[Since this is -l10n-english and you've all beaten me to the substantive review ...] On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:21:06PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > [ I guess I should of used footnotes there. "Should *have*", not "should of", please! The latter is a grammatical abomination, which I can only assume is a back-formation from the pronunciation of the contraction "should've". Cheers, -- Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]