|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through March 06, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Catherine Eddowes:
The Goulston Street Graffito:
Archive through March 06, 2001
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 10:09 pm |        | Rob and Ally,
Ally and I had a little 'battle of the posts' on another board that sort of leaked over onto this one (my fault). But that's over now. I'd really hate to be responsible for having stirred any bad blood between the two of you. What happened between Ally and I was due to a discussion that I started that was really more political than it should have been and than I intended. But, alas, my brain didn't tell my fingers to shut up in time and it caused things to get heated. I really do not wish anyone to get the impression that I hate the victims of Jack the Ripper or that I at all think that they deserved their fates. Perhaps I was allowing my views on todays world effect my views on Victorian London a little more than I should have. Anyway, it's over and done.
Warwick,
I notice everyone calling you Rick. Is Rick short for Warwick, or is Warwick Parminter just an alias you use? I know this isn't on topic, and normally would have emailed this question to you, but I thought that if I wasn't sure (I couldn't figure out who the hell Rick was at first) than maybe some other absentee returnies or newbies might be having the same wonders. I think Warwick Parminter is a cool name, though, something you might find in a fantasy novel.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 07:16 am | | Hello Tom,
No, Warwick is my real name, when I talk to someone I think names should be known and used. I was nicknamed Rick in 1957 by a nice girl I used to work with, only my sister calls me Warwick nowadays. While I have your attention, when I refered to Americans being the underdogs, it was at that precise moment during the topic of conversation,-- I would have been the only one speaking in America's favour, and when I say that, I wouldn't want you to get the idea that people here make a habit of talking America down,--far from it. But I think you knew what I meant, you were having me on--right? Like your view of England, I'll never be able to regard Americans as foreigners, we're too much alike,-- and I think we like each other too much for that.
Anyway it's nice to talk to you instead of at you,-- (it's all in the game).
Regards, Rick
I hope you will make it to England sometime,
you'll certainly experience something "different". The month May is good. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 10:48 am | | Rick,
Thanks for the reply! Yes, I knew what you meant by the 'American as underdogs' statement. I was just having fun with it since, generally, other countries think of us as selfish and lazy (they may have a point). I do intend to make it to England one of these days. That's where my heritage, as well as much of my interest lies. I've never been out of my country and think your country would be a great place to start.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 01:22 pm | | If someone has an issue with being excluded from The JTR Chatroom, let them take it up with me.
The House Rules are:
No multiple identities (and we will find them out)
No profanity of the serious sort
No slurs, racial or otherwise
No snide and/or insulting remarks about others
No inane conversation
No Yelling in capitals
No board flooding
And others still. We want to conduct decent ripperchat at all times, and we will enforce these rules without mercy and without exception. There are scripts and bots in place to handle the routine stuff and any number of Operators to boot or ban those who will not or cannot follow these simple rules. All are welcome to join us in chat, but only as per the above conditions.
WTM
btmosley@bigfoot.com |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 03:25 pm | | I just want to write a short piece on the graffiti and to answer a couple of earlier questions. In 1888, the Metropolitan and City policeman were accountable to different superiors, the Met were acountable to Warren who was accountable to the Home Secretary. The City police accountable to the Director of Criminal intellegence, who was again accountable directly to the Home secretary. This changed after Warren resigned and Munro took over in 1888, the head of the City police then became directly accountable to the Commissioner of the Met.
The night of the 'double event'. Warren arrived at Goulstone Street specifically to see the graffiti for himself, and he spent some considerable time there. He thought that the graffiti was written to'inflame the mind against the Jew'!In his book 'The Complete History Of Jack The Ripper' Phillip Sugden quotes directly from a letter written by Warren to the Under-Secretary of State on the 6th November 1888. This letter is now in the files at the Public Records Office, it is situated directly next to two(almost)identical copies of the graffiti. According to Sugden, Warren, stated concerning the graffiti, 'having taken a copy'. But at this point Sugden completes the quote, and misses the following line, (and this line is the most important concerning the graffiti!) In full, Warren actually states 'having taken a copy of which I send you a duplicate'! Now this means that he took a copy away from the scene and sent it to the undersecretary of State. But, how did he get this copy? Lets look at the alternatives!
