The Washington State Democrats are asking Judge Bridges to award them $47,766.33 in costs they incurred defending Christine Gregoire's "election" as governor.
It's galling enough that the Democrats got their money back (with interest) after ordering and prevailing in a bogus manual recount where the counties counted ballots for a third time without having the foggiest clue how many voters had supposedly cast them. It's even more galling that certain Democrat election workers from King County got away with concealing their misdeeds by insisting under oath that they didn't have a clue what they were doing, yet continue to siphon their salaries from hardworking taxpayers. It's yet more galling that Gregoire's unlawfully procured election is allowed to stand because of an absurdly high burden in the election contest statute. But now the Democrats have the gall to ask that the Republicans reimburse them for doing nothing more than digging up illegal votes and only proving how f*cked up the election really was?
What a bunch of jerks.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 17, 2005 05:18 PM | Email This"If the proceedings are dismissed for insufficiency, want of prosecution, or the election is by the court confirmed, judgment shall be rendered against the party contesting such election for costs, in favor of the party charged with error or omission."
Hrm. On second thought, it was not the Democrats who were charged with error or omission, was it?
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on June 17, 2005 05:38 PMI've sent Mr. Irons a donation and I don't even live in King County!
Clean house in King County...Re-elect Rossi...No new gas tax!!
Posted by: Don in Yakima on June 17, 2005 05:40 PMThese people have no shame whatsever.
Posted by: Michele on June 17, 2005 05:56 PMOh, and somebody do Michele a favor: take her aside and quietly explain to her that she probably should just keep quiet, she just keeps embarrassing herself with these clueless posts.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 17, 2005 07:43 PM"clearly, the evidence here suggests that the problems require more than just constructing new buildings and hiring more staff.and that "it is the voters who should send the message".
I'm willing to rise to the occasion and send the message, even if anonymous troll losers such as yourself are more than happy to post anonymous messages defending gross incompetence and election fraud.
Why shouldn't King County bear the burden of the lawsuit? After all, it was KCEC that screwed the pooch and set in motion the events that would cause the manual recount and the election contest.
If you don't believe that it was King County's fault, and not the Republicans, you're truly misled.
I'm a King County citizen, voter, and taxpayer, and I think the entire burden of the recount and the lawsuit should be paid by King County. Maybe then the f$*(ed up liberals who back Ron Sims, Dean Logan, and Bill Huennekens would actually care that these morons can't do their jobs.
Posted by: Larry on June 17, 2005 08:19 PMEqually embarrassing is your leftist friend Lush, who then says of Sims "He's the best thing we ever had." (from Stefan's post, it sounds like several democrats sure don't think so and we KNOW Judge Bridges doesn't think so, either)
Posted by: Michele on June 17, 2005 08:28 PMA story is released that appears to slam the Republicans and the Trolls are coming out of the woodwork. They all sound the same and do not have a clue.
Late today some numbers were released on a new employee survey just taken within the KCE employee ranks and it really looks bad for SIMMs and KC. Lets see how the Trolls try to spin this when it hits print.
Keep it up Democrats- you are making our job easier.
Speaking of pig$- in the 22nd district guess how much of Brendan Williams campaign money actually comes from the 22nd district? ALMOST NONE- he's got businesses from Eugene to Seattle cutting him checks on the legal max limit. The few checks coming from Thurston Co are for like 50 bucks.
That pig is going on a skewer in the next election.
Posted by: Andy on June 17, 2005 08:58 PMThe Dems don't just steal and run....they steal and then dangle evidence of their crimes in our faces and say "So what?"!
The Dems don't just make false accusations - they make the false accusations and then perpetrate the very same offense they are accusing you of! Only worse!
Posted by: Deborah on June 17, 2005 08:59 PMNow lets be careful about our language. 1st, it was not a "bogus manual recount." Given that you proclaim yourself a great lover of the law and a student of the RCWs and WACs (while not a lawyer), you are well aware of the fact that a third manual recount is allowed by the law, if you pay for it, and that you get your money back if you prevail. Heck, the Dems not only prevailed, but went the extra step and proved that they did in court.
And, again, if election workers somehow "got away with concealing their misdeeds," explain why Dale Foreman, so happy to try to prove fraud, was not able to show this? Explain why Norm Maleng and Rob McKenna are not prosecuting these "concealments."
