i asked alfred crosby, who wrote the column ban connection and some of those others, what his opinion would be. was it going to be 90% as hank dobbins used to say? and he said no. the reason is, that the indian population here was not only small, less than 10,000 people, but they lived in small hamlets and at two different seasons of the year, they disburseded from those hamlets. and nature could clean the place up. if you want a 90% loss of population, you've got to look to a city, and there were no cities. in aboriginal virginia. there may have been 90% loss of population in some inca cities. but not out in the countryside where the villages were and still are smaller. and not generally in north america. it's only when people get so concentrated, and the big epidemics of small pox you hear about were all in indian refuge communities, where they had been concentrated, and there were too many people who could not move around enough. so nothing like the mortality in north america. that people are often given to think. yell. go on, charlie, yell. >> i -- i -- it's interesting you're usi