All Americans at risk

what do all of u good people in the USA think of this(patriot act II)

www.americanfreepress.net...

But critics warn that the proposed law is aimed against the entire U.S. population, not a minority of Arab immigrants.

The proposal, they say, would grant the government the power to strip citizenship of native-born Americans and deport them without any evidence of wrongdoing, even though this would be contrary to the Constitution.

It would also allow for secret arrests, secret trials and secret torturing of �suspects.� Habeas corpus, Americans� most sacred right, would be eliminated.

The law would also remove all restrictions on police spying on citizens.

Patriot Act II would create 15 new death penalties, one of which could be applied to acts of protest. Under the Hastert measure�s definitions, anti-war protesters could be deemed terrorists. In fact, any dissident could be spied on, harassed, and imprisoned indefinitely for exercising their legal and constitutionally protected rights.


[edit on 6-10-2004 by John bull 1]

[edit on 8-10-2004 by Heratix]

All I can say about Patriot act II is this: If I was living in the States right now (I'm British) I'd seriously be worrying about the future. I read about a third patriot act being in the works the other day. Will try and find the article.

I have discussed (argued ) this issue on a few other forums many times.
I keep hearing the same old "if you have done nothing wrong then what is there to fear" line over and over again.
The problem is that it gives the government carte blanche to change laws to suit itself whenever it likes. Simple dissent and speaking out against that government then becomes an arrestable offence and you are labelled a terrorist just for speaking of replacing them.

It all dovetails with the new requirement they see for us all to have biometric ID cards and files on all of us on huge databases. Once again, I always seem to hear the augument mentioned above, but if I have done nothing wrong then what right does anyone else have to know who I am, where I am going, where I have been and how I got there? It becomes just another means of control and has absolutely nothing to do with security. I have worked in the security industry for many years but have yet to see any real effective security measures taken to protect anyone from the ever present bogeyman, who the government and media would have us believe is lurking on most street corners and in the midst of every community.

Of course, they use the argument that there have been no terrorist actions against mainland USA since they introduced the bill, so it's obviously working, right? I could also make the claim that, due to my unwavering vigilance, nobody in my neighbourhood has been burgled. Ok, it may be that nobody has attempted to burgle anyone near me and there are no perps even thinking about it but I prefer to think it's my watchfulness
I can't give any details away about possible suspects as that may harm my sources, so it's secret ok!!! You'll just have to take my word for it.

Crikey, I do go on a bit sometimes

Im a big fan of this site and of being able to discuss openly the things that go on around us. However this new partiot act v2.0 makes me very worried. Im a UK resident and fear that my own government may try to pass a similar bill through the house of lords without the public consent. I dont trust tony blair in office, he's a lying rat whos sitting in Americas back pocket......did u see his luxury 3.5million pound new home, bought on a PM salary????

Ive always wanted to travel to America, but I will never do it now. I have no wish to be fingerprinted and stored on some dodgy government database for no good reason other than that Im a foreigner. also, amny mixed race skools in the Uk will not take trips to the state anymore because far to many Muslim, Seik and Arab children are being harassed, in some cases that I know of they have even been held without arrest for questioning about their origins or that of their family.
I have friends and family who now regard America as the New Germany of the 21st century. My own mother a headteacher at a Catholic school here in UK has been told that taking any children of mixed race to america for skool trips was no longer an option as they would likely be detained and held under the anti-terror laws.....and this came from her own parish counsil and parent teacher assosiation. 1 skool in our town has already experienced this, and although this has been reported to the British media, know1 seems to be saying anything about it?????
My mom thinks that America now is the most dangerous country in the world, and could bring about a world war much akin to what Hitler had done all those years ago. comments please???

all i can say is thank god we dont have this # in England

Originally posted by Heratix
what do all of u good people in the USA think of this(patriot act II)

www.americanfreepress.net...

Goes without saying that we liberals despise it. I find it encouraging that quite a few conservatives find it equally disturbing:

**Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress ("Subpoena plan stirs alarm," Atlanta Journal Constitution, 9/26/2003)

[On the President’s request to give law enforcement administrative subpoenas]:

"This moves us in the direction of the executive law enforcement power extending to the point where they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want to do it… All in the name of fighting terrorism."

**Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) (CNN: Lou Dobbs Tonight, 9/25/2003)

"I supported the Patriot Act that President Bush signed into law. I thought that was necessary. Some of the proposals that have been floated now to Patriot Act II amendments to it, I think we better be very careful with our constitutional rights there."

**Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee ("Sensenbrenner not eager to expand subpoena powers," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/16/2003)

[On the President’s request to give law enforcement broad new powers]:

"I don’t see an urgency involved in any of these things. It will be subject to extensive hearings…Is the judiciary committee going to drop everything on its schedule to do this? The answer is no."

[On the President’s request to give law enforcement administrative subpoenas]:

Sensenbrenner said he was "particularly troubled" by the subpoena power requested by the administration.

"You can’t in one breath defend (the) Patriot Act, saying (intelligence) warrants are reviewed by a judge, then in the second breath say we'll have administrative subpoenas."

**Steve Lilienthal, Free Congress Foundation ("Hatch alarms right over anti-terror act," Salt Lake Tribune, 9/15/2003)

[Responding to provisions of a draft narco-terrorism bill, the VICTORY Act]

"We're not supportive of illegal drugs, but we would say the federal government has plenty of resources already on hand for this. The government was seeking a lot of these powers before 9-11, but after the attacks, they seized upon terrorism as a way to get what they had always wanted."

**Paul Weyrich, Chairman, Free Congress Foundation ("Hatch alarms right over anti-terror act," Salt Lake Tribune, 9/15/2003)

[Responding to provisions of a draft narco-terrorism bill, the VICTORY Act]

"We are concerned not about Ashcroft, but about a possible subsequent attorney general, named by President Hillary Rodham Clinton, who might define as terrorists those of us who peacefully oppose government polices."

**Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, board member, National Rifle Association and American Conservative Union ("Hatch alarms right over anti-terror act," Salt Lake Tribune, 9/15/2003)

[Responding to Sen. Orin Hatch’s (R-UT) pledge to grant President Bush's request to expand law enforcement powers beyond the Patriot Act]

"That’s like somebody saying they’ll raise taxes indefinitely. Why would he want to give the federal government indefinite power?"

"These federal prosecutors are like teenage boys on prom night who have one thing on their mind and they want more of it. It’s Congress’ job to sometimes tell them no. [House Judiciary Chairman Rep. James] Sensenbrenner has certainly been more aggressive in that than Hatch, unless Hatch is doing it quietly behind closed doors."

**Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee ("Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data," New York Times, 9/14/2003)

[On the President’s request to give law enforcement administrative subpoenas]:

"I'm concerned that it may be too sweeping."

[On the President’s request to help terrorism suspects without bail]:

"The Justice Department has gone too far. You have to have a reason to detain."

**James Gilmore, Chair, Federal Commission on Terrorism Policy and former Virginia Governor ("Gilmore Cautious Over State Of Security And Civil Liberties," National Journal: Technology Daily, 5/12/2003)

"I am not prepared to say that the [USA] PATRIOT Act is being used in any unlawful way, but as citizens, we have a duty to be watchful of that, particularly if PATRIOT Act II comes along."

**Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress ("Unusual coalition of left and right says civil liberties under attack," Atlanta Journal Constitution, 5/11/2003)

"It looked like a proposal. It smelled like a proposal and it quacked like a proposal. Therefore, I think it is a proposal and a very serious one. Anybody that is lulled into a sense that this is not going to be a real battle is deluding themselves."

**Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee ("Sensenbrenner vows to uphold sunset of added police powers," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/18/2003)

Stated it was "way premature" for Congress to consider the PATRIOT Act II.


**Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee ("Key Republican Not Sure on Patriot Act," Associated Press, 4/16/2003)

[When asked about the future of the USA PATRIOT Act]

"I can’t answer that because the Justice Department has classified as top-secret most of what it’s doing under the Patriot Act. The burden will be on the Justice Department and whomever is attorney general at that time to convince Congress and the president to extend the Patriot Act or modify it. But because of the fact that everything has been classified as top-secret, the public debate is centering on (the act's) onerousness."

**Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress ("GOP Calls for Wider Powers to Track Citizens," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 4/11/2003)

"Already, government investigative powers have been dramatically expanded. Already, intelligence is working under the flawed premise that to get the bad guys you need to spy unmercifully on the good guys."

**Lori Waters, Executive Director, Eagle Forum ("GOP Calls for Wider Powers to Track Citizens," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 4/11/2003)

[Passage would edge the country closer to a philosophy] "where there are two types of people: the caught and the uncaught. We see a growing effort of the government to tag and track everything we do. We don't think these are the most effective way of preventing terrorists from getting on planes and blowing them up."

**Stephen Thayer, American Conservative Union Executive Director, ("Conservative Backlash Provisions of ‘Patriot II’ Draft Worry Those on Right," ABCNews.com, 3/12/2003)

"There’s no question the government has to have the tools to protect us from terror attacks and to prosecute those who want to harm us. But having said that, the American Conservative Union wants to be sure that Congress takes into account the civil liberties of the citizens and through their deliberations reaches the proper balance between law enforcement and protecting citizens’ rights."

**Christopher Pyle, former U.S. Army intelligence officer, served on the Church Committee, ("Conservative Backlash Provisions of ‘Patriot II’ Draft Worry Those on Right," ABCNews.com, 3/12/2003)

"I don’t think the Fourth Amendment exists anymore. I think it’s been buried by the Patriot Act and some of the court rulings that have been handed down. We need a requiem mass for the Fourth Amendment, because it’s gone."

**Michael Hammond, Gun Owners of America consultant, ("Conservative Backlash Provisions of ‘Patriot II’ Draft Worry Those on Right," ABCNews.com, 3/12/2003)

"We have some serious concerns and part of our concerns spring from the fact that some of our members are part of the so-called militia movement. We’re looking into whether some of these groups or even the NRA [National Rifle Association] could be designated terrorists by this or a future administration."

"We’re going to make our case why basically suspending the Constitution could have an adverse effect on conservatives, either under this administration or under a future administration… All of a sudden it became apparent that a lot of people could be made noncitizens. We’re very concerned about that. The whole thing is Orwellian."

**Nat Hentoff, Syndicated Columnist, ("Sweet Land of Liberty," The Washington Times, 2/24/2003)

"Attorney General John Ashcroft, with support from President Bush, has increasingly forgotten that the Constitution is ours - not just his. The Center for Public Integrity has now exposed Ashcroft's sequel to the Patriot Act for what it is: an assault on the Bill of Rights drafted without consultation with Congress."

"I can't, within a single column, detail every abuse against the Bill of Rights contained in the Justice Department draft."

"The bill says, an ‘intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.’ Who will do the inferring? An employee of Ashcroft? The same Ashcroft who has accused his critics of ‘(scaring) peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty.’ This section of the bill means that if you were to send a check for the legal activities of an organization and, unbeknownst to you, it has been labeled as a terrorist group, then you could be deported. Deportations of American citizens are not ‘phantoms of lost liberty.’"

"We the People’ must turn to Congress to protect us from this out-of-control Justice Department, since the president has yet to keep it within the bounds of the Constitution and its principles. Clearly, they can’t be trusted to solely interpret the Constitution - something the Constitution doesn’t give them the power to do anyway."

**Bob Barr, former Republican Member of Congress, ("Ashcroft wants even more," The News & Observer, 2/20/2003)

The proposed legislation seeks "all sorts of powers far beyond what any normal person would deem necessary to fight terrorists acts."

**Ernie Blazar, spokesman for Republican Senator Christopher Bond, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, ("Secret Arrests in the U.S.?," The News-Leader, 2/16/2003)

While the senator has "a blanket policy" of not commenting on early drafts of legislation, Blazar noted that Bond would have "some trouble" with any proposal that would allow secret arrests of U.S. citizens.

**Larry Klayman , Judicial Watch, ("Fighting terrorism is one thing, subverting Americans' freedom is another," Asheville Citizen-Times, 2/14/2003) [on the issue of secrecy behind PATRIOT II]

"We’re very concerned about it. This is a case where left and right agree. ... True conservatives don't act this way."

