The Pope and his apology for the Inquisition : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I found the Pope's admission that the Inquisition brought the Church bad publicity. The Inquisition was created to find out and punish heretics. He has already apologized for Galileo, mistreatent of Jews,...

The following excerp taken from googlenews.

Pope Sorry for Inquisition

Pope says sorry for Spanish Inquisition

NOBODY expects an apology for the Spanish Inquisition. But yesterday the Pope gave one, asking forgiveness for the wave of torture, trials and executions the Church unleashed across Europe in its hunt for heretics.

Pope John Paul II asked forgiveness in a letter read out at a news conference at the Vatican yesterday marking the launch of a book on the Inquisition.

He repeated a phrase from a 2000 document in which he first asked pardon "for errors committed in the service of truth through use of methods that had nothing to do with the Gospel" - shorthand for torture, summary trials, forced conversions and burnings at the stake. ..... Pope Gregory IX created the Inquisition in 1233 to try to curb heresy, but Church officials soon began to count on civil authorities to fine, imprison, torture and kill heretics. It reached a peak in the 16th century to counter the Reformation.

However, Agostino Borromeo, professor of religious history at Rome’s Sapienza University and curator of the study to be published in the book, said that while about 125,000 suspected heretics were tried in Spain, only about 1 per cent were executed, far fewer than commonly believed.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (, June 16, 2004


The Pope has shown courage in admitting some wrongs commited in the name of the Church.

I had read the 3 volume story of the inquisition by Lea, over 1000 years ago. What I found out, caught my atention.

Agotino Borreo claims 125,000 were summoned just by the Spanish inquisition. By reading Lea, now that means that at least 100,000 of them had to be Catholics. The Church was actually trying its own people for heresy by false accussations!!!

If around 2000-to-3000 people were burned, that is still a lot.

One hopes history won't repeat again, but by listening to the hardening in Catholic beliefs among some members in this forum, I wonder,....

When I hear tortre by USA forces in Iraq is OK,... I shriek.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (, June 16, 2004.

The Inquisition, started by the Spanish Domingo Guzman (Saint Dominic) to iradicate the Waldenses, some of my ancestors on my mother's side was hard in Southern France. Entire towns were destroyed. Rather killed just ones than heresy would spread, was the rallying cry.

The Waldenses are still around as a Church, even in Rome.

I asked the Pope for an apology for Peter Waldo. No answer yet. I will never get one, I know.

But a least, he has been courageous in admitting some of the evils.

The Christian Yhwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (, June 16, 2004.

sorry, moderators, to interject with something off-topic... but elpidio, no one in this forum has ever said "tortre [sic] by USA forces in Iraq is OK", nor has anyone eluded to that.

-- jas (, June 16, 2004.


You are in NO postion to ask the holy Father to apologise for anything! You shold apologise to him for leaving the Church started by Jesus Christ over 2000 years ago.

Knowone has said any such nonsense that you said Catholics said in this forum. Can you show me a link? I didn't think so.

Since you are the guy with all the dreams maybe you dreamed this up?.... :-) May I suggest a little less spices with the foods you eat? I have read that eating to much spices can make some people hallcenate.

-- - (, June 16, 2004.

Please try to get the whole story, not the comic book version. The Inquisition wasn't "1000 years ago"! That would place it in the 1000's, before the Norman invasion of Britain (1066) before the first crusade (1098)...before the Spanish reconquest of the Iberian penninsula!

Secondly, the "inquisition" wasn't solely a Spanish thing. It was much akin to the FBI - or the concept of a special investigative arm of the state. And the Kingdoms of Portugal, Spain, France, and various principalities and states in the Italian penninsula (Italy was only a "nation" after 1870) had "inquisitions".

These investigations varied country from country and took place over a 400 year period from about the 1200's to the late 1600's.

Now, whereas we have this romantic or quaint view of "heretics", at the time heretics were the equivalent to anarchists and rebels - and those in Southern France were often engaged in open rebellion and warfare with the King and nobles (as well as local bishops and of course, their Catholic neighbors). They weren't Franciscan friars walking around talking to the birds and preaching peace and tolerance. By preaching against crown and church, basing sizable chunks of morality on novel interpretations of scripture and cosmology (dualistic view of God or gods), their "heresy" threatened the very civilization of Europe.

