Population Problems

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Freedom! self reliance : One Thread

I found this article highly informative and interesting, Hope you also do. However it does go against the "Politically Correct" stance of many.

Population prophets of gloom and doom © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Argh! Save me from the world's population prophets and doomsday dimwits!

After my column on China's eugenics program, they were out in force: "One-child policy brutal? Jane, at least they can have one. Please consider whether there are any problems in the world that are not directly related to OVERPOPULATION."

Where have these people been? Lost in a time warp? Did they just crawl out from under a rock? It was over 200 years ago that Thomas Malthus began ranting about how the world was going to collapse under a sea of people, with no food to eat and nowhere to go. With the help of recent disciples like Paul Ehrlich, who in 1968 wrote "The Population Bomb," and Steven Hackett, a professor at Humboldt State University who in 1998 wrote the textbook, "Environmental and Natural Resources Economics: Theory, Policy, and the Sustainable Society," the ghost of Malthus lives on.

Thirty-three years ago, Ehrlich claimed that the world's population was growing faster than its food supply. He has been proven wrong! Hackett keeps the myth alive, grossly misleading the nation's college students into believing that we are running out of farmland, forests and natural resources, and that our only hope is a benevolent but controlling government that will redistribute our wealth and regulate our population. Although Hackett gives himself a lot of wiggle room and relies on flawed predictions and hyperbole, he too, is wrong.

Dr. Jacqueline R. Kasun, professor emeritus at Humboldt State and the editorial director of the Center for Economic Education, Bayside, Calif., took Hackett to task in the Summer 1999, Independent Review. Dr. Kasun pointed out that Ehrlich and more reliable sources estimate that human beings occupy between one and three percent of the world's land area. Hardly a cause for alarm!

Furthermore, the entire world population could be put into the state of Texas, leaving the rest of the world devoid of people. With the world's six and a quarter billion people, there would be 22,400 people per square mile. If all men, women, children, even babies lived separately, they could each have a home of about 1200 square feet, which is bigger than the average home in the world.

But are we running out of natural resources? No, long-term prices (an indication of scarcity) of the primary commodities that human beings extract or harvest from the earth are far lower than 100 years ago.

The Food and Agriculture Organization data show that forests occupy 30 percent of the world's land area, a fraction that has not declined since 1950. Also, the world's food supply has increased a great deal faster than population. Farmers use less than half of the world's arable land. Furthermore, recent studies at the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology show that farmers could feed a future population of 10 billion by using less cropland, leaving more land for nature. However, the prospects for the world population ever reaching 10 billion are growing dimmer.

The 20th-century population explosion was a result of improvements in health and the expansion of life expectancy. That should be a cause for celebration and is more than enough to prove my case against Malthus and his modern-day prophets of doom.

Conversely, fertility levels for the world as a whole fell by more than 40 percent between early 1950s and the end of the century. Presently, 83 countries and territories are thought to exhibit below-replacement fertility patterns. This no longer is a European phenomenon. The largest concentration of sub-replacement populations is in East Asia. In the late 1950s, the fertility rate in Japan fell below replacement. Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Taiwan followed suit.

The largest sub-replacement population is in China, where the government's stringent population control policy has been in place for more than two decades. With China, like the rest of the world, the problem is not so much one of population but one of distribution. A quarter of the population of China is in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River where population density reaches 663 people per square kilometer. However, this is less than the population density of New Jersey, which has 750 people per square kilometer.

Due to improved living standards and decreasing birth rates, the world now is facing a problem never envisioned by Malthus – that of a graying population. The Population Research Institute reports that China's harsh one-child policy is expected to exacerbate the aging crisis in that country. By 2050, 650 million of China's projected population of 1.25 billion will be 50 years old and older. That will be more than half of the population, which will be virtually an impossible imbalance to sustain.

Jane Chastain is a WorldNetDaily columnist

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002


Good article, Bob. So many people are so thoroughly indoctrinated by the population bomb lie that they cannot see the facts or see the truth that world hunger and world poverty is caused by SIN, not by babies.

