PDA

View Full Version : Yes, of course, I apologize, what was I thinking?


BenThere
8th Aug 2008, 01:03
To those of us who are informed, au currant, the naivete of the author is apparent.

Imagine, a scholarly or intellectual inquiry to an historical era!

Bend over, here it comes.

Random House pulls novel on Islam, fears violence | U.S. | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0736008820080807)

brickhistory
8th Aug 2008, 01:10
Ah, yes. The all-knowing, all smug Eastern media establishment.


Just not so gutsy.




Ugh....

con-pilot
8th Aug 2008, 01:31
Ah yes, very refreshing to see see people and corporations standing up to their principals.

Oh, sorry, I guess they didn't, did they.

Well, I guess we need to get ready for more of this type of nonsense, I'm afraid this is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Of course anyone can write books and make movies criticizing and making fun of Christian or Jewish religion and that is just fine, but Muslim, watch out!

I see that the Parent Company of Random House is European. That explains it. Wimps. :suspect:

nahsuD
8th Aug 2008, 02:25
Ezra Levant (http://ezralevant.com/) is a Canadian publisher who's magazine was taken to the Human Rights commission because he published the "Danish Cartoons". He was found not guilty but at a considerable cost for defense.

"My lawyers have just received a copy of a letter from the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissing the complaint of “discrimination” filed against me by the radical Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities. They had complained that by publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in the Western Standard in February 2006, I had engaged in an illegal act.

Their complaint was identical to the one filed earlier by an anti-Semitic imam named Syed Soharwardy. Soharwardy abandoned his complaint this spring. You can see Soharwardy’s complaint here; it named both me and the magazine. The Edmonton complaint named just the magazine. My initial legal response is here.

The two complaints cost Alberta taxpayers in excess of $500,000 and, according to access to information documents, involved no fewer than 15 government bureaucrats. What a scam – on the part of the complainants, who were able to wage “lawfare” against an infidel without paying a cent; and on the part of the HRC, as a make-work project."

arcniz
8th Aug 2008, 03:15
Cluck, cluck, cluck. A bunch of old hens you fellows are... if only when the wind favours the way your feathers are aimed.

What would be the prospects for success for staging a gay-lesbian rendition of Jesus-Christ Superstar in the middle of, well, just about any place between Appalachia and the rocky shores of the Sierra-Nevada? Really ??

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to discern that Ms Jones artistic work would be highly provocative in the Middle-East version of the Bible-Belt. Thank goodness those nuance-sensitive German fellows at Bertelsmann AG caught this before the cat was out the bag.

Perhaps Sherry Jones can pitch it to Al Jazeerah for a multi-segment special. The first Hollywood-style Islamo-pot-boiler? No doubt they would be able to figure out in short-order how to cool the whole thing down to bearable proportions. It's not that the Muslim world is opposed to tawdriness, they just have different metaphors that MUST be observed.

(section omitted where author provides compare-contrast of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish styles of tawdriness for same bit of plot.)

The world does not really want or need any more provocative media-wannabes stirring up the mix. I'd say we already have more cultural misunderstanding problems than we can handle.

Brian Abraham
8th Aug 2008, 04:49
The threat of the sword is mightier than the pen.

Al Fakhem
8th Aug 2008, 06:59
Of course, the potentially most violent protesters would never had read the book in the first place. Oh, sorry, I forgot and I am really condescending....they are fecking illiterate anyway.

BenThere
8th Aug 2008, 12:24
What would be the prospects for success for staging a gay-lesbian rendition of Jesus-Christ Superstar in the middle of, well, just about any place between Appalachia and the rocky shores of the Sierra-Nevada? Really ??


If you mean by 'success' the prospect of being able to stage such an event, such prospect would approach 100%, as the effort would be protected by the first amendment to the constitution. Assertion of the first amendment would likely not be necessary as nobody really cares what shows on stages as no one is required to attend.

The prospect for financial success, I would guess, would be much, much lower. I know I probably would not pay to see it, but for others it may be just their cup of tea. Pick up any urban artsy entertainment newspaper in any of the flyover country cities or university towns and you'll find hundreds of productions that would not appeal to the religious or socially conservative being presented totally unmolested.

