Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

Sparky wrote:

> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> Abeness wrote:
>>
>>> vince garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
>>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
>>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
>>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the
>>> "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their
>>> establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details.
>>> I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people were sucking
>>> on each other, for example. That's not the environment I'd want in my
>>> business. But the line is a difficult one to navigate: some might
>>> argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals would be offensive to their
>>> customers, just as white folks in times past argued that blacks in
>>> their establishments would be offensive. Times change, thankfully,
>>> and justice must prevail.
>>>
>>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
>>>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal
>>> freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more
>>> complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for
>>> many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating
>>> against homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on
>>> their skin color--it's just the way they were born, and how could
>>> they possibly choose otherwise.
>>
>>
>>
>> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me
>> to marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges.
>>
>>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
>>>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
>>>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other
>>>> even if
>>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
>>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You have a point here. ;-)
>>>
>>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
>>> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact
>>> would be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just
>>> think of the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by
>>> your hypothesis!
>>>
>>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
>>>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people
>>>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe
>>>> discrimination
>>>> is always unconstitutional.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
>>> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue
>>> is favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to
>>> prevent abuse of power with these laws.
>>>
>>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system
>>>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the
>>>> hell
>>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS
>>>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is
>>> (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to
>>> see heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I
>>> don't want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop.
>>> And I sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV
>>> (couldn't believe what I saw the other day). We don't allow public
>>> "fornication" by anyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Although that is being pushed for by some also.
>>
>>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means to
>>> consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government
>> sanction, encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree -
>> after all - that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove
>> otherwise.
>
>
> KNOTHEAD!

LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel
(sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating
the crotch out of a pine tree". 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 =---

"LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel
(sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating
the crotch out of a pine tree". 8^)..."

I remember that particular show. That was funny! When he died, the joke
going around was that he choked on a pine cone.



Freedom is NEVER free! Support our TROOPS! David Thornton
IM:
Signature powered by Plaxo ... Want a signature like this? Add me to your
address book...
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
| Sparky wrote:
|
| > Bill Putney wrote:
| >
| >> Abeness wrote:
| >>
| >>> vince garcia wrote:
| >>>
| >>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed
that
| >>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of
business
| >>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
| >>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the
| >>> "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their
| >>> establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details.
| >>> I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people were sucking
| >>> on each other, for example. That's not the environment I'd want in my
| >>> business. But the line is a difficult one to navigate: some might
| >>> argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals would be offensive to their
| >>> customers, just as white folks in times past argued that blacks in
| >>> their establishments would be offensive. Times change, thankfully,
| >>> and justice must prevail.
| >>>
| >>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
| >>>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal
| >>> freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more
| >>> complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for
| >>> many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating
| >>> against homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on
| >>> their skin color--it's just the way they were born, and how could
| >>> they possibly choose otherwise.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me
| >> to marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges.
| >>
| >>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
| >>>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
| >>>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other
| >>>> even if
| >>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
| >>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!"
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> You have a point here. ;-)
| >>>
| >>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
| >>> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact
| >>> would be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just
| >>> think of the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by
| >>> your hypothesis!
| >>>
| >>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
| >>>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only
people
| >>>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe
| >>>> discrimination
| >>>> is always unconstitutional.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
| >>> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue
| >>> is favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to
| >>> prevent abuse of power with these laws.
| >>>
| >>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the
system
| >>>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the
| >>>> hell
| >>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and
IS
| >>>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is
| >>> (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to
| >>> see heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I
| >>> don't want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop.
| >>> And I sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV
| >>> (couldn't believe what I saw the other day). We don't allow public
| >>> "fornication" by anyone.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> Although that is being pushed for by some also.
| >>
| >>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means to
| >>> consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government
| >> sanction, encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree -
| >> after all - that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove
| >> otherwise.
| >
| >
| > KNOTHEAD!
|
| LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel
| (sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating
| the crotch out of a pine tree". 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 =---

