|
|
|
|
| |
| |
Again, plaintiff exposes an ignorance of techical processes on the world
wide web, and a glaring inability to comprehend basic facts on such
issues, even after they are explained in detail several times. This
fault could explain why plaintiff's return on 90-100 employment
applications was so dismal.
FACT: A domain NAME is not a website. A domain name stores nothing, can
be pointed legally anywhere on the world wide web, and there are no
requirements for any domain name contact to know who authors
intellectual property on whatever site the domain name points to.
To present such a false representation to the court as fact is an insult
to the intelligence and experience of the presiding judge. Hopefully,
the court will treat such an obvious attempt at misrepresentation for
exactly what it is.
Ray Gordon wrote:
A domain name has NOTHING to do with the content of a site.
Wrong. Content cannot be posted to a domain without the direct or
indirect consent of the domain owner.
A domain owner knows (or should know, in the event a court needs the info)
who publishes on the domain, and who is using the domain.
A hosting provider is actually a less reliable source than a domain owner,
as any IP address registered to anyone can log in and upload. One cannot do
the same thing with a domain.
Plaintiff states "Again, it doesn't explain how a domain owner could
wind up not knowing who is using his domain.". In actuality, "who is
using his domain" means the person who creates (thereby retains the
intellectual property rights over) the content for a domain (not domain
name), then, in the above, states "A hosting provider is actually a less
reliable source than a domain owner, as any IP address registered to
anyone can log in and upload." If anyone "can log in and upload" content
they have created, this has nothing to do with a domain name contact
and, with that last statement, plaintiff publicly admits the factual
basis for any denial of knowledge as to the identity of any content
creator, and that a domain name contact of record and a website content
creator are not synonymous. A domain name contact has no need for
technical contact with a website content server to point a domain. This
is also an attempted misrepresentation that would insult the
intelligence of the court, and the statement alone negates plaintiff's
complaint against the domain name contact.
Once the issue of motions is dealt with, it will be interesting to see
how successfully plaintiff deals with any intellectual property issues
defendants bring to the case. Considering both the attempts at
misrepresentations of basic technical facts in the case, and plaintiff's
apparent inability to comprehend the complexity and importance of
intellectual property issues, it can safely be said there are some
serious surprises in store as this case progresses. Like patents,
intellectual property claims can cut both ways.
It seems plaintiff has depended on the safe harbour of bankruptcy for
protection in case the courts do not agree with his complaints. When the
last ink has dried on the final decision on this case, along with other
related causes this and plaintiff's other actions have given rise to,
whether that faith was misplaced or not will be revealed.
The possibility of multiple litigation, in numerous jurisdictions, over
a significant length of time, is one scenario that comes to mind,
particularly since plaintiff operates a commercial website accessible
from all fifty states and foreign countries. The possibility of
discharging any number of multiple judgments, in multiple jurisdictions,
through the bankruptcy court is questionable. There are realities to
deal with.
HS
|
| |
| |
Howard Stanton wrote:
A domain name contact has no need for
technical contact with a website content server to point a domain.
This statement should have read "A domain name contact has no need for
technical contact with a website content server (the DOMAIN) to point a
domain NAME. Plaintiff evidently has enough difficulty differentiating
between a domain and a domain name. My apologies.
HS
|
| |
| |
FACT: A domain NAME is not a website. A domain name stores nothing, can
be pointed legally anywhere on the world wide web, and there are no
requirements for any domain name contact to know who authors
intellectual property on whatever site the domain name points to.
Wanna bet?
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
FACT: A domain NAME is not a website. A domain name stores nothing, can
be pointed legally anywhere on the world wide web, and there are no
requirements for any domain name contact to know who authors
intellectual property on whatever site the domain name points to.
Wanna bet?
Yes. If the court rules the owner of the Ray-gordon.com
domain name does not know the FAQ webmaster, will you leave
USENET forever? Do you have the BALLS?
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
FACT: A domain NAME is not a website. A domain name stores nothing, can
be pointed legally anywhere on the world wide web, and there are no
requirements for any domain name contact to know who authors
intellectual property on whatever site the domain name points to.
