Alpine Summit

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Ah, Science!

I saw a link to this blog from the latest installment of Carnival of the Vanities. It's a general list of links to blogs with interesting things to say. Don't ask me why mine isn't on there... I have no idea why. Anyway, the story that got Five Points on the map (so to speak) is here. I swear, this is how I view a lot of what scentists do. "Right now, we're hoping to publish a paper on the migration pattern of flies!" Absolutely no practical application, but compellingly interesting.

If it wasn't for people with such morbid curiosity such as myself, scientists would have been hanged as heretics long ago. Instead, they're given large government grants. Oh well. Maybe it would be cool to see a meteor explode... I've never seen that.

|

What a Looker!

I figured I'd find something a bit more appealing to the eye than the absolute bare minimum template offered by Blogspot. Despite my utilitarian leanings, I've found one that kind of strokes both my sense for utility and my desire for slightly more appealing graphics. Let me know what you think.

|

War of the Worlds

So I've read in a couple of places that "War of the Worlds" isn't such a great movie. Lee comments on it and warns of spoilers- though if you know the story already, nothing should come as any great surpise. Comments were also made by a blog I just found today: GOPVixen.

Neither of these reviews seems to be very glowing. I never really had any great motivation to see this movie and now that two different people have said it's terrible, I'll probably (at most) rent it.

|

Conservababe Linkage

Michelle Malkin, my heroine, has posted several great links to some good idle reading if you're so inclined. I especially liked the Pro-American in Paris link. I know there are more people like him in France, but just not enough. I will continue to pray for France's deliverance.

|

A Glimmer of Hope?

So they finally report something most nerds have known for a while now. Nerds make better boy(girl)friends. For me, there's nothing sexier than a girl who not only takes care of herself, but has a brain to boot.

They also include a link to an online nerd dating site which, I think, is a novel idea. I'm not one to use (or have faith in) said dating sites but then, maybe I'm just not lonely enough.

|

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Black Gold

Drudge reports that China is telling the U.S. to stay out of the Unocal bid.

China expressed opposition to interference in a government-controlled oil company's bid for the U.S.-based oil company Unocal, state media said Wednesday.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said that China National Offshore Oil Corporation's $18.5 billion offer for Unocal was "normal commercial activity between enterprises."
So let me get this straight: it's okay for the Chinese Government to own 70 percent of a company and make a bid for a major oil company in another country? Okay, I can live with that (though I don't like it). But then they criticize the U.S. Government for commenting/getting involved? Why are they so concerned with what our government thinks of this deal? Given the strains between China and the U.S., I think lawmakers are right to be concerned about losing a major company that deals with a product that is strategically important to the entire country. It isn't like they're making a bid on buying K-Mart or anything. I don't usually wear my tinfoil hat, but this just strikes me as a back-door ploy to start controlling the U.S. economy.

When a company is owned by a government to the tune of 70 percent, it makes me wonder who's motivations are driving the company's actions- private investors et. al. interested in making money? Or the government that has little need for more money? Since they're effectively one and the same in this case, who knows?

And another thing: do you think China would allow us to buy out any of their major cash cow companies where their national security was a factor? I think not. I'm really hoping this Unocal bid does not get accepted.

|

All You Need is Love

So apparently, Rice's stance on Iran has nothing to do with their complicit attitude toward terrorists, or their rogue nuclear program, or their human rights violations. No, it's because she was dumped by an Iranian in college. Okay, fair enough. But let's look at the source:

"The reason that the US secretary of state attacks Iran is because she had her heart broken by a young man from Qazvin while they were students," a confident Shokrollah Attarzadeh was quoted by the ISNA agency as saying.

Somewhat mysteriously, he added: "This is the result of an investigation by a woman MP, who cannot be named."
So, according to a person like this who knows someone who can't be named, Rice is just being irrational and immature. "Those crazy emotional women shouldn't be making policies!" I just can't take it at face value. This sounds eerily like what they did to Katherine Harris during the 2000 vote count. Also, I'm not going to believe this, simply because it's (again) from an anonymous source. Probably the same one Newsweek and that British reporter used.

|

Priorities are a priority

Glenn Reynolds has a pretty good summary of how the media has been reporting Bush and the war in Iraq as well as how Democrats have been behaving lately.
It's a war. The way to win it is, well, to win it. Deadlines are for people who care more about other things than they do about winning.
I don't think I could put it any better than that. As a matter of fact, what's the deal with that? I mentioned the other day how Democrats will twist and contort to try and occupy two positions at the same time. Well, here's a great example. On the one hand, they say our job is done in Iraq and we should let the Iraqis have their country back, etc. On the other hand, they're saying how it's been a dismal failure and that we've done absolutely nothing to help the Iraqis.

