The Roma are coming, the Gypsies are coming!

[bleeding heart]

I have been watching what seems to be to be a slow decline in standards on MLW for about a year now. There are a few posters who seem to be of the more left persuasion who constantly twist arguments to make the originator look like a bigot or a racist. They never directly deal with the substance but simply make ad hominem attacks on a poster's character.

Yes, you never fail to indulge in this complaint ("usually of the leftist persuasion.")

I'm sure you'll understand that many of us see more vitriol and insult emanating from the right side of the spectrum. Not that I much care, honestly, but that's my unscientific opinion.

It's a matter of perspective, and I daresay that actually discovering which one is more accurate would be a great deal of work.

Edited October 27, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Peeves]

Yes, you never fail to indulge in this complaint ("usually of the leftist persuasion.")

I'm sure you'll understand that many of us see more vitriol and insult emanating from the right side of the spectrum. Not that I much care, honestly, but that's my unscientific opinion.

It's a matter of perspective, and I daresay that actually discovering which one is more accurate would be a great deal of work.

Of course that would be your perspective I would think. However again you trade on personalities and accusations of the poster rather than any facts. Cheap shots can be made, but those as you that avoid issue-subjects- preferring rather to point at the poster One in this case that uses logic-reasoning and references, shows you are determined to use invective, character assassination and insults.

Now it's my turn. You seldom present a lucid argument if you can attack the poster instead. But, It's a matter of perspective, and I daresay that actually discovering which one is more accurate would be a great deal of work.

Read that somewhere.

[Guest Peeves]

I wouldn't be too promiscuous with the use of this insult. It goes too far...and the genuine victims of molestation, here on this board, don't really need to be subjected to this silliness.

Anyway, now you can't complain about being subjected to insutls any more, as you've just decided to top them all. Congratulations.

Thank you. I was careful to take the high road.

But,

why would anyone complain about insults? Especially those boring implications from the obviously mentally challenged? They only show the insulter to be lacking in mental capacities to address a point otherwise.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Peeves

[bleeding heart]

Of course that would be your perspective I would think.

Well...yeah.

That was the main point of my post (which you quoted) and it's stated clearly.

However again you trade on personalities and accusations of the poster rather than any facts. Cheap shots can be made, but those as you that avoid issue-subjects- preferring rather to point at the poster One in this case that uses logic-reasoning and references, shows you are determined to use invective, character assassination and insults.

Where in the world did you get that?

Again, you quoted my post...so how do you dredge up "insults" and "character assassination" in what I said?

[bleeding heart]

Thank you. I was careful to take the high road.

Insinuating that a poster is a pedophile is the lowest of low roads.

But,

why would anyone complain about insults? Especially those boring implications from the obviously mentally challenged? They only show the insulter to be lacking in mental capacities to address a point otherwise.

Then why are you both complaining about insults...and insulting other posters?

[Guest Peeves]

Insinuating that a poster is a pedophile is the lowest of low roads.

Then why are you both complaining about insults...and insulting other posters?

Ok I concede my insult was to top the one directed at me. That for effect and to make a point. I did I finally, I got a company reply when none appeared previously. Most anyone would grasp it being specious.

Perhaps that one got reported? I wonder?

So, are you of the opinion that my insult was just too extreme or that I had no reason to respond as I did in kind after several personal insults to me?

Which is it?

[bleeding heart]

Ok I concede my insult was to top the one directed at me. That for effect and to make a point. I did I finally, I got a company reply when none appeared previously. Most anyone would grasp it being specious.

They're virtually all specious.

Perhaps that one got reported? I wonder?

No idea, I've never reported anyone. (Not a boast, just a clarification.)

So, are you of the opinion that my insult was just too extreme or that I had no reason to respond as I did in kind after several personal insults to me?

Which is it?

Oh, I get the impulse, definitely. It's understandable.

Yes, it was that in my opinion the insult was too extreme. As one or two posters have "outed" themselves as victims of child molestation (and the stats suggest that it's more than a couple, truly); and since some people carry this with them as an overtly sensitive emotional scar...I think it's one of the few insults that simply goes too far.

(I also believe that people's families and loved ones should be left out of the mix, for what that's worth.)

