The NF Guestbook archive V
March 1 1999 - March 14 1999
Read what others had to say, or put an entry in the Nuremberg Files Mirror Guestbook yourself. Because the guestbook is quite large, I have cut it up into smaller files:
- Archive I: entries Feb 22 - Feb 25 1999 (36k)
- Archive II: entries Feb 25 - Feb 25 1999 (52k)
- Archive III: entries Feb 25 - Feb 27 1999 (37k)
- Archive IV: entries Feb 27 - Mar 1 1999 (39k)
- Archive V: entries Mar 1 - Mar 14 1999 (34k)
- Archive VI: entries Mar 14 - Aug 9 1999 (34k)
- Archive VII: entries Aug 9 - now.
From: chris@gigglecam.com [proxy.21stcentury.net]
Date: Sun Mar 14 23:53:43 1999
"Issues should be promoted, not repressed." What a great statement.
Chris Morrow
From: Pagaknight@AOL.com [spider-wc032.proxy.aol.com]
Date: Sat Mar 13 07:27:10 1999
A more political look and the Nuremberg files. I needed to take a breath from the life vs. choice struggle for power, and I stumbled upon a resolution. "I stand resolved that the Nuremberg files are a dirrect violation universal international laws, and thus should be removed - with prosecution of the framer."
In our modern world we had finally began to find the correct international lawas that each state could agree to, and seemed fair by all moral codes. One of these laws was dealing with criminal offenses by citzens of a foreign state within to borders of a country. The law stands that "When in Rome, do as the Romans", when one is within a foreign land, one is subject to the authoritative rule of the local government system. All violations are to be handled in the manor the local state feels fit, (example - Michael Fey in Singapore). Now this law doesn't cover people acting from their country to attack another (thus criminals run for the border), however - in cases dealing with serial killing, espionage or other federal felonies, there are exceptions to this international rule where it is found courtious of the local government of the harboring country to detain and send the criminal back to the country of citizenship for prosecution, or will prosecute the offender themselves with unflinching justic.
In our modern society we have encountered a new problem - the internet and it's void of boundries. The only pending distinc barriers are based on where the server is.... thus our society has not yet adapted to this new concept. Laws have not been created, controls not set, and of course - no international laws dealing with foriegn attacks against an individual's right to privacy and sanctity (ie the Nuremberg files). However - with quick logic and deduction one can hastily realize that sitting in a foriegn country and controling the psychotic pro-life pawn assasins by convincing them they are martyrs or neo-saints, is equally devistating as leading a complex mass murder from afar. In either case an international felony. As we discussed earlier, when dealing with international felonies, the local state should be pressing charges against the local violation. For if they didn't, then it would be easy for any lunatic to sit back in the sanctuary of a foriegn country and conduct dirrect violations on members of another country.
Since international crimes are matters handled universaly, and this page is a crime against citizens of the United States, then it should be removed as a threat to international safty, and the framer should be subject to legal consiquence.
Thank you all, Pagaknight
From: bethan@xs4all.nl [dc2-modem47.dial.xs4all.nl]
Date: Fri Mar 12 14:28:37 1999
hallo Mevrouw Spaink
Ik ben het volstrekt met u eens dat doodzwijgen gevaarlijker is, dan de discussie aan te gaan.
Goed interview trouwens in de Nieuwe Revu.
From: Katz001@aol.com [tcnet01-31.dallas.texas.net]
Date: Thu Mar 11 15:48:21 1999
Yes, Decades, along with supercilious, self-absorbed ambiguity masquerading as sophisticated inscrutability. You have demonstrated both -- or are they the same?
From: decade@torpilla.bme.hu [torpilla.eik.bme.hu]
Date: Wed Mar 10 17:37:49 1999
To Pagaknight: Ineptitude shall never die!
the Decades
From: Pagaknight@AOL.com [spider-wd034.proxy.aol.com]
Date: Tue Mar 9 18:53:29 1999
Dear Katz -
Thank you for bringing sanity to this page of endorsment of murder. You're advocation of the rights of PRIVACY and security not only for the doctors who practice abortions, but also of their family. I appreciate that in this world of chaos, atleast one person has the forsight to see the destructive nature that broadcasting people's private information contains. Your efforts are amazing, and appreciated. Keep it up, and I hope to be another voice in this dark assassin's guild - where people are all but told how to kill a selected list of people.
