I think I might be risking getting into trouble here, but I'm gonna do it anyway..
Right, it's best to point out that I have tried to understand what you lot are talking about but it is all over my head. Too much stuff to learn all in one go on a Friday afternoon. Nevertheless, and without wanting to cast aspersions as to the validity of the actual information in A Christian's comment above (the long one), I would refer you to the following URL:
Now, I can't offer any way of verifying the information at that URL either, but it does appear to be dated "Sat Apr 27 2002 - 23:40:13 EDT"
If you search this page for the text "In case you are curious," you will see below it the entire text of A Christian's reply, albeit with modifications here and there to improve context occasionally.
I say again, the facts may be accurate, but it interested me that, if indeed this URL predates the reply above, the prose appears to be non-original.
I concede that if the URL creator has quickly knocked up a page to look incriminating that I shall eat my words.
Also, if it is of interest to you, that URL is part of a series of emails posted to a mesage board. As you will note by reading the very top of the page, the post I linked to (number 0765 if you read the URL) is actually a re-posting of a message that fell off the internet and never made it to the message board in the first place. This explains why the next URL I am going to point you to is in fact a smaller number (0742).
The URL below is a response to the above URL. Again, I make no comment as to the accuracy of the information or opinions presented, but it is another lengthy message clearly written by someone who knows what they are talking about, and offers a rebuttal of some (or all, I haven't read it through) of the points made by the original author of A Christian's post.
Of the "check your references can't be Googled before you misappropriate them" class