From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Subject: Re: Meno "Marketeers"
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997
Newsgroups: alt.support.menopause

In <342FBE29.F6EB0791@erols.com> kakkrikor@erols.com writes:

>Actually, Joan, this cuts both ways. Given Steve's association with LEF
>and now the article in the NYT magazine from Sept. 28/97 which exposes a
>little of LEF's belief system, Steve would seem to be discredited by his
>association with them.
>
>I see now why Tom et al. were being so cagey about identifying the
>"founder" of LEF. If you were running a business and had been involved in
>something as bizarre as beheading your mother before she was declared
>legally dead and freezing the head for future resurrection, and such
>matters were a public record I think I might want my name kept out of
>the limelight too for the sake of credibility.


Comment:

   Saul Kent's been rather open about all that.  If anybody really
thought the woman was not legally dead before she was cryopreserved,
you would have heard about it legally.  It's a vicious rumor, is all.
Kent did preserve her head (and the authorities did try to find it for
awhile, which all in all was pretty low comedy).  But that's no more
goulish than having her cremated.  Anything you do to a corpse is
rather unsavory.  Do you know what happens in a normal embalming?  Ever
seen a trochar used?  There are no pretty ways to get rid of a corpse,
we must remember-- only usual and unusual ways.  We're very big on
pretending that things we don't see (our loved ones' bodies being eaten
by worms, turning into slime) don't happen.  But they happen.  Saul
didn't want one of those things to happen to his mother, so he chose
something else.  He's no crazier than the rest of us, and maybe less.


> And of course there are
>the diatribes against harm to the poor horses who give up their lives
>for Premarin, while at the same time  the "founder" is freezing dogs
>alive. Guess you just have to be a horse to get this group's concern.
>And Steve allows his name to be associated with them. Hmm...


   Worse still, I've frozen my share of dogs.  We're hell on dogs, I
admit it.  We keep them out of pain, but most don't survive.  They're
bred as research animals, and that's what happens to them.  The USDA
inspects us, and we keep to stringent animal research standards, but
that doesn't mean we're an animal hospital.  A few of our long term
survivors have been adopted out, and Saul Kent owns a few himself, I
should add.  You want one?  Once used in an experiment a dog cannot be
used again, and so we're looking for homes.  We have to put down more
than we want to, for space, and we always hate to do that to our
survivors.  You can have a dog that was dead for 16 minutes after
having its heart stopped, before resuscitation was attempted.   They
tell you the brain dies after 5, but this is not true if you have
really advanced resuscitation capability of the kind we are developing.
We don't know how long it takes for the brain to go, but it's at least
16 minutes, and these dogs are fine.  Or you can have a dog that's been
at the temperature of your refrigerator for 5 hours, and revived after
being rewarmed.  They're perfectly nice animals, and quite sweet, once
you socialize them.

   If you go to a rehab hospital you will find it full of drowned and
resuscitated children, head-injured patients, and various people who
didn't get CPR soon enough-- all more or less permanently damaged.
They are comatose or vegetative or turned into palsied wrecks, all
because of a couple of minutes without blood pressure and/oxygen.  A
couple of minutes without brain circulation, please remeber, is all
that stands between any one of your family and Karen-Quinlan-hood.
We've found a way, we believe, to give many people those mintutes, and
more. ut it takes practice and error and research.  Like it or not,
it's the dogs or you (or your kid from the creek or the swimming pool).
But first you have to get over the idea of Frankenstein.

   I like horses, myself.  I like dogs better.  And I like people still
better.  I think the philosophy of the Life Extension Foundation is
pretty much the same.

