BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:16 PM

I think if we attempted to find some common point of agreement that no portion of history is as simple as it seems, we could at least weed out the rationally impaired. Before focusing on the some of the specifics, let me point out that in 1987 I was given a national award by the ADL for my investigations while in law enforcement concerning the Klan and later the next year recieved one from the FBI (not that that in any way intitles my offerings any more credence than any one else - YOU must seek, find, and decide).

I have found that some intellectually rigid cowards with the "Big Keyboard, Small Dick" complex are often found on far too many internet exchanges, and as soon as the discussion turns to the complex, or the morally ambiguous, (which any human endeavor must entail), they swope down from the belfry with high pitched squeals of dismay. I suspect that they've run into the clapper too many times on the way down, or worse, on the way back up.

There were several comments about the South losing the Civil War and since I'm from West Virginia, it would take only the most ignorant from outside the US, or the most stupid from within the US, not to note that the Viginia counties, comprising what was to become West Virginia in 1863, voted to stay with the North, as each State was choosing up sides. This vote was, in many cases, extremely close. For example, Loudoun County just over the border in Virginia, voted to go with the Confederacy by just 38 votes, with the German population in the northern portion of the County almost carrying it for the North. In contrast, Jefferson County, the first county in West Virginia, and scene of John Brown's Raid, trial and execution, voted to stay with the North by some 12 votes. This region was horse country and not slave country, and was the scene of numerous cavalry engagements throughout the War. In fact the only relative of mine to die in the Civil War was from Boston, (where I was born) and died in Aldie, VA at the hands of J.P.Morgan's men in a raid (some fifty miles from here).

Secondly, over all, the South has had a far better record on race relations than most of the US. When I was living in Virginia, I was privledged to vote for Doug Wilder as the first black governor in any state in the Union, since (listen to this catch phrase) the Reconstruction. (There were 17 by my count, with virtually none of them celebrated during Black History Month - would anyone care to enlighten us as to why?). The KKK individual I mentioned in my first post, was from Reading PA ("North", for you euro types, or "Stupid" for you northern types). The current race riots are in Ohio, and the biggest collection of KKK type militia are located in Idaho and Montanna (please refer to previous comments in parentheses immediately preceding this sentence - you really must pay attention... ).

And to close for now, I was not defending Griffith's "Birth of a Nation", as I have only seen it once, and thought the use of black-faced whites in the perported role of the "Negro Rapists", was way overdone, but then so has every work I've seen by Oliver Stone and Spike Lee.

Was the Klan the first or last organization formed with what were conceived at the time as good intentions, and later devolved into something considerably more evil? I quickly evoke images of the Teamsters and Mine workers unions, the Molly McGuires, the IRA, the German Bunds, the Vigilantes,etc. And if Lord Acton was right, none of us should preclude the possibility in our own associations...

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Amergin
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:24 PM

Well, those "KKK militia types" in North Idaho and in Montana are for the most part from out of state. They come from all over the US including the South. Damn I get tired of explaining this to people.....

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: GUEST,ceiliwidow
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:26 PM

Thank you for writing Claymore!! My husband's grandmother was also from WV (around Charleston). Even though she was a memeber of the Klan way back when I seriously doubt she took with murder. She really was more of the "Christian fellowship" type albeit probably only amongst her own group. I certainly don't hold with the organization but I don't feel it's my right to condemn this lady based only on what has been written about the group. Sometimes you actually have to TALK to individuals to get their viewpoints because they are not always written down in books.

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Amergin
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:32 PM

Yeah, being from North Idaho, I only go to Klan meetings to pray around a burning cross on some black fellows lawn...

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 01:33 PM

Claymore said, in part:

Religion- with the rise of the Christian Identity Movement, which believes that the Lost Tribe of Israel, was really a group of Anglo-Saxons who made it to America before the Asian "Indians" crossed the Bering Strait (a view which got a helluva boost recently, with the discovery of the Kennibuck Man skeleton and the Farmville, VA sites, pointing to the existence of a an earlier European "Native American" civilization 5 thousand years before the Asians crossed).

Since the earliest physical remains of what I'll call proto-Indian people in the United States is the recent (2, 3 years?) discovery in what is now the State of Mississippi, reliably dated as 16,000 years ago, just shortly after the presumptive crossing over the Bering land bridge, Claymore's "European native American" people must have been here 21,000 years ago! I sure would like to see some authority for that!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: GUEST,Wavestar
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 02:01 PM

Boy, this got awful serious awful fast. Still, I'm amused by the original post :)

I, too, would like to know more about this 'Anglo-Saxon' European civilization Claymore speaks of being in North America 21,000 years ago, I have not heard of it. (Ignoring the fact that the term Anglo-Saxon would have meant less than nothing 21,000 years ago. There were no such people.)

