Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Renegade

Six Nations occupation at Caledonia

Recommended Posts

You seem talk out of both sides of your mouth im afraid.

Posted by Geoffrey :

I will not respond to any further attacks on my character and I've reported your posts to the forum owner in hope that disciplinary action is taken.

----------------------------

What about the slurs and stereotypes against Natives in general proliferating this forum? Will those posts be dealt with as well? Id like to see this forum free from all derogatory language period - just debate

but i wont hold my breath - it doesnt seem that a peaceful or civil dialogue is the aim of the majority of the people on here.

You'll find my language directed at social patterns in various legal arrangements. I never use racist comments.

Using the legal word 'Indian' means I'm talking about those with Indian status in Canada, not First Immigrant populations as a race. I have no belief that any one race is substandard compared to another, though many segements of our population, white, black, blue, purple, Indian, are substandard and need improvement in many ways.

You won't find me calling all first immigrants drunks or criminals or things like that. You will find me calling things as they are, like a drunken protestor attacking a cop or a council of chiefs that support criminal actions (leadership represents a group, if 5 or 6 Hell's Angels openly promoted illegal activity, the organization would be quickly legally dismantled).

I have no problems with the so called "Natives" as an ethnic group. I have major issues with their superior status in front of our courts and in our schools and in the workplace. I have major issues with the amount of money we are spending on welfare with no results. These are legitimate concerns I have.

Some others might have sunk to that level where they spoke with racial slurs, but I haven't, and I didn't appreciate previous posters saying I was likely mentally defective and disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argoose (partie une):

The same thing which gave the natives the right to take it when they came, or to take it off each other through war.

oh...I see you are now a native historian too. I hope you have your facts straight.

The same thing which brought about the borders in Europe after centuries of warfare.

Not really...I think Europe was a bastion of mindless, unmitigated savagery. the only difference being they would write about their wars and who they raped or impaled, and how many...

He who has the most muscle takes the most cake. That's the way it always was, and the natives played the same game before the Europeans arrived.

Actually, you are mistaken Argy, we didn't fight in this country, both parties dealt peaceably with each other and signed agreements called treaties. Equally amusing is the fact that -for all intents and purposes- there was a passing chance that the Six Nations could be physically conquered on Monday, but the Kaledonians ran away, for the most part. It would be embarrassing to conquer Kaledonians over a Tim Horton's.

(RE: time frame of the land disputes). We're not. In fact, most of the people here don't even have ancestors who were present at the time. Hell, my ancestors had their land stolen by the English. Am I supposed to start blocking roads in Dundee? That's just the way the world worked. Get over it. Everyone else has.

HaHa...yeah...go block Dundee! That would be a hoot! I can just imagine you there in your kilt, waving your traditional flag of a little Scotsman carressing a sheep. Jeepers Argy...how many times do we have to tell you that a signed deal is a deal. Even your own people signed a deal in the 1700's agreeing to one British nation! As has been stated earlier, are the only "old" deals/agreements that are honoured are those between Europeans? You certainly adhere to those...so what makes adhering to the treaties different? Is it because us Indians are really Untermensch and unworthy of respect? You haven't really explained why European to European treaties are "more" legally-binding than a treay.

I mean, after all, it wasn't the Natives that gave up St. Pierre and Miquelon, so don't blame use when those two islets argue that their sea boundary extends two-hundred miles because they are French National territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argosea:

Part II

(Isnt it the law that states you have to prove you paid for something in order to prove ownership? )

A-man: Not when you've had it in your posession for a century or so. But if the natives have a legitimate title to that land then by all means let them take it to court. The Canadian courts have been fairly sympathetic to them before. Why is there no court case over this? Why haven't the natives sued if they have such clear treaty rights to the land?

Again, Argoose...this has been taken to court. A multiplicity of Six Nations claims -including the douglas creek site, went before the SCC over a decade ago until your Federal government asked for a hiatus to switch from litigation to negotiations. The Douglas Creek site was supposed to have been put into legal limbo, but the Feds obviously did not get together with the province to ensure this occured and voila! There is building going on what we were told was land in limbo!