Wanna bet?
Hello Gordon
You know, you are really such a complete wanker. Get a life you little
cretin and don't bother to @$#* off somewhere else - it's too late. I'm
still going to get Banshod to take you out. B likes .22 subsonic at
close range to the head. Only slightly messy and very effective. One of
the great things is that when this NG goes real quiet and you dont show
up for a few weeks we'll know that B has tapped you. Get mom life
insurance on you and leave her a parting gift for after you are history.
Love
Guy
|
| |
| |
Your name is Rodney.
|
| |
| |
In 9aBcd.2515$Ug4.1974@trndny01,
Ray Gordon <ray@cybersheet.com> shared the these words:
Your name is Rodney.
Oooh Oooh! We are playing the name game again!
What's my name Oh Wise and Knowing Gordie of the USENET?!?
--
Rusty
The preceding message reflects my beliefs and opinions. Veracity of
statements is left to the common sense of the reader.
|
| |
| |
Your name is Rodney.
Oooh Oooh! We are playing the name game again!
Just letting the guy who made a death threat against me know that he @$#*ed
up royally.
Those who have been inciting him don't understand what "depraved
indifference" is either.
It's 10 years in club fed for harassing a litigant, and the people here are
acting as a group.
|
| |
| |
But he's good for a few laughs every day. I would miss
him....um...well....uh, ok maybe not...
BM
Ray Gordon wrote:
FACT: A domain NAME is not a website. A domain name stores nothing, can
be pointed legally anywhere on the world wide web, and there are no
requirements for any domain name contact to know who authors
intellectual property on whatever site the domain name points to.
Hello Gordon
You know, you are really such a complete wanker. Get a life you little
cretin and don't bother to @$#* off somewhere else - it's too late. I'm
still going to get Banshod to take you out. B likes .22 subsonic at close
range to the head. Only slightly messy and very effective. One of the
great things is that when this NG goes real quiet and you dont show up for
a few weeks we'll know that B has tapped you. Get mom life insurance on
you and leave her a parting gift for after you are history.
Love
Guy
|
| |
| |
But he's good for a few laughs every day. I would miss
him....um...well....uh, ok maybe not...
Now you crossed a line.
Come to think of it, you conspired with the other guy to harass a litigant.
You further harassed me by republishing his words with the above comment.
You then claim the courts talk smack about me, and that lawyers make you
privy to their strategy against me.
How odd you are so unwilling to sign your name to anything, at least
voluntarily.
|
| |
| |
So sue us all, I dare you herpes loon. Get out of your mommy's house and go
down and sue the entire group. The white coats are not as far away as you
think.
Idiot
BM
Your name is Rodney.
Oooh Oooh! We are playing the name game again!
Just letting the guy who made a death threat against me know that he
@$#*ed up royally.
Those who have been inciting him don't understand what "depraved
indifference" is either.
It's 10 years in club fed for harassing a litigant, and the people here
are acting as a group.
|
| |
| |
So sue us all, I dare you herpes loon. Get out of your mommy's house and
go down and sue the entire group. The white coats are not as far away as
you think.
I'm shaking all the way to the courthouse.
|
| |
| |
So sue me herpes boy. If you think you can make a case do your worst. I
think you are a real wimp, and you don't have the backbone to do it.
I would tell you kiss my ass, but I'm rather proud of it, and I don't want
to catch anything. So go bite a rock.
Twerp
BM
But he's good for a few laughs every day. I would miss
him....um...well....uh, ok maybe not...
Now you crossed a line.
Come to think of it, you conspired with the other guy to harass a
litigant. You further harassed me by republishing his words with the above
comment.
You then claim the courts talk smack about me, and that lawyers make you
privy to their strategy against me.
How odd you are so unwilling to sign your name to anything, at least
voluntarily.
|
| |
| |
If you are shaking, it must be because you can't afford the heat. It's nice
down here....in Floriduh. I hear heating oil will be really expensive for
looney tunes like you this winter. Pity....
BM
So sue us all, I dare you herpes loon. Get out of your mommy's house and
go down and sue the entire group. The white coats are not as far away as
you think.