Halse could have taken his copy and given it to Warren. But Halse was accountable to Major Smith, and he wanted the graffiti to remain in place until Smith had seen it, but preferably, he wanted it to remain until it was photographed! Warren, ultimatly in charge of the scene where the graffiti was found, refused! And thus the graffti was removed.
Then, did Halse give his copy of the graffiti to the man who wanted it removed, and to someone that he was not accountable.?
No, if he gave Warren anything at all, he would have made two copies by including one for himself, and if this is true, it shows he actually stood before the text and copied it twice, therefore he would have certainly got it right! If Warren copied it himself(as I believe he did),this reveals that two seperate copies, Halse's, and Warren's both determined that the text said said 'Juwes'!
If Long copied it on Warren's instruction and then gave it to him, this shows that on the night, Long thought, as did Halse, that the text said 'Juwes'.
And again, if another policeman copied it under instruction, and gave it to Warren, on the night, with the text before him, the copier determined exactly the same as Halse, that the text said The 'Juwes'!
Jade, did you find the ship, S.S. Belgunlan, Antwerp to New-York. Look at the Passenger list. Sorry, I am working at night, I have little time for a separate post. The copy of the graffiti in Sugden's book has five lines, but it's out of line vertiaclly. Love ED.
Simon, this was a mistake I thought that you had placed closer bricks at each coin of the 13''1/2'' inch pier. My mistake, sorry.
Careful scrutiny of the table in Mary Kelly's room, reveals, at the back a moccassin slipper, in front of this a small hatchet, however you will need several copies to determine this! |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 03:55 pm | | Dear EC,
Whence your ideas about police chains of command? The Met was responsible to the Home Secretary: the City were responsible to the Lord Mayor. The City Commissioner has never been responsible to the Metropolitan Commissioner, before, during or since Monro's short term of office. (The first Metropolitan Commissioners, like Peel and some subsequent Commissioners wished that there could be one unified national police force, directed from Scotland Yard. But this has always been stoutly resisted by other local authorities.)
Martin Fido |
Author: Jade Bakys
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 04:16 pm | | Hi Ed,
No not yet, I'm still working on it, like yourself, I have a lot of work on at the moment. When I have tracked it Ed, I'll email you.
Love Jade |
Author: Jon
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 07:17 pm | | Ed
Your speculations as to Warren and Who Wrote What may suit your case, but are in reality no more valid that any observers speculations.
And, while were at it.
We have no idea what PC Long wrote (Jews, Juwes, Jewes?), as it was never recorded. What IS recorded is what the Inspector said was written....Juews.
And...further...do not be misled by the various spellings of the word 'jews' in the Coroners Inquest, as none of them are verbatim renditions, all the misspellings are due to the Inquest recorder....no-one else.
What IS important in the Inquest is this...
That PC Long had his notes corrected as to accuracy. And that there was no emphasis on the words being different, but only the spelling.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 07:30 pm | | Hello Mr. Mosley,
Your "House Rules" are a reasonable approach to maintaining order and civility in a discussion forum. Why do you feel that multiple identities, and inane conversation are unsuitable conduct? |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 08:21 pm | | Let me answer that Joseph. When there is one person in the chatroom using 5 different names at the same time and having a conversation with 'themselves', it is distracting to the people who want to have a real conversation (even if our conversation is just as inane as the conversation 'they' are having). We don't mind inanity as long as it is shared among multiple people.  |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 09:13 pm | | Hi, Alegria:
What about if one person thinks they are multiple people? 
