Cinderella Arrested near Disneyland . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
contracts at the three Disney-owned hotels near Disneyland recently
ran out, and Disney's new contract offer seems to come up a bit short.
While not yet a full-blown strike, this was a rather creative way to
get public attention for their labor dispute . . .:
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20080815/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_disneyland_protest>
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Anim8rFSK
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> Well, someone dressed as Cinderella, among others. The worker
> contracts at the three Disney-owned hotels near Disneyland recently
> ran out, and Disney's new contract offer seems to come up a bit short.
> While not yet a full-blown strike, this was a rather creative way to
> get public attention for their labor dispute . . .:
I hope Disney fires them, presses criminal charges against them, and
sues them for damages.
>
>
> <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20080815/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_disneyland_p
> rotest>
>
>
>
> --
>
> - ReFlex76
>
> - "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
> girl-on-girl action!"
>
> - "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking
> forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
>
> - Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
>
> <http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
>
> <http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
>
> Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
--
Multiple root canals; hopped up on multiple pain drugs.
It's an explanation, not an excuse!
Derek Janssen
> In article <m3oca4tf01tqnuqht...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Well, someone dressed as Cinderella, among others. The worker
>>contracts at the three Disney-owned hotels near Disneyland recently
>>ran out, and Disney's new contract offer seems to come up a bit short.
>>While not yet a full-blown strike, this was a rather creative way to
>>get public attention for their labor dispute . . .:
>
> I hope Disney fires them, presses criminal charges against them, and
> sues them for damages.
And just to be nasty, sics an "Illegal use of copyrighted costume on
park property" on them... >:)
Derek Janssen (I mean, the strike thing we could let slide, but the
"Annoying publicity stunt" thing...)
eja...@verizon.net
Anim8rFSK
Derek Janssen <eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> > In article <m3oca4tf01tqnuqht...@4ax.com>,
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Well, someone dressed as Cinderella, among others. The worker
> >>contracts at the three Disney-owned hotels near Disneyland recently
> >>ran out, and Disney's new contract offer seems to come up a bit short.
> >>While not yet a full-blown strike, this was a rather creative way to
> >>get public attention for their labor dispute . . .:
> >
> > I hope Disney fires them, presses criminal charges against them, and
> > sues them for damages.
>
> And just to be nasty, sics an "Illegal use of copyrighted costume on
> park property" on them... >:)
yep
>
> Derek Janssen (I mean, the strike thing we could let slide, but the
> "Annoying publicity stunt" thing...)
If they wore their costumes off lot for any other reason they'd get
canned.
Now, there *is* the possibility that they weren't wearing their work
costumes, and went and rented knock-offs at the local costume shoppe.
That would help their case some. But if they were their Disney
costumes, they need the book thrown at them.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>In article <m3oca4tf01tqnuqht...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, someone dressed as Cinderella, among others. The worker
>> contracts at the three Disney-owned hotels near Disneyland recently
>> ran out, and Disney's new contract offer seems to come up a bit short.
>> While not yet a full-blown strike, this was a rather creative way to
>> get public attention for their labor dispute . . .:
>
>I hope Disney fires them, presses criminal charges against them, and
>sues them for damages.
>>
Fires them? In a labor-friendly state like California, that'll
only earn 'em a visit from the AG's office, if not Jerry Brown himself
on something as potentially high-profile as this! They'd then have
to rehire the workers with all their issued demands, and then some!
Damages? Ummm, I must've missed something . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
>> In article <m3oca4tf01tqnuqht...@4ax.com>,
>> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Well, someone dressed as Cinderella, among others. The worker
>>>contracts at the three Disney-owned hotels near Disneyland recently
>>>ran out, and Disney's new contract offer seems to come up a bit short.
>>>While not yet a full-blown strike, this was a rather creative way to
>>>get public attention for their labor dispute . . .:
>>
>> I hope Disney fires them, presses criminal charges against them, and
>> sues them for damages.
