Author |
Message |
   
hello
Citizen Username: Hello
Post Number: 43 Registered: 7-2003
| Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 8:15 pm: |    |
an interesting indictment, certainly in its reported legalese related to "finance" or "trade" http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/11/human.shield.fine.ap/index.html those of you who know who ahmed chalabi really is might find bush's definition of who is, and who is not, a "financial criminal" to be sickly consistent with other feudal notions of law and order he has. |
   
Nohero
Citizen Username: Nohero
Post Number: 1942 Registered: 5-2001

| Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 10:19 pm: |    |
There's no national security interest, in alleging that someone "traded" with an enemy who no longer exists. And this woman's economic activity, which basically consisted of feeding herself, pales in comparison with the multi-national deals which took place before the war. Is it really necessary for our government to be so vindictive? |
   
sbenois
Citizen Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10165 Registered: 10-2001

| Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 10:26 pm: |    |
I hope they throw the book at her. ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- |
   
Nohero
Citizen Username: Nohero
Post Number: 1943 Registered: 5-2001

| Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 10:44 pm: |    |
And that contributes to the sum total of human happiness, security, or health in what way? |
   
sbenois
Citizen Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10166 Registered: 10-2001

| Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 11:19 pm: |    |
She broke the law. Do you not believe that lawbreakers should be punished? End of story. ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- |
   
Dave Ross
Supporter Username: Dave
Post Number: 4998 Registered: 5-2001

| Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 11:41 pm: |    |
If we don't fine and/or imprison this former school teacher EVERYONE will be trying to get into Iraq to stand under incoming bombs. Examples must be set. |
   
sbenois
Citizen Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10167 Registered: 10-2001

| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:00 am: |    |
Dearest Nohero, I walked away from my computer for a few minutes and thought about what you wrote:
quote:human happiness, security, or health
and I've grown so aggravated by it that I feel compelled to respond again. This woman broke the law. What she did was not innocent by any means at all. She put herself in a position that could have forced our military to change the course of their plan - something that potentially could have caused our soldiers harm. Her "righteous" act was dangerous, ill-conceived and while seemingly brave, it was actually incredibly selfish. If she wanted to make a point about the Iraqi situation to our government, the place to do it was on the steps of Congress, on the Mall, or some other place in the US where she was free to express her opinions. But she chose to go to the country of our enemy instead. While she was sitting in the refinery, Saddam was no doubt laughing about her stupidity. Neither is laughing now. She is not a hero. She is a traitor who should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Honestly, I hope that when this woman goes to prison that she rots there. The men and women who sacrifice their lives every day over there are the ones who contribute to happiness, security, or health for all of us, not some deranged school teacher from looneyland. Fry her. ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- |
   
steel
Citizen Username: Steel
Post Number: 328 Registered: 2-2002
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 9:48 am: |    |
I remember at the time of the invasion thinking that these human shields were incredibly naive but to call such a desperate act of protest which was performed with only a desire for peace an act of "financial trade" is ridiculous. Many people may not like what she did but that is still no justification to stretch the law well beyond the purpose of that law to condemn her actions. |
   
tjohn
Citizen Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1638 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 10:03 am: |    |
I get the impression that our government is a bit out of control in this case. I can't imagine any possible benefits from prosecuting this woman. However, it does make the U.S. Government look petty and vindictive. Has our government shed all vestiges of common sense? If somebody quietly chose to ignore this case, we would be none the worse for the wear and the press would have one less bone to gnaw.
|
   
bobk
Supporter Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3290 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 10:35 am: |    |
Me thinks that Bishop Ashcroft and his merry band of lawyers are playing right into Ms. Fippinger's hands. Obviously she has a bit of a martyr complex and wants all the publicity for her cause that she can garner. |
   
1-2many
Citizen Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 219 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 10:54 am: |    |
sbenois: law is not sacrosanct. there are many bad, unjustified laws. there are many laws, both bad and good, that are inappropriately used and stretched. and, many laws are used to attempt to silence those with whom people in power disagree. all three of these issues appear to be the case with this teacher. hmm... that little old CONSTITUTION is creeping up in my consciousness again. something about GUARANTEED FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION?! or can ALL our basic freedoms be abridged by Bush League? |
   
