Haudenosaunee Confederacy Land Rights Statement

[jennie]

I am posting this for general information, so everyone has the same knowledge of what the Six Nations Confederacy is pursuing and why.

Haudenosaunee Confederacy Land Rights Statement

Posted on July 21st, 2007 by moderator in the Confederacy News.

The Council of Chiefs of the Haudenosaunee, Grand River Territory, wish to affirm and clarify our land rights in the tract confirmed by Governor Frederick Haldimand on October 25, 1784. In making this statement, the Council of Chiefs wants to make it clear that we hold certain land ethics and principles that must be respected in any agreements on land use or occupation. The Haudenosaunee, and its governing authority, have inherited the rights to land from time immemorial. Land is a birthright, essential to the expression of our culture.

With these land rights come specific responsibilities that have been defined by our law, from our Creation Story, the Original Instructions, the Kaianeren:kowa (Great Law of Peace) and Kariwiio (Good Message). Land is envisioned as Sewatokwa’tshera’t, (the Dish with One Spoon); this means that we can all take from the land what we need to feed, house and care for our families, but we also must assure that the land remains healthy enough to provide for the coming generations. Land is meant to be shared among and by the people and with the other parts of the web of life. It is not for personal empire building.

First and foremost is the concept that we are connected to the land in a spiritual way. The earth is our mother and she provides for our long-term well-being, provided that we continue to honour her and give thanks for what she has provided. We Haudenosaunee have upheld our tradition of giving thanks through ceremony, and in the cultural practices that manifest our beliefs, values, traditions and laws. Planting, cultivating, harvesting, gathering, hunting, and fishing also have spiritual aspects that must be respected and perpetuated if the land is to provide for our future generations, and the future generations of our neighbours. We are stewards. Our spiritual obligation is part of that stewardship.

Second, according to our law, the land is not private property that can be owned by any individual. In our worldview, land is a collective right. It is held in common, for the benefit of all. The land is actually a sacred trust, placed in our care, for the sake of the coming generations. We must protect the land. We must draw strength and healing from the land. If an individual, family or clan has the exclusive right to use and occupy land, they also have a stewardship responsibility to respect and join in the community’s right to protect the land from abuse.

We have a duty to utilize the land in certain ways that advance our Original Instructions. All must take responsibility for the health of our Mother.

Our ancestors faced overwhelming odds and relentless pressure to give up our lands. We all know that unscrupulous measures were employed to seduce our ancestors into “selling” the land. At other times, outright fraud took place, as was acknowledged in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The agreements we recognize reflect an intention to share land, and to lease land, within the context of the Covenant Chain relationship that our nations maintain with the Crown.

Our wampum belts, treaty council documents and oral history inform us that we always retained the right to hunt, fish, and gather upon all of our lands. This reflects the spirit of sharing that we expect to continue, and is another example of the Dish with One Spoon.

We seek justice in our long-standing land rights issues. We seek an accurate accounting of the use and investment of the funds held by the Crown on our behalf, and land transactions conducted by the Crown involving our lands. For nearly two hundred years our Chiefs have been asking for such accounting and justice. Generations of our elders have passed away with these matters unresolved. It is time to end the injustice.

Our faith in the Canadian people is strong, as we feel that the majority of Canadians also want to see justice on these matters. However, their elected representatives and public servants have failed to act effectively to address and resolve these matters. It is time to lift the cloud of denial and to wipe away the politics that darken the vision of the future. It is time we are heard clearly, and our cases should be addressed with utmost good faith and respect. We firmly believe that if we have respect and trust, we will find mutually agreeable solutions that will reflect our long-standing friendship

We want the land that is ours. We are not interested in approving fraudulent dispossessions of the past. We are not interested in selling land. We want the Crown to keep its obligations to treaties, and ensure all Crown governments – federal, provincial and municipal – are partners in those obligations. We want an honourable relationship with Canada.

That relationship, however, must be based on the principles that were set in place when our original relationship with the Crown was created. That is the rule of law that we seek. It involves the first law of Canada - the law that Canada inherited from both France and Britain. It is the law of nations to respect the treaties, to not steal land, or take advantage of indigenous peoples by legal trickery. As the Supreme Court of Canada has frequently stated, where treaties are involved, the honour of the Crown is always at stake.