>
>And just to be nasty, sics an "Illegal use of copyrighted costume on
>park property" on them... >:)
>
It's called fair use; and I don't think hotels, even company-owned
ones, count as park property . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>In article <zmRpk.96$UX.43@trnddc03>,
> Derek Janssen <eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>> > In article <m3oca4tf01tqnuqht...@4ax.com>,
>> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Well, someone dressed as Cinderella, among others. The worker
>> >>contracts at the three Disney-owned hotels near Disneyland recently
>> >>ran out, and Disney's new contract offer seems to come up a bit short.
>> >>While not yet a full-blown strike, this was a rather creative way to
>> >>get public attention for their labor dispute . . .:
>> >
>> > I hope Disney fires them, presses criminal charges against them, and
>> > sues them for damages.
>>
>> And just to be nasty, sics an "Illegal use of copyrighted costume on
>> park property" on them... >:)
>
>yep
>>
>> Derek Janssen (I mean, the strike thing we could let slide, but the
>> "Annoying publicity stunt" thing...)
>
>If they wore their costumes off lot for any other reason they'd get
>canned.
>
Re-read the article: these are hotel workers (maids, bell hops,
cooks), their only "costumes" are their hotel uniforms . . .
>Now, there *is* the possibility that they weren't wearing their work
>costumes, and went and rented knock-offs at the local costume shoppe.
>That would help their case some. But if they were their Disney
>costumes, they need the book thrown at them.
Hotel labor disputes are becoming very common in SoCal, and the
hotels usually agree to employee terms in the end. This should be no
different . . .
Joseph Nebus
>In article <m3oca4tf01tqnuqht...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Well, someone dressed as Cinderella, among others. The worker
>> contracts at the three Disney-owned hotels near Disneyland recently
>> ran out, and Disney's new contract offer seems to come up a bit short.
>> While not yet a full-blown strike, this was a rather creative way to
>> get public attention for their labor dispute . . .:
>I hope Disney fires them, presses criminal charges against them, and
>sues them for damages.
Yeah, those meanie hotel workers! Why can't they just be
satisfied with whatever gruel DisneyCorp decides to let drip into
their mouths? Where do they get off picking on the Mother Company?
Don't they know they might hurt Robert Iger's feelings this way?
Don't they have any sense of decency?
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Janssen
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> writes:
>
>
>>In article <m3oca4tf01tqnuqht...@4ax.com>,
>>Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Well, someone dressed as Cinderella, among others. The worker
>>>contracts at the three Disney-owned hotels near Disneyland recently
>>>ran out, and Disney's new contract offer seems to come up a bit short.
>>>While not yet a full-blown strike, this was a rather creative way to
>>>get public attention for their labor dispute . . .:
>
>
>>I hope Disney fires them, presses criminal charges against them, and
>>sues them for damages.
>
> Yeah, those meanie hotel workers! Why can't they just be
> satisfied with whatever gruel DisneyCorp decides to let drip into
> their mouths? Where do they get off picking on the Mother Company?
> Don't they know they might hurt Robert Iger's feelings this way?
> Don't they have any sense of decency?
They had our sympathy right up until the lame 90's "Disney character" jokes.
Some people just can't put the Michael Eisner days behind them. -_-
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Anim8rFSK
nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> writes:
>
> >In article <m3oca4tf01tqnuqht...@4ax.com>,
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, someone dressed as Cinderella, among others. The worker
> >> contracts at the three Disney-owned hotels near Disneyland recently
> >> ran out, and Disney's new contract offer seems to come up a bit short.
> >> While not yet a full-blown strike, this was a rather creative way to
> >> get public attention for their labor dispute . . .:
>
> >I hope Disney fires them, presses criminal charges against them, and
> >sues them for damages.
>
> Yeah, those meanie hotel workers! Why can't they just be
> satisfied with whatever gruel DisneyCorp decides to let drip into
> their mouths? Where do they get off picking on the Mother Company?
> Don't they know they might hurt Robert Iger's feelings this way?
> Don't they have any sense of decency?
They aren't striking, and they're blocking access. They need to be
fired and prosecuted.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
Blocking access? There weren't locking arms, or doing anything to
prevent patrons from entering the hotel; just standing there
protesting doesn't count.