While I'm on the subject of Iraq, I was watching the daily show last night (but not long as I started to feel dirty) and they showed clips of Rumsfeld and Cheney in interviews saying they don't know when the pullout will be- then started quoting numbers to the intervewer. This was the dumbest thing they could have done because it's then taken as an "unofficial" deadline by liberals that hasn't been met, and so, Bush lied or some other such nonsense. They didn't know how long it would take before the war, they didn't know during the war, and they still don't! This is a WAR. Wars are messy, unpredictable and tragic. They can also bring about change quickly and help lots of people in a relatively short period of time. I might add we're actually only still there because the new democratically elected government of Iraq, that wouldn't exist if not for us, has asked us to stay for the time being.

I seem to recall a list that I saw once of countries who owe their entire existence to the United States. I'll try and find it and post and update later.

|

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Zombies are a reality!

This is weird. Not really sure what to think about this other than weird. I guess I'm speechless (for a change).

|

Kingdom of God

(From LGF) So apparently, the National Council of Churches is using it's pull as a religious organization to espouse the political leanings of its leaders. It's the usual BushitlerHalliburton Bush-lied-children-died moonbatness- but from an unexpected place. So let's go through their message point by point, shall we?
This year our nation is at war as we observe the 4th of July, a day that honors those founders who spoke out for independence from tyranny. Today in Iraq a cruel dictator has been deposed, yet the suffering of the Iraqi people continues. Mandated elections have been held, yet the future of Iraq remains as uncertain as ever. Day by day the cost of this war for the United States, for Iraq, for peace grows clearer. No weapons of mass destruction have been found; no link to the attacks on September 11, 2001 has been shown. It has become clear that the rationale for invasion was at best a tragic mistake, at worst a clever deception.
Okay, do they not realize that the founders of the country didn't simply "speak out" against tyranny? They forcibly removed it from their lives. Indeed, people have been delivered from the boot of Saddam, and yes the country's future is uncertain, but the suffering of Iraqis is doubtful. At least, their suffering is far less than it was under Saddam. Should people committed to its success simply pull out now, Iraq could still fall back to a dictatorship or worse. No WMD have been found- but that doesn't mean they were never there. We know he had them when he gassed the kurds, and the UN for over a decade passed resolution after resolution telling Saddam to give up the weapons they knew he had. Further, nobody EVER made a connection with Iraq and 9/11 (except overzealous liberals) and was never an excuse to go to war with Saddam. If you may recall, Bush declared war on terror not just those responsible for 9/11.
As people of faith, we believe in the transcendent sovereignty and love of God for creation, and that the responsibility of human beings is thus to pursue justice and peace for all. We also believe that, as the biblical prophets of old, who in faithfulness to God spoke out to a people and a nation they loved, in humility before God we too are to speak to a land and people we love. As religious leaders we invite others who share our affections and dismay to recognize the time has come to speak out.
The responsibility of human beings ... to pursue justice and peace for all?! What do they think has happened since Saddam was ousted? Is getting rid of a brutal dictator who hired professional rapists, and who tortured his prisoners not a move towards- or at least promoting- justice? Simply not fighting or challenging powers of evil on Earth is not peace and, if it is, then evangelism is not "pursuing peace for all" since you are directly challenging other people's faith. Sure there are times for diplomacy and words, but you do not give evil quarter.
The time has come to say:
- NO to leaders who have sent many honorable sons and daughters to fight a dishonorable war;
- NO to the violence that has cost over seventeen hundred American lives, left thousands grievously injured, and killed untold numbers of Iraqis whose deaths we are unwilling to acknowledge or count;
- NO to the abuse of prisoners that has shamed our nation and damaged our reputation throughout the world;
- NO to the price tag for this war that has rendered our federal budget incapable of adequately caring for the poorest of our own citizens; and,
- NO to theologies that demonize other nations and religions while arrogantly claiming righteousness for ourselves as if we share no complicity in human evil
So lets go through this: Liberating 20 Million people is "dishonorable?" War costs lives, they were, indeed, honorable people who gave their lives for a purpose they considered honorable. Also, how can you resolve calling them honorable if they were performing dishonorable acts? Abuse of prisoners? Oh, you must mean this. Price tag? Since when is the price of a war the concern of churches? Oh, THERE it is. A socialist ideology under it all. America's poor is better off than some other countrys' middle class (i.e. England). Also, what good is celebrating the freedoms afforded in America if there's no way to make it last? I'm not sure what this last one means. Is this some tongue-in-cheek way to say Christianity is no good? If so, why is it coming from "Christians?" Again, should these member churches be evangelical in anyway, they must be convinced in the superiority of Christianity over all other faiths... further they should believe Christianity is the one true faith. Claiming righteousness for "ourselves" is not what is done; Claiming righteousness for God and "our" struggle to follow him is.

