"Hardpan"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mu82s3pu15hokpn3t10jtp3edqp8sr69u1@4ax.com...> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:45:49 +1100, "Sean"
blah.com.au>
> wrote:
>>>
>>Gee, it;s hard hard pan :)
>
> Year, I am a hardcase. That's a fact I am immensely proud of. :-)
>
>>"Hardpan"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:cjj1s3hh6mlfr6tvboe00klbpcvqd68p2q@4ax.com...>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:58:59 +1100, "Sean"
blah.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>"Hardpan"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:m3gvr3dps6mn714u9qfjh6q4gk6pfur459@4ax.com...>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:04:44 +1100, "Sean"
blah.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Does Genentech offer anyone any level of Money-back Guarantee if the
>>>>>>use
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>$120,000 worth of Avastin makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE to Debbie
>>>>>>Hirst
>>>>>>and others?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. No one can guarantee that when you drive the safest car on the
>>>>> road that you wont get killed either. I don't really see your point.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OK. I'll explain. When you buy a product or service like a car, there's
>>>>a
>>>>guarantee that the car , THE car itself, will operate as promised.
>>>>That's
>>>>the guarantee. No guarantee you won't be killed because of bad driving
>>>>or
>>>>bad roads. OK?
>>>
>>> The problem with your theory is that cars are designed and
>>> manufactured by humans. The human body is not.
>>>
>>
>>It's the DRUG that is manufactured, just like the CAR ... i am talking
>>about
>>the drug NOT the human body.
>
> The problem is that there in NO equivalent to a medication for a human
> body and a similar product intended for a car.
>
Then it's your problem, that's how you see it. I don't. It's an analogy that
works for me.
>
>>> Its true that the basic design of the human anatomy of most people on
>>> this planet is similar in looks and the placement of organs and so on,
>>> but we are not built wholesale on an assembly line like most cars and
>>> other devices are.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, SO WHAT?
>
> So humans use, metabolite and eliminate food, drugs and other
> ingestible and breathable ingredients in different ways and in
> different timescales. Check all the warnings on the labels of OTC
> medications.
>
> Most of them tell the consumer NOT to use them if they have liver,
> kidney or other problems like diabetes and to consult your doctor.
>
> Of course if you cant afford a doctor you are SOL, I suppose.
>
Car manufacturer's do not guarantee their vehicles if an idiot puts water in
the petrol tank ... or if someone who needs glasses drives without them.
There's a difference. You are trashing my analogy beyond what is reasonable,
or logical. In the process, you thinking is ignoring what it is I actually
was saying. You are turning it into something else entirely, and adding
things that do not belong. see what I mean?
> BTW, speaking of diabetics, who don't metabolize glucose and insulin
> levels properly, should they be able to sue the sugar companies if
> they consume a product with sugar in it ?
>
If the sugar companies sold the sugar on the basis that it was good for
diabetics ... YES they should be able to sue them.
>>Drugs, all drugs, are designed to work in a human body for a particular
>>PURPOSE and ACTION within a human body.
>
> And they will NOT work the same way in every human body. That's a well
> known fact.
>
Yes. It's well known and true. Yet, the drug companies have no problem with
taking money from whoever takes their drugs, KNOWING that there is no
automatic likelihood of them being useful at all. But THEY KNOW that the %%
is in the favour of thise drugs NOT actually working as they are promoted.
What ability does any patient have to KNOW? Zero.
Would you buy a car that for "unknown" reasons might not work as promised
just because you had red hair? Would you be happy buying a ferrari for a $1
million dollars if it didn;t work because of some unknown factor like that,
that YOU personally had no ability whasoever to be able to know that before
you handed over the million dollars?
Think about it. Wouldn;t you want your moiney back, and have the opportunity
ability to buy a Maserati instead?
The difference in this senario is this. The drugs themselves actually only
cost a few dollars. MOST of the cost of drugs is in the "research/profit
margins" ... If the drug company refunded moneys for drugs that didn;t
actually work, they only lose a few bucks.
Why should a company be paid for something that was useless, or in some
cases actually killed you?
