No Pawn Hannity till he apologizes and acknowledges Debbie’s work. I wonder what the reaction if Debbie just copied and pasted a chapter from one of Pawn’s books and put her name to it? I think we know the answer.
I’m not listening to his radio show with his pinko director or watching his TV show with Skeletor Combs.
I am saying NO! to Simple Sean the Pawn.

Jeff_W on February 9, 2007 at 11:07 am

Hannity is making himself out to be a hack if he keeps it up, as well as not publically apologizing to D.Schlussel. Anyone lifting someone’s hard work just to glorify themself, then compound the outrage by making a hashing of it, when the original owner of the story could have offered us all a great debate/interview…..makes the offending party deserved of getting a size twelve up his arse.

kgs59 on February 9, 2007 at 11:22 am

How to account for Sean Vanity’s weaselness and cluelessness? Could he be contemplating a run for elected office? In the meantime, his non-show with the seriously unsightly Colmes is enabling the Islamofascists. By asking only stupid worthless questions, Sean and his counterpart who was hit with an ugly stick, is providing a forum for these Muzzie terrorists.
All Sean is is a talkinghead-bot without a serious, informed thought in his head. I’d just as soon watch “The Girls Next Door” or “Miami Ink”.

lexi on February 9, 2007 at 11:35 am

Debbie…those are all good questions, but we all know that 1) in the Muslim world, facts rarely matter; and 2) he would not answer your questions and would tap dance around them until the end of time.
They’re all the same.

ddhinnyc on February 9, 2007 at 11:38 am

New Evidence Ties Former Soviet Spy’s Death to American Hiroshima
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/p_williams/02032007.htm
Litvinenko with reported ties to radical Islam, was a convert to islam with close ties to the Chechen rebels
New evidence has come to light that Alexander Litvinenko may have been involved with Islamic terrorists in the preparation of tactical nuclear weapons for use in the jihad against the United States and its NATO allies.
Litvinenko, a former KGB agent, died in London on November 23 after ingesting a microscopic amount of polonium-210.
Investigators have now uncovered the following:
▪ Litvinenko was a Muslim convert with reported ties to radical Islam.
▪ The former Soviet spy masterminded was responsible for the smuggling of radioactive material to Zurich in 2000. This finding was corroborated by Mario Scaramella, one of Litvinenko’s business associates.
▪ Litvinenko became closely allied with Boris Berezovsky, a Russian billionaire who established close ties with the Chechen leaders, and Chechen leader Ahmed Zakayev. Both men served as pallbearers at the funeral. Several years ago, Berezovsky boasted to the press that the Chechen separatists had acquired a portable nuclear weapon that lacked one “minor” component. That component, Scotland Yard officials now believe, was polonium-210.

Test Test on February 9, 2007 at 11:40 am

Test Test: I’ve read about these allegations in the past so it comes as no surprise. Will we now here from the MSM about these new facts as they come to light and what will be their reactions.
It seems that there was a very large conspiracy of disinformation in reference to this former KGB clown to make Putin look like he over reached in knocking Litvinenko off.
Once again we can clearly see the result of atheism

Islamsnotforme on February 9, 2007 at 11:53 am

Test Test: I’ve read about these allegations in the past so it comes as no surprise. Will we now here from the MSM about these new facts as they come to light and what will be their reactions.
It seems that there was a very large conspiracy of disinformation in reference to this former KGB clown to make Putin look like he over reached in knocking Litvinenko off.
Once again we can clearly see the result of Marxist atheism as one scumbag immediately seeks to become a “Peace Loving Muslim” after his marxist ideals are dismissed.

Islamsnotforme on February 9, 2007 at 11:56 am

Debbie: Sean is apparently suffering from a brain disorder he picked up from Alan “Skeletor” Combs. I wouldn’t have believed it so but it appears he’s dismissing this episode of extremely poor judgement. When he goes to confession, (IF) will he admit his sin. We shall never know and at this point it really doesn’t matter as he completely blew the interview with Husham Al-Husainy. Sean’s days are numbered!