Big Bill wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:05:01 GMT, Sparky > wrote:
>
>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:36:09 GMT, Sparky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Big Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:30:32 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>041108 2142 - Wound Up posted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>>>>>>>>target of hatred
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, then, maybe derision???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Maybe"...? Y'think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Turn on your TV set during primetime any night of the week. Scarcely a
>>>>>>sitcom episode goes by without they don't make clunky, hamhanded innuendo
>>>>>>or outright laughtrack-enhanced punchlines at the expense of
>>>>>>cardigan-wearing, mincing, oh-so-coiffed fag-stereotypes, and entire
>>>>>>series are built on same, e.g. "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the
>>>>>>Straight Guy" or "Queer as Folk".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One doesn't have to work very hard to imagine how black people felt when
>>>>>>they saw such as "What's Happenin?" on television. Hollywood, for their
>>>>>>part, is glibly contrite for years of making money off black stereotypes,
>>>>>>but they evidently have zero problem doing the selfsame thing with gays
>>>>>>right now, today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gandhi said of social change: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule
>>>>>>and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-DS
>>>>>
>>>>>There's a group that come in for much more derision than homosexuals
>>>>>on TV - the white male.
>>>>>All you need to do to see this is to watch sitcoms and advertisements.
>>>>>The poor bumbling white guy is the butt of so many jokes it's obvious
>>>>>to anyone who watches.
>>>>>But it's OK, because, after all, they are just, well, there.
>>>>
>>>>Feeling sorry for yourself, BB?
>>>>
>>>>Adult white guys still seem to be running things across the USA.
>>>
>>>So you don't think what I say is right?
>>>Have you watched TV lately?
>>
>>Some. I think you're confusing fiction with reality.
>
>
> So you think they aren't making these shows and commercials?
> *That* would be fiction.
> The reality is that these shows and commercials *are* being made and
> shown.
>
>>Are you saying adult white guys *aren't* running things across the USA?
>
>
> Where are you getting this? You* do* realize that, despite the
> descrimination against them, gays are productive members of society,
> don't you?
> No where am I saying that white males aren't doing anything. I'm
> saying they are being discriminated against.
>
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"


Bill, being a white female from the south, that argument won't fly with
me... i would have to disagree just based on my experience.. nothing
scientific... just my own personal experience...


Gays are and have always been productive members of society. to name a few:

Leonardo da Vinci (artist, inventor)
Samuel Barber (composer)
Gian Carlo Menotti (composer)
Raymond Burr (actor, philanthropist) (NO!!!! Not Perry Mason!!!! i
thought he was always in love with Della!!!! :-( ) :-)
Amelia Earhart - Aviator, Explorer
Michelangelo - (1475 - 1564) Sculptor, Artist, Architect, Poet
Harvey Milk - (1930 - 1978) First openly gay official elected in the US
Plato - (427? - 347 B.C.) Philosopher
Pope Benedict IX - (1020 - 1055) Roman Catholic Pope
Pope John XII - (937 - 964) Roman Catholic Pope
Pope Julius III - (1487 - 1555) Roman Catholic Pope
Pope Leo X - (1475 - 1521) Roman Catholic Pope
Pope Paul II - (1417 - 1471) Roman Catholic Pope
Pope Sixtus IV - (1414 - 1484) Roman Catholic Pope
Richard the Lionheart - King of England
Cole Porter - (1893 - 1964) Composer
Gore Vidal (statesman, author, actor)

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, linda wrote:

> Bill, being a white female from the south, that argument won't fly with
> me... i would have to disagree just based on my experience.. nothing
> scientific... just my own personal experience... Gays are and have
> always been productive members of society. to name a few:
>
> Leonardo da Vinci (artist, inventor)
> Samuel Barber (composer)
> Gian Carlo Menotti (composer)
> Raymond Burr (actor, philanthropist) (NO!!!! Not Perry Mason!!!! i

Try John Wayne (Yep, John Wayne) for shock value.

> Pope Benedict IX - (1020 - 1055) Roman Catholic Pope
> Pope John XII - (937 - 964) Roman Catholic Pope
> Pope Julius III - (1487 - 1555) Roman Catholic Pope
> Pope Leo X - (1475 - 1521) Roman Catholic Pope
> Pope Paul II - (1417 - 1471) Roman Catholic Pope
> Pope Sixtus IV - (1414 - 1484) Roman Catholic Pope

These are interesting, got a cite?

