If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
"linda" > wrote in message ... >I think that Geoff can speak for himself... You betcha, but I don't mind what Bob had to say. > > Bob Shuman wrote: >> Linda, >> >> What you "heard" Geoff say in his post reveals more about you than Geoff. >> I >> say this since I personally took his posting as simply calling on you to >> back up your statement. > Quite. > Please RE-READ my posting.... > I say again, PLEASE RE-READ my posting.... Why? A quick read is all that it takes to ascertain that you're trying to paint me with a rather broad brush. It isn't like what you had to say was terribly sophisticated or difficult to interpret. > As such, until >> you can prove otherwise it is simply one person's opinion. I don't >> believe >> that Geoff deserved your pointed response > what is so pointed about what i said????? What Bob is pointing out is you put a lot of words in my mouth, none of them exactly complementary or even indicative of the possibility that I might, in fact, be quite tolerant of homosexuality. <snip-a-dee-doo-dah> >>> >>>Geoff, i can here you saying this: "if anyone says The Duke was gay, >>>I'll beat the snot out of you. Same with Errol Flynn. They were Men's >>>Men, and yer a Commie Pinko if you think otherwise. " >>> Although I've favored the use of the term 'Commie Pinko' in certain circumstances, this isn't one of them. John Wayne might have been gay...or he might not. According to my read of the readily available information, he most likely was not. I read what you and Dan posted, and spent perhaps a half hour trying to research it, since it piqued my curiosity. I couldn't find anything to substantiate your claim. I thought I was being particularly fair by giving the idea some honest research and then calling you on it when I couldn't validate your information. You replied with vacuous innuendo. Since the purported reason for labeling John Wayne as gay is for 'shock value', I feel perfectly justified in calling you and Dan out on this. John Wayne was a figure much revered by folks in my parents' generation. To call him "gay" for "shock value" is quite revealing of your and Dan's characters. To do so inaccurately is blatantly dishonest and potentially self-serving. I'd like to know the source, be it the biography of a gay lover of Mr. Wayne's, a death-bed admission, a published news report in a respectable journal, etc. In short, I want to see something credible that can be investigated and weighed on the merits of the "evidence". This is, after all, John Wayne we're talking about here, not some pop-culture sleazeball. I think his memory is deserving of a minimal amount of respect in not tarnishing his image by rewriting the story of his life after his passing with innuendo and supposition. Many revered figures have been outed as homosexuals post-mortem, and the evidence was widespread and well publicized. I may have missed this with John Wayne, he died when I was relatively young. However, I doubt it. (Incidently, many of those outed individuals have remained near and dear to the hearts of their true fans. I suspect the same would be true of John Wayne's fans, who after all, are by and large American, the most tolerant people on the face of the earth. But I digress.) >>>however, i do recall reading a book about the biography of hollywood >>>that the duke had bisexual relations with some of the "men's men". and >>>if i could get in to my attic to find it, i would mail it to you.. Sorry, not good enough. A memory of something written in a book you claim to be unable or unwilling to find, let alone name, doesn't hold water. Quite honestly you can save yourself the postage, because I wouldn't want it anyway. The author, title and publisher will suffice. I've got quite a bit of rather more serious reading on my plate right now, and I can't be bothered with reading more than a paragraph or two on the sexual proclivities of the glitterati. It's a shame you can be, IMHO. >>>however, you are right, i cannot find anything on the internet that >>>supports my claim.. but i just thought it was so cute that of all the >>>people listed as gay, you came to The Duke's defense... how sweet.. >>>protect our image of the man who people regard as "our national >>>treasure Frankly, I couldn't give a **** if the history of the papacy was filled with a disproportionate share of gays, nor if any of other folks you mention were gay, for that matter. I don't actually care if anyone is gay, to be honest, as long as they're open and honest about it. But to name somebody famous, who is held in reverence by an entire generation of Americans, whose name is a proverbial household word, and associate them with being "gay" for "shock value" strikes me as particularly malicious and childish when it is not a proven fact. And I'm calling you out on the carpet for doing so. If the above is the best you can do, then consider yourself refuted. Incidently, your comment about my being 'sweet' is entirely misplaced, lady. If you and I were ever to meet, you would find me far from sweet, kind, or any other adjective of that nature. I've got a decided dislike for and disinterest in folks who trade in gossip, innuendo, half-truths, smear jobs, emotional outbursts, or other misbehaviors, not to mention poor punctuation and spelling. If you assign some sort of 'cuteness' to my objection to your blithely rewriting the life story of an American icon such as John Wayne, I suggest you wake up. You won't find anything 'cute' about me, In fact, I'll take pleasure in being a complete ******* about it. In closing, and to use a phrase you seem to place great value upon, I don't know if you're a typical stupid ****, but from what I can see, you sure aren't a smart one. --Geoff |