                                      Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Subject: Re: Meno Marketeers - Steve Harris
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997
Newsgroups: alt.support.menopause

In <60s2oq$97s@winter.news.erols.com> "Cheryl A. Snider"
<RCSnider@Erols.com> writes:

>This evidence SHOUTS pretty loud Terri.  Thank you very much for your
>excellent work here.
>
>Cheryl
>
>kakkrikor@erols.com wrote in article <34316C7A.7B222F70@erols.com>...
>
>>Harris misled us about the nature of his research. Semerenko posted the
>>following about Harris. Harris has not, until last night, mentioned his
>>bizarre research, and as the second quote shows flat out lied when he
>>was asked.
>>
>>Attached is a synopsis of Steve's research for LEF and posted on  Aug
>>19/97 by A Walter Semerenko
>>
>>> Hmm...I just received my first issue of Life Extention magazine. The
>>> magazine has a spotlight on the scientific advisory board. The title
>>> reads: "Guiding Us in Our Quest/Tapping into the extensive expertise of
>>> these researchers and physicians is a crucial step in helping the
>>> Foundation find way to enhance and extend life."
>>>
>>> To my surprise, Steven B. Harris is on this scientific board. On page
>>> 17 of the September 1997 issue it reads:
>>>
>>> Steven B. Harris, M.D., is Medical Director and a research scientist at
>>> 21st Century Medicine in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., where he
>>> participates in ground-breaking hypothermia, cryothermia and ischemia
>>> research. He also is staff geriatrician at the IHC Senior Clinic in
>>> Salt Lake City, Utah, and contributes to the Foundation's Lifespan
>>> Project.
>>>
>>> Prior to working at 21st Century Medicine, Dr. Harris was a researcher
>>> at the laboratory of fellow board member Roy Walford, M.D., at UCLA
>>> Medical Center, where he supervised the rodent nutrition/aging program.
>>> His major anti-aging research interests include antioxidant and dietary
>>> restriction effects in animals and humans."
>>>
>>> Sounds like Dr. Harris is a very educated man. Is this Dr. Harris
>>> related to sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris), or is it a mere
>>> coincidence? Someone please enlighten me.
>>>
>>> Walter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>The following is the exchange between Harris and myself, when I
>>suggested that regaining fertility was a whole lot more possible than
>>his LEF funded research for immortal life. See anything about freezing
>>dogs alive, see anything anout chopping off heads and freezing them as
>>an alternative to burial or cremation? I wonder why?? Not. The inner
>>quotes are mine, the one's beginnning with comment are Harris's.
>>
>>
>> >> I didn't quantify it and wouldn't presume to do it. As for
>>reviving fertility, I said it was theoretically possible. It
>>is.<<
>>
>>Comment:
>>   For many women, it's not. If you want to argue that the woman
>>with the one follicle left might get pregnant, go right ahead.
>>ROFL. The three women out of four with no ova are going to need a
>>miracle ala Sarah and Isaac.
>>
>>   >>Actually probably a whole lot more possible than the search
>>for eternal mortal life you've researched in the past with LEF's
>>funding.<<
>>
>>Comment:
>>   I researched ways to get mice to live a few months longer with
>>coenzyme Q10, actually.  Pretty mundane.
>>(end of quoted passage.)
>>
>>The evidence would seem to speak for itself.
>>
>>Terri


    Comment: I don't see what your problem is.  The only research
project of mine I've had directly funded by LEF as an academic was a
CoQ10 project at UCLA.  That's what I was doing in 1987.  That money
paid for mice and supplies-- not me. I'm presently involved in LEF
resuscitation research in 1997 at a private lab (not UCLA), but as a
volunteer.  They pay travel expenses, as I said.  They don't pay me.
When this stuff is published, I'll be an author.  If it ever reaches
commercial application, I'll be a stockholder.  So?

                                         Steve

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Subject: Re: Meno "Marketeers"
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997
Newsgroups: alt.support.menopause

In <34318FDE.2B5C@ix.netcom.com> Pikakix@ix.netcom.com writes:

>Just think with Steve's medical advances, if your husband keels over from
>a heart attack at home, you no longer need to know CPR. . .just stick him
>in the freezer until the medics arrive! I think it's time to buy stock in
>the freezer manufacturing business! Thanks for the tip, Steve.