And I really wouldn't call something "unlawfully procured" when you a) have lost the trial on that issue, and b) are complaining about very clear law being used against the Republican party (note, and not the people of this state, just the party). It looks kind of silly, don't you think?
But at least you have thrown off any pretense about caring for the good people of this state. This is all about party politics for you, and you don't care what propaganda you have to put out there to help your party. It is nice to see you be honest.
The burden is not absurdly high; it is the burden the law allows. A law voted into being by your champion, Mr. Rossi. It is interesting to note that if you have been able to show fraud, the standard for overturning an election is much lower. Isn't it a shame that there is "no evidence of fraud"? Of course, if you think you have evidence you think was missed by the lawyers the GOP payed four million for, send it off to Chris Vance, he will make the Dems claims look like peanuts compared to the malpractice claim he must have against Davis Wright and Dale Foreman.
The Republicans, like you, were interested in scoring political points, not winning the challenge. You must agree that is the most galling thing about this whole case.
And surely it was worth 50K for the publicity? The GOP should be counting their lucky stars that they have never passed real "loser pays."
And heck, give the Dems credit, they proved five illegal votes, which is..., what was it, five more than the GOP.
And, while I know you and the GOP like to think they are above the law, you have to admit the law is very clear here.
And, really, isn't the most galling thing that the law matters more than your propaganda?
Finally, Stefan, you should know better. Unkl may be many things, but he is not a troll. A troll is a person causing disruption on a board just to cause disruption, not someone you disagree with. Given that you set the tone for your board, you shouldn't complain when it is met in kind. I know you are desperate for something good to come out of this, but you shouldn't let your hate get the better of you.
Alphabet Soup:
Thank god you have some proof of cheating to back your claim. Oh, that's right, you don't. What were Judge Bridges words again..., oh yeah, no proof of fraud. No proof that votes were taken away or given to a canidate.
Oops, how embarrasing for you.
Michelle:
Read the brief. The Supreme Court has ruled that intervenors are able to recover their costs pursuant to the statute. Remember, we are a nation of laws, not men. This is what the law allows.
Dogbert:
A judge is not on one side or another just because he upholds the law. Do not blame the man for the law. And remember, he bent over backwards to let the GOP put on their case (read back on all the posts from Stefan and others talking about the Dems being overruled). You are better than that.
Plus, remember, if the judge is wrong, you can always appeal. Of course, if you don't appeal, the judge must not have been wrong, right?
For some on the left who have posted:
While I have incredible problems with why the GOP went forward with there case, given they had to know they had no proof to back their claims, and that they kept throwing out spurious chages for political points (felons vote, soldiers don't, 50,000 illegaly enhanced votes [which still gets raised, amazingly enough, even after the GOP admitted there was no evidence what so ever of this charge), there case was not frivolous. There were mistakes in the election, and they had every right to investigate and see if the election had been corrupt or if there had been fraud. Thankfully, they found none of the kind. Sadly, when they didn't, they still went forward with their trial even though they had no facts.
All things considered, they are lucky to get off so cheap.
P.S.
Stefan, if you are going to have your trademark being punning off of the names of people you don't like, you really should put more thought into it.
Posted by: jdb on June 17, 2005 09:27 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 17, 2005 09:37 PMNo---There were, in fact, HUNDREDS of illegal felon votes shown by both parties. The dems simply put up five people who SAID they didn't vote for Gregoire. but jdb, how do YOU know they really voted for Rossi? Did they bring their ballots in hand? No one, not even the democrat lawyers, can say if they're telling the truth for sure. Judge Bridges does not know for sure they weren't lying. He simply went by what they said they did. They never PROVED they voted for Rossi because we never saw their voted ballot. And we never could have. We only know for sure that they weren't supposed to cast a ballot. Maybe they did vote for Rossi. But that's the crazy thing about all of this. How could anyone prove perjury on these guys if they WERE lying? It's absolutely impossible because nobody puts their name of their ballot. Which is why this whole thing is completely crazy. I got to wondering how many Gregoire-voting felons the dems unearthed while doing their research that they didn't choose to bring to court. At least a few, no doubt.
Posted by: Michele on June 17, 2005 09:49 PMWell, I say, stop complaining and kick in some more, Repubs. Stefan's helpfully posted the brief -- looks like the winning intervenors, the Democrats, have lock solid right to this reimbursement.