Ads |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
"linda" > wrote in message ... >I think that Geoff can speak for himself... You betcha, but I don't mind what Bob had to say. > > Bob Shuman wrote: >> Linda, >> >> What you "heard" Geoff say in his post reveals more about you than Geoff. >> I >> say this since I personally took his posting as simply calling on you to >> back up your statement. > Quite. > Please RE-READ my posting.... > I say again, PLEASE RE-READ my posting.... Why? A quick read is all that it takes to ascertain that you're trying to paint me with a rather broad brush. It isn't like what you had to say was terribly sophisticated or difficult to interpret. > As such, until >> you can prove otherwise it is simply one person's opinion. I don't >> believe >> that Geoff deserved your pointed response > what is so pointed about what i said????? What Bob is pointing out is you put a lot of words in my mouth, none of them exactly complementary or even indicative of the possibility that I might, in fact, be quite tolerant of homosexuality. <snip-a-dee-doo-dah> >>> >>>Geoff, i can here you saying this: "if anyone says The Duke was gay, >>>I'll beat the snot out of you. Same with Errol Flynn. They were Men's >>>Men, and yer a Commie Pinko if you think otherwise. " >>> Although I've favored the use of the term 'Commie Pinko' in certain circumstances, this isn't one of them. John Wayne might have been gay...or he might not. According to my read of the readily available information, he most likely was not. I read what you and Dan posted, and spent perhaps a half hour trying to research it, since it piqued my curiosity. I couldn't find anything to substantiate your claim. I thought I was being particularly fair by giving the idea some honest research and then calling you on it when I couldn't validate your information. You replied with vacuous innuendo. Since the purported reason for labeling John Wayne as gay is for 'shock value', I feel perfectly justified in calling you and Dan out on this. John Wayne was a figure much revered by folks in my parents' generation. To call him "gay" for "shock value" is quite revealing of your and Dan's characters. To do so inaccurately is blatantly dishonest and potentially self-serving. I'd like to know the source, be it the biography of a gay lover of Mr. Wayne's, a death-bed admission, a published news report in a respectable journal, etc. In short, I want to see something credible that can be investigated and weighed on the merits of the "evidence". This is, after all, John Wayne we're talking about here, not some pop-culture sleazeball. I think his memory is deserving of a minimal amount of respect in not tarnishing his image by rewriting the story of his life after his passing with innuendo and supposition. Many revered figures have been outed as homosexuals post-mortem, and the evidence was widespread and well publicized. I may have missed this with John Wayne, he died when I was relatively young. However, I doubt it. (Incidently, many of those outed individuals have remained near and dear to the hearts of their true fans. I suspect the same would be true of John Wayne's fans, who after all, are by and large American, the most tolerant people on the face of the earth. But I digress.) >>>however, i do recall reading a book about the biography of hollywood >>>that the duke had bisexual relations with some of the "men's men". and >>>if i could get in to my attic to find it, i would mail it to you.. Sorry, not good enough. A memory of something written in a book you claim to be unable or unwilling to find, let alone name, doesn't hold water. Quite honestly you can save yourself the postage, because I wouldn't want it anyway. The author, title and publisher will suffice. I've got quite a bit of rather more serious reading on my plate right now, and I can't be bothered with reading more than a paragraph or two on the sexual proclivities of the glitterati. It's a shame you can be, IMHO. >>>however, you are right, i cannot find anything on the internet that >>>supports my claim.. but i just thought it was so cute that of all the >>>people listed as gay, you came to The Duke's defense... how sweet.. >>>protect our image of the man who people regard as "our national >>>treasure Frankly, I couldn't give a **** if the history of the papacy was filled with a disproportionate share of gays, nor if any of other folks you mention were gay, for that matter. I don't actually care if anyone is gay, to be honest, as long as they're open and honest about it. But to name somebody famous, who is held in reverence by an entire generation of Americans, whose name is a proverbial household word, and associate them with being "gay" for "shock value" strikes me as particularly malicious and childish when it is not a proven fact. And I'm calling you out on the carpet for doing so. If the above is the best you can do, then consider yourself refuted. Incidently, your