Pierce Butler
Citizen Username: Pierce_butler
Post Number: 39 Registered: 6-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:06 pm: |    |
1-2many, so are we individually just to decide which laws to follow, and which are "bad" and "unjustified?" If I think the law against murder is "unjustified" as applied to abortion doctors, am I free to ignore it? We live in a democracy: if you don't like the law, try to change it; if you fail, it means a majority of your fellow citizens disagree with you and you have to live with it. I don't think this case has anything to do with the Constitution, and certainly not freedom of speech. That said, should the U.S gov't be wasting precious prosecutorial resources on such silliness? Probably not. |
   
hello
Citizen Username: Hello
Post Number: 44 Registered: 7-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:19 pm: |    |
pierce- she flew to an enemy country and announced she was against the war and taped herself to a target. she exercised her rights to free speech and association. the party chairman knows he can't touch her on this substance of her acts so he says she provided financial assistance to the enemy merely by purchasing food for herself. this same party chairman has chosen one of the biggest financial criminals in the history of the world to be our puppet leader of iraq. |
   
newjerz
Citizen Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 101 Registered: 5-2003

| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:29 pm: |    |
She is lucky she is not being charged with treason. Protesting against the war domestically is one thing, but going to a foreign combat zone to try to interfere with our military operations is another entirely. Also I think the rights protected by our Constitution extend only to our borders and not to foreign lands. That being said, I think the grounds upon which she is being charged are somewhat shaky and like pierce said probably a waste of resources. hello - when you compare President Bush to Hitler you lose all credibility. I honestly feel sorry for you. |
   
1-2many
Citizen Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 222 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:34 pm: |    |
Pierce - we should protest and resist bad laws. to be silent is to condone. we SHOULD question authority. this doesn't mean I condone mayhem and anarchy. majority rule is still very much the case; I would like the case also to be that the majority is educated about what they are ruling on, and not just blindly following long-standing but unjustified norms. |
   
1-2many
Citizen Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 223 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:39 pm: |    |
new jerz: "the rights protected by our Constitution extend only to our borders and not to foreign lands" ??? actually they extend to all of our CITIZENS, as far the American gov't is concerned. we aren't talking about alleged violation of Iraqi law by acts on Iraqi land - we are talking about alleged violation of American law. if you want to prosecute a US citizen, under US law, for acts on foreign soil, you better steer VERY clear of consitutional rights. |
   
zoe
Citizen Username: Zoe
Post Number: 302 Registered: 7-2002
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:44 pm: |    |
Since so many of you "bleeding heart liberals" seem to be so upset by the fines levied upon this woman for purposely engaging in an illegal act, why not start a fund? At least that way you can reward someone for violating our laws. Put your money where your mouth is. Pay her for having the courage and conviction to do what you admire, but only talk about. Go ahead, reward abhorant behavior. At least she did what she thought was right, she took a stand. Now it's your turn. Pay up. |
   
newjerz
Citizen Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 102 Registered: 5-2003

| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:48 pm: |    |
1-2many- you're right in general. I guess the point I was making is that if there was a group of Americans protesting or assembling around a military base in Iraq, I don't think the Army would be compelled to honor their right to free speech or assemblage the same way they might have to in front of a city hall domestically. |
   
Pike
Citizen Username: Pike
Post Number: 2 Registered: 8-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:54 pm: |    |
 |
   
DrFalomar
Citizen Username: Drfalomar
Post Number: 3 Registered: 7-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 4:14 pm: |    |
She should be prosecuted, just as the teachers who held a strike last year should have been prosecuted, just as the New York woman who went to South America and became a terrorist deserved the harsh and long sentence she got. The law is the law and it is not supposed to be fair, only consistent. That prosecution will only publicize and make her point is secondary. |
   
