John Simkin Posted June 16, 2006 Author Share Posted June 16, 2006 Pamela Brown and Mark Wilson are making unconscionable remarks. Jack was not making "excuses" and Rich was not after "his piece of the pie". These guys are the most altruistic and generous people I have ever met in assassination research. I don't know what has become of this forum, but it appears to have fallen a long way. For Simkin to tolerate trashing Jack because he was banished from Rich's forum years ago--as I understand the situation to be--is extremely unethical and procedurally offensive. In the past, I have had a high opinion of this forum, in general. I am sorry to say things appear to have stooped to a new low. The forum moderator is supposed to be impartial and even handed. To allow attacks on Jack when they are clear violations of the forum's own policies reeks of bias, partiality, and lack of objectivity. This series of events forces me to reconsider the character of this forum and its founder, very much in their disfavor. Len Colby and Bill Miller are unworthy of appearing in the same threads with Jack White or David Healy, for that matter. Jack and David have made significant contributions to JFK research; Colby and Miller have not. This is a disgraceful way for the forum to end Jack's extensive history of active participation. It is pathetic! John Simkin ought to be ashamed of himself. I certainly am. It is not true that I have tolerated the “trashing Jack because he was banished from Rich's forum years ago”. All members of this forum are exposed to criticism. That includes people like Len Colby and Bill Miller. That is the purpose of this forum. People put up their theories for peer review. Len has given me a hard time in the past. In fact, we agree about very little. However, I have always found him to be a polite and able opponent. It is true that Jack gets very little support for his views on the forum. But that is Jack’s problem. Unlike Rich I will not protect him from criticism. If he views are correct, I am sure he will be able to defend them. If he cannot, then I suspect he needs to take a closer look at his theories. What usually happens is the intellectually able stay on the forum whereas those unable to cope with debate, call for critics to be removed from the forum. Eventually, they leave the debating chamber. I have never criticised Rich for charging people to use his forum. The fact that I have the financial resources to fund this forum does not make me a good person. My problem with Rich is that he appears to ban people who he disagrees with. The fact that he did this on behalf of Bob Vernon seems very strange. You are your colleagues from JFK Research are welcome to freely express your thoughts on me or the forum. For example, you were allowed to speak up for yourself when you were roundly criticised for your management of the recent Washington conference. I don’t have an opinion on whether the Zapruder film was altered or not and never join in those debates. However, I do think it is intellectually unhealthy to have a forum where these ideas cannot be debated. Personally, I think researchers are misguided in spending so much time on the Zapruder film. We already have the evidence that JFK was the victim of crossfire. I would have thought we would be better employed looking for the people who ordered and carried out the assassination. I am sorry that you consider this forum to have “fallen a long way”. Luckily for us, most members do not agree with you and it has never been more popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I like this Forum.I find it very educational. Not just in the subject matters people choose to discuss, how they choose to approach any subject or individual, but also the ones they choose not to discuss. The good thing is that it doesn't matter. After all, what is posted here is available to many many millions of people to read and evaluate. A good thing about a reasonably respectful environment is that less forward people can be encouraged to speak. The search for a truth is more likely to be successful for those who are seeking it. Many truths are grouped together, so a search in one area relates to others. Pre-judice is hard to avoid. But it can be used to measure things against. IOW if I were to say that John or Jane Doe shot Kennedy from the blabla, and honestly and rigorously set about to test that idea, if I have sufficient of what it takes to ditch unworkable ones, and perhaps perform a complete about face, then it's possible I can arrive at some conclusion. When a number of people approach the thing from different angles and separately arrive at some consensus then perhaps that consensus is important. Arriving at consensus through peer pressure has little value. If I wanted to at my age go back to school (which I don't), and this was one school (which it isn't) on offer, It would be a campus of choice. Varied and impressive educators and fellow students, even those at the back chucking chalk. And a tolerant head. Good value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Len Colby wrote:Funny David, Pamela's comments basically echoed John's but you attacked her and said nothing about his post. Not enough courage to challenge the big fish eh? Len ************** perk up buckoo, the big fish are currently represented by *YOU* on this forum Wrong again Day-vo. I represent no one but myself on this or any other forum. Just because I don’t believe the lunatic theories you and your buddies promote doesn’t mean am a fan of Bush or the CIA or any of the other alleged perpetrators. The truth is the truth regardless of who it implicates or absolves. In any case I obviously was referring to John (with all due respect) as “the big fish” since he is the moderator of the JFK forum and co-moderator of the entire forum with Andy. I was commenting on the lack of courage you demonstrated by criticizing Pamela but not John for making similar points. Your fears are unwarranted, John is not a DellaRosa* and is quite tolerant of those who disagree with him. speaking of which... when is the new and improved Zavada report going to be ready? You don't think those of us concerned about the Zapruder film forgot, do you? I've been ready for sometime now, what's taking your side so long? Or shall we continue to play the DELAY games Since you have Rollie’s e-mail I suggest you ask him yourself. Why do you always bring up Zavada’s thesis whenever you reply to me even when as now it has nothing to do with the subject at hand? This is really a loosing proposition for you as every time you drag this up I point out that 1) 6 weeks BEFORE Rollie PRIVATELY said he would produce a new reply to your foolery and that it would “take sometime” you promised to make you “formal claim soon”. 2) He is in poor health. 6 weeks after you post your “formal claim” ask me again about Zavada. Len *To be fair I must admit that since I was never a member of DellaRosa’s forum I can’t attest that he does this but enough credible people have said this that I believe it to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Why do you always bring up Zavada’s thesis whenever you reply to me even when as now it has nothing to do with the subject at hand? Think xxxxx, Len. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Pamela Brown and Mark Wilson are making unconscionable remarks. Jack was not making "excuses" and Rich was not after "his piece of the pie". These guys are the most altruistic and generous people I have ever met in assassination research. I don't know what has become of this forum, but it appears to have fallen a long way. For Simkin to tolerate trashing Jack because he was banished from Rich's forum years ago--as I understand the situation to be--is extremely unethical and procedurally offensive. In the past, I have had a high opinion of this forum, in general. I am sorry to say things appear to have stooped to a new low. The forum moderator is supposed to be impartial and even handed. To allow attacks on Jack when they are clear violations of the forum's own policies reeks of bias, partiality, and lack of objectivity. This series of events forces me to reconsider the character of this forum and its founder, very much in their disfavor. Len Colby and Bill Miller are unworthy of appearing in the same threads with Jack White or David Healy, for that matter. Jack and David have made significant contributions to JFK research; Colby and Miller have not. This is a disgraceful way for the forum to end Jack's extensive history of active participation. It is pathetic! John Simkin ought to be ashamed of himself. I certainly am. It is not true that I have tolerated the “trashing Jack because he was banished from Rich's forum years ago”. All members of this forum are exposed to criticism. That includes people like Len Colby and Bill Miller. That is the purpose of this forum. People put up their theories for peer review. Len has given me a hard time in the past. In fact, we agree about very little. However, I have always found him to be a polite and able opponent. It is true that Jack gets very little support for his views on the forum. But that is Jack’s problem. Unlike Rich I will not protect him from criticism. If he views are correct, I am sure he will be able to defend them. If he cannot, then I suspect he needs to take a closer look at his theories. What usually happens is the intellectually able stay on the forum whereas those unable to cope with debate, call for critics to be removed from the forum. Eventually, they leave the debating chamber. I have never criticised Rich for charging people to use his forum. The fact that I have the financial resources to fund this forum does not make me a good person. My problem with Rich is that he appears to ban people who he disagrees with. The fact that he did this on behalf of Bob Vernon seems very strange. You are your colleagues from JFK Research are welcome to freely express your thoughts on me or the forum. For example, you were allowed to speak up for yourself when you were roundly criticised for your management of the recent Washington conference. I don’t have an opinion on whether the Zapruder film was altered or not and never join in those debates. However, I do think it is intellectually unhealthy to have a forum where these ideas cannot be debated. Personally, I think researchers are misguided in spending so much time on the Zapruder film. We already have the evidence that JFK was the victim of crossfire. I would have thought we would be better employed looking for the people who ordered and carried out the assassination. I am sorry that you consider this forum to have “fallen a long way”. Luckily for us, most members do not agree with you and it has never been more popular. We already have the evidence that JFK was the victim of crossfire Somewhere, I missed any factual evidence to this myth. Hopefully you are not making reference to the movie JFK as well as the great "Canyon Shoot" as being some form of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Somewhere, I missed any factual evidence to this myth. You didn't miss it - you just were not able to understand it. BTW, when the bones on the back of the head are sprung open to the rear - what direction was the projectile traveling? