> A quick glance at the raw numbers suggest that that really wasn't much
> more of a gap between 35-50s and 18-24s then than there is today.
> *shrug* Not really interested in analyzing the raw data, but maybe you
> feel like running SASS?
Nope, looks to me like the gap was much bigger then then than it is today. Just like the paper's author says. *shrug*
SA