Steve Dunn | June 28, 2004
Anyone seen Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11?

My take is here.

Scott Hardie | June 28, 2004
Yikes, dude -- spoiler warning.

Steve Dunn | June 28, 2004
Oh, sorry.

I thought everyone knew what was in the movie, anyway. And I confess, I never think about spoilers. I am one of the few people I know who doesn't mind hearing about a movie before I see it. I guess I wouldn't have wanted to know the "twist" in The Crying Game, but unless it's something on that level, I don't care.

I realize I'm in the minority there, but I just can't resist. Here's a spoiler on F9/11... Michael Moore does not think very highly of George W. Bush.

Jackie Mason | June 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | June 29, 2004
It's okay, Steve. Yours is not the only blog I've read analyzing F9/11 point-by-point, and I don't read many blogs. :-) I know the famous details already, but not how Moore will present them or what he'll say about them, and I don't know the lesser details. It doesn't make me want to see the film any less. Between "Spider-Man 2" with friends and "The Notebook" with my mother, I don't know when I'll find time to see it, though. Viva Netflix!

Anna Gregoline | July 6, 2004
I thought that the movie was very respectful, actually - Moore toned himself down immensely for this one, and as such, I think it's his best yet. If only he would stop his little Mooresian stunts, he could become someone even more legitimate.

I enjoyed the film, and it made me cry a lot. People crying and upset will do that to me. That said, I want to see it again.

I'm not sure that Moore made his points well enough - he was pretty vague, and spent most of the movie making connections but no conclusions. Perhaps he wanted to leave it more open to the audience, but I thought that HE thought he made himself clear. Perhaps it was nothing more than, "Should you really vote for this guy in November?" as he leaves off with a shot of Bush's puzzled face.

Jackie Mason | July 6, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 6, 2004
The movie really doesn't come off as that partisan. I was surprised.

Jackie Mason | July 6, 2004
[hidden by request]

Mike Eberhart | July 28, 2004
I've been trying to figure out how to respond to this, and so I found this article which basically explains it for me. It the debate between Moore and O'Reilly.... It's long, but a good read. At least to me.

"Last night I reveled in a debate on the Fox News Channel between two of the most diametrically opposed personalities in infotainment, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Moore. O’Reilly apparently had a hell of a time getting Moore to agree to the interview, and was only able to gain the Fahrenheit 9/11 director’s co-operation after agreeing to two rules. The interview would be unedited, and each man would get the opportunity to ask questions of the other.

You can find the full transcript here.

O’Reilly opened the conflagration by pointing out the overwhelming documented evidence, including the recent 9-11 Commission Report, indicating the Iraqi WMD claims made by the Bush administration prior to the war were based on the consensus of international intelligence. Moore has openly called President Bush a liar. “Wanna apologize to the president now or later?” O’Reilly asked. Moore’s response was to continue asserting that the president lied. “He didn’t tell the truth,” he repeated again and again. “That’s almost pathological – I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true.”

Hmm? Where have we heard that before?
… I think that if he didn't know he was lying and was lying, that's even worse. Clearly, he lied. Now if he is an unconscious liar, and doesn't realize when he's lying, then we're really in trouble. Because, absolutely, it was a lie... So I hope he knew he was lying, because if he didn't, and just went in some kind of crazy, psychological breakdown, then we are really in trouble...
That was former Democratic presidential nominee Al Sharpton, commenting on Bush during a primary season debate earlier this year. It was a stupid comment then. And it’s a stupid comment now. The obvious rebuttal, which O’Reilly failed to generate, is that the intent to deceive is a prerequisite for a lie. You can not be a liar without knowing your statement to be false. The president had every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction. His predecessor believed it. His counterparts throughout the international community believed it. The United Nations believed it. He acted on that belief, a belief that now seems to be unfounded. There was not, however, any intent to deceive. Such is the conclusion of the 9-11 Commission and several other investigations. Moore’s repeated assertion that the president is a liar is not only completely unfounded, but an obvious lie in and of itself. Moore depends upon the misdirection of his audience. He knows what a lie is and what is required to become a liar. Yet he circumnavigates all that with the blanket statement “[Bush] didn’t tell the truth.”