I don't think you want to associate yourself with a sect that believed in metaphysical dualism, in a material god (bad) and a spiritual god (good).

I also don't think it's too wise to assume that all evil actions can be laid at the feet of the "of course" corrupt Catholics of those times and canonize all these unknown heretics as innocent lambs led to the slaughter. It was a civil war - in an age of exterior invasion by Muslims to the South, Mongols to the East, and untamed Northern tribes just barely Christianized. If a sect starts growing with a new gospel (and it was new) that disputes the fundamental constitution of society (King and nobles) as well as culture (Christ founded 1 Church and 1 Church only, giving its apostles the mandate to make disciples of all nations and promising to be with THESE AUTHORITIES until the end of time), you are going to have warfare sooner or later.

If you don't think so, ask yourself the basic question: why is it that the early Christians survived the Roman persecutions (we don't hear mention of entire villages wiped out) whereas these supposedly innocent sheep were virtually annihilated?

The colossal difference is this: the early Christians didn't try to create their own state within a state: they didn't wall off into their own ghettos, carve out duchies or princedoms within the Empire. They lived and witnessed and died in the midst of all cities of the Roman empire...being everywhere, the early Christians were truly catholic - universal, transcending race, tribe, region, and culture.

But the heresies weren't like this. Most of them were regional, springing up within this or that geographical locale, each seizing political control of their piece of ground...each assuming to itself the apocalyptic view of being the "New Jerusalem".

Whereas the early Christians didn't try to overthrow the Roman system of law and government (no uprising, no guerrilla warfare, praying for the emperor...) virtually every heresy has tried to overthrow the reigning king or system - inviting a military response.

Catholic Christianity didn't overcome the Arians by strength of arms (it was a Byzantine army that overthrew the Arians in Italy and France in the 500's), nor did they overcome the Vikings in the 700's...(*they did defend themselves militarily). It was missionary preaching and martyrs who converted these foes. Catholics living under the control of such regimes were as "heretical" to them as "heretics" were to Catholics, with this difference: the heretics against Catholicism virtually always preached political rebellion, not simply moral and theological conversion.

Also, the Middle ages wasn't some peaceful golden age of Catholicism where people had the leisure to calmly reflect on high truths of humanism and tolerance. It was - like all centuries - highly complex and full of high drama. There were wars and rumors of war, calamites and plagues, floods and earthquakes. Interior strife and exterior invasion. Meanwhile we hold those Catholics to our modern standards assuming that they knew all that we do with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, while cutting their enemies complete slack by acknowledging "hey, they were in the middle ages for pete's sake".

Yes, Catholics (or more precisely, those who called themselves Catholics) committed sins and crimes in the Middle Ages. And of course the Pope (and no other head of any other religion) has asked pardon for these wayward sons of the Church. But what does that tell you? That these atrocities weren't the rule.

In a calmer age than the 1200's, perhaps a crusade against the heretics in the south of France wouldn't have been preached. Had the Papal legates and Dominican missionaries been engaged in peaceful dialogue rather than killed by the heretics, perhaps war wouldn't have been assumed to be the only alternative.

We can always learn from the past and try not to make the same mistakes. Christians are called to be salt, light, leaven IN SOCIETY. In other words, not try to overthrow society from without but convert it from within.

We can learn a lesson too from the history of Christianity confronted with bellicose foreign cultures and religions too: if all you do is fight them on the battlefield without also trying to convert them, you will loose! Only if the West offers the East a better alternative, a moral and intellectual high ground, the example of happier and saner lives... will true victory and true peace (the tranquilitas ordinis) come about.

War alone is at best a "holding action" - very effective at times to be sure - but only a stop gap. The real action is on the theological/philosophical level, because the pen (or word) is always mightier than the sword and the meek will always inherit the earth.

-- Joe (, June 16, 2004.

The Cathars or Albigensians believed that, Joe, not the Waldenses in 1215 AD.

They were known for being able to cure people's ailments like doctors do today.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (, June 16, 2004.


I guessed that means your statement about Catholics in this forum is WRONG! I don't see the link to back up your false accusation that you made.

