General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Does the Drew Crew have liability for what it does here?

Started by Henry · · Last activity · 16 posts · 606 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
12 June 2004
Last activity
13 June 2004
Original author
Henry
Posts
16
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
606
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–16 of 16
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Anyone who knowingly contributes to premature death or needless suffering
    should be guilty of something.

    When a visitor here takes an instantaneous snapshot of this discussion
    group, the advice presented might look valid, and might influence a
    healthcare decision one way or another. If someone here presents a body of
    data that looks convincing, and the gullible passerby doesn't take time to
    check validity, it's possible that a healthcare decision might be swayed.

    In most cases, thankfully, the condition or problem heals spontaneously (and
    the quack takes credit!), or alternative healthcare fails and competent
    resources are sought in time and the consequences are nothing more than a
    bit of delay and suffering. In some cases, the result can be more serious,
    much more serious. There is no way of knowing how many visitors were
    deflected from conventional medicine to quackery by their experience here,
    and then dissipated enough time and financial resources so the result was
    rather permanent.

    If the poster(s) who caused that to happen is liable, is it a criminal or
    civil matter?

    If civil, how would the victim's family gain compensation? How would the
    courts view such lawsuits? If there was a crime committed, what crime was
    it? One of the elements of most crimes is "intent". What was the intent of
    the "criminal" in this case, especially if the poster was a passionate
    believer? In either case, is there liability - criminal or civil - if the
    poster presented information in good faith? Is it possible to present
    information "in good faith" when the overwhelming body of generally accepted
    medical information - available to the poster and often presented here in
    rebuttal to the poster's information - conflicts with the "facts" and
    pseudoscience offered?

    Such a lawsuit, or criminal action, *will* reach the courts - eventually.
    One of these days, a wealthy widower might decide to spend whatever it takes
    to ruin the life of someone who caused the loss of a gullible spouse. Or, a
    television commercial may ask "Did you lose a loved one who followed online
    advice and ignored competent medical opinion?"

    Some posters fail to recognize that everything they do here, unless it's
    through a difficult anonymizer process, will forever be traceable to them as
    courtroom-acceptable evidence. There's an archive that goes back more than
    ten years... and every post, every word, every misleading comment has been
    recorded in electronic stone. Regardless of nicknames, the IP that is
    permanently recorded in every post is now attributable to an individual with
    the same validity in court as a social security number.

  2. Henry, wants the world to know that he personally wants to take
    responsibility for ALL the "accidental" hospital deaths.He also wants to be
    held responsible for those times that a person went to a "doctor" and was
    "treated" and died anyway.
    So............ Henry, how do you feel about good for the goose ?
    "Henry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Anyone who knowingly contributes to premature death or needless suffering
    should be guilty of something.

    When a visitor here takes an instantaneous snapshot of this discussion
    group, the advice presented might look valid, and might influence a
    healthcare decision one way or another. If someone here presents a body of
    data that looks convincing, and the gullible passerby doesn't take time to
    check validity, it's possible that a healthcare decision might be swayed.

    In most cases, thankfully, the condition or problem heals spontaneously


    (and

    Quoted message said:

    the quack takes credit!), or alternative healthcare fails and competent
    resources are sought in time and the consequences are nothing more than a
    bit of delay and suffering. In some cases, the result can be more serious,
    much more serious. There is no way of knowing how many visitors were
    deflected from conventional medicine to quackery by their experience here,
    and then dissipated enough time and financial resources so the result was
    rather permanent.

    If the poster(s) who caused that to happen is liable, is it a criminal or
    civil matter?

    If civil, how would the victim's family gain compensation? How would the
    courts view such lawsuits? If there was a crime committed, what crime was
    it? One of the elements of most crimes is "intent". What was the intent of
    the "criminal" in this case, especially if the poster was a passionate
    believer? In either case, is there liability - criminal or civil - if the
    poster presented information in good faith? Is it possible to present
    information "in good faith" when the overwhelming body of generally


    accepted

    Quoted message said:

    medical information - available to the poster and often presented here in
    rebuttal to the poster's information - conflicts with the "facts" and
    pseudoscience offered?