The time has come to say:
- YES to foreign policies that seek justice rather than domination, compassion rather than control;
- YES to an early fixed timetable for the withdrawal of United States troops and the establishment of a credible multinational peacekeeping force;
- YES to the honoring of human rights even for our enemies and for a restoration of our reputation as a people committed to the rule of law;
- YES to spending and taxing priorities that put the poor first, providing health care, housing, employment, and quality education for all, not just the few; and,
- YES to a restoration of truth telling in the public square and to “last resort” rather than “first strike” as the criterion for the use of force to restrain evil.

Yes to policies that seek justice? This is just repeting their above statements on what actions are actually "just." Timetable for withdrawl of the US and a takeover of a multinational peacekeeping force?! What the hell is this? What is so special about a multinational force as opposed to the US doing it, and how does this have anything to do with churches, again? Again with the socialist dogma about how we're supposed to give all our money to the poor. Not so sure why that's in a statement about ending war, but whatever. Jesus said you are to help your fellow man- not steal from your neighbor in order to do it. The war was a "last resort." Bush gave Saddam every opportunity to come clean and cooperate. He didn't do it, so Bush invaded and forcibly enacted justice in Iraq.

On the day we celebrate our freedom, we acknowledge that the freedom promised in the toppling of a dictator has been replaced by the humiliation of occupation and the violence of a civil war. The sacrifice of brave men and women has been used to serve policies that have diminished our nation’s prestige and our capacity to be agents of justice in the world.

What civil war? Most of the insurgency in Iraq is coming from people who came to Iraq from another country! Humiliation? Most Iraqis are happy we're there to make sure their infant democracy takes root. Nation's prestige?! Since when is prestige a factor in doing the right thing? What is it with this justice stuff? Anyway, my thoughts on that are above... again. As for the "capacity to be agents..." who would care about our "capacity" if all they want is the US out and multinational forces in?

I'm absolutely floored that Christianscould hold these positions! Disregarding the fact that what the country does is really no substantive concern of theirs to begin with, their positions are completely antithetical to a Biblical concept of "justice" and "peace." How would leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq? I'm sick of this utter condemnation that America is the only country in the world that can do wrong! For all this talk about peace and justice, they don't really outline anything.

UPDATE: It seems this National Council of Churches, USA is nothing more than a clearing house for leftist ideas. A quick look at their main homepage is evidence of that. So, are they a religious organization or a political one? I'll leave it for you to decide.

|

Will You Wear This Ring?

Interesting article at Live Science about global warming.

Such a solution with an issue that may not even be happening is interesting to me. When weathermen can't get it right 4 days into the future, these scientists are predicting the climate 100+ years from now. Amazing.
Nonetheless, most scientists think our climate has warmed significantly over the past century and will grow warmer over the next hundred years. Various studies claim the planet is destined to warm by anywhere from 1 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit over the next few centuries.
I also have an issue with the price of all this:
And the price tag would knock the socks off even a big-budget agency like NASA: $6 trillion to $200 trillion for the particle approach. Deploying tiny spacecraft would come at a relative bargain: a mere $500 billion tops.
Who's going to pay all that money? Even the lowball estimate isn't very low. If everyone pays, how will the prices be split for each country? What about the animals? How will the added light affect them?