comment about my being 'sweet' is entirely misplaced, lady. If you and I were ever to meet, you would find me far from sweet, kind, or any other adjective of that nature. I've got a decided dislike for and disinterest in folks who trade in gossip, innuendo, half-truths, smear jobs, emotional outbursts, or other misbehaviors, not to mention poor punctuation and spelling. If you assign some sort of 'cuteness' to my objection to your blithely rewriting the life story of an American icon such as John Wayne, I suggest you wake up. You won't find anything 'cute' about me, In fact, I'll take pleasure in being a complete ******* about it. In closing, and to use a phrase you seem to place great value upon, I don't know if you're a typical stupid ****, but from what I can see, you sure aren't a smart one. --Geoff |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
linda wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote: > >> Daniel J. Stern wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote: >>> >>> >>>> linda wrote: >>>>>>> Is that the same APA that published a "scientific" study that >>>>>>> said that >>>>>>> it was found that pediphilia did not harm children who >>>>>>> experienced it >>>>>>> Bill Putney >>> >>>>>> Honestly, i did not know that. >>> >>>>> You still don't. You have Bill's assertion that it happened; let's >>>>> see if he can back up his claim by producing the study. >>> >>>> Yet it's documented. But that won't be acknowledged. >> >> And you just proved me right. >> >>> Well, certainly it won't be acknowledged until you show us where you >>> found >>> that documentation. The assertion wasn't documented in your post, so for >>> now it's just your assertion. >> >> So I give you the information where you could easily find it. Face it >> - you aren't intersted in seeing it. You just want to attack me. Go >> right ahead. So the diversionary issue becomes whether I can document >> it (which I did) - not whether what I claimed is true or not. >> > > NOW YOU KNOW WHAT I HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH THE PAST THOUSAND > POSTINGS!!!!!!! How does it feel? Well, there is a difference. I bring credible info. Criticism is easy to slough off when you are honest. It's when you are FOS that it is so hard to take. I am at peace. Speaking of which, here is the documentation that Daniel "demanded" but really didn't want to see (from some really long threads): (from:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...t%26rnum %3D2) http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/...TOKEN=75269690 (from: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=NA...nez.net&rnum=3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ay_Association and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA Here's another eye-opener: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...489651-0635108 On that Amazon.com page, the publisher of a pro-pedophilia book cites the "scientific" study published by the APA, using it to support their assertion that man-boy love is a thing worthy of praise. An excerpt from that page: "Many researchers in the fields of Psychology and Human Sexuality have been taking a fresh look at the 'conventional' wisdom which has been the basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual activities. The long assumed "harm" of such activities has failed to be supported by research, and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on this 'harm' is therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely thorough and exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' was published in the July, 1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the American Psychological Association. It brought forth howls of protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided, the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science." Just a little light reading for your enjoyment. That documentation enough? You'll have to research the Congressional Record yourself (they don't make it easy), but the Wikipedia article pretty much establishes it. I've done all the heavy lifting. Let me guess: Now that I have presented the documentation, I will be criticized for having done so by the very people demanding it. But that's how liberals are. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
linda wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote: > >> Daniel J. Stern wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote: >>> >>> >>>> linda wrote: >>>>>>> Is that the same APA that published a "scientific" study that >>>>>>> said that >>>>>>> it was found that pediphilia did not harm children who >>>>>>> experienced it >>>>>>> Bill Putney >>> >>>>>> Honestly, i did not know that. >>> >>>>> You still don't. You have Bill's assertion that it happened; let's >>>>> see if he can back up his claim by producing the study. >>> >>>> Yet it's documented. But that won't be acknowledged. >> >> And you just proved me right. >> >>> Well, certainly it won't be acknowledged until you show us where you >>> found >>> that documentation. The assertion wasn't documented in your post, so for >>> now it's just your assertion. >> >> So I give you the information where you could easily find it. Face it >> - you aren't intersted in seeing it. You just want to attack me. Go >> right ahead. So the