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>
>
>>Bill, being a white female from the south, that argument won't fly with
>>me... i would have to disagree just based on my experience.. nothing
>>scientific... just my own personal experience... Gays are and have
>>always been productive members of society. to name a few:
>>
>>Leonardo da Vinci (artist, inventor)
>>Samuel Barber (composer)
>>Gian Carlo Menotti (composer)
>>Raymond Burr (actor, philanthropist) (NO!!!! Not Perry Mason!!!! i
>
>
> Try John Wayne (Yep, John Wayne) for shock value.

i know, i keep telling people that and i almost get into fights!!!!!
can you believe that THE DUKE was gay..
>
>
>>Pope Benedict IX - (1020 - 1055) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope John XII - (937 - 964) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope Julius III - (1487 - 1555) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope Leo X - (1475 - 1521) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope Paul II - (1417 - 1471) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope Sixtus IV - (1414 - 1484) Roman Catholic Pope
>
>
> These are interesting, got a cite?
>

i can find sites galore.. these are the first...

oh yea, when i tell people that Tom Cruise is gay, i get shouted at
"LIAR"!!!!!!!!


http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProj...s/history.html

http://www.gayheroes.com/main.htm

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gayhistbib.html

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>
>
>>Bill, being a white female from the south, that argument won't fly with
>>me... i would have to disagree just based on my experience.. nothing
>>scientific... just my own personal experience... Gays are and have
>>always been productive members of society. to name a few:
>>
>>Leonardo da Vinci (artist, inventor)
>>Samuel Barber (composer)
>>Gian Carlo Menotti (composer)
>>Raymond Burr (actor, philanthropist) (NO!!!! Not Perry Mason!!!! i
>
>
> Try John Wayne (Yep, John Wayne) for shock value.
>
>
>>Pope Benedict IX - (1020 - 1055) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope John XII - (937 - 964) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope Julius III - (1487 - 1555) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope Leo X - (1475 - 1521) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope Paul II - (1417 - 1471) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope Sixtus IV - (1414 - 1484) Roman Catholic Pope
>
>
> These are interesting, got a cite?
>
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/gayhist.htm

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:27:23 GMT, linda >
wrote:
....
>> Where are you getting this? You* do* realize that, despite the
>> descrimination against them, gays are productive members of society,
>> don't you?
>> No where am I saying that white males aren't doing anything. I'm
>> saying they are being discriminated against.
>>
>> Bill Funk
>> Change "g" to "a"
>
>
>Bill, being a white female from the south, that argument won't fly with
>me... i would have to disagree just based on my experience.. nothing
>scientific... just my own personal experience...
>
>
>Gays are and have always been productive members of society. to name a few:
>
>Leonardo da Vinci (artist, inventor)
>Samuel Barber (composer)
>Gian Carlo Menotti (composer)
>Raymond Burr (actor, philanthropist) (NO!!!! Not Perry Mason!!!! i
>thought he was always in love with Della!!!! :-( ) :-)
>Amelia Earhart - Aviator, Explorer
>Michelangelo - (1475 - 1564) Sculptor, Artist, Architect, Poet
>Harvey Milk - (1930 - 1978) First openly gay official elected in the US
>Plato - (427? - 347 B.C.) Philosopher
>Pope Benedict IX - (1020 - 1055) Roman Catholic Pope
>Pope John XII - (937 - 964) Roman Catholic Pope
>Pope Julius III - (1487 - 1555) Roman Catholic Pope
>Pope Leo X - (1475 - 1521) Roman Catholic Pope
>Pope Paul II - (1417 - 1471) Roman Catholic Pope
>Pope Sixtus IV - (1414 - 1484) Roman Catholic Pope
>Richard the Lionheart - King of England
>Cole Porter - (1893 - 1964) Composer
>Gore Vidal (statesman, author, actor)

Did you perhaps misread what I wrote?
"Where are you getting this? You* do* realize that, despite the
descrimination against them, gays are productive members of society,
don't you?"

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"linda" > wrote in message
...
|
| i know, i keep telling people that and i almost get into fights!!!!!
| can you believe that THE DUKE was gay..

So they weren't kidding when they referred to him as "a man's man"!

Just curious. How did all of these people achieve such great and productive
ends if discrimination was anywhere near the level claimed. In the 1970's, I
knew Elton John was gay even then. I bought his record albums and attended his
concerts anyway. So did everyone I knew. I'm sure some discrimination exists.
90% of it is made up though, in my opinion.

