[Click for Frameless]
ReMedial Writing                   Zone II Logo:  ReMedial Writing Page

                Berating & Insulting?

     Did you ever feel like e-mailing a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter to
comment on a story?
     Using the e-mail addresses for the reporters bylined at the top of  Journal Sentinel
(JS) articles (replacing titles like
Journal Sentinel education reporter) to be actually critical
of the writer and the editors can get you blacklisted from further use, if you're not
careful.  As Managing Editor George Stanley wrote to me (like all such addresses at
the JS, his takes the form gstanley@journalsentinal.com):

     Mr. Zetteler:
Berating and insulting people with multiple emails is no way to communicate.  It's
merely a way to get your messages automatically forwarded to junk mail boxes.  If you
have something to say in the future, please write it in a civil manner and mail it, since
you do not appear to be capable of using email responsibly.  You may be impressed by
your own intelligence, but we're not.

     What outrageous remarks of mine brought that on?  And why was I writing in the
first place?  First, I had long thought the JS was printing a lot of things in which the
reporters should have known better, but that the copy desk, at least, should
have caught.  I was sensitive to these errors (when they were errors; some were
borderline calls, after all) as what I think is a normally educated reader on whom these
mistakes just plain grated.  I was paying for a professional product, certainly,
and  the JS was letting me down,  probably saving money on staffing in the
process.  As I wrote reporter Mark Johnson in an exchange over his use of the
"nauseous" (when he meant "nauseated"):  
                    Here, this was on the front page of a paper that used to be near
               the top of  most  lists of great US papers (tho not any more), & that
               probably still likes to think it belongs there. 
As a reporter and editor myself, for various publications and now my Web
site,  I  suppose I am  more than ordinarily sensitive to these things,  but I can't be
the only one who cares.  (Indeed, columnist Phillip Chard, in one of the more
gracious responses, to my gentle chiding that he wrote about
"wailing on," for
"beating," when he meant "whaling on,"  confirmed that "Many of you caught
and the "grammar police" do indeed watch closely; in fact, they had
pointed out several errors that I had missed. 
[complete text here]
     But the point for me is not that I enjoy playing "gotcha," though Mr. Stanley
seemed to think so (and what if I do?  And why should there be a correct way for a
subscriber [at present, $192.50 plus tip] to point out errors, if the reader is
correct?), but just the opposite -- I hold the paper to the highest standard and
fervently hope that every time a commonly or uncommonly misused term comes
up that the paper will be right on target, thus vindicating  my own usage.
     Sadly, even editorials (which are the most often error-free) will use
"alibi" for
"excuse," for example, making me seem pedantic if I insist in some bar that they
are not the same, or  write that a Senate bill must
"run the gauntlet" (7/19/04),
when it should be
"gantlet."   People confuse "literally" and "figuratively," or
"livid" with "red-faced" (it means the opposite, pale or somewhat purplish, like
a bruise) often enough in real life without the bad examples of JS reporters and
others to make my distinctions seem quaint in turn.  I would like the truly
uneducated to speak and write the way they wish while being confident the JS is
upholding the standards.
     But I am careful (Stanley might think gleefully so), to blame what I usually call the
JS's "weak copy desk,"  ultimately, for these too-frequent failings, though the reporters
usually still take it very personally.   Some, of course, are gracious, as I said.  Crocker
(an accomplished and versatile reporter),  when I pointed out that he had
"enormity" as a synonym for "vastness" or "immensity" (it means great evil;
look it up), got my respect when he
wrote back: 

     I checked my dictionary, and you are exactly right.  I love these sorts of distinctions,
 and I'm glad you clued me into this one.
[complete text here]

     Others will simply ignore me (many do) -- although I think they should be required
to answer any reasonable message that doesn't involve profanity or plain looniness,
while being provided enough time in their workday -- or at least respond with a
mechanical acknowledgement, as did Dennis Getto:
          Thanks fro [sic] the correction.  I'll pass it on to the desk.

Now, I'll admit that in my original letter to him I was a bit of a smart-ass, though hardly
vicious, but it was one way to make it worth writing, by attempting to be somewhat
entertaining (somewhat like a restaurant review itself). 