How do you expect people to take you serious about something that (you claim)happened in 1215 if you can't rember what goes on from thread to thread in this forum in 2004? lol

And you asked the Pope to apologise? Why don't you start with the apologies for slandering Catholics in forum.

-- - (, June 16, 2004.

I have read the comments of some regulars condoning the use of torture. But let us realize that one reason we went into Iraq was to get rid of Saddam's torture chambers.

You know who they are. They know who they are. Just go into all the iraqi thtreads.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (, June 16, 2004.

Elpidio, Our threshold for what we call torture is no where near the threshhold in the Islamic world. Anyway, we need to keep in mind, we are talking about, what? 7 jerks out of 130,000?

-- Bill Nelson (, June 17, 2004.

It's true that Muslims show no mercy. The case of the mutilated bodies of the workers hanging is an example.

But we are Christians, Bill. Jesus never commanded us to torture,burn, mutilate,...or do you know of a command from Jesus stating that?

Well, Bill, more than 7.

I know people that worked there in Iraq and in Afganistan.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (, June 17, 2004.

I know people that worked there in Iraq and in Afganistan.

I know people who are in both theaters, and they are all very moral people.

-- Bill Nelson (, June 17, 2004.

Great post Joe.

Bill, I'm sure your friends are very moral, but the evidence shows there were a hell of a lot more than 7 "jerks" who knew of, permitted, authorized, encouraged, and ignored the torture. Hundreds or thousands probably including those at the top.

-- Steve (, June 18, 2004.

Steve, I tried to email you a recent article on the history of the Inquisitions...but your email either isn't real or has a problem.

In any event, National Review Online today has a great little essay on the history of the development and nature of the Inquisition as well as how and why it got such a bad reputation.

-- Joe (, June 18, 2004.

The Real Inquisition

-- (, June 18, 2004.

Bill, I'm sure your friends are very moral, but the evidence shows there were a hell of a lot more than 7 "jerks" who knew of, permitted, authorized, encouraged, and ignored the torture. Hundreds or thousands probably including those at the top.

Nonesense. You can't just throw out such nonsense without proof! Actually, I guess you can, but we don't have to accept it ;) If you think for a minute that hundreds or thousands of American Servicemen are 'torturing' innocent Iraqis you need to show proof of such a thing. Even though you and I both know that what the Americans did, doesn't even slightly compair with what Saddam paid his guards to do. Anyway, that is not the subject of this thread, please keep on topic.

-- Bill Nelson (, June 19, 2004.

Bill, it was you and Elpidio who introduced the torture in Iraq to this thread. I was merely responding. I have asked you before not to misrepresent what I clearly said. I did not say there were thousands who actually carried out the torture. I said there were "probably" "hundreds or thousands" who "knew of, permitted, authorized, encouraged", or "ignored" it, probably including those at the top. Rumsfeld has admitted ordering such outlawed methods. The General in charge stated she was ordered to treat the Iraqi prisoners "like dogs". If you think this is "nonsense" you are ignoring the evidence. And no one, certainly not me, suggested that it is comparable to the tortures under Saddam, so please don't throw mud by implying that I think that it is comparable.

-- Steve (, June 20, 2004.

Your first mistake is saying, ''the evidence shows, ''7 jerks, ya dah, ya dah.'' You've never seen evidence at all, except the photos taken of the so- called torture.

You think they're evidence of torture? Try cutting off men's hands and tongues. Putting a man's eye out. Raping a child in front of her parents. A sack over your head is bad. Nakedness for shaming a prisoner is bad. But it's hardly torture.

Go back to school and read the definition for evidence and torture.

-- eugene c. chavez (, June 20, 2004.

I realize it's pointless giving you factual arguments, as you just ignore them, but here goes anyway: If YOU read the definition for evidence in your law books, statements as well as photos can be evidence. You think sodomy, rape, forcing to perform homosexual acts, photographing all of the above, smearing with excreta, menacing with dogs, forcing to eat pork or food taken from inside filthy latrines, forcing to drink alcohol, hanging by handcuffs from elevated bars for hours or days on end, etc. etc. are not “torture” because “the other guy did even worse stuff”. Well the UN, the Red Cross, and international agreements all define these as torture. But of course Mr Bush had no time for all these organizations. By your "definition", it can’t be torture if the USA is doing it.