Let's see... because it was on a web site you accept it as gospel?
Therefore you must believe that the aliens are among us since that too
is on the internet. How many of those Leonardos and popes openly
admitted to being gay? Don't site the internet. Cite their own
admissions.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:27:23 GMT, linda >
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:05:01 GMT, Sparky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Big Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:36:09 GMT, Sparky > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Big Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:30:32 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>041108 2142 - Wound Up posted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>>>>>>>>>target of hatred
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, then, maybe derision???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Maybe"...? Y'think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Turn on your TV set during primetime any night of the week. Scarcely a
>>>>>>>sitcom episode goes by without they don't make clunky, hamhanded innuendo
>>>>>>>or outright laughtrack-enhanced punchlines at the expense of
>>>>>>>cardigan-wearing, mincing, oh-so-coiffed fag-stereotypes, and entire
>>>>>>>series are built on same, e.g. "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the
>>>>>>>Straight Guy" or "Queer as Folk".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One doesn't have to work very hard to imagine how black people felt when
>>>>>>>they saw such as "What's Happenin?" on television. Hollywood, for their
>>>>>>>part, is glibly contrite for years of making money off black stereotypes,
>>>>>>>but they evidently have zero problem doing the selfsame thing with gays
>>>>>>>right now, today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gandhi said of social change: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule
>>>>>>>and denounce you, then they debate you, then you win."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-DS
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There's a group that come in for much more derision than homosexuals
>>>>>>on TV - the white male.
>>>>>>All you need to do to see this is to watch sitcoms and advertisements.
>>>>>>The poor bumbling white guy is the butt of so many jokes it's obvious
>>>>>>to anyone who watches.
>>>>>>But it's OK, because, after all, they are just, well, there.
>>>>>
>>>>>Feeling sorry for yourself, BB?
>>>>>
>>>>>Adult white guys still seem to be running things across the USA.
>>>>
>>>>So you don't think what I say is right?
>>>>Have you watched TV lately?
>>>
>>>Some. I think you're confusing fiction with reality.
>>
>>
>> So you think they aren't making these shows and commercials?
>> *That* would be fiction.
>> The reality is that these shows and commercials *are* being made and
>> shown.
>>
>>>Are you saying adult white guys *aren't* running things across the USA?
>>
>>
>> Where are you getting this? You* do* realize that, despite the
>> descrimination against them, gays are productive members of society,
>> don't you?
>> No where am I saying that white males aren't doing anything. I'm
>> saying they are being discriminated against.
>>
>> Bill Funk
>> Change "g" to "a"
>
>
>Bill, being a white female from the south, that argument won't fly with
>me... i would have to disagree just based on my experience.. nothing
>scientific... just my own personal experience...
>
>
>Gays are and have always been productive members of society. to name a few:
>
>Leonardo da Vinci (artist, inventor)
>Samuel Barber (composer)
>Gian Carlo Menotti (composer)
>Raymond Burr (actor, philanthropist) (NO!!!! Not Perry Mason!!!! i
>thought he was always in love with Della!!!! :-( ) :-)
>Amelia Earhart - Aviator, Explorer
>Michelangelo - (1475 - 1564) Sculptor, Artist, Architect, Poet
>Harvey Milk - (1930 - 1978) First openly gay official elected in the US
>Plato - (427? - 347 B.C.) Philosopher
>Pope Benedict IX - (1020 - 1055) Roman Catholic Pope
>Pope John XII - (937 - 964) Roman Catholic Pope
>Pope Julius III - (1487 - 1555) Roman Catholic Pope
>Pope Leo X - (1475 - 1521) Roman Catholic Pope
>Pope Paul II - (1417 - 1471) Roman Catholic Pope
>Pope Sixtus IV - (1414 - 1484) Roman Catholic Pope
>Richard the Lionheart - King of England
>Cole Porter - (1893 - 1964) Composer
>Gore Vidal (statesman, author, actor)

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Is it REALLY necessary to clutter up our NG with this crap?

>
>Let's see... because it was on a web site you accept it as gospel?

....worthless crap snipped.


///Mike
TS #63
1993 BMW 525i
http://community.webshots.com/user/mpompe2
Pics of all the old cars - Newly updated