Michael Medved is a shill for the GOP, as he was one of the ignorant few that was invited to sit with our pathetic pile of shit president a month ago. Medved takes calls from people that he disagrees with all the time then he cuts them off or changes the point they had called in to make. Medved like Prager are self hating jews, I guess they keep forgetting about Alan Berg. He and his ilk know that the right's reigh of error are rapidly coming to an end.. We should put Prager, Medved, Hannity and that ilk in camps. Keep them in Manzanar like facilities.

Hmmmm.... a movie critic, turned pundit, criticizing a sports commentator, turned pundit. Doesn't that violate one of your fundamental complaints about Olbermann?

No thanks for the clip. I've already given too much of my life listening to clips from Hannity and O'Reilly, which I shall never get back, so I'll pass. Thanks anyway.

Medved a movie critic... yeah... any movie with swearing or violence or anything he sees as Unamerican is not worth seeing. He calls his show the number one show on politics and pop culture... I wonder if anyone is number two in that catagory.

I listened to the Medved/Flynn interview - or at least up the part where the two try to convince lefties to stop loving the Isamic terrorists because they are "not environmentally freindly" (e.g. Hezbollah intentionally burned forests in northern Isreal during the recent hostilities between the two). As an aside I'd like to say that this was something of an eye-opener to me. The pure naivite of this exchange revealed to me that some of you whack-jobs actually believe this standard right-wing slander; whereas I have generally viewed the "Lefties love Terrorists" line as purely cynical slander. - it's like dealing with evil children sometimes.

But on to my main point: Once again, the Olbermannwatch perspective hinges on works of pure, made-up fiction: Medved leads Flynn at one point to assert that his storybook about terrorism represents evidence that America is existentially threatened by Global "Islamo-Nazis" (first time I've heard THAT particular styling), echoing the recent "Jack Bauer" debates; which have served numerous times as the last-refuge of many Olbermannwatch torture-supporters.

The caller made an excellent point, which was just as excellently ignored by Medved and his guest, regarding Jose Padilla and how his case represents just one of the many pieces of hard evidence that our constitution is being subverted by our government - and these two start talking about fiction!

Not an impressive sound cut. I wonder why they felt the need to post it?

Sir Loin.. well it is simple.. with this administration do they have anything positive to speak about ? I mean outside of the rich getting richer ?

Find your own place to hang you bitches.... see you here next wednesday after your big losses. 2 more years! And then 4 more years. Go republicans! Don't forget to fill your spares tires with air. When the weenie democrats slash your tires to keep you from your right to vote, you'll be prepared! Here's to winning the Senate!

So it's ok for commenters (i.e. Bill O'lielly) to constantly make obtuse references about the killing of those he disagrees with??

"We should put Prager, Medved, Hannity and that ilk in camps. Keep them in Manzanar like facilities. "

Camps? Olielly? Would these be leftist "kindness camps" or "tolerance camps" maybe "peace camps"? Jeez, were you wearing your armband and iron cross while writing this?

Why don't you go fight with Hezbollah (you know they are your heroes)and see if the Israelis can put YOU in a camp, you jack(booted)ass!

Can anyone tell me why anti-semitism is the current fashion of the American and European left? You can't find as much anti-Jewish sentiment on white power websites as you can on the leftwing blogs these days!

Michael Medved would have been perfect to spy for Hitler. He has no talent, no brains and is a total scumbag!

Why not use his energy and yours for Lynne Cheney and her lesbian love books. or Joe Scarborough

Joe Scarborough, former Republican Congressman, currently a conservative talk show host. Resigned his congressional seat abruptly to spend more time with his family, amidst allegations of an affair. His intern, Lori Klausutis, was soon after found dead in his office. The medical examiner, who had his license revoked in for falsifying information in an autopsy report, and suspended in for six years, ruled the case an accident, after giving conflicting information about her injuries. He said he lied about them because "The last thing we wanted was 40 questions about a head injury."

Michael Medved would have been perfect to spy for Hitler. He has no talent, no brains and is a total scumbag!

Why not use his energy and yours for Lynne Cheney and her lesbian love books. or Joe Scarborough

Joe Scarborough, former Republican Congressman, currently a conservative talk show host. Resigned his congressional seat abruptly to spend more time with his family, amidst allegations of an affair. His intern, Lori Klausutis, was soon after found dead in his office. The medical examiner, who had his license revoked in for falsifying information in an autopsy report, and suspended in for six years, ruled the case an accident, after giving conflicting information about her injuries. He said he lied about them because "The last thing we wanted was 40 questions about a head injury."

You have to understand that O'Lielly takes him name literally. Lies and all:

> Medved a movie critic... yeah... any movie with swearing or violence or anything he sees as Unamerican is not worth seeing.