    Such a lawsuit, or criminal action, *will* reach the courts - eventually.
    One of these days, a wealthy widower might decide to spend whatever it


    takes

    Quoted message said:

    to ruin the life of someone who caused the loss of a gullible spouse. Or,


    a

    Quoted message said:

    television commercial may ask "Did you lose a loved one who followed


    online

    Quoted message said:

    advice and ignored competent medical opinion?"

    Some posters fail to recognize that everything they do here, unless it's
    through a difficult anonymizer process, will forever be traceable to them


    as

    Quoted message said:

    courtroom-acceptable evidence. There's an archive that goes back more than
    ten years... and every post, every word, every misleading comment has been
    recorded in electronic stone. Regardless of nicknames, the IP that is
    permanently recorded in every post is now attributable to an individual


    with

    Quoted message said:

    the same validity in court as a social security number.

  3. Henry said:

    Anyone who knowingly contributes to premature death or needless suffering
    should be guilty of something.

    When a visitor here takes an instantaneous snapshot of this discussion
    group, the advice presented might look valid, and might influence a
    healthcare decision one way or another. If someone here presents a body of
    data that looks convincing, and the gullible passerby doesn't take time to
    check validity, it's possible that a healthcare decision might be swayed.

    Quite correct. This is why it is important to challenge those who
    produce obviously bogus anecdotes like Jan Drew. The gullible passerby
    who reads Jan's posts and her numerous links to pseudoscience and
    antiamalgam whackos may decide that their amalgams should be removed
    since they have unanswered health problems. By posting overwhelming
    evidence that not only is Jan's claim bogus but she likely *knows* it
    is bogus since she deliberately changes her history to make it seem
    more likely that she really had mercury poisoning. She did not. Jan is
    a very suggestible person who got sicker due to excessive worrying and
    got well due to relief. While her PN may be very real, the symptoms
    can get better or worse depending on her psychologic state.

    Quoted message said:


    If the poster(s) who caused that to happen is liable, is it a criminal or
    civil matter?

    Could be either. But you must prove that the person knew that what
    they were saying was bogus or that they gave the information
    representing themselves as a medical professional. For example NOT Dr.
    Cee PhD could be held liable for information he provides here. However
    I suspect that if push came to shove it would be shown that NOT Dr.
    Cee would not be liable since liability presumes that the person is of
    sound mind and not psychotic.

    Quoted message said:


    If civil, how would the victim's family gain compensation?

    Not very easily.

    Quoted message said:

    How would the
    courts view such lawsuits? If there was a crime committed, what crime was
    it?

    Fraud.

    Quoted message said:

    One of the elements of most crimes is "intent". What was the intent of
    the "criminal" in this case, especially if the poster was a passionate
    believer?

    Then there would be no crime. No one is forcing a person to take their
    advice with the exceptions noted above.

    Aloha,

    Rich

    -------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------

    The best defense to logic is ignorance

  4. Don't let such infantile logic contaminate other aspects of your life.
    MDD: "I saw a gray cat, this thing is gray, therefore it's a cat."

    You probably believe that a pediatric oncologist specializing in Stage Four
    terminal cases is a terrible physician because a high percentage of that
    doctor's patients are dead within months. You give no credit for the
    alleviation of pain and suffering, do not recognize the support provided to
    the family, assign no value to the collection of research data that might
    lead to cures in the future. If you send such patients to "alternative
    health" resources, they are not permitted by law to administer
    pain-relieving drugs, the family must watch, and there are no resources for
    competent data collection. The patient will probably die at about the same
    time, but will you take responsibility for the suffering, for the agony of
    the family as it must watch the patient's pain, and for the knowledge
    irretrievably lost?

