in not repeating those in my post you referenced; I didn't want to be redundant.)

In retrospect, in many ways, I see Ike as a complicit puppet caught up in the balancing act you mentioned, which I consider was ultimately more powerful than his own influence, but he did try to exert himself when he felt he could. It seems to me really odd that he was ever thrust into politics at all. He was a true independent, a reasonably selfless servant, mediator, peace lover really, and ultimately not a powerful presence as President. He definitely did do some good things domestically, went out on limbs a few times. And as to foreign relations, I believe history didn't let him get to do at all what he wanted, which was to de-esculate and coexist, although I also think he lacked the power and presence to get it done, too. While I lived through his 8 years thinking everything was all-in-all hunky-dory, I have since come to believe otherwise. There were constant tensions and fires to put out. He successfully shepherded our passage but he was not the navigator. His legacy as to Vietnam, which I believe Kaiser's book will spell out for you, set the stage for Kennedy's (I think) courageous but fatal attempt to go, "Wait a minute. Hold on. Just what is this we are doing here?"

But, yes, Ike did more than just play golf. However, he did *alot* of work on the golf course, and alot of thinking, I imagine. I suspect his abilities to mediate between the divergent and passionate voices of those times will forever go unfully appreciated.

But, read Kaiser's book, Hopeful. I prefer it, so far, to Halberstein's Best and Brightest in fact, although I would recommend that book and McMaster's Dereliction of Duty too.

As for Kennedy's death, I echo Brian's comments in part as to not believing the lone gunman theory, except that I don't limit the possible scope of perpe-traitors (gallows humor here) as Brian does.

For better or worse, I suppose I subscribe to two axioms when it comes to history: 1)so much of history is also UNwritten, and 2) the Truth Lies Somewhere in Between. This is especially true to closer in time we are to the history. I look at as much as I can, legitimate or not, and make up my own mind. I try to use common sense. This takes alot of time and thought, but since I retired in 1994, I've had some time (never enough, though).

I'm sure this sounds strange and quirky, but here is how I originally first got into looking at this historical period, beyond the official take. When Jackie Kennedy married Onassis, it struck me as just simply incomprehensible, more than remarkably odd. Why on earth would she have done that? The usual explanations batted around and what is drawn from her biographies (she sought a father figure, she just wanted to get *away*, shelter her children, she never fit in totally as a Kennedy, etc.), nothing was satisfactorily ENOUGH to me in the common sense dept. Her own possible paranoia is the only other reason I'd believe, but it seemed to me there had to be something else. Why did she pick HIM and uproot herself so totally, particularly in light of the immense American public goodwill towards her and her desire to see the pallet painted Camelot? Well, I've come to suspect that the trauma, the danger, the magnitude of what happened in 1963 had to be at least sufficient enough for her to seek out someone powerful enough to really protect her, from what I don't at all pretend to know, but I think it was *something*. And then, she came back only when we as a nation began to question the unquestionable Intel community (Church ctte, etc.).

Coincidence? May well have been. But that's what makes history SO fascinating, doesn't it?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-09-28 13:18 ]</font>

Hi, Barbara!

Thanks for the book recommendations, I'm planning to read all of them, as soon as I manage to get some time free.

I have some other comments to add, but it's late and I don't want to get too into it right now. I'm afraid I'm so sleepy I'll post something idiotic by mistake.

On 2001-09-28 13:14, Barbara wrote:

Stonewall Patton, Justin'79, Justin Long, Leslie, Bob Butler, Chris'68, Craig '84, Smcd, Kjirti75, Ben Weiss: fabulous posts. I hope you give us more to read along those lines. Again, I like it that you are questioning, as have Donna, Robert Reed, Virgil, Marc, in their own ways. And others, certainly, your names just escape me right this second, sorry.

Barbara, let me thank you for questioning. And thank you for the extensive reading list you provided. Given our present leadership, it certainly looks like you are questioning the proper things. In a 4T, we are desperately going to need those who can find the strength to separate themselves from the pack and ask the necessary questions. Only in this way can the worst excesses of authority be curbed and our liberty preserved for later generations to enjoy. If you are at all representative of Silents, I can sleep a little better at night. Thanks again.