diversionary issue becomes whether I can document >> it (which I did) - not whether what I claimed is true or not. >> > > NOW YOU KNOW WHAT I HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH THE PAST THOUSAND > POSTINGS!!!!!!! How does it feel? Well, there is a difference. I bring credible info. Criticism is easy to slough off when you are honest. It's when you are FOS that it is so hard to take. I am at peace. Speaking of which, here is the documentation that Daniel "demanded" but really didn't want to see (from some really long threads): (from:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...t%26rnum %3D2) http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/...TOKEN=75269690 (from: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=NA...nez.net&rnum=3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ay_Association and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA Here's another eye-opener: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...489651-0635108 On that Amazon.com page, the publisher of a pro-pedophilia book cites the "scientific" study published by the APA, using it to support their assertion that man-boy love is a thing worthy of praise. An excerpt from that page: "Many researchers in the fields of Psychology and Human Sexuality have been taking a fresh look at the 'conventional' wisdom which has been the basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual activities. The long assumed "harm" of such activities has failed to be supported by research, and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on this 'harm' is therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely thorough and exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' was published in the July, 1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the American Psychological Association. It brought forth howls of protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided, the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science." Just a little light reading for your enjoyment. That documentation enough? You'll have to research the Congressional Record yourself (they don't make it easy), but the Wikipedia article pretty much establishes it. I've done all the heavy lifting. Let me guess: Now that I have presented the documentation, I will be criticized for having done so by the very people demanding it. But that's how liberals are. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
> > Riiiight. They've purged it. And the APA and the UN endorse NAMBLA. > > Uh-huh. > > I said they *may* have purged it - not sure - don't really care You cared enough to bring it up, so bring it on: Show me your source. > Like I said, UN endorsing NAMBLA and pedophilia is > documented - not only here, but in the Congressional Record. Fine. Post a URL. > All you need to do is check out Wikipedia on NAMBLA - look at the whole > blog on that - you can see where it went back and forth on including and > deleting the UN debacle Gee, Bill, I went to www.wikipedia.com, which redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org , and searched on NAMBLA. I read the entire article, the entire discussion page, and the entire history page, and there was not a single, solitary mention of anything about the UN endorsing NAMBLA or pedophilia. The only mention of the UN is this one: "In the early 1990s, the International Lesbian and Gay Association had its United Nations Economic and Social Council non-governmental organization status withdrawn after it was revealed it had links to NAMBLA. ILGA then expelled NAMBLA from the organization, but still has not been able to get back consultative status." Now, that certainly doesn't look like the UN "endorsing NAMBLA". Quite the opposite, in fact. How do you explain that, Bill? Maybe I was looking at the wrong URL, or perhaps the wrong Wikipedia. How 'bout if you supply a URL or two? Here, I'll show you mine if you show me yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...ve_Association > somebody didn't want it known, but you can't erase the Congressional > Record Good, then you should have no trouble showing me the relevant part of the Congressional Record. DS |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
> > Riiiight. They've purged it. And the APA and the UN endorse NAMBLA. > > Uh-huh. > > I said they *may* have purged it - not sure - don't really care You cared enough to bring it up, so bring it on: Show me your source. > Like I said, UN endorsing NAMBLA and pedophilia is > documented - not only here, but in the Congressional Record. Fine. Post a URL. > All you need to do is check out Wikipedia on NAMBLA - look at the whole > blog on that - you can see where it went back and forth on including and > deleting the UN debacle Gee, Bill, I went to www.wikipedia.com, which redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org , and searched on NAMBLA. I read the entire article, the entire discussion page, and the entire history page, and there was not a single, solitary mention of anything about the UN endorsing NAMBLA or pedophilia. The only mention of the UN is this one: "In the early 1990s, the International Lesbian and Gay Association had its United Nations Economic and Social Council non-governmental organization status withdrawn after it was revealed it had links to NAMBLA. ILGA then expelled