Islamsnotforme on February 9, 2007 at 12:01 pm

@ddhinnyc
“in the Muslim world, facts rarely matter”
– try not to be too much of a bigot.
“he would not answer your questions and would tap dance around them until the end of time”
– as would anyone else promoting their view on a talk show.
@test test
– despite all the qualified language (e.g. “may have been involved”, “reported ties”, etc), that’s quite a bit of hearsay… granted, it’s from the new media journal, so what else is new?
– litvinenko may have been disenchanted with russian orthodox christianity for some time, but he didn’t convert to islam until two days before his death… basically a classic deathbed conversion.
– the chechnyan nationalist movement is nothing new (read early dostoevsky for some of his personal experiences in the 1800s)… and as the chechnyan people became increasingly homogeneous, the conflict became drawn also along religious lines… russian orthodoxy vs. islam vs. communism (especially stalin’s monocultural version of the latter, despite the fact he wasn’t even russian).
unfortunately for the chechnyans, they seem to have chosen a fairly strict version of sharia (islamic law)… if i recall correctly, they’re veering towards jaafari (though they aren’t twelvers). in other words, there’s very little separation between the religious and the political… thus islam becomes the state religion, with an expectation that islam is a trans-national and trans-state affair… largely like the holy roman empire of old, which brings up my point:
– christianity has already gone through a modernization process… protestantism and the catholic reformation effectively broke the power of rome… and liberalism (in the classical sense of “individual liberty”) eventually brought about a democratization of christianity. islam is now struggling hard with that process… but such a large religion needs to modernize, lest it bring itself into confrontation with the world.
forget the oversimplification of sunni/shia… hanafi, hanbali, maliki, shafii, and jaafari have lived side by side for many years, with no more sectarian conflict than is evident in christianity. but now differences are being exacerbated, politicized… and violence has ensued. there needs to be a reaching out and embracing of apolitical and moderate islam… and it is not for the west to seek to break sharia, it needs to be modernized from within. in the meantime, christians need to get off their high-horse and stop pretending that they haven’t gone through the exact same process… sure it was a few centuries ago, but that’s no reason to get all haughty about it. a better response would be to lend a helping hand…

ready5 on February 9, 2007 at 12:13 pm

@Islamsnotforme
“It seems that there was a very large conspiracy of disinformation in reference to this former KGB clown to make Putin look like he over reached in knocking Litvinenko off.”
– are you seriously defending putin? as a kgb agent and fsb head, he has enough skeletons to answer for… not to mention the current media storm in russia about his mod ties and pedophiliac behavior. there certainly doesn’t need to be any “large conspiracy” to make him look bad.
“Once again we can clearly see the result of atheism.”
– how is this a result of atheism? neither putin nor litvinenko were atheists. or are you also falling prey to the specious logic that “islam” and “atheism” are somehow related?

ready5 on February 9, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Sean “It’s All About Me” Hannity is absolutely sickening when he CONSTANTLY vomits on his radio show that islam was hijacked by extremists. He thinks islam is a peace-loving religion – that’s because he’s a spineless P.O.S. who has no respect for his listeners and lies to them in order not to creat a controversy surrounding himself.

Thee_Bruno on February 9, 2007 at 1:14 pm

“he would not answer your questions and would tap dance around them until the end of time”
– as would anyone else promoting their view on a talk show.”
Huh? Unless you are trying to deceive, wouldn’t you answer the questions?
“christians need to get off their high-horse and stop pretending that they haven’t gone through the exact same process… sure it was a few centuries ago, but that’s no reason to get all haughty about it. a better response would be to lend a helping hand…”
How are you proposing to moderate the qur’an? I suggest you do a little reading of the qur’an and hadith.
Christians help? Christians dwell in the lowest level of hell in islam…do you think muslims want help from “polytheists”? The islamic texts are war manuals, the complete subjugation of all other beliefs isthe point of islam.

Carolyn2 on February 9, 2007 at 1:28 pm

No Ready5, I’m not defending Putin as he makes my skin crawl, but whomever killed this scumbag deserves at the very least a pat on the back. I can see no reason why you haven’t blamed the Israelis for this man’s death after all, isn’t the entire non Muslim world wrapped up in the Jewish domination conspiracy?