Medved on the R-rated SNAKES ON A PLANE: “The rating is R for lots of harsh language, sex, drugs, nudity, and gross-out scenes of fangs on flesh. But if you’re in the mood for energetic adolescent absurdity, these rampaging reptiles can keep you entertained. Two-and-a-half stars [out of four] for the cheerfully crude and goofy SNAKES ON A PLANE.”

Medved on the R-rated LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE: “Ironic that one of the most pro-family movies of the year isn’t suitable for family viewing. It’s rated R for harsh language, adult themes, and graphic sex conversation. FOUR STARS for the superbly scripted and acted LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE.”

Medved on the R-rated FIND ME GUILTY: “There’s not much wrong with this surprisingly strong movie that shows its earthy anti-hero as simultaneously crude, vicious, self-destructive, and loyal, clever, and charming with an infectious sense of fun. Vin Diesel counts as a legitimate Oscar contender, no kidding. Rated R for ceaseless gutter language, many sex references and some disturbing violence, three-and-a-half stars for FIND ME GUILTY, a milestone triumph for eighty-two-year-old director Sidney Lumet.”

Medved on the R-rated THE LOST CITY: “Rated R for chilling, vividly portrayed violence and some language, three stars for the elegant and warm-hearted THE LOST CITY.”

Like I said, O'Lielly takes him name literally.

Sir Loin,

That's a really good question. This interview makes Vince Flynn look even stupider than Keith Olbermann. What is the point of posting this?

LOL. Do you really think Owatch will go away if the Dems seize control of the House & Senate next Tuesday? Hell, if anything, I'd say the real fun will begin as we will have even more flagrant examples as Olby continues to ignore even more news that would possibly put the Dems in a bad light and in the process alienate his fan base. Sorry kiddos but it doesn't work the way you want it to. LOL.

Brandon, that's true. I remember how depressed I was when Clinton first won election, then I heard about a guy on the radio (that loveable little fuzzball, America's anchorman, the man, the legend, the way of life), who cheered us all up for the ensuing eight years. And we've still got him, plus others on radio, on Fox News and here in the blogosphere.

Actually, we could have a lot of fun if the libs do win. We can blame them for EVERYTHING as they've been doing to our side for years now.

I really don't see what's relevant here. There's no transcript or highlights of the interview, so am I supposed to sit through the whole mp3 file and figure out what the point is? Or does Olbermannwatch.com just reference all Olbermann appearances in the media regardless?

Actually, we could have a lot of fun if the libs do win. We can blame them for EVERYTHING as they've been doing to our side for years now.
Posted by: Missy at October 30, 2006 05:21 PM

Missy- since the Repubs have had control of both houses and the presidency for the last 6 years it would be pretty difficult to assign blame elsewhere.

sir loin of beef's idea of "interrogating" prisoners is to sodomize them until they talk. Sir loin and O'leilly should get together and start thsie own terrorist intterment camp and call it Club Homo. what a cute couple O'lielly and sirloin of barf would make!
you lefties are so cute and predictable- when ya got nothin you always refer to "Hitler" . that is so funny! I se Democratic underground and daily kos have sent their pre-programmed minions to help get out the vote. I think you leftards are in for a rude awakening this election just like you have been since '94.

Sad to say, what Mr. Flynn spoke of with Mr. Medved is not just confined to this country. Over in Britain, there is such hatred of soon-to-be-outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair amongst the radical Left there, that they likewise are on the side of the Islamofascists in their midst, and also are de facto apologists for their actions (including, but not limited to, justifications of the July 7, 2005 attacks on the London Underground for "reasons" whose talking points are straight out of al-Qaeda's video messages). One such person had a blog (which has been since taken down), doing a somewhat wordier variation of the Left's favorite maxim, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Sir loin and O'leilly should get together and start thsie own terrorist intterment camp and call it Club Homo. what a cute couple O'lielly and sirloin of barf would make!
Posted by: Anonymous at October 30, 2006 06:20 PM

Just another post on this site by a bigot who cannot contain his/her hatred.

Brandon, that's true. I remember how depressed I was when Clinton first won election, then I heard about a guy on the radio (that loveable little fuzzball, America's anchorman, the man, the legend, the way of life), who cheered us all up for the ensuing eight years. And we've still got him, plus others on radio, on Fox News and here in the blogosphere.
Posted by: Missy at October 30, 2006 05:21 PM

Oh my gosh. I had no idea how sick you were. You think a oxycontin viagra adiicted handicapped bashing mant times divoced big mouth is a lvoable little fuzzball. I pray for you.

Calm down, codas. That's what he calls himself! And thanks for the prayers, but I didn't think you libs were believers.

Codas.. you forgot about visiting countries with his friends that is known for sexual predators along with a bottle full of viagra. Oh and having such poor judgment that he lost his hearing due to the abuse of the pain pills.