    You bet there are accidental hospital deaths, and that many of the patients
    of physicians are treated and die anyway. Given enough numbers - such things
    MUST happen. But look carefully and you'll see truth through that yellow
    fog -- virtually all of the moneymaking proponents of alternative medicine
    seek conventional medical care for their own children when there's a
    problem. They wouldn't even think of anything else! Every chiropractor I've
    ever known (and over the last seven decades that's quite a few) has
    admitted - over enough bottles of my wine - that if someone dear to him had
    a medical problem he wouldn't even examine her himself - it's straight to
    someone competent!

    No one can be prosecuted or successfully sued for recommending that a cancer
    patient be seen by a physician. However, if it could be shown that you
    deflected such a patient from proper medical care to "urine therapy", and
    he/she died, that patient's family, law enforcement, the courts, and society
    would join forces to pull the skin from your body one square millimeter and
    nerve ending at a time. And you'd deserve to drink your own urine to relieve
    the pain.

    "mdd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Henry, wants the world to know that he personally wants to take
    responsibility for ALL the "accidental" hospital deaths.He also wants to


    be

    Quoted message said:

    held responsible for those times that a person went to a "doctor" and was
    "treated" and died anyway.

  5. "Henry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Don't let such infantile logic contaminate other aspects of your life.
    MDD: "I saw a gray cat, this thing is gray, therefore it's a cat."

    You probably believe that a pediatric oncologist specializing in Stage


    Four

    Quoted message said:

    terminal cases is a terrible physician because a high percentage of that
    doctor's patients are dead within months.


    Only if he/she does not throughly investigate as many options as possable.

    Quoted message said:

    You give no credit for the
    alleviation of pain and suffering,


    I was under the impression that tried and true pain control drugs were quite
    restricted these days.

    Quoted message said:

    do not recognize the support provided to
    the family,


    I feel that these needs are best addressed by family, friends, or church,
    not "pros".

    Quoted message said:

    assign no value to the collection of research data that might
    lead to cures in the future.


    Where did I say that?>
    If you send such patients to "alternative

    Quoted message said:

    health" resources, they are not permitted by law to administer
    pain-relieving drugs,


    Then the "law" is wrong, and truly dumbass, and needs be thrown out with
    those who would support such "law".

    Quoted message said:

    the family must watch, and there are no resources for
    competent data collection.


    Might have been caused by the "protect our turf " attatude of conventional
    med.

    Quoted message said:

    The patient will probably die at about the same
    time,


    Perhaps.
    but will you take responsibility for the suffering, for the agony of

    Quoted message said:

    the family as it must watch the patient's pain, and for the knowledge
    irretrievably lost?


    No, much the same as a "doctor" does not take responsibilty when a drug he
    has used for years turns out to be very detrimental.

    Quoted message said:


    You bet there are accidental hospital deaths, and that many of the


    patients

    Quoted message said:

    of physicians are treated and die anyway. Given enough numbers - such


    things

    Quoted message said:

    MUST happen. But look carefully and you'll see truth through that yellow
    fog --


    <virtually all of the moneymaking proponents of alternative medicine

    Quoted message said:

    seek conventional medical care for their own children when there's a
    problem.


    And....................You will post some proof of this?

    Quoted message said:

    They wouldn't even think of anything else!


    Once again, please post ANYTHING supportive of your statement.

    Quoted message said:

    Every chiropractor I've
    ever known (and over the last seven decades that's quite a few) has
    admitted - over enough bottles of my wine -


    ??????????????????????????????
    ???????????????????? So, you have spent years getting Chiropractors to
    drink your wine? You have spent years getting people drunk, and then think
    that they speak truthfuly while they lie when sober? Interesting style
    you have there. Interesting research protocall too.

    Quoted message said:

    that if someone dear to him had
    a medical problem he wouldn't even examine her himself - it's straight to
    someone competent!


    Um, "competent does NOT tranlate to "conventional", even if you want it to.