As soon as it came time for Moore to ask a question, the conversation spiraled into his trademark propaganda. You can read the transcript. But the short versions is this; Moore does not believe anything is worthy dying for. “Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?... Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?” This is the challenge that Moore seems to get the most satisfaction out of making to his opposition, the same challenge he made to several congressmen in his recent film. The implication is if you personally will not volunteer to fight, or send your own child to fight, you are hypocrite for supporting the war. To my amazement, O’Reilly failed to come back with a solid rebuttal. First of all, there are no American “children” fighting and dying overseas. No parent has “sent” their child to Iraq. Adults, fully capable of making their own decisions, have volunteered to put themselves in harms way to defend freedom at home and abroad. Secondly, what kind of delusional fantasy land does Moore live in where the decision to go to war is dependant upon each citizens' willingness to enlist? When has that ever been a prerequisite to the government fulfilling its basic duty to protect its citizens? As the sands of time fall, the conventions of warfare evolve. In our modern world, terrorism is the next step in that evolution. It cannot be defended against by anything less than preemption. A terrorist does not declare war. A terrorist does not get into a uniform and march to a front. A terrorist does not have rules of engagement. A terrorist simply kills, whenever and wherever he can. At the time the decision was made to forcibly oust Saddam Hussein, there was sufficient evidence to believe that he was an imminent threat, someone who would take advantage of this new convention of war, providing Islamic extremists with the WMD's necessary to destroy their mutual enemy - America. The fact that we have not found evidence that this threat was imminent does not mean the threat did not exist. After September 11th, we can no longer afford to sit back and wait until the evidence of treachery is overwhelming. That’s how September 11th happened in the first place.

Moore, whether he realizes it or not, seems to agree with that logic.
O: Alright, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?

M: No, unless it is a threat to us.

O: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long—you would have let him go?

M: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.

O: Before—from 33-until 41 he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States.

M: There’s a lot of things we should have done.

O: You wouldn’t have removed him.

M: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power.

O: That was a preemption from Michael Moore—you would have invaded.

M: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, woah, I’m trying to stop this war right now.
Nailed! That was O’Reilly’s shining moment. Unfortunately, he failed to push the issue. With twenty-twenty hindsight, Moore would have no problem “doing something” about Hitler before he came to power. Because, apparently, Moore would have known that Hitler was a threat, not only to the United States, but the entire world. Moore would have seen what few others saw. He would have had the foresight to know what was on the horizon and the determination to stop it. Yeah, right. This is the same delusion Democrats hung themselves with regarding President Bush. He should have “done something” to prevent 9-11. Yet, not only did the previous Democratic administration do nothing to prevent it, the Democrats as a whole now rail against Bush for trying to prevent another one! It’s so ludicrous that one wonders how anyone could possibly take Moore and his ilk seriously.

O’Reilly hit Moore with one more point that demonstrated the glaring flaw in the director’s worldview. “If you were running the country, [Saddam]’d still be sitting there… You wouldn’t have removed him.” To this Moore took offense. “How do you know that?” he responded. Moore then launched into a diatribe about people “raising up” and overthrowing their own governments, the implication being that the Iraqis would have dealt with Saddam on their own eventually. Yeah, just like the Jews would’ve dealt with the Nazis on their own eventually. And let's not forget that we had good reason to believe Saddam was an immeint threat. That wasn't made up. That was the intelligence of the time. So basically, Moore's contention is that we should have depended on the Iraqi people to save us, not the other way around.

Moore’s logic is so convoluted that you have to wonder if he believes himself. To review, he believes in a world where he would have single-handedly halted the rise of the Third Reich, where parents sign their children up for the Armed Forces, where anyone who has ever said anything they thought was true (but wasn't) is a liar, where after decades of entrenched oppression the Iraqis spontaneously overthrow Saddam, and another 9-11 is prevented by doing the same thing that was done to prevent the first one – nothing."

Anna Gregoline | July 28, 2004
Very interesting. Mike, do you have a link to the entire transcript?