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Somewhere, I missed any factual evidence to this myth. You didn't miss it - you just were not able to understand it. BTW, when the bones on the back of the head are sprung open to the rear - what direction was the projectile traveling? Bill Miller The operative word was "FACTUAL" evidence! So folks, we now have the movie JFK; the great Canyon Shoot; and the Bill Miller interpretation of "Sprung open" as definitive proof of a shot from the front which exited out the rear of the skull. What more could one ask for??? How about an Entrance wound? Skull?/Forehead?/Surely not the anterior throat/neck wound?? How about an Exit pathway through the cerebral tissue? How about an Exit wound to the rear portion of the skull which demonstrates beveling on the exterior table of the skull? How about the rear portion of the skull/head erupting with cerebral tissue being blown out similar to that as seen in the Z-313 headshot from the rear? Got any of these little necessities laying around Bill? Nah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 (edited) The operative word was "FACTUAL" evidence!So folks, we now have the movie JFK; the great Canyon Shoot; and the Bill Miller interpretation of "Sprung open" as definitive proof of a shot from the front which exited out the rear of the skull. Purvy, you are jackin' around here. We are not talking about my interpretation, but rather what the Dallas doctors described seeing with their own eyes. So again, regardless of anyones interpretations - just tell this forum what direction a shot was traveling if the bones on the back of someones head is sprung open to the rear? This is a simple question that can be answered outside the realm of the JFK asassination. Bill Miller Edited June 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 . This forum is an attempt to bring together people with different views. It is by exchanging opinions with someone we disagree with, that gives us the best opportunity to get to the truth. It is also about collective intelligence. That what the internet makes possible. However, unless we are willing to communicate freely with each other, the full potential of this medium will not be realised. John: This is exactly what your forum provides and why I could never imagine leaving. The sense of community here, the collective intelligence and sharing of research ha caused me to believe that this case CAN be solved. You provide a great service. A true "patriot", not the wanna be's that W and his cronies thump about. DAwn Much of the above two comments I think are true and correct. I'd add however that many of us who have worked long and hard on the case have become specialists in a specific area and have become 1)sensitive to criticism or even attacks on our specific work or specialized information and 2) sometimes too jealously guard what we know - not fully wanting to share and thus 'loose' control over it for our next book, to satisfy ego gratification, maintain bragging rights, and a host of other reasons. Human, Human, all too Human. Also, some among us (I think) are here only to muddy the waters, cause disagreements and dissention etc. They fall into two catagories, I believe. 1] Those who just think LHO killed JFK and, thus, we others are all nuts or 2] are partners, employees or invested with those who would and did kill the President and cover it up - and do to this day. Knowledge of the latter by many of the researchers can lead to quick reflex responses against their own cabal-killed-JFK posts and ideas. They covered-up the crime and no doubt want to confuse and disable the only real researchers - the citizen researchers. The first catagory are welcome, but I always wonder why they are here (I don't feel interested to go to the-holocaust-never-happened sites and try to argue with those evil nuts). If we are so delusional just leave us in our delusion. In fact, We the citizen researchers, have done the greater part of solving this case - not any official body [Garrison excepted], really. I find it sad to see the attacks and angry words no matter who is involved. We need to work together when we can and learn to ignore those we can not work with. This should be less of a match of wits and ego - and more of a cooperative work in progress on the case and solving it - whatever our beliefs and predjudices, etc. As far as John's actions I don't agree with all always, but he is tolerant, even-handed, slow to anger and has done a marvelous