We seek to renew the existing relationship that we had with Crown prior to 1924. That relationship is symbolized by the Tehontatenentsonterontahkwa (“The thing by which they link arms”) also known as the Silver Covenant Chain of Peace and Friendship. Our ancestors met repeatedly to repolish that chain, to renew its commitments, to reaffirm our friendship and to make sure that the future generations could live in peace, and allow the land to provide its bounty for the well-being of all of the people. The Covenant Chain symbolizes our treaty relationship, also symbolized by Tekani Teyothata’tye Kaswénta (Two Row Wampum) which affirms the inherent sovereignty and distinctness of our governments. An essential part of the relationship is our commitment to resolve matters through good-faith negotiation between our governments, including consultation on any plans which might affect the other government or its people.

In any land issues, we want it understood that the following principles will govern any actions taken by the Haudenosaunee Council of Chiefs of the Grand River Territory:

1) The land is sacred to us. It defines our identities, belief system, languages and way of life.

2) We hold the aboriginal and treaty title to our lands collectively.

3) Our treaty relationship with the Crown is still alive and in force and directs our conduct in our relationship to Canada. Within this relationship, the terms of the treaties continue to bind both our government and the Crown.

4) We require a careful accounting for the Crown’s dealing with our lands, and the return of any lands that were improperly or illegally taken from our ancestors.

5) We require an accounting for the funds administered or held by the Crown for the Six Nations people, and restitution of any funds unaccounted for.

6) It is not only within the context of our treaty relationship with the Crown that we see justification for such accounting and restitution. Canadian and international law is clear on the right of the Haudenosaunee to seek justice on these matters.

7) In any agreements with the Crown concerning land our goal is to promote and protect a viable economy for our people on our land – an economy that will be culturally appropriate, environmentally sustainable, and not injurious to our people and our neighbours.

Our fundamental approach is that Six Nations lands will come under the jurisdiction, management and control of Six Nations people. The federal and provincial governments must not impose jurisdictional, policing, taxation, and/or economic activities as part of the land rights settlement.

Our people, our laws, and our government have survived by being thoughtful, respectful, diligent and practical. In our relations with the Crown, and in any negotiations concerning land and the resolution of land-related issues, we will continue to apply those principles.

[old_bold&cold]

I just can not stand this stuff anymore. I agree that we need to put an end to this land claim stuff right now. The native Canadians did not own land in Canada and never will. It is against their customs to own land. The reserves set aside land for the use by these tribes but ownership never was given by the crown. The natives were all conquered races and as such had to make treaties with the crown who had claimed all lands of Canada at that time. Settlers were allowed to settle lands and when they had settled it were either given the land or it was sold at very low prices. The reserves were where indians could live by their own ways and use the land to hunt and fish. They were not owners and all reserves were governed by the federal government. The lands on reserves thatr was settled by the native people could eventually be deeded to them but not all the land they hunted and fished on but rather the land they settled into.

They have no claim on the lands other then which they settled. If they continue to push for things as it looks like they will then we will have to once again have our armies go in and settle this once and for all. This time once you are conquered again there will be no welfare and tax benifits, but rather assimilate or leave the country. The acts of blockades and civil disobedience to court orders is more then enough to have the trouble makers jailed. So why waste the time trying to bargain with these types and just go right to what will be the finish one way or the other.

[Riverwind]

Our fundamental approach is that Six Nations lands will come under the jurisdiction, management and control of Six Nations people. The federal and provincial governments must not impose jurisdictional, policing, taxation, and/or economic activities as part of the land rights settlement.

Sounds like the Six Nations chiefs are setting themselves up for a big disappointment. The courts and the government will entertain the idea of aboriginal self government but Canadian law will always apply.

BTW - this statement is proof of what I have been saying along: groups like Six Nations are trying to set up feudal mini-states where the majority of non-natives will be reduced to the role of a serf/land-tenet. I can understand why many Canadians want to see aboriginal concerns addressed but it is time to wake up and recognize that aboriginal demands have become completely ridiculous.