To: Dennis Getto
Subject: Greedy waiter

     Dear Mr. Getto:
I was surprised to read in your review of Pizza Man (Fri. Jan. 24) that "after finishing
our pizza and salads, our waiter took the time to put down fresh paper placemats
and silverware"
& that you appreciated it.  Surely after eating your pizza & salads he
should have done more than that -- eliminate them from your bill, perhaps, or at least
give you free dessert.
     Forgive me for saying the weak JS copy desk was out to lunch on this one.
      Mike Zetteler

     But Mark Johnson, when I replied to his first response with a little of my own
history after I wrote him concerning
"nauseous," countered as I would expect from
one of those sensitive souls Stanley feels the need to protect:
             I'm glad you wrote back. I wondered what kind of person would send such
          a snotty  email (perhaps you forgot the remark, "you ought to be ashamed").
          Based on your note,  I'd say you think a great deal of yourself.  And, wow,
          you've got the clips to prove it!

Great zinger, except that my reference to clips had been about examples of good
copy editing from the old Milwaukee Journal  from the days of retired News Editor
Tom Barber, who loaned me books on the subject, such as Theodore M. Bernstein's
"The Careful Writer."
  It had nothing to do with my writing, as I had only been a
library clerk there at the time, in what movies call "the morgue."  [To be honest, I can
see how he might misread my remark.]  But here was a common thread, with reporters
consistently misreading my messages and compounding their errors by writing back
with misinterpretations, misspellings, grammatical errors, and so forth (generally
corrected if I reprint them here).   Perhaps because they had so many responses to
readers to get through each day or just didn't care, they left themselves open to further
censure in a way I would think they'd be doubly cautious about doing.  (And even a cub
reporter should be ashamed of confusing
"nauseated" and "nauseous"; doubly so for
a copy desk). 
     Not surprisingly, since reporters tend to be as contentious as lawyers, if my
position wasn't unassailable (and even if it was), many would fight back with whatever
ammunition they could come up with.  Some, such as
Whitney Gould and Meg
wouldn't back off an inch, though they were at pleasant enough about it,
unlike Stanley, whom I had to mention to Kissinger when I wrote a second time after
she defended what I thought was at best an archaic usage of
"awoken" in place of
               By the way, it's not that I carried this matter around in my head since 
          Sept.  It's just that I have long felt that the JS's copy editing has gone
          downhill, maybe because they are understaffed & overworked, & I began
          saving examples, perhaps for an article of my own.  Something finally
          snapped, & I began e-mailing a few offenders.  Sadly, tho you & Crocker
were professional about it, others -- including George
-- responded like prima donnas, enraged that they could be
          criticized, tho reporters do it every day on your pages to others.  Spice
          & Bivak
and Tim Cuprisin often drip sarcasm in their columns, to name
          2  examples (& you could certainly sting), yet Stanley lectured me on how
          to communicate properly. [Actually, he just told me I wasn't being
          responsible,  without offering any guidelines 

              At least the hyper-sensitive & defensive replies I got -- & just what are
          the reporters' e-mail addresses supposed to garner?  Lots of praise?  Fat
          chance, I would think -- can be material for any commentary on the matter I
          may  write for another publication. . . . Especially since Stanley implied I
          was being cut off from further communication except for US Mail for my
          temerity.  I'll see whether this gets through; even a two-word reply will let
          me know (you can make it rude; I can handle it).
[complete text here]

            JS Ignores More Editing Errors
     As it turned out, I am not banned (so far), though I have stopped trying to deal with
the clinkers even as newspapers with circled passages keep piling up until now, when I
have a Web page where I can take them one at a time and, I hope, contribute to the
general literacy in my own small way.  But I am concerned about this apparent loss of
vigilance at the JS on two fronts.  Not only is the copy desk doing poorly for a major
paper on even the most commonplace errors in prominent spots,  the attitude towards
it seems both indifferent and unduly protective of the writers.  What happened to the
days when a city editor would publicly excoriate a reporter for his or her infractions?
     I can attest that when I worked there poor or incorrect usage, along with the
offender's name, was circled and posted  prominently for everyone on the editorial
floor to see.  This led to some knowing snickers among the staff, but at least someone
cared.  News Editor Tom Barber went so far as to gift wrap and send by office mail
lumps of coal to staffers who trotted out for their leads the overused Christmas-time
phrase "'Tis the season."
     But Mr. Stanley, for one, thinks the demeanor of the critic towards these
milquetoasts is what's important here, though of course I used no profanity nor even
insulting names (well, "inept," but I think it was justified; an editorial writer wouldn't
hesitate to use it),  just humor, even if labored at times.  And these are personal
e-mails, easily erased and ignored (as many seem to have been), not anonymous threats
on an answering machine, after all.  But "berating and insulting?"  And why should my
putting something on actual paper be considered any less insulting?  Instead of letting
my gentle correctives do a job without his heavy hand (and reinforcing the fact that
there are readers, and they care),  it seems he prefers to discourage critical
communication altogether, however well-intentioned, though involved readership builds
     All right, just how nasty could I have been?  Is Stanley somehow right to banish me?
And I did feel I had to cool it a bit to continue the project.  Here is a typical early
message, to tech writer Stanley Miller: 