I'd like to read this entire post again and write a response, but I'll probably not get to it tomorrow.

Mike Eberhart | July 28, 2004
Well, here's the link, like I said, I'm not a web guy, so you'll have to cut and paste it.

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
I'm reading it now, but it's so irritating to read. O'Reilly is just jumping all over Moore. I can't stand that kind of debate - if you're not afraid to engage in the debate, then you don't have to resort to cutting off your opponent and using inflammatory language.

Scott Horowitz | July 29, 2004
Don't forget what channel O'Reilly is on. Fox News is the most conservative news channel on the air.

Mike Eberhart | July 29, 2004
Yeah, it is irritating. Michael Moore that is.... He's so fucking obnoxious. He just doesn't get it. I can't stand the whole "would you sacrifice your child" shit. They aren't sacrificing anything. Everyone in the military is there voluntarily. No one was forced in. My parents didn't sign me up. I joined on my own free will. When you enlist, you understand that you may have to go to hostile theaters, that's what you do. Trust me, probably 95% of the soldiers over there are gung-ho about it. Everyone I talk to here at work that came back from the desert all say the morale is high there. But of course, that's never reported in the media and Michael Moore wants to just convince everyone it's just horrible. He's such a piece of shit....

As for O'Reilly, I didn't think he was jumping on Moore, he was just trying to get him to answer the damn questions. And with Michael Moore style, he kept repeating the same shit over and over again. He's a JOKE. His whole damn movie is a sham. Anyone can edit anything and make it look however you want it, and Moore is the king of doing that. He himself, in an interview I heard a couple of months ago, said that his movie isn't "fair". His words. Anyway, Moore's and idiot and that's all I have to say about it.

Mike Eberhart | July 29, 2004
So what if O'Reilly is on Fox. Foxnews is a damn good channel.

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
I'm going to respond to the article comments that Mike posted, now that I've read the transcript. My comments in ( ).

(It's not really that the President lied - it's that the reasons for going to war were not good enough, it was not worked through with the U.N., and our soldiers died for a reason that was presented as an excuse. That's my take on it. I find it very offensive, that even if they didn't lie, and truly worked on false intelligence, that this President connected Iraq with 9/11 (while Osama roams free to this day), and used WMD as the excuse - when they didn't show up, they suddenly said it was about toppling a dictator - a dictator we didn't care about before we were in another war with him.)

As soon as it came time for Moore to ask a question, the conversation spiraled into his trademark propaganda. You can read the transcript. But the short versions is this; Moore does not believe anything is worthy dying for. “Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?... Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?”

(This second point is ridiculous, because Moore says he would sacrifice himself to remove the Taliban, etc. "O: I would sacrifice myself—I’m not talking for any children—to remove the Taliban. Would you?

M: Uh huh.

O: Would you? That’s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?

M: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.)

This is the challenge that Moore seems to get the most satisfaction out of making to his opposition, the same challenge he made to several congressmen in his recent film. The implication is if you personally will not volunteer to fight, or send your own child to fight, you are hypocrite for supporting the war.

(I admit, this is one of the points in the movie I didn't like - but I understand what Moore is trying to say, even if he doesn't make his point well enough - the government effectively sent the children of America to war - and I think he was just trying to get them to think about that. I didn't like that part of the movie though, it's one of Moore's lame stunts that I wish he'd stop.)

At the time the decision was made to forcibly oust Saddam Hussein, there was sufficient evidence to believe that he was an imminent threat, someone who would take advantage of this new convention of war, providing Islamic extremists with the WMD's necessary to destroy their mutual enemy - America.

(That point is a matter of opinion. I do not believe there was sufficient evidence.)

The fact that we have not found evidence that this threat was imminent does not mean the threat did not exist. After September 11th, we can no longer afford to sit back and wait until the evidence of treachery is overwhelming. That’s how September 11th happened in the first place.

(But shouldn't we wait until the threat actually is credible? Saddam had no indication of attacking the U.S. Osama had made his intentions known for many years.)