To all those people who chose not to have children, or chose to murder their children for the "collective good of the planet," who's going to take care of you when you are old? Sure, you have the money for a good old folks home, but who is going to read to you when you no longer can? Who is going to make sure that you eat everyday? Who is going to listen to your nonsensical ramblings? Who is going to carry you to your grave?

-- Laura (Ladybugwrangler@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002.

One of the problems, of course, is distribution. In this country, we can easily grow more than we can eat. We also have excellent roads, water at the turn of a faucet, and fertilizer plants. Not every country does.

In some countries that have no birth control and girls marry at an early age, it isn't possible to raise enough food unless a good deal more fertilizer is either brought in on bad roads, possibly with armed bandits, or made locally, and the rain comes at a proper time because their ability to irrigate isn't as great as ours. Those countries have a very real overpopulation problem.

When Malthus made his predictions he didn't forsee 2 things: birth control and women marrying and/or having kids at a much later age. In developed countries most women choose to limit the number of children they have -most women do, that is, not all of them- and more and more women have only a couple of kids. The birth rate in this country, by the way, has fallen below replacement rate: we are relying on immigration to make up the slack.

I never cared much for the bit about everyone fitting in the state of Texas, by the way. I think you had better plan on roads, sewage treatment plants, stores or a practical substitute to get necessities to the public, factories to make building supplies and plastic, and so forth. It's not enough to just live in a house, most people have to have a place to make a living as well!

Also, when you figure on the land mass available you had better take out the Sahara desert, the North pole, and other areas that CANNOT be farmed at our present level of technology.

The truth is, we DON'T have an overpopulation problem in the DEVELOPED areas of the world because the farmers can water it, fertilize it, and get it to market. Also, heavily populous nations like Japan can import food. Women in the developed country are averaging only about 2 kids per woman. Not every country has these benefits, and it is there that the population problem is killing the young, the weak, and the poor.

-- Terri (hooperterri@prodigy.net), March 10, 2002.


"Furthermore, the entire world population could be put into the state of Texas, leaving the rest of the world devoid of people. With the world's six and a quarter billion people, there would be 22,400 people per square mile. If all men, women, children, even babies lived separately, they could each have a home of about 1200 square feet, which is bigger than the average home in the world."

A megalopolis the size of Texas with everybody in it.

"Say, Cabbie, I need you to take me to visit my Mother." "What's the address?" "165,190,382 East 344,123rd Ave. Apartment 5631.196335" "Not too familiar with that area. What's it near?" "Take Arlington Ave. for 200 miles, then turn left on XYZZZZZZZ. St." "How many traffic lights is that?" "About 578, give or take 20 or so." "Okay. That'll be $5,634 with 50% down." "Take a second mortgage?" "Sure, just put your mortgage card through the scanner and we'll be on our way."


-- Craig Miller (CMiller@ssd.com), March 11, 2002.

.....it isn't possible to raise enough food unless a good deal more fertilizer is either brought in on bad roads, possibly with armed bandits, or made locally, and the rain comes at a proper time because their ability to irrigate isn't as great as ours. Those countries have a very real overpopulation problem......

Again, Terri, you are confusing over population as the cause of problems rather than the true cause, SIN. Power hungry men who thirst for more power, more greed. These are men who care nothing for the well being of their charges, just that they have power over them. If they hold the food, they have the power, if they control the wells, they have the power, if they blow up the roads, they have the power.

We do have the technology AND the resources to farm anywhere we choose, even the North Pole, if you want to live on an ice breaker boat. We choose not to develop these technologies because they don't serve our lust for power over others.

Many organizations have gone in and dug wells for local tribes, taught them to keep the livestock off of it and to maintain the pump. It does not take long for soldiers or warriors from elsewhere to come in and take it or destroy it. They do not want the people to have that freedom to care for themselves. If the people are thirsty and hungry, these evil man want the people to bow down to them and give up freedom before they can eat.

This happens all over the world. We send billions of dollars worth of food and medicine to, Bangledesh, Somalia, Biafra, Ethiopia ......... yet the people starve. WHY? Because to get the food, they have to give up their freedom and enter a concentration camp to receive it. These dirty governments do not allow us to distribute freedom.