To: Stan Miller
Cc: George Stanley
Subject: Annoying word usage

     Dear Mr. Miller:
I was surprised (& irritated, but not aggravated) to read in your article "Picking up
the pieces"
(Tue. Sept. 17, 2002)
that the loss of data from a computer "can be
  Surely you -- or the weak JS copy desk, at any rate -- should know that
"aggravating" means "to make worse," not "annoying" or "irritating."  Thus, one
can aggravate a condition -- such as an illness -- or even a situation, such as a natural
disaster.  But a Stanley Miller, for example, can not be aggravated unless Stanley
is a term for an existing malady -- a possibility, but one I don't think you would
     A recent JS story, by way of illustration, correctly used the term ("Timber
proposal runs counter to record,"
on Sun. Sept. 22, 2002): "Partial cutting done
historically typically aggravated the fire hazard and made things worse when fire
came  along. . . ."

     Let's hope you & the inept copy editors mark your lists of often improperly-used
words accordingly, tho one would think the copy desk already knows better.  Apparently
not.  [Apparently they don't care, either, as Miller wrote
(Oct. 26) about sending
someone in a computer game to "aggravate the Clintons."
     Mike Zetteler

     Again, overly clever, perhaps, but so what?  I figured at least he'll remember it, and
why should I be restricted to just a dull bill of particulars when I can try to be lively, as
writing should be.  Miller, by the way, never answered -- nor did Leonard Sykes or
Duane Dudek -- though Stanley's warning to me was copied to them, apparently as his
way of supervisory hand-holding.  Sykes was the one who had felt my weak lash for
writing "We are
literally staring down the barrel at a war with Iraq," when, of
course, a whole country can't literally stare down a barrel, and a war couldn't be at the
other end, but rather some entity capable of holding the rather enormous gun.  Trivial?
Not for a prominent column in what aspires to be a first-rate newspaper.  More
egregious -- and repeating something I have indeed debated at the tavern -- was his
interview with writer Walter Mosely  about the "black American experience" as a
"torch leading the country away from its 'Ugly American' profile."   Now perhaps not
everybody realizes these days that a helpful (though unpolished) engineer in the
was the hero of the ironically titled 1958 Eugene Burdick  and William
J. Lederer
novel about American aid programs in southeast Asia, while the "pretty
American officials are overwhelmingly arrogant, rude, and incompetent." but the JS's
"urban affairs" reporter, or the copy desk, ought to.  A Google search will easily bear
this out, and I have no patience with someone who might say that the all-too-common
usage that makes our boorish tourists into Ugly Americans has become accepted.
Though you can argue that time has distorted certain phrases, so that "gilding the lily,"
for example, has become standard (look up its history if you have to), they never, to my
knowledge, completely reverse their meaning.  Even if one might, this is a
contemporary, copyrighted  work, reprinted in 1999, not Shakespeare, available today
in libraries and from Amazon.com for $11.16 (and also a Marlon Brando film).