The only way to deal with these demands like this its to refuse and not back down in the face of threats of violence and terrorism.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[seabee]

I am a bit short of time at present, but I had a good glimpse at the Haudenosaunee Statement. It seems to me to be a far superior kind of template for a constitution than whichever was used for the incredibly long, legaleeze template of the Canadian one. The U.S. of A.'s constitution is also a very good one, but inspired by the Iroquoian template. We have a lot to learn from the First Nations.

As for the value of conquests, they are essentially crimes against humanity, or at the very least government-sponsered armed robbery.

I'll come back on this later.

[old_bold&cold]

I must apologise for taking a more antagonising position in this, but I am probably still worked up from the other thread. I wish to point out that by all thye customs of native Canadians no one owned the land and it belonged to the ones who were powerful enough to beat off the other tribes kill the men and take the women as slaves. He who had the most strength owned the lands. It was that simple. In those days this was how things were, and while they sound barbaric now, it was ok back then. Along came the white man and he mapped and seetled all across Canada he fought off native encursions and for the most part conquered the land we now know as Canada. While yes there were many atrocities by both sides, it was the whiteman who taught native to scalp, as the scalps were used as a bounty for those who made the lands safe for settlers. Not a very bright time in our history but it is just the way it was. We here in Canada had way less indian wars then the USA, but we also were more inclined to assimolate natives into our own society. We also welcomes the french to join us after they were defeated in Quebec. Where you did not see the USA welcome the spanish when they fought. Canada was a colony of England and England was colonising around the world. Even Idia was conquered and under British rule for a long time before it was again given back to the people of India to run etc. So was Israel and much of the middle east. France was in Polynesia and many african countries. It was just the times. That is why I am saying that the native indians were conquered, and put on reserves where the federal government feed and clothed them when they could no longer exist with thier hunting and fishing. The land was Crown land and never was it deeded to the natives but rather was given use of by treaty only. The old stories about Manhatton being bought for a few pebbles etc. is just a wives tail because had the natives not agreed it would simply have been taken from them.

All this talk about land belonging to them back to the beginning of time is a farce. as I said it was he who had the most strength and wanted it took it, one way or another. That is why I say this whole thing is getting out of hand and sooner or later we will have to confront those once again and the strongest one will win. That seems to be where it is going.

[jennie]

Sounds like the Six Nations chiefs are setting themselves up for a big disappointment. The courts and the government will entertain the idea of aboriginal self government but Canadian law will always apply.

BTW - this statement is proof of what I have been saying along: groups like Six Nations are trying to set up feudal mini-states where the majority of non-natives will be reduced to the role of a serf/land-tenet. I can understand why many Canadians want to see aboriginal concerns addressed but it is time to wake up and recognize that aboriginal demands have become completely ridiculous.

The only way to deal with these demands like this its to refuse and not back down in the face of threats of violence and terrorism.

They are talking about the undeveloped land.

I don't think they have any interest in administering a bunch of whining settlers.

Their communities are growing at a tremendous rate. They are simply talking about their own territory, much of which is so-called 'Crown' land and other government land holdings in the Haldimand Tract, and perhaps some willing-seller willing-buyer land too.

All dependent on negotiations, of course, and it will take years to get there, but they are asserting their right to be consulted.

They have also demanded that the provincial government stop all development on 'Crown' land.

Edited September 22, 2007 by jennie

[Riverwind]

They are talking about the undeveloped land.

There is nothing in their statement that places that qualifier.

4) We require a careful accounting for the Crown’s dealing with our lands, and the return of any lands that were improperly or illegally taken from our ancestors.

Which, according to your arguments, the entire tract - 'whining settlers' and all.

Canada exists and is not going to go away. It is possible to develop self-government arrangements that respect the traditions of pre-existing aboriginal societies but creating a bunch of feudal kingdoms with two classes of citizens is not an option.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[seabee]

Conquering a nation is the simple part. Keeping it conquered is a never-ending, costly, energy and time consuming process which frequently ends by giving up the conquest and granting the conquered their independance.

Nobody accepts to be conquered, even when the conqueror says its for their own good.