>>The drug companies TRIAL all drugs in human bodies and they get a
>>variation
>>of results. They KNOW that .... but when they sell a drug they are
>>marketing
>>that it will only have the positive effect, that it will do what they say
>>it
>>will do. In evastins case THEY CLAIM it will.
>
> Do they claim that it will do this in ALL cases? I very much doubt
> that.
>
That is indicated in the "purpose" of the drug to act in a particualr way,
and produce a particular result.
> In this day and age of lawsuits, they would be very foolish to make
> such a wide claim, knowing that some cancer patients are going to get
> worse and die no matter what medication is administered.
>
There are currently legal loop holes, that assert for the overall benefit of
the "good of society" that non performance of drugs as "marketed" are
outside such claims.
>
>>This is what they are selling, a promise, a fitness of their product that
>>"Avastin in combination with chemotherapy significantly prolonged
>>progression-free survival inbreast cancer patients."
>
> But not ALL patients, correct?
>
Do they or do they not make a profit from ALL patients?
Do they or they not assert that "Avastin in combination with chemotherapy
significantly prolonged progression-free survival inbreast cancer patients."
Do doctors recommend and decide to use such patients? How is a dying patient
supposed to know whether the drug will work or not? How can they decide to
NOT take the drug without having access to ALL the information about
themselves, their biochemistry, and the drugs, and the testing results in a
way that can decide?
So, who decides?
The drug company, the FDA, the doctor .... but NOT the patient. Such
decisions are out of their hands, so how can they be deemed to be the
repsonsibile party to this commercial transaction? They can't.
>>IF the drug does NOT do that in the human body they sell it to, they
>>should
>>give a refund, automatically. The DRUG has not met the sales pitch, it has
>>NOT performed. People don;t pay $120,000 to be a guinea pig, they want
>>performance, they shopuld get it OR their money back.
>
> What people should do or get and what the courts say they should are
> often two different things, all too often.
>
Yes, I;m suggesting that the Laws are wrong and FOR the benefit of drug
company shareholders, and not patients overall, or individually.
In the land of the USA, individuality is supposed to rule supreme, but in
cases like this, the Law is totally for the benefit of capitalists and the
wealthy, not sick patients in need of treatment.
It depends on what people believe is more important.
The greatest breakthrus in health have come from the public funding of
science to the benefit of all. Today in the USA and elsewhere a different
philosophy reigns supreme. I'm suggetsing it is out of balance, and
unethical.
[ also fwiw double blind studies are also unethical. They give sick people
sugar pills, knowingly. They are of no benefit to that individual, and THEY
all know that. But it;s legal. ]
> When one is fighting cancer, one needs to take some risks, assuming
> that they wish to increase their chances of survival.
>
>>It isn't about whether the woman lives or dies from Cancer, it's about
>>DOES
>>THE DRUG DO WHAT THEY SAY IT WILL DO, or not in all seopcific cases ...
>>not
>>"overall in the majority" but in every single case.
>
> Like I posted above, I doubt they used such wording.
>
> Can you show me proof that they did not use small print to allow them
> to make such a claim?
>
Even if they did, I'm saying such disclaimers are unethical. You shouldn't
be obliged to pay for a product that does NOT do what it claims to do.
>>BUT, drug companies, and Microsoft as another example, are let off the
>>hook
>>in this regard. They legally allowed to sell shit that does not actually
>>work, or suit the purpose for which THEY promise it will.
>
> Micro-shit is malware and anyone who has been around PC's for a time
> knows that MS is full of bugs and always has been, going all the way
> back to DOS.
>
> That still doesn't make a valid comparison to the "operating system"
> of the human body, which was not designed by Bill Gates :-)
>
The point was about the legality and ethics of what MS gets away with. The
drug companies have the same level of legalised "outs".
I;m saying that that is a problem, a loophole for the financial benefit of
shareholders only. They say there is no other way ... but they would
wouldn;t they when it;s their income that is at risk.
people's health and their very lives appears to be of a secondary
importance. Dioes that sound right to you ..... IF there are better
alternatives for society as a whole?
>>
>>> What one medication, penicillin, that saves people like myself
>>> from a serious bacterial infection, for instance, can easily kill
>>> another human being. The list goes on and on in that regard.
>>>
>>
>>If pennicilian killed you, would you like to get your money back and pass
>>it
>>onto your Estate? How are YOU at fault if Penicillin killed you?