Neisha and all, I remember the first book listing the Awakening as begining in 1967 and lasting til 1980.
I think what happened was they started to get a bigger picture of the Second Turning.
Plus they had to also substantiate their 1961 figures and 1981 figures for the 13th Generation.
The 1924 and 1942 figures were pretty set in stone, so trying to pin a date on these extremely gradual turnings was probably difficult.
Just as 1964, 65, and 66 werent exactly the peak years of the Awakening (people still had short hair cuts--looked like the 50s)
1980,81,82 werent exactly the peak years either.
But I remember from my childhood a distinct "70s vibe"
when it began or ended I dont know, But I feel like I was one of the last to catch on to it.
I have friends born in 1980 that dont remember the Challenger or identify with Gen X, but then I have friends that do Identify.
Usually the ones with younger siblings dont identify, and the ones with older siblings do.
Its hard for someone in a family to think they are in a different generation than their siblings, unless theres a really widespread in age.

Thanks, Hopeful and Stonewall. Stonewall, I don't think I am a *normal* Silent, sorry if this busts your bubble. Most of the folks I know my age are just upset about this whole thing, but they feel they did their time and want it to be put off until after they are gone. They just want to die happy and secure. Don't get me wrong, so do I! But, then again, one is just wandering blind without Gen Theory, right? :smile:

RichT, welcome back from your vacation. Guess you did some thinking on your trip. I agree with your agreement with Justin79. Great post, BOTH Justins. I also agreed pretty much with Justin Long's interim assessment of where we are.

Stonewall (just which war are we fighting) Patton writes? Barbara, let me thank you for questioning.

With approval of Stonewall and Barbara?s mutual approval, and with all due humility, I?m seeing more than just us digging and questioning. In the early weeks, the major media were waving flags and worshiping well deserving heroes. PBS and NPR seemed to break into more difficult issues early, attempting ?kumbayah? peace dreams and replaying well-researched documentaries on Afghanistan and Middle Eastern terror groups.

The major media are starting to change focus as well. CNN?s Roots of Rage, Why the Hate article is a worthy read at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...175979,00.html. Sixty Minutes interviewed West Point students and instructors, where the ?quiet professional? attitude distanced the Army from an attitude of retribution. The cadets put an unexpected emphasis on the difficulty of the moral problems, as well as the tactical ones.

Another 60M segment had four Muslim clerics repeating in more detail an oft repeated claim that the terrorists? doctrines are bad Islam. They compared the September 11 attackers with Christian fundamentalist abortion doctor murderers. Their push was that it was the main line Islam cleric?s role to preach against heresy, to attempt to defuse the hate, to declare jihad against the terrorists.

Me, I?m a secular humanist, a devout agnostic, with some sympathy towards Marx?s ?opium of the masses? statement. I see the old agricultural age moral systems as dated, as obsolete, though still containing an awful lot of Wisdom of the Ages. After listening to the Muslim clerics beat up on fanatic fundamentalists ? theirs and ours ? it is well to remember that not all fundamentalists are fanatics. Many deeply religious people thoroughly into the old belief systems make mighty fine neighbors. It is when they attempt to force their ancient systems of morality on others that a problem arises, and when they begin to reject and hate those whose belief systems differ. Yes, a few of the fundamentalists allow themselves to fall into a pattern of hatred. I?d be a touch careful about hating all fundamentalists in return. We secular humanists should be above that. Intolerance of those with differing religious views is the sort of attitude religious people have. (Yes, this is a straight line. :wink: ) There is no place for this in the new Millennium.

Early on, I was concerned about an ?On to Richmond? mentality, a rush to a brute force ?we good guys, they bad guys, we have bigger bombs? military solution. This impulse seems to be fading. The ?quiet professional moral? attitude at West Point isn?t universal. There is nothing near a consensus towards a far-reaching basic solution to great problems yet. However, we might get the right questions asked and answered before we travel too far down the brute force path.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-10-01 11:07 ]</font>

This post was deleted because it was not made by either William Strauss or Neil Howe.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Webmaster on 2001-10-01 22:35 ]</font>

Stonewall (just which war are we fighting) Patton

I can't help noting, though, that they were both 4T wars.

Wow, a Time cover story - what could be Timelier? Fabulous!

Bob, I heartily concur. I just last night posted about the stories I've seen on CNN Beneath the Veil and Soldiers of God. Good post, Bob.

At the risk of sounding 3T, it DOES take a village.......:smile:

On 2001-10-01 08:12, William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote:
We are pleased to annouce that Time magazine has offered to do a cover story on October 15, 2001 about our theory of The Fourth Turning. Due to skyrocketing sales of our books since the tragedy on September 11th,(now that many are asking if the fourth turning has really begun) Neil and I have been increasingly bombarded by the media with offers to do newspaper articles as well as TV and radio interviews. We are joyfully surprised by this and have been very encouraged and pleased of the increasing awareness and interest many people now have of our books and their predictions. We will keep you posted on our upcoming activities.