So basically, Moore's contention is that we should have depended on the Iraqi people to save us, not the other way around.

(That's not his contention at all. Twisted words again. He was saying that the Iraqi people might have risen up and overtook the dictator. Whether they did or not though is immaterial, as WE DID NOT GO TO WAR TO DISPOSE THE DICTATOR. That might have been a result, but the reason we went was because we thought he was a threat to US, not to his own people, which of course he was. The reason for war changed and became humanitarian after there were no WMD.

Overall, this article was very heavily opinionated, and didn't hold much value to me. The interview was the same, as it was basically O'Reilly jumping all over Michael Moore. No real dialogue took place, and no new arguments were presented.

And I don't think that anyone's mind will be changed by it, or by what we could discuss here either. Conservatives and Liberals are just going to disagree on these points, that's it.)

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
Fox News is a good channel if you like your news slanted to the right, which Mike obviously does.

O'Reilly was jumping all over Moore and asking dumb questions, and he was trying to answer. Same the other way around. What's the argument here? I thought it was a dumb conversation, like I said. And there's no point in debating this here or anywhere else anymore, because no one is changing their mind. Certainly not Mike Eberhart or Anna Gregoline.

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
P.S. Out of curiousity, Mike, did you see the movie? I don't think so, but just wondering.

Mike Eberhart | July 29, 2004
First of all, there have been some WMD's found. They have already recovered and destroyed many warheads filled with Sarin gas. If you don't know what Sarin gas is, it's very deadly stuff. They also found some warheads filled a biological weapon. The name escapes me right now, but it also is considered a very deadly weapon. If these aren't WMD's, then I don't know what is. Also, I'm tired of the arguement that we are sending our children to war. They are not children. They are all men & women, and I can tell you they don't like being called children.

Backtracking a little, we did try to work through the UN. We presented several resolutions to the UN and they say they would abide by them if Irag met certain condition and a deadline. The deadline came and passed, the UN did nothing. We presented another resolution, which the UN vetoed, so we got our biggest ally and did what we had to do. The UN is full of gutless countries. It needs a major overhaul which is long overdue.

As I said before, Michael Moore is the King of spin, and all of his movies are spun the same way. Government is bad, my way is the way it should be done. He's a joke, and a bad one at that.

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
Not very many WMDs. Not the massive piles of weapons we were supposed to find. Enough not found that the government changed their tactic from "WMD" to "disposing a dictator." My feelings on that I already explained.

Ok, sending our men and women to war. Nope, doesn't sound any better to me.

No, the U.N. thing was rushed and while I understand that the U.N. needed to step up more, it's awful to think that the United States gave up so easily trying to work with the world, and said fuck opinion, we're doing our own thing. Immensely damaging to our already shaky relations.

Fox News that you love so much is spun too, don't forget., not just Moore. You'll be hard pressed to find news out there that doesn't have a slant. But just realize that you listen to the opposite spin. You are the same.

Mike Eberhart | July 29, 2004
Anna, I have not seen the movie because I don't want to give Michael Moore one red cent of my money. I have read several websites that disect the entire movie and explain what he was saying, and then go on to explain what really happened. So, that's all I need.

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
You should download it! It's probably out there, and Michael Moore even encourages it.

No, that's not really all you need. It's not fair to critque a movie without having seen it, or reading an accurate transcript of the entire thing (even so, you don't get the full effect.) You can critique Moore, but I don't think it's fair to criticize a movie you haven't seen.

Mike Eberhart | July 29, 2004
There could still be massive piles, Iraq is a pretty big place, and we haven't finished searching everywhere. The sarin warheads found I think numbered about 30. That's pretty significant. One is bad enough. It's enough to kill probably a large section of a city. I'm talking one bomb can take out close to 20k or more people.

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
But was he threatening to use them? Was he threatening to take out the U.S.? Had he made any moves in that direction? I fail to see the threat. Many nations have weapons and have THREATENED TO USE THEM, including North Korea, and we have done nothing.

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
Oh, and by the way: Warheads found in Iraq not chemical weapons, military says Not sure if they're the same ones, but still.