  Not as funny as you think-- something like this will invariably come.
The first uses of this kind of technology will be in massive trauma,
however.  An interesting statistic is that evacuation of soldiers from
battlefield to hospital went from 11 hours in Italy in WWII 1943, to 1
hour in Vietnam, 1970.  And guess what-- it made no difference in
mortality at all.  The reason is that 90% of combat casualties die of
blood loss and no pressure in the first 10 minutes.  You can't patch
them up enough to prevent it.  Same with most massive trauma (the
Princess of Wales, for example).   If you had a way of holding somebody
in suspended animation for a few hours with no blood pressure, you
could work, well, miracles.  Lady Di'd be up and around now.  That kind
of thing is coming in medicine the next 20 years.

                                        Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Subject: Re: Meno "Marketeers"
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997
Newsgroups: alt.support.menopause

In <3431452C.36A6E9C0@erols.com> kakkrikor@erols.com writes:

>Saul Kent's been rather open about all that.
>>Yup, right there on the LEF page about the history of the
company is the information that the founder beheaded his mother
and froze her head.<<

Comment:
   I dunno.  I don't think you can exactly fault somebody for
not bringing up something like that the first thing after
introduction to his business (which is what such a WEB page is).
You're being rather unrealistic to demand such a thing.  You ever
run a business?  What's the most socially "disreputable" thing
you've ever done?  How would you combine them?  This is not the
same as questions of honesty.

   >>And when I asked endlessly for information about the
"founder" this information was so readily forthcoming. Give it a
rest, Steve.<<

   You do seem to think that when you "demand" information you
have a right to it, this instant.  As a doctor I get sort of used
to this in my professional life, but it can get annoying in
private life.  This here's my private life, FYI.

  >> The expose in the NYT means damage control. But this won't
do it. I asked for this kind of information twenty times in less
than a week . To no avail<<

    And who died and made you princess?   As for damage control,
the NYT essay was sought out and encouraged by LEF, the same as
scores of others over the last decade since this incident.  If
they hadn't encouraged it at this late date, you'd never have
seen it.  Saul Kent is who he is, and few people I know who are
more simply who they are, to everyone they know.   Your
accusations here are a great irony.

   >>I'm a nurse, I've seen some pretty ghoulish things, and
harbor no illusions about the uniqueness of the dead human body,
but your argument here makes me feel contaminated with something
so foul that  no disinfectant will be enough to clean it. .<<

   Ah, that nameless dred from the pit!  Frankenstein.  Poe.
Lovecraft!  I'm sure it all does, but try to remember that you're
being irrational.

    As I noted in my last post, it's amazing what defenses we get
into in this society when it comes to resurrection and
technology.  Even in the basic pre-ET movie: The Day The Earth
Stood Still (which is basically the Jesus story told high-tech;
the alien guy even takes the name of "Mr. Carpenter"), the movie
industry just wouldn't let the idea of non-religious resurrection
stand, and had to insert some stuff about "The Almighty Spirit"
before the Breen Censorship Board would pass it.   And there
can't be too many hints that the scientists are trying to do
God's work.  In the original 1931 Whale/Karloff Frankenstein
movie, Dr. Frankenstein says: "It's alive!  It's alive!  Great
God, now I know what it feels like to BE God!"   They censored
out the soundtrack for the last phrase, but you can still see him
mouth the words.  I think that society is simply not ready to
look at death this way-- the way that Kent dared do.  As someth-
ing maybe fixable...


> There are no pretty ways to get rid of a corpse, we must remember-- only
> usual and unusual ways. We're very big on pretending that things we
> don't see (our loved ones' bodies being eaten by worms, turning into
> slime) don't happen. But they happen. Saul didn't want one of those
> things to happen to his mother, so he chose something else. He's no
> crazier than the rest of us, and maybe less.

    >>I beg your pardon - usual and unusual ways - and those of
us who are revolted by the "unusual" ways are simply a little too
conventional in our thinking? This is an argument worthy of a
Jeffrey Dahmer.<<

    Not really.  Dahmer's evil was his murders, not his physical
actions with corpses, which (as you point out) are no more (and
no less) gruesome than that of your average medical student
trying to learn from his cadaver (or the forensic path people in
Dahmer's case, trying to learn the details from autopsies later).
It's just your cultural prejudices here.  If you were a parsee in
the religion of Zoroaster in Bombay, when you died they'd take
you to the tower of silence and let you be eaten by vultures.
It's not a culture of Jeffrey Dahmers, but it *is* one different
from yours.   Try being a bit less parochial.