To all who support the Nuremberg files - Perhaps you should all take a break from living in your little sheltered world and open your eyes, minds, and hearts to the destruction this site has created. If you TRULY are pro-life, then you are for ALL human life - even doctors. If you want to make your point then do it without murder or the endorsment of murder. One must be stupid if they can't figure out the psychotic nature of this page, and to support and action one holds the ethical debt that it takes to actually perform that action. I pray that your God is a murderous one, for only then will you find your way to his heaven.
I'm deeply relieved that these files have been taken down, and am willing to fight for it to stay that way. I hope that those who believe that it is okay to endorse the release of private infromation wouldn't mind if THEIR information was released as well??? What would you do if you found your name, address, and the names of the people who you care about on a page with murderous subtext? Wouldn't you be scared? WOuldn't you be angry?? What comes first - freedom of speech, or the right of privacy and safty of those doctors. Well... freedom of speech is an important right... however - it must be used in a compassionate manor. Freedom of speech ends when it is used to harm someone... just like the freedom to own a weapon ends when you use the weapon to hurt someone. Free speech isn't just a right, but a responsability - and thus should be used with COMMON sense to support it. Once again - just like owning a handgun is a responsability just as much as it is a right. When we are given basic rights by our government, the government also gives us basic responsabilities.
I pray that all who have observed the Nuremberg files, will feel the same disgust that I felt when I thought of all of the doctors lives being thrown to sacrifice to some false diety of the "right of freedom of speech."
Blessed be all, Pagaknight
From: stevenpurves@darwin.freeserve.co.uk [user1.fenetre.co.uk]
Date: Mon Mar 8 23:10:48 1999
Hello I really enjoyed your site and hope that you continue to keep the site alive
From: Katz001@aol.com [tcnet01-40.dallas.texas.net]
Date: Fri Mar 5 23:49:06 1999
Whatever...
From: decade@torpilla.bme.hu [n09.hszk.bme.hu]
Date: Fri Mar 5 17:53:58 1999
We would like to respond to Mr.Katz001 (hoping our intuition is right, if not we apologize to Ms./Mrs.Katz001) wich we think unavoidable only because Mr.Katz001 brought our nationality into discussion and we could not figure out what THIS have to do with our reasoning`s comprehensiveness or incomprehensiveness.
What we said seemed clear and distinct, and it still seems so, rereading the text. What we could find problematic is:
- the word "dizzy",
- the second of our "two things",
- mentioning the video.
- By "dizzy" we meant: perplexing, troublesome, unsettling.
- There`s a part in Ms.Spaink`s P.S. to her standpoint about why did she mirror the Nuremberg Files where she restates her main reasoning. In section 4, paragraph 1 of this redevelopment Mr.Katz001 could find the same point we made in our section 2. We would add, only, that not just the menace and fear of the doctors remains irrespectively of putting the list back online, but this action, putting the list back online, tells a totally different story; so thinking and arguing about the subject-matter of the list and connecting questions is simply missing the point.
- The video just popped to our minds thinking about the argument "what if you and your family would be involved". The video and the argument are thick as thieves: they are 1. assaulting and inducing fear and 2. missing (and making people miss) the point (not irrespectively of 1., we guess).
But what Mr.Katz001 finds "strange" is none of our business.
The Decades
From: jeffo@paclink.com [p15pm4.paclink.com]
Date: Fri Mar 5 01:11:28 1999
Karin,
Sorry to see the NF web page offline. I imagine an inordinate amount of hate mail (not to mention a severely irritated ISP (sounds like a bowel condition :))) could easily lead anyone to the same reaction that you had.
1. As a God-fearing Christian with STRONG beliefs in personal civil liberties, I often find myself in the most interesting debates. I do not believe in abortion, but instead of expressing my beliefs by marching on abortion clinics, and calling for violence against abortion providers, I try and affect change one person at a time, through gentle debate and trying to live a life that reflects my beliefs (don't always happen). Changing someone from inside is MUCH more effective than changing a law.
2. I found the trial and verdict distressing in the EXTREME! Until I found your site and read your article and the article by J. Wallace, I thought I was the only one that disagreed with the whole thing based on First Amendment principles. This could have something to do with my proximity to the trial (just 5 short miles to downtown Portland), and the OVERWHELMING number of people who live around here that felt that either: 1. Those murdering baby doctors should be bombed back to the stone age, or 2. Those murdering anti-abortion freaks should be bombed back to the stone age.
