FRANCE: French far-rightist fined for Holocaust remarks - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

WarOnIgnorance · #91 (**permalink**) 01-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

The interesting part is these oppressive anti-hate thought crime-laws do not really work! WOI concedes that America does not have a credible 'fascist' (Right of Lenin?) party presence in America; a nation in which these oppressive thought crime laws do not exist. However, in France where such laws are plentiful the so called nationalist 'far right' is gaining in popularity while 'racist' sentiments are also gaining in strength!

Telegraph | News | Le Pen and French far Right achieve record popularity

As well American-Nationalist Jared Taylor has exposed the serious problems with racism in Canada even in the presence of extremely oppressive thought crime hate laws...

Is Racial Diversity Good for Canada?

The lack of 'fascist' (Right of Lenin?) party presence in America may have more to do with a two party system with a virtual strangle hold on the political machinery of the nation then anything else; but I believe I have illustrated to a degree that hate crime laws do not prevent racism or 'far right' sentiment...at least in Canada and France! More on France...

BBC NEWS | Europe | One in three French 'are racist'

Are you a retard or are you just acting like one ?

'Such laws' are not 'plentiful', there is ONE.

That law is not there to counter racism, but Holocaust denial and nothing else.

Since the FN is in the Assemblée and in the EP, how can there be a stranglehold on them ?

That anti-Semite was convicted for his Holocaust denial, not for his membership of the FN or anything else.

Note that you're admitting the FN is fascist.

Frank · #92 (**permalink**) 01-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

ROFL

Ok, your perception now replaces all scientific study on the matter.

I cannot speak for all crime but here are some interesting stats from an article titled 'Muslim Rape Concern:'

Quote:

Alarmed at last week's police statistics, which revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority, leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls

The Copenhagen Post

AND

Quote:

Results of a recently-released survey conducted last May 4 among the population of Denmark’s jails by the Institute for Prisoner Welfare (Kriminalforsorgen) and the Danish State Statistical Bureau (Danmarks Statistik) have raised some eyebrows. That study found that a full one-quarter of Denmark’s imprisoned criminals (specifically: 955 out of 3,741) are either of foreign nationality or the direct descendants of foreigners.

Eurosavant

ALONG WITH

Quote:

Copenhagen Police Commissioner Hanne Bech Hansen said the development was a cause for concern.

"Our biggest crime problem at this time stems from maladjusted, young criminals of foreign descent," Hansen said. "They are much too conspicuous in the statistics, which is something we need to react to right now. Otherwise we´ll have a serious crime problem, which will affect the town for the next two or three decades."

She said 82 percent of youngsters who were brought before a judge in Copenhagen last year were of foreign descent.

Police commissioners in Odense and Elsinore said they had noticed the same tendencies in their districts.

The Copenhagen Post

Frank · #93 (**permalink**) 01-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Are you a retard or are you just acting like one ?

For a guy who speaks 150,000 thousand languages I would have expected a more intelligent response then this...

Quote:

'Such laws' are not 'plentiful', there is ONE.

The incitement against racial hatred and holocaust 'denial' laws are one in the same?

Quote:

That law is not there to counter racism, but Holocaust denial and nothing else.

If there are so such laws in France how could Jean Marie Le Pen be convicted of 'inciting racial hatred' in France? As well how can people file court actions against celebrities for inciting racial hatred if their is no such law in place? If this law does not exist how could the same celebrity be convicted of this non-offence years earlier?

AMREN: Le Pen convicted of inciting hatred
CNSNews.com -- Muslims file race hate charge against celebrity

Quote:

Since the FN is in the Assemblée and in the EP, how can there be a stranglehold on them ?

And you accuse me of having reading comprehension problems...

The lack of 'fascist' (Right of Lenin?) party presence in America may have more to do with a two party system with a virtual strangle hold on the political machinery of the nation then anything else - Frank

I do not believe the FN has any seats in the United States Senate or House of Representatives!