Oh, and Michele.....while one can never be sure someone isn't committing perjury without a videotape of what they're testifying about, you might want to consider the EVIDENCE that the Dems produced with their felon testimony: the thank you letter from G.W. Bush, the signed Bush photograph, etc. These were clearly die-hard Republicans. But I'm sure the better evidence of how these Republicans voted was how their neighborhoods voted, right? Ha ha -- Dale Foreman's only reaction to the admission of the signed photo of W was something like, "Well, how can I object to a photo of the president of the U.S.?" Indeed, Dale, indeed.
Posted by: Bluebeard on June 17, 2005 10:12 PM(sigh) I suppose we could argue til the cows come home whether this was a "frivolous lawsuit" and in the end, I would say yes and you would say no. But the ultimate test will be whether Judge Bridges awards defense costs or no. If he does, it was frivolous.
Now, having said that, I seriously doubt he will award costs to the Dems. My point is the irony of the R's whining about this situation when they are the most vocal proponents of a "loser pays" system that would result in exactly what you are complaining about here. Add to this the 'right's' complete distrust of the judiciary, and it makes the whole exercise seem somewhat ridiculous, (forget the obscene expense of it all).
With all due respect, your legal analysis and ability to predict litigated outcomes is pretty thin right now. If I were you, I wouldn't get too far into any further prognostications on this matter. Your track record of 0 for 1 will likely suffer.
It's always doubtful that a layman, with a huge political agenda, will be of much value in calculating how a judge and jury will react.
Stick to just plain ol' preaching, it's what you were born to do.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 17, 2005 10:12 PMYes, but the statute doesn't require the suit to be frivolous, there is only a requirement to prevail to recover costs. See the second post on this topic.
If you file a lawsuit, be prepared to pay the costs if you lose, its the law. The republicans were lucky they didn't have to pay for the dems attorney fees as some statutes allow. Remember Dan Quayle? He pushed "loser pays" for attorney fees for lawsuit. Stings like a B**** don't it?
Posted by: Erik on June 17, 2005 10:23 PMDo you run your personal finances the same way as the KC elections? Does an incompetent person balance your personal checkbook? Would you tolerate this level of inaccuracy in your home-based business? Do you blindly trust your credit card statement and pay it without looking at it?
Who are you kidding? The 'move on--get over it' mantra only works when all parties agree that the process WAS working properly, audited properly and accurately executed. Until then, I'll count my change. You can do what makes you happily ignorant and blindly trusting of those who influence and control your life. I choose otherwise.
You are right. I misspoke when I said the Dems "proved five illegal votes". In fact, both sides showed that there were many illegal votes. Hopefully these problems are being addressed.
However, remember, it wasn't just that we took there word for how they voted. There was parloe evidence, such as proof that hey had given to the Bush or Rossi campaigns, being members of the GOP, etc. to back there claims.
How do you know anything is true. Based upon my experience, I would say most lawyers think that the person they are deposing is lying at some level 50% of the time. I doubt it is actually that high, or at least consciously so. That is why you bring in other evidence to back up the statements. That is what the Dems did.
And it makes you realise that there must not have been that many felons who voted for Gregoire if for four million dollars the GOP could not turn up one.
Posted by: jdb on June 17, 2005 10:26 PMI can't let this go:
"Do you blindly trust your credit card statement and pay it without looking at it?"
Do you mean banks make mistakes and are not as perfect as Stefan and others say?
Feel free to get in line with Michele. You both seem to think King County is capable of counting 100's of thousands of votes in a very compressed time period with voluteer help and limited funding and do it perfectly. Even though not one other county in the state, or the nation for that matter, was able to do so.
Yet you're perfectly willing to stand by a huckster in the White House who has taken us to WAR, caused the deaths of scores of thousands of human beings, and spent $350 BILLION on the basis of "bad information".
Three words to you JIMMY:
you're an idiot!
Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 17, 2005 10:41 PMEven though you mock it our side has good arguments about potential fraud and the possibility of real fraud hidden and yet to surface. Time will tell who is right. Save the celebration for a few months.