Chris George |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 09:30 pm | | Hello,
I've never used the Ripper chatroom before, at least not on the Casebook. I've used the one on Casebook-Productions, however. Please tell me, who are the people allowed to 'boot' others off? When are the chats?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. As for the spelling/sequence of the graffiti, let's just stick with 'The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing'. It makes things far more simpler. |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 10:00 pm | | Hi Alegria,
I see your point, but isn't something similar to that also happening to the Casebook. For example, we have our resident "twit" posing as: Ed Carter, Rosemary O'Ryan, Jade Bakys, et al and people are earnestly replying to these names without realizing that they are different heads from the same hydra. Are we sharing the inanity in this instance, or are we being victimized by it? Should that deception be allowed to continue?
There is some serious, useful debate taking place on a few threads here, and Sybil seems to think it's acceptable to diminish each one by interjecting meaningless, idiotic bulls--t, using the guise of whatever personality suits it.
One of the rules of this forum is that we treat each other in the same manner that we would if we were speaking in person. How is this jackanapes conduct in compliance with this request?
Furthermore, should we continue to allow this "twit" to make fools of unsuspecting new posters? |
Author: Jade Bakys
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 02:00 am | | | Joseph is a bloke who seems to have no doubts about his own self-worth. He is to coin a phrase up himself. He thinks that he is God's gift to the world and the casebook diary. At the saying of his name all knees should bend. Joseph is so far up himself that one day he went to a revolving restaurant and exalted in the fantasy that all the world was revolving around him. A true Big End of the spanner. Sardonic enough for you Joseph? |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 03:16 am | | This is just to easy.
Alas, how is't with you, That you do bend your eye on vacancy And with the incorporal air do hold discourse?
Froth at your lips your spirits wildly creep; And,
as the sleeping soldiers in the alarm, Your bedded hair, like life in excrements, Starts up, and stands on end. O gentle moron, Upon the heat and flame of thy distemper Sprinkle cool pestulence Whereon you look, so that everything you speak Returns as gorge to feed you.
(Hamlet, scene 4: The Queen's Closet) |
Author: Jade Bakys
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 03:40 am | | Dear Joseph no doubt what you presume carries much weight on these boards, and you have a least established yourself (as a bit of prat IMO). I would have avoided you like the plague but alas I am not to be left out of your fantasy, you know the one about the Hydra. I am not Ed, nor am I Rosemary, but you have sown the seeds of doubt. I have never met Rosemary, I have emailed Ed privately in the interest of the board we continued our part of the Hebrew Alphabet theory in private.
Yes it is easy Joseph, because you have the weight of the board behind you, you really don't have to resort to quoting Shakespeare at me. I will not get into a Rosemary/Davidoz posting habit with you, therefore this will be my second and last post to you.
I have a train to catch..bye |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 04:14 am | | So, Ed, Jade, and this Rosemary person are one and the same? I suppose I came on the boards a little too late this time to join in on the game. I don't know much about 'Rosemary', but I can certainly say that I find 'Ed' more interesting than 'Jade'. You should stick with that one.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 04:24 am | | Hi Joseph,
I know you well enough to know 100% that, if you turn out to be wrong about your multiple twit theory, you will be here instantly to acknowledge your error, and apologise publicly to those affected.
I once took great exception to being accused of being someone I wasn't, and doing something I'd never dream of doing in a squillion years, when I was a fresh young thing, newly arrived in cyber space. I cried a lot then, but never got that simple acknowledgement or apology. I will remember, but without anger, because it all gets filed under 'experiences gained' and 'friends I never quite made'.
Apologies to everyone else for the soppy post.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 10:26 am | | Joseph,
I am sorry but it does not appear to me that Jade, Ed and Rosemary are the same people. If you consider them to be twits, then they are all individual twits.
As for what is tolerated on this board, again I can only stress that the rules in the chatroom are for the chatroom only. They do not apply here. We are much less tolerant there. Here we have the option not to read or reply to posts from undesirables. The chatroom is more immediate and therefore requires more regulations.