Quote:

That anti-Semite was convicted for his Holocaust denial, not for his membership of the FN or anything else.

When did Gollnisch 'deny' the Holocaust? I assume this is whom you are referring?

Quote:

Note that you're admitting the FN is fascist.

Apparently your elite scholarly mind does not understand the meaning of quote tags surrounding a word. I was quoting your use of the word which is essentially meaningless as it is nothing more then a well-poisoning attack.

WarOnIgnorance · #94 (**permalink**) 01-26-2007

This thread has detoriated into anti-Semitism and racism, so let's go back to the issue. here's the law in question :

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=JUSX9010223L

Article 24
Modifié par Loi n°2004-1486 du 30 décembre 2004 art. 20, art. 22 (JORF 31 décembre 2004).

Seront punis de cinq ans d'emprisonnement et de 45000 euros d'amende ceux qui, par l'un des moyens énoncés à l'article précédent, auront directement provoqué, dans le cas où cette provocation n'aurait pas été suivie d'effet, à commettre l'une des infractions suivantes :

1° Les atteintes volontaires à la vie, les atteintes volontaires à l'intégrité de la personne et les agressions sexuelles, définies par le livre II du code pénal ;

2° Les vols, les extorsions et les destructions, dégradations et détériorations volontaires dangereuses pour les personnes, définis par le livre III du code pénal.

Ceux qui, par les mêmes moyens, auront directement provoqué à l'un des crimes et délits portant atteinte aux intérêts fondamentaux de la nation prévus par le titre Ier du livre IV du code pénal, seront punis des mêmes peines.

Seront punis de la même peine ceux qui, par l'un des moyens énoncés en l'article 23, auront fait l'apologie des crimes visés au premier alinéa, des crimes de guerre, des crimes contre l'humanité ou des crimes et délits de collaboration avec l'ennemi.

Seront punis des peines prévues par l'alinéa 1er ceux qui, par les mêmes moyens, auront provoqué directement aux actes de terrorisme prévus par le titre II du livre IV du code pénal, ou qui en auront fait l'apologie.

Tous cris ou chants séditieux proférés dans les lieux ou réunions publics seront punis de l'amende prévue pour les contraventions de la 5° classe.

Ceux qui, par l'un des moyens énoncés à l'article 23, auront provoqué à la discrimination, à la haine ou à la violence à l'égard d'une personne ou d'un groupe de personnes à raison de leur origine ou de leur appartenance ou de leur non-appartenance à une ethnie, une nation, une race ou une religion déterminée, seront punis d'un an d'emprisonnement et de 45000 euros d'amende ou de l'une de ces deux peines seulement.

Seront punis des peines prévues à l'alinéa précédent ceux qui, par ces mêmes moyens, auront provoqué à la haine ou à la violence à l'égard d'une personne ou d'un groupe de personnes à raison de leur sexe, de leur orientation sexuelle ou de leur handicap ou auront provoqué, à l'égard des mêmes personnes, aux discriminations prévues par les articles 225-2 et 432-7 du code pénal.
En cas de condamnation pour l'un des faits prévus par les deux alinéas précédents, le tribunal pourra en outre ordonner :

1° Sauf lorsque la responsabilité de l'auteur de l'infraction est retenue sur le fondement de l'article 42 et du premier alinéa de l'article 43 de la présente loi ou des trois premiers alinéas de l'article 93-3 de la loi n° 82-652 du 29 juillet 1982 sur la communication audiovisuelle, la privation des droits énumérés aux 2° et 3° de l'article 131-26 du code pénal pour une durée de cinq ans au plus ;

2° L'affichage ou la diffusion de la décision prononcée dans les conditions prévues par l'article 131-35 du code pénal.

Article 24 bis
Modifié par Loi n°92-1336 du 16 décembre 1992 art. 247 (JORF 23 décembre 1992 en vigueur le 1er mars 1994).