3. The men and women who died protecting the principles of freedom and basic rights in the American revolution, Civil War, as well as the World Wars, must be rolling over in their graves. They died to protect rights they didn't even know would exist and need protection. The law of the land (US) states that abortion is legal, as well as the basic freedom I have (as well as anyone else living here) to oppose abortion in the manner set aside as "Free Speech". We live by those laws and that's what makes a society function.
That's what its all about here. And, sadly, that group of feminists, abortion doctors and providers, the judge and jury, ignored it. I only hope that as our fundamental rights continue to erode (and they will, count on it), that the average person will strive more to see their fellow human as exactly that - a fellow human.
Thanks for your efforts on this site.
Jeff Owens, Vancouver, WA. USA
From: pix108@frontiernet.net [209-130-218-202.nas-1.roc.frontiernet.net]
Date: Fri Mar 5 01:00:41 1999
Eugenics=Genetics+Pharmagiants+Allopathy+SciencePolice=GENOCIDE
Thanks to individuals like you and organizations like yours our country will emerge from their deep slumber and inertia imposed by an aeon of lies.
It is apparent We share with you a devotion for Truth and following please find my true story. We need to be mindful of the perfecting of eugenics now known as genetics and its resultant genocide.
It comes in the name of health care and federal protection, as former commissar of the FDA, David Kessler, MD, JD, said on CNN: "We know what's best for you, trust me I'm a baby doctor.... " This researcher was sentenced to a federal prison camp for making available a Homeopathic cure for cancer, thus for legally "ASSISTING LIFE," on the day the U.S. Courts of Appeal ruled it was within Our Rights to obtain "Doctor Assisted Suicide."
In the middle of my trial, Clinton and Chief Justice Rehnquist called, the Chief District Court Judge, presiding over my case to Washington. While there He was appointed to a special panel to prosecute "domestic terrorists," I was found guilty only days later while challenging the "pharma" sponsored Eugenics and genocide of the FDA.
As published in HEALTH UNITED STATES, the annual 'recorded' cancer deaths after conventional therapy are 2,500,000 and rising (in the USA alone). Methods of non toxically erasing almost all cancers and other diseases exist and are deliberately restrained from the mainstream.
Assuming a cost of US $80,000 to $160,000 per person over the last 20 years, that figure represents $200,000,000 to $370,000,000 per year. That's FIFTY MILLION LIVES, or $4 TRILLION to $7.5 TRILLION dollars funnelled from this economy alone into the hands of the pharmaceutical cartel. Is it any wonder, then, why we cannot find a cure?
The case against me and the destruction of my business for making available a promising "cure" for cancer is only one of dozens by the FDA, or "Big Medicine," since the early 1900's. One of the first targeted in this country was Dr. Royal Raymond Rife. His powerful evolutionary microscope, capable of shattering cancer cells and viruses with radio frequency vibrations, was destroyed and his books burned by federal authorities and he was imprisoned.
Andrew Ivy, MD, a pillar of the A.M.A., who came back from Germany after participating as a panellist in the Nurenburg war crime trials with a cure for cancer called Krebiozen, had his career shattered. Other embattled pioneers include, but are not limited to: Jossef Issels, MD; Wilhelm Reich, MD; Max Gerson, MD; Joseph Gold, MD; Samuel Revici, MD; Warren Levin, MD; Vincent Speckhart, MD; Stanislaw Burzynski, MD; James Privitera, MD; and the healing arts of Chiropractic and Acupuncture, which all met intense resistance and violent opposition by federally protected orthodoxy.
Our own IRB Chief Investigator, Dietmar Schildwaechter, MD, Ph.D., (703) 430 7789 was invaded in his home office in a militant style by state and federal authorities in the late 1980's for introducing a cure for Squamous cell cancer, which was proven in a 20-year study in Germany.