As I assumed, you have absolutely little knowledge of what has transpired here. You assume that this whole thing has been going on for a month, when really it has been dragging on (for the indians) since the 1800's.

(Regarding, The Brant Treaty - It clearly states that 6 miles from either side of the grand river and ( if i remember correctly ) that tract of land would run from beginning to end of the river - one heck of a huge peice of land.)

A-man: The argument, as I understand it, is that he never said all that land, but that they could choose the land they wanted from that area.

Actually, Ronkwe is correct. It was six miles on either side. I think where you are mistaken is that when Haldimand left for England, the deed was only partially ratified, and the new governor used this excuse to begin changing the terms to suit their own needs, and unfortunately, this is where most of the serious claims by the Confederacy lie.

But even the government recognizes the original grant. It is their position that all the land was either purchased or lost to squatters. The key legal question arising from this is that, by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (thirty plus years before the Haldimand deed), it clearly states that Native land must be negotiated and purchased by the Crown to be a legal transaction. Squatting is not a purchase by the Crown after negotiations. This will create concerns among non-Natives.

(From what I understand Joseph Brant leased sections of this land for a set period of time. Upon which no payments were made, and no one left at the termination of the lease.)

A-manWell then, that's a fairly basic legal matter and ought to be easily settled in court. Why no court case?

Not really. The governors at the time did not want the Six Nations people selling land, and this is well-documented, they wanted Six Nations people to sell the land to the Crown, who in turn would sell the land to British subjects, as per the Royal Proclamation. This creates a problem because some of Brant's original sales are still recognized while others were struck down. The legal issue here is whether to uphold all Brant's sales (which means breaking Canadian law vis-a-vis the Royal Proclamation regarding land sales), or disregard Brant's sales (which means that a lot of people living within six miles of the Grand from mouth to source will be paying rent to Six Nations.)

I think that's why the Feds asked to leave the court route and go into negotiations back in 1995.

A-man: You might have a look at what the English did to the Irish some day. You might also have a look at some of the local indian vs indian wars, and what happened to the losers. Hint: They didn't get to keep an acre of land.

actually, I'd like to know A-man, just how your family contributed to this country? Did anyone from your family fight for Canada? I can go back to the American Revolution as far as recorded history goes on my mom's side, and back to 1812 on my dad's side...and right up to today.

Has your family ridden on the backs of mine? Has my family -through their sacrifice in Canada's wars-ensured that yours has the right to come online and call them lazy, conquered alcoholic terrorists?

That I'd like to know....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errant Caledonians - how about errant natives - taking out transformer stations and theft of hydro, not to mention destruction of public roads etc. etc. etc. McGuinty should deduct the cost of damages from the welfare cheques.

Civil authority has been cowed, the authorities are giving in to terrorism. The locals are understandably upset at the t aking down of one barricade as a good will gesture, while mainaiting two other blockades - hardly hardly a peace offering.

No group should be above the law.

www.citizensofcaledonia.ca

-------------------------------------------------------------

It has now been confirmed by Haldimand Hydro that there is now theft of power from hydro poles. A citizen called Haldamind Hydro about a suspicous looking hookup to a hydro pole. You and I will be paying for this Hydro usage on our bills... Even more - I believe that the Natives are reluctant to open Argyle Street because they do not want to remove these sources of stolen Hydro for their camps. An email received states:

"I called Haldimand Hydro this morning to ask that my street light get fixed (it is awful dark at night) and asked about the situation. They admitted that the hook-ups are illegal and they are worried that they could be potentially dangerous - but there is nothing they can do about it. The electricity is being stolen by these illegal hook-ups."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As has been stated earlier, are the only "old" deals/agreements that are honoured are those between Europeans? You certainly adhere to those...so what makes adhering to the treaties different?
Old treaties are ignored all of the time when one of the signatories find the inconvenient. However, in the the case of Native treaties it is not simply about inconvenience - it is about values. It is simply immoral to maintain any treaty that grants special privileges to people based on their race. Apartheid was wrong the South Africa no matter how many 'treaties' were signed allowing the Boers to set up such as system. A descendant of a slave owner cannot go to court and demand compensation because he has legal documents that proving his ancestors had legal ownership of other people. The only stable system is one where all people are treated equally and must adhere to the same rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gooffy:

Ok. Clear personal attack, do you not have anything material to add to the conservation besides these attempts at character assassination?

oh my! were your feelings hurt gooffy? Did you cry when you were so fiercely attacked? I can see how the harm of an attack on your character would hurt in the same way that you attack my whole culture!