I'd also like to know more about the history regarding the Restoration and the forming of the Ku Klux Klan. I don't think anything can justify forming a hate group and using vigilante justice, although I know horrible things happen in and after war - but I'm curious. Obviously, despite the fact that our nations history is short, it's tremendously complex.

-J

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: GUEST,ceiliwidow
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 02:12 PM

Well, evidently all the "experts" on the subject are on this thread so if you just hang on I'm sure they tell you everything they know ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Kim C
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 03:24 PM

Amergin, I think you're right about Johnson... I think he probably did want to be nice but had to save face somehow. He was in a pretty tough position that most of us wouldn't envy, and is not very well liked around Nashville even to this day.

I have never been to WV but my daddy was from there.

Mister lived in Nashville, Indiana, back in the 70s, where there were maybe only two black families in the whole county. He was friends with one of the guys, nicknamed Pookie. Pookie got a cross burned in his yard because he was dating a white girl. Who knows if it was the Klan or just some local goobers showing their stupidity.

Wavestar, I am not an expert and do not claim to be one but I'll tell you what I know. Socioeconomic disaster and unrest often give rise to people or groups that promise to make things better. Reconstruction was a hard time throughout the South. Thousands upon thousands of men and boys did not come back from the war, which left a lot of widows and orphans to fend for themselves. Thanks to looting, burning and other forms of pillage, many people were left destitute. If you watch the news even now, you know that whenever there's a disaster, somebody steps out of the shadows to take advantage of the situation. Enter the carpetbaggers.

Now imagine if you were returning home after surrendering your arms, to discover that your home was not only demolished, but you had no rights anymore. You couldn't vote, but your former slave suddenly could. You couldn't wear any of your Confederate uniform in public, even if that was the only clothes you had in the world. Now who's the second class citizen?

I have read accounts of some people who said they were not against freedmen having the right to vote, but felt that their rights should be restored to them as well. They surrendered. They went home. They felt like they were being treated unfairly.

Anyway that's all I know.

Cheers ---- Kim

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 04:22 PM

Apologies, Banjer- let me try again:

Trying to paint( or whitewash?) the Klan in the immediate post-bellum period as a kindly community service group, sort of a proto-Rotary, is the most comical thing I've heard in a long time.

Thread Creep Alert! Lets not forget the flag that the Klan proudly marches under, folks- yup, the Confederate Battle Flag. MS is proud of its Klan heritage too, it seems? Guess Phil Ochs was right.

Hope that's OK.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 04:45 PM

Troll, I must be missing something; help me out here, OK?

Other folks can post the most preposterous perversions of historical fact in this thread, and you don't ask them to "prove the truth ... of [their] statements with references". Why is that? Why don't you berate them for not "sharing their definitive documentation to show that their statements are true? And why shouldn't the Klan Apologists have to "clearly state that [they] are expressing [their] opinion and nothing more."

Why assume that I haven't done the research? I certainly don't have the time or inclination to do OTHER FOLKS research FOR them. If they can't be bothered to expend the minimal effort required to check out which version is more accurate and/or which claims are absolute nonsense, why the hell should I spoon feed them?

Maybe you're just having a bad day? You're usually a lot more logical. I DON'T mean that as a taunt.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 12:03 PM

I have a feeling that some people got sucked into the Klan thinking it was a "gentleman's club" or some such. Different chapters may have painted themselves that way. And maybe Granpappy is a little too embarrassed to say he was in the Klan because he was one of those unsuspecting nice guys who got sucked in. But that's just speckalatin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 02:40 PM

Dave O, Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, work often intrudes.

You theory has one really major problem, most archaeologists believe the land bridge from Asia didn't open until 11,200 to 11,500 years ago. Please find your own sources for the opening of the asian Bering Strait landbridge through the Cordilleran Ice Sheet before that. If your dates are correct for the Mississippi mounds builders, then you need to be real clear on the Clovis Point or Landbridge Theory dates, which you apparently defend in one statement and then utterly destroy in the next.

As for those with access to Newsweek (www.newsweek.com) get the April 26, 1999 issue and read the 10 page feature article entitled "The First Americans. New digs reveal an ancient land that was a mosaic of peoples - including Asians and Europeans. Now the debate rages: Who got here first...?"

Then get the half page Washington Post (www.washingtonpost.com) article of April 5, 2000 (Page A3) entitled "Debate Around the Old Campfire, Burning the Bridge, Viginia Archeological Find Challenges Theory of Migration to North America..."