     As for Dudek, another repeat offender, I first nudged him a little when I saw that he
had written of the movie "Tadpole" that "its premise revolves around statuary rape,"
which calls up an interesting mental picture because of what must have been  just a
typing error, and didn't really expect a response.  Neither did I expect nor get one when
I noted he had ignored the germ theory of disease when he wrote he could have caught a
recent cold at the Toronto Film Festival "from sitting in ice-cold hotel rooms" or
"often-freezing theaters."  Never mind that researchers have again and again shown
that even sitting in a chilly draft with both feet in buckets of ice water will not give one
cold.  And I don't want to hear either that somehow this can lower one's resistance, as
they have also noted that cold germs don't linger in the body (as some serious viruses
will) waiting to erupt when provoked.  The JS itself has published science articles on
this subject.  This may have been a criticism too general for him to bother with, but I
was also annoyed when  in several stories he referred to former Whitefish Bay
Weather Underground figure Bernardine Dohrn as "Bernadine."  As I pointed out,
maybe he wasn't familiar with her, but the copy desk sure should have been.  Since my
job at the old Journal library had been to look up just such celebrities whenever a
reporter needed a file to refer to,  I knew she would have accrued many clippings that
spelled her name correctly [as it generally was after I wrote in, coincidence or not].
     But film critic Dudek (who wouldn't hesitate to trash a movie that didn't please
him) strayed also with the widespread practice of using "begs the question"
when "raises the question" or "calls for the question to be asked" is
what was meant.  Also known as circular reasoning, "Begging the question is what
one does in an argument when one assumes what one claims to be proving.

(Skeptic's Dictionary.)
  It is a term of logic or debate, and drives me up the wall when
misused -- but any copy editor should see a red flag whenever it is used.
     Just recently, for example, Mike Nichols wrote in his Ozaukee County
column of
Sept. 3, 2004: 

          Sick and tired of Chicago traffic

                 We're staying home this holiday weekend because we just got back
             from a trip to Maine that included a couple turns -- by both us and our
             stomachs -- on the new,  super-cool, super-fast Lake Express car ferry.
                  Which begs what, to me anyway, will forevermore be an essential
                   Chicago tollways, or regurgitated ham and cheddar?
                    Pass the Dramamine and the mayo.  To me, it's no contest. . . .
[Note:  My spell checker suggests toll ways, but that's a minor quibble.]

     The list goes on and on, of course, or there would be no need for this  page.
Twice, recently, Washington reporter Katherine M. Skiba used invite for
(front page of July 24,  and July 6, 2004).  She, like many reporters and TV
commentators, is also given to calling (also July 26) the  lectern (a reading stand that
can hold scripts, even if most speakers use Teleprompters) a podium (a raised
platform, such as Olympic champions and orchestra conductors stand on.)  Dudek,
again, wrote (July 23, 2004) of Halle Berry that she is "too good of an actress. . . . ,"
one word more than any English teacher would approve of, that good copy editors
routinely excise.  Syndicated and wire service copy is not free of error, of course,
though it is presumed vetted before it even arrives locally.   To take a random example,
Washington Post reporter Rob Stein wrote (Sept. 6, 2004) of  "treatments that
staunch cancer's ability to grow," when the correct American usage is stanch,
according to the Oxford Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage.
                  Goals & Guidelines 
     I could go on, of course (as I will, eventually), since the infractions pile up faster
than I can deal with them,  but I want to deal with some general concerns, such as, "Who
made you the expert?" and, "Why bother when there is lots of media criticism of real
substance to be made?"  I have to emphasize that I have not made it my life's work to
join the previously mentioned "grammar police," nor do I have any special qualifications
-- I admit it right away -- except some experience as a reporter and editor;  I was also an
English major,  for what it's worth.  But I always took pains to write correctly and learn
as much as I could from those authors who did care enough to write books about word
usage, and tried  to assimilate  a few basic style manuals for pleasure and to rely on
when in doubt.  Now, of course, the Web offers a lot of  reference material, and  I have
a few basic resources at hand, as well:  dictionary, Associated Press Stylebook, the
Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, The Careful Writer among them.
     None of this means that I am interested here in arcane word lore or catching someone
on an obscure point.  Just basic good English and good journalism -- the JS, after all,
is even used as a classroom teaching aid, at the corporation's urging.  So if I spot what I
call an error, it is sure to be something an average reader can appreciate, and all the
more useful because I have such ordinary qualifications.  And some references these
days, I have to admit, are more permissive than I would be (the Oxford Pocket
for example, would allow
decimate in the new sense of  "to kill or destroy a
large number,"
  as opposed to the Roman military's meaning of punishing only one in
10, on the grounds that the Roman cohorts aren't around any more and the distinction is
unneeded;  my Webster's New World Dictionary now lists the use of enormity as of
"enormous size or extent," though "loosely," when it should be restricted (according
to Fowler's, Bernstein  and myself) to "great wickedness" or "depravity."  So I
generally just point it out when the experts disagree, and have long given up entirely on
bemoaning  "hopefully" used as an introductory phrase.  It is here to stay.   However, I
think I will continue to insist, along with Bernstein, that "minimize" means to actually
reduce something to a minimum, not speak of it in a way that diminishes its
importance.  At least for a while.   But George Stanley notwithstanding, just as the
price of admission to a ballgame includes the right to heckle without being punched by
a player, I feel my purchase of what should be a reasonably well-edited paper comes
with the right to complain if it's not, whether on a Web site or in e-mails.  
     Of course, there are larger issues to worry about -- and other publications to deal
with  besides the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and I intend to cover them as I come
across  items of  concern.  Critiques of real substance  -- which is also something the
average reader doesn't readily  find, despite such valiant local efforts as Dave
Berkman's Media Musings
column in the Shepherd Express  -- are something that
for the most part I'll use my daily journal for as topics arise. 
     Some indication of the range of  items that I think I may be dealing with here -- or
have already covered, if not for the last time -- is in this list of things that are especially
irritating, as they occur to me:  Of course, William Safire or the late Theodore M.
could do it better.  But they aren't going to. 
                                The Exhibits So Far
[For entertainment purposes only.  Please, no wagering.  See primary sources (Fowler's, Bernstein,
  OED, etc.) to settle bar bets or  for definitive usage.]   