Oh the pain...the agony...oh woe, woe....

Well, I think you'll overcome your angst, my lad. You've already taken a positive step by asking the moderator to fight your battles for you! That's good...you're coming out of the doldrums! Keep it up, G-man.

There is a difference between blockading a roadway and digging a trench in the road, razing bridges and beating police officers.

Yes...I agree! Digging a roadway involves digging, but blockading doesn't involve digging, whereas razing bridges involves fire, and beating police requires physical exertion.

wow...you are Brilliant G-man!

But destroying property I've paid for with my taxes is wrong and people need to be jailed.

Hey...I paid for these things with my taxes and I'm not whining...and I bet I pay more tax than you do G-man because I own a number of properties. It is whiners like you that give taxpayers a bad name. Geez.

Law and order used to be a priority of Canadians but now its political correctness it seems.

Yes, and I'm sure law and order would be great if non-natives could find a moment to actually follow it. I mean, I saw them beating police, beating Native women and basically running wild .....really not good role models for law and order in my estimation, but what can you say about taxpayers and their liquid courage!

Gooffy isn't disgusting....he's only the web-equivalent of Rainman. Although I can see how you'd come by the error.

G-man: Again, you've realised that your argument condoning criminal activity holds no water and instead resort to personal attacks.

Actually, I was defending your lack of intelligence and knowledge. But it's cool, Philospohy and I talked it over and we're on the same page now.

I have yet to ever use a personal attack against you

I know, you prefer targetting my race and my culture. You can't go after my character because I tend to shine a bit brighter than you, wouldn't you say?

I've merely discussed the relevant factual talking points on the issue. I expect that you would extend to me the same respect I've extended to your character as well.

or the time being, i'll extend you the same respect you extend my race and culture. the only exception is that I won't ask for anyone to make you a criminal organization.

G-man: I'm not impressed with someone just joining a message board to attack long-standing members.

I think trinkets and baubles would undoubtedly impress you...nothing else seems to phase you...

I backed up all my statements with factual proof, those that I haven't, I'd be happy to reference you to some very credible sources if you wish to challenge them.

HaHaHAHAHAHaHaHa....OOOO...HAHahahaha...ahh...my stomach hurts from laughing so hard...HaHAHahaha..jeepers..the tears are welling in my friggin' eyes...HahAhahAHAHAHAAH...Buddy...are you sure you didn't mean"fax" instead of facts? HAHAHAAHAAHAAA

My arguments are along lines of common sense and equality of right

HAHAAHAHAHAHAAH...oh god....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...Gooffy, you are slaying me man, this is the funniest diatribe I've heard yet! We need to get you on Leno...you are right up there with your stand up routine....Hahhahahaa

I have no right to dig up roadways, assault cops and raze bridges so why do Indians?

Ok...what's the punchline to this joke? I'm all on edge now.....

That's too bad that you seem to think I have some kind of mental disability.

Ooooooo...hahahahahaHAHAHAH....AHhahaahha! Oh Stop it...please...stop it...i'm dying here! This is too, too funny G-man! You have missed your calling, bud. We need to get a tape of you doing your routine and I mean now! Im not about to stand here and see brilliant comedic talent lost on the masses.

Do you need a manager?

I actually have an IQ in the genius range, am University educated and have been highly successful at a young age in business.

HaHAHAHhahahaHHAHHA!!!!! Ok...now your giving us the resume to prove your intelligence! Oh my god...you are too funny G-man...please, stop or i'll bust a gut....

As for 'nature' minded things, as you seem to value these more than practical things, I've done a handful of expeditions deep into wilderness, have climbed many peaks, up to 13,000ft., and am a regular hunter and fisherman. I have a respect for nature.