NAMBLA from the organization, but still has not been able to get back consultative status." Now, that certainly doesn't look like the UN "endorsing NAMBLA". Quite the opposite, in fact. How do you explain that, Bill? Maybe I was looking at the wrong URL, or perhaps the wrong Wikipedia. How 'bout if you supply a URL or two? Here, I'll show you mine if you show me yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...ve_Association > somebody didn't want it known, but you can't erase the Congressional > Record Good, then you should have no trouble showing me the relevant part of the Congressional Record. DS |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>>> APA published a "scientific" study that said that it was found that >>>>>> pediphilia did not harm children >>>>> Honestly, i did not know that. >>>> You still don't. You have Bill's assertion that it happened; let's >>>> see if he can back up his claim by producing the study. >>>Yet it's documented. But that won't be acknowledged. > And you just proved me right. Bill, saying "It's documented!" isn't the same as providing documentation for your assertion. Not even if you say "It's documented!" more than once. > > Well, certainly it won't be acknowledged until you show us where you > > found that documentation. The assertion wasn't documented in your > > post, so for now it's just your assertion. > So I give you the information where you could easily find it. Good! I'm waiting! Go right ahead and do so! > you aren't intersted in seeing it. Which must explain why I've asked to see it so many times, right? |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>>> APA published a "scientific" study that said that it was found that >>>>>> pediphilia did not harm children >>>>> Honestly, i did not know that. >>>> You still don't. You have Bill's assertion that it happened; let's >>>> see if he can back up his claim by producing the study. >>>Yet it's documented. But that won't be acknowledged. > And you just proved me right. Bill, saying "It's documented!" isn't the same as providing documentation for your assertion. Not even if you say "It's documented!" more than once. > > Well, certainly it won't be acknowledged until you show us where you > > found that documentation. The assertion wasn't documented in your > > post, so for now it's just your assertion. > So I give you the information where you could easily find it. Good! I'm waiting! Go right ahead and do so! > you aren't intersted in seeing it. Which must explain why I've asked to see it so many times, right? |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote: > > >>>Riiiight. They've purged it. And the APA and the UN endorse NAMBLA. >>>Uh-huh. >> >>I said they *may* have purged it - not sure - don't really care > > > You cared enough to bring it up, so bring it on: Show me your source. > > >>Like I said, UN endorsing NAMBLA and pedophilia is >>documented - not only here, but in the Congressional Record. > > > Fine. Post a URL. Unfortunate timing on your part. I posted it just a few minutes before you posted the above - crossed in the mail. I'll let you take care of the Cong. Record thing. The Wikipedia article references the Congressional activity on the incident - suffice it to say that it is indisputable that it happened and is documented in the Cong. Record. I remember hearing a few cryptic news stories in the 90's for a week or two about the U.S. being behind in their U.N. dues, but the news media apparently simply "forgot" to report the *WHY* of our being behind leaving the false impression with the public that we were refusing to pay our dues just because we could - you know - American arrogance being what it is and all that rot. I hate when that happens. 8^) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote: > > >>>Riiiight. They've purged it. And the APA and the UN endorse NAMBLA. >>>Uh-huh. >> >>I said they *may* have purged it - not sure - don't really care > > > You cared enough to bring it up, so bring it on: Show me your source. > > >>Like I said, UN endorsing NAMBLA and pedophilia is >>documented - not only here, but in the Congressional Record. > > > Fine. Post a URL. Unfortunate timing on your part. I posted it just a few minutes before you posted the above - crossed in the mail. I'll let you take care of the Cong. Record thing. The Wikipedia article references the Congressional activity on the incident - suffice it to say that it is indisputable that it happened and is documented in the Cong. Record. I remember hearing a few cryptic news stories in the 90's for a week or two about the U.S. being behind in their U.N. dues, but the news media apparently simply "forgot" to report the *WHY* of our being behind leaving the false impression with the public that we were refusing to pay our dues just because we could - you know - American arrogance being what it is and all that rot. I hate when that happens. 8^) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_gadkypy | Michael Barnes | Driving | 4 | January 4th 05 06:47 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec | [email protected] | Chrysler | 37 | November 18th 04 04:18 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy | Paul | Antique cars | 3 | November 9th 04 06:54 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec | indago | Chrysler | 7 | November 8th 04 05:05 PM |