Islamsnotforme on February 9, 2007 at 1:50 pm

@thee_bruno
there is a wide variety of schools of islamic thought. while it is incorrect to generalize islam as a “peace-loving religion”, it is far more incorrect to purport the opposite. there are millions of peace-loving muslims… just as there are millions of peace-loving pagans, hindus, zoastrians, shintos, bhuddists, jews, catholics, orthodox christians, protestants, etc.
and lest you point to some verse in the koran and take it out of context, let me preempt you with the words of jesus in matthew 10:34:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”
and yeah, there’s a variety of ways to interpret that verse… but if you recognize that, then you must also recognize that there’s a variety of ways to interpret similar verses in the koran.

ready5 on February 9, 2007 at 2:04 pm

@carolyn2
“Huh? Unless you are trying to deceive, wouldn’t you answer the questions?”
– sorry, i kind of botched what i was trying to say… i was more trying to illustrate that anyone adopting an absolutist viewpoint on a talk show could be asked uncomfortable questions… especially if the answer is a bit complex and/or if the person asking them is also coming from an absolutist standpoint. this was not a defense of al-husainy, i was just pointing out that the “dancing around” is commonplace.
“How are you proposing to moderate the qur’an?”
– no, i’m saying that islam as a whole needs to modernize. keep in mind that any document can be read/interpreted in a variety of ways (the bible, the constitution, etc)… welcome to the fun world of hermeneutics. pretending that all muslims agree or are only in one of two groups is utterly ignorant at best. so not “moderate”, “modernize”.
“I suggest you do a little reading of the qur’an and hadith.”
– i have done quite a bit of reading of the koran and ahadith… what’s your question?
“Christians help? Christians dwell in the lowest level of hell in islam…do you think muslims want help from “polytheists”? The islamic texts are war manuals, the complete subjugation of all other beliefs is the point of islam.”
– depends entirely on what texts you accept as canonical and what your interpretation is. while some muslims do believe what you just said, by no means do all muslims… hence my point about modernization. this is no longer the late 600s… and radical muslims should realize that. further, let’s keep in mind that christians aren’t immune from this exact same complaint.
@islamsnotforme
“whomever killed this scumbag deserves at the very least a pat on the back.”
– i don’t know… myself, i believe in due process and all that.
“I can see no reason why you haven’t blamed the Israelis for this man’s death after all, isn’t the entire non Muslim world wrapped up in the Jewish domination conspiracy?”
– um, what? what on earth are you blabbing about now?

ready5 on February 9, 2007 at 2:16 pm

ready5
You seem informed about islam, how can you not see that islam is very different from Christianity?
The “you do it too” argument doesn’t hold water.
While Christians may have done some not-so-Christian
things in the past, it was never by dictate from the Bible. Islam, on the other hand does dictate to the believers to war against all others “until they feel themselves subdued”. The orders include cutting off hands and feet on opposite sides, forcing a heavy tax on the dhimmi population. Just google “Pact of Umar” for how dhimmis are to be treated under islam.

Carolyn2 on February 9, 2007 at 4:12 pm

@carolyn2
thank you for your reasoned response.
good points, although we first need to define what is “islam” and what is “christianity”… rather, i guess we don’t have the time, but there needs to be a recognition that if we’re going to be selective about “christianity” (and ignore a host of papal decrees), then we need to be similarly charitable to islam. in other words, the “you do it too” argument does hold water if we’re dealing with wild generalizations… if we’re willing to step away from oversimplifications, then yes, it’s a weak argument.
in other words, yes there is violent language throughout the koran… just as there is in the old and new testaments. but is there this conception that all jews practice all aspects of the deuteronomic law? so then we should be fair and realize that the world is full of muslims who practice a more modern/figurative exegesis… just like liberal (in the theological sense) christians and jews.

ready5 on February 9, 2007 at 4:33 pm

just to clarify my point about papal decrees:
– given that the pact of umar is not a part of the koran (rather, it was a political decree by the caliph umar ibn al-khattab), then considering it to be part of islam is like saying the papal bull of ad exstirpanda (by innocent iv, which authorized the torture of heretics) is part of christianity. obviously, neither statement is true, unless we feel like ignoring protestants, liberal catholics, and moderate muslims. note that there are muslims who even reject ahadith… let alone political decrees (especially by a sunni).

