In article ,
 Josh Hill  wrote:


> 
> Charlie, that's flagrantly dishonest. I don't suppose that you intend
> it to be, but that's what it is, because it bears no relation to what
> I've said or what I've proposed. It is not what anyone has proposed.
> The word "rich" means "rich."

    Not really. Rich means "a great material wealth". But at what point 
(for tax purposes) do you cross the line from merely spiffy material 
wealth to great? Talk specifics and then we might have something to 
discuss.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32