DIYbanter - This will send a chill down your spine...

DIYbanter (https://www.diybanter.com/)

- Electronic Schematics (https://www.diybanter.com/electronic-schematics/)

- - This will send a chill down your spine... (https://www.diybanter.com/electronic-schematics/283861-will-send-chill-down-your-spine.html)

This will send a chill down your spine...

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:37:22 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:41:48 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:40:18 -0700, Robert Baer
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Even scarier is the Administration apparently thinks that
hurling accusations and simply repeating the same thing over
and over, while ignoring the arguments presented, is a
'rebuttal'.

Isn't Hitler who said that if a lie is told often enough that
it becomes believed / the truth?

That's commonly thought but Hitler's oft quoted commentary on the
subject, expressed in Mein Kampf, was the "Big Lie" theory.

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in
itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of
credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more
easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature
than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive
simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the
big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell
small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to
large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to
fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that
others could have the impudence to distort the truth so
infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may
be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and
waver and will continue to think that there may be some other
explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces
behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is
known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire
together in the art of lying."

-Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Interestingly enough, that quote is often taken out of context
because, it one looks at the preceding paragraph, he is actually
accusing 'the Jews and Marxists' of doing that.

"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for
falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility
for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they
took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary
dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the
betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice."

That doesn't mean Hitler wasn't a liar, only that you can't
'prove' it by using a quote where he's accusing the Jews and
Marxists of being liars.

Goebbels included both 'repetition' and 'big lie' in his theory
but there's no doubt of his intent.

""If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for
such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie,
and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."

In this day where there is much discussion about 'the role of
government' it is interesting to note that Goebbles theory prizes
vitality of the State and he apparently concludes the State must,
of necessity, lie and, so, it is (or else it would not be)
"vitally important' for the State to repress truth and dissent.

A Constitutional democracy is diametrically opposite. It prizes
the vitality of the people and the 'State' comes and goes at
their will.

Goebbels, again, on repetition

""The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it
must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"

The modern left adds their own twist to the technique: regardless
of what they say accuse all dissenters of lying and, as Sen
Hillary Clinton demonstrated with Gen Petreus, do so before they
even speak.

I often wax long and hard about logic and fallacies

Not as long as you do when using them. =)

You just demonstrated two of your, and the left's, favorites:
hurling an accusation with no evidence whatsoever

Made-up crazyassed crap.

That's a cruder way of describing what you do.

Poor floppy - he lies, and lies, and lies, and lies... lol

flipper wrote:

Obama's oft repeated claim is you will be able to keep your
current plan, if you like, or chose the government plan.

Now, as I said from the get go, his words are 'technically
correct' but what he intentionally leads one to believe is you
will have the choice of any plan you 'like'

and the dishonest tactic of
partial quote.

Sorry, straw man arguments have beginnings and ends. lol

When do yours end?

Perhaps you can find an example. lol

Meanwhile:

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flying fig *what* your twisted
little swastika imagines the 'purpose' to be. It's a violation of
both free speech and privacy rights,

Pathetic lie.

Spoken like a good loyal fascist.

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol

regardless, and the Constitution makes no
exceptions for "unless the Obama administration finds infringing on
these rights convenient for stomping on it's political opposition"
nor is there one for 'convenient rebuttal'.

But, since liberals don't give a dam what the Constitution says, I
feel compelled to point out it's also illegal by statute passed by a
Democrat Congress.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol

And, as I already mentioned in the parts you dishonestly snipped,
all of it is readily available on the Internet ranging from
'mainstream' new sources, to editorials, to blogs, to youtube and
the only schmucks apparently not only deaf dumb and blind to the
deluge of concern but unable to google and click on a link to
inform themselves are Mr. Teachable Moment and his 'communications
director'.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol

Still waiting, lieboy.

This will send a chill down your spine...

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:29:04 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:37:22 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:41:48 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:40:18 -0700, Robert Baer
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Even scarier is the Administration apparently thinks that
hurling accusations and simply repeating the same thing over
and over, while ignoring the arguments presented, is a
'rebuttal'.

Isn't Hitler who said that if a lie is told often enough that
it becomes believed / the truth?

That's commonly thought but Hitler's oft quoted commentary on
the subject, expressed in Mein Kampf, was the "Big Lie" theory.

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in
itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of
credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always
more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional
nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the
primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall
victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they
themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be
ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never
come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they
would not believe that others could have the impudence to
distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which
prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they
will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that
there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent
lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been
nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this
world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

-Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Interestingly enough, that quote is often taken out of context
because, it one looks at the preceding paragraph, he is actually
accusing 'the Jews and Marxists' of doing that.