As I made clear, I'm not an archaeoligist, but neither of these articles could be characterized as hatched in the wussy wackoid world of the web. Once these articles are read, I think I'm going to hear the sound of closed minds getting their hatch door rung...

Those that have a problem of reading the English language for content need to reread my comment about "THEY believe the lost tribe was Anglo-Saxon" vs MY comment about THEIR belief "getting a helluva boost" in current theories about an earlier european migration to America. I suspect that Wavelength merely took Dave O's comments as having legitimate dates, and then tried to be cute about it, with his comment about the Anglo-Saxons. (I will apologize if he is indeed a ESL type.)

Also would someone please point out where I said that the theorized european migration took place TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND YEARS AGO? I said the diggings "pointed to the existence of a european civilization 5,000 years before the asians crossed". Taking every thing I've written, this puts those dates at 16,200 to 16,500, well within the theorized datelines of 17 to 25 thousand years ago mentioned in both articles (and the reason that Dave O has bombed his own runway).

(Incidently, since we seem to have gone FAR afield from the wonderful article that posed this thread, might I suggest that whoever does the follow-on research to the above articles, kick it over to a new thread? Thank you)

Ah! duty calls...

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: GUEST,Wavestar
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 03:09 PM

Oh, you're charming, Claymore. I didn't even insult you. Oh, and I'm female. Yes, as you speculate, I did take Dave's dates, but that hardly matters. Even given later dates, the terms Anglo-Saxon and the culture they imply to us was non-existent at the time. However, I understand from your clarification that the theories of somewhat confused groups are being encouraged by this evidence, and it's they that use the term Anglo-Saxon and not you. This is rather relieving - despite your apparent tendency to jump on my back for being curious, you seemed smarter than that. Apologies for misunderstanding you. I will, as you have kindly provided links, take a look at the articles you mention. I'm out of the country, many news stories escape my notice.

Greg F, although you seem loathe to share your research, I think you should perhaps take a moment and review the post of Troll - I don't think he was criticising your facts or your research, he just wanted you to share it, for those of us who haven't necessarily got time to research it, but are curious, as Claymore has (whether you agree with him or not.) If you're not willing to do so, I understand, but I don't think you need to be so defensive :)

Now, is it so hard to be nice?

-J

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 04:00 PM

Hullo, Wavestar-

Claymore didn't "lay out any research"- he simply made a series of statements & said they were true because he said they were true. He cites no independent sources.

I haven't 'necessarily' got time to go back thru 25 years of notes and bibliographies and post footnotes and references for those who can't be bothered to look it up for themselves.

Troll, for his part, seems willing to accept un-footnoted material from one side of an arguement, but not the other. I was just asking for consistency, not trying to be 'un-nice', or defensive.

Dunno if that clarifies things?

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 06:25 PM

Wavestar, my apologies for being testy. My time at work requires due diligence, and sometimes the brevity, and an increasing level of urgency to just get the thing submitted before the next emergency strikes, causes pungency to become boorishness. (I work in Emergency Management with a specialty in Weapons of Mass Destruction, often abbreviated to NDMS-WMD).

Most of the first submission was the result of research conducted in response to what are called "stipulations" during the Frankhouser case in Boston, Mass in 1987. Stipulations are facts which are agreed to by both sides in order to avoid presenting them at trial and going through unnecessary evidentary hearings on undisputed facts.

In Frankhouser's case, he was trying to present some background that would lessen the impact of his past Klan activities(which included refusing to testify during the HCUAA in the early 60's). He had also been involved in the Pontiac school bus bombings, the Jewelbox bombings in PA ghetto neighborhoods, and the Aerflot office bombing in the early sixties. At the time, I obtained the warrants for his arrest, he was the nominal head of the White Socalist Workers Party which was headquartered in Reading PA (in the "North"). Reading, PA has had a long history of German Bund associations which provided fertile ground for other racist/bigot groups, which as I noted before, had many of the same members.

In the course of researching the proposed stipulations, the prosecution team had to concede those issues in which such proof as the Congressional copy of the Act of Reconcilation, the northern Army of Occupation discipline records, and the written pleas from soldiers about to be shot (capital punishment was swift in those days, one plea went from trial to execution in three weeks).

It was a fascinating period of study which, as I noted above, is never studied by northerners or blacks, yet the record is there. I recently visited the home of Frederick Douglas in Anacostia, D.C in which the walls are covered with ingravings of the numerous Governors Senators and Congressmen elected in the ten years following the Civil War. Many had correspondance with him, and he occasionally chastised them for their graft and sexual license.