Yippie!!!!

How about we also design 4T banners to put on our websites? Is anyone a good artist?

William wrote? Due to skyrocketing sales of our books since the tragedy on September 11th, (now that many are asking if the fourth turning has really begun) Neil and I have been increasingly bombarded by the media with offers to do newspaper articles as well as TV and radio interviews.

This comment prompted a visit to Amazon.com. T4T?s sales ranking is 139. The backorder is 3 to 5 weeks. Time to ramp up larger print runs?

Uhhh......no.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...atestheadlines
<font color="blue">
'Terror sex could trigger baby boom'

A baby boom could hit the US in nine months as Americans turn to "terror sex" to combat fears of war or further terrorist attacks, experts say.

Post-disaster sex, or "end-of-the-world sex", means a baby boom is likely in nine months' time, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Americans are turning to sex to soothe feelings of fear, vulnerability and sadness, the newspaper said.

University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz said: "The act of sex is a very elemental, primal feeling of being alive and connected to somebody.

"Sex is part of a life force. When asked, 'How do you want to die?' a lot of people say, 'Making love or having an orgasm'. What they are saying is, 'I want to be most alive the moment before I am dead'."

She said there were parallels between soldiers marrying before heading off to war zones and said demographers should expect a hike in the birth rate.

One un-named New York record executive told the newspaper: "Everyone has been through a shared experience and people's defences are down.

"People are vulnerable and that can be really attractive. It's biology at work - gotta procreate if the world is coming to an end."

Story filed: 15:58 Monday 1st October 2001</font>

Articles directly related to the earlier posted signposts of T4T

Economist: Big government is back
http://www.economist.com/agenda/disp...tory_ID=804628

The world economy: worries mount
http://www.economist.com/agenda/disp...tory_ID=805107

Is globalisation doomed?
According to its criticals, it has a lot to answer for
http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...tory_ID=797603

The conomy will be fine... assuming everything else stays the same
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...176565,00.html

Messrs. Strauss and Howe, congratulations on the Time cover. I look forward to it.

I can only assume one of two things from this. Either you are now convinced this is the 4T, or you are under contractual obligations to promote your book.

This cover story will certainly promote your theory. You will only get one chance at this, however. If this is the 4T, you will be hailed as geniuses. If slip back into 3T mode, you are likely to labeled quackes and charlatans even after the real crises arrives. (IMHO) I hope you know what you are doing.

On "This is America" last night, a group of mostly print jounalists talked about the responsibility of the press to question the actions of the government. The free-ride the Bush Administation has been receiving seems to be passing. Does this sound 4T?

On 2001-10-01 12:30, DOC 62 wrote:
Messrs. Strauss and Howe, congratulations on the Time cover. I look forward to it.

I can only assume one of two things from this. Either you are now convinced this is the 4T, or you are under contractual obligations to promote your book.

This cover story will certainly promote your theory. You will only get one chance at this, however. If this is the 4T, you will be hailed as geniuses. If slip back into 3T mode, you are likely to labeled quackes and charlatans even after the real crises arrives. (IMHO) I hope you know what you are doing.

Oooh, yeah, good one, DOC. Me, I'd pole-sit and stress the Hindsight Factor ALOT :lol:.

"I'd pole-sit..." Good one, Barb! :lol:

Hey! Didn't they do a lot that back in the '20s?


:lol:

On 2001-10-01 12:34, DOC 62 wrote:
On "This is America" last night, a group of mostly print jounalists talked about the responsibility of the press to question the actions of the government. The free-ride the Bush Administation has been receiving seems to be passing. Does this sound 4T?

Yes and no. Could be. Discussion, debate and dissent continue on into a 4T, in fact, is integral to one. But, this could also be a sign of Unravelling, too. So, who knows at this point?

Your post did make me think of a 2T (?) phrase, for some weird reason, something to the effect of "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" I'm starting to think like that.... . I mean, as far as muddy-ing the Turning waters, this declaration of invisible war is making things tough to sort out. Like, it keeps the Pearl Harbor Reaction going, thereby making it harder to see the 1929 parallel, perspective. Everytime I try to think about it, I get a feeling of speeded-up time, Back to the Future, like we are trying to experience the Regeneracy before the Catalyst. Or did we just all miss the Catalyst? I don't know, no one knows, we can only believe or not, hindsight, stupid boring patient hindsight....