>
> I am not at fault, of course, but at the time I was dying and
> Penicillin helped to save me.
OK, change the senario to "avastin" or anything else. You're dying, and they
say it "might" help to save you .... but it doesn't it actually hastens your
death.
Is that worth $120,000 on a hunch it might work? or would you like your
$120,000 back to give to your wife and kids after you're gone?
>>The repsonsibility lays with the Doctor and the drug company to BE SURE it
>>won;t kill you, but if it does, they are 100%% Liable.
>
> In the case it would be the doctors fault because there are simple
> tests to determine if one is allergic to certain medications like
> antibiotics, BTW.
>
Yes .... you know that. Do you know everything about what the drug companies
know about these "new" drugs?
>
>>Same as if you bought a new Toyota ... and went driving down the road
>>"normally" and it exploded and killed you and all your family. YOU are not
>>responsible, TOYOTA is. They are Liable ... not only should you get all
>>your
>>money back for buying the car ... they should be required to pay for all
>>damages caused, including pain and suffering.
>>
>>Think !!!
>
> You mean my estate, of course as I would be dead.
>
Yes, sorry, i did mean your estate. :)
> Nevertheless cars rarely "explode" without an accident of some sort
> occurring. Most cars that have problems burn up, not explode. As a
> decent shade-tree mechanic and a long time professional driver, I can
> assure you that what I claim is true.
>
It wasn't alwasy that way. Commerical laws made a big difference ... that's
why they don;t blow up anymore. because it;s illegal to sell something that
"might" kill you, unless it;s a drug of course.
>>> But we humans didn't know that in the beginning of the use of this
>>> medication, did we?
>>>
>>> Same idea goes for all these new medications.
>>>
>>
>>Think again.
>
> About what? There are certain risks in life and one has to be willing
> to accept them.
>
> Or as Robert Hienlien used to say: TANSTAAFL.
>
You may not know about the about the dangers of medications, doesn't mean
the drug companies don't know, or that they don;t market them enhancing the
possibilities for a low %% of patients, and minimising the downsides.
Would you think it's ok to keep doing it that way, if there were better
alternatives that tended to lower the overall costs, and incresed
effectiveness?
What's more important to you? Encouraging the above senario, or an endless
discussion about the ideology of capitalistic system being the ONLY way to
develop new drugs and methodolgies for health care?
>
>>>
>>>>Now when one buys a product from the drug company, it too is designed to
>>>>do
>>>>a particular thing. That's what they "promote" and that's why people use
>>>>that product.
>>>>
>>>>But people take these "products" and yet there is NO guarantee that the
>>>>product will actually work for THEM as designed ... the way it did in
>>>>the
>>>>Company promotions based on testing.
>>>
>>> Like I have proven above, with the human body there are no guarantees
>>> but one and that is that we all die in one manner or another.
>>>
>>
>>You have proven nothing, all you did was express your opinion about what
>>you
>>"think" I was saying.
>
> There is NO "opinion" about everyone dying, unless you know of someone
> who found the fountain of youth, correct?
>
>>>>In Debbie's case .. she can spend $120,000 a year and yet the product
>>>>may
>>>>not make an ounce of difference .. it may not perform on her, like the
>>>>drug
>>>>company says it will ie to SLOW down the progression.
>>>
>>> If you were to read the fine print I'd be willing to wager that it
>>> does NOT claim to slow progression of the disease in all cases.
>>>
>>
>>Fine print is a con job on you and everyone else.
>
> Nevertheless it is there and that is what you need to consult an
> attorney about. If he/she makes a mistake you can sue them.
>
No you can't. :)
>>Did Tobacco companies KNOW nicotine was highly addictive?
>>
>>The repsonsibility is on those that produce propducts and sell them as
>>being
>>able to do what THEY say they will do. If they didn;t SAY IT ... know one
>>would BUY the product to begin with.
>
> The responsibility to use tobacco falls on the shoulders of the
> smoker. Nicotine has long been known to be addictive, like lots of
> other things, including alcohol.
>
Not in the 60's and 70's. Such knowledge was kept secret by tobacco
companies for the benefit of shareholders.