The concept is interesting, but there are just too many variables for me to get behind it.

|

Monday, June 27, 2005

Hating the Sin

Lee over at Right Thinking from the Left Coast comments on yet another predator of the poor and disadvantaged.

It's terrible when I see people who profess to be Christian behave in such a manner. To be more concerned about the money than the miracles or power of God makes me think they're filled with something other than the Holy Spirit.

It's also a shame that my religion is represented by such people. It would be arrogant of me to say the man isn't a Christian, but such concern for material wealth and lack of faith in God's work is disheartening.

It seems the Devil's favorite tool is the Bible... just look at the temptation of Jesus.

Update: Some really interesting points/arguments in the comments section.

|

What Media Bias? Part 2

A couple of references at Michelle Malkin's blog show that most people aren't willfully ignorant or stupid.

Like Ms. Malkin says:
Laughably too little, and much too late. The MSM has been left in the dust by milbloggers and alternative media. Who needs the NYT with far superior reportage and analysis from the likes of Austin Bay, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, Blackfive, Belmont Club, and Victor Davis Hanson--for starters--available at your fingertips?
Indeed. I've always felt that the media's defeatist reporting on the Wars have hurt morale among our troops at the very least. In some cases, it's actually cost lives (read: Newsweek Koran debacle). I view the MSM as an advertisement. I'll trust what they're telling me is true, but I'm still going to check it out for myself before investing in reporting as legitimate. What's more, I actually lend more credence to places like the Mudville Gazette and people like VDH than I do CNN or NBC... or CBS and Dan Rather.

|

Business Rose

Here are some comments about women in business. Basically saying that female leaders in business are sorely needed for businesses to succeed. I can't say I completely agree with that view.

My own personal experience with female bosses has been from the Officer's Club on the Air Force Academy. My shift managers were all men, but the GM for the club was a woman. I wasn't really a fan of her in the sense that nobody really enjoys their boss. In retrospect though, she was fair and no-nonsense (as were the shift managers) and was a good boss overall.

My mother's experience with female bosses though has been somewhat less glossy. Backstabbing and manipulative behavior was her experience. Which is why she would much rather work for a man than a woman any day of the week. In fact, every time she worked under a female, the same cat-fighting and vindictive nature would rear it's ugly head.

In a more general sense, women CEOs have not had the greatest track record. the CEO of HP was fired after taking a hugely succesful on-the-rise company and running it into the ground. It may be she was simply a victim of circumstance, but I think it had more to do with bad decisions on her part. Then there's the case of E-Bay where just the opposite happened. The CEO took a small, relatively unknown company, and turned it into the Wal-Mart of the Internet. There have been a good share of bad male CEOs as well (i.e. Sunbeam, Inc.), but because there are far more male leaders, the percentages favor men as business leaders over women.

I'm not saying women can't or shouldn't be leaders, but simply that they tend to be far more controlling and overbearing in their leadership style- internally. Externally, they tend to be more empathetic and "polite" towards their competition- meaning the interests of the company can get put on the back burner, a huge no-no in the CEO job description.

I think anybody (male or female) aware of and able to address their shortcomings as a leader can overcome them and be a great leader. Women should recognize they aren't really good at being competitive or being as pragmatic about running the company, and men should recognize that they really aren't good at communicating with others in a constructive manner or building alliances.

This certainly doesn't apply to ALL men and women- but in general, it just seems men (despite their shortcomings) make better overall business leaders. I just think the aggresive nature of business is favors men over women.

|

Honoring the Memory of An Anti-Patriot

The DesMoines Register has a tear-jerker story about Rachel Corrie's parents and their struggle to aid the enemies of America's friends.