Timmeh
Citizen Username: Timmeh
Post Number: 672 Registered: 1-2002

| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 5:53 pm: |    |
Anyone trading with Iraq, Iran, or Libya is breaking the law. Thus spake the Congress of the United States of America. "She broke the law. Do you not believe that lawbreakers should be punished? End of story." Thus spake Sbenois, chief Poopyhead. The law is the law, of course, of course, and no one should break the law, of course. That is of course unless the criminal is the famous Mr. Dick. Cheney, that is. Letter, dated April 30, 2003, from Rep. Henry Waxman D-Cal. - Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Government Reform, to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:
... Republicans in the Administration and Congress have previously expressed great concern about American citizens and companies trading with countries despite U.S. embargoes. For example, the Vice President's chief of staff testified that Marc Rich, who was granted a pardon by President Clinton, could be considered a "traitor" for trading with Iran even if his actions were technically legal. These same concerns appear to be implicated by Halliburton's conduct, yet rather than being criticized, the company is rewarded with valuable government contracts. Halliburton's Activities in Nations that Sponsor Terrorism In press accounts and SEC filings, Halliburton and its subsidiaries have been linked to three nations known for their support of terrorism: Iran, Iraq, and Libya. Since at least the 1980s, federal laws have prohibited U.S. companies from doing business in one or more of these countries. Yet Halliburton appears to have sought to circumvent these restrictions by setting up subsidiaries in foreign countries and territories such as the Cayman Islands. These actions started as early as 1984; they appear to have continued during the period between 1995 and 2000, when Vice President Cheney headed the company; and they are apparently ongoing even today. Iran President Bush has declared that Iran poses a potential threat to the United States. In his 2002 State of the Union address, he described how Iran "aggressively pursues" weapons of mass destruction and "exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom." Iran, he memorably declared, is part of: an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. According to the State Department, Iran stands out as "the most active state sponsor of terrorism." Iran's government is "involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and supported a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals." As a result of the country's terrorist links and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, President Clinton issued an executive order in 1995 banning U.S. trade and investment in Iran, including the trading of Iranian oil overseas by U.S. companies. Earlier that same year, President Clinton had issued an executive order barring U.S. investment in Iran's energy sector. In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which allowed for U.S. sanctions against foreign companies participating in Iran's oil industry. Halliburton, however, was among several U.S. companies that circumvented these restrictions on trading with Iran by providing the country with oil equipment. It apparently did this by conducting its business in Iran through foreign subsidiaries. Indeed, Vice President Cheney has even defended this policy. According to the Financial Times, he "has said the company is allowed to operate legally in Iran through its foreign subsidiaries." Analysts have disagreed with this claim, suggesting that Halliburton's deals with Iran may, in fact, have violated U.S. law. The company apparently continues to do work in Iran even now. This work is reportedly being done through a Cayman Islands subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services, which opened an office in Tehran in February 2000. A company brochure offered by the subsidiary apparently states that the company has done work on two offshore Iranian drilling contracts and says that "[w]e are committed to position ourselves in a market that offers huge growth potential." Halliburton recently agreed to reevaluate its work in Iran after sustained pressure from shareholders, particularly the New York City Police and Fire Department Pension Funds. Iraq In 1990, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush imposed economic sanctions, including a complete trade embargo, on Iraq. The sanctions ban the export of goods, technology, and services to Iraq. Criminal penalties for violating the Iraqi sanctions range up to 12 years in jail and $1,000,000 in fines. Despite these sanctions, the Washington Post has reported that Halliburton performed work in Iraq while Vice President Cheney was leading the company. Halliburton had stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell over $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Mr. Cheney was CEO. The companies were subsidiaries of a joint venture between Dresser industries - which Halliburton acquired in 1998 - and Ingersoll-Rand, another large equipment maker. From 1997 through mid-2000, the subsidiaries sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil facilities, and pipeline equipment to Iraq. The Vice President initially tried to deny this involvement in Iran. In July 2002, he stated on national television: "I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even - even arrangements that were supposedly legal.... [W]e've not done any business in Iraq since the sanctions [were] imposed, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that." A month later, confronted with an admission by a Halliburton spokesman that the company indeed did business with Iraq, Vice President Cheney admitted that "[w]hen we took over Dresser, we inherited two joint ventures with Ingersoll-Rand that were selling some parts into Iraq," but he said he did not know of this at the time. Mr. Cheney also said that "[s]hortly after we took control of Dresser, we divested ourselves of those two companies." Both of these statements, however, have been contradicted by other evidence. Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries say they knew of no policy against doing business with Iraq. One of the executives also said that he was certain that Mr. Cheney would have known about the business with Iraq. [14] Furthermore, Halliburton did not divest itself of the subsidiaries "shortly" after Halliburton took control of Dresser. Instead, the firms traded with Iraq for more than a year under Mr. Cheney, signing almost $30 million in contracts. Libya Libya has been implicated in a number of terrorist incidents, including attacks at the Rome and Vienna airports in December 1985; the April 1986 bombing of a Berlin nightclub frequented by armed services personnel; and the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988, which killed 270 people. As a result of these ties to terrorism, the United States has implemented a series of over 20 sanctions against Libya since 1973 that ban a wide variety of economic activities. Some of the most significant sanctions were put in place by President Reagan in 1986, in response to the Qaddafi regime's repeated use and support of terrorism against the United States and other countries. Those sanctions ban most sales of goods, technology, and services to Libya. They provide for criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison and $500,000 in corporate and $250,000 in individual fines. Despite these sanctions and the Libyan regime's well-documented history of sponsoring terrorism, Brown & Root, a Halliburton construction subsidiary, has worked on a water project in Libya since the 1980s. This project, called the "Great Man-Made River Project," is a system of underground pipes and wells that are purportedly intended to carry water. Some experts believe that the pipes actually have a military purpose. The pipes are large enough to accommodate military vehicles and appear to be more elaborate than is needed for holding water. According to one defense expert, referring to the late North Korean leader, Libya "seems to have taken a leaf out of Kim II Sung's book and created a potential military arsenal underground." When the project began in 1984, Brown & Root prepared the feasibility studies and drafted the specifications. After the 1986 U.S. embargo on trade with Libya, Brown & Root transferred the work to its British office. As of 1997, it was still the project manager. Halliburton continues to work in Libya today. The company's latest annual report specifically identifies "restrictions on our ability to provide products and services to Iran, Iraq and Libya" as among the "risks and uncertainties" that the company faces. In addition, Halliburton was fined $3.8 million in 1995 for re-exporting U.S. goods through a foreign subsidiary to Libya in violation of U.S. sanctions. ... Timmeh!! |
   