[jacee]

Ok I concede my insult was to top the one directed at me. That for effect and to make a point. I did I finally, I got a company reply when none appeared previously. Most anyone would grasp it being specious.

Perhaps that one got reported? I wonder?

So, are you of the opinion that my insult was just too extreme or that I had no reason to respond as I did in kind after several personal insults to me?

Which is it?

Extremist in the extreme.

I'm glad if someone reported it, or a mod picked up on it.

I can't be bothered anymore as you don't seem to learn from it.

My comments were not personal insults at all, but about the types of threads you post.

Your personal insult - defamation - was right off the wall.

I find you frightening.

[Guest Peeves]

Extremist in the extreme.

I'm glad if someone reported it, or a mod picked up on it.

I can't be bothered anymore as you don't seem to learn from it.

My comments were not personal insults at all, but about the types of threads you post.

Your personal insult - defamation - was right off the wall.

I find you frightening.

You deserve a reply, the last you will probably get from yours truly.

The insult I used in response to your oft and continued personal attacks which you deny, was extreme but made my point.However I apologize for the insult.

I'm glad it was finally picked up on as well given that was my intent.

You didn't attack my threads, you did nothing but attack me personally

"but about the types of threads you post." If you have a contrary opiion on THE *&^&*%$#! subject, post it. IF you deem the post I make false, then prove it. Not by commenting on the TYPE of posts IIIIIII I make, that's a personal attack whether you can see it or not. Stating that my posts are hate, is saying I post hate. That's plain and simple an attack, NOT on the subject , bu AT ME personally.

You must be pretty dense not to understand that. You (I hope) as an adult, had best stop playing the innocent. You are welcome to respond to the subject of a post,The obnoxious comments that YOU do this or YOU do that or You pull wings of....yada yada are personal. Get over it.

Bye!

[Guest Peeves]

They're virtually all specious.

No idea, I've never reported anyone. (Not a boast, just a clarification.)

Oh, I get the impulse, definitely. It's understandable.

Yes, it was that in my opinion the insult was too extreme. As one or two posters have "outed" themselves as victims of child molestation (and the stats suggest that it's more than a couple, truly); and since some people carry this with them as an overtly sensitive emotional scar...I think it's one of the few insults that simply goes too far.

(I also believe that people's families and loved ones should be left out of the mix, for what that's worth.)

Noted. I appreciate your opinion. I believe it might have missed a design, but I get your message.

[bleeding heart]

Noted. I appreciate your opinion. I believe it might have missed a design, but I get your message.

Well...a somewhat disarming reply. Thank you.

[jacee]

You deserve a reply, the last you will probably get from yours truly.

The insult I used in response to your oft and continued personal attacks which you deny, was extreme but made my point.However I apologize for the insult.

I'm glad it was finally picked up on as well given that was my intent.

You didn't attack my threads, you did nothing but attack me personally

"but about the types of threads you post." If you have a contrary opiion on THE *&^&*%$#! subject, post it. IF you deem the post I make false, then prove it. Not by commenting on the TYPE of posts IIIIIII I make, that's a personal attack whether you can see it or not. Stating that my posts are hate, is saying I post hate. That's plain and simple an attack, NOT on the subject , bu AT ME personally.

You must be pretty dense not to understand that. You (I hope) as an adult, had best stop playing the innocent. You are welcome to respond to the subject of a post,The obnoxious comments that YOU do this or YOU do that or You pull wings of....yada yada are personal. Get over it.

Bye!

Thanks for the apology for the "pedophilia" nonsequiter. Yes I did veer a bit toward the personal with the "pulling wings off butterflies" comment, and I apologize for that.

Back to thread topic now?

For me, the issue raised by this discussion is ... should ALL Roma people be denied immigration because of the criminal actions of some?

Those forced into crime to pay their human traffickers are victims themselves, afterall.

I'm just not comfortable with the implication that ALL Roma should be denied entry.

[Wild Bill]

Thanks for the apology for the "pedophilia" nonsequiter. Yes I did veer a bit toward the personal with the "pulling wings off butterflies" comment, and I apologize for that.

Back to thread topic now?

For me, the issue raised by this discussion is ... should ALL Roma people be denied immigration because of the criminal actions of some?

Those forced into crime to pay their human traffickers are victims themselves, afterall.

I'm just not comfortable with the implication that ALL Roma should be denied entry.