"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to
impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who
alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to
prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the
nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By
placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the
shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral
right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to
succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice."

That doesn't mean Hitler wasn't a liar, only that you can't
'prove' it by using a quote where he's accusing the Jews and
Marxists of being liars.

Goebbels included both 'repetition' and 'big lie' in his theory
but there's no doubt of his intent.

""If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people
will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained
only for such time as the State can shield the people from the
political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It
thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its
powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of
the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy
of the State."

In this day where there is much discussion about 'the role of
government' it is interesting to note that Goebbles theory
prizes vitality of the State and he apparently concludes the
State must, of necessity, lie and, so, it is (or else it would
not be) "vitally important' for the State to repress truth and
dissent.

A Constitutional democracy is diametrically opposite. It prizes
the vitality of the people and the 'State' comes and goes at
their will.

Goebbels, again, on repetition

""The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no
success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind
constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat
them over and over"

The modern left adds their own twist to the technique:
regardless of what they say accuse all dissenters of lying and,
as Sen Hillary Clinton demonstrated with Gen Petreus, do so
before they even speak.

I often wax long and hard about logic and fallacies

Not as long as you do when using them. =)

You just demonstrated two of your, and the left's, favorites:
hurling an accusation with no evidence whatsoever

Made-up crazyassed crap.

That's a cruder way of describing what you do.

Poor floppy - he lies, and lies, and lies, and lies... lol

You are a good example of why, unless things change, this country just
might be headed for a civil war because people eventually get tired of
having every false accusation that can be dreamed up hurled at them.

flipper wrote:

Obama's oft repeated claim is you will be able to keep your
current plan, if you like, or chose the government plan.

Now, as I said from the get go, his words are 'technically
correct' but what he intentionally leads one to believe is you
will have the choice of any plan you 'like'

and the dishonest tactic of
partial quote.

Sorry, straw man arguments have beginnings and ends. lol

When do yours end?

Perhaps you can find an example. lol

Why would I look for sanity from you when there's none to be found?

Meanwhile:

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a flying fig *what* your twisted
little swastika imagines the 'purpose' to be. It's a violation of
both free speech and privacy rights,

Pathetic lie.

Spoken like a good loyal fascist.

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol

I mean exactly what I said. You speak like a good loyal fascist,
including the mindless repetition of 'lie' at anything you don't like.
Straight from Mein Kampf.

regardless, and the Constitution makes no
exceptions for "unless the Obama administration finds infringing
on these rights convenient for stomping on it's political
opposition" nor is there one for 'convenient rebuttal'.

But, since liberals don't give a dam what the Constitution says, I
feel compelled to point out it's also illegal by statute passed
by a Democrat Congress.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol

And, as I already mentioned in the parts you dishonestly snipped,
all of it is readily available on the Internet ranging from
'mainstream' new sources, to editorials, to blogs, to youtube and
the only schmucks apparently not only deaf dumb and blind to the
deluge of concern but unable to google and click on a link to
inform themselves are Mr. Teachable Moment and his 'communications
director'.

Pathetic lie.

ditto

What you mean is, you can't find proof one for your lie above. lol

Still waiting, lieboy.

Wearing your brown shirt or are you in disguise?

Sorry, your continued projection of yourown habits onto me is not worth
reading.

From now on, no cite = no response.

This will send a chill down your spine...

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:36:17 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:02:13 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

Robert Baer wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:55:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

This will send a chill down your spine...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts...ubborn-Things/

Big brother is watching... big time :-(

Might I suggest an E-mail flood ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Even scarier is the Administration apparently thinks that hurling
accusations and simply repeating the same thing over and over, while
ignoring the arguments presented, is a 'rebuttal'.
Isn't Hitler who said that if a lie is told often enough that it
becomes believed / the truth?

Sounds likely. =)

Congratulations. You just did a near perfect imitation of Hitler and
Goebbles.

"The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11

Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta

Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.

Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.

Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons

The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.

Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.

The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.

Iraq executing Coalition POWs.

Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.

The exact location of WMD facilities

WMDs moved to Syria.

Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped
form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of
the invasion.

Every one of these stories was false."

http://www.earthisland.org/project/n...77&subSiteID=4

America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed

By Gar Smith / The-Edge

November 7, 2003

A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet
of Falsehoods

Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.) has identified 50 false news stories
created and leaked by a secretive White House propaganda apparatus.

Bush administration officials are probably having second thoughts
about their decision to play hardball with former US Ambassador Joseph
Wilson. Joe Wilson is a contender.

When you play hardball with Joe, you better be prepared to deal with
some serious rebound.

After Wilson wrote a critically timed New York Times essay exposing as
false George W. Bush's claim that Iraq had purchased uranium from
Niger, high officials in the White House contacted several Washington
reporters and leaked the news that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.