The one point that keeps being missed is what happened after the trial. The publics opinion of Rossi and Gregoire speak volumes and I really believe those voices will be heard loud and strong. The polls continue to show the populace side with the Republican lawyers and their case. Ron Simms and Gregoire have lost face and are sinking in the eyes of the electorate and whether you agree or not the polls are consistent.
You have your side and your views on the results of the trial and we have ours. We have all had our say so lets just sit back and see what the results of public opinion does for initiative 912 and the KC election. If it goes as I think it will then the dominos will start to fall over the next three years. If it goes your way then we will still be sitting here defending what we believe in and what we commit our lives too.
The one thing that you said that I agree with was "Thank God" and like I said before there is a God and I pray that he will bless you for the good things you do, and for the few fair thoughts you occasionally post.
Just because the evidence presented by the Republicans wasn't sufficient to meet the judge's interpretation of the contest statute's absurd and impossible standard for changing the outcome of an election, does not imply that there was no evidence of irregularities that should prompt the citizens to take action.
So you're saying that the judge followed the law as written rather than make something up (gee, which party's been on a PR campaign to get judges to stop creating law?); that your side didn't have actual evidence that would meet the legal standard but went to court anyway; and what you've really had all along is "irregularities" that are properly addressed outside of court.
I guess being wrong so much has put you off your game. But by all means, attack me for using a screen name (which is somehow fine for people in your amen corner) and "out" my Qwest DSL connection -- random invective seems to be all you have left.
Have I mentioned you're an asshole?
Posted by: the radish on June 17, 2005 11:09 PMAn interesting comment from the Court in this case, ‘In construing statutes in one context, this Court has stated that the "spirit and intent of the statute should prevail over the literal letter of the law and . . . there should be made that interpretation which best advances the perceived legislative purpose."’. Don’t you wish Judge Bridges somehow incorporated that one?
The relevant part of this citation is as follows, ‘The trial court permitted Appellant Frost to intervene. Clerk's papers at 247-48. Under CR 24(b)(2), a court may permit intervention "{w}hen an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common." Appellant Frost subsequently appealed the trial court's order to this Court and is properly before this Court as a party. "It is generally said that an intervenor is treated as an original party."’.
RCW 29A.68.060
Costs, how awarded.
If the proceedings are dismissed for insufficiency, want of prosecution, or the election is by the court confirmed, judgment shall be rendered against the party contesting such election for costs, in favor of the party charged with error or omission.
If such election is annulled and set aside, judgment for costs shall be rendered against the party charged with the error or omission and in favor of the party alleging the same.
From Judge Bridges ruling, ‘The Court concludes that the election contest petition should be dismissed with prejudice and the certification of Ms. Gregoire as governor confirmed..’
Regardless of how screwed this election was, It looks like the Dems will get their money.
But none of that justifies how the Rs threw every handful of mud they could find at the wall to see what would stick.
Posted by: the radish on June 17, 2005 11:17 PMJDB, your spin is always the same (though I credit you for trying debate fairly) except for the cheap shots and innuendoes that you often add that cheapen an otherwise intelligent difference of opinion.
Even though you mock our side we have good arguments about potential fraud and the possibility of real fraud hidden and yet to surface. Time will tell who is right. Save the celebration for a few months.
The one point that keeps being missed by you is what happened after the trial. The publics opinion of Rossi and Gregoire speak volumes and I really believe those voices will be heard loud and strong. The polls continue to show the populace side with the Republican lawyers and their case and believe that Rossi was the true winner. Ron Simms and Gregoire have lost face and are sinking in the eyes of the electorate and whether you agree or not the polls are consistent.
You have your side and your views on the results of the trial and we have ours. We have all had our say so lets just sit back and see what the results of public opinion does for initiative 912 and the KC election. If it goes as I think it will then the dominos will start to fall over the next three years. If it goes your way then we will still be sitting here defending what we believe in and what we commit our lives too.
The one thing that you said to Alphabet Soup that I agree with was "Thank God" and like I said before there is a God and I pray that he will bless you for the good things you do, and for the few fair thoughts you occasionally post.
You are right, you had legitimate reasons to question this election, and to conduct an investigation. There needs to be reform. As I said, this lawsuit was not frivolous.
Don't put to much reliance in a Strategic Vision poll taken imediately after the election. You are right, time will tell. Gregoire will be judged by how the state does, not by this elections contest.