I'm sensing a very anti-union sentiment here, something that became
outdated about a hundred years ago, as brutally commented on by Darrin
Bell in last week's Candorville!:
<http://www.comics.com/wash/candorville/archive/candorville-20080814.html>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/5ufj2f>
--
- ReFlex 76
Gary McGath
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Blocking access? There weren't locking arms, or doing anything to
> prevent patrons from entering the hotel; just standing there
> protesting doesn't count.
Oh, really? Then why does the article say: "Those who were arrested sat
in a circle on a busy intersection outside the park holding hands until
they were placed in plastic handcuffs and led to two police vans while
hundreds of hotel workers cheered and chanted."
> I'm sensing a very anti-union sentiment here, something that became
> outdated about a hundred years ago, as brutally commented on by Darrin
> Bell in last week's Candorville!:
The function of unions is to force other people to pay dues and to keep
them out of the good jobs. Maybe I'm "outdated" in having no admiration
for that sort of thing, but I've never been interested in fashionable
thinking.
--
Gary McGath
http://www.mcgath.com http://www.mcgath.com/blog
Gary McGath
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> Re-read the article: these are hotel workers (maids, bell hops,
> cooks), their only "costumes" are their hotel uniforms . . .
It's a nice trick, asking people to "re-read the article" in the hope
that they won't read it but just take your word for it. But the article
says: "The arrest of the 32 protesters, many of whom wore costumes
representing famous Disney characters..."
Oliver
> The function of unions is to force other people to pay dues and to keep
> them out of the good jobs.
Pathetic, all of you! God knows what your kind would've thought of the
suffragettes a century ago.
Anim8rFSK
Gary McGath <garym@_MYLASTNAME_.com> wrote:
> In article <5dsga4t0b1evmshkh...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Re-read the article: these are hotel workers (maids, bell hops,
> > cooks), their only "costumes" are their hotel uniforms . . .
>
> It's a nice trick, asking people to "re-read the article" in the hope
> that they won't read it but just take your word for it. But the article
> says: "The arrest of the 32 protesters, many of whom wore costumes
> representing famous Disney characters..."
Exactly. Plus, you know, if they weren't in costumes, how did
'Cinderella' get arrested? Much less Peter Pan, Mickey, Tinkerbell,
etc.?
And a quick Google search shows them in costume:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/406948.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23538019-details/Cinderella,+S
now+White+and+Mickey+Mouse+arrested+as+police+clash+with+staff+at+Disneyl
and/article.do
Basically, everything Antonio E. Gonzalez said was a lie.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<garym@_MYLASTNAME_.com> wrote:
>In article <hdsha4pfk97ft61nf...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Blocking access? There weren't locking arms, or doing anything to
>> prevent patrons from entering the hotel; just standing there
>> protesting doesn't count.
>
>Oh, really? Then why does the article say: "Those who were arrested sat
>in a circle on a busy intersection outside the park holding hands until
>they were placed in plastic handcuffs and led to two police vans while
>hundreds of hotel workers cheered and chanted."
>
Ok, I'll give that I missed that. It's called civil disobedience,
of course, and I'm yet to hear how this kept people from reaching the
park . . .
>> I'm sensing a very anti-union sentiment here, something that became
>> outdated about a hundred years ago, as brutally commented on by Darrin
>> Bell in last week's Candorville!:
>
>The function of unions is to force other people to pay dues and to keep
>them out of the good jobs. Maybe I'm "outdated" in having no admiration
>for that sort of thing, but I've never been interested in fashionable
>thinking.
"Fashionable thinking," now there's an interesting way to look at
worker's rights! You wanna go back to the days where laborers were
chained to their jobs (sometimes literally) and unable to complain
about conditions, please feel free to move to China. Me? I'll be
joining the CTA (California Teacher's Association) when I become a
teacher, the biggest union in California, arguably the most powerful,
and I'll be damn *proud* to be a member!
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>In article <garym-C71C48....@news-out.mv.net>,
> Gary McGath <garym@_MYLASTNAME_.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <5dsga4t0b1evmshkh...@4ax.com>,
>> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Re-read the article: these are hotel workers (maids, bell hops,
>> > cooks), their only "costumes" are their hotel uniforms . . .
>>
>> It's a nice trick, asking people to "re-read the article" in the hope
>> that they won't read it but just take your word for it. But the article
>> says: "The arrest of the 32 protesters, many of whom wore costumes
>> representing famous Disney characters..."