A good question! My first response was "Who says we have to be fair?"

After all, immigration is something we control for the good of Canada, not for the good of every foreign applicant. However, we do wish to maintain a reputation for fairness on the international stage. Otherwise we might look like some of those "other" countires!

That being said, the problem would be moot if Immigration Canada did a better job of checking applicants from ANY country! Unfortunately for us, they just don't!

We let criminals from Jamaica and other countries in with such problems all the time. It was cited in the mainstream media many times that the reason the Roma are treated so badly in Europe is that there are indeed so many that commit criminal acts! The bias against them is substantiated, not just unfounded like the bigotry of the American South. Apparently, Hungary has been encouraging Roma emigration to Canada as a way of putting the problem onto someone else. Hungary is not Ethiopia. Most people, including honest folks of Roma persuasion don't want to emigrate!

It is all very well to say it is better to let in 100 criminal immigrants rather than discriminate against 1 honest one but what about when that means a HUGE amount of crime against hard-working Canadians? Can we afford it? How would you feel if you yourself were a victim because of a flawed policy?

You don't seem to realize how poorly the system works to screen applicants. Our embassies have to hire locals for much of the work. They work with local agencies that sometimes are corrupt. We had a scandal come to light when it was found that many Hells Angels with criminal records wear working handling baggage at the Toronto Airport. One of their girl friends was in a highly placed clerical position and was able to make it happen.

If that happens here, what about a country like Somalia or Bangaladesh?

It costs MONEY to properly screen potential immigrants! If our governments make our soldiers fly SeaKings and old aircraft why would anyone assume the budget for embassies to screen immigrants for criminal records is large enough to do a proper job?

It is doubtful if our embassy in Hungary has the resources to properly screen those Roma seeking to come to Canada, a country where the pickings are much better and the environment more poltiically correct, which helps protect them.

Right now it can take over 10 years to deport a PROVEN criminal immigrant from Canada, if not longer! Why would the system that is supposed to check people coming INTO Canada be much better?

Governments have let this problem fester because they simply haven't cared. Immigration to them is a means of getting votes. People are likely grateful to have family members follow them to Canada. If many criminals follow them in, so what? It will not be obviously the fault of any politiician. If anyone tries to make an accusation they will only be written off as some bigot anyway!

Better get used to it, Jaycee! The problem is now so big we likely can't afford to fix it anymore. If we started now and properly increased budgets and tightened up the system we may be able to improve things for the future but there doesn't seem to be anything we can do about criminal immigrants here now, other than put up with the problem for a few decades until they start dying off.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Wild Bill

[jacee]

There's not much in your post I can respond to - no facts supported with links (Jamaicans? Hell's Angels?), so I'll just say this ...

Concerned about poor refugee/immigrant screening?

That's a political issue, the 'will' to fund it properly.

Concerned about crime?

Again a political funding/will issue ... and possibly political corruption.

Hell's Angels ... good place to start, especially for international human sex slave trafficking, children in particular. ("The white kids go to Asia." Did you know that kids in government 'care' aren't even counted, never accounted for, and every year hundreds just 'run away' and are never heard from again?)

Concerned about particular 'ethnicities' entering Canada?

Prove they are 'all' criminals.

[Wild Bill]

Well, I believe I made the point that Canada is under no obligation to "prove they are all criminals". Immigration Canada is responsible to Canadians, not to all the people in the world who wish to emigrate to Canada. Canadians only are the ones who pay taxes to receive our government services. To suggest foreigners are entitled would be instant bankruptcy. We can't afford to cater to the entire world.

No one is suggesting that the Roma are being singled out as a group simply because of prejudice. Their culture has a long historical record of being very clannish. In Roma culture, only Roma culture matters. Mainstream culture is to be fleeced! They have managed to stay mostly a nomadic people. Of course some have left that culture, just as some Amish leave and enter the mainstream. Or North American natives, as well. Still, it is an established fact that the main Roma culture carries a great deal of fraud and crime with it. Just ask the police of virtually EVERY European country. Canada has not had much experience simply because of the Atlantic Ocean. Now that is changing.

It will be interesting to see how long the Roma culture will survive as times go on. Or how it will adapt.