You need to accept that the #1 responsibility of Company directors is to
maximise shareholder wealth. That's it! That is their purpose of being.
>>
>>> These huge drug companies hire expensive attorneys to make sure
>>> that there are such warnings in all of their literature, so that if a
>>> law-suit occurs it cant be used to obtain a guilty or liable verdict.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Like I said ... it;s a con-job, a legalised con-job.
>
> So what do you propose to do about it?
>
be aware of it. the focus of health care companies is to maximise wealth.
Not save lives. That is a secondary effect, not the primary reason of being.
That balance needs to change, and then better outcomes will occur for all.
>>>
>>>>If she spends $120,000 I think she desrerve's at least a money back
>>>>guarantee that it will WORK as described in HER .... just like every
>>>>Toyota
>>>>will WORK as advertised for ALL purchasers no matter how they drive it.
>>>>That
>>>>is guaranteed 100%%, or they fix the car for you.
>>>
>>> Well, all I can say at this point is that the Maker of human being
>>> didn't create an owners manual not did the Maker claim that your body
>>> will last for one year or one hundred years. People are not cars.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Drug companies do not sell human bodies. Think! :)
>
> I did, but I "think" you missed my point completely.
>
>>
>>
>>>>hope that clarifies. It would stop profit gourging by drug companies,
>>>>they
>>>>would be more inclined to do far better work before releasing a drug,
>>>>and
>>>>doctors would be more cautious about drugs etc that far too often kill
>>>>people as opposed to helping them.
>>>
>>> In the countries that have single-payer healthcare they do put caps on
>>> how much money will be paid for a certain medication. In the US we
>>> have no such laws and in fact the congress have banned The Medicare
>>> system from using drugs that are far cheaper in countries like Canada.
>>>
>>
>>Right, another legalised con job.
>
> But in the case of the US it was congress that screwed the consumer of
> low priced medications, not the drug companies.
>
Yes, that's the problem. Did the drug companies "lobby" for this and make
campign contributions? Was the debate about "health care" or was it about
"ideology" of competing ideas about funding systems?
>>It is YOUR right as human being to be able to purchase drugs from anywhere
>>and from anyone in the world. That's YOUR right to put into your mouth
>>anything you want, but the legalised con-job of the drug companies and
>>their
>>cronnies in Congress stop you from buying CHEAP alternatives that are no
>>different.
>>
>>Speak with your Congressman, and DEMAND they change these draconian laws,
>>is
>>one option.
>
> Yes, that is what you should be doing.
>
I'm not an american. I don't have this problem where I live. Our Govt.
actually encourages the use of cheaper alternatives and they will source
them from anywhere as long as they meet basic critieria ... and work.
In the US you'll pay GSK say $200 for a packet of pills. Here our govt will
negotiate a price of half that, and then the patient only ends up paying $26
for them. A old age pensioner on limited income and little wealth, will get
the same brand name product for $6. That is really important, because the
elderly may have many drugs to take.
The over-riding focus here is on accessible appropriate health care for all
who require it, based upon Doctors advice and science. It's a matter of
values, not money, or an ideological obsession about the joys of Corporate
profits.
>>Your drug companies that still hold active patents on drugs, new drugs,
>>sell
>>those drugs to Australia CHEAPER than they sell them to you. If they can
>>sell them cheaper to us, then they can sell them to you, and the rest of
>>the
>>world.
>
> They will not do so of their own accord, that's for certain.
>
That's the point, of my discussion here. They "control" the debate and the
Law making in the usa based on ideological extremism, not what's good for
people, or proven alternative methods of running a national health care
system that works.
>>Everyone who knows economics, knows there';s a thing called "price
>>points".
>>More people travel today because the price points went down, not because
>>of
>>economies of scale. The airlines are now far more profitable, and have
>>grown
>>enormously because of this. It didn;t happen the other way around.
>>
>>Present Competition economics KNOWS that REAL free-market competition
>>lowers
>>prices. Drugs, and health care costs are ARTIFICIALLY HIGH in the USA
>>because of corrupt price controls, unnecessary restrictive patents, and
>>legalised manipulation to the advantage a very small group of wealthy
>>PEOPLE.
>
> For the most part "free-market" competition is no such thing at all. I
> know as I used to own a business myself. The laws favor large
> companies over the small-fry companies like my own was.
>
Exactly. That's true. That's my point. The rhetoric is twisted in the USA.
They rally on and on about "free markets" but you don;t actually have one.
They always tweist the debate onto something about this evil "socialism" and
yet the USA Govt supports a Corporate Welfare state that works directly
against a true free market and open competition.
That's the CON, and it is enshrined into Law in the USA. Everyone outside
the USA seems to know this, and sees it for exactly what it is.
>>
>>>>>No one gets compensated when drugs are
>>>>the cause of death, or they do not actually work as expected. THAT's one
>>>>the
>>>>major thing that's what's wrong with the system at present. imho.
>>>
>>> That is incorrect. There are many lawsuits against the manufacturers
>>> of these new drugs, particularly in the many US homicide and suicide
>>> cases, where people have been using psycho-active medications before
>>> killing themselves and/or others.
>>>
>>
>>Who WINs those cases?
>
> Usually the people with the deep pockets. Its all about money.
>
Yes. What right and proper and ethical, doesn;t usually matter. Congress is
supposed to work for all people, not just some people who have more
influence due to money.
>>People should not be required to take a huge mulitnational to court when
>>their loved ones are killed to due to the non-performance, or the
>>side-effects of Drugs.
>
> So what solution do you propose instead?
>
An open system, access to information, and a change in the Laws so that
individuals who have no ability to judge what has gone on with the drugs
they are told to take aren't assumed to be responsibile, but the Drug
companies themselves, and those doctors and hospitals that push these
"flakey" alternatives without any guarantees whatsoever should be.
Secondly things like the FDA need to become non-politcal and free of
influences from drug companies. Nothing is perfect, but overseas bodies are
far more careful when it comes to approving new drugs and practices.
>>That's my opinion. The current system allows snake oil salesman to 'get
>>away
>>with murder" basically. Legalised Secrecy allows drug companies to get
>>away
>>with MIS-representing the benefits and the known failures of their
>>products.
>
> I am well aware of the con-job most drug companies are pulling when
> they claim that certain drugs will "prevent" certain diseases. The
> statin anti-cholesterol medications are a perfect example of this.
>
> They have NO proven track record of preventing heart attacks and
> stokes and yet the MD's pass them out like candy here in the US.
>
> Why?
>
> Because the doctors get kickbacks from these money-grubbing
> drug companies, who even use the inventor of the "artificial heart"
> to push their dangerous drugs on an unsuspecting public.
>
OK, see that's how 'corrupted' the system is. Everywhere one looks these
sorts of issues come up.
>
>>
>>>>ALL systems in the world have challenges because of higher costs of
>>>>technology and drug costs .. that's why all health care systems are
>>>>struggling and expensive ... the universal health care system have the
>>>>same
>>>>problem, even though they do a good job at managing costs.
>>>
>>> So do all the major health insurance companies in the US.
>>>
>>
>>Another legalised and govt backed con-job. People die, and shareholders
>>keep
>>making huge incomes from HMO's etc.
>
> Which is why we need to get rid of these health insurance companies.
> If everyone was covered by a single-payer plan, the costs would be
> cheaper as you would have 50 million people paying taxes into the
> system, instead of being left out in the cold, when they take ill.
>
That's what is meant by Universal health care ... it isn't perfect either,
but some things are nbetter and some things are worse. At present, outside
the USA they consider the US system as the worse overall.
Public and private can work together to make a better system. It depends on
how it is setup.
http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/
http://www.pbs.gov.au/
>
>>> They even pay doctors to NOT perform certain procedures if at all
>>> possible. That's how they manage and control costs.....for the wealthy
>>> stockholders that is.
>>>
>>
>>Eactly, so if you can see this happening ... keep looking past the trees
>>and
>>you'll see another forest that is "snowed" over by Politicians, health
>>professionals, and marketers.
>
> I see that we are coming to an agreement of some sort here. There DO
> need to be MAJOR changes in the system, that we both seem to be in
> agreement on.
>
Yes. Recognizing that things are not as good as they need to be, starts the
search for something better. In the USA there is a huge and powerful body
that keeps saying it;s already the "best". They are lying out of their own
self-interest and also out of ideology alone, imho.