ready5 on February 9, 2007 at 5:17 pm

ready5,
There is a distinction between the qur’an and the Bible that makes islam’s attitude toward violence a valid issue. The Bible is a historical as well as a sacred text. Most of the violent passages in the Old Testament describe historical acts. They are NOT calls to current believers to do violence to people of different faiths. This even more true of the New Testament. The Matthew passage you quote is NOT a call to arms, to incite followers to kill non-believers.
The passages in the qur’an, by contrast, are written and are interpreted by muslims as instructions from allah.
So passages like,
“And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (2.191)
“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”(9.005)
are considered CURRENT and valid divine instructions.
To reform islam would require either rewriting the qur’an (a heresy punished by death) or convincing tens of thousands of imams to deny that the qur’an is the absolute word of allah (don’t hold your breath). Only God could accomplish such a task.

WillPower on February 9, 2007 at 10:50 pm

This is why the republicans lost the last election. People like Sean Hannity are shallow and don’t try to win arguments with facts but with name calling. In this case he just stole work of someone else and even then he is so stupid he can’t even use it right. The conservatives need to clean house of these “suits” and get real people who really care about the issues who will do work to get answers. Most Americans are turned off by these twits. Lets stop the name calling and start winning arguments. To do that people like “Lucky Charms” and Sean Hannity the Great American need to go OR be ignored. Maybe it is time to move beyond FOX even. Thank god for the internet and the new media.

greatcometof1577 on February 9, 2007 at 11:08 pm

@willpower
the koran is just as “historical” as the bible… and there are indeed many exhortations in the bible similar to the ones you quoted. the fact that you choose a figurative interpretation of that verse in matthew means that you also need to allow for figurative interpretations of the koran. further, if you’re going to quote 2:191, you might want to look at the ayah right before it (2:190):
“Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.”
ok, actually i’m going to stop right there… there are far worse verses than the ones you chose and it’s old hat to respond with the various liberal islamic interpretations… feel free to look them up, along with all the contradictions and ‘problem verses’ in the bible and their accompanying liberal christian interpretations. it’s a tired debate that is utterly preempted by the point i made above, that if you’re going to allow for figurative interpretation in the bible, you also need to allow for it in the koran.
basically, your assertion that the verses you quoted above are “considered CURRENT and valid divine instructions” as you interpret them is totally false. the wide variety of christian thought is completely mirrored by the wide variety of islamic thought. while the koran does itself no favors by using such strong language, it has spanned a panoply of attempts to reconcile it with progressive/liberal thought. want a quick rundown of some of the differences? here we go…
the various sunni sects are too many to mention, so here are the four main current schools of thought:
hanbali (very conservative/textualist, 10% of sunnis, adherence to literal readings)
shafii (less conservative, 5% of sunnis, allows for private judgement)
maliki (moderate, 15% of sunnis, incorporates additional texts into their canon)
hanafi (oldest and most liberal, 70% of sunnis, some adherents allow the consumption of alcohol and the recitation of prayers in any language)
note that these are not different sects, but different schools of thought concerning fiqh (islamic jurisprudence). oh, and also… hanbali is the official madhhab of only nation: our ally, saudi arabia.
the shia are a bit more straightforward… here are the main schools of thought stemming from the kalam period:
ashari (conservative/skeptical, asserts that humans were incapable of discerning morality so fatwas/ijtihads/etc are not divine, allows salvation for those who did not hear/understand islam, emphasis on revelation)
kharijite (very conservative/textualist, emphasis on proselytization)
maturidi (conservative, considers belief and morality to be obvious, emphasis on piety)
murjiah (liberal, asserts that only god can judge who is an infidel so muslims are not allowed to judge, emphasis on mercy)
mutazilites (traditional, but allows for some open interpretation via a strict hermeneutic of greek origin, emphasis on free will)
note that most of the west’s negative stereotypes of islam are drawn from the actions of the kharijites… who practiced such things as ‘religious murder’ and ‘tests of sincerity’ (wherein a new convert proved themselves by killing an infidel). but note that you can further divide the kharijites into sects of: azraqi, sufri, ibadi, and haruriyya… and really it was only the short-lived azraqi who advocated such violence. note also that kharijite thought rapidly gave way to murjiah thought through the 9th century… some moderate ibadi still dwell in oman, but vigorously reject the ‘kharijite’ label, which is considered an insult.
since the sunnis follow elected caliphs and the shia follow hereditary Imams, the various shia sects are differentiated by who they believe was an Imam:
jaafari (aka ‘twelvers’, 80% of shia, very conservative)
ismaili (aka ‘seveners’, believe there have only been seven Imams so far)
zaidiyyah (aka ‘fivers’, accept a different fifth Imam)
while there are other shia sects (alawi, etc), those are the main ones. the jaafari are the most conservative and consider muhammad, his daughter, and all twelve of their Imams to be infallible. also: although their 12th Imam was born in 868, they do not belive that he is dead, but rather in ‘occultation’ and due to reappear at any moment as the mahdi. for a scary thought, consider that iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad is a devout mahdist who is actively preparing for the ‘purification of islam’.
but lest we think all jaafarists think the same, we can break them down even further into these subsects:
akhbari (traditionalists, follow ahadith and reject fatwas)
shaykhi (conservatives, began as an effort to merge sunni and shia, promote the idea of occultation)
usuli (conservatives, consider fatwas to be proper interpretations of ahadith)
also, lest we think that the current sunni/shia categorization is historically relevant, we should consider such schools as the zahiri (extremely textual), which was neither sunni or shia… of course, zahiri has the unfortunate disctinction of being the basis for salafism (and thus also wahhabism). but on the other end of the scale, there’s the jariri, which allowed women to be judges and to lead men in prayer as far back as the 9th century. or for a different tack, there’s always the drunken mysticism of the sufis.
to pretend that muslims are all violent savages is to ignore the many liberal movements in islam, which have resulted in greater gender equality, relaxed attitudes towards many traditions/customs, etc… which is what i meant by the “modernization” of islam. and as liberal muslims promote the individual’s right to interpret the koran for themselves, clerical power diminishes… which is what i meant by the “democratization” of islam. again, christianity already went through this process… hopefully islam can navigate it safely with even less chaos/bloodshed. the bulk of modern muslims have actually been quite apolitical and accomodationist… let’s not abandon them by ignorantly grouping them in with religious fanatics (with whom they’ve disagreed for centuries). conflating islamism, islamic fundementalism, and radical islam with mainstream islam is just completely irresponsible.
P.S. there’s a huge difference between an ‘imam’ and an ‘Imam’ in shia… so if i miscapitalized one or the other along the way, i apologize.