>
>Exactly. Plus, you know, if they weren't in costumes, how did
>'Cinderella' get arrested? Much less Peter Pan, Mickey, Tinkerbell,
>etc.?
>
They were wearing the costumes, thus the headline stands . . .
>And a quick Google search shows them in costume:
>
>http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/406948.html
>
>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23538019-details/Cinderella,+S
>now+White+and+Mickey+Mouse+arrested+as+police+clash+with+staff+at+Disneyl
>and/article.do
>
Which, of course, changes nothing; heck, it confirms the
"Cinderella Arrested" part . . .
>Basically, everything Antonio E. Gonzalez said was a lie.
Keep telling yourself that, reality speaks otherwise . . .
jsh...@comcast.net
> >The function of unions is to force other people to pay dues and to keep
> >them out of the good jobs. Maybe I'm "outdated" in having no admiration
> >for that sort of thing, but I've never been interested in fashionable
> >thinking.
>
> "Fashionable thinking," now there's an interesting way to look at
> worker's rights! You wanna go back to the days where laborers were
> chained to their jobs (sometimes literally) and unable to complain
> about conditions, please feel free to move to China. Me? I'll be
> joining the CTA (California Teacher's Association) when I become a
> teacher, the biggest union in California, arguably the most powerful,
> and I'll be damn *proud* to be a member!
I'm guessing that working-class families are a large percentage of
Disney's customer base (because of their "wholesome" image, y'know?).
I don't think it's wise to tick off the people you want buying your
stuff. Eisner found that out the hard way.
-Jay Shell
Anim8rFSK
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:55:48 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <garym-C71C48....@news-out.mv.net>,
> > Gary McGath <garym@_MYLASTNAME_.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <5dsga4t0b1evmshkh...@4ax.com>,
> >> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Re-read the article: these are hotel workers (maids, bell hops,
> >> > cooks), their only "costumes" are their hotel uniforms . . .
> >>
> >> It's a nice trick, asking people to "re-read the article" in the hope
> >> that they won't read it but just take your word for it. But the article
> >> says: "The arrest of the 32 protesters, many of whom wore costumes
> >> representing famous Disney characters..."
> >
> >Exactly. Plus, you know, if they weren't in costumes, how did
> >'Cinderella' get arrested? Much less Peter Pan, Mickey, Tinkerbell,
> >etc.?
> >
>
> They were wearing the costumes, thus the headline stands . . .
And when you said "their only "costumes" are their hotel uniforms" you
were lying.
>
>
> >And a quick Google search shows them in costume:
> >
> >http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/406948.html
> >
> >http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23538019-details/Cinderella,+S
> >now+White+and+Mickey+Mouse+arrested+as+police+clash+with+staff+at+Disneyl
> >and/article.do
> >
>
> Which, of course, changes nothing; heck, it confirms the
> "Cinderella Arrested" part . . .
It confirms that you were lying.
>
>
> >Basically, everything Antonio E. Gonzalez said was a lie.
>
> Keep telling yourself that, reality speaks otherwise . . .
You're actually that stupid? In the face of being shown that everything
you said was a lie? Cites, articles, pictures? EVERYTHING you said was
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>In article <6pvla4l5jr38fb5s3...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:55:48 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <garym-C71C48....@news-out.mv.net>,
>> > Gary McGath <garym@_MYLASTNAME_.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <5dsga4t0b1evmshkh...@4ax.com>,
>> >> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Re-read the article: these are hotel workers (maids, bell hops,
>> >> > cooks), their only "costumes" are their hotel uniforms . . .
>> >>
>> >> It's a nice trick, asking people to "re-read the article" in the hope
>> >> that they won't read it but just take your word for it. But the article
>> >> says: "The arrest of the 32 protesters, many of whom wore costumes
>> >> representing famous Disney characters..."
>> >
>> >Exactly. Plus, you know, if they weren't in costumes, how did
>> >'Cinderella' get arrested? Much less Peter Pan, Mickey, Tinkerbell,
>> >etc.?
>> >
>>
>> They were wearing the costumes, thus the headline stands . . .