I think your image of a constricted, bible-thumping culture, where "we don't like folks differnt fum us'ns" is a myth.

PanPanYourself
8th Aug 2008, 12:38
I think your image of a constricted, bible-thumping culture, where "we don't like folks differnt fum us'ns" is a myth.
Westboro Baptist Church Home Page (http://www.godhatesfags.com/)

brickhistory
8th Aug 2008, 12:51
Say PPY, how about that 'secular' Turkish government?

You can always find over the top examples. In any country at any point in time.

But as to the heart of the matter, Random House pulled the book over fear from offending a group that might cause them harm.

That is what is pathetic about their decision.

"The Da Vinci Code,' book and movie, Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," even Monty Python's "Life of Brian" were controversial and offended some. Yet those and many more are produced/published/distributed freely.

Rusdie's 'Satanic Verses,' a few Danish cartoons, and now this. Pretty effective way to keep your message 'pure.' Guess that explains the 12th century mentality of many of the most vociferous defenders of Islam.

The NYC-based media and publishing houses have had a long tradition of intellectual freedom. Now one of their ilk, a major player at that, is censoring itself due to fear.

That is not a good thing.

If they made their decision for business reasons, fine. But to state that it's due to safeguarding the 'safety of blah, blah, blah' I charge hypocrisy.


Note: I found both the book and film of "Da Vinci Code" mediocre, never saw Gibson's film, and enjoyed "Life of Brian." Islam has some good points and bad, same as any religion. But apparently, no one is allowed to mention the bad points.

BenThere
8th Aug 2008, 13:09
PanPan,

There's also the child-bride cult in Texas, recently in the news.

You got a problem with child-bride cults?;)

Overdrive
8th Aug 2008, 13:19
Why-oh-why do so many fawn all over Islam? I'm sick of hearing it. In fact, it offends me, so can we stop it World? :ugh:

airship
8th Aug 2008, 13:35
There is another angle to this whole episode, should you wish to consider it also: The novel traces the life of A'isha from her engagement to Mohammed, when she was six, until the prophet's death....
..."They did have a great love story," Jones said of Mohammed and A'isha, who is often referred to as Mohammed's favorite wife. After some rudimentary searches on Google, it would appear that the marriage was actually consummated when A'isha was 9 or 10 years old 'once she had reached puberty'. I realise that very young brides were a custom followed by many cultures a long time ago and is something that still occurs in some very isolated regions of the world today. And even though some Western children do often start menstruating at such an early age today, I'd be very surprised if that were the case in the days before they started administering artificial growth hormones to milk-producing cows whose products ended up on the family breakfast table...?! :confused:

But, what if the editor/s at Random House (having actually read the whole book...?!) simply felt that, in spite of all the historical significance of the work, certain parts of it were altogether unpublishable. A paedophile's 'bedside reading' so to speak. I've always understood that for a book to truly succeed (eg. Arthur Hailey and most of his works), it must be well-researched and as factual as possible. There must be a human -relationship element involved too. And lots of hot steamy sex scenes...?! Maybe A'isha did 'grow up' to love him afterwards. I didn't Google long enough, so I can't really say if I'm making an idiot of meself by asking whether or not A'isha had any breasts to speak of when, as in the quote from the news article: "He died with his head on her breast."

Even if my own contribution is way off the mark, I'd have thought that the events over the past few years and the risks to publishers was very real. It's one thing for us 'arm-chair warriors' here on JB to protest against perceived censorship, quite another for the publishers to be willing to risk (their) lives and limbs, perhaps only to satisfy the paedophilic tendencies amongst the few...?! :uhoh:

brickhistory
8th Aug 2008, 14:12
Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy, eh airship?

Publisher Random House has pulled a novel about the Prophet Mohammed's child bride, fearing it could "incite acts of violence."

"The Jewel of Medina," a debut novel by journalist Sherry Jones, 46, was due to be published on August 12 by Random House, a unit of Bertelsmann AG, and an eight-city publicity tour had been scheduled, Jones told Reuters on Thursday.


Random House deputy publisher Thomas Perry said in a statement the company received "cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

"In this instance we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel," Perry said.