"Just another post on this site by a bigot who cannot contain his/her hatred"
liberal definiton of bigot- anybody that disagrees with the liberal dogma
YES Indierik I am PROUD anti-faggot BIGOT
now please return to your little closet and shut the fuck up! thank you.
oh yeah take your little faggot friend O'lielly with you!

"Just another post on this site by a bigot who cannot contain his/her hatred"
liberal definiton of bigot- anybody that disagrees with the liberal dogma
YES Indierik I am PROUD anti-faggot BIGOT
now please return to your little closet and shut the fuck up! thank you.
oh yeah take your little faggot friend O'lielly with you!

"Just another post on this site by a bigot who cannot contain his/her hatred"
liberal definiton of bigot- anybody that disagrees with the liberal dogma
YES Indierik I am PROUD anti-faggot BIGOT
now please return to your little closet and shut the fuck up! thank you.
oh yeah take your little faggot friend O'lielly with you!

Anon... so 65% of the population is gay based on their lack of approval of Bush.. better watch out the gays are going to get you.. be afraid...Ask a gay I am sure he can help design your trailer.

"sir loin of beef's idea of "interrogating" prisoners is to sodomize them until they talk."

Why not? It worked just fine at Abu Gharib (somebody grab a few glowsticks)!

And why is a self-declared "proud anti-faggot bigot" tolerated here? Is this supposed to be a media watchdog site, or godhatesfags.com?

And why is a self-declared "proud anti-faggot bigot" tolerated here?
Posted by: iflurry at October 30, 2006 09:00 PM

iflurry- one thing I appreciate about this site is they let everyone have their say, even this despicable vermin that hides behind the "anonymous" title. I'm sure Dollar and Cox must cringe when one of their own resort to this type of bigotry. But I give them credit for letting everyone speak (I've been banned from a few sites for saying nothing more inflammatory than what I've said on this site). A beer on me to both Cox and Dollar . . . . . ok, now back to the fight.

"And why is a self-declared "proud anti-faggot bigot" tolerated here? Is this supposed to be a media watchdog site, or godhatesfags.com"
IT'S CALLED FREE SPEECH a--hole! this in not your liberal college or some other reich wing politically correct zone iflurry - get used to it!
here's the deal all you good little queers go back to your closet and quit trying to legitimize your sexual sickness by forcing normal people to laughingly accpept gays gettting "married" and all will be OK.
What a little a--hole to even suggest that MY right of free speech be compromise or negated beacuse of HIS support for faggots. Even tho I disagree with you and think that you are an a--hole i would still stick up for YOUR righ to free speech and make an a--hole out of yourself.
you leftwingers REALLY are homofacists aren't you??
and I will not fight gays but will proudly fight so called gay "marriage" FOREVER! get used to it!
FUCK POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!

To indierik: I see your point. I can appreciate a "hands-off" moderation policy.

To Anonymous: I fully support your right to free speech, but I think there is such a thing as abusing one's rights. For example, remember the Westboro Baptist Church? The group that protested military funearls with anti-gay demonstrations? I think it's all well and good to exercise one's right to speech and protest, but totally inappropriate to mock the death of a soldier in a purposefully offensive way. I think your bigotry is likewise very offensive and inappropriate. You have a right to say whatever you'd like, but if this was my website, you'd be banned for not treating the other commenters with the respect I'm sure you wish you received from them.

Hey guys. please don't be goaded into THINKING you are having a dialogue with these 'paid?' provacateurs. I won't any longer.

And codas (lack of a cap for first word intentional), you had me fooled that you might be looking for a honest debate. Never again!

Scroll through and engage an honest man. The trolls on this site may not qualify for the 'man' designation. At any rate, not what I consider a man.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Janet Hawkins AKA Grammie. I didn’t get a chance to offer a rebuttal to your interesting post on stem cell research. The thread from the 24th is now closed so I am posting it here.

“I don't see much in common from this ad from several years ago to the one M J Fox made and disseminated recently. One, biomedical research and NEW EMBRYONIC STEM CELL lines and research are not the same thing. A person can be for biomedical research and opposed to the subset of the development of and research on new embryonic stem cell lines. Two, based on my general knowledge of Arlen Spector I am sure that the ad stated his position accurately. Perhaps that accounts for your misreading of why some people have no problem with one and are speaking out against the other.”

There is no misreading here at all. The ad you quote while not directly saying stem cell research was cut because, as a sufferer of Hodgkin's lymphoma, Arlene Spector is one of the leaders in the fight for embryonic stem cell research. Fox cut that ad because he supports Spector in that fight. As long as he was supporting a Republican there were no attacks from the GOP talking heads against Fox.

I suppose you could be correct, in your assumption that the GOP talking heads didn’t realize stem cell research was the reason Fox was stumping for Spector, given the general language of that ad, that is reasonable. The more likely explanation though is that the new ads could potentially cost Republicans the Senate. That is why the GOP attack dogs have come out swinging unlike before.

“ I would guess that a poll