-- Steve (, June 24, 2004.

OK everyone could we please make some distinctions here?

Bush is commander in chief. Agreed?

The Geneva Conventions were protocols (treaties) signed by STATES who were at war...i.e. to be valid, you have to have BOTH "sides" agreeing to them, not just one. If the Russians signed the ABM treaty but then proceeded to break it, the USA wouldn't have been bound by "rules".

If the USA decides to consider terrorists (who don't wear uniforms, thus are in breach of the Convention) "Prisoners of War" then, unilaterally, the US will bind ITSELF to the norms of that convention. But doing so is only out of moral considerations, not legal ones.

But precisely because the other "side" hasn't agreed to the norms of treatment and hasn't signed the treaty, neither the Red Cross (* a non-governmental agency, not a STATE) nor anyone else can say boo about it LEGALLY.

Morally - that's a whole different ball game.

I think we all agree that the abuse of prisoners as shown in those photos was both legally and morally wrong.

Military personnel are trained repeatedly that they have rights to refuse orders which are immoral - and the Uniform Code of Military conduct forbids the types of things they did, ergo, it's not a real excuse to say "well I was told to strip men naked and film them".

The investigation thus far has revealed no smoking gun from on high. Yes, the DOJ had a paper on interrogation techniques. I believe the Pentagon has war plans for nuclear war...that doesn't mean the USA is morally committed to armageddon or that Bush personally hopes to press the big red button. How many other position or exploratory papers are generated by government agencies per hour?

Interrogation techniques mentioned didn't include the types of things witnessed in the prison - with the exception of the dogs. AS FAR AS i KNOW.

But again, the people in there...given that they were not soldiers of a STATE but either foreign terrorists or Iraqi insurgents (fighting against the UN recognized Iraqi government as well as doing acts against the Geneva Convention such as targetting civilians etc) don't qualify as Convention protected combatants...unless the USA unilaterally grants them these protections out of the goodness of our hearts.

-- Joe (, June 24, 2004.

A link to the whole Geneva Convention articles (64 articles).

One of the first articles deals with who exactly is bound by the following articles.

Another early article deals with who is protected...if combatants, their behavior is very much germaine to what protection they shall receive: if they behave like criminals or terrorists and not soldiers, they aren't protected by the convention!

And honestly looking at the fighting in Iraq, I don't see how you can make the case that car bombers and civilians who take pot shots at contractors, other Iraqis, and UN personnel can be considered "soldiers". 3-23.html

-- Joe (, June 24, 2004.

It is my understanding that the al-Queda has not signed the Geneva convention. Instead they continue tourturing and beheading people.

-- bill Nelson (, June 24, 2004.

Let me understand you perfectly clearly, Joe and Bill. You're implying that before the first Geneva Convention was signed there was no such thing as "torture" because it wasn't legally defined. And you're saying that no matter what you do to people who (allegedly) belong to an organization which has not signed the Geneva Convention, it can't be called "torture". This is an argument I wouldn't even expect of the basest and most cynical lawyer, let alone two Catholic gentlemen discussing morality.

-- Steve (, June 24, 2004.

No, Steve, you misconstrue my words and meaning. Since some groups like the Red Cross are calling "foul" on the USA for not giving those terrorists caught in the act the SAME rights that prisoners of war receive under the Convention, I thought it was important to make the distinction between POW from a signatory to the Convention, and a terrorist (not a soldier) who has not agreed to the treaty.

There has to be some distinction otherwise the US is granting the enemy more rights than they grant the soldiers and civilians that they take prisoner.

How can the Red Cross or any other NGO claim that the USA is violating "international law" or breaking it's side of a contract if there is in fact, no mutually agreed legal framework being violated?

I haven't written nor do I believe that this means the USA has no moral obligation to treat disarmed hostiles humanely. We feed, clothe, and give them free medical care...but a terrorist who surrenders on a battlefield in Afganistan isn't the same thing as an Iraqi soldier...and a car-bomber or suicide bomber who is caught is more akin to a criminal than a soldier as well.