Capt.KAOS
8th Aug 2008, 14:33
Jones said that she was shocked to learn in May, that publication would be postponed indefinitely.Oh really....what better publicity can you get?

airship
8th Aug 2008, 14:56
Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy, eh airship?
In what terms did my post not meet with your very own and particular criteria?

The Biblical old testament would have us believe that there was Adam and Eve. That was the beginning. Must have been a heck of a lot of incestuous activities that went on before there were a sufficient number of us about that we were no longer considered the end-result of such activities...? There's little mention of age of when 'so and so' begat 'so and so', so far as I can recall, and perhaps why Mohammed and A'isha draw all our attention...?! :rolleyes:

If you were going to write a somewhat explicit history of Adam and Eve, I dare say there would also be a fair number of somewhat-deranged individuals out there, able and willing to extract their revenge on the publishers, author, book-sellers or whatever. Not as many as there undoubtedy are out there in the world of Islam today, but just as deadly and prepared to do actual-bodily harm...?! :(

Oh, don't tell me, you've actually read Sherry Jones' book have you...?! If not, what are all these 'facts' that you speak of...?! :D

BenThere
8th Aug 2008, 14:59
Someone, I hope, will ultimately publish this volume, and my hat will be off to them.

Freedom is my faith, Random House, and I am sorely offended by your cowering lack of will to defend it in the face of the schoolyard bullies of Islam. May they continue to take your lunch money until you stand up to them.

I find it utterly appalling that one of America's leading publishing companies (regardless of who owns it) would stoop so low. They pretend the utmost courage when it comes to revealing national security secrets, but collapse in fear when real courage is called for.

Shame on them!

brickhistory
8th Aug 2008, 15:08
what are all these 'facts' that you speak of...?!

Well, there is the little matter of the publisher stating why they chose not to publish. But other than that, you were spot on.









As usual.

airship
8th Aug 2008, 15:16
Shame on them?! :rolleyes:

Let me remind you of what I posted just now: It's one thing for us 'arm-chair warriors' here on JB to protest against perceived censorship, quite another for the publishers to be willing to risk (their) lives and limbs, perhaps only to satisfy the paedophilic tendencies amongst the few...?! Leaving aside the 'paedophilic tendencies' for the moment (perhaps another separate subject), I don't see you (or anyone else here) expressing their willingness to provide 24/24H personal protection services to Random House publishers or authors 'at taxpayers' expense'...?! :rolleyes:

I'm reminded of the movie Patton, the scene is of a line of GIs moving along the roadside, carrying heavy loads: General Patton swings up in his half-track, one of the ordinary soldiers utters: "There goes old 'blood n' guts'...?!" Yeah, goes another GI: "Our blood, his guts...?!" :uhoh:

airship
8th Aug 2008, 15:28
Well, there is the little matter of the publisher stating why they chose not to publish. But other than that, you were spot on.









As usual.

But have you read the 'as yet unpublished book', or haven't you?!

As you've so often accused others of in the past here in JB, I believe that you're in the process of inserting an unidentified object up yer own bum, if one might say so, entirely politely of course.

It might also all be a simple ploy by Random House to arouse a lot of interest in a book which is much less interesting than it is purportedly reputed to be. And which might yet be published once the fervour (and adequate numbers of Secret Service agents are available to protect all those involved by order of benthere - sorry, I mean't the Senate)...?! :rolleyes:

Curious Pax
8th Aug 2008, 15:31
....even Monty Python's "Life of Brian" were controversial and offended some. Yet those and many more are produced/published/distributed freely.



Not in Aberystwyth it would appear: Vicar supports Life of Brian ban (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/7530542.stm)

frostbite
8th Aug 2008, 15:39
As for child-brides, the BBC chose to broadcast a programme last night glorifying a 14yo 'Mum' who wasn't a bride.

Why do they show such stuff? To encourage a few more?

BenThere
8th Aug 2008, 16:31
Take another tack, Airship, my polite and esteemed nemesis.

Brick and I both served in uniform to retirement, which should in itself establish to you our bona fides to comment. Since freedom of speech is the overriding issue, even that is not required. I certainly don't belong on any sort of pedestal for it, and I can't speak for Brick, but we did raise our hands promising to be there and followed through by being there to defend our core values, foremost among them, freedom. I was involved in three wars with real bullets. No big deal, but don't call me an armchair anything, please.