These gifted pioneers brought relief to a suffering humanity and were ruthlessly attacked by medical uthorities and scientific dogma. Each paid a high price but distinguished themselves by their courage and resolve to stand up for their convictions, even in the face of overwhelming opposition, loss of license and jail. For a closer look at the inner workings, read: THE CANCER INDUSTRY: The Classic Exposé on the Cancer Establishment, by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
It has come to light that the FDA and the Pharmaceutical Advertising Counsel ("PAC"), which represents some 35 major drug companies, have formed and co-funded a corporation under a joint letterhead, calling itself the National Council Against Health Fraud ("NCAHF"). Under this questionable aegis, William Jarvis, MD, and Stephen Barrett, MD, and others, are paid to publicly discredit as unscientific or unknown any or all viable herbs, vitamins, homeopathic remedies or non-allopathic therapies, particularly those that are proven to have the most promise and present the greatest threat to the PAC members.
The FDA regularly approves dangerous, often lethal pharmaceuticals. Most of the time, the side effects of these drugs can only be fully discovered by wide-spread use.
Peace and kind regards,
Charles Pixley, All Rights Reserved
c/o non domestic mail location at:
4810 Saint Paul Boulevard,
Rochester, republic New York state
(716) 544 2288
<snip>
Leaflets of The White Rose, cut for brevity. for the full text see: http://members.aol.com/weiberose/index2.html
Nothing is so unworthy of a civilized nation as allowing itself to be governed without opposition by an irresponsible clique that has yielded to base instinct....
Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes - crimes that infiniteloutdistance every human measure - reach the light of day?
.......treacherous, systematic abuse, the system has put every man into a spiritual prison.......
Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure!
From: Katz001@aol.com [tcnet01-59.dallas.texas.net]
Date: Thu Mar 4 14:55:16 1999
To "Decades": Your thinking is strange and incomprehensible. It it a Hungarian thing?
From: decade@torpilla.bme.hu [torpilla.eik.bme.hu]
Date: Wed Mar 3 17:36:32 1999
We (the 'Decades'), while watching this conversation from far behind in the back (we live in Gyõr, Hungary, you know), would like to introduce one typical formulae in the guest-writers argument, wich makes us quite dizzy ('libabõrõs'). People say several times about Ms. Spaink's putting the list back on the net what it would be like if the threat exhibited in the list were pointed against Ms. Spaink herself, meaning, we guess, that if the threat were pointed against Ms. Spaink herself, she would have not (maybe should have not) put it back on the net.
Two things:
1. Please, our kind european and american partners, its not a really sophisticated move to exhibit threat when you are arguing against threat-exhibition. "What would you do, if you or your own family would be involved?!" It's a clear threat, it's inducing fear directly.
2. And besides: what the hell it has to do with the topic in discussion? The fact, that Ms. Spaink herself or her family is NOT involved simply rules out the question cited above. And more than that: it introduces no new element on the topic in discussion and do not makes it move forward (and we find highly probable, that it does so just BECAUSE it induces fear).
There's a clip, some british group, where the refren goes like: "...if you tolerate this, your child may be the next...". This piece of video makes us sick.
From: Andras@mistral.hu [torpilla.eik.bme.hu]
Date: Wed Mar 3 13:30:56 1999
Quite interesting to notice how sensitive these people are right up to the time the baby has born. "Not flesh and blood" "Human being with spirit and soul" and all these blablas. What happens after? You got your highly professional "social institutions", aren't you? Put the kid in and forget about her. She has born, only this that matters. How many kids are growing up in these "institutions" in your state(I guess you just care about your home teritory)?
From: t.m.c.r.rosmuller@sc.dlo.nl [gatekeeper.agro.nl]
Date: Wed Mar 3 11:24:29 1999
Natuurlijk ben ik voor vrijheid van meningsuiting, maar een lijst met namen is geen mening en het draagt ook niets bij aan de discussie over abortus. Het weghalen van de lijst was een goede beslissing.
From: lone_paranoid@yahoo.com [sl-max-ppp6.monmouth.com]
Date: Tue Mar 2 21:08:45 1999
I suppose the whole damn thing's moot now that the 'Shadow gallery's' down but when i look at some of the pro life ravings on this page its kind of perturbing..
That these people still cling to these stone-age blockheaded notions and handwringing 'morality' ..Look the whole Nuremburg thing amounted to death threats or 'to malignantly cause harm to others'..What if it was YOUR family, YOUR wife, lover, friend whose names/address were posted, so that some slobbering neanderthal-breathed double-digit IQ'd halfwit with a Walmart computer could cruise around your neighborhood in his beat-up pickup writing down the license numbers of your friends and family.