If there is real fraud, I hope it is uncovered. My problem though is with people like Stefan and John Carlson who's hands are not clean. They could give a (insert your own expletive here)about wether or not this election was clean. They just want to win.
Stefan sets the tone for this sight. I simply play by his rules. However, while Stefan will attack by any means necessary, I will not sink to that level. I just hope I am consistent (hard for any human), sometimes witty, and that someone occasionally learns something. You can disagree with me all you want, but I am thankful if you give my humble posts some consideration. Hopefully, when you see "JDB" you think at the end, "Hey, I laughed, I cried, and, you know what, I learned something today."
I thank you for your civility. Perhaps we should remember that we are all neighbors, members of a great state with many glories, and that we should put more time into looking out for one another and realizing that we have far more in common than what divides us.
May God look after and bless you and yours.
Posted by: jdb on June 17, 2005 11:38 PMSpeaking of public opinion, GWB's approval rating is a solid 20 points lower than Bill Clinton's on the day he was impeached.
Posted by: Bartelby on June 17, 2005 11:46 PMWitz: sorry, in no reasonable legal sense could the GOP case be considered frivolous. That doesn't even begin to make sense. There were clearly enough fradulent votes and mistakes to call the result of the election into question (even the Democrat expert witness conceded this, though he erroneously added that it was extremely unlikely that Rossi really won).
Your paragraph 1--lame excuses for doing a good election job. Your paragraph 2--off topic. Your concluding insult paragraph--limp--try again. Head up my arse? Well, that is where I hide my checkbook these days from King County's ever-reaching probes and all the 'emergency' state tax laws.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 17, 2005 11:52 PMEverything about King County and the crooks running it is galling.
Everything about this arrogant legislature is galling.
Everything about the 'blame America first' crowd is galling.
I have really tried, through my long voting life, to understand the issues and to choose the candidate that made the most sense, not the one that had the most popular letter after his/her name, but no more.
Politics in this country was never in-your-face-ugly as it has been since the depravity of the bare-knuckles-anything-to-win Clintons and the discourse has degraded ever since.
After seeing the way Paul Berendt and his merry band of thieves behaved, after hearing Mama Murray celebrate Osama, after hearing Durbin liken our military to Nazi's, after witnessing McDermott flat out lie whenever he opens his mouth and after the despicable foulmouthed nastiness of the liberals here in Seattle, I intend to go totally partisan.
I am totally disgusted with the politics in this miserable state. I am totally disgusted with the ruling party in this state. I am totally disgusted with the elite, smug smartasses in Seattle. It's my closest city and it has wonderful things to offer, but I would rather (and will) stay home than support Seattle.
Posted by: Cheryl on June 17, 2005 11:56 PMI think, considering all the illegal votes and especially the hundreds of voterless ballots in a heavily democrat county, that that's pretty much how those two DO feel about this election.
Posted by: Michele on June 18, 2005 12:04 AMSo they occasionally lighten up on the rhetoric. They do that so you will believe you have their attention..then they resume their nonsense! Nothing you are going to say will change them. It's like beating a dead horse!
They don't even care to research their facts - it's irrelevant! They are posting only to debate - to argue. They will approach the argument without facts and make YOU jump through the hoops to provide them with information and data that they don't care about in the first place! But they laugh at your efforts. They take your hard work and twist it and spin it to confuse and irritate you. (Come on...admit it! Don't you feel annoyed after you read their post's?) I certainly do.
Their purpose here is to distract, discourage and divide us. I see many of our talented posters drawn into the trolls nonsense and it just makes me shake my head....
I know what they are about. They are here to counter Stefan's hard work. They can't allow his findings to go unchecked. Too many people depend on this blog for the facts - and the trolls must try to confuse them! If you enter into a dialogue with the trolls - it gives them the appearance of credibility. In a sense -you help them to confuse the people who read this blog.
Posted by: Deborah on June 18, 2005 12:10 AMRCW 29A.68.060
Costs, how awarded.
If the proceedings are dismissed for insufficiency, want of prosecution, or the election is by the court confirmed judgment shall be rendered against the party contesting such election for costs, in favor of the party charged with error or omission.
If such election is annulled and set aside, judgment for costs shall be rendered against the party charged with the error or omission and in favor of the party alleging the same.