The content of the book is immaterial. The right, and now, duty, to publish it is the matter of importance. I didn't read Rushdie's book either, though God knows I tried, but again, the issue was his right to speak and the fatwa (contract) against (on) him.

I'd like to think that if I were confronted with the dilemma which faced the Random House executives, I would come up with a different answer, even at the cost of my livelihood. I see whoever made this decision as spineless, misguided, or both.

As for Patton, he was much more valuable as a general than he would have been in the mud. Everyone had a role to play in WWII, and he played his exceptionally well.

brickhistory
8th Aug 2008, 16:32
airship, I quite frankly don't know what you are talking about in your subsequent posts on this thread. Do try and focus.

The publisher was quoted as stating why they didn't publish.

They did not state it was a publicity campaign. While it might be, it is not a fact or official as stated by the concerned publisher.

As to 'security concerns,' that is rather the point. The publisher and western media is free to put out anti-Christian/anti-Jewish/anti-bear material and they know that they are relatively free from any repercussions other than vocal protests which in itself is publicity.

They often, indeed usually, trumpet such publications in the name of free speech and intellectual freedom/discourse. I actually agree with that philosophy.

They, the books publisher, PUBLICLY STATED they are not putting out this book due to fear of being hurt for publishing a book.

No, I haven't read it. I'm not going to be allowed to, apparently. Which is the ENTIRE POINT!

edited to add: concur with Ben's comments. I've been shot at, I've returned fire. It is not fun and I hope to avoid anything similiar in the future. Freedom of ideas is worth facing danger.

airship
8th Aug 2008, 17:24
The content of the book is immaterial. My fellow, much-esteemed colleague, hereabouts...?! How on earth do you get by your own high standards when issuiung such a statement...?! :rolleyes:

Unless I'm very much mistaken, you started this thread on the basis that your (ours / everyones') rights were being abused. You then have the gumption to announce that it doesn't matter what the book has to say (possibly because apart from a very few people, noone else including your good-self - or brick has actually read the book)...

As brick might accuse, you base your assumptions on what exactly...?! A lot of wishful thinking, or worse? Did you know it's now a criminal offense to incite hatred amongst minority communities in most European countries today?! They did explain all that at neocon-university didn't they...?! ;)

con-pilot
8th Aug 2008, 17:33
You then have the gumption to announce that it doesn't matter what the book has to say (possibly because apart from a very few people, noone else including your good-self - or brick has actually read the book)...


Airship you are missing the entire point, as Brick pointed out no one has read the book outside of the publishers, nor will anyone read the book as it stands currently.

To accuse people of defending the right of a book to be published are wrong, when the fact is that book has not been published, because they have not read the book is rather ludicrous.

airship
8th Aug 2008, 17:49
Hey, c-p does that mean you're with me or against me...?! :confused:

PS. I'm very sorry 'they' had to drag you out of the early afternoon siesta. JB was so much better when you still had that wolf of yours to help police the unruly neocons hereabouts...?! ;)

My next book is going to be about the role of timber-wolves in US foreign policy decisions between 1995-2006. I can already hear the howls of protest (none of which comport any sentiment for timber-wolves or their contribution to mankind's existence). Luckily, I had not even started the (book) project. Not that it changes anything: 'when the going gets tough, (all) the toughies join ranks and get going together huh...?! :E :sad:

brickhistory
8th Aug 2008, 18:03
So your response to being shown completely out to lunch on reality is to skip merrily away?


Yet you expect serious interaction in return?

airship
8th Aug 2008, 18:18
Brick, did it ever occur to you that you might be the one responsible for your side losing this really quite inconsequential debate...?!

Here, we're talking about books in general, yet to be published, read or dissected for their content. Yet, whether or not the book in question has any merit, there you go, off in your AC-130H gunship, splaterring allcomers with 1,800 round per minute...? You do so enjoy it don't you...?! :uhoh:

It doesn't matter that we both (yes, I too believed initially in Saddam Hussein's overthrow) that we were both proven immensely wrong and should be regarded as mere simpletins if not pawns in a wider battlefield beyond our comprehension.