Scott Horowitz | July 29, 2004
I don't even need to present my opinion on the matter, Anna, it is just like you read my mind....

As for Fox News' slant, remember Fox News is a subsidiary of News Coporation, and who is the head of News Corporation? One Rupert Murdock, probably one of the most conservative men in the world.

I'll be the first to admit that I feel going into Iraq was wrong. Afghanistan I believe in attacking, and agree with. We were attacked, information proved that it was through Al Qaeda and Afghanistan was harboring them, we needed to respond.

If you're worried about current threats to the United States, Iraq is not high up on the list. I'd be more worried about North Korea, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. We attacked Iraq for 1 reason and 1 reason only, Bush wanted revenge on Saddam for trying to kill his father.

And, if it is now to "dispose a dictator", we did not need to bomb the shit out of the country and kill thousands of civilians. Baghdad is ruined, their electric grid makes California's look good right now. The country is in ruins, it is going to take years to fix their economy, and now we have to police the country to control the civiliians who feel the US entered for no reason. The world hates us now, and reasons like this give them good cause.

Also, instead of attacking Iraq, we should have put our energy and resources into locating Bin Laden. Capture the man responsible for the largest attack in US history. When was the last time Iraq attacked the United States? And I am not talking about Kuwait in 1990. When was the last time there was an attack made by Iraq on US soil? The only thing I can remember is a planned attack to assinate President Bush (senior). If I am wrong, please tell me (I'm a programmer not a historian)

Wow, I guess I did have an opinion also, but I still agree with everything that Anna said!

Mike Eberhart | July 29, 2004
Some Sarin information:

Sarin is the most volatile of the nerve agents, which means that it can easily and quickly evaporate from a liquid into a vapor and spread into the environment. People can be exposed to the vapor even if they do not come in contact with the liquid form of sarin.

Exposure to large doses of sarin by any route may result in the following harmful health effects:
Loss of consciousness
Respiratory failure possibly leading to death

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
I know about sarin gas. So what?

Scott Horowitz | July 29, 2004
What about the VX gas they have on Alcatraz? Wait, that was a movie, Damn you Sean Connory. Heheheh. They found chemical weapons, big deal. Like we don't have them? Hell, the US arsenal could probably destroy this world 10x over. The point is that Iraq did not have all these "hidden bunkers" full of weapons that Bush was saying.

Mike Eberhart | July 29, 2004
Yes, we have chemical weapons, but we're in the process of destroying them right now. So what.... And how do you know there aren't hidden bunkers? Have you searched the entire country of Iraq to figure that out. How do you know that?

Also, if it was just me running things, I would just blast the entire middle east and turn it into one big parking lot. That's what we should've done.

Anna, I was just posting information. That's all. It wasn't to start anything.

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
We'll never destroy all our chemical weapons.

I don't know for sure that Iraq doesn't have WMD, but I think we would have found SOMETHING by now. It's been over a year.

You think we should have killed everyone? Even innocent women and children? That's sick. We killed plenty of innocents as it is. Don't be surprised when terrorists try to level OUR country, because that's what many of them would like to do.

Sarin gas is ugly - I just fail to see what bearing it has on the conversation, since we haven't found any there.

Mike Eberhart | July 29, 2004
Yes, I think we should level them first. Preemptive strike. Most everyone over there is a potential terrorist. You don't like it, that's the way I am. My most favorite person in the world is General George Patton, and I gaurantee you he would've done the same thing.

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
No they are not. That's like saying everyone in the U.S. is a potential murderer because Charles Manson is here.

I think your stance is disgusting. I don't really know what else to say after that appalling lack of compassion for your fellow man.

Mike Eberhart | July 29, 2004
I really don't see how that comparison between Manson and the middle east is even close. He was one guy, and over there you have thousands of people blowing themselves up and attacking each other. So, how can I have any compassion for that. I don't. If you think that I'm the only one who thinks like this, I'm not.

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
No, you're not. That's sad too.

You said that everyone over there is a potential terrorist. Based on what? I was comparing that to the fact that just because there is at least one murderer in the U.S., that doesn't mean the rest of us deserved to get killed because we *might* kill someone. A very simple analogy.