**Bill O'Reilly, Host, Fox News: The O'Reilly Factor, ("Does the Domestic Security Enhancement Act Violate Rights?" The O'Reilly Factor, 2/13/2003)

"First of all, if passed, they can come up to you and me and demand a DNA sample for no reason at all other than we're suspected terrorists… They want to go up to you and me, no reason, all right, and say, hey, give me that DNA sample. I don't want that."

"But this, if passed, sends a chilling signal that I can be, and you can be pulled over, and anybody watching could be pulled over. And a cop could take you right out of the car and say, ‘Hey, give me your fingerprints right now. For no reason at all other than we suspect that you're a terrorist.’ Not going to fly with me."

"Now, the wiretap. This is another thing. Now -- and believe me, I'm kind of with you in the sense that I want the government to have the tools to protect us. I mean, I'm not the ACLU poster boy, as you know, OK? But now they want to have a window where they don't have to explain to anybody why they're wiretapping anybody else."

"The president should have [emergency powers], as Abraham Lincoln had during the Civil War, in times of emergency stress or emergency to make these things happen. Just to give it to the attorney general, no. I mean, look, Janet Reno was the attorney general, John Mitchell was the attorney general. I don't want these people to have this power. And this guy Ashcroft is throwing sheets over statues. Come on."

"I trust an elected official like the president, not an appointee."

[On loss of citizenship due to affiliation with a terrorist organization]

"Yes, and that's fine with me. And I would say foreign terrorist groups and domestic that are defined in writing, I would say OK. But not the way it is now. So they've got a lot of work to do on this. Because I don't want people pulling a hair out of my head just because they don't like me because I'd be bald in two seconds."

**Errol Louis, Editorial, (New York Sun, 2/10/2003)

"The 80-page document is a catalog of authoritarianism that runs counter to the basic tenets of modern democracy."

**Andrew Napolitano, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst, ("Analysis With Andrew Napolitano," Fox News: The Big Story With John Gibson, 2/10/2003)

"Well, it is wrong to assume that a person gives up their citizenship because they installed a telephone in an office building that happens to be used by a terrorist organization. The problem with the statute is, it doesn't -- it makes it easy for the government, so easy it's unconstitutional, critics say, because it doesn't require the government to prove that the person intended to aid the terrorist organization… So the government would have itself -- be given enough power, declare a person aided a terrorist organization, strip them of their American citizenship, and deport them, without a trial, and without judicial review."

[Question: Right. But why do you find this so personally threatening? They're not going to come after you, judge, or me.]

"Well, I don't think they're going to -- they're going to after you or me, even though we at times have given the attorney general some elbows in the ribs when we think he deserved it. It is personally offensive because the whole purpose of our Constitution is to guarantee liberty, it's to guarantee that things like this will not happen in stressful times."


[Question: But we confer upon people who ask it, who come here. We confer the citizenship upon them. What you're saying is that once we realize they came here with nefarious motives, we can't take it back?]

"That's correct. They have to be tried and prosecuted like anybody else, because it is too much power, critics argue, in the hands of the government just to strip citizenship and punish without trial."

source - www.aclu.org...

Originally posted by Heratix
The law would also remove all restrictions on police spying on citizens.

Where does it say this?

Patriot Act II would create 15 new death penalties, one of which could be applied to acts of protest. Under the Hastert measure�s definitions, anti-war protesters could be deemed terrorists. In fact, any dissident could be spied on, harassed, and imprisoned indefinitely for exercising their legal and constitutionally protected rights.

Where does it say this too?

Originally posted by Nygdan
Where does it say this?

It doesn't. I think Police and the authorities have been spying on citizens since before 9/11. I know for a fact the authorities have been illegally wiretapping phones for a long time.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Heratix
The law would also remove all restrictions on police spying on citizens.

Where does it say this?

Patriot Act II would create 15 new death penalties, one of which could be applied to acts of protest. Under the Hastert measure�s definitions, anti-war protesters could be deemed terrorists. In fact, any dissident could be spied on, harassed, and imprisoned indefinitely for exercising their legal and constitutionally protected rights.

did u actually read the link????