The thing to watch for is the *next* thing. Remember, S&H (Ok i'm almost quoting this like a Biblical text!!): p. 116: "What matters most are not the accidents [read events] themselves, but rather society's response to them."

Ok, we've had an EVENT (the bombing), which has caused a RESPONSE. This response has catapulted us as a nation, culture, whatever, into a slightly different "thread" or "direction": one where security, warfare, etc. is a rising, perhaps even dominating theme.

Now, there must be yet another EVENT to shove us into full-scale crisis mode, I think. A pattern of events and responses makes up the 4T.

Of course there will be responses from people which will have 1T, 2T and 3T overtones. These are the results of people acting out of season. Some of these responses may even make it into the national media. They will likely be ridiculed or fade quickly from the press, simply because they are not appropriate "to this time" (read: in this season).

The important thing is not the people who are acting unseasonably (as we all do at some time during the day) but that the majority of actions are appropriate to the season, are caused by events and have the 4T theme. that tells us we are in a 4T.

On the subject of prophets and heroes see a religious overtone in Winter 2001's Enrichment Online (A/G). (I scan a *LOT* of stuff on the web because I am part of a team that indexes and archives all this stuff into the NSM Knowledge Base).

Pastor-driven youth ministry:
becoming a hero to the youth of your church
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/enri...tor_driven.cfm

Consider this in the context of a Gray Champion.

Mr. Long suggests, "Now, there must be yet another EVENT to shove us into full-scale crisis mode, I think."

One of the most dumbest acts of all time (The Kellog-Briand pact of 1928 that outlawed war is a close second), has to be the Smoot-Hawley Tariff bill passed in 1930.

Here they were some ten months post-Crash of '29 and this stupid act of Congress, signed by President Hoover effectively built the "highest tariff wall in this nations history."

What a nightmare. Farmers, already suffering when they could of been feeding the world, were no too pleased. But such was the total isolationist bent in the America of the post-Great War period.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-10-01 14:28 ]</font>

On 2001-10-01 12:30, DOC 62 wrote:
Messrs. Strauss and Howe, congratulations on the Time cover. I look forward to it.

I can only assume one of two things from this. Either you are now convinced this is the 4T, or you are under contractual obligations to promote your book.

This cover story will certainly promote your theory. You will only get one chance at this, however. If this is the 4T, you will be hailed as geniuses. If slip back into 3T mode, you are likely to labeled quackes and charlatans even after the real crises arrives. (IMHO) I hope you know what you are doing.

I wouldn't worry too much. S&H will probably not immediately whether or not this is 4T. Most likely, they will say that we have to wait and see.

Brian Rush posted back on Sept 19? I think it's pretty obvious that abortion, gay rights, gun control, and capital punishment don't belong in the same room with either the war on terrorism or the coming struggle over resources and sustainability. Those are among the real culture wars issues. And I am quite prepared to declare a cease-fire on all of them. As a matter of fact, I think the entire blue zone would be. And indeed, has been prepared for such a cease-fire for quite a number of years.

As domestic issues, for the most part, yes, abortion, gay rights, gun control and capital punishment are not going to be primary issues. There may be second degree effects. I seem to recall from the T4T book that while major consensus forms focused on one or two big issues, the values used to address the big issues overflow to shape cultural changes in lesser issues.

Just as a short term examples, there are reports of people concerned since September 11 about their own security buying guns. While this is most likely just a very short-term bounce reaction, if the feeling continues, it could effect gun control. Abroad, religious and ethnic hatreds are aggravating many of the world?s hot spots, including the Middle East. I suspect fundamentalist religious folks forcing their political agendas on others might become unpopular. This could effect the abortion and capital punishment debates. Short term, in response to September 11, Arabs are encountering intolerance. Long term, a rejection of ethnic, religious and racial hatreds abroad could lead to tolerance at home. This might eventually effect gay rights.

In short, assuming September 11 is a catalyst event focusing us towards primary issues (and yes, the ecological and economic underpinnings must also be addressed as primary in time) I agree the domestic issues mentioned above will likely be secondary or tertiary. The value shifts will be focused to solve other problems. This does not imply the secondary issues will not be addressed. However, for the moment, put them on a back burner on low heat.

Mind you, my guesses on what the value shifts will be are preliminary, wild and likely optimistic. Still, some such value shifts seem likely.