    Quoted message said:


    No one can be prosecuted or successfully sued for recommending that a


    cancer

    Quoted message said:

    patient be seen by a physician. However, if it could be shown that you
    deflected such a patient from proper medical care to "urine therapy", and
    he/she died, that patient's family, law enforcement, the courts, and


    society

    Quoted message said:

    would join forces to pull the skin from your body one square millimeter


    and

    Quoted message said:

    nerve ending at a time. And you'd deserve to drink your own urine to


    relieve

    Quoted message said:

    the pain.


    I would suggest that you leave law to the professionals, as you clearly do
    not have a grip on it.
    By the way, where did you find that UT would relieve pain? Did it help
    yours? How did you apply it?

    Quoted message said:

    "mdd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Henry, wants the world to know that he personally wants to take
    responsibility for ALL the "accidental" hospital deaths.He also wants to


    be

    Quoted message said:

    held responsible for those times that a person went to a "doctor" and


    was

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "treated" and died anyway.

  6. Henry, you did not "finish" anything. You ran away from logic. You lost the
    debate and now want to act like you did not. How very telling about you and
    your veracity. I think you lie about the Marines too.
    "Henry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    Drivel snipped

    Quoted message said:


    Henry

  7. If anyone listens to this forum on anything, they
    should be given the large version of the
    Darwin award.

    No cash comes with the Darwin award.

    By answering Jan, you become Jan or
    something so close that it doesn't matter.

  8. Quoted post said:

    Don't let such infantile logic contaminate other aspects of your life.
    MDD: "I saw a gray cat, this thing is gray, therefore it's a cat."

    You probably believe that a pediatric oncologist specializing in Stage Four
    terminal cases is a terrible physician because a high percentage of that
    doctor's patients are dead within months. You give no credit for the
    alleviation of pain and suffering, do not recognize the support provided to
    the family, assign no value to the collection of research data that might
    lead to cures in the future. If you send such patients to "alternative
    health" resources, they are not permitted by law to administer
    pain-relieving drugs, the family must watch, and there are no resources for
    competent data collection. The patient will probably die at about the same
    time, but will you take responsibility for the suffering, for the agony of
    the family as it must watch the patient's pain, and for the knowledge
    irretrievably lost?

    You bet there are accidental hospital deaths, and that many of the patients
    of physicians are treated and die anyway. Given enough numbers - such things
    MUST happen. But look carefully and you'll see truth through that yellow
    fog -- virtually all of the moneymaking proponents of alternative medicine
    seek conventional medical care for their own children when there's a
    problem. They wouldn't even think of anything else! Every chiropractor I've
    ever known (and over the last seven decades that's quite a few) has
    admitted - over enough bottles of my wine - that if someone dear to him had
    a medical problem he wouldn't even examine her himself - it's straight to
    someone competent!

    No one can be prosecuted or successfully sued for recommending that a cancer
    patient be seen by a physician. However, if it could be shown that you
    deflected such a patient from proper medical care to "urine therapy", and
    he/she died, that patient's family, law enforcement, the courts, and society
    would join forces to pull the skin from your body one square millimeter and
    nerve ending at a time. And you'd deserve to drink your own urine to relieve
    the pain.

    Hear, hear!

    Quoted message said:

    "mdd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Henry, wants the world to know that he personally wants to take
    responsibility for ALL the "accidental" hospital deaths.He also wants to


    be

    Quoted message said:

    held responsible for those times that a person went to a "doctor" and was
    "treated" and died anyway.

  9. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Does the Drew Crew have liability for what it does here?
    From: "Henry" [email hidden]
    Date: 6/12/2004 6:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Anyone who knowingly contributes to premature death or needless suffering
    should be guilty of something.

    Yep, but the facts are they remain on staff!!!

    Those who defended this and can soo no cover-ups, no fraud, and no wrong doing
    are also quite gulity of something. It's called LYING.

    This defending comes from the *GanG*

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/809714.asp#BODY

    Years earlier, a scientist just a few miles away from the Gelsinger’s home in
    Tucson had raised serious questions about whether the experiment was safe.

    Documents

    • Feb. 8, 2002: FDA letter, attempt to ban Dr. Wilson from other
    experiments.
    • March 3, 2000: FDA Warning Letter, original findings about the gene
    therapy experiment.