Whether that halfwit would act upon the information or 'pass it on' to others in this psycho brigade of bent religious fanatics and Lee harvey wanna-bees is irrelevant, its the whole gist and direction of 'The Pro Life Movement' that is so scary..
Besides the usual 'church and state' intrusion arguments, their whole backassed biblethumping set of reasoning and 'rationalization' hums to the prehistoric tune of morally muddled ideals and half-truths that seem forever devised to thwart the reality of healthy human sexuality and interaction.
It's like they're determined to set the cause of sex education and healthy attitudes back 500 years, to the days when suspected harlots and lustful evildoers were pilloried or drowned in water filled pigstys as 'a test' or crucible for their true holy natures..With the faithful garbed in hair shirts, of course..
So before you further abuse the concept of free speech, why don't you people work on your socio-sexual education, stop all this preaching & God-damnNation, and then so many of us might'nt associate you with the raving medieval image of a murderously vengeful village idiot, torch in one mitt and bloody arrow dripping from the other....
But then again if you did, I'd still be suspicious of your motives...
From: yosh@izabell.hu [k12.hszk.bme.hu]
Date: Tue Mar 2 19:44:22 1999
Long live the free speech! Now I`m in party, too; so all emotional sympathies on my side (we are on the net, aren`t we?) - "though may I be wrong":
Karin Spaink says: to exhibit the list is speech, not deed; therefor it gains all the rights speech has but deeds hasn`t: (almost) everything is allowed if what you do is "just" speech and much more is forbidden if what you do is a deed. Quite rightly so. But let me take away a bit of your confidence. This burden is not as sharp as it seems from all of your reasonings. Some speech-acts are deeds indeed; this field has its own theories: search for Austin`s "How to do things with words" (for hungarians: "Tetten ért szavak"), the book I find highly admireable (which has nothing to do with this dispute). Just to mention a few examples: how would you call when somebody utter the words "I promise you"? There was a case of neonazis before court in Budapest a few days ago, where a skinheaded pal from the audience leaned forward and whispered the words "Auschwitz, Auschwitz, Auschwitz" to his old lady-neighbour listening to the trial. How would you call that, a speech or a deed?
From: gwbrink@yahoo.com [gw.megaplex.nl]
Date: Tue Mar 2 17:31:09 1999
Well perhabs I should have withdrawn my statement (further down in the guestbook) about Karin a few days earlier.
But she hasn't won the 4 grenades for disinformation for nothing :)
From: Katz001@aol.com [tcnet02-39.dallas.texas.net]
Date: Tue Mar 2 03:19:33 1999
The February issue of Esquire Magazine offers a glimpse into the world of hardcore anti-abortion activists. It profiles Nuremberg Files Web master Neal Horsley and his "sort of aide-de-camp" Jonathan O'Toole. Nineteen-year-old O'Toole -- who has been taking part in abortion protests since he was eight and is obviously an extremely disturbed psychotic and religious fanatic-- found Horsley "by searching for the words 'murder' and 'abortion' on the Internet." He "showed up at Neal's doorstep ... so overwhelmed with grief for the babies that he felt he was on the verge of committing a violent act." Horsley put him to work "processing new doctor information" for the Web site. He was with Horsley the day after the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian and watched him draw "a black line through Slepian's name" -- an action that would, among other things, eventually make the Nuremberg Files the target of a lawsuit by abortion providers and pro-choice groups. Esquire reports that within 72 hours of Slepian's murder, Horsley began receiving e-mails with the names of doctors who perform abortions and "[e]nvelopes stuffed with photographs, addresses, and names of more abortion doctors ... from cities and small towns across America." He also receives the "names of nurses, clinic escorts, and politicians," including a letter in which the author notes, "I got the nurses' names at night from a dumpster behind the clinic."