    >>Like another poster, I'd like to see some real evidence of
this. I asked before and nothing was forthcoming.<<

   Perhaps you were asking in your usually entitled way.  I don't
remember it.  I tend to tune stuff like that out.   Perhaps you
know other people like that?   Perhaps a lot of them?

   >> We already know and use the fact that hypothermia saves
body tissue and organs for long periods of time. But your
research is not into saving organs or even the whole body
through hypothermia. So what exactly are you trying to prove?<<

    That the one most interesting organ to save with hypothermia
is not your heart or your kidneys.  It's your brain.  We have
resuscitated dogs after more than 5 hours at 40 degrees F, some
hours of that with no circulation at all.  We're far from the
limits possible here.  Application runs all the way from saving
trauma victims to drowning victims to people who need brain
aneurysm repairs too long and complicated to do with blood
pressure.

   And of course, with cryonics and full suspended animation (not
yet achieved) you might be able to save anyone from almost any
accidental death.

   >Far more important is the fact that you lied on this group as
to your true association with LEF and its practices. You claimed
that you had only been involved with some supplements and their
effects on the aging process in mice.<<

   You asked what experiments of mine they had funded, as a
question about my past financial involvement and bias.  I
answered that the only ones were on mice (in 1987).  This remains
true in the sense that the question was asked, and in the sense
of the purpose for which I believe it was asked then.  I was
simply trying to provide the information sought, about my
financial bias.  Work I've done for LEF since 1987 has been THEIR
experiments in which I participate as a volunteer and advisor.
There's no bias there, and none of it is a secret (as has been
pointed out by another asm member), as this later work is
specifically mentioned on the WEB page blurb which brought up the
fact that I had become an LEF board member, and which initiated
the entire discussion.  Not only was my resuscitation work not a
secret, the info was posted at the time we talked about my
involvement with LEF.  Probably you forgot.

    Perhaps you think it's a thin distinction between having LEF
fund MY research (my design, my lab), and having them fund
research I volunteer for now.  But I assure you it's not that
thin a distinction, inasmuch as it involves who gives who money.
LEF wrote a $5,000 check to fund one of my pet projects once, in
1987.  I've never seen another such check.  When I do, you'll be
the first to know.  If you ask nicely.

                                  Steve Harris, M.D.
                                  Research Slave

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Subject: Re: Meno "Marketeers"
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997
Newsgroups: alt.support.menopause

In <34312D27.758D@ix.netcom.com> Pikakix@ix.netcom.com writes:

>Steve, please refer me to a reference where I can read your stats
>supporting the theory that the brain can remain viable in an anoxic
>state.   I know some ER docs who would probably really appreciate having
>16 min to rivive someone & maintain normal brain activity instead of 5
>min.!  Thanks.


   There are no references to 16 minutes at normal body temps, because
that's our work, and it's not been published yet (next year).  If you
want to visit the lab, we'll be glad to show you some astounding videos
and other heavy documentation.  If you want to argue that I shouldn't
"claim" unpublished results in the meantime, I hear you.

   Present record for full recovery in a published paper is Safar's
group's work at about 12 minutes.  At 17 minutes, they get maybe 1/3rd
of dogs back, but they're badly damaged.  For instance, see Stroke
21:1600-1606, 1990.   We have many perfectly well dogs from 16 min of
clinical death, and think we can go far significantly longer
(especially if recent things we're gearing up to do this weekend,
work).  One of our problems is the long ICU and "rehab" recovery time
for our animals-- something that would not be easily repeated at many
labs.  It's basically full hospital/rehab medicine applied to animals.



                                       Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Subject: Re: Meno "Marketeers"
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997
Newsgroups: alt.support.menopause

In <60qt6j$ngm@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> "Ali"
<aalleylaw@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>It all seems more than gruesome to me..sorry..and there is not much that
>bothers me but this sure does. And what was "legally dead" in Sauls
>mother's sense to the word? I am sorry but to cut off someone's
>head...period is sick, dead or alive it bespeaks of monster among us to
>me.



