Doubtful that it's retrievable from the original source. Apparently it was published in 1992.<quoted text>
Thanks for showing where YOU got the quote, but it still isn't a link to the source of the quote itself.
That's quite a diatribe there. Very biased, and ill-informed.(That's giving them the benefit of the doubt). Some of the data is simply incorrect.
Toss that up on it's own thread and let's have it it. I think others would agree that it would be fun to dissect such a tract, point by point.
But hey, by all means shoot the messenger.