Meanwhile, I agree with you that every Roma is not a criminal. The idea is absurd but it is still a fact that certain cultures and certain geographical areas have higher percentages of people that would be a problem if we allowed them into Canada. I say that if we can't do a good job screening all the potential immigrants we should target what resources we have at those groups more likely to have a problem and screen them far better. Obviously, a university professor of Roma descent with no criminal record is not likely to be a problem. Someone with a criminal history IS!

Moving along, there was less for you for which to respond in my post because for a lot of it we were in agreement!

As for the Jamaican issue and the Hells Angels scandal, forgive me. Sometimes I forget that some posters may be younger or perhaps are not as plugged in to the mainstream media. Not that long ago both those issues were as strong in the MSM as McGuinty's resignation is today.

Let's not bother with my finding cites for you. It won't make a difference to the main point anyway. Instead, perhaps you can confirm something for me. Do you miss such references because they happened before you were of age to notice or do you get your news from different sources than that of my generation?

I'm thinking it might be worth a thread in itself to examine that point. My daughters are 16 and 21. Both consider themselves well-informed yet never read a newspaper or watch the evening news. To me, it would seem that most of their input comes from John Stewart but they tell me they keep informed from what is online.

On certain issues they DO seem well informed but the gaps intrigue me! I suspect that one such as yourself could contribute a useful perspective to such a thread. As I said, on some issues you seem to have a lot of background yet on others there are large gaps. How we receive news might be a BIG factor!

It might be interesting to chew on "why". After all, we older folks will be gone shortly. For better or worse,the succeeding generations will have to cope.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Wild Bill

[jacee]

I find your post full of the kind of vague assertions, half truths, generalizations, overreactions and stereotypes upon which ethnic prejudice feeds.

It's your right to speak as you please, but I would suggest not a firm enough foundation for immigration policy.

There are about 80,000 Roma people in Canada, many of whom have been here for many generations. More here ...

Roma in Canada

Vlach Roma

They originated in Rumania from the slave Roma population of Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania who were emancipated by decree in 1865. ... nd by 1910 there was a significant Vlach-Romani population in Canada. This population now comprises 5th and 6th generation Canadian-born Roma who still speak a Romani dialect and follow their traditional culture. They are integrated into mainstream Canadian society and do not constitute a visible ethnic minority even though they follow their traditional culture.

... Since Canadian Roma were separated from their fellow Roma in Europe, they have had no experience of the Holocaust, nor of the Communist governments of Eastern Europe, which introduced mass education for Roma in an attempt to assimilate them. Canadian Roma (and other Vlach-Roma in the Americas) thus follow an older, more traditional culture than most European Roma, who have been subjected to massive assimilation programs.

...

Romanitchels: Collectively, this group of Canadian Roma are descendants of Romani immigrants from the UK, where their ancestors have lived since the 16th century.

...

Immigrants

separate suThe first large group to arrive were Romungere, who came as political refugees along with non-Romani Hungarians fleeing the Russian invasion of Hungary in November, 1956.

...

. They were then joined by others who came later as refugees from Communism. Other Roma groups, some large and some small, also came to Canada after the Second World War, from the former Czechoslovakia, the former Yugoslavia, Poland, the former Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. They too have formed their own subgroups here. These groups have integrated into Canadian society, work in mainstream occupations and do not comprise visible minorities. Many of their children have graduated from university and work in the professions.

Refugees

Because all previous Romani groups coming to Canada had integrated into Canadian society without creating a national issue, the Canadian media and the public only became aware of the Roma when Czech-Romani refugees began to arrive in Canada in August, 1997. Unlike previous refugees, the Czech-Roma came as refugees fleeing persecution for being Roma in the Czech Republic. The media, for the first time, discovered that Roma were coming to Canada. They then churned out daily reports about the "Gypsy problem" until almost Christmas. Apparently the journalists were totally unaware that there were at least 80,000 Roma already integrated into Canadian society.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Romani_people#section_4

http://www.romatoronto.org/

http://j-source.ca/article/hate-crime-investigation-launched-surrounding-ezra-levant%E2%80%99s-roma-broadcast

Eta ...

It's never clear to me what you are suggesting beyond current screening ...

No Roma, No Jamaican be admitted at all?

What's your plan?

Edited October 28, 2012 by jacee

[Argus]

How about some examples then ?