     Yeah-- along with the Frankenstein reaction another essay could
get devoted to the visceral reaction to decapitation.  There are only a
few things that really bug wild primates besides spiders and snakes,
and one is the site of disembobied primate parts.  It's a very
primitive response, because it means something's been eating your kin.
You can cremate somebody into a skeleton and smash the bones (as is
done in a standard cremation-- they don't just come out powder), and
then mix them up-- and that doesn't dial any knobs.  But remove a head,
and all bets are off.

     Washington Irving, perhaps the first famous American story writer,
published ca. 1820.  Today, everybody in our culture knows two of his
many stories (and how many authors can say THAT 9 generations later)?
But just two of many.  They both obviously hit nerves.  One of them is
a story of a person pulled out of time by suspended animation, and
socially isolated.  And the other is one about---

                                           Steve


>                     !
>                  \\ali//
>                   (o-o)
                     (_)

           -----ooO--/ \--Ooo-----

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: B12 deficiency anemia
Date: 19 Feb 1999 11:55:44 GMT

   We scientific advisors for the LEF don't all advise them on their
products.  I personally provide advice on what to spend research
dollars on.  Presently I co-direct the advanced resuscitation program
for them.

   I do offer product advice occassionally.  And sometimes my views win
out.  I suggested LEF not sell 5-HTP, because I think it's bound to be
another version of fenfluramine.  And, because of that, they don't.

                                       Steve Harris, M.D.





In <7aj8n7$4hp$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> alt_health@my-dejanews.com writes:

>Here's a more interesting bit of information.
>
>It's directly from the Life Extension Foundation database of treatments
>for anemia for which Steven Harris M.D. is a scientific advisor.
>Apparently you don't have much pull there. They recommend sublingual
>vitamin B12. They must not be tuning in to this newsgroup.
>
>
>                                                Abstracts For Protocol
>
>                     Aging, viral infections, blood diseases, cancer
>chemotherapy and radiation therapy can cause deficits in red blood cell,
>white blood cell and blood platelet production.. (edit)
>
>Supplementation with 2,000 micrograms of Vitamin-B12 sublingual tablets
>and 1,600 micrograms of folic acid is strongly suggested, because
>deficiencies of these vitamins can cause numerous AIDS-related
>complications.
>
>I have no beef with The Life Extension Foundation whatsoever but if you
>are going to tell me that sublingual B12 is probably no good please
>advise the foundation with which you work of that same information.

From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: does LEF charge too much?
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:42:07 -0800
Message-ID: <b6fos5$lgj$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>

"Paul Wakfer" <tom@morelife.org> wrote in message
news:4f0e9375.0304021209.2b4111@posting.google.com...
> "Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:<6rDia.18398$yh1.1397580@news1.east.cox.net>...
> > "M. Schwartz" <schwartz@evenlink.com> wrote in message
> > news:30844e51.0304020706.6cda7489@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > LEF sells products like from Carlson Lab that cost more to
> > > non-members than I could buy elsewhere. So, what makes it cost more
> > > from LEF? Does LEF put something special like Holy Water in the
> > > bottle? :-)
> > >
> >
> > Actually, I do believe LEF puts Holy Water in the bottle. As a member,
> > I'm very happy that a good portion of the money that I pay for
> > supplements is used to fund research on LE technologies. And this is
> > as Holy as it gets to me.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Carlos Antunes.
>
> Actually, since they have never made public any financial reports,
> neither you nor anyone else outside of LEF management has any idea
> whether their contribution to "LE technologies" is a "good proportion of
> the money" that they receive from supplement sales or not. The other
> problem with LEF is that an analysis of their tax returns (which for a
> 501(c)(3) corp are available to anyone who wishes to ask for them and
> pay reasonable copying charges) has shown that over 90% of their funding
> to "LE technologies" is for cryonics, or critical care, related
> technologies, *not* for antiaging research! Although LEF ownership is
> fully open concerning their support for cryonics, I would submit that
> this disproportionate funding is *not* what they promote to their
> members.