Wilson isn't waiting for George W. Bush to hand over the perp.

In mid-October, the former ambassador began passing copies of an
embarrassing internal report to reporters across the US.

The-Edge has received copies of this document.

The 56-page investigation was assembled by USAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam
Gardiner.

"Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence,
Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic
Psychological Operations in Gulf II" identifies more than 50 stories
about the Iraq war that were faked by government propaganda artists in
a covert campaign to "market" the military invasion of Iraq.

Gardiner has credentials.

He has taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the
Naval Warfare College and was a visiting scholar at the Swedish
Defense College.

According to Gardiner, "It was not bad intelligence" that lead to the
quagmire in Iraq, "It was an orchestrated effort [that] began before
the war" that was designed to mislead the public and the world.

Gardiner's research lead him to conclude that the US and Britain had
conspired at the highest levels to plant "stories of strategic
influence" that were known to be false.

The Times of London described the $200-million-plus US operation as a
"meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress,
and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam
Hussein."

The multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign run out of the White House
and Defense Department was, in Gardiner's final assessment
"irresponsible in parts" and "might have been illegal."

"Washington and London did not trust the peoples of their democracies
to come to the right decisions," Gardiner explains.

Consequently, "Truth became a casualty. When truth is a casualty,
democracy receives collateral damage."

For the first time in US history, "we allowed strategic psychological
operations to become part of public affairs... [W]hat has happened is
that information warfare, strategic influence, [and] strategic
psychological operations pushed their way into the important process
of informing the peoples of our two democracies."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced plans to create an Office
of Strategic Influence early in 2002.

At the same time British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Strategy Director
Alastair Campbell was setting up an identical operation in London.

As soon as Pvt. Jessica Lynch was airlifted from her hospital bed, the
first call from her "rescue team" went, not to military officials but
to Jim Wilkinson, the White House's top propaganda official stationed
in Iraq.

White House critics were quick to recognize that "strategic influence"
was a euphemism for disinformation.

Rumsfeld had proposed establishing the country's first Ministry of
Propaganda.

The criticism was so severe that the White House backed away from the
plan.

But on November 18, several months after the furor had died down,
Rumsfeld arrogantly announced that he had not been deterred.

"If you want to savage this thing, fine: I'll give you the corpse.
There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing
every single thing that needs to be done -- and I have."

Gardiner's dogged research identified a long list of stories that
passed through Rumsfeld's propaganda mill.

According to Gardiner, "there were over 50 stories manufactured or at
least engineered that distorted the picture of Gulf II for the
American and British people."

Those stories include:

The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11

Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta

Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.

Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.

Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons

The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.

Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.

The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.

Iraq executing Coalition POWs.

Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.

The exact location of WMD facilities

WMDs moved to Syria.

Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped
form indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of
the invasion.

Every one of these stories was false.

"I know what I am suggesting is serious. I did not come to these
conclusions lightly," Gardiner admits.

"I'm not going to address why they did it. That's something I don't
understand even after all the research."

But the fact remained that "very bright and even well-intentioned
officials found how to control the process of governance in ways never
before possible."

A Battle between Good and Evil

Gardiner notes that cocked-up stories about Saddam's WMDs "was only a
very small part of the strategic influence, information operations and
marketing campaign conducted on both sides of the Atlantic."

The "major thrust" of the campaign, Gardiner explains, was "to make a
conflict with Iraq seem part of a struggle between good and evil.
Terrorism is evil... we are the good guys.

"The second thrust is what propaganda theorists would call the 'big
lie.' The plan was to connect Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. Make the
American people believe that Saddam Hussein was behind those attacks."

The means for pushing the message involved: saturating the media with
stories, 24/7; staying on message; staying ahead of the news cycle;
managing expectations; and finally, being prepared to "use information
to attack and punish critics."

Audition in Afghanistan

The techniques that proved so successful in Operation Iraqi Freedom
were first tried out during the campaign to build public support for
the US attack on Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld hired Rendon Associates, a private PR firm that had been
deeply involved in the first Gulf War.

Founder John Rendon (who calls himself an "information warrior")
proudly boasts that he was the one responsible for providing thousands
of US flags for the Kuwaiti people to wave at TV cameras after their
"liberation" from Iraqi troops in 1991.

The White House Coalition Information Center was set up by Karen
Hughes in November 2001.

(In January 2003, the CIC was renamed the Office for Global
Communications.)

The CIC hit on a cynical plan to curry favor for its attack on
Afghanistan by highlighting "the plight of women in Afghanistan."
CIC's Jim Wilkinson later called the Afghan women campaign "the best
thing we've done."

Gardiner is quick with a correction.