[jennie]

I must apologise for taking a more antagonising position in this, but I am probably still worked up from the other thread. I wish to point out that by all thye customs of native Canadians no one owned the land and it belonged to the ones who were powerful enough to beat off the other tribes kill the men and take the women as slaves. He who had the most strength owned the lands. It was that simple. In those days this was how things were, and while they sound barbaric now, it was ok back then. Along came the white man and he mapped and seetled all across Canada he fought off native encursions and for the most part conquered the land we now know as Canada. While yes there were many atrocities by both sides, it was the whiteman who taught native to scalp, as the scalps were used as a bounty for those who made the lands safe for settlers. Not a very bright time in our history but it is just the way it was. We here in Canada had way less indian wars then the USA, but we also were more inclined to assimolate natives into our own society. We also welcomes the french to join us after they were defeated in Quebec. Where you did not see the USA welcome the spanish when they fought. Canada was a colony of England and England was colonising around the world. Even Idia was conquered and under British rule for a long time before it was again given back to the people of India to run etc. So was Israel and much of the middle east. France was in Polynesia and many african countries. It was just the times. That is why I am saying that the native indians were conquered, and put on reserves where the federal government feed and clothed them when they could no longer exist with thier hunting and fishing. The land was Crown land and never was it deeded to the natives but rather was given use of by treaty only. The old stories about Manhatton being bought for a few pebbles etc. is just a wives tail because had the natives not agreed it would simply have been taken from them.

All this talk about land belonging to them back to the beginning of time is a farce. as I said it was he who had the most strength and wanted it took it, one way or another. That is why I say this whole thing is getting out of hand and sooner or later we will have to confront those once again and the strongest one will win. That seems to be where it is going.

Well since you have the grace to apologize, I won't respond to the other post.

There is only one very simple answer to all you have written.

They were not conquered in Canada. We had no wars against Indigenous Peoples. They were our allies. We made treaties with them. We broke treaties. The treaties are still legally valid and important as some of them define Canada's borders, etc.

The treaties cannot be ignored.

It is simply a tedious bit of law we have to go through, and the governments are doing their level best to make it as difficult and dangerous as possible.

But I assure you it is not a farce.

Edited September 22, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

There is nothing in their statement that places that qualifier.

Which, according to your arguments, the entire tract - 'whining settlers' and all.

Absolutely, their claim is to the entire tract. In negotiations they will do the facts and accounting for each transaction and tally up what land and money is owing. There will be substitution of existing or acquired government land for settled land, where possible.

Nobody would even notice, if the govs would do their jobs right.

[Visionseeker]

I just can not stand this stuff anymore. I agree that we need to put an end to this land claim stuff right now. The native Canadians did not own land in Canada and never will. It is against their customs to own land.

Ownership by an individual is against their custom, but collective use and stewardship are a form of ownership in that responsibility for the land is assumed by the community for its benefit and those of future generations.

The reserves set aside land for the use by these tribes but ownership never was given by the crown. The natives were all conquered races and as such had to make treaties with the crown who had claimed all lands of Canada at that time.

So reserves where a sort of open concentration camp used to herd the conquered masses then? NOT! Land rights were acknowledged by the Crown in successive covenants.

For instance, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 states:

"And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds..."

"And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved, without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained... And We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements."

Settlers were allowed to settle lands and when they had settled it were either given the land or it was sold at very low prices. The reserves were where indians could live by their own ways and use the land to hunt and fish. They were not owners and all reserves were governed by the federal government. The lands on reserves thatr was settled by the native people could eventually be deeded to them but not all the land they hunted and fished on but rather the land they settled into.

At the risk of repeating myself

"...should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds..."

I don't know about you, but I don't occupy the land I go hunting on. And the lands in dispute are those that were settled by non-natives (or about to be settled) that were never ceded to the Crown.

They have no claim on the lands other then which they settled. If they continue to push for things as it looks like they will then we will have to once again have our armies go in and settle this once and for all. This time once you are conquered again there will be no welfare and tax benifits, but rather assimilate or leave the country. The acts of blockades and civil disobedience to court orders is more then enough to have the trouble makers jailed. So why waste the time trying to bargain with these types and just go right to what will be the finish one way or the other.