For those of you who don't remember who Rachel Corrie is, she stood in front of a bulldozer and got run over defending Palestinian homes. Unfortunate, but her own fault. I feel little sympathy for her considering that the bulldozer was there to demolish homes known to be entrances to tunnels where explosives and other weapons were smuggled into Israel. LGF has documented (on numerous occasions) a lot of the Rachel Corrie story. I feel little remorse or sense of loss this person died- though it is unfortunate. What remorse I do feel, however, is that I think that her world view is a product of her environment instead of her nature. This piece from the DesMoines Register only furthers my opinion. This is mainly due to the fact that her parents are as left-wing as she was.
Craig and Cindy last saw their daughter in December 2002. They were living in Charlotte, N.C., at the time, where Craig was working in reinsurance. Cindy was doing some work against the impending Iraq war, going to school to learn French and was in a choir.
Here is a picture of Rachel teaching kids in Palestine how to burn the American flag. This is a stark contrast to the picture featured in the DesMoines Register which shows a much more docile- but seemingly equally angered- Rachel.

|

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Naked Justice

So now that John Ashcroft is no longer in charge of the DOJ, they have finally taken down the enormous drapes that covered the breasts of two statues of justice in (I believe) the Supreme Court.
Spirit of Justice, with her one breast exposed and her arms raised, and the bare-chested male Majesty of Law basked in the late afternoon light of Justice's ceremonial Great Hall.

The drapes, installed in 2002 at a cost of $8,000, allowed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to speak in the Great Hall without fear of a breast showing up behind him in television or newspaper pictures. They also provoked jokes about and criticism of the deeply religious Ashcroft
I thought this was a total waste of tax dollars when it was done and a terrible show of extreme reactionary behavior. Some have argued that the depiction of the statues has meaning and, quite honestly, I have no clue why women's breasts are such a hot button for people. Sure it has to do with the culture in some respects and I certainly wouldn't want to see topless 80 year old women, but I just don't see the pornography factor with them. Kudos to Alberto Gonzales for taking them down.

The question now: what will they do with the drapes? I hope they don't just throw them out... for $8,000 dollars I would imagine it's pretty nice material that could be used SOMEWHERE.

|

New Links

So I figured I should probably add a blogroll if I ever intend to gain any modicum of respectability in the blogsphere (though I have realistic expectations on that happening). Anyway, I've just added the usual suspects: LGF, Instapundit, etc. I hope to add more of the lesser known blogs as I happen upon them. However, since I just started blogging this week, I'm not really "equipped" for such a task.

You may notice the blogroll is slanted a little to the right-side of politics. If you have any SANE left-wing blogs you would like me to check out (KOS and Democratic Underground don't count as "sane"), please feel free to leave a comment and I'll check into it.

|

Friday, June 24, 2005

What Media Bias?

Oh. THAT media bias.

People who think the news (especially the NYT) is unbiased or that reporters don't have a political axe to grind are either incredibly stupid, or willfully ignorant.

|

Defending the Indefensible

Conservative Commentary has a great point about religious "hate speech." Boris Johnson, a member of the house of commons gave a great speech yesterday and frankly, I'm amazed he hasn't been burned as a heretic. But his statements are valid:
If a religion is worth believing in, it ought to be strong enough to withstand the most scurrilous and monstrous attacks. If a religion is worth believing in, those assaults should diminish the critics and not the religion itself. Whether or not a religion is worth believing in, it is the sovereign right of every human being to say what exactly he or she thinks of it.
This would seem like fairly obvious stuff but I guess not if they're even debating this issue.


UPDATE: I read a bit further into the thread ('statements' link) and the Hon. Johnson mentions the following:


Here is the Koran on those with a lack of correct religious belief:

As for the unbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skins shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods."

On Christians, it says:

They surely are infidels who say god is the third of three; for there is but one god; and if they do not refrain from what they say, a severe punishment shall light on those who are unbelievers."

On Jews, it says—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) agree that this amounts to incitement to hatred against certain people on the grounds of their religious belief? I take it from her silence that she does. On the subject of the Jews, the Koran says:

"Because of the wickedness of certain Jews, and because they turn many from the way of god we have forbidden them good and wholesome foods which were formerly allowed them; and because they have taken to usury, though they were forbidden it; and have cheated others of their possessions, we have prepared a grievous punishment for the infidels amongst them."

On the subject of Jews and Christians, it says:

"Why don't their rabbis and doctors of law forbid them from uttering sinful words and eating unlawful food? Evil indeed are their works. The hand of god is chained up cry the Jews. Their own hands shall be chained up and they shall be cursed for saying such a thing.