I'm shaking all the way to the courthouse.
|
| |
| |
He is not worth the cost of the ammunition.
Did you know that Ice Picks are really cheap up north? I hear you can even
buy and Ice Axe up there. Down here in Floriduh, chain saws are all the
rage. *giggles*
BM
Ray Gordon wrote:
FACT: A domain NAME is not a website. A domain name stores nothing, can
be pointed legally anywhere on the world wide web, and there are no
requirements for any domain name contact to know who authors
intellectual property on whatever site the domain name points to.
Hello Gordon
You know, you are really such a complete wanker. Get a life you little
cretin and don't bother to @$#* off somewhere else - it's too late. I'm
still going to get Banshod to take you out. B likes .22 subsonic at close
range to the head. Only slightly messy and very effective. One of the
great things is that when this NG goes real quiet and you dont show up for
a few weeks we'll know that B has tapped you. Get mom life insurance on
you and leave her a parting gift for after you are history.
Love
Guy
|
| |
| |
in article 9iBcd.1445$EL5.1284@trndny09, Ray Gordon at ray@cybersheet.com
wrote on 10/17/04 5:15 PM:
Your name is Rodney.
Oooh Oooh! We are playing the name game again!
Just letting the guy who made a death threat against me know that he @$#*ed
up royally.
Those who have been inciting him don't understand what "depraved
indifference" is either.
It's 10 years in club fed for harassing a litigant, and the people here are
acting as a group.
That mean I'm going to get named in a "@$#*ing lawsuit" again?
Can't wait.
Inexcusable Failure II: The Sequel.
|
| |
| |
Guy Gerrard wrote:
Ray Gordon wrote:
FACT: A domain NAME is not a website. A domain name stores nothing, can
be pointed legally anywhere on the world wide web, and there are no
requirements for any domain name contact to know who authors
intellectual property on whatever site the domain name points to.
Hello Gordon
You know, you are really such a complete wanker. Get a life you little
cretin and don't bother to @$#* off somewhere else - it's too late. I'm
still going to get Banshod to take you out. B likes .22 subsonic at
close range to the head. Only slightly messy and very effective. One of
the great things is that when this NG goes real quiet and you dont show
up for a few weeks we'll know that B has tapped you. Get mom life
insurance on you and leave her a parting gift for after you are history.
Love
Guy
Great. Another idiotic post. We have enough trouble getting the problem
child to tell the difference between threats and non-threats, and the
fact that no one has threatened him in the alt.hypnosis group, and then
you come along and post this sh*t.
Thanks for adding to the troubles.
--
Carl cfb01@earthlink.net
Research is a formalized curiosity. It is poking
and prying with a purpose.
Zora Neale Hurston
Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never
regains it's original dimension.
Oliver Wendall Holmes
Only a fool tests the depth of the water with
both feet.
African Proverb
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein
What would life be if we had no courage
to attempt anything?
Vincent Van Gogh
|
| |
| |
Great. Another idiotic post. We have enough trouble getting the problem
child
You use a term like that, YOU are part of the "problem."
Common sense should tell you to back the @$#* away when #@($ like this is
happening. People like you rely on people like that to threaten me and do
your dirtywork for you.
Lots of names will be reported to the police over this latest round of
threats, with explanations of the role played by each.
You are no better than he is, and your actions contributed to his in that
you made him think I was a legitimate target for abuse.
Any alleged disowning of this conduct that refers to its target as a
"problem child" reeks more of a conspiracy gone wrong.
I doubt anyone will be laughing when they see the lawsuit that this man just
gave rise to.
|
| |
| |
in article LtFcd.2640$Ug4.1006@trndny01, Ray Gordon at ray@cybersheet.com
wrote on 10/17/04 10:01 PM:
Great. Another idiotic post. We have enough trouble getting the problem
child
You use a term like that, YOU are part of the "problem."
Gordon IS the problem.
Common sense should tell you to back the @$#* away when #@($ like this is
happening. People like you rely on people like that to threaten me and do
your dirtywork for you.
Lots of names will be reported to the police over this latest round of
threats, with explanations of the role played by each.