Related to newcomers being led astray by twits, all newcomers must make up their own mind how to feel about the people here. If they choose to follow the twit path then that is their right. Just as it is your right to provoke and engage those twits. We cannot refuse people the right to post just because we think their ideas are foolish or stupid. If they spam the boards with their stupidity, that is one thing but they have the right to express their ideas in their thread if they choose to. Personally I think the idea of d'onston and the diary are loony..but we have the right to debate their valididty if we want to.
We need to get away from the idea that ALL newcomers are the same person and here just to disrupt our harmony. So far none of the people you have mentioned have been disruptive (make your own judgements as to whether they are irritating). If you find them irritating, ignore them. If they become disruptive, they will be dealt with.
Tom,
Chats can be linked to from the main Topic page of the forum. Scroll past all the topics to the bottom. People who have boot/ban are long time chatters who have proved themselves one way or another. There are no specific chat times but people tend to congregate around 10:00 pm EST. That is a little late for our British friends (and me too!! ) but you can often find one or two people their throughout the evening. |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 11:07 am | | Alegria,
I put my hand up to being a newcomer 'twit'. I'm pleased that I haven't been bundled into this 'Rosemary' ring just for having a strange, if not bizzare, attitude to this here casebook.
Jade says she isn't part of it even though a shadow of doubt has been cast over all of us.
Rosemary,
Time to put your hands up to all your names. I notice under some names attributed to you do have a lot to say, and quite intelligently. Under other names we enjoy your humour. To save confussion for all of us proclaime your names now so we know how to talk to you (under each guise) properly.
Tris
Ps, Alegria, got your name right this time. |
Author: Jade Bakys
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 12:14 pm | | Dear Alegria
thank you for your post, I admit to being a 'twit' at times, I know you are not taking sides, just being the voice of reason. I am not Rosemary or Ed I cannot stress this enough. However I think posters on here have a pack mentality and I certainly will not be posting here again.
If Joseph is allowed to continue making up nasty allegations against posters who are perhaps odd, outspoken, or even stick up for themsleves then anybody that he accuses of being Rosemary/Davidoz is going to have a hard time on these boards. I have made a friend on here whom I email privately,(not Ed) although I do email Ed also now I will have to email him and tell him we can't chat anymore because the seed of doubt has been sown, he might not take me serioulsy, he might but I don't want to compromise him, just a little doubt he has might make him uncomfortable.. Thats the damage people like Joseph do.
Most of you might want to remember why the policeman whoever he was had the Juwes writing wiped form the wall.
Tom your a sycophant, look over the posts two boards that I have been involved in you said were interesting discussions.
Caroline I thank you for having an open mind. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 12:33 pm | | Jade,
we're not all members of a pack, I found your posts interesting, give it another go.
Regards RICK. |
Author: Jade Bakys
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 12:40 pm | | Thanks Rick
I really don't mean all of you, I certainly don't mean you, and many others, but I honestly don't think anybody will take me serioulsy again, it can knock your confidence a bit. Thanks for your kind words though.
Best Wishes
Jade |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 12:45 pm | | Jade,
I do not think that the suspicions of others should be sufficient reason for you to break off any communications you have formed with anyone. I would hope that whomever you are referring to is not weak-minded enough to allow suspicion to color his judgement of you either. In defence of Joseph, we have had a bad run of luck with new posters recently. My opinion (however little it is worth) is that I DO NOT CARE who a poster was in a previous life. I will judge them based on what they post under their new identity. If a poster screwed up royally, regrets it and wants another chance, then I think that the boards should give it to them. Unfortunately it does seem that they keep making the same mistakes over and over again.  |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 12:47 pm | | Oh and by the way Chris....
I am not even going to touch that one! |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 01:37 pm | | Alegria,
You that there has been a bad run of new posters recently, so be it. Even though no finger has been directly pointed at myself I'm already feeling guilty. For that I'm taking myself away from here henceforth and not to return.