job, I think, in both getting some of us together here and forwarding the positive movement on the case and related matters. I have NO idea how he finds time to keep up on all on this site! His summaries on various players in the assassination and postings of these has done a great service to all of us. None of us are perfect and many of us do (or should) regret some postings we have made when in error or in anger. Another problem with these types of forums [as with email] is not taking time to reflect and collect one's thoughts and regain equilibirim before replying. All in all I think the site is a positive contribution and I regret that more accomplished and knowledgable researchers don't more often join in. Some likely don't because they are too busy. Far too many others don't like the negative sides we are all discussing here. Those here to sew dissention, in that regard, over the years have had some success. Don't let the bastards win. Ignore them rather than attack them, however. Now I hope I can follow my own sermon. Peace. Peter: Your post should be read often as a reminder. Thanx for the eloquence, and pointing out the obvious. I so enjoy your presence here. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 (edited) undefined Pamela Brown and Mark Wilson are making unconscionable remarks. Jack was not making "excuses" and Rich was not after "his piece of the pie". These guys are the most altruistic and generous people I have ever met in assassination research. I don't know what has become of this forum, but it appears to have fallen a long way. For Simkin to tolerate trashing Jack because he was banished from Rich's forum years ago--as I understand the situation to be--is extremely unethical and procedurally offensive. In the past, I have had a high opinion of this forum, in general. I am sorry to say things appear to have stooped to a new low. The forum moderator is supposed to be impartial and even handed. To allow attacks on Jack when they are clear violations of the forum's own policies reeks of bias, partiality, and lack of objectivity. This series of events forces me to reconsider the character of this forum and its founder, very much in their disfavor. Len Colby and Bill Miller are unworthy of appearing in the same threads with Jack White or David Healy, for that matter. Jack and David have made significant contributions to JFK research; Colby and Miller have not. This is a disgraceful way for the forum to end Jack's extensive history of active participation. It is pathetic! John Simkin ought to be ashamed of himself. I certainly am. It is not true that I have tolerated the “trashing Jack because he was banished from Rich's forum years ago”. All members of this forum are exposed to criticism. That includes people like Len Colby and Bill Miller. That is the purpose of this forum. People put up their theories for peer review. Len has given me a hard time in the past. In fact, we agree about very little. However, I have always found him to be a polite and able opponent. It is true that Jack gets very little support for his views on the forum. But that is Jack’s problem. Unlike Rich I will not protect him from criticism. If he views are correct, I am sure he will be able to defend them. If he cannot, then I suspect he needs to take a closer look at his theories. What usually happens is the intellectually able stay on the forum whereas those unable to cope with debate, call for critics to be removed from the forum. Eventually, they leave the debating chamber. I have never criticised Rich for charging people to use his forum. The fact that I have the financial resources to fund this forum does not make me a good person. My problem with Rich is that he appears to ban people who he disagrees with. The fact that he did this on behalf of Bob Vernon seems very strange. You are your colleagues from JFK Research are welcome to freely express your thoughts on me or the forum. For example, you were allowed to speak up for yourself when you were roundly criticised for your management of the recent Washington conference. I don’t have an opinion on whether the Zapruder film was altered or not and never join in those debates. However, I do think it is intellectually unhealthy to have a forum where these ideas cannot be debated. Personally, I think researchers are misguided in spending so much time on the Zapruder film. We already have the evidence that JFK was the victim of crossfire. I would have thought we would be better employed looking for the people who ordered and carried out the assassination. I am sorry that you consider this forum to have “fallen a long way”. Luckily for us, most members do not agree with you and it has never been more popular. ********************************************************** "Personally, I think researchers are misguided in spending so much time on the Zapruder film. We already have the evidence that JFK was the victim of crossfire. I would have thought we would be better employed looking for the people who ordered and carried out the assassination." Exactly. And, as Peter Lemkin very appropriately stated forward in this thread, "people focus on certain aspects of the case in their research, and guard their discoveries for personal, or business [a book