I'd say this topic is actually a decent one. People have insinuated racism with regard to attitudes towards the Roma, when clearly, the attitudes are not based on race at all. As far as most posters can determine the Roma are Caucasian. So racism would not be an appropriate term. You could say there were bigoted attitudes about them. I doubt Archie Bunker would have liked the Roma, for example, but on the other hand he wouldn't be trying to lynch them either. I tend to think of bigotry as on a lower level than racism. Prejudice still requires a degree of 'pre judging' as Miller said, of a preconcieved opinion. But if that opinion is based on a number of incidents and documentation, can it really be called prejudice?

But when it comes to policy ramifications, these things matter. It's not popular, practical or proper to make policy based on discrimination that is explicitly prohibited by our constitution.

No, it's not. Discrimination is explicitly permitted by the constitution as long as it's seen as in society's interest, i.e., discriminating against whites in favour of non-whites, discriminating against men in favour of women. Further, I don't think discriminating against countries is going to offend the constitution, as in deciding not to accept immigration applications from certain countries.

[Argus]

For me, the issue raised by this discussion is ... should ALL Roma people be denied immigration because of the criminal actions of some?

Those forced into crime to pay their human traffickers are victims themselves, afterall.

First, the Roma are in the EEC. There are any number of countries they can go to and settle in quiet legally without bothering to make a refugee claim. And these countries are well-known for their human rights protection. That alone makes it extremely unlikely that any Roma would be a legitimate refugee. The reputation for antisocial behaviour just goes on top of that.

[Argus]

Concerned about particular 'ethnicities' entering Canada?

Prove they are 'all' criminals.

I think your standard of proof is a tad high. I don't think we need to prove they are all criminals. I think all we have to show is that, on balance, allowing in a particular group will cause Canada more difficulties than any possible benefit. When that group is not a valid refugee group there seems no complexity to the decision.

[jacee]

... a preconcieved opinion. But if that opinion is based on a number of incidents and documentation, can it really be called prejudice?

"a number" ?

'A number' of men wear red shirts.

Do all men wear red shirts?

A number of posters on mlw have an A in their handle.

Do we all?

False logic underlies discrimination.

[Wild Bill]

I find your post full of the kind of vague assertions, half truths, generalizations, overreactions and stereotypes upon which ethnic prejudice feeds.

It's your right to speak as you please, but I would suggest not a firm enough foundation for immigration policy.

You do realize that all your links established is that there are many law-abiding Roma in Canada. Quelle surprise!

Who ever said there aren't? No one is concerned about those that are law abiding. The problem is that there is a sizable percentage in Europe who are not!

You seem so worried about dissing the good people in any group that you would totally ignore any bad!

Here's some other links:

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=581455

"The new right party Jobbik launched a campaign www.ciganybunozes.com in 2006 to bring attention to Roma crime in Hungary. Although it was immediately labeled as a 'nazi, discriminating campaign' against the 'innocent' Roma population, it achieved its aim in bringing about a more open public discussion about the Roma ethnic group and their high rate of crime."

" News channels (see video under Related Items below, courtesy of HirTV) and newspapers are now realising that "indeed it's a very sensitive issue and they need to talk about it", according to Jobbik.

Recent, cruel and shocking crimes committed by Romas have brought Hungary to the edge of a civil war - some political analysts have warned."

http://fullcomment.n...em-became-ours/

"Last month, police in Durham, Ont., east of Toronto, reported busting up a massive criminal ring, allegedly run by Romanian Roma, that among other things was practising European-style distraction thefts on the streets of Oshawa, Ont."

http://www.france24....ortation-racism

"France’s Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux said on Monday that over the past 18 months crime committed by Roma people has increased by 259 percent in Paris alone.

The minister’s statement came after a flood of criticism and mounting party division over President Nicolas Sarkozy’s summer campaign to dismantle illegal gypsy camps and to deport Roma on a large scale to Eastern Europe. The controversy has been fuelled by declarations by the president that link Roma, Gypsies and travelling people to crime.

FRANCE 24

France under fire for Roma policy.

“Today, in Paris, the reality is that almost one in five perpetrators of a theft is a Romanian,” Hortefeux said on Wednesday at the joint press conference with immigration minister Eric Besson. “This is not about stigmatising this or that population, but we cannot close our eyes to reality.”