Oooh... I'm shaking.
You are no better than he is, and your actions contributed to his in that
you made him think I was a legitimate target for abuse.
Gordon is a legitimate target for abuse. Not for threats.
Any alleged disowning of this conduct that refers to its target as a
"problem child" reeks more of a conspiracy gone wrong.
I doubt anyone will be laughing when they see the lawsuit that this man just
gave rise to.
I'm sure *I* will be.
|
| |
| |
is a legitimate target for abuse.
That's what OJ thought Nicole was.
Pity the woman who ever is with a man who believes in "legitimate targets
for abuse."
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:9iBcd.1445$EL5.1284@trndny09:
Your name is Rodney.
Oooh Oooh! We are playing the name game again!
Just letting the guy who made a death threat against me know that he
@$#*ed up royally.
Those who have been inciting him don't understand what "depraved
indifference" is either.
It's 10 years in club fed for harassing a litigant, and the people
here are acting as a group.
Uh... and exactly where would there be any verifiable evidence (you know,
that means real world evidence that others can view and evaluate - the kind
of evidence that you seem to be so very short of) that others have been
"inciting him"?
"the people here are acting as a group"? Only in your fantasies. I
certainly have no contact with others in this group and I truly doubt that
others do either. I know that my disgust with you is caused solely by your
own posts to this newsgroup - get that? Your own posts are responsible for
how I feel about you!
After all, no one else in this newsgroup has called me a shill and called
me a rapist and accused me of sexually abusing my single-mother secretary,
while claiming to know exactly who I am. Only you had the stupidity to do
something like that. Do you begin to underestand why it's been your own
posts that make me think you are a lying little #@($ who will say anything
to further whatever current agenda you have?
How tall are you? If you're over 5'10" I'll change the description of my
opinion of you to a lying big #@($ who will say anything to further
whatever current agenda you have - and your own posts, as quoted above and
many others, are the reason that I have formed that opinion.
BGW, I do have the full posts with headers of the above accusations you
have directed against me.
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:J5Ccd.2528$Ug4.1332@trndny01:
So sue us all, I dare you herpes loon. Get out of your mommy's house
and go down and sue the entire group. The white coats are not as far
away as you think.
I'm shaking all the way to the courthouse.
I believe in medical circles that's known as palsy.
Life must be hell to have that along with herpes.
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:HXBcd.2316$WN5.1567@trndny08:
But he's good for a few laughs every day. I would miss
him....um...well....uh, ok maybe not...
Now you crossed a line.
Come to think of it, you conspired with the other guy to harass a
litigant. You further harassed me by republishing his words with the
above comment.
You then claim the courts talk smack about me, and that lawyers make
you privy to their strategy against me.
How odd you are so unwilling to sign your name to anything, at least
voluntarily.
Are you having some serious cognition problems here?
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
|
| |
| |
in article jWFcd.2694$Ug4.2554@trndny01, Ray Gordon at ray@cybersheet.com
wrote on 10/17/04 10:31 PM:
That's what OJ thought Nicole was.
Nicole didn't delight in the deaths and misfortunes of others. Nicole never
rooted for a woman's cancer and threatened to make her children watch as she
danced on their mother's grave.
Pity the woman who ever is with a man who believes in "legitimate targets
for abuse."
Pity the poor woman who is ever with Gordon.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
Great. Another idiotic post. We have enough trouble getting the problem
child
You use a term like that, YOU are part of the "problem."
You've been a problem around here for something like eight years now, is
anyone supposed to be surprised?
Common sense should tell you to back the @$#* away when #@($ like this is
happening. People like you rely on people like that to threaten me and do
your dirtywork for you.
Jealous because you have to do all your own threatening and dirtywork
yourself?
Lots of names will be reported to the police over this latest round of
threats, with explanations of the role played by each.
I suspect from the complaints people have made against you, that
anything you send to the local police will be sent to the round file,
file 13, along with gales of laughter.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
is a legitimate target for abuse.
That's what OJ thought Nicole was.
Pity the woman who ever is with a man who believes in "legitimate targets
for abuse."