[edit on 6-10-2004 by Heratix]

[edit on 6-10-2004 by Heratix]

good post sandge...u get my above vote

[edit on 6-10-2004 by Heratix]

Originally posted by Heratix

did u actually read the link????

Nope, because I am nearly 100% convinced that none of that is true and this is bunkum, but I figured, why not give you the chance to demonstrate that what you were saying was true. Lemme look at the link now.
...

The article you linked to is pretty obviously where you cut and pasted your 'posts' claims from. Why didn't you read the link and then post something about the article, rather than cut and pastportions of it? Also, -none- of it explains anything any more thoroughly than you post does, (well, obviously, since you just did a cut and paste job) and -none- of it quotes any portions of the laws involved.

It just makes wild claims and doesn't bother to support them in the least. Do -you- know of the relevant portions that demonstrate that habeas corpus is eliminated in the bill, or that torturing is allowed and all those other loon assertions?

[edit on 6-10-2004 by Nygdan]

yup i just cut and pasted the portion i thought would most interest you all
i didnt even voice an opinion...just wanted yours...and if u cant even be bothered to read the link in the first place(never mind my opinions)and then flame me..just goes to show your attitude towards others.IMHO
thank you

Originally posted by Heratix
yup i just cut and pasted the portion i thought would most interest you all
i didnt even voice an opinion...just wanted yours...and if u cant even be bothered to read the link in the first place(never mind my opinions)and then flame me..just goes to show your attitude towards others.IMHO
thank you

I went to the link, read it as well. Plus had a look around the site. To me, since you said you wanted others opinion, it's crap. Reminds me of the Weekly World News. Nothing looked on the up and up. Just my thoughts.

"It's better to die on your feet, than to live on your knee's" - E. Zapaita

Originally posted by Heratix
yup i just cut and pasted the portion i thought would most interest you all
i didnt even voice an opinion

Of course its against policy to cut and paste other peoples work and present it as your own

...just wanted yours...and if u cant even be bothered to read the link in the first place(never mind my opinions)and then flame me

Wow, you have a real reading comprehension problem. In the first post I asked if any of that stuff was actually in the law under consideration. You respondde 'read the link' i did and found out that you had cut and pasted it and that it was wild unsupported ranting about nothing. Now you come around again and act like I have a problem for expecting someone to have an opinion of some sort on something they promote, or at least have half as much intelligence as would be required to mark what appears like their own comments supporting the article and offering an opinion so that there wouldn't be any misunderstanding.

..just goes to show your attitude towards others.IMHO

In your opinion it shows my attitude towards others or in fact it does?
Anyway, my opinion about the site is that is baseless useless meaningless garbage. It doesn't even bother to demonstrate that any of the hysterical paranoid's-worst-nightmare stuff is even in the bill. Looks like its nothing but a bunch of lies, that even the person who presented the article for group discussion can't even back up, and apparently isn't even willing to agree with the article in the first place.

thank you

Oh no, thank you for not having a clue as to what you are doing and not having anything resembeling a sensible opinion or an education on the topic. Thank you for being yet another person to post meaningless gibberish to this forum. Thank you for also being another person who is completely incapable of understanding some one's questions, let alone competent enough to actually address those questions. Thank you for completely avoiding any issue of substance about the webpage you presented. Thank you for responding to valid criticism and questions with cries of being flammed. Thank you for being a valuable, thoughtful, and appreciated member of the posting community. Thank you man.

Originally posted by Heratix
what do all of u good people in the USA think of this(patriot act II)

www.americanfreepress.net...

But critics warn that the proposed law is aimed against the entire U.S. population, not a minority of Arab immigrants.

The proposal, they say, would grant the government the power to strip citizenship of native-born Americans and deport them without any evidence of wrongdoing, even though this would be contrary to the Constitution.

It would also allow for secret arrests, secret trials and secret torturing of �suspects.� Habeas corpus, Americans� most sacred right, would be eliminated.

The law would also remove all restrictions on police spying on citizens.