You're making the unwarranted assumption that LEF's money to
Critical Care Research and 21 CM is primarily for cryonics.
In fact, although cryonics will benefit from this research,
the more direct application of the research is in the area
of transplant organ vitrification (kidney model), temporary
organ preservation at ice temperature (heart model) and
brain *resuscitation* after cardiac arrest (drugs and mild
hypothermia to 33 C in dogs). These are medical applications
for organ transplant, and for resuscitation after cardiac
arrest, and they are one and all life extension (LE)
technologies, as advertised. LEF never claimed it spends its
research money primarily on anti-aging.

This is not a matter of fine re-labeling. Cryonics per se
has far more pressing problems that any which will benefit
from any research which LEF is funding. For example,
cryonics badly needs to upgrade remote standby and transport
capability, but yet these projects are not being funded by
LEF (Instead, Alcor is undertaking a major project on its
own). On the other hand, the projects that ARE funded by LEF
could be much more friendly to cryonics with a few changes,
and yet many of these haven't been undertaken, or are on the
back burner. For example cryonics could use a brain
vitrification project, but LEF has instead funded programs
for preservation of kidneys and hearts (this will be handy
info if you're taking your kidneys and heart into the
future, but many of many cryonicists don't). Cryonics could
use a lung lavage system with heat exchange capability to
cool -35 C, but LEF has funded only development of the
portable system for cooling -4 C suitable for *medical*
applications hypothermia induction. It can't be easily
adapted for cryonics (your can't just use 10 heat exchangers
one after another), and to be useful for cryonics would need
a complete redesign which LEF hasn't put any money into, and
Alcor hasn't either (there's a shortage of researchers and
dollars). Another element: *cryonics* doesn't care about
choice of *fluorocarbon* for lung lavage to avoid fine lung
injury in the 24 hours post cooling, but this IS important
for *medical* applications, and this is the area where LEF
has put most of the development money for this system in the
last year. And so on. Get the picture?  Granted, some of
these things are stuff only a real insider would know, but
on the other hand, your public comment purports to be
something that you're presenting as an insider. To do that,
you should know exactly what you're talking about.

SBH

From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: does LEF charge too much?
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 17:33:53 -0700
Message-ID: <b7cvhi$mda$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>

"Walker" <Billwalker0647@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6ac9a2f7.0304121839.ce0c6e@posting.google.com...

> I'm curious if we are helping pay Saul Kent $250,000.00/yr.


Yep, no doubt.


> I have wondered where the money goes and what the relationship between
> the for-profit and the non-profit entities is.


Well, that's easy: the for-profit basically pays for at lot
of the non-profit's activities. When was the last time you
donated anything to LEF as a straight donation?


>For years LEF castigated the FDA for its chummy relationship with the
>drug industry and they seem to developed the same relationship
>themselves.


I don't think they have anything to do with the drug
industry. As for a chummy relationship with the supplements
industry, hell yes. That's what they do, don't you know--
sell vitamins and stuff. Also information on vitamins and
stuff. And sure, some of their fulmanations against the FDA
are self-serving. As a libertarian I hope you're not too
shocked by that. The rest of the supplements industry gets a
free ride on LEF's activism and pays very little for it,
though. So it could be worse. Any of us who take vitamins
are in the same boat. When it comes to paying for 1st
ammendment cases that benefit us, there's this tragedy of
the commons. It's easier always to let somebody else do the
heavy lifting.


> Steve, it seems that your position is that it's "none of my business"
> where a non-profit organization spends its money. I disagree. LEF sold
> me a "membership". As a member of the organization I think it is my
> business where the money goes. Perhaps I would choose to no longer be a
> "Member" if I saw that my membership fee was being used to pay inflated
> salaries to the officers of the orgaiization.


<Sigh>. It's up to you. But if you think 250 k/year is an
"inflated salary" for one of two senior officers in a
multimillion dollar corporation, you've been living in an
alternative universe.

Say, does Bush have a beard where you are?

SBH