tjohn
Citizen Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1642 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 6:04 pm: |    |
Dr. Falomar, This is certainly disturbing. If a law is not applied consistently, then it is not fair. Now if one is to believe the letter above, it would certainly appear that some animals (e.g. Halliburton) are more equal than others. |
   
sbenois
Citizen Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10170 Registered: 10-2001

| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 6:23 pm: |    |
I love how she exercised her right to free speech in a foreign country. I didn't know that this constitutionally protected right extended to our citizens sitting in enemy territory with bullseyes on their backs. And dearest Timmeh, this has nothing to do with Cheney. Nice try though.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- |
   
1-2many
Citizen Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 225 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 6:24 pm: |    |
Falomar - law is not only supposed to be fair, it is required to be constitutional. A law that abridges constitutional freedom of association or freedom of religion is only permissible under very limited circumstances, which are not present here. bad Bush League! |
   
hello
Citizen Username: Hello
Post Number: 45 Registered: 7-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 6:42 pm: |    |
don't forget, looting a savings and loan is also against the law, unless you're neil bush. that's probably how ahmed chalabi so endeared himself to the bush family- (wiping a tear away) daddy bush probably though of him as a newly discovered fourth son. chalabi, you see, opened a bank then stole all $200 million of the depositors' money. the bush family loves doing business with like-minded criminals as chalabi. it's also against international law to distribute chemical weapons. so, do you know the name of ronald reagan's special envoy to iraq, who delivered the first shioment of chemical weapons to saddam hussein to use against iran? the one-and-only (drum roll, please) donald rumsfeld. and, do you know where james a baker was on 9/11? a legitimate story, if you ask me. former secretary of state. bush family and campaign attorney. never asked by the corporate media where he was and what he was feeling. that's because baker was with the bin laden family in washington on 9/11, doing the business of the carlyle group. the carlyle group, the mechanism by which opec profits are funneled back to the bush family and their cronies, in exchange for a "blood for oil" us foreign policy. it's a small world among the predators, eh? |
   
DrFalomar
Citizen Username: Drfalomar
Post Number: 4 Registered: 7-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 7:49 pm: |    |
When a law is applied consistently and its application does not cause an inconsistency in the application of other laws, then the application is fair, but which law is applied is irrelevant. A law is not unjust in and of itself, nor is it moral, and it knows no right or wrong; it is simply a law. It is the application of the law that can be fair or unfair. The legal system is, for all intents and purposes, a game. So long as the rules of the game remain unbroken, then the game is fair. It's the players that bring their doom or grace upon themselves. This is how defendents can get off on a technicality, and how a convicted person can be kept in jail even after it's proven that he did not in fact do the crime for which he was convicted. Are laws applied inconsistently? Absolutely, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad. Blame those who would bring down their authority on one person, say this self-described human shield, and not another, such as Dick Cheney for unfairness in the law. The woman's suit also begs a question: If she failed to get herself killed trying to block a missile, did she in fact act as a human shield? |
   