Seront punis des peines prévues par le sixième alinéa de l'article 24 ceux qui auront contesté, par un des moyens énoncés à l'article 23, l'existence d'un ou plusieurs crimes contre l'humanité tels qu'ils sont définis par l'article 6 du statut du tribunal militaire international annexé à l'accord de Londres du 8 août 1945 et qui ont été commis soit par les membres d'une organisation déclarée criminelle en application de l'article 9 dudit statut, soit par une personne reconnue coupable de tels crimes par une juridiction française ou internationale.

Le tribunal pourra en outre ordonner :

1° L'affichage ou la diffusion de la décision prononcée dans les conditions prévues par l'article 131-35 du code pénal.

This is a law of the civil code, that dates originally from 1881.

In the first bolded part it says: bla bla legalese bla bla ... who have incited hatred or violence towards one or more persons based on their sex, sexual orientation or handicap or have engaged in discriminatory...bla bla legalese bla bla ... actions towards said persons.

The second bolded part was added in 1992 and is which concerns us here:
bla bla legalese bla bla ... those who deny...bla bla legalese bla bla the existence of one or more crimes against humanity as defined by article 6 of the Statute of the Military Tribunal annexed to the agreement of London on Aug, 8th 1945 when it is committed either by a member of a criminal organization as defined in article 9 of said Statute or by a person convicted of said crimes by a French or International court.

Note that this law falls under the category of:

Quote:

Originally Posted by same source

CHAPITRE IV : DES CRIMES ET DELITS COMMIS PAR LA VOIE DE LA PRESSE OU PAR TOUT AUTRE MOYEN DE PUBLICATION.
Paragraphe 1er : Provocation aux crimes et délits.

Crimes and misdemeanours committed by way of the press or any other method of publication.
Paragraphe 1: Incitement of crimes or misdemeanours

The law is not even part of the section on free speech, as mentioned before it is the publication (by a letter to a newspaper in this case) that is a necessary constituent of the crime.

What the man said was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fascist

intéressé par l'Histoire, en général (…) et pas particulièrement par tel ou tel aspect du drame concentrationnaire au sujet duquel les opinions des spécialistes varient dans le temps comme dans l'espace

The keywords here are 'drame concentrationnaire' which translate as the 'concentration camp joke' or 'concentration camp whining'.

The man was sentenced on account of publishing this denial of the Holocaust. That's all there is to it. NO infringement on free speech, no relation whatsoever to racism, migration, American law, and whatnot that has since been introduced into the thread.
Period.

Excuse my French but the thread initiator brought up the subject of a Frenchmen, convicted in France under French jurisdiction and law, for a publication in French, and believe it or not, French law is in....French.

Frank · #95 (**permalink**) 01-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

This thread has detoriated into anti-Semitism and racism

Only in your mind.

Quote:

so let's go back to the issue. here's the law in question :

This is a law of the civil code, that dates originally from 1881.

In the first bolded part it says: bla bla legalese bla bla ... who have incited hatred or violence towards one or more persons based on their sex, sexual orientation or handicap or have engaged in discriminatory actions towards said persons.

So why was Brigitte Bardot convicted of a crime that does not exist?

On June 10, 2004 Bardot was convicted by a French court of "inciting racial hatred" and fined 5,000 €, which was the fourth such conviction/fine she has faced from French courts.

Brigitte Bardot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But human rights groups the Movement Against Racism And For Friendship Between Peoples (MRAP) and the Human Rights League said they were planning to file a complaint in court.

"This work is unacceptable. It is a real call for racism, discrimination and violence," MRAP President Mouloud Aounit told French news agency AFP.

Ms Bardot was convicted in 1997, 1998 and 2000 for inciting racial hatred in various written articles and comments made in interviews, including a complaint in 1998 over the growing number of mosques in France "while our church-bells fall silent for want of priests".

BBC NEWS | Europe | Bardot anti-Muslim comments draw fire

Quote:

The law is not even part of the section on free speech, as mentioned before it is the publication (by a letter to a newspaper in this case) that is a necessary constituent of the crime.