I feel sad about this. I feel like I was taken as a mug by certain party(ies) and also I felt in my earlier statements I was far too harsh towards Melvin Harris.
It is a pity I take myself out of this circle as I have been a Ripper follower for the last 10 years at least.
Jade,
Keep going kid. Don't let these buggers grind you down until you are the shameless pulp like I am. But I promise that I will keep reading these messageboards if not only for myself.
Paul,
Keep the anchovies up.
Martin,
Keep being Martin.
Goodbye all,
Tris.
PS
Rosemary, shudder. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 02:33 pm | | Hi, Tris:
It seems to me that you have positive contributions to make. Stick around, please.
Chris |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 02:45 pm | | Chris,
Thanks for the sentiment.
The point is, I feel I have nothing to contribute anymore. All I know is what the Authors have left us. For proper research and worthwhile contribution I wouldn't know where to begin. All I have is ideas, suggestions and plain stupid talk.
For my last message go to the general discussion heading under philosephy and then Freudian.. I have unfinished business there.
Tris. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 03:11 pm | | | Martin Fido, Yes! A couple of nights ago( I am on night duty at present) I finished the 'Official Encyclopedia of Scotland Yard, Fido, Skinner, Virgin publishing, it's a very very good reference book, I would think little slips past you, I would definatley recommend the book. I found the sections about the the City police and the computer crime unit very interesting. ED. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 03:18 pm | | | Jon, I will get back to you, at present I am up to my neck in work( of one sort or another. best Wishes ED. PS Examine that table. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 03:26 pm | | Tris - don't be idiotic! Your request for guidance into the Maybrick maze was (a) absolutely understandable and appropriate for someone suddenly coming onto this whirling battlefield, and (b) was recognized by older posters as eliciting interesting data that had never really come out about the earliest days of that particular little controversy.
So you like to frolic about addressing 'Space Monkeys' from time to time? Why not? We can all let our hair down occasionally. I post frivolity from time to time. I don't believe anybody had you in mind in criticizing recent new posters - (I'm not really sure, I must admit, just who was being criticized there).
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 03:29 pm | | EC - Many thanks for that little puff, which I hope Caz will print out for Keith.
'Night duty?' Sounds as though you're in the Job?
Martin F |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 03:38 pm | | For clarification so people don't get their panties in a twist:
Jade, Tristan, Ed, and Rosemary all began posting at the same time. Because of PREVIOUS new posters who behaved less than stellar-ly, they were judged harshly and in some cases, unfairly.
This is a place where debate is sometimes harsh and not everyone is bosom companions. Talk to the people who will acknowledge you,debate with the people who disagree with you, ignore the people who irritate you, insult the people who really irritate you, leave if you want to, but for God's sake, don't whine. And that goes for EVERYONE!!! |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 03:40 pm | | Hi Martin and Tris:
Martin, I heartily endorse your kudos to Tris for starting a board on which we could lay out with clarity our feelings about the blessed Diary. When wading knee deep in the mire one often loses sight of important facts and Tristan's request for us to summarize the state of play in regard to the much discussed and odd document served as a breath of fresh air. We all have to start somewhere and it would be a shame if Tris feels he has to depart because he is not as knowledgable as some who frequent these boards. Martin, I also endorse the excellent essay that you wrote about so many "facts" about the case being regarded as givens, e.g., there were no farthings beside Annie Chapman's body, when the truth is we just don't know. The value of having someone inquisitive and interested such as Tris is that we have the chance to examine some of these old saws and possibly cast new light on them. Tris, rethink your decision about departing and stay around and enjoy the interflow of information. Tris, let me say that I for one feel most privileged to be able to trade views with the likes of Martin, Stewart, and Paul, and it is equally nice to meet new people such as you and learn along you the ins and outs of the case from authorities such as Martin who have studied and researched the case for so many years. What was that, Martin, did I hear you say back to the time of the Norman Conquest?
