On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 02:50:48AM -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > Life plus 50 years (and I'll point out that the current law is > actually longer than that -- 70 now, or something?) strikes me as too > long largely because it used to be much shorter, and that seemed to > work fine. Has anyone brought up the Macauley speeches yet? Check out http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm It's a really interesting read! -- Scott Raun sraun at fireopal.org