The article also chronicles Horsley's and O'Toole's meeting with Bob Lokey, a long distance trucker and former Army intelligence operative who served "twenty years in San Quentin Prison on a first-degree-murder conviction" and is now "working full-time inspiring people to kill doctors." Unlike Horsley, who "works on computer databases for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" and "wants to maintain a real separation between his daily bread and his antiabortion activities" (and is therefore nervous about attempts to link him directly to anyone who murders an abortion provider), Lokey is less circumspect. At one point he tells Horsley, "There are people that I'm absolutely certain have read my Web site and have gone and killed somebody or hurt somebody. That was my intention." The piece ends with O'Toole returning home for Thanksgiving, where he has unprotected sex with a woman he meets on the bus, buys two rifles, and shoots squirrels from a distance, pretending they are the abortion doctors he is practicing to murder. (Voll, Esquire, Feb. 1999 issue)
From: fight4choice@yahoo.com [oc-300p-1.APA.Berkeley.EDU]
Date: Tue Mar 2 02:06:48 1999
Karin-
I was wondering if you would give us your opinion on Neal Horsley's "Live Web Cam" project, which he plans to launch as part of the Nuremberg Files soon as he can find an ISP that will host him for longer than a week.
The "Live Web Cam" project will place people with cameras outside of clinics and provide a live video feed over the Web of anyone entering or exiting. Almost every clinic provides far more services than just abortions, and they are often the only places that teenagers feel comfortable bringing their confidential medical questions.
These "Live Web Cams" will certainly have a chilling effect on teenagers who want to find out information about birth control or sexually transmitted diseases. What kid is going to walk in a clinic, knowing that anyone in the whole world might see them?
Can we really call such cameras "speech"? It sounds like conduct to me. What is your view?
From: liberty@gate.net [204.117.69.197]
Date: Tue Mar 2 00:54:22 1999
We either have free speech or forbidden fruit. While these folks and I would certainly disagree with me about the best way to get across a message, and while they stray dangerously close to threat in my opinion, they still must have freedom to prove how dangerous they'd be if given power. Only speaking for myself, and I've been wrong before...
JMR
From: fight4choice@yahoo.com [oc-300p-1.APA.Berkeley.EDU]
Date: Mon Mar 1 23:26:53 1999
While I appreciate your eloquent defense of the principles of free speech, I think you are mistaken in this case. When determining whether material is threatning, CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. The simple fact of listing the names did not contitute a threat in and of itself. The accompanying article did not constitute a threat in and of itself. But when considered together in the current climate of violence, the result was absolutely menacing and the Orgeon jury understood that.
Put another way: it is not a threat to say "I hate you." It is not a threat to say "I know where you live." But it MAY BE a threat to say "I hate you and I know where you live", if the statement is made in a context of violence.
I believe that the intention of Neal Horsely was to intimidate and threaten abortion providers while simultaneously exposing them to violent fanatics. Since threats are actions, not speech, this is not defensible under free-speech principles.
From: jonfeist@javanet.com [berkntfirewall.berklee.edu]
Date: Mon Mar 1 23:08:50 1999
Bravo Karen!
You are inspiring lively discussion on grisly and gruesome topics, where "right" answers are not easily found, and nearly all things said will strike an unpopular chord in a significant percentage of your readership. Not only is that a profoundly American undertaking; it is a great achievement for a writer.
I applaud your efforts with both hands!
:::clap clap clap:::
--Jonathan Feist, Boston MA
From: eportal@navis.com [208.25.78.237]
Date: Mon Mar 1 20:29:11 1999
Karin,
The fine distinction that makes the type of speech used in the NF illegal is that it did clearly advocate and justify violence. It did so in a climate where the debate over the issue of reproductive rights is pretty heated. This is equivalent of the radio broadcasts that incited the violence between Hutus and Tutsies or the genocide in the former Yugoslavia.
People should be held accountable for the consequences of the use of language that incite others to commit atrocities against fellow human beings!
Eduardo.
From: jonny.vb@dial.pipex.com [lonfirewall1.Lehman.COM]
Date: Mon Mar 1 10:38:18 1999
Karin,
I came; I could not see; I left bemused.
So you are the powerful champion for free speech are you, a tireless worker for the cause? Except you don't have a link to the NF site do you? Light the fuse, stand well back and wait .. and wait .. and - oh, more of the *usual pathetic excuses* for removing my rights.
Perhaps your stance is all a bit of a sham? Maybe you are just a soggy little writer intent on a bit of self-advertisment. Good for you I suppose, and after all these years on the Net it chastening to realise that I can still swallow the bauble-links when they are dangled in front of me.
Your articles were very enjoyable btw, but goddamn did you blow it by removing the NF site. Freedom of speech my arse - you are all talk and *no trousers*.
Jonny
|