Peak-Climber....Cool, I'll see how to say that in a native language and i'll bestow an indian name on you! how's that sound!

I've offered a couple of solutions to the 'Indian problem'.

Oh yeah...which one was the "final" one? Hahahahahaahhhahah

Self-government is my perfered method,

Ok c'mon Mr. Hi-IQ, university educated guy....you know how to spell preferred properly!

with absolutely no financial or any other support from the Canadian government. Have them set up their nations, and fund them internally.

well let's do it! Why wait now...let's giv'er I say!

I have no obligation to pay for people that don't want to be Canadian or follow Canadian laws like I do.

Is this how you feel about our foreign aid packages? maybe you should tell your government about that.

There is no in between solution that is at all reasonable, either govern and finance yourselves, or adapt to our way of life.

Hey...you are the one out there peak-climbing, hunting and fishing..it sounds like you've adapted to our way of life! HAHhahahahahaha

End of story. I will not respond to any further attacks on my character and I've reported your posts to the forum owner in hope that disciplinary action is taken.

Uhoh...better watch out Philosophy! You can't go and upset people who freely belittle Native Canadians on both the racial realm and on cultural matters! That's a no-no because they speak the "truth"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

River:

Old treaties are ignored all of the time when one of the signatories find the inconvenient.

I don't see Canada ignoring St. Pierre and Miquelon's 200 mile fishing limt (which easily covers half of Newfoundland). Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Geez...you guys still use the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to establish a legal relationship with natives, so old legislation still applies?

I think you are right about the MicMac scalp law being ignored, but that is old legislation, not a treaty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see Canada ignoring St. Pierre and Miquelon's 200 mile fishing limt (which easily covers half of Newfoundland).
Since WW2 international law accepts the borders of soveriegn states as valid no matter how they come into being. Therefore, Canada accepts France's claim to these islands even though the original treaty is 100s of years old. Similarily, native "nations" must accept the current borders of Canada no matter what old treaties say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

River:

Since WW2 international law accepts the borders of soveriegn states as valid no matter how they come into being. Therefore, Canada accepts France's claim to these islands even though the original treaty is 100s of years old. Similarily, native "nations" must accept the current borders of Canada no matter what old treaties say.

River...this has to be the most contrary post you ever made. Canada accepts France's hundreds of year old treaty, but gets to ignore the treaties they have with Canada's Aboriginal nations?

Again, what makes Aboriginals different than the French, other than the French surrendered to Germany and got their land back after being beaten fair and square.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
River...this has to be the most contrary post you ever made. Canada accepts France's hundreds of year old treaty, but gets to ignore the treaties they have with Canada's Aboriginal nations?
Canada is not accepting an old treaty between England and France. It accepts that the borders France had at the end of WW2 are valid. Similarily, Canada does not accept the claims of aboriginal "nations" because by the end of WW2 these nations no longer existed.

The statements are completely consistent. In both cases, what was written in old treaties is irrelevant - the status quo is the only thing that is important. The fact that the status quo happens to be that same as what is written in some old treaty is a coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

River:

Your contrarian ideas are beginning to dig a bit of a pit for you.

Canada is not accepting an old treaty between England and France. It accepts that the borders France had at the end of WW2 are valid. Similarily, Canada does not accept the claims of aboriginal "nations" because by the end of WW2 these nations no longer existed.

The 200 mile fishing limit came into effect in 1977. WWII ended in 1945. Just this major error alone negates the rest of your comment about treaties

The statements are completely consistent.

See above.

In both cases, what was written in old treaties is irrelevant - the status quo is the only thing that is important. The fact that the status quo happens to be that same as what is written in some old treaty is a coincidence

How do you get staus quo when you go from a 20-mile limit to 200 miles? that is 10 times status quo?

Buddy, I think you are confused. Don't let the blind rage that needs you to "prove" that Treaties are not part and parcel of Canadian law (which they are) get in the way of making claims about all manner of agreements?

As a business person, I'd hate to enter into an agreement with you because you'd find the first excuse to ignore it. As a Native Canadian, i'm not really surprised with the manner in which you regard legal, binding agreements....you come by it honestly considering the fact that your ancestors seemed to enjoy not living up to their agreements either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty good one - its about time the gov't quit abrogating its responsibilities and act responsibly on the side of law and order.