ready5 on February 10, 2007 at 5:55 am

Hi Debbie.
You actually misquoted Rabbi Weiss. The quote you have is from Rabbi Friedman who is not affiliated with Neturei Karta. The Iranian conference was called “Conference about the Holocaust” and different viewpoints were represented, including Holocaust deniers. It was not a holocaust denial conference and as a matter of fact, Rabbi Weiss actually presented the viewpoint that there was in fact a holocaust.
WELL, THANK HEAVENS FOR SMALL FAVORS. I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT A CONFERENCE HOSTED BY AHMADINEJAD IN IRAN AND FEATURING DAVID DUKE IS ALL ABOUT. I HEARD RABBI WEISS SPEAK AT A HEZBOLLAH EVENT. AND I HEARD ENOUGH. AND ASIDE FROM THAT, HE’S A PHONY FOR AN ORTHODOX RABBI, B/C HE SHOOK HANDS WITH TWO WOMEN THERE (WHO WERE NEITHER HIS WIFE NOR FAMILY), A COMPLETE NO-NO FOR A TRUE RELIGIOUS ORTHODOX RABBI. AT THE DURBIN CONFERENCE ON RACISM SPONSORED BY THE U.N., THE NETUREI KARTA RABBIS WERE SEEN SPEAKING INTO A MICROPHONE ON THE HOLY SABBATH. AT A MARCH IN WASHINGTON SINCE 9/11, THIS GROUP MARCHED ON THE SABBATH IN THEIR PRAYER SHAWLS, AND THEY DICTATED TO OTHERS TO SPEAK FOR THEM ON A MICROPHONE, A DESECRATION OF THE SABBATH. AND I HOPE YOU KNOW HOW SERIOUS THAT IS FOR AN ORTHODOX JEW.
HAMODIA, THE CHASSIDIC PAPER, CALLED WEISS AND HIS GROUP WHO ATTENDED THE CONFERENCE, “PEOPLE WEARING JEWISH COSTUMES.” EVEN THE SATMAR CHASSIDIM PUT OUT A STATEMENT ABOUT WEISS AND HIS GROUP, SAYING “THE BLOOD OF THE JEWISH MARTYRS CRIES OUT OVER THEIR DESECRATION.”
THESE GUYS ARE PHONIES WHO ARE MORE WORRIED ABOUT KISSING ASSES OF THE NEW NAZIS THAN THEY ARE ABOUT BEING REAL RABBIS. NICE TRY STICKING UP FOR HIM, THOUGH.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