He points out in one letter that the Union Army does not head up the black units out of racism, but because the orders are transmitted by handwriting, and the black troops can't read. He further mentions that both his sons are officers in that army, and urges education on the complainants.

No one seems to ask the question how did all these blacks got elected to Federal office in the years following the Civil War, and how did they lose it after ten years of unobstructed sufferage? Ten years is a long time, and I cannot help but feel that here was a missed opportunity to attempt some form of moral reconstruction, which no one, defeated southerner, politically advantaged blacks or victorious northerners, took advantage of.

I have fought a war (Marines, Viet Nam '69) and it was my experience that no one combatant had a clear idea why they were fighting. Some fought because their buddies did, some because their parents raised them "right", others because the prison was the other alternative, or the uniforms could get girls or enhance their otherwise dull lives. SLA Marshall got the closest to my thoughts when he said that, they generally fight for their buddies on either side of the foxhole, and no one else.

Yet, we have individuals who have no doubts (and no clues) as to why these men fought for whatever side. I'm sure there were political, social, economic, and moral reasons for each and every action taken by either side. I'm also sure that some of these reasons were laudable and some were desispicable at the time. But I'm equally certain that those who have not seen the elephant, and portend the motives of those who fought many years before, submit themselves to the knowing glance of those who have.

As I stated in an earlier submission, it's on each individual to seek, find, and understand by themselves. Life's mysteries are not solved by a blue clicky thing.

Again Wavestar, my apologies. My assumptions were no less faultless than yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: GUEST,Wavestar
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 06:47 PM

Greg - That does clear things up. I'd still like to see more of what you have to say, bibliography or not.

Claymore - Apology accepted. I appreciate your personal comments on the nature of war and knowing why one fights it - hearing from one who has done so is often more informative than any generalisation. You are clearly taking a lot of time to offer these thoughts to us, as well as your own knowledge of situations like modern activities of the Ku Klux Klan.

Once again I seek clarifacation regarding the historical sides of your postings. I gather from your recent post that the information you provided, regarding the reasons for the formation of the Ku Klux Klan after the Civil War and during the Reformation period, to provide vigilante justice and force action from the government, is what was taken as a 'stipulation,' yes? These were the agreed upon truths that were taken as basis for the case hearings. (to my understanding.) So, if Forrest disbanded the KKK, what was the later justification for its re-emergence?

Please correct any misapprehensions I may have, I mean no offense, and I'm sorry if I've misread anything.

-J

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 10:31 PM

Stipulations are facts which are agreed to by both sides in order to avoid presenting them at trial and going through unnecessary evidentary hearings on undisputed facts.

Not quite. Stipulations are items that are agreed to by the prosecution and the defense that they will both accept as "fact" for the purposes of the legal proceeding concerned. This doesn't mean that they are necessarily historically accurate, or have been researched and/or documented by historians.Only that the parties have agreed not to dispute them.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 19 Apr 01 - 03:49 PM

Wow, "Newsweek" and "The Washington Post?" If I could pry a copy of one of these fine archaeological journals out of the hands of one of the many rabid archaeologists who stockpile them, I'd probably be forced to agree with whatever Claymore says. Dude, I mean, Kennewick man looks just like PATRICK STEWART! That's, like, CAPTAIN FRIGGIN' PICARD. You can't argue with that shit, man.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 19 Apr 01 - 05:07 PM

Windsong, I have no information on any acceptable reason for it's re-emergence other than to say it was apparent that others, including possibly those from the original band, found, as I wrote earlier, that Lord Acton was right, and that as the northern Occupation forces were withdrawn, the Klan began to fill the vacumn, left by departing carpet baggers, skalawags and black politicians. Certainally within a short period after the end of the occupation, whatever acceptable purpose the Klan might have had, was washed away by it's subsequent actions.

As for how historians "research" the past, I am somewhat sceptical about any facet of history that points in only one direction:

1. If we state that "History is written by the victors" can we then believe any historian's view of the past?

2. If we seek to tell both sides of the story to get at the truth, then aren't we telling lies half the time?

3. While the above to questions demand less of an answer than a gut-check, I tend to believe that if all historians, like economists, were laid end to end, they would still end up pointing in different directions...

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Apr 01 - 06:18 PM

I am somewhat sceptical about any facet of history that points in only one direction:

So, unless information is contradictory, you don't believe it? Or firmly documenting something invalidates it? Too Orwellian for me...

1. If we state that "History is written by the victors" can we then believe any historian's view of the past?,

If you begin with a false premise, you conclusion is also going to be false.