I would definitely pity any woman who was stupid enough to be with you.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:jWFcd.2694$Ug4.2554@trndny01:
That's what OJ thought Nicole was.
Pity the woman who ever is with a man who believes in "legitimate
targets for abuse."
What exactly did you think of those "trader trash" you were verbally
abusing as they were dying?
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
|
| |
| |
Krus T. Olfard wrote:
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:9iBcd.1445$EL5.1284@trndny09:
Uh... and exactly where would there be any verifiable evidence (you know,
that means real world evidence that others can view and evaluate - the kind
of evidence that you seem to be so very short of) that others have been
"inciting him"?
Exactly.
"the people here are acting as a group"? Only in your fantasies. I
certainly have no contact with others in this group and I truly doubt that
others do either. I know that my disgust with you is caused solely by your
own posts to this newsgroup - get that? Your own posts are responsible for
how I feel about you!
I've said that for more than a year. All of the bad feelings against
Ray are caused to him by his own words.
|
| |
| |
Krus T. Olfard wrote:
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:J5Ccd.2528$Ug4.1332@trndny01:
So sue us all, I dare you herpes loon. Get out of your mommy's house
and go down and sue the entire group. The white coats are not as far
away as you think.
I believe in medical circles that's known as palsy.
Life must be hell to have that along with herpes.
I like that. I give you three points.
|
| |
| |
Common sense should tell you to back the @$#* away when #@($ like this is
happening.
But you constantly complain that none of us take action to protect you
when someone "threatens" you. Now you say we should back away. Which is
it? Right now it's heads you win, tails we lose.
I, for one, will not play if I know I am going to lose. Therefore, I
will never defend you again (and I have in the past) against others'
threats. If some jerk threatens you, so be it. Frankly, I hope someone
finally follows through. The world would be a better place without you.
As you put it "no significant loss of life".
I publicly disavow any responsibility I might have had for the physical
safety of Gordon Roy Parker. The sole exception is that I have no
intention of directly threatening his physical person except in my own
self-defense or the defense of others.
Translation: Until such time as Ray gets medical help for his bi-polar
disorder and becomes what I consider a productive, healthy member of
society, I reject any mandatory reporting statutes that may apply in his
particular, individual circumstance.
Since I am in Wisconsin and Parker is in PA, the statutes do not apply.
However, even when I am in PA, I will refuse to apply them for this
particular individual. Mr. Parker has constantly refused to follow well
meaning advice and has constantly denied he has a problem, despite his
publicly acknowledged diagnosis that confirms his bi-polar disorder. In
addition, he consistantly has acted in ways to place himself at risk.
If a person willingly refuses to make an effort to protect himself, to
change his approach for his own protection or willfully places himself
in a position to be threatened or harmed (such as by regularly posting
inflammatory posts on the USENET), it is my personal opinion that the
mandatory reporting or any applicable good samaritan statutes need not
be applied.
Paul Knight
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message news:<9iBcd.1445$EL5.1284@trndny09>...
Your name is Rodney.
Oooh Oooh! We are playing the name game again!
Just letting the guy who made a death threat against me know that he @$#*ed
up royally.
Those who have been inciting him don't understand what "depraved
indifference" is either.
It's 10 years in club fed for harassing a litigant, and the people here are
acting as a group.
Nope. Not acting as a group, acting as individuals who seem to have
similar beliefs about you.
Nice try.
Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
|
| |
| |
The fact is that Ray went too far long ago. He deserves what he gets.
Normally I wouldn't wish ill on anyone, but then I see those 9/11
posts....sigh
BM
Common sense should tell you to back the @$#* away when #@($ like this is
happening.
But you constantly complain that none of us take action to protect you
when someone "threatens" you. Now you say we should back away. Which is
it? Right now it's heads you win, tails we lose.
I, for one, will not play if I know I am going to lose. Therefore, I will
never defend you again (and I have in the past) against others' threats.
If some jerk threatens you, so be it. Frankly, I hope someone finally
follows through. The world would be a better place without you. As you put
it "no significant loss of life".
I publicly disavow any responsibility I might have had for the physical
safety of Gordon Roy Parker. The sole exception is that I have no
intention of directly threatening his physical person except in my own
self-defense or the defense of others.