Melissa Erin | July 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | July 30, 2004
"They found chemical weapons, big deal." It is a big deal. It means that the invasion was not based on a faulty premise. We don't have to like Bush's reasoning, but we do have to acknowledge that his actions were correct based on that reasoning. Now that WMDs have been found, isn't it just as silly for us to say "it's not about the WMDs" as it was for the Bush administration to say that same thing back when the egg was on their faces?

Iraq has been virtually scoured by now. I read back in late winter, I think it was on the anniversary of the invasion, that 84% of the country had been searched. They were closing in on 100% with little confidence that anything else would be found, because they were searching sites in order of most promising to least.

Thanks to the fairly young custom of conscription, virtually every American is a potential soldier. But the idea of every single one of us taking up arms and following Bush's lead into war is ridiculous, just as is the notion that every private citizen in the middle east is a potential terrorist. Let's deal with the bastards who actually want us dead, and try to let the rest live in peace.

Anna Gregoline | July 30, 2004
You LOVE Fox? Wow. Sure, it's nice to have another viewpoint, but I hate how Fox just shoves their view in your face. At least here, just listening to the ads for the evening news are ridiculous - they're the most sensationalist bullshit ever. "Is drinking water poisoning your children? Tonight at 9!" "Are your toenails making you disgusting to the opposite sex? Find out tonight at 9!"

It's just silly. THAT'S primarily why I hate them, not anything political. But yeah, the mom and apple pie 'Merican bit they push all the time bugs me too. Especially when their news is so opinionated.

For anyone who thinks everyone in the Middle East deserves what they get, watch Fareinheit 9/11 (what this thread was originally about) and tell me the screaming woman in Iraq who lost her child to the war deserved it.

Could someone please show me the evidence that they found chemical weapons? I never heard any real weapons were found, and I like to know what we're talking about. Please show me.

Scott Horowitz | July 30, 2004
What I don't get about Fox is how their news is so conservative, yet their programming is so liberal. You'd think with shows like the Simpsons and Joe Millionaire would have liberal news?

Anna Gregoline | July 30, 2004
I'm not really sure that their programming IS liberal. I mean, it's sensationalist...but shows like Joe Millionaire are completely typical gender-role typed. The Simpsons is probably their most liberal show, but they've been on the air a long time so they get away with a lot.

Scott Horowitz | July 30, 2004
What about "When Animals Attack", "Cops", "Family Guy", "Malcolm in the Middle," "Playing it Straight" ( I think that was the one where the girl had to pick the straight guy out of the gay ones), "King of the Hill"?

Anna Gregoline | July 30, 2004
When Animals Attack? How the heck could that be considered at all conversative or liberal?

Cops is very conservative. Police officers putting the bad guys in jail? Sounds like a good upholding of the law, something conservatives would want to see.

Family Guy is pretty wacky, but don't forget it was pulled off the air - only recently has it's popularity brought it back on. I don't consider cartoons to be in the same category though, as sitcoms and such.

Haven't seen Malcom in the Middle.

Playing it Straight is extremely offensive - basically built on the premise and fear that "oh no, he could be gay and you wouldn't know it! It plays off of fear.

King of the Hill - I don't see how this show is liberal either - it's a strong family values show.

Melissa Erin | July 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

John Viola | August 9, 2004
Fahrenheit 9/11

Enjoyed it. Feel the commentary is refreshing and a contrast to the media drones. Could it be better? Yes. Would I like to see more diversity in views readily available via television media instead of having to pay $8 to see it in a movie theatre? Yes. Was paying the $8 worth it to support what Moore is doing? Yes.

Anna Gregoline | August 9, 2004
Michael Moore encourages file sharing of his movie, so if you can find it's free!

John Viola | August 9, 2004
Anna - why didn't you tell me that LAST month??? :-o

Anna Gregoline | August 9, 2004
Sorry, yo. I thought Michael Moore's movie was worth the money?

John Viola | August 9, 2004
Yes it was. But free is so very tempting...

Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.