They have compelling claims for land other than which they "settled" because they have a contract that says so. And nearly 500 claims have been resolved that acknowledge this (while some 700 or so remain outstanding). The argument you advance is not supported in law and that makes it lawless. That you further advocate the use of violence to advance a lawless cause makes you a bandit.

Successive governments have turned a blind eye to their obligations with First Nations whenever they came into conflict with Orangist ambitions. Through the course of time, the influence of Orangist chauvinism has waned and it is becoming more politically tenable for governments to begin to do right by such obligations. Unfortunately, this has coincided with a resurgence of sorts of the Orangist crowd who now seek to subvert the meaning of "equality" and try rewrite history to suit their own subordinating ends; constantly and cowardly threatening to release the hounds (be they police or the military) to enforce their will.

And, quite frankly, an ever growing population of aboriginal youth "can not stand this stuff anymore".

[ScottSA]

The U.S. of A.'s constitution is also a very good one, but inspired by the Iroquoian template.

Complete and utter revisionist nonsense. Wade is already in jeopardy of his job, or already fired, for making up this kind of crap. The US constitution is an outgrowth of the enlightenment and humanism, not some stone age tribe wandering around in the woods giving each other short haircuts. Lord save us from nonsense like this.

[ScottSA]

And, quite frankly, an ever growing population of aboriginal youth "can not stand this stuff anymore".

Good. Bring em on. Or are they confined to beating up old men in between beers and bannock?

[jennie]

Good. Bring em on. Or are they confined to beating up old men in between beers and bannock?

Scott this is socially unacceptable.

[jennie]

Complete and utter revisionist nonsense. Wade is already in jeopardy of his job, or already fired, for making up this kind of crap. The US constitution is an outgrowth of the enlightenment and humanism, not some stone age tribe wandering around in the woods giving each other short haircuts. Lord save us from nonsense like this.

Ah so do you like eating your words with ketchup or mayo?

http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2005/May/17-246412.html

Franklin, then Pennsylvania's official printer, became familiar with the Iroquois political system by printing minutes of their meetings, according to the magazine.

"He recognized that the Iroquois constitution contained many features absent in other governments at the time," including the concept that "elected officials were never masters but remained servants of their constituencies," the magazine states.

However, the Iroquois constitution differed from the later U.S. document in one important way -- it specifically mentioned women, said Knapp. Many Indian nations were matriarchal with women nominating legislators, she added.

Edited September 22, 2007 by jennie

[Visionseeker]

Ah so do you like eating your words with ketchup or mayo?

http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2005/May/17-246412.html

Franklin, then Pennsylvania's official printer, became familiar with the Iroquois political system by printing minutes of their meetings, according to the magazine.

"He recognized that the Iroquois constitution contained many features absent in other governments at the time," including the concept that "elected officials were never masters but remained servants of their constituencies," the magazine states.

However, the Iroquois constitution differed from the later U.S. document in one important way -- it specifically mentioned women, said Knapp. Many Indian nations were matriarchal with women nominating legislators, she added.

I await ScottSA's meaningful and insightful reply.*

*Please note: "meaningful and insightful" is not to be confused with "spiteful and hurtful".

[Visionseeker]

Good. Bring em on. Or are they confined to beating up old men in between beers and bannock?

"Bring em on"!? Is that your public admission to being as equally clueless in affairs as the current President of the United States? Boy, don't you keep poor intellectual contemporaries.

As for the rest of your reply, I shall not dignify it with a response.

[noahbody]

We seek to renew the existing relationship that we had with Crown prior to 1924. That relationship is symbolized by the Tehontatenentsonterontahkwa (“The thing by which they link arms”)

Hands buddy. They're called hands.

[jennie]

I await ScottSA's meaningful and insightful reply.*

*Please note: "meaningful and insightful" is not to be confused with "spiteful and hurtful".

still waiting ... but I guess he is busy eating his words.

[ScottSA]

I await ScottSA's meaningful and insightful reply.*

*Please note: "meaningful and insightful" is not to be confused with "spiteful and hurtful".