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commenta...23/1592887.html

EDITORIAL: Caledonia deserves better

-snip-

But simply blaming the townspeople after five weeks of growing frustrations, inconvenience, traffic headaches, damaged roads and economic disruption would be unfair. (And of course, for the developers whose land the natives are occupying in support of their claim, the situation is even more dire.)

Easy for Premier Dalton McGuinty and others to appeal for calm -- their lives aren't being disrupted.

Yesterday, one native leader praised the restraint he said native occupiers have shown, adding, "our people are responding without weapons, using only their bodies to assert that we are a sovereign people ... and that we cannot be intimidated."

Terrific. The problem is that both he and McGuinty need to realize that millions of Ontarians (and Canadians) do not think aboriginals , or anyone else, deserve brownie points for not using weapons to settle a dispute . They think that should be a given. And they are fed-up with disputes like this one that drag on ad nauseam while politicians utter platitudes.

You want, calm, premier? Show us there is one law for everyone -- native and non-native -- that judges people based not on who they are, but on how they act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 200 mile fishing limit came into effect in 1977. WWII ended in 1945. Just this major error alone negates the rest of your comment about treaties
You seem to love using red herrings. Accepting the 200 mile fishing limit is something Canada agreed to do because it recognized the sovereignty of France over those islands. Canada recognizes France's claim to those islands because France had those islands after WW2. If the Americans (or Canadians for that matter) has taken possession of those islands in the 1800s then Canada and France would have recognized whoever currently had those islands no matter what treaties were signed in the 1700s.
How do you get staus quo when you go from a 20-mile limit to 200 miles? that is 10 times status quo?
Accepting the status quo as a starting point does not mean that change is impossible. Canada gained a lot from the 200 mile fishing limit treaty because it allowed Canada to exclude almost every other country for that reason. Allowing the French the access under the same rules was a necessary trade off. That said, Canada has claimed the right to unilaterally break that treaty if it did not get certain concessions from other countries regarding conservation measures. In other words, Canada has made it clear that it will only adhere to the 200 mile limit treaty as long as it is in the interest of Canadians.
As a business person, I'd hate to enter into an agreement with you because you'd find the first excuse to ignore it. As a Native Canadian, i'm not really surprised with the manner in which you regard legal, binding agreements....you come by it honestly considering the fact that your ancestors seemed to enjoy not living up to their agreements either.
There is no such thing as a binding legal agreement in international law (look at the US position on NAFTA or Canada's position on Kyoto). You cannot put native treaties in to the same category as a business agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

River:

apart from fishing limits -which have little to do with land reclamations in Caledonia- I do want to point out that this point:

You cannot put native treaties in to the same category as a business agreement

...Is not what I was saying. I said a legally-binding agreement. As far as business agreements go, I still wouldn't sign one with someone with your constitution. I prefer and respect honour, not debasement.

However, treaties are canadian law, and as you, Scrib and a host of others have said, you should follow the word of law.

c'mon...we need law-abiding role models like you to respect and abide by the legal terms of the treaty. Ask your government for help if you need to understand this better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, treaties are Canadian law, and as you, Scrib and a host of others have said, you should follow the word of law.
Actually, I have made no such statement. I actually said the reverse: if following the letter of the law is morally wrong then the gov't should change the law. Slave owners were legally entitled to own their slaves however a gov't tore up their legal contracts once it decided that owning slaves was wrong.

If treaties are binding under Canadian law then the duly elected Canadian gov't can change the law and revoke these treaties without the consent of native groups. However, if treaties are agreements between 'nations' then there are definitely not legally binding and can and should be re-written to meet the needs of people today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

River:

If treaties are binding under Canadian law then the duly elected Canadian gov't can change the law and revoke these treaties without the consent of native groups. However, if treaties are agreements between 'nations' then there are definitely not legally binding and can and should be re-written to meet the needs of people today.

Ok...let me spell it out for you one more time.