Apparently, you learn't zero...?!

brickhistory
8th Aug 2008, 18:22
Here, we're talking about books in general, yet to be published, read or dissected for their content.


Umm, you are the only talking books in general on this thread.


The rest of the party has been discussing the wimping or not of the publisher to the threat of Islamic violence to publishing one specific book.




Perhaps we can call you a cab to go home and sleep it off?

PaperTiger
8th Aug 2008, 19:05
It might also all be a simple ploy by Random House to arouse a lot of interest in a book which is much less interesting than it is purportedly reputed to be.Or something like it.
Jones, who has just completed a sequel to the novel examining her heroine's later life, is free to sell her book to other publishers, Perry said.Maybe some other editor(s) looked at it and decided it wasn't worth bothering with."I have deliberately and consciously written respectfully about Islam and Mohammed ... I envisioned that my book would be a bridge-builder," said Jones.A bridge between whom ? Muslims aren't going to be interested in anything written by a kafir, so I guess the intended audience is those hand-wringing apologists who want us all to "understand". Or perhaps Ms. Jones wanted to be controversial all along. Then again maybe I just haven't got a clue why. :bored:

brickhistory
8th Aug 2008, 19:30
Maybe some other editor(s) looked at it and decided it wasn't worth bothering with.

PT, if so then why go to the trouble of releasing a statement regarding 'threat to the author, publisher, family, et al?'

Why not just send a rejection letter or even a notice to not publish to the author and be done with it?

I've received plenty of the former. When they don't like something, they usually don't even reply, but in the event you do get a foot in the door, then get the door shut by someone higher in the editorial process, they are pretty blunt, "Thanks, but after further review your work was not something we'd be interested in" or the like. A literary 'you suck' as it were.

Why the drama for this particular book?

I hold that Random House took a cowardly way out.

And that is a bad thing for free speech, free thought, and the expression of ideas.

airship
8th Aug 2008, 19:42
brick (and others), you still hven't said what it is precisely about this book 'which you have not yet read yet apparently), but yet attracts the full flotilla of neocon battleships out to sea...?! What exactly was it in the book that made you react so strongly...?! Let's have some facts please for a change. (Hey, you're the ones usually asking for the facts...). Please cease your prevaricating (it's not very pleasant, even viewed from the other side...) :D

PaperTiger
8th Aug 2008, 19:45
PT, if so then why go to the trouble of releasing a statement regarding 'threat to the author, publisher, family, et al?'To make it look like they were forced to cancel, instead of someone simply changing their mind based on some literary criteria. Or office politcs. Or...

Or like His Airship said, just to drum up interest.

All of it seems a bit pointless to me. Really, who cares other than the author ?

CityofFlight
8th Aug 2008, 19:46
Oh, Airship..... :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

brickhistory
8th Aug 2008, 19:53
nah, you got me airship. Called me out fair and square; skewered my flawed logic and grasp of the factual details.

Just goes to show nothing gets by you and that steel (bear) trap mind.

arcniz
8th Aug 2008, 20:04
Change is good, modern is good, freedom of speech is valuable and is essential to the operation of democratic institutions...

But...

Sometimes one yearns for the good old days when a plainly wrong direction (whether for timing, logic, content, or something else) could be acceptably rejected, reversed, deferred, etc. in the name of "good taste". Yes-virginia-there-is-good-taste (http://chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/fendrich/yes-virginia-there-is-good-taste)





FWIW - given that this is the Internet age, the author of this literary masterpiece is neither being muffled nor being forbidden to express herself. She could, if she wishes, self-publish her work for global commercial distribution on a speedy timeline of 24 hours or less. In view of the press coverage this is receiving, that might be a clever thing to do, in fact.

This is an instance where a private enterprise has made an arbitrary and, for some, unpopular decision. Businesses do that every day. Unlike government, etc, folks in the private sector do not have to be particularly nice and they do not have to follow the amazingly stringent and unforgivingly PC standards that are imposed on those in public employ (in the US, at least).

This "publishing crisis"is hardly earth shaking. It is just a very ordinary matter of some isolated individuals pissing in a very tiny pot.

brickhistory
8th Aug 2008, 20:54
arcniz, fair enough. But businesses usually don't go around making public decisions based on if their product will get them killed due to a perceived threat by a few.