Yeah, this myth has been floating around feel good liberal circles for a while, popping up now and then with citations to a tenuous link between Franklin and the Iroquios federation. It's based on the same sort of coincidental misread as troothar notions; there were "squibs", for instance, in the WTC while it was collapsing, and there are "squibs" when a building is demolished by set explosions; ergo the WTC was demolished by explosives. It's rot, and so is this. It's like looking at a round war shield and claiming the Indians invented the wheel. For Christ's sake, the Anglo-Saxon Witan was closer to the US Constitution than the Iroquios federation. So, for that matter, was the Roman Republican government. But hey, don't believe me; here's someone even more authoritative than the "Washington File Staff Writer" you cited, as hard as that may be to believe:

"Abstract:

The Iroquois Confederation was not an influence on the U.S. Constitution, but it is worthy of study as an independently developed political system with the oldest surviving constitution in North America. A systematic institutional analysis of the Great Binding Law, the orally transmitted constitution of the Confederation, reveals, among other things: tribal inequality despite their formal equality under a unanimity rule; a high level of responsiveness despite a nondemocratic, elitist method for selecting leaders; many ancillary institutions for achieving a traditional form of consensus rather than simple majority rule; two means of elevating men to the Confederation Council, each a paradoxical blend of the pre political and the post-traditional;..."

http://radicalreference.info/node/1011

Or, if you don't like that, here's a wiki article that cites several well known historians:

"The Iroquois nations' political union and democratic government has been credited by some as one of the influences on the United States Constitution. However, that theory has fallen into disfavor among many historians and is regarded by others as mythology. Historian Jack Rakove writes: "The voluminous records we have for the constitutional debates of the late 1780s contain no significant references to the Iroquois." Researcher Brian Cook writes: "The Iroquois probably held some sway over the thinking of the Framers and the development of the U.S. Constitution and the development of American democracy, albeit perhaps indirectly or even subconsciously... However, the opposition is probably also correct. The Iroquois influence is not as great as [some historians] would like it to be, the framers simply did not revere or even understand much of Iroquois culture, and their influences were European or classical - not wholly New World."

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ie5Jur...cd=11&gl=ca

So if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to think that stone age savages invented the US constitution, have at it, but you might as well posit that it came from Atlanteans after a long swim. Why the universities put up with this revisionist crap, based on one or two lines sprinkled here and there in memoirs, usually NOT saying what they are claimed to say, and a single pro forma visit by a bunch of Iroquios chiefs who happened to be in town one day, is beyond me.

Edited September 22, 2007 by ScottSA

[ScottSA]

Scott this is socially unacceptable.

No jennie, what is socially unacceptable is self-inflicted aparthied by a bunch of leechs dressed up in borrowed philosophy keeping their own people down so they can pad their own pockets in neverending extortion. What's socially unacceptable is the fact that said youths ARE drinking beer or whatever they can get their hands on, and it's the fault of people like you who keep them in a perpetual victim mindset. What's socially unacceptable is you painting pigs with lipstick, backpedalling when you're caught and darting forward with new bullsh** everytime there's an opening. Just how stupid do you think we are? The profound disrespect you show for the thinking process of people here is astounding.

[jennie]

No jennie, what is socially unacceptable is self-inflicted aparthied by a bunch of leechs dressed up in borrowed philosophy keeping their own people down so they can pad their own pockets in neverending extortion. What's socially unacceptable is the fact that said youths ARE drinking beer or whatever they can get their hands on, and it's the fault of people like you who keep them in a perpetual victim mindset. What's socially unacceptable is you painting pigs with lipstick, backpedalling when you're caught and darting forward with new bullsh** everytime there's an opening. Just how stupid do you think we are? The profound disrespect you show for the thinking process of people here is astounding.

Pardon my manners ... "this is unacceptable" IMO.

Edited September 22, 2007 by jennie

[ScottSA]

Pardon my manners ... "this is unacceptable" IMO.

As I said, you are the one who is unacceptable.

[jennie]

As I said, you are the one who is unacceptable.

no you.

[kengs333]

Scott this is socially unacceptable.

Your posts are intellectually unacceptable.