Whoa! Are you arguing over the existance of an 'inciting racial hatred' type law or are you arguing over the method of communication that must be used for the law to be enforced?

Quote:

The keywords here are 'drame concentrationnaire' which translate as the 'concentration camp joke' or 'concentration camp whining'.

Who said this again? If you are referring to Gollnisch my Wikipedia source citing a French newspaper and Boston Globe sources do not share that interpretation.

Second, if one is going to be accused of hoilocaust denial shoud the exact words not be known? 'concentration camp whining' is certainly insensitive but not denial.

Quote:

The man was sentenced on account of publishing this denial of the Holocaust. That's all there is to it.

I have yet to see any evidence of actual 'denial' of the holocaust?

Quote:

NO infringement on free speech, no relation whatsoever to racism, migration, American law, and whatnot that has since been introduced into the thread. Period.

I suppose it is not an infringement when the truly 'Soviet'-style EU defines free speech as a right that can be revoked if an EU government does not approve of the speech in question. I believe the old Soviet Constitution had a similar philosophy?

Quote:

1977 Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Chapter 7: THE BASIC RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS OF THE USSR

Article 39. Citizens of the USSR enjoy in full the social, economic, political and personal rights and freedoms proclaimed and guaranteed by the Constitution of the USSR and by Soviet laws. The socialist system ensures enlargement of the rights and freedoms of citizens and continuous improvement of their living standards as social, economic, and cultural development programmes are fulfilled.

Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state, or infringe the rights of other citizens.

The EU Convention is really no different then the 1977 Soviet Constitution when it comes to free speech and free expression...

Quote:

ARTICLE 10 of the EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

I may have to concede your point when free speech is a revokable right that can be cancelled at will in the name of protecting 'society' or 'morals.' Welcome to the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; I suppose one cannot infringe on a right that truly does not exist in such a society.

WarOnIgnorance · #96 (**permalink**) 01-27-2007

Frank, I gave you everything you could possibly need to understand the issue, even in violation of the forum rules.
If you still don't understand, then learn French.
I'm done with this thread.

Wallaroo · #97 (**permalink**) 01-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Frank, I gave you everything you could possibly need to understand the issue, even in violation of the forum rules.
If you still don't understand, then learn French.

No big deal, I just translated it for you.

Quote:

Article 24 Modifié by Law n°2004-1486 of December 30, 2004 art. 20, art. 22 (JORF December 31, 2004). Will be punished five years of imprisonment and 45000 euros fine those which, by one of the average statements to the preceding article, will have directly caused, if this provocation would not have been followed of effect, to make one of the following infringements: 1° voluntary attacks with the life, voluntary attacks with the integrity of the person and sexual aggressions, defined by book II of the penal code; 2° flights, extortions and destruction, degradations and dangerous voluntary deteriorations for the people, defined by book III of the penal code. Those which, by the same means, directly will have caused with the one of the crimes and offences attacking the fundamental interests of the nation envisaged by the Ier title of book IV of the penal code, will be punished same sorrows. Will be punished same sorrow those which, by one of the average statements in article 23, will have defended the crimes aimed to the first subparagraph, of the war crimes, the crimes against humanity or the crimes and offences of collaboration with the enemy. Will be punished sorrows envisaged by the subparagraph 1st those which, by the same means, will have caused directly with the acts of terrorism envisaged by title II of book IV of the penal code, or which will have made the apology for it. All cries or seditious songs uttered in the places or public meetings will be punished fine planned for the infringments of the 5° class. Those which, by one of the average statements in article 23, will have caused with discrimination, hatred or the violence with regard to a person or of a group of people at a rate of their origin or their membership or their not-membership of an ethnos group, a nation, a race or a determined religion, will be punished one year of imprisonment and 45000 euros fine or one of these two sorrows only. Will be punished sorrows envisaged with the preceding subparagraph those which, by these same means, will have caused with hatred or the violence with regard to a person or of a group of people at a rate of their sex, their sexual orientation or their handicap or will have caused, with regard to the same people, with the discriminations envisaged by articles 225-2 and 432-7 of the penal code. In the event of judgment for one of the facts envisaged by the two preceding subparagraphs, the court will be able moreover to order: 1° except when the responsibility for the author of the infringement is retained on the base for article 42 and the first subparagraph for article 43 for this law or the first three subparagraphs for article 93-3 for the law n° 82-652 for July 29, 1982 on the audio-visual communication, the deprivation of the rights enumerated to the 2° and 3° of article 131-26 of the penal code for one duration five years at the maximum; 2° the posting or diffusion of the decision pronounced under the conditions envisaged by article 131-35 of the penal code. Article 24 (a) Modifié by Law n°92-1336 of December 16, 1992 art. 247 (JORF 23 December 1992 in force on March 1, 1994). Will be punished sorrows envisaged by the sixth subparagraph of article 24 those which will have disputed, by one of the average statements in article 23, the existence of one or more crimes against humanity such as they are defined by article 6 of the statute of the international tribunal military annexed in the agreement of London of August 8, 1945 and which were a clerk either by the members of an organization declared criminal pursuant to article 9 of the aforesaid statute, or by a person found guilty such crimes by a French or international jurisdiction. The court will be able moreover to order: 1° the posting or diffusion of the decision pronounced under the conditions envisaged by article 131-35 of the penal code.