This isn't a decision about business, this was a decision about fear replacing an idea.

The pissed off-ed-ness expressed on this thread is about the hypocrisy of Random House. They have and, undoubtedly, will again publish things that are offensive to Jews, Christains, atheists, animal lovers, gun advocates, abortion supporters, abortion haters, et al.

But they haven't not published those controversial items due to fear.

Now, according to their own quote, they have.

That has significant implications should it become a widely adopted practice.



By the way, I agree with you about good taste. Just because something can be published doesn't mean it should. But it shouldn't be pulled from publication due to fear.

airship
8th Aug 2008, 21:08
Oh, Airship..... :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: I have an excuse. I quit skool at 14.

But I'm very grateful for arcniz's latest interjections, which brick apparently treats seriously. I'm tired, it's been a long week and the pudicat is not eating very well. I'm going to have a bite to eat and then share a cuddle.

I hereby designate arcniz as PPRuNe's sole defence against all known neocons until relieved (not before Saturday AM mate...) :ok:

nahsuD
9th Aug 2008, 00:29
brick (and others), you still hven't said what it is precisely about this book 'which you have not yet read yet apparently), but yet attracts the full flotilla of neocon battleships out to sea...?! What exactly was it in the book that made you react so strongly...?! Let's have some facts please for a change. (Hey, you're the ones usually asking for the facts...). Please cease your prevaricating (it's not very pleasant, even viewed from the other side...)

It is totally unimportant what the subject of the book is. What is important is the fact that the publisher, after selecting the book for publication, pulled it with an announcement that fear of attacks is the reason. Now, as stated by others, books are published with a wide range of subjects, many offensive to various groups, but other than protests and possible lower sales no physical harm is feared by the offended groups. When a book offensive to Muslims is about to hit the shelves the publisher believes there is a reason to fear their physical security and is pulling it. Is it not suppression of freedom of speech? It is not the knowledge of hat is in the book that is being suppressed it is the fact that the publisher is not allowed to publish what they previously deemed fit for publication.

People who were shot at defending our freedoms have every right to be outraged. Apologists for 12th century rules and way of life should respect that.

arcniz
9th Aug 2008, 00:44
PT, if so then why go to the trouble of releasing a statement regarding 'threat to the author, publisher, family, et al?'

Why not just send a rejection letter or even a notice to not publish to the author and be done with it?


I agree with you, Brick, that the public-retraction style of the whole thing seems a bit odd.

We do not know what transpired along the way, but one might expect that a big publishing house sends out descriptive promotional circulars to their bulk-purchase resellers well in advance of publication, soliciting orders for new books in the pipeline. Perhaps they didn't receive enough orders to make it interesting? Timing is about right to cancel the project on lack of reseller interest & cash commitments. One imagines the overhead cost number associated with them officially releasing a book to publication is in the many tens of thousands of $$, even if not a single copy is sold.

Business people are not well-equipped to defend themselves from unhappy customers or other members of the public. No sensible shopkeeper deliberately sets out to annoy his neighbors or to antagonize prospective customers, so listening to and responding to nuanced complaints is a sensible business practice. Even unreasonable complaints deserve serious attention in a business which is not chartered around some aggressive agenda that would dictate otherwise. The business managers have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, creditors, etc., to not do commercially imprudent things, whether they be as a matter of principle or whim.

Unlike government-chartered entities, businesses do not have the resources to defend themselves in disagreements where no formal legal authority exists to justify their position. 'Standing on principle' is an honorable thing, but it does not figure large in the conceptual model of modern businesses, except insofar as the principal is a matter of explicitly applicable law.

Businesses, when well-run, are controlled by fear and greed. They must seek, within legal limits, to minimise risk and maximise profit, plain and simple.

I do not disagree with your philosophy in this context, but 'standing on principle', outside of legally required practices, is not in any commercial business's basic charter. That is properly a role for the government, for political institutions and for cause-oriented entities specifically chartered for such purposes.

Conan The Barber
9th Aug 2008, 11:18
You have to wonder, you really do, who it is that is trying to pick a fight.