  • aggravate
    doesn't mean annoy,
    but exacerbate
  • awoken
    or, better,  awakened?
  • bakery / pastry
    Like a factory, bakery
    is where the stuff is
    made, not the product
    that is consumed.  A
    [Milwaukee talk], like
    bubbler for drinking

  • begs the question
    you mean raises the
  • Bernardine Dohrn
    not Bernadine
  • blog
    derived from web &
    log; not to be used to
    describe a journal on a
    printed page.  Log will
    do, as it always has.
  • catalyst
    As Webster's New
    World D.
    points out,
    a catalyst speeds up (or
    slows down) a chemical
    reaction but "itself is
    not changed thereby.
    "So a claim that
    similar projects in
    Minneapolis, Pittsburgh
    and other industrial
    K.E. (an artist's)
    community) is a
    catalyst for change in
    its environs" is
    mistaken in that the
    artists are no doubt
    transformed as well.
  • catching cold
    caused by germs,
    not drafts
  • concrete / cement
    pavement & concrete
    walls contain cement
    as an ingredient;
    cement by itself is a
    powder (lime & clay)
  • decimate / destroy
    not synonymous
  • disinterested /

    "If one is disinterested
    in a situation he is
    neutral and has no
    special interest in its
    outcome. For some
    reason, however, many
    writers seem to be
    uninterested in using it
    correctly," writes
    a long discussion in
    which contrary usage
    is recognized,
    concludes:  "The
    recommendation must
    be to restrict
    disinterested to the
    meaning  impartial. . . .
     Uninterested remains
    the standard and
    recommended form in
    the meaning 'lacking
    interest. . . .'"
  • doozy
    since it derives from
    the Duesenberg car, an
    expensive &
    fashionable creation,
    please don't use it for
    something that is
    merely an extreme of
    any sort
    [Because I say so.]  
  • enormity
    means evil, not
  • Frankenstein
    it shouldn't be
    necessary to point out
    this refers to the
    scientist, not the
    monster, but there it
    is.  Give credit to the
    JS's Eugene Kane for
    getting it right.
  • Fulsome
    Bernstein says, it
    "does not mean full,
    copious, or bounteous.
    . . . It means . . .
    repulsive, odious.  It
    most often appears --
    and appears
    incorrectly, of course
     -- in the phrase"
    fulsome praise." 

  • gauntlet / gantlet
    wear one, run the other
  • graduate
    one is graduated from,
    or graduates from, but
    doesn't graduate college

  • Hobson's choice
    "The meaning of this
    phrase is that you get no
    choice at all. . . . it is
    incorrect to use the
    phrase as if it meant the
    kind of  choice involved
    in a dilemma . . .