Chris George |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 03:46 pm | | Jade,
Sycophant? I've been called many things, but never that. I had to look it up, in fact. Thank you for expanding my vocabulary! It means 'servile flatterer'. Who was I flattering and to what extent did this do service to me? I was simply responding to Joseph's post about you, Ed, and Rosemary being the same person. If it's not true, then so be it. If it is true, then so be it. I won't lose sleep over it. I have only recently returned to the board, so I haven't had the opportunity to make my own observations in this regard. When I read Joseph's post it struck me that he was very strong in this conviction, and therefore I thought it may have been something everyone else was aware of, and I just wasn't aware. If you are all indeed the same person, then my advice is sound. If not, then don't sweat it. Back in the old days when I was 'Red Demon' I used to get accused of being Yazoo every now and then. Since we were both cool with each other, we found the whole thing funny. At least I did, anyway. Stephen could easily check to see if yours, Ed's, and Rosie's posts came from the same computer. Considering my very recent re-emergence on the boards, it's highly possible that I am you and you are I!! Perhaps Jade, Ed, and Rosie-palms are all figments of my imagination! Of course, this will come as a surprise to you as you, by now, are convinced of your own reality. Anyway, it's just a theory.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 03:54 pm | | In reply to John's query about whether the Maybrick's were Catholic I replied in the negative and added the information that several persons involved one way or another in the Diary story were. That was all I said. No deduction, no evidence, no theory just facts.
Thank you Alegria for your wise words concerning twits. And let me add my voice to the requests for Triston (who really does exist) not to go. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 03:55 pm | | Martin Fido, I have just found the section that made me laught so much: The Computer Misuse Act 1990, Page 89:'Bedworth's plea that he was hoplessly addicted to 'hacking' persuaded a jury to aquit him of all charges'! The very idea! But seriously, from a harsh critic,'good book.!
P.S I work in the accident and emergency area. ED> |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 04:10 pm | | Rosemary is not: Tristan, Jade or Ed.
Now, they could all be the Gang of Four working in collusion to cause us to endlessly debate and speculate on their identities rather than Jack's( threw that in for you conspiracy theorists), but unless they have multiple computers with multiple IP's which they can access and post within a minute of one another, THEY ARE NOT the same person. Can we end it now? What WAS the original topic again? |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 04:16 pm | | Dear Joseph,
That which hath made them drunk, hath made me bold.
What hath quench'd them, hath given me fire.
Here, take up this dagger, I will guide thine aim, my Lord.
Rosemarie O'Ryan |
Author: Jade Bakys
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 05:07 pm | | Tom
Yes your quite right I am not who I say I am, and if Stephen needs to check my cookies he will see I am not Ed or Rosemary or Davidoz, and I am not. He is more than welcome to check, I have nothing to hide. I think Joseph just might have something to hide though, it might be a subtle lesson in Jack the Ripper for us all, maybe he is a frustrated Ripperologist in a blind alley, and if he can’t find his way, well you know three or four heads are better than one, not that I have ever seen a post from dear old policeman Joseph re: the Ripper. I have another theory too, I think Joseph and David Radka might be one and the same, them two go together like salt and pepper, or analogue and digital. (Well that’s ma partin shot out of the way, it wont hurt to much, they have both transcended the herd become Ubermensch).
Well Tom you did ask: sycophant was strong, but your comment was rash and that’s your opinion, but you didn’t really think about it, you just assumed we were Sybil the twelve headed hydra. Quite a vacuous analogy that, Sybil was a very sick woman, more to be pitied than ridiculed.
Tris you are a very nice guy, you were never included in the three- headed hydra theory, and I think everyone knows that. You keep posting! Keep buying the pints and keep a red wine for me, no Vodka though thanks J |
|
|
|
|