Now all that being said, the situation is not nearly so simple as do the Roma commit a lot of crime or not. You are actually right to worry about racism, Jaycee!

If you google a bit deeper you will find that many Roma have integrated into their communities and are law-abiding citizens. Yet many other citizens literally blame them for everything they can think of that's wrong, with no attempt whatseover to differentiate between who is a criminal and who is not among the Roma. Many Roma have been brutally poor for generations. Much crime may have been simply a survival tactic.

So are many a crime problem? It would appear so. We're not talking about evidence of UFOs here.

Is there much discrimination in Europe towards the Roma? That also would appear to be absolutely true!

So please don't twist my words. Just because I talk about Canada importing problems with Roma immigrants does NOT mean I am saying that all Roma are bad! That type of thinking is just stupid. First, you would have to know ALL Roma to make that judgement! That is obviously impossible.

However, it DOES make sense that if there ARE such problems with european Roma wanting to come to Canada we should practice much better screening than we have been doing. If we do not want to spend the money then it is a reasonable alternative to not accept any immigrants from countries like Hungary at all. There is an entire world out there of potential immigrants. We should accept the best and the easiest to identify, If one country has a high percentage of problems at this time then why are we obliged to bother with them? We should look somewhere else.

In a decade or two things can change dramatically. You might claim racism because we choose to ignore one country today because of the race of its population but in a surprisingly short time problems can disappear while emerging somewhere completely different from a country of a different race.

We are rapidly evolving into a Star Trek world. We still have cultural clashes with some barbaric countries.but developed countries are becoming remarkably similar. They dance to western dance music in China nightclubs today. There are even rappers among the Inuit!

Claiming race is just a dramatic diversion. In the modern world, race is irrelevant.

It would do you well to accept that. You can find a black neighbour a pain in the ass without it having been all about his skin colour, you know. Maybe he IS a pain in the ass!

To pretend otherwise is frankly, patronizing.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Wild Bill

[jacee]

So what are you suggesting?

Joe Fiorito October 29, 2012 There is more to know as a result of the Roma Health Forum held a while ago. As you recall: the purpose of the forum was to discuss the problems faced by Roma refugee claimants in Toronto.

Among those problems: poverty,bad teeth, lousy diet,scuzzy landlords,predatory immigration lawyers,racism,and a federal government determined to put all applicants from Hungary through a Kafkaesque wringer.

It is easy to see why some Roma harbour a fear,or at least a healthy suspicion,of authority.

http://m.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1278749--many-questions-few-answers-for-toronto-s-roma-fiorito

Edited October 29, 2012 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

I'd say this topic is actually a decent one. People have insinuated racism with regard to attitudes towards the Roma, when clearly, the attitudes are not based on race at all. As far as most posters can determine the Roma are Caucasian. So racism would not be an appropriate term. You could say there were bigoted attitudes about them. I doubt Archie Bunker would have liked the Roma, for example, but on the other hand he wouldn't be trying to lynch them either. I tend to think of bigotry as on a lower level than racism. Prejudice still requires a degree of 'pre judging' as Miller said, of a preconcieved opinion. But if that opinion is based on a number of incidents and documentation, can it really be called prejudice?

Ok, so it's technically incorrect to call such statements racist.

Got it.

[Guest Peeves]

Ok, so it's technically incorrect to call such statements racist.

Got it.

Well some here haven't,

There is an apparent blind spot or lack of comprehension, or a failure to read the post.

"What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate'

There is an increasing tendency to misrepresent what a poster is writing.

If an honor killing is the subject, some essentially I think to be contrary or argumentative respond that the poster is somehow stating all in 'that' culture are being condemned when they are not. If there is condemnation of phony fraudulent claims,, some go out of the way to suggest that not ALL of those in the culture or race are criminals. Who said they were? If One poster did, don't blame the rest or you are doing exactly the same.

If a post is made on terrorist Islamists, it's ABOUT THE TERRORIST ISLAMISTS not claiming another billion Muslims are Islamists.

Stick to the posters position. Stop extrapolating the posters position to be all encompassing when it generally is specific to a point and defied issue.

STOP IT! Right this minute!

Edited October 29, 2012 by Peeves

[PIK]

Time to change who gets in here just likewhen the libs changed it.