"Believers do not take Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another's friends. If anyone of you takes them for his friends then he is surely one of them. God will not guide evil doers."
Oh man! That is some good stuff! He goes on to ask if this would not be considered "religious hate speech" under the bill being debated. The whole bill was created to stop hatred against Muslims after twelve TWELVE attacks against Muslims follwing 9/11. How ironic would it be that the Koran became outlawed under a law intended to protect it over all other faiths?

UPDATE: You can do a search for these quotes from the Koran here.

|

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

|

A Lot of Time to Waste

Michelle Malkin mentions this 'docutainment' film to be released by the guy who did "Super Size Me." It's the usual Moore-esqe drivel about how it's America's fault, the Muslims are the victims of 9/11, blah, blah, blah.

I can't say I have much of a problem with this film, though.


When I met David Stacy, about halfway through his 30-day experience, I was amazed at how uninformed he was. This new "expert" on Islam never heard of Wahhabism--the extremist Sunni strain of Islam that dominates Saudi Arabia and informs the terrorist-breeding madrassa schools throughout Arab and other Muslim lands. He was unfamiliar with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. He did not believe me when I told him that Hezbollah had murdered hundreds of U.S. Marines and civilians in Beirut and elsewhere. He seemed mystified to learn that President Bush shut down American Islamic charities, like the Holy Land Foundation and Global Relief Foundation, for funding Hamas and al Qaeda.


Such an outlook is exactly what I would expect from so-called "open-minded" people concerned more about blaming America than finding the real root of the problem- which is militant Islam. Such ineptness on the part of the author will surely show through the paper-thin plot. On the other hand, I guess I should be worried about all the loons out there who will take this at face value and think it's the definitive work on American Muslims.

To Morgan Spurlock who thinks (I assume) we can reason with these people non-violently, answer me this: how do you non-violently reason with a person who is unreasonable and bent on killing you?

|

I love you, but I hate you

Ann Coulter's latest column has a point:


So they're not exactly raping the detainees with dogs at Guantanamo. (I still think the gift shop T-shirts that say "My dad went to Guantanamo and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" goes too far.)

The only question is: Why do Democrats take such relish in slandering their country? If someone was constantly telling vicious lies about you, would you believe they supported and loved you?"


I always stare in astonishment at liberal's positions on issues. It's truly amazing to see them twist in the wind to simply be against whatever conservatives happen to think. If it involves the U.S. it's always the other guy who is right and it's our fault somehow. But don't you dare question their patriotism.

|

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Durbinizing Rove

Every time the left manages to piss off a lot of people (which is quite often in my case) they try turning it around putting their accusers on the defensive. Every time. This is why I'm not surprised they're having such a hissy fit over Rove's statements on how wishywashy they are when it comes to America's enemies. It also comes as no surprise to me that this "faux outrage" comes only days after Durbin's statements. He later "apologized" for the comments but that isn't the point.

The fact that the Dems would be outraged at Rove after talking about the liberals (not Democrats) is amazingly hypocritical considering what Dean has called Republicans ("white Christian party"). Not to mention some of the things Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer have been saying over the past 3 months. Again, Democrats/Liberals get a complete pass when it comes to inflmatory language, and Republicans are crucified at the slightest hint of strong speech. Despicable.

|

My First Post!

Thanks for stopping in! This page will primarily focus on my thoughts involving the business world and politics; though, it will also serve as my soapbox for whatever random thoughts I might be having. Anyway, feel free to bookmark this page and leave comments where necessary.

The title of the blog comes from my living in Wyoming, USA. Living at 7200 feet gives you a great vantage point to see what's going on below you. Indeed, there are some places that are higher, but there are more places that are lower.

Again, welcome and stay tuned for what (I hope) will become a popular blog!

|

Contacting Me


This post is set up for people to contact me about a story or for any other reason. I don't want to post my e-mail for the sake of spammers, so if your comments are private, just give me your e-mail in the comment and I'll e-mail you directly. I may set up a devoted e-mail later at some point, but for now this is it.

Quick tip on posting your e-mail: don't put "joe_somebody@hotmail.com" type it as "joe_somebody AT hotmail DOT com" or something similar that isn't actually your e-mail address. This way you have a better chance of not getting spammed. Feel free to do as you like, though, this is just a suggestion. Apologies to Joe Somebody if you get more spam from this post.

|