2. If we seek to tell both sides of the story to get at the truth, then aren't we telling lies half the time?

No. Not if its done correctly- something the historians you denigrate are trained to do.

3. ... I tend to believe that if all historians, like economists, were laid end to end, they would still end up pointing in different directions...

This contradicts your first statement, above. Are you praising diversity of historical viewpoint, or condemning it?

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 19 Apr 01 - 06:19 PM

King of the Lepers, I think I've figured out your problem.

If you want to find out what the Post or Newsweek has to SAY about something, you should go to the Op-Ed page (have someone in freshman English explain "Op-Ed").

Now if you read the article (and you have correctly indicated that the cover shows a man who resembles Patrick Stewart as the reconstructed causcasoid face of the skeleton called Spirit Man) you probably need to understand what the words "quotes" and "context" mean (which means going back to the helpful freshman)

A quick count shows that the article quotes or attributes the work of some 28 different sources, including anthropologists and archeologists from Stanford, the Smithsonian and the University of Viginia. The Post article has fewer quotes, but it's reporting on the findings and research papers submitted for "peer review" (back to the freshman) indicating migration from the land bridge which later submerged and became the Grand Banks fishing area between the US and Europe.

Over and above that, the finding of skeletons and artifacts more than 17,000 years old in Viginia, Pennslyvania, and South Carolina when the Bering Strait landbridge would not open for more than 5,500 years and the center of the US would not be clear of the glacier covering it for 6,5000 years, really has the Clovis Point Sino-American crowd in a bind.

I don't think that anybody is advocating calling them the Second Nation or anything, but it's becoming real clear that the Sino-americans had to exterminate someone from the east to stay in the Americas.

The one theory that stops me up is the similarity of the spear points that predate Clovis, and are closer to the ones made during the earlier period, in what is now France. God! If it turns out the French were in the Americas first... It's hard enough dealing with the Quebecois crowd now.

Finally LR, I would suggest that by publishing these theories in two of the major publications in the States, the air would have been filled with protests from those breathless archeologists whose copies you snatched away. To back down the same newspaper that took down a sitting President, why that would make the career of any lower tier college archeologist. Wonder why it didn't happen...?

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 20 Apr 01 - 02:54 AM

Well, Claymore, I don't think these theories have anyone "in a bind." Not even the "Sino-American crowd," whoever they might be. (Please don't tell me you think Siberia is in China...) For whatever reason, you've got a hard-on for crazy "white people invented fucking everything" theories, and that's cool. Knock yourself out. I can't say a thing that will change your mind.

Wait... Maybe the Klan was just a reaction to the extermination of white Aryan Atlantean civilizations of Appalachia my the Sino-American hordes of spear-chucking mammoth jockeys? Hmmm... Did I just "publish" that? Feel free to quote me, Clay.

Ah, and have someone in freshman Latin explain "lepus" to you. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Apr 01 - 06:17 AM

Ah, reconstructing skin tone from cranial bones. Now THERE is a scientific pursuit we can all be confident of.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Kim C
Date: 20 Apr 01 - 01:18 PM

Alex I think there is something to that - supposedly forensics can look at a skull and tell if it belonged to a Caucasian, an African, or an Asian. That has always flummoxed me, like how TV works. I don't understand it at all.

History is kind of a funny thing. We have documented facts about a lot of things, and taking that into account, one would assume that these things might not be disputed. But they are. We like to cuss and discuss about what the documented facts actually mean and whether they're even true or not. Sometimes we find out they're not, when an exciting new discovery is made. Then maybe 50 years down the road, we find something else that makes the first discovery obsolete.

It's a never-ending process.

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Apr 01 - 02:23 PM

Call me a skeptic, Kim. I've been called worse. Today.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Kim C
Date: 20 Apr 01 - 05:50 PM

Not by me, though. ;-)

I think it's important to be skeptical about things. That's how great discoveries are made.

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Apr 01 - 05:54 PM

I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Some Sweet Justice Against the KKK
From: Wavestar
Date: 20 Apr 01 - 09:15 PM

Okay - and once more the air is filled with bile. I guess I'll just step out of this one - I've got a lot of new questions and interests to occupy me next time I have free time in a library (at the moment it's all taken up with research for my actual degree -concept) but I apparently should stop seeking answers here. Anyone offering them is throwing enough insults at someone to make me wish I hadn't asked.

Thanks, though.

-J

PS. Don't make any assumptions regarding my stand and/or scepticism or lack thereof based on where I leave this discussion now - I only asked questions, nevered offered my conclusions. Therefore, no one can bad mouth them. Cute trick I learned in school.