1-2many
Citizen Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 226 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 7:51 pm: |    |
in case there has been success in confusing the issue: under US law, citizens are constitutionally entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of association, among other things. no US law can prohibit that, except in limited circumstances, and only then by the most narrowly tailored means. if a US citizen travels to a foreign country, that US citizen is subject to the foreign country's laws, as well as the US's. there is no mention here of whether what Fippinger did violated Iraqi law. the issue is only whether she violated US law, for which she is now being heavily fined. and yes, this DOES have to do with Cheney - who is violating the very same laws left and right. only for him and his cronies, Bush League is willing to lie, cheat and steal to protect all of their vested interests in this particular piece of land.
|
   
sbenois
Citizen Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10171 Registered: 10-2001

| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 8:01 pm: |    |
Has anyone asked Joe Lieberman why HE likes Chalabi? ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- |
   
REBORN STRAW
Citizen Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 929 Registered: 10-2001
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 8:12 pm: |    |
Why is hello constantly preaching his hate of the Republican party on MOL? If he or she had real balls you have to assume such over the top nonsensical b.s. would in fact be broached on a site where more then 1% of those listening are actually right minded people. Poor Hello wasting everyone's time, especially his own. Here's a suggestion son, get a clue. |
   
Nohero
Citizen Username: Nohero
Post Number: 1949 Registered: 5-2001

| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 8:42 pm: |    |
So much to comment on ... Dr. Falomar wrote: "A law is not unjust in and of itself, nor is it moral, and it knows no right or wrong; it is simply a law." Wrong. See, e.g. the Declaration of Independence. I'll admit it, I'm a coward. Unlike Ms. Fippinger (the woman we're talking about), who is facing a fine and/or jail, I did not spend time working in an Iraqi hospital, tending to wounded women and children. So, I guess I'm not really qualified to judge her, then. But, who among us is? Oh, Sbenois, this has everything to do with Cheney. He's a wealthy man because of his company's transactions, including the dealings with Saddam's Iraq. |
   
tom
Citizen Username: Tom
Post Number: 1108 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 10:33 pm: |    |
The law is the law, unless you happen to be someone like John Poindexter or Ollie North. Then you get offered big-time government jobs in Republican administrations |
   
woodstock
Citizen Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 299 Registered: 9-2002

| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 10:50 pm: |    |
Straw, Welcome back. And remember that Right-minded does not always equal right-minded. Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him |
   
montagnard
Citizen Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 18 Registered: 6-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 11:16 pm: |    |
And what law, pray tell, made the invasion of Iraq a legal activity? There was no formal declaration of war by Congress, and Mr. Bush's varying rationales seem tenuous at best. Ms. Fippinger could just as easily claim that hired agents of Mr. Bush were attempting to kill or injure her. Anyway, if you believe in free speech on principle, you're supposed to defend free speech that you DISAGREE with, otherwise what's the point? |
   
montagnard
Citizen Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 19 Registered: 6-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 11:29 pm: |    |
And let me add that if Mr. Bush had listened to the reasoned voices of opposition to the war, such as not attacking without a U.N. mandate, and having a clear plan for the occupation, he would not have drawn the country into such a quagmire. Ms. Fippinger showed more common sense than people like Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice. At least she could see that her country was on the wrong course, and she put her life at risk to help stop it. Would she have stopped being a human shield if the Security Council had authorized an attack? We'll never have a chance to find out. |
   
OK, it's Straw Man
Citizen Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 991 Registered: 10-2001
| Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 7:32 pm: |    |
 |
   
cjc
Citizen Username: Cjc
Post Number: 49 Registered: 8-2003
| Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 2:00 pm: |    |
How come no human shields were in front of the UN in Baghdad? |
   
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen Username: Casey
Post Number: 4 Registered: 8-2003

| Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 3:19 pm: |    |
All the human shields went home when the President said the war was over.
|
   
hello
Citizen Username: Hello
Post Number: 97 Registered: 7-2003
| Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 3:27 pm: |    |
touche' boogie! |
|