A. Canada made treaties with the Aboriginal nations already here.

B. Canada then took parts of the Treaties (the benefits) and ensconced them into the Indian Act, and then the Constitution later on.

C. The treaties exist as agreements, but the terms exist as Canadian law. hence, your government has given itself the right to amend the terms of the treaties under their own laws without our approval at any point.

and yet this makes you upset because they don't make the amendments you want to see, therefore:

D. Complain to the Federal government, and stop blaming the Indians. We can't do much more than blow in the wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrib:

You want, calm, premier? Show us there is one law for everyone -- native and non-native -- that judges people based not on who they are, but on how they act.

The Indian Act is Federal, not provincial law. McGuinty can't do anything about it, but feel free to contact your MP and ask about changing it.

Funny thing...I didn't see any Kaledonians get arrested when they punched the Natives or police, or destroyed property? Wouldn't that indicate that we are operating under the same law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrib:

Hey...how come you didn't put up other excerpts from the Sun like this one:

"Haldimand County OPP Const. Paula Wright confirmed police arrested one man Monday night for breach of peace. The man, who was protesting with the townspeople, was later released. Police are also investigating incidents of looting on the Douglas Creek estates, Wright said. Several police officers received minor injuries from residents who volleyed projectiles like rocks, eggs, fireworks and a hockey stick during Monday's tense face-off, Wright said.

Townspeople were livid that OPP formed lines facing only their camp and tempers ignited when police shone two floodlights on the residents while the natives were unsupervised.

"Projectiles were being thrown at the officers so it was important for the officers to see what was going on," Wright said, insisting the OPP acted professionally."

Wow...those law-abiding townspeople! What role models for Canadians everywhere! and they use excuses just like everyone else!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
River:

If treaties are binding under Canadian law then the duly elected Canadian gov't can change the law and revoke these treaties without the consent of native groups. However, if treaties are agreements between 'nations' then there are definitely not legally binding and can and should be re-written to meet the needs of people today.

Ok...let me spell it out for you one more time.

A. Canada made treaties with the Aboriginal nations already here.

B. Canada then took parts of the Treaties (the benefits) and ensconced them into the Indian Act, and then the Constitution later on.

C. The treaties exist as agreements, but the terms exist as Canadian law. hence, your government has given itself the right to amend the terms of the treaties under their own laws without our approval at any point.

and yet this makes you upset because they don't make the amendments you want to see, therefore:

D. Complain to the Federal government, and stop blaming the Indians. We can't do much more than blow in the wind.

But you guys are th eones that cry to the government about a new issue every year and demand compensation and the government gives it to you. Residential schools, land claims, and now Caladonia. Go take your people to the US see how better your treated their in Canada becaus eif you pulled that shit their like you did with Caladonia theyd have the national guard in their hauling your ass's out of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politika:

But you guys are th eones that cry to the government about a new issue every year and demand compensation and the government gives it to you. Residential schools, land claims, and now Caladonia. Go take your people to the US see how better your treated their in Canada becaus eif you pulled that shit their like you did with Caladonia theyd have the national guard in their hauling your ass's out of the way.

tut, tut now Laddie....no need to get all uppity! There are actually many unresolved issues between the Crown and the Natives lasting many decades and beyond...these just don't occur overnight! But I understand that you are young and need to do more growing, so I'll give you a decent "You're Welcome" for the thanks I know you'll want to give for me correcting you.

Keep up the good work lad!

TS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Politika:

But you guys are th eones that cry to the government about a new issue every year and demand compensation and the government gives it to you. Residential schools, land claims, and now Caladonia. Go take your people to the US see how better your treated their in Canada becaus eif you pulled that shit their like you did with Caladonia theyd have the national guard in their hauling your ass's out of the way.

tut, tut now Laddie....no need to get all uppity! There are actually many unresolved issues between the Crown and the Natives lasting many decades and beyond...these just don't occur overnight! But I understand that you are young and need to do more growing, so I'll give you a decent "You're Welcome" for the thanks I know you'll want to give for me correcting you.

Keep up the good work lad!

TS

speechless? you know I am right don't you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this thread is like kicking a dead horse. Reasonable discussion ended long ago and therefore I will be closing this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...