  • hopefully
    (adv.) in a hopeful
    manner; not, "it is to be
  • innocent
    "This is something
    defendants do not plead
    in court; they plead 'not
    guilty'. . . .The newspaper
    locution arises from a
    desire to avoid a possible
    typographical error in
    which the 'not' might be
    dropped from 'not
    guilty,' but that is insuff-
    icient reason to excuse
    an absurdity."
  • invite / invitation
    invite is a verb; the latter
    is the noun used by the
  • it's me / it's I
    authorities agree It is I,
    or This is she, for ex-
    ample, are correct, but
    acknowledge that in in-
    formal speech it is more
    common to use, say,
    That's him, unless
    "followed by a relative clause beginning with who or that
    [Fowler's]: It was I who took. . . . 
     Indeed, try to imagine a
    TV script in which the perp is picked out of a lineup by a citizen who says, "That's he."  It should be preferred, though
  • lay / lie
    Lay your sleeping head, my love,
    Human on my faithless arm;
    [W. H. Auden]
    or write
    As I Lay Dying [Faulkner]
    but lie out in the sun, if
    you would, please
  • lion's share
    in Aesop, not just a
    large part of the whole,
    but the whole amount,
    as claimed by the lion
    as his due
  • literally / figuratively
    a figurative pain in the
    ass when confused
  • livid
    a whiter shade of pale

  • minimize
    Bernstein suggests
    minify if the meaning is
    to disparage or dismiss
  • moot
    "Errors that arise in the
    use of this word focus on
    the phrase moot question and moot point.  Moot means arguable or open to discussion, but the misusers think it means hypothetical, superfluous, or academic," writes
    Bernstein. The
    misunderstanding comes
    from moot court, because the result of the trial has
    no application to a real
    defendant, hence is seen
    as irrelevant.  But it's the
    court that's irrelevant; the
    discussion may be a real
    Fowler's also
    says, "A moot point or moot question is a debatable or undecided one."
    Webster's New World D. gives the second meaning as hypothetical, & The Chicago Manual of Style omits the topic
    but suggests in general consulting a manual on word usage instead of just relying on any dictionary. 
  • nauseous
    sick?  use nauseated
    sickening? use nauseous
  • oxymoron
    A figure of speech
    which brings
    together words of
    opposite meaning for special effect, e.g.
    cheerful pessimist &
    harmonious discord
    Not just 2 words that
    might convey a

  • phase / faze
    Webster's New World
    defines phase as
    1. any stage in a
    series, 2. an aspect
    or side; while faze
    means to disturb
  • podium / lectern
    Take a stand:  on the
    podium, behind the
    lectern.  See
    Washington Post
    amusing description
    presidential debate
    for the scoop.
  • pore / pour
    "The verb pore
    means 'to think
    closely about (a
    subject)' and is
    chiefly used in the
    phrasal verb 'to pore
    over' (a book, etc.).
     It is sometimes
    mistakenly written as
    pour, perhaps by
    false analogy with
    'pouring attention'
    over something."


  • quantum leap
    an extremely small
    change & not the
    upheaval one is led
    to expect.
    Galen Guengerich
  • replica
    an exact copy or
    duplicate, not just a
    model or
  • their / his or her
    Until questioned by
    feminists in the 60s,
    it was expected to
    use the masculine
    in phrases "with
    indefinite reference
    to denote a person
    of either sex"
    [Fowler's] or in
    usage, such as
    "Everyone gets his
    due."  If this rankles,
    then his or her is
    preferred to the
    abomination their, or
    some such, unless
    the idea of plurality
    is conveyed [as in
    everyone] even
    Fowler's says
    it is a revival of an
    old practice.  As far
    as I'm concerned.
  • throes / throws
    don't be thrown if
    you're in the throes
    of passion

  • 'Tis the season
    Yuletide cliché
  • Ugly American
    gets a bad rap
  • wean
    "Means primarily to
    end dependence on
    mother's milk . . .
    deprivation of some desired
    substance. . . .

    some of those who
    use the word loosely
    know what it means
    and are taking [a
    leap] from
    deprivation to
    substitution," says


  • whale / wail
    she was a whale,
    Marcia wailed
  • whence
    "Means from which
    place or from which
    "From Whence
    We Came," as a local
    TV show is named, is
    redundant.  Like
    "pizza pie."

 More to Come. . .


© Copyright 2004
     Mike Zetteler
   Top|Back|Index                    Zonyx Report Celestial Logo:  Go to Zonyx Report Index