    (No coverups there,,,,,,,,,,,,,)

    The trouble is, Paul Gelsinger says, Dr. Wilson’s team had never told him
    that anyone had ever raised questions about safety

    (That's fine and dandy according to organized medicine member, Peter Moran.)

    ADVERSE REACTIONS WERE NOT REPORTED
    And that was just the beginning. Federal investigators, pouring through
    Penn’s records, announced at the conference that they had made a series of
    startling discoveries, raising questions about whether the doctors had covered
    up problems and broken basic test rules.

    In fact, just a few months before Jesse had signed up for the experiment,
    several monkeys given viruses similar to Jesse’s got sick. And two of them
    died.

    (No coverup there)

    The rules for the experiment said: Even if volunteers didn’t get visibly ill,
    if tests showed that any of them had a significant reaction called “grade
    3,” the experiment was supposed to be “halted” immediately.
    Records show there were “grade 3” reactions in more than one
    patient. The first time, doctors stopped, called the government and got
    permission to continue, saying an unusual condition with the patient might have
    been the cause.
    The second time, they stopped, called and got permission again, citing
    another unusual condition.
    But when it happened a third time, they didn’t stop, didn’t call.
    Then, a fourth time. They didn’t stop or call then either

    (No coverups there).

    For their own safety, volunteers weren’t supposed to have a blood
    ammonia level higher than 50. But people were coming in with higher levels and
    without proper approval. The limit was raised to 70.
    When Jesse signed up over the summer, he was within the limits, but
    records show that when Penn doctors tested him, just days before the
    experiment, his reading was 114 — more than double the original safety limit.

    (That's way cool huh Peter???)

    HIGH FINANCIAL STAKES
    With so many red flags from the monkey deaths to the reactions in other
    volunteers, even to Jesse’s own ammonia levels, Why had Dr. Wilson’s team
    allowed the experiment to continue?

    (Wonder if Peter can answer this question?)

    At the University of Pennsylvania, the conflict committee approved Dr.
    Wilson’s arrangement with Genovo.
    In fact, the university itself owned a piece of his company and stood to
    profit, too.

    (Hmmmmmmmmm).

    In a statement, the university acknowledged that some information
    “should have been shared with the FDA sooner.”

    (Just a minor little slip,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,)

    There was no information given to Jesse or his family about the monkey deaths.
    There was no information given to Jesse or his family about toxic results in
    prior patients. There was no information that would allow Jesse and his family
    to make any kind of informed decision.”

    (Peter STILL can't see any coverup!!!! NO dishonesty!)

    CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

    He told congress that other private companies in the race for cures had
    also been doing gene therapy experiments and had also gotten adverse reactions.
    But instead of sharing the information, government rules allowed them to stamp
    those reactions “confidential,” classifying them as trade secrets to
    protect their research investments.
    So, while the government knew about them, other researchers like Dr.
    Wilson and volunteers like Jesse Gelsinger were never allowed to see them.

    (TRust the government!!!)

    “I was outraged,” says Paul. “I had a right to know. Jesse had a right to
    know.

    (Oh my,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,emotions).

    In February, the Food and Drug Administration said that because Dr. Wilson
    filed “false and misleading” reports and “repeatedly and deliberately
    violated regulations

    REPEAT FOR THE HARD HEADED!!!

    Dr. Wilson filed “false and misleading” reports and “repeatedly and
    deliberately violated regulations

    (No coverups,,,,,,,,,,no fraud,,,,,,,,,,no deliberate violations,,,,,,,,,,,,)

    This week marks the third anniversary of Jesse Gelsinger’s death. At
    the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Wilson

    ****is still on the faculty****

    (Soooooooooo in organized medicine,,,,,,,,,,,)

    ****Filing *false and misleading reports* is A OK,,,,,,,,,,,,****

    ****REPEATED and DELIBERATE violations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,is A OK.***

    but no longer in charge of its gene therapy program. And, in Congress,
    lawmakers are still debating legislation to provide more protection for medical
    volunteers.