The campaign "was not about something they did. It was about a story
they created... It was not a program with specific steps or funding to
improve the conditions of women."

The coordination between the propaganda engines of Washington and
London even involved the respective First Wives.

On November 17, 2001, Laura Bush issued a shocking statement:

"Only the terrorists and the Taliban threaten to pull out women's
fingernails for wearing nail polish."

Three days later, a horrified Cherie Blaire told the London media, "In
Afghanistan, if you wear nail polish, you could have your nails torn
out."

Misleading via Innuendo

Time and again, US reporters accepted the CIC news leaks without
question.

Among the many examples that Gardiner documented was the use of the
"anthrax scare" to promote the administration's pre-existing plan to
attack Iraq.

In both the US and the UK, "intelligence sources" provided a steady
diet of unsourced allegations to the media to suggest that Iraq and Al
Qaeda terrorists were behind the deadly mailing of anthrax-laden
letters.

It wasn't until December 18, that the White House confessed that it
was "increasingly looking like" the anthrax came from a US military
installation.

The news was released as a White House "paper" instead of as a more
prominent White House "announcement."

As a result, the idea that Iraq or Al Qaeda were behind the anthrax
plot continued to persist.

Gardiner believes this was an intentional part of the propaganda
campaign.

"If a story supports policy, even if incorrect, let it stay around."

In a successful propaganda campaign, Gardiner wrote, "We would have
expected to see the creation [of] stories to sell the policy; we would
have expected to see the same stories used on both sides of the
Atlantic. We saw both. The number of engineered or false stories from
US and UK stories is long."

The US and Britain: The Axis of Disinformation

Before the coalition invasion began on March 20, 2003, Washington and
London agreed to call their illegal pre-emptive military aggression an
"armed conflict" and to always reference the Iraqi government as the
"regime."

Strategic communications managers in both capitols issued lists of
"guidance" terms to be used in all official statements.

London's 15 Psychological Operations Group paralleled Washington's
Office of Global Communications.

In a departure from long military tradition, the perception managers
even took over the naming of the war.

Military code names were originally chosen for reasons of security.

In modern US warfare, however, military code names have become "part
of the marketing."

There was Operation Nobel Eagle, Operation Valiant Strike, Operation
Provide Comfort, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Uphold
Democracy and, finally, Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The "Rescue" of Jessica Lynch

The Pentagon's control over the news surrounding the capture and
rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch receives a good deal of attention in
Gardiner's report.

"From the very beginning it was called an 'ambush'," Gardiner noted.

But, he pointed out, "If you drive a convoy into enemy lines, turn
around and drive back, it's not an ambush. Military officers who are
very careful about how they talk about operations would normally not
be sloppy about describing this kind of event," Gardiner complained.

"This un-military kind of talk is one of the reasons I began doing
this research."

One of the things that struck Gardiner as revealing was the fact that,
as Newsweek reported:

"as soon as Lynch was in the air, [the Joint Operations Center] phoned
Jim Wilkinson, the top civilian communications aide to CENTCOM Gen.
Tommy Franks."

It struck Gardiner as inexplicable that the first call after Lynch's
rescue would go to the Director of Strategic Communications, the White
House's top representative on the ground.

On the morning of April 3, the Pentagon began leaking information on
Lynch's rescue that sought to establish Lynch as "America's new
Rambo."

The Washington Post repeated the story it received from the Pentagon:
that Lynch "sustained multiple gunshot wounds" and fought fiercely and
shot several enemy soldier... firing her weapon until she ran out of
ammunition."

Lynch's family confused the issue by telling the press that their
daughter had not sustained any bullet wounds.

Lynch's parents subsequently refused to talk to the press, explaining
that they had been "told not to talk about it."

(Weeks later, the truth emerged. Lynch was neither stabbed nor shot.
She was apparently injured while falling from her vehicle.)

Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers let the story stand during an April 3 press
conference although both had been fully briefed on Lynch's true
condition.

"Again, we see the pattern," Gardiner observed.

"When the story on the street supports the message, it will be left
there by a non-answer. The message is more important than the truth.
Even Central Command kept the story alive by not giving out details."

Gardiner saw another break with procedure.

The information on the rescue that was released to the Post "would
have been very highly classified" and should have been closely
guarded. Instead, it was used as a tool to market the war.

"This was a major pattern from the beginning of the marketing campaign
throughout the war," Gardiner wrote.

"It was okay to release classified information if it supported the
message."

Yeah, I checked the web site out and it wasn't worth the damned visit!
A bunch of lousy tree huggers!

This will send a chill down your spine...

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:06:12 -0500, Peter wrote:

Yeah, I checked the web site out...

You had to quote 420 lines for that retarded crack?