they're writing] reasons." And, another couple of friends of mine, David Lifton and Steve Gaal, have also stated more or less the same thing, but added the factor of coming to terms with new discoveries in the case that force one to acknowledge the outdated-ness [?] of former theories in order to get past the quagmire one inadvertently encounters following the constant re-hashing of that particular aspect. I believe it goes along with accepting change after having thoroughly reviewed all new evidence or discovery being brought to the forefront. You may counter, "But, how are we to know we're not being fed disinfo or being scammed by some gov. lackey being paid to specifically distract us?" Well, that's what research and development are all about. Being able to investigate a new hypothesis or theory, gathering all relevant data, cross-referencing all viable leads, replicate and duplicate the findings. It's one of the hallmark techniques used in developing a logical premise for your presentation. But, you always run the risk of being branded as someone who's been "flipped," or "gone over to the 'dark side'," which isn't the case at all. Especially, when all you've been doing is keeping your nose to the grindstone [such as those two friends of mine have] and working off-site with a selected "few" partners, [and, don't include me in that few, either. I'm only a student. TM] sans the distraction of having to defend themselves on the forums. I am in total agreement with Dawn and Peter on this subject after having spent a good part of the last nine years [since first going on-line] intensely immersed in what I consider to be an equivalent to what we refer to as "Applications," when learning a new imaging/computer system in my field of work. A "JFK Assassinations applications class," if you will. I appreciate the work and time John and Andy have put into creating an excellent educational tool, having much more to offer than merely assassination theories. I often recommend this site to friends and colleagues with school-aged children as a wonderful database from which to glean information for their school projects. Of course, I don't direct them to the assassination section, but to the Spartacus Learning Center url. This website is large and accommodating enough to keep them adequately occupied with its other venues, especially those friends and colleagues who have absolutely no interest in our obsession, whatsoever. LOL I'll stick by my guns regarding the importance of the Wall Street connection, and how deep and long their tentacles actually reached on that sunny November day in Dallas. Why do you think it's so damned hard to "pin the tail on the donkey," let alone find the missing pieces to this puzzle? Scads of money. Loads of it. "All roads lead to Rome..." Edited June 17, 2006 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 It is not true that I have tolerated the "trashing Jack because he was banished from Rich's forum years ago". All members of this forum are exposed to criticism. That includes people like Len Colby and Bill Miller. That is the purpose of this forum. People put up their theories for peer review. Len has given me a hard time in the past. In fact, we agree about very little. However, I have always found him to be a polite and able opponent. Thanks John! But I don't really think I've ever really given you a hard time (at least not as much as Fetzer and Jack) and we seem to agree on most political matters (except perhaps over Israel). It is true that Jack gets very little support for his views on the forum. But that is Jack's problem. Unlike Rich I will not protect him from criticism. If he views are correct, I am sure he will be able to defend them. If he cannot, then I suspect he needs to take a closer look at his theories. What usually happens is the intellectually able stay on the forum whereas those unable to cope with debate, call for critics to be removed from the forum. Eventually, they leave the debating chamber. ".If he views are correct, I am sure he will be able to defend them. If he cannot, then I suspect he needs to take a closer look at his theories." I'm not sure if you meant that to be ironic or not (Brits tend to be a lot more subtle than Americans esp. New Yorkers like me) but you comments were especially appropriate for Jack. He has a tendency, whether the subject is chemtrails, the assassination, the Moon landings, 9/11 or whether or not Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. personally sabotaged JFK Jr's plane, to make outrageous claims and then refuse to answer questions raised by critics and other skeptics. A few months ago I complied a very incomplete list of SOME of the threads he'd left questions unanswered on http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5987 that list has only grown in the meantime, his charge that Marina was an intelligence agent on assignment being one of the most recent examples. I think this is what most irritates most of his critics; he makes various claims refuses to answer any questions and then makes similar claims or even repeats old ones as if nothing has happened. I do think it is intellectually unhealthy to have a forum where these ideas cannot be debated. Very true it makes one wonder about people