Hunger is caused by lust for power, SIN. Hunger is not caused by babies.

-- Laura (Ladybugwrangler@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

You make good points about armed men confiscating the goodies, but, tell me- how does one farm the north pole in an ice breaker boat?

-- Terri (hooperterri@prodigy.net), March 11, 2002.

Since the North Pole is not a land mass, but an ice capped ocean that thaws out during some summers, you better have a floating container garden. Good fishing in the summer.

-- Laura (Ladybugwrangler@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Ok, I'll concede that. However, we DON'T have the technology to farm the SOUTH pole, the Gobi, the Kalahari, the highest mountain tops, etc. etc. so that square footage shouldn't be taken into account when farmland is figured. The people who live in these places need immense acrages to sustain life. There are places in this country that I have driven through that takes a couple of hundred acres to support a cow.

-- Terri (hooperterri@prodigy.net), March 11, 2002.

Bob, congratulations for posting such a simplistic analysis. Oh boy. We never need to be responsible citizens again. Pollyanna has arrived.

I won't even attempt to contradict the points made by the author, as I've done so so many different different times, over the years, sometimes even on this very site!

If you thumpers want to believe something, you will. No logic is likely to be considered.


-- joj (jump@off.c), March 11, 2002.

If only the bible had a chapter concerning simple math.

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.

The Bible does have the simple math In the beginning of the equation we start with exactly zilch. Zilch=A. Than we have the unknown which we will refer to as X. We do have physical evidence to support Creation so now we have A+X= this planet. Now we have a written statement from X stating that he and only he is both A and Z that we accept on faith of our forefathers who wrote a complete historical account of events. Many of which we have argeological proof of. So F = Faith and becomes our common denominator.

A + X = Z --- F

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end F divided into X = AZ

-- Joel Rosen (JoelnBecky@webtv.net), March 12, 2002.

Oh This thread promises to be entertaining!

Terri - One hundred years ago we did not have the technology to farm this country as we currently do. Are you trying to say that as a species we have reached the limits our God given minds can take us? I don't think so. We have technology, that we haven't even put into practice yet.

As for the third world, Laura is right. In most places where there are both population problems and hunger problems, there are also tyrannical governments. Control the food- Control the man. In most of these countries it is people's minds and conditioning that is stopping the production of food. They are being held back by those in power, if not just flat out stolen from. There are very few places on the earth where food cannot be grown. Even some of those places you listed could grow food with technological help.

Joel, that was priceless.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@farm.com), March 12, 2002.

There are places in this country that I have driven through that takes a couple of hundred acres to support a cow.

Maybe land like that shouldn't be used for cattle. Frankly, I think it's a horrible waste to have lots of cities and housing on good farmland. I guess that big groups of people need a lot of water, so maybe it wouldn't be as practical for them to live in say, west Texas. Why do they have to live in such dense groups? If people scattered themselves around more in lots of small towns, wouldn't it be an improvement?

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), March 12, 2002.

So true, jz. I think some folks are missing the point, though. I think the math is as simple as total land mass, total insolation, total water resources, divided by an infinite number of people. Any number divided by infinity is zero. As our population approaches infinity, each person's share approaches zip.

Of course, lots of people grew up with math phobia, and never were able to master the concepts. It's not their fault, other than never taking the time to get counselling for the phobia, I guess.

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 12, 2002.

Rebekah, I agree. That is the way this country used to be. Here in Oklahoma much of the bare land near me was once used as cropland. Now it is all cattle land. What bothers me is when farmland that can produce 100,000 meals is used to produce 10,000 beef meals. Fifty years ago the main county crops here were corn, sweet potatoes, peaches, wheat, row crops, sorghum, etc. Now it is all cattle. And then we have the population mongers running around saying "we're all gonna die", "We can't feed ourselves!". In the mean time I sit here and watch perfectly good land get pooped on. And then I hear people say, "Oh that land won't grow anything." I say, geez it sure grows a fine crop of weeds and wildflowers every year!

When the small family farm was the norm, and when the small town marketplace was the norm, food was produced more efficiently and healthily. Not to mention, that the whole country was healthier in spirit as well as in body also.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@farm.com), March 12, 2002.

Yeah, and how much good farmland is now being used to grow lush, perfectly useless lawns??

But I think there is some truth to the notion that we're all going to die if things continue at this rate. Something has to change. People are going to have to start living responsibly, or they'll be forced to. It just isn't possible for things to keep going on like they are now.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), March 12, 2002.

It's been several decades since I had any math instruction so I'm kinda rusty. Faith is something people resort to when they have no proof. In that case faith equals zero. If faith equals zero and it is the common denominator.Well, one over zero = zero, two over zero = zero,etc etc. No matter how far you want to carry it, you still end up with zero. If it makes ya feel good, I say go for it but trying to use nothing to prove something to others . Well .......

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

I hope that report is true, that the population growth is at least slowing. However, I'm still wary.

Laura has a point. The main cause of misery and hunger in the world is not overpopulation, but ambition and greed. Even from my sheltered corner the globe, it is very apparent that the people in Africa, Bangladesh, China and other parts of the world would be quite capable of sustaining themselves, if it weren't for thugs robbing them of everything.

Still, we cannot take this planet's ability to sustain us for granted. Simply put, the more of us there are, the less our resources will be able to stretch, which make us more susceptible to shortages. Maximizing efficiency and minimizing waste will mitigate this up to a point, but eventually there will come a point where all our efforts will fail. This point may be at 10 billion, 20 billion, or just 8 billion. We may not precisely know where this breakpoint is, or if we'll even reach it or not, but if we overshoot it, we're in deep trouble.

Laura, you asked about if you had no children, who would be able to care for you when you're old. To an extent, that is a valid point. Of course no one is going to take care of you if there's no one TO take care of you. On the other hand, let's suppose you had 50 children (impossible, but for the sake of arguement), if all 50 are all scraping for bare survival and are barely getting enough to sustain themselves, they would be UNABLE to take care of you. You'd then just as well had none at all.

By taking the Earth for granted and assuming that things will always continue on as they are, we're metaphorically forcing the entire human race to play a game of Russian Roulette. Maybe that next chamber is loaded, maybe it isn't. Care to pull the trigger?

-- Nexar (Arax7@mvn.net), March 13, 2002.


-- John in S. IN (jdoofus@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

Before I interupted myself by inadvertantly hitting the wrong button.......I was going to praise Rebekah on 2 points. BIG WASTEFUL LAWNS. How many acres of good land is cultivated to monoculture in lawns? How much could you or I grow on a 1/4 acre lot? I know I grew a heck of a lot on a 1/2 acre lot in town. I wasn't even using it efficiently. My Granny lived on a tiny little lot and grew all kinds of things, along w/ chickens, rabbits. Think Depression era mentality.

Her 2nd good point, "people will have to start living responsibly or THEY'LL HAVE TO" That's what it's all about anyway. People in this country don't see any need to do things differently. So why should they? When they get a reason to, they'll respond to it. Again, think depression era mentality. Hell, in most places you can have 25 dogs or cats, but can't have a couple chickens.

With the population growth leveling off, about all you need is a return of some common sense and home grown fruit, veggies and livestock by everyone.

You guys are funny when you get all worked up.

-- John in S. IN (jdoofus@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

John you struck a note with me when you mentioned people having 25 dogs or cats. Now that is a really wise use of our food supply isn't it????

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

John, you quoted Rebekah: "Her 2nd good point, "people will have to start living responsibly or THEY'LL HAVE TO" That's what it's all about anyway. People in this country don't see any need to do things differently. So why should they? "

I agree with you; this is pretty much a perfect example of "The Tragedy of the Commons"

Bob, were you being sarcastic about our not being able to raise chickens, or were you suggesting that we eat our dogs and cats?

By the way, if we were half as clever as we thought we were, we'd immediately work on overcoming our revulsion towards the consumption of insects. They are not only readily available, but we'd be "killing two birds with one stone", as eating insects (all but the predatory ones) would reduce their numbers, and make our crops more healthy, and largely eliminate the need for insecticides.

After we've mastered insect snacks, let's go for slugs (which are, after all, merely "escargot" sans "caracol". Sorry about the three way mixed lengua.

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 14, 2002.

Eating the dogs and cats may not be all bad for awhile. Once the majority of the strays and unwanted are out of the way anyhow. past that I think you'd run into the same problems w/ any market raised food. "Try new Kitty Spam and Rover Loaf, Your kids will Love it"! OK, maybe not.

A lot of corn goes into feeding all the dogs in this country BTW.

As far as insects- I gotta think about that one for awhile! Your right of course, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna go for it.

Look what happened to the boat people in Houston when they first got there. They were having at the stray dogs till the animal lovers got wind of it. Now they just gas 'em (the dogs) I guess.

This whole mindset in our country will continue "Till their forced to do it" as Rebekah said. Same w/ water. When it costs 300 bucks a month to flush your dookie down the toilet, composting crappers will be fashionable.

-- John in S. IN (jdoofus@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.


John, I was not advocating the consumption of cats and dogs, but now that you mention it, what is wrong with the idea

Many people consume cats and dogs around the world. Is our system always better than the other guys?? Of course not. A lot of grain and other food that could be consumed by humans is given to pets. Pets in this country eat much better than a good portion of the world's population. All they do is eat and ****, they don't in most cases earn their keep.

There is probably nothing wrong with being a respnsible pet owner, but why limit human birth when the animal population is outpacing people??

Joe just to keep the record straight, I am in favor of folks raising their own chickens and other critters as long as they serve a purpose, namely being dinner.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.

Alright, I have stayed out of this, but if any of you come gunning for my dogs, you will meet just as much resistance as if you came gunning for me!

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 14, 2002.

I wrote a post about the cats and dogs, if you haven't already seen it, here it is. Pets- a modest proposal

It wasn't a very popular subject!

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), March 14, 2002.


I have to agree with your ideas. The proposal is sound in all areas.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.

Rebekah, Loved those open minded debates! Wow. How many of them do you think actually read your post?

Doreen, I don't want your dogs...........Those are for you to eat! LOL. Hell, your a Texan, BAR-B-QUE!!!!!!

-- John in S. IN (jdoofus@hotmail.com), March 16, 2002.


I don't want your dogs either, but the points made are quite interesting. Its nice to have a very unusual debate without someone getting all upset about it. It has been fun to look at some unusual solutions to some common problems.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), March 16, 2002.

Glad we got that straightened out. Now, you are all welcome to come and partake of as many grasshoppers as you can possibly consume. I understand they are high in protein, and crunchy. Nice deep fried or covered in chocolate. Maybe even good grilled over mesquite?? Being a bit squeamish about eating guts, and a bit unsure of the effect of Nolo Bait on humans, I myself will pass the opportunity, but I am good at catching them and happy to share my catch with you!

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 16, 2002.

In a Mexican restaurant recently, my friend asked for fried camarones (shrimp). They brought them out, and they were really crispy, and you ate the whole thing, legs, tail and all.

When she asked what they called this dish, they told her "Camarones a la Cucaracha". They said that it's the same way they prepare cockroaches. Nice and crunchy!


-- joj (jump@off.c), March 16, 2002.

Our family always did call shrimp and lobster "Cockroach of the Sea."

We are WAYYYYY too spoiled in our country!

-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@somewhere.com), March 16, 2002.

Yup. And as for myself, I would have to be so many shades of hungry it would be excruciating to eat bugs with the guts and all. I am NOT saying I wouldn't, but that I really, truly wouldn't WANT to. Y'all go ahead. I have always felt the first person to try a lobster or shrimp had to have been quite hungry. Hunger is perhaps the best motivator there is.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), March 16, 2002.

Once again I agree with you, Doreen. I'd LOVE to be able to have the intestinal fortitude to eat a roach. It's only about ten years since I became able to sleep after having them crawl over my face. Thanks to a Mexican man who was incredulous that my kids and I were so freaked out by them. After all, he said, "No pican" (the don't sting) Also means "they don't bite".

Too many years living in TExas, where my mom and sisters would literally scream every time there was a roach. It rubbed off on me, I suppose.

-- joj (jump@off.c), March 16, 2002.

If you are going to eat insects, as many cultures do, there is probably more food value and less crunchy bits in the juvenile stages..

Anyone for a nice plate of toasted hu hu or witchety grubs?

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), March 17, 2002.

I'll take that bowl of salted, roasted grasshoppers, please, over those grubs! I gotta thing about my food needing to have legs, or at least, fins.

-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@somewhere.com), March 17, 2002.

Bugs have been eaten throughout history. Remember that John the Baptist ate honey and locusts. I would suppose they were raw since he was in the desert and there was not much burning material around.

Fried maybe, but raw only if faced by starvation.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), March 18, 2002.

Yes, if yo read through, Leviticus, I believe, where the food rules are, vegan insects are food, carrion eaters are not. So, grasshoppers are food, lobsters and shrimp are not, according to levitical law.

(which we are not bound by because all things are permissable, but not all things are good for us.)

-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@somewhere.com), March 18, 2002.

I suppose dung beetles would be ok because the eat the vegan dung of vegan animals.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), March 18, 2002.

Of course that should read "because they eat the "

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), March 18, 2002.

However you people do bring up good points on that there is no population problem yet people in the United States 1 person added to the population destroys 30% of the world then a person in a third world country. Through cars, refigerators ect... also you talk about the production of food. Annual per capita production of grain dropped from 346 kilograms per person in 1984 to 313 kilograms per person in 1996. This is a drop of 9.5 % in just 8 years. This will contiune to rise with the incease of population. To think that the US does not have a population problem is just naive just becuase we have good roads farms with a high yield ect...

Now what about the water problem? By the year 2025, two-thirds of the world’s people will suffer from water shortages. The next major war will be fought over fresh water suppiles. Nothing last forever. I ask you to take into consideration these points brought above. Thnx :) Ben US citizen- livining Indonesia

-- Ben (Greenbay_Freak@yahoo.com), March 27, 2003.

Ben, If 1 person destroys 30% of the world's resources, doesn't that mean that there is only enough room for 3 and 1/3 people before the world's resources are gone? C'mon Ben. Don't make up figures and call them facts.

And as for your comments on grain production, are you aware that during some years production of grain is lower than other years? It is called "fluxuation" and it is a natural occurance.

Water is a difficult commodity to transport back home as your spoils for victory unless you get a whole mess of empty gallon jugs. It is the governments in other countries who have the responsibility of cleaning their country's water.

And as for population growth, I've heard that it is growing exponentially,...like the story of two kings playing checkers. The winner asked the losing king to pay him with one grain of rice on the first square, double it on the second square, double that on the next square,..and it bankrupted the kingdom. Exponential growth (a J curve) of any population will eventually lead to a levelling off (an S curve) called logistic growth. Population doesn't work exponentially because of environmental resistance, which is "factors acting jointly to limit the population in a given area". One of those factors is death. The other is emigration, or leaving the area, which you have given us an example of by living in Indonesia.

But take heart. Everything will become extinct eventually, even people. The world will go on and "heal itself" even after mankind is just a faded memory of those persistent cockroaches.

-- DeeDee in CA (fredndd@netzero.net), March 11, 2004.

I'm going to miss those humans. They made wonderful chocolate chip cookies.

-- Cockroach (martys@iland.net), March 11, 2004.

We humans are doing what we can for the benefit of you cockroaches. We are making your kind stronger and more resistant with insecticides. Wish I could give you a c/chip cookie.

-- DeeDee in CA (fredndd@netzero.net), March 12, 2004.

This may just be way out of the blue, but couldn't people eat cloned meat? Just set up one of those things in some poor country and distribute Pig or Cow. A GIANT problem would probably be money for it. Just a though!

-- Imagine THAT! (Daytimezombie@yahoo.com), April 22, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