Translation: Until such time as Ray gets medical help for his bi-polar
disorder and becomes what I consider a productive, healthy member of
society, I reject any mandatory reporting statutes that may apply in his
particular, individual circumstance.
Since I am in Wisconsin and Parker is in PA, the statutes do not apply.
However, even when I am in PA, I will refuse to apply them for this
particular individual. Mr. Parker has constantly refused to follow well
meaning advice and has constantly denied he has a problem, despite his
publicly acknowledged diagnosis that confirms his bi-polar disorder. In
addition, he consistantly has acted in ways to place himself at risk.
If a person willingly refuses to make an effort to protect himself, to
change his approach for his own protection or willfully places himself in
a position to be threatened or harmed (such as by regularly posting
inflammatory posts on the USENET), it is my personal opinion that the
mandatory reporting or any applicable good samaritan statutes need not be
applied.
Paul Knight
|
| |
| |
Paul Knight <knightp@execpc.com> wrote in message news:<10n7vp0e8jil508@corp.supernews.com>...
Common sense should tell you to back the @$#* away when #@($ like this is
happening.
But you constantly complain that none of us take action to protect you
when someone "threatens" you. Now you say we should back away. Which is
it? Right now it's heads you win, tails we lose.
I, for one, will not play if I know I am going to lose. Therefore, I
will never defend you again (and I have in the past) against others'
threats. If some jerk threatens you, so be it. Frankly, I hope someone
finally follows through. The world would be a better place without you.
As you put it "no significant loss of life".
I publicly disavow any responsibility I might have had for the physical
safety of Gordon Roy Parker. The sole exception is that I have no
intention of directly threatening his physical person except in my own
self-defense or the defense of others.
Translation: Until such time as Ray gets medical help for his bi-polar
disorder and becomes what I consider a productive, healthy member of
society, I reject any mandatory reporting statutes that may apply in his
particular, individual circumstance.
Since I am in Wisconsin and Parker is in PA, the statutes do not apply.
However, even when I am in PA, I will refuse to apply them for this
particular individual. Mr. Parker has constantly refused to follow well
meaning advice and has constantly denied he has a problem, despite his
publicly acknowledged diagnosis that confirms his bi-polar disorder. In
addition, he consistantly has acted in ways to place himself at risk.
If a person willingly refuses to make an effort to protect himself, to
change his approach for his own protection or willfully places himself
in a position to be threatened or harmed (such as by regularly posting
inflammatory posts on the USENET), it is my personal opinion that the
mandatory reporting or any applicable good samaritan statutes need not
be applied.
Paul Knight
Paul, with all due respect for you as a friend and colleague, I have
to say that if you were to witness a physical assault on his person,
you would be bound to at least call a cop.
I know I would.
But to put my anatomy in the direct line of physical danger for him is
not part of any legal requirement that I am aware of. All one has to
do is call the authorities and let them handle it. Anything beyond
that is volunteerism and laudable, but not legally required.
While I disagree with Mr. Parker on a regular basis and feel that,
because of his self-admitted bi-polar disorder, he does need to at
least get a competent psychological evaluation (as the court seems to
agree) to determine what further treatment may be necessary (as has
been noted, this disorder does not "get better by itself" according to
the NIMH and the CDC, but actually tends to worsen without treatment),
I certainly would call a cop if I saw him getting attacked.
Color me strange, but I cannot abide seeing someone getting beaten up.
Maybe it's a flashback to my days in the dojo. We were always taught
that it was appropriate to defend those in trouble. In such a case,
the method that I would probably use would be to call a cop. It's
their job to deal with such incidents.
While I may disagree with Gordon on many issues and agree with you
that his own actions and postings have been inciting of possible
violence against him (in other words, he seems to want an attack to
happen for whatever reason), I would most certainly take the step of
calling a cop if I should see him getting attacked.
I guess I'm just strange in that regard, but I can't abide seeing
someone getting beaten up - not even someone whom I disagree with as
much as I have disagreed with Gordon over the years.
Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
|
| |
| |
| |