verikt on February 10, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Debbie
The conference called by President Achmadinejad was to make a point about free speech and in reaction to the Danish cartoons. That’s all I know about it.
Apparently you know more. Why don’t you enlighten me?
I just spoke to Rabbi Weiss on the telephone and he categorically denies having shaken hands with women in Dearborn or anywhere else, or speaking on a microphone on the Sabbath in Durban. (or anywhere else). As a matter of fact, you can confirm with just about anyone who was ever by any of Rabbi Weisses speeches that he will not shake hands with women.
I’m not sure how familiar you are with jewish law but it’s permitted to march on Sabbath wearing a prayer shawl, and to give over a copy of a speech which will be read out by someone else. (the speech was given over Friday)
Hamodia is a yellow rag paper and the reaction from this particular group of Satmar to the conference was caused by the misrepresentation in the press as a holocaust denial conference. btw, your capslock seems to have jammed. 🙂
I WAS THERE. I WATCHED RABBI WEISS SHAKE THE WOMENS’ HANDS. RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY EYES. I AM A RELIGIOUS, SABBATH-OBSERVANT JEW. AND I KNOW QUITE WELL IT IS FORBIDDEN TO DICTATE A SPEECH TO SOMEONE WHILE THEY REPEAT IT INTO A MICROPHONE ON THE SABBATH. THAT’S WHAT WAS DONE. YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF HAMODIA IS ABSURD. IT’S WIDELY RESPECTED IN THE ULTRA-ORTHODOX COMMUNITY. YOUR DEFENSE OF THE AHMADINEJAD HOLOCAUST-DENIAL CONFERENCE IS DESPICABLE AND SPEAKS VOLUMES.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

verikt on February 14, 2007 at 10:33 am

Hey Debbie
I see you didn’t fix your capslock key yet.
I find it wildly out of character even for someone impersonating an orthodox Rabbi to shake womens hands, when it’s widely known that Rabbis don’t do that. It’s even stranger when you consider that Rabbi Weiss himself is known not to shake womens hands. You claim you saw it with your own eyes, he denies it, it’s your word against his and that exhausts the possibilities of this argument. I won’t call you a liar but I would venture to bet that you couldn’t find a video, pic or other proof of this though. You claim that some NK Rabbis spoke into a mike on Sabbath in Durban, and dictated a speech on Sabbath in Washington. Why do you suppose they didn’t speak into the mike in Washington? Do the laws of Sabbath change with geography or is there something wrong with at least one of those stories? Are you telling me there was word for word dictation real time by the rally in Washington? Have you ever seen a public speech being given that way? Like I said, a transcript of the speech was given over BEFORE Sabbath and was read by someone else on Sabbath. Which is perfectly all right according to Jewish law.
How many ultra orthodox jews do you know? And have you taken a survey of what’s their opinion of the hamodia? You say you’re a religious, sabbath observant jew.Are you aware that jewish laws of modesty don’t allow women to wear short sleaved shirts?
I haven’t defended anything. I quoted the offical purpose of the conference as presented by the Iranians. Calling it a holocaust denial conference is your interpretation. I asked you what’s your basis for that and you responded with insults. Let’s agree that I’m despicable (and stupid) just to save time. Now can you try to explain to me what you’re basing your statements on?

verikt on February 14, 2007 at 9:42 pm