I think what we have here is a massive double standard being foisted on the USA bu NGO's and other countries who love to see us tie our own hands and get into knots over human rights - and give them excellent agitprop fodder... damned if we do, damned if we don't, while the real criminals and terrorists get a pass on their barbarity.

In case you haven't noticed, the US treats soldiers of the Taliban differently from those of Al Qaeda. And the Iraqis picked up at the end of the "major hostilities" were treated differently than the current crop picked up during the suicide and IED road side well as Al-Sadr's uprising.

Distinctions were made, rights granted on basis of these distinctions...but the Red Cross, who by the way has been caught red- handed helping terrorists in Gaza, refuses to make these distinctions. That's unfair.

It's much like people (liberals mostly) who are incapable of seeing the difference between CIVIL rights and International rights. So they howl in outrage over treatment of afganis in Gitmo, not noticing that 99% of the prisoners aren't American! There is a legal difference between a citizen and a foreigner. But you'd never know this from reading the rhetoric.

Sure, both ought to be treated humanely...but POWs should be given MORE rights than terrorists precisely because the mutual agreement between two waring parties will hold the anti-US side morally and legally responsible for treating our POWs humanely as well.

-- Joe (, June 29, 2004.

“a terrorist who surrenders on a battlefield in Afganistan isn't the same thing as an Iraqi soldier...and a car-bomber or suicide bomber who is caught is more akin to a criminal than a soldier” (Joe)

Then let them be charged with a crime and given a fair trial, in an independent neutral court. Instead of held incommunicado for years. Even criminals and foreigners have civil rights.

“the Red Cross, who by the way has been caught red- handed helping terrorists in Gaza, refuses to make these distinctions. That's unfair.”

I thought the basic principle of the Red Cross is that they help everyone who needs it, without distinction.

-- Steve (, June 30, 2004.

Steve...the Red Cross knowingly gave their ambulances to terrorists to smuggle in suicide bomb vests, used them as cover in rocket and rifle attacks, used them to allow terrorists to escape Israeli counterpunches... well documented.

What "civil" rights do Al Qaeda terrorists get in your opinion? American civil rights or Somali? What types of "rights" do they give our soldiers and civilians?

-- Joe (, June 30, 2004.

As I said the Red Cross helps everyone, terrorist or not, to “escape”. You’re talking about the organization which has an unparallelled reputation for over 100 years of absolute independence in giving aid to all without favor to any side in war. Which has won more Nobel Peace Prizes than any other. Which bases its ideals and its symbol on the medieval Hospitallers who cared for sick and injured pilgrims to the Holy Land. Which I, and I’m sure many others here, actively support through donations, work and prayers. If you’re seriously accusing the Red Cross of knowingly giving material assistance to kill innocent civilians, your “well documented” evidence better be something more than some lunatic fringe conspiracy theory.

“What "civil" rights do Al Qaeda terrorists get in your opinion? American civil rights or Somali? What types of "rights" do they give our soldiers and civilians? (Joe)

I thought we held it to be self-evident that ALL MEN (not just Christians, white-skinned races or US citizens) are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights, and that to achieve these rights governments are instituted among men. Not the principle of “give others only the rights which they give us”.

-- Steve (, July 01, 2004.

As I said the Red Cross helps everyone, terrorist or not, to “escape”.

Actually, they aren't suppose to do that. Their vehicles are not to be used as troop shuttles, to and from attack points, which is how they were being used in Iraq.

-- Bill Nelson (, July 01, 2004.

Are you accusing the Red Cross of authorizing this? IF you are seriously alleging this, give us the evidence, or else apologize for the slur you cast on this noble organization. You know that by “escape” I meant "to minimize the suffering" of all sides in war, not "to assist in troop logistics". In any case Joe was talking about Palestinians in Gaza, not troops in Iraq.

-- Steve (, July 01, 2004.

Well as the "prosecutors" Joe and Bill have failed to produce any evidence for their allegations, I assume we can discharge the Red Cross organization as innocent and continue supporting them.

-- Steve (, July 15, 2004.

Hi Steve.

Sorry for not providing back up. Here's just one little blurb.


New York, NY, November 7, 2000 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is urging the American Red Cross to use its sway with the agency’s international branch to put an immediate stop to the use of Palestinian ambulances in facilitating acts of violence against Israel.