Barbara wrote? Your post did make me think of a 2T (?) phrase, for some weird reason, something to the effect of "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" I'm starting to think like that.... . I mean, as far as muddy-ing the Turning waters, this declaration of invisible war is making things tough to sort out. Like, it keeps the Pearl Harbor Reaction going, thereby making it harder to see the 1929 parallel, perspective. Everytime I try to think about it, I get a feeling of speeded-up time, Back to the Future, like we are trying to experience the Regeneracy before the Catalyst. Or did we just all miss the Catalyst? I don't know, no one knows, we can only believe or not, hindsight, stupid boring patient hindsight....

Prior to the American Revolution and American Civil War, there were militant activists (such as the Sons of Liberty and Abolitionists) pushing for a change to the status quo. Prior to World War II, FDR?s establishment democrats pushed for change to big government world power. In all three cases, the major military triggers (Lexington Green, Ft Sumter, and Pearl Harbor) occurred well after the consensus had been reached. People had a decent idea of the issues and where they stood on them, though in the first two cases, the Declaration of Independence and Emancipation Proclamation were still a ways in the future.

Again, this time we are the fat and happy party, the single nation that would be most content if the status quo could continue indefinitely. Thus, with hindsight, it would not be surprising that our nation lacks a strong militant group loudly demanding change. The radicals most desiring to overthrow the status quo would be abroad. Here, the Clinton Administration (and perhaps the liberal blue zone?) was willing to help the peace process along where it could, and made some effort towards developing the third world, but Clinton?s efforts were performed at a routine priority level, not at a crash 4T priority. The Dubya Administration (and perhaps the conservative red zone) seemed reluctant to engage in other folk?s problems. This difference, raised during the Bush / Gore campaign, seems to be the equivalent of the World War II era?s Isolationist / Interventionist debate. September 11 has pushed us in the direction of intervention. However, the final form of this intervention seems still way up in the air. An attempt is being made to address security issues. The economic, ecological, religious and ethnic issues are beginning to bubble into public view. At a guess, the Regeneracy is just beginning, with phase 1 being flag waving, phase 2 being a long hard look in a mirror.

Thus, my thought is that Dubya and Company are misreading their turnings, as is much of the nation. The military trigger event is supposed to occur after consensus is already reached. This one came far before the consensus has been reached. Thus, everyone has tried hard to go into the culturally habitual fourth turning crusade mode. The flags are flying. The fingers are being pointed at the enemy. The speeches are being made. None of the speeches are in the least reminiscent of the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg address, or the Four Freedoms. The program necessary to solve the long term underlying problems is missing. The vision of the future isn?t visible. Without a vision, how can we work to achieve a vision? In short, we still have some regenerating to do.

Does this feel right, Barbara?

The thing to watch for is the *next* thing. Remember, S&H (Ok i'm almost quoting this like a Biblical text!!): p. 116: "What matters most are not the accidents [read events] themselves, but rather society's response to them."

Ok, we've had an EVENT (the bombing), which has caused a RESPONSE. This response has catapulted us as a nation, culture, whatever, into a slightly different "thread" or "direction": one where security, warfare, etc. is a rising, perhaps even dominating theme.

Now, there must be yet another EVENT to shove us into full-scale crisis mode, I think. A pattern of events and responses makes up the 4T.

I agree. I think we are still in the 3T. However, another EVENT could send us over the edge into the 4T. The key will be in the response of the nation. So far, the response to 911 is very mixed. Even the federal governments reaction is inconsistant in mood. If nothing happens over the next few months to disturb the American people, we will slide back into 3T mode to await the real catalyst. Next time, we will not want to turn back.

On 2001-10-01 08:12, William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote:
We are pleased to annouce that Time magazine has offered to do a cover story on October 15, 2001 about our theory of The Fourth Turning. Due to skyrocketing sales of our books since the tragedy on September 11th,(now that many are asking if the fourth turning has really begun) Neil and I have been increasingly bombarded by the media with offers to do newspaper articles as well as TV and radio interviews. We are joyfully surprised by this and have been very encouraged and pleased of the increasing awareness and interest many people now have of our books and their predictions. We will keep you posted on our upcoming activities.

Congratulations, gentlemen! :smile:

I have been monitoring Amazon.com since 911 and was very pleased to see sales of the book go up.

Several months ago I got T4T from interlibrary loan service within a few days. Just for fun, I'm sending through another request (since my local library doesn't own it). Wonder how long it will take this time.

Ulterior motive here: I need to read the book again anyway, since I've forgotten some of it. :wink:

Kiff '61

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kiff '61 on 2001-10-01 16:52 ]</font>