The Democrat Party was not named in the suit and therefore never charged with anything. Their interest was to retrieve funds paid for the recount. In Dumas vs. Gagner, Frost was a part of the party charging errors and omissions and not the party charged. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.
"Their purpose here is to distract, discourage and divide us. I see many of our talented posters drawn into the trolls nonsense and it just makes me shake my head...."
Sorry to make your head hurt, Deborah. But last time I checked we lived in a democratic society (despite the best efforts of our Dauphin-in-chief).
My understanding of a website such as this is that it's an open forum for opinion, discussion, and debate. It appears that you would prefer to chat in an self-congratulatory echo chamber. Sorry about that.
Yesterday's Slimes was a good example of Seattle "What - Me Worry" BS -- Front page with the obligatory sex/child/molestation story - then 2/3rds of the page covered with tragedy of B of A moving outta Darrington - I am sure a smaller northwest bank will move in - probably give better and cheaper service too - a story that directly effects no one in Seattle or King Co. - "Oh -- woe is us -- just the tragedy of it all" and the usual hype re Bush starting the war - "the infamous British MEMO" let's see going on through the paper -- page B5 obits and hey -- look at this: "2 UW medical school officials step down" uh whazzup?? -- surely this doesn't have anything to do with funding scandels now does it?? hummmm -- every damn day there is stuff like this -- puff and tragedy on the front page and the more important stuff burried way inside somewhere --
Posted by: Bill on June 18, 2005 06:35 AMRG: Frost was an appellant, but the Supreme Court made is mostly clear that this was irrelevant to their decision that Frost was a party, as they noted and you quoted, because it goes either way: "claim or defense."
However, what *is* important is that the text of the law applies only to when the party bringing the original case, contesting the election result, loses. Frost was originally in the defense, not charging errors. Read it again. Dumas filed the petition to have Frost's election overturned, and it was granted, and the Supreme Court overturned that decision.
My understanding of a website such as this is that it's an open forum for opinion, discussion, and debate. It appears that you would prefer to chat in an self-congratulatory echo chamber. Sorry about that. -Posted by Bartelby at June 18, 2005 12:26 AM
Yep, you're right, it's an open forum and you can post to your little hearts delight. Please do.
But just the fact that it IS an open forum it does not follow that WE promise/are required to interact with you - I believe that's that pesky old freedom of association thing...
I'm really terribly sorry, but this is not pre-school where teacher is going to force Deb and Michelle to include poor little Bartel in their game of Go Fish so he doesn't feel left out.
Grow up.
You are free to opine, discuss and debate till the cows come home.
You are free to read the comments and react to them you your little hearts content.
You are free to play along side us but just because you do, you are not guaranteed you will be invited to play with us. I know you libby types are going to whine "it's not fair, we should get to play too".
Preschool was a long time ago... for most of us, anyway.
Posted by: Cheryl on June 18, 2005 08:54 AM
JDB; the only consistence in your posts is the way you butcher the English language. Will you, smart a$$, ever learn how to spell? There vs their; whose vs who's? Let's hear from you again when you graduate from the Elementary School.
A humble immigrant with an ESL education.
The lawsuit was not pointless - one thing it did was to expose the negligance of King County Elections and also expose the need for election reform for both state laws governing vote counting and overturning elections like this one,which would have been done if there were any decent laws that many states already have in place.
Posted by: KS on June 20, 2005 08:27 AMIf the only comment you have is on my typing and spelling, I must assume that you agree with my argument.
And if you want to be the self-appointed spell checker for this blog, have fun. I think you will find many more errors with others, and I await you posts on them.
Posted by: JDB on June 20, 2005 11:31 AMYour "argument" is like everything else about you: unmitigated crap.
Thanks for playing....
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 20, 2005 12:11 PMYou once again show that you have no ability to engange in debate. Apparently you are either so shallow or stupid that you have no independant ideas of your own, but only fairly minor insults that don't matter.
Is one to assume that you never got passed the 4th grade yourself? Perhaps you should have your mother help you with your posts. Who knows, you may actually be able to contribute something to this site other than rather lame insults. I, however, will not be holding my breath waiting for you to be able to put two ideas together.
Posted by: JDB on June 20, 2005 01:26 PMOh no! I guess I put two ideas together!
For all that you do, thank you just for being you!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 20, 2005 01:37 PM