who rarely venture from "walled garden" type forums and when they do post on open forums do so in 'hit and run' fashion posting avoiding replying to questions and points raised by critics. I don't have an opinion on whether the Zapruder film was altered or not and never join in those debates… Personally, I think researchers are misguided in spending so much time on the Zapruder film. We already have the evidence that JFK was the victim of crossfire. I would have thought we would be better employed looking for the people who ordered and carried out the assassination. To a certainly degree I agree with Fetzer. IF it could be shown that the film had been faked that would certainly narrow the list of suspects and prove involvement of elements of the US gov't. He and his co-authors however make a very weak case for alteration. To allow attacks on Jack when they are clear violations of the forum's own policies reeks of bias, partiality, and lack of objectivity. This series of events forces me to reconsider the character of this forum and its founder, very much in their disfavor. ….John Simkin ought to be ashamed of himself. I certainly am. I am sorry that you consider this forum to have "fallen a long way". Luckily for us, most members do not agree with you and it has never been more popular. This is perhaps your first taste of, "The Wrath of Fetzer", unleashed on any and all that have the audacity to hold contrary views; hell hath no fury like it. The man seems to suffer from delusions of grandeur: I know of no faculty member anywhere whose combination of achievements exceeds my own! […] The conference I organized in Minneapolis in 1999 contributed to the contents and publication of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, perhaps the best book ever published on the death of JFK.And the conference I organized in Duluth in 2003 led to the publication of THE GREAT ZARPUDER FILM HOAX. It may have been the most important small conference on any subject in history James Fetzer, Dec. 26, 2005 [Emphasis added] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/3858 Len Colby and Bill Miller are unworthy of appearing in the same threads with Jack White or David Healy, for that matter. Jack and David have made significant contributions to JFK research; Colby and Miller have not. This is a disgraceful way for the forum to end Jack's extensive history of active participation. It is pathetic! I am no expert on the assassination let alone its historiography but from the little I've seen Bill is very effective in debunking the nonsense promoted by Monsieurs White, Fetzer, Healy et. al. I will leave evaluation of the value of Jack's contribution to those who are more knowledgeable than I but as far as I know Healy's only contribution was to argue rather unconvincingly that the alleged alterations were possible in '63 – '64 (being flatly contradicted by his main source, the inventor of Kodakcrome II and the HSCA's staff photo photo consultant {Groden}) As for me, Fetzer is quite unhappy that Craig Lamson, Josiah Thompson, Evan Burton, some guy who goes by the nom de web "Golf Hobo" and I thoroughly debunked his theories regarding the Wellstone crash. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 People are basically good and they tend to seek out pleasant interactions with others. This is most easily accomplished by seeking out those with similar interests and belief systems. A sufficient number of people with similar interests and beliefs forms a culture. A new person entering an established culture that doesn't hold interests and beliefs that have become the norm of that culture may experience CONFLICT. It's my opinion that the longevity of a particular culture is determined by it's ability to handle CONFLICT which is, essentially, differences in interests and beliefs. A culture that is CLOSED means that it is highly resistive to differences in interests and beliefs and it will often utilize extreme means to force a sense of community via consensus. Conflict can be, at times, hysterically attacked by individuals or groups NEEDING consensus. An OPEN culture means that it is the relative consensus of the group that differences in interests and beliefs are signals of the overall health of that group. Consensus can occur but it is not the primary goal. If you're not snoring yet consider this...which culture experiences longevity? What groups last? Open cultures. When people are surrounded by others who believe, either genuinely or by coercion, mostly like they do the culture stagnates and people leave. It seems humans also hate a vacuum. We're just too curious. Sometimes I think these forums are like cultures. It seems the ones that start to close stagnate. JFKresearch JFK Lancer The John Simkin JFK Assassination Forum The Col. Fletcher Prouty Forum JFK Chat JFKMURDERSOLVED.com Look at those forums. How many would you consider "active" versus "dying". If you come up with and answer...look to see how the members act. Is it an "open" or "closed" culture? I don't know what this has to do with the original post but by the "Beard of Zeus".... I meant whatever I typed above.... Jason Vermeer This is an interesting post and worthy of being bumped! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now