Patriot Act II would create 15 new death penalties, one of which could be applied to acts of protest. Under the Hastert measure�s definitions, anti-war protesters could be deemed terrorists. In fact, any dissident could be spied on, harassed, and imprisoned indefinitely for exercising their legal and constitutionally protected rights.
[edit on 6-10-2004 by John bull 1]

You just start worrying when they take your gun rights away like our fellow Brits. I almost wept at some of the antique revolvers being crushed. Until then enjoy the ride downhill.
cheers

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." The people trying to pass such laws as the Patriot Act or any derivitive thereof, ARE TRAITORS to the united states, and the constitution. Remember people, America was not founded as a DEMOCRACY... Hitler's Germany was a Democracy, and look what it ended up in. All Democracies end up as dictatorships. America was founded as a Republic, as every bit of writing by our founding fathers points out. We have been dumbed down to the point that most of us dont know the difference, but look it up. Thomas Jefferson stated "A Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%." And how true it is. As a Democracy... history is repeating itself... look where we are heading. We are in a freefall without a parachute, people.

I am not scared to fight for my rights. This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. We arent so free any more, but i think that is because we arent so brave any more. We are scared by the government, paranoid. When they come after me because I am remaining loyal to the constitutional form of america, I will fight them. Any entity trying to oppress me, becomes mine enemy. When mine enemy takes away my rights, it is an act of war... And as General William T. Sherman has said... "If the remedy our enemy has chosen is war, I say giv'em all they want." When they start a full-scale rounding up america, there will be a revolution. Just watch.

This scares me, I tend to be pretty out spoken in my dislike for government, of any kind. I better watch my back.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Heratix
Thank you for being a valuable, thoughtful, and appreciated member of the posting community. Thank you man.

thx bud..
i apologize for not using "quotes"..i will from now on thx again
[edit on 7-10-2004 by Heratix]

[edit on 7-10-2004 by Heratix]

Originally posted by Dukeman
All I can say about Patriot act II is this: If I was living in the States right now (I'm British) I'd seriously be worrying about the future. I read about a third patriot act being in the works the other day. Will try and find the article.

Tell me, doesn't Britain have their own version of the Patriot Act? It's called the Terrorism Act 2000. 117, or Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, I believe.

Originally posted by Goldbaron357
"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." The people trying to pass such laws as the Patriot Act or any derivitive thereof, ARE TRAITORS to the united states, and the constitution.

Essential Liberties for temporary security. What essential liberties does patriot do away with?

America was not founded as a DEMOCRACY... Hitler's Germany was a Democracy, and look what it ended up in. All Democracies end up as dictatorships. America was founded as a Republic, as every bit of writing by our founding fathers points out.

Please explain why the Weimar Republic was not a Republic. Also, what makes you say Democracies allways end up as dictatorships? Sure, there have been some that have, but every non-dictatorial government type that has had enough examples has had this happen.

Thomas Jefferson stated "A Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%."

How has the country changed from a Republic to a Democracy? Granted, Senators are not appointed by State Governors anymore, but surely you are not saying that that is going to lead to a dicatorship

As a Democracy... history is repeating itself

What specific history are you thinkig of? The Fate of the Weimar Republic only?

When they start a full-scale rounding up america, there will be a revolution. Just watch.

I don't think anyone doubts that if it came to that then an armed struggle would start. However it doesn't appear that anything like that is happening at all.

heratrix
i apologize for not using "quotes"..i will from now on thx again

Ah, I see, so because i address specific items and make short note of them in my posts, thats somehow supposed to be a problem. I guess I should just spit out a bunch of random nonsense like you, then I'd be 'cool' or something right? Yah, sure.

[edit on 7-10-2004 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Goldbaron357

heratrix
i apologize for not using "quotes"..i will from now on thx again

Ah, I see, so because i address specific items and make short note of them in my posts, thats somehow supposed to be a problem. I guess I should just spit out a bunch of random nonsense like you, then I'd be 'cool' or something right? Yah, sure.

[edit on 7-10-2004 by Nygdan]

what is your problem m8???..i was apologizing for a mistake and thanking u...why hurl abuse at me!!...is it an automatic defence mechanism...are you compensating for some thing???


[edit on 7-10-2004 by Heratix]