mpd8488 · #98 (**permalink**) 01-27-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Frank, I gave you everything you could possibly need to understand the issue, even in violation of the forum rules.
If you still don't understand, then learn French.
I'm done with this thread.

Everyone who is reading this thread, even Frank, understands the issue. You are arguing in favor of a law that is hypocritical, establishes the precedent for squashing outside opinions, and frankly insults the dignity of Holocaust victims. There has not been a single logical argument that supports keeping this law on the law books.

Frank · #99 (**permalink**) 01-28-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

No big deal, I just translated it for you.

The following is from the statute in question...

Quote:

Those which, by one of the average statements in article 23, will have caused with discrimination, hatred or the violence with regard to a person or of a group of people at a rate of their origin or their membership or their not-membership of an ethnos group, a nation, a race or a determined religion, will be punished one year of imprisonment and 45000 euros fine or one of these two sorrows only.

Hmmmm; this certainly looks like a law against 'inciting racial hatred' no?

Gort · #**100** (**permalink**) 01-28-2007

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Sorry, Gort, but you're still missing two important points.

Firstly, there is no impediment on free speech. The American interpretation is not an absolutist dogma. It simply doesn't apply here. If the thug in question was sentenced under American law, then there would have been an impediment on free speech. This is not the case.

With all due respect WOI I do not think I have missed anz points. Before I continue let me say I am arguing this point with you not because I agree with anything Frank says, but because I do happen to believe very strongly in the concept of free speech. Now that said, I do not believe I ever said US free speeach laws are absoutist. For example I can not go around claiming I am going to kill the President. Nor can I go into a crowded theater and yell fire. However short of something that could cause bodiliy harm to someone else I am able to say prettz much whatever I want in public. That is in fact the main point I have been trying to make. Telling someone they are not able to make a certain speech is not solving the problem. In essence what you are trzing to do is legislate how people think and that is both impossible and frankly down right scary.

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Secondly and more importantly, nothing gets swept under the carpet. The fascist political parties are all happy and free. The Austrian FPÖ has even been in a coalition government.

They get airtime, subsidizations like all other political parties, heck, their political propaganda is distributed by the national post office like it is with other political parties (unless the postal workers go on strike because they are expected to distribute that filth, as has happened on more than one occasion - If you saw some of that propaganda, you wouldn't believe your eyes. It's JUST like Nazi-propaganda, the themes, the colours, the lay-out, the whole thing.)

I understand the parties are for the most part not outlawed. Frankly while I think it is uneccessary I also understand why the swastika is banned in Germany. I have never cllaimed that feedoms do not exist in Europe, just not when it comes to certain taypes of speech or thought that governments are uncomfortable with.