"Ambulances bearing the symbol of an independent, peaceful medical aid organization should be working to save lives, not facilitating acts of violence against Israel," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the Palestinian Red Crescent has allowed its offices and ambulances to serve as cover for Palestinian gunman shooting Israeli soldiers and civilians or to ferry gunmen to the site of skirmishes. Some ambulances are reportedly being used to transport rocks to friction points in Gaza and the West Bank.

The International Red Cross apparently has denied the allegations without reviewing evidence of violations, including news accounts from the frontlines of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and IDF reports. "It is outrageous that the International Red Cross has failed to take these charges seriously," Mr. Foxman said.

In a letter to Bernadine Healy, President and CEO of the American Red Cross, the League noted that while Palestinian ambulances have played a role in attending to the injured in this latest conflict, "The Palestinian Red Crescent is also committing egregious violations of international humanitarian practices.

"Given the American Red Cross’ deserved reputation for promoting the just treatment of Israel within the structure of the International Red Cross, we urge you to look into the IDF information regarding Palestinian Red Crescent’s reprehensible behavior and ensure that the IRC addresses this most troubling development," the letter stated.

ADL is seeking assistance from the American Red Cross to ensure that the incidents are investigated. The IDF has listed five specific incidents of such activities by the Palestinian Red Crescent, and news outlets have reported that Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances have been involved in transporting rocks.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

-- Joe (, July 16, 2004.

Joe, this site and others which make the same allegations also smear anyone who objects to the policies of the Israeli government or military as “anti-semitic” , and condemn efforts to convert Jews to Christianity as “an insult to Jews” and that the Nazi Holocaust was ultimately caused by “the absence of Christian respect for Judaism’s legitimacy.”

Individual ambulance drivers (or men driving vans “marked with a red cross” but not belonging to the RC) may have done this. I have searched thoroughly and can’t find any independent (i.e. other than Israeli military or extreme right wing Zionist organizations) evidence that the Palestine Red Cross/Crescent, let alone the ICRC, endorsed it. On the contrary:

“The Israeli army has accused the Red Crescent of frequently smuggling arms and militants past its blockades. The Red Crescent has in turn accused the army of targeting ambulance workers, delaying passage of the sick at checkpoints and impeding access to the wounded since the revolt erupted.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said last week it was "shocked and dismayed" by the bomb incident and "condemns such abuse of an ambulance and of the Red Crescent emblem." It would not comment further pending an inquiry.

The head of the Red Cross delegation to Israel noted that his organization condemns all attacks against civilians in Israel, such as the recent terror bombing in Netanya, considering them "terrorist actions which are absolutely and unconditionally forbidden" “

Humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross are increasingly finding themselves under pressure from both sides in conflicts ( “you’re either with us or against us” ). Dozens of Red Cross workers have been killed in war zones recently. Both sides deliberately blur the margin between humanitarianism and militarism. USAF planes dropped food (in plastic cases resembling anti-personnel bomblets) in Afghanistan, together with pamphlets telling the population if they want food they must give information to the US. Red Cross workers in Iraq knew of the torture of civilian prisoners last year, but could not reveal it because if they did the US military would have refused them access to the jails. In this context it is not surprising that some individual Red Cross workers may choose to take sides or allow themselves to be forced to help one side.

These people willingly go into war zones to do good, without a gun to defend themselves. I urge all Catholics to keep supporting the Red Cross who continue to do heroic Christian work under extremely difficult circumstances.

-- Steve (, July 23, 2004.

Joe, you refuse to accept the Red Cross' right to make statements about the morality of treatment of prisoners, because some individual Red Cross workers have been accused of acting immorally. That's exactly the same argument used by those who say they won't acccept the Church's moral teaching because some individual priests have been immoral.

-- Steve (, July 23, 2004.

Bravo Steve!

Im sorry Im unable to assist, but work dictates otherwise. In such a discussion, when someone prefixes their argument with: "According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)" ...they clearly forfeit their right to be taken seriously! Is it comedy week... Com on Joe, you can do better than this!

As we say back home "Kia Kaha" Steve.


-- Kiwi (, July 24, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