>>>>But, in the USA 50 million have NO health care, and yet the USA spends
>>>>double the cost per person on health care, and the Govt share of that is
>>>>a
>>>>higher %% of GDP than any other nation listed on that wiki chart. Not
>>>>only
>>>>that, but insured people still get refused treatment, and still get
>>>>charged
>>>>out of pocket expenses, and both longevity and infant mortality is worse
>>>>than nations running universal health care.
>>>
>>> That is all true. Which of course make one wonder why we don't have a
>>> universal healthcare plan for everyone here in the US.
>>>
>>
>>It does doesn't it? But be prepared for "universal health care" to be
>>demonised just as Reagan did when he claimed it would lead to communism
>>taking over America.
>>
>>Fear mongering iow, NOT the honest truth.
>
> I agree.
>
> That's why I don't feel any fear for much of what I read and hear from
> liars like the politicians, who constantly tell us that we are in
> danger from some source or another.
>
> Unfortunately they do a great job of scaring the hell out of the
> general public, for the most part.
>
>
Indeed. Never let the facts or alternative views get in the way of a good
spin job. :-)
>>>>So it looks to me that all nation shave a problem, but teh USA is the
>>>>one
>>>>with the biggest problem of all .... people like Fred shouldn't be
>>>>preaching
>>>>to other nations or claiming their systems are utterly wrong, but fixing
>>>>his
>>>>own back yard first. :)
>>>
>>> Yeap. This system is broken and it wont be repaired anytime soon
>>> either. The big pharmaceutical companies and health insurance will
>>> make sure of that.
>>>
>>
>>That;s my point .... They are the one's who thru their own
>>self-interest block every attempt for a decent system to develop.
>
> Of course that is true, but there is another factor or factors working
> in America that put the brakes on any single payer healthcare plan.
>
> We have had employer-paid healthcare for so long and have been so
> conditioned to believe that socialized healthcare will be a disaster
> that even the voters have voted down universal healthcare plans
> in some US states.
>
I know. Scare tactics work. But so does the truth.
Then again, I wouldn;t necessarily believe someone just because they "tout"
a universal health care system like Hilary and the democrats. I doubt they
know how to start from scratch, they too are smothered in ideology. But it's
still possible, one day maybe.
>>They falsely claim that they need huge profits in order to keep doing
>>research and they THREATEN the American people that if they can't have
>>open
>>slather then they will STOP future developments .... that my dear friend
>>is
>>a complete LIE.
>>
>>Competition, the free market, can PROVE that that is a complete lie.
>
> The fact is that much of the research study on new medications and
> other medical technology is done in public universities at taxpayer
> expense.
>
Yes, little known, but indeed true. Don;t tell a right wing capitalist
though. :)
> Its just one more of the BIG LIES that the medico-pharma industry
> doesn't want you to know about.
>
I know about it. :)
>
>>So, what you end up with is a totally controlled system that is more
>>controlled than any universal health care system in the world.
>>
>>Basically, US citizens are being totally ripped off by their own people.
>>Part of the result of this, is that many many people die for nothing .....
>>sure one can't stop a person dying, but before they die a HUGE proportion
>>of
>>their wealth is transferred to drug companies, doctors, and hospitals ....
>>basically wealthy sahreholders all get a share of the terminally ill.
>
> We are in agreement here.
>
> Like I always say, I am a misanthrope because I realize that most
> humans think or rationalize every evil thing that they do to one
> another away in one manner or another.
>
Yep .... but not all, and not all the time.
>>What a great deal ... and it;s all LEGAL and accept as somehow wonderful
>>and
>>living in the grreatest nation on earth. It's BS, complete BS, and the
>>rest
>>of the world knows it. Americans, most americans do not. C'est la vie.
>>
>> hope that helps ... don;t believe me, go do your own objective
>>research.
>
> I have and I will do so as I always have.
>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
>>> and I'm not sure about the the universe."
>>>
>>> -Albert Einstein
>>
>>AGREED ... I'm with Albert. :)
>>
> Yeap. Me too !
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
> and I'm not sure about the the universe."
>
> -Albert Einstein
Cheers and thanks for the chat .... trust your own instincts.