    ******in the end, whether Jesse was betrayed by the doctors he and his family
    thought they could trust.*********

    Jan

    Now what were you saying about the Drew Crew?

    Quoted message said:

    passerby doesn't take time to
    check validity, it's possible that a healthcare decision might be swayed.

    LOLOLOL!!

    Sue McDonalds because ya put on weight.

    Poor enry.

    Jan

  10. "mdd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Henry, you did not "finish" anything. You ran away from logic.

    Ending a discussion with you could be called a lot of things, but "ran away
    from logic" isn't one of them. Your argument was such a perfect example of
    self-destructive debate that I didn't see any reason to continue that
    dialog. So won't.

    Henry

  11. "Henry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "mdd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Henry, you did not "finish" anything. You ran away from logic.

    Ending a discussion with you could be called a lot of things, but "ran


    away

    Quoted message said:

    from logic" isn't one of them. Your argument was such a perfect example of
    self-destructive debate that I didn't see any reason to continue that
    dialog. So won't.

    Henry


    So THAT is how you avoid any true debate. If you cannot BS your way through,
    you simply declare that the other person is not "logical" and claim that you
    "won" the debate.
    My what a slithering little thing you are. You should be removed from the
    rest of us IMHO.

  12. "mdd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    My what a slithering little thing you are. You should be removed from the
    rest of us IMHO.

    This would be a good time to consider my earlier post, which asserted that
    most of the exchanges here are about people rather than health, alternative
    or otherwise. You are a consistent example of that. The urine-drinkers must
    be ashamed to have you as a spokesperson, though that's a cause that would
    probably welcome almost anyone.

    *********************

    Back to the point. I agree that exceptions to the portion of the First
    Amendment dealing with freedom of speech have been very narrowly defined,
    and that my attempt to correlate Drewisms with such exceptions may be
    invalid. However, I wonder how much it would cost the Drew Crew to defend
    itself were a well-funded civil suit to be pursued, as previously
    mentioned...

  13. Quoted message said:

    From: "Henry" [email hidden]

    Quoted message said:

    This would be a good time to consider my earlier post, which asserted that
    most of the exchanges here are about people rather than health, alternative
    or otherwise.

    And look WHO is guilty.

    And STUPID.

  14. "Henry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "mdd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    My what a slithering little thing you are. You should be removed from


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    rest of us IMHO.

    This would be a good time to consider my earlier post, which asserted that
    most of the exchanges here are about people rather than health,


    alternative

    Quoted message said:

    or otherwise. You are a consistent example of that. The urine-drinkers


    must

    Quoted message said:

    be ashamed to have you as a spokesperson, though that's a cause that would
    probably welcome almost anyone.

    *********************

    Back to the point. I agree that exceptions to the portion of the First
    Amendment dealing with freedom of speech have been very narrowly defined,
    and that my attempt to correlate Drewisms with such exceptions may be
    invalid. However, I wonder how much it would cost the Drew Crew to defend
    itself were a well-funded civil suit to be pursued, as previously
    mentioned...


    It might surprise you how little.

  15. "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    From: "Henry" [email hidden]

    Quoted message said:

    This would be a good time to consider my earlier post, which asserted


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    most of the exchanges here are about people rather than health,


    alternative

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    or otherwise.

    And look WHO is guilty.

    And STUPID.

    thank you, Jan, for proving Henry's point.

  16. (Jan) said:
    Quoted message said:

    From: "Henry" [email hidden]

    Quoted message said:

    This would be a good time to consider my earlier post, which asserted that
    most of the exchanges here are about people rather than health, alternative
    or otherwise.

    And look WHO is guilty.

    And STUPID.

    Quoted message said:


    We could all learn much from his example. When he was shot, his first prayer
    was for the shooter. He was never belittling and was a kind man.

    Quoted message said:

    Jan

    -------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------

    The best defense to logic is ignorance

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.