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

The laws in question are uniquely concerned with the Holocaust. Nothing else is susceptible to it. Not even other genocides (as FF doesn't hesitate to point out). So, I don't think you can say that
There is no slippery slope towards further curtailing of fascists and their political representation. Holocaust denial is the issue and the sole issue.

I understand this but in fact it is a slippery slope. I can understand and support limits on speech that would protect the public from undue phzsical harm, like the prohibition here that zou can not yell fire in a movie theater. What we are talking about however does not fit into that catagory.

Ask yourself WOI what is it that the governments of Europe are so afraid of that they have to pass a law that says no one can question the holocost.
[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

I sincerely applaud the near absence of fascists in US politics, but I don't think that is due to your more encompassing view of freedom of speech. I do think though that your skeleton in the closet extends to more than just slavery. The whole treatment of blacks in the past, up until the 60's, or maybe later as some might say, qualifies as such IMO.

There is no near absence of fascists here, we have them we just handle them differently. And it is in fact in large part because rather than push something under the rug we prefer to get it out in the open and deal with it. Moreover there is simply more of an emphasis on the rights of the individual here than you have in Europe. WOI please do not insult me. I did not say nor imply that after 1865 everything was just fine with race relations in the US. I am not putting words in your mouth please do not do it to me.

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

The point is : what would happen if an elected official went on record claiming there has never been segregation or lynching in the US ? The question is genuine, not rhetorical : what would happen ? Nothing ?

We have had some officials that have had these views, or view simular to them. Look at George Wallace. He was the governor of Alabama and ran for the Presidency in 64, 68. 72 and 76. Did not win once. Even when he was the governor of ALabama and swore he would never let blacks into the University of Alabama the federal government confronted him na dofrced him to back down. He had the support of whites in ALabama at the time, but that was a very different time from today.

David Duke is another example of a racist that tried and failed to gain national office. Strom Thurmond and a Democrat Robert Byrd were both in the Senate and at one time had been memebers of the KKK alegedly.

Fact of the matter is most ´people who think this waz never get to national office because we allow them to spout off their beliefs before they run. The are essentially rlegated to ridicule for the most part. Sure there are some like Frank who look up to people like Duke, but they are by far a minority, vocal but still a minority.

No nation is perfect, and I have never claimed the US is. However I would rather face our deamons that simply act like they do not exist by passing laws that say no one can disagree with the current government view on a particular issue.

Frank · #**101** (**permalink**) 01-28-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

David Duke is another example of a racist that tried and failed to gain national office. Strom Thurmond and a Democrat Robert Byrd were both in the Senate and at one time had been memebers of the KKK alegedly.

There is no 'allegedly' about it...

In the early 1940s, when Byrd was 24 years old, he joined the Ku Klux Klan, which he had seen holding parades in Matoaka, West Virginia, as a child. His father had also been a Klan member[1]. Byrd was unanimously elected to be the leader, known as the Exalted Cyclops, of his local chapter

Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gort · #**102** (**permalink**) 01-28-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

There is no 'allegedly' about it...

In the early 1940s, when Byrd was 24 years old, he joined the Ku Klux Klan, which he had seen holding parades in Matoaka, West Virginia, as a child. His father had also been a Klan member[1]. Byrd was unanimously elected to be the leader, known as the Exalted Cyclops, of his local chapter

Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So and your point is. The problem my dear Frank is you never really seem to have a point from one post to the next. We have had our little back and forth and since you insist on playing semantic games I have frankly lost interest. Were I trying to hide something I would have merely refered to him as a Demcoratic Senator whose name I could not remember.

Frank · #**103** (**permalink**) 01-28-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

So and your point is. The problem my dear Frank is you never really seem to have a point from one post to the next.

I am not your 'dear' for one and second you used the term 'allegedly' which was indicative of doubt on your part as to the factual nature of your assertion. Of course being the helpful nice guy that I am I