>
>And when you said "their only "costumes" are their hotel uniforms" you
>were lying.
At work, any semblance of reading comprehension and knowing there's
an entire division of Disney workers that wear uniforms to work would
lead one to understand that. No lying here, you just need to go back
to school . . .
>>
>>
>> >And a quick Google search shows them in costume:
>> >
>> >http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/406948.html
>> >
>> >http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23538019-details/Cinderella,+S
>> >now+White+and+Mickey+Mouse+arrested+as+police+clash+with+staff+at+Disneyl
>> >and/article.do
>> >
>>
>> Which, of course, changes nothing; heck, it confirms the
>> "Cinderella Arrested" part . . .
>
>It confirms that you were lying.
Uh, no, it confirms I was telling the truth . . . again!
Seriously, you gotta work on that reading comprehension . . .
>>
>>
>> >Basically, everything Antonio E. Gonzalez said was a lie.
>>
>> Keep telling yourself that, reality speaks otherwise . . .
>
>You're actually that stupid? In the face of being shown that everything
>you said was a lie? Cites, articles, pictures? EVERYTHING you said was
>a lie.
No lying here, just a guy who clearly needs to take an English
grammar course . . .
Anim8rFSK
And again, everybody knows you're lying but you.
In fact, you know it too; you can't be THAT stupid. No one can.
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >And a quick Google search shows them in costume:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/406948.html
> >> >
> >> >http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23538019-details/Cinderella,+S
> >> >now+White+and+Mickey+Mouse+arrested+as+police+clash+with+staff+at+Disneyl
> >> >and/article.do
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which, of course, changes nothing; heck, it confirms the
> >> "Cinderella Arrested" part . . .
> >
> >It confirms that you were lying.
>
> Uh, no, it confirms I was telling the truth . . . again!
Every line in your every post is a lie, including that one.
> Seriously, you gotta work on that reading comprehension . . .
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Basically, everything Antonio E. Gonzalez said was a lie.
> >>
> >> Keep telling yourself that, reality speaks otherwise . . .
> >
> >You're actually that stupid? In the face of being shown that everything
> >you said was a lie? Cites, articles, pictures? EVERYTHING you said was
> >a lie.
>
> No lying here, just a guy who clearly needs to take an English
> grammar course . . .
Yes, you do.
>
>
>
> --
>
> - ReFlex76
>
> - "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
> girl-on-girl action!"
>
> - "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking
> forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
>
> - Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
>
> <http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
>
> <http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
>
> Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
--
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
You keep calling me a liar, yet never put up any evidence. I am
*really* trying to be nice here, but my patience has its limits . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >And a quick Google search shows them in costume:
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/406948.html
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23538019-details/Cinderella,+S
>> >> >now+White+and+Mickey+Mouse+arrested+as+police+clash+with+staff+at+Disneyl
>> >> >and/article.do
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Which, of course, changes nothing; heck, it confirms the
>> >> "Cinderella Arrested" part . . .
>> >
>> >It confirms that you were lying.
>>
>> Uh, no, it confirms I was telling the truth . . . again!
>
>Every line in your every post is a lie, including that one.
>
*Every* line? From the original link . . .:
"ANAHEIM, Calif. - Cinderella, Snow White, Tinkerbell and other
fictional fixtures of modern-day childhood were handcuffed, frisked
and loaded into police vans Thursday at the culmination of a labor
protest that brought a touch of reality to the Happiest Place on
Earth. "
The original link . . .:
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20080815/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_disneyland_protest>
That's one "lie" proven true; if you have more specific "lies,"
please post them, otherwise your claims remain false. Seriously, put
up or shut up.
>> Seriously, you gotta work on that reading comprehension . . .
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Basically, everything Antonio E. Gonzalez said was a lie.
>> >>
>> >> Keep telling yourself that, reality speaks otherwise . . .
>> >
>> >You're actually that stupid? In the face of being shown that everything
>> >you said was a lie? Cites, articles, pictures? EVERYTHING you said was
>> >a lie.
>>
>> No lying here, just a guy who clearly needs to take an English
>> grammar course . . .
>
>Yes, you do.
>
Seriously, just explain yourself . . .
--
- ReFlex 76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot