In Reply to: On the contrary posted by Jim Austin on March 21, 2007 at 07:09:06:
It's a con.
Edits: 90/81/00 90/81/00 90/81/00
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Yes, it is. - Bruce from DC 08:06:55 03/21/07 (7)
- It's a con. - LarryB 11:52:56 03/21/07 (5)
- congratulations, Larry - Bruce from DC 13:39:52 03/21/07 (4)
- "Bam, Bam, Bam!!!" - Bruce comes out with both barrells blaring... - darkmoebius 18:46:38 04/23/07 (0)
- Re: Just another shmuck with - geoffkait 16:24:28 03/21/07 (1)
- You are tangling with a hot-shot D.C. lawyer; if he says it's a con, it has to be a con. That, or... - clarkjohnsen 11:23:10 03/22/07 (1)
- That sums it very nicely, Thank you Bruce. - Dan Banquer 15:44:51 03/21/07 (0)
- Rather, it is a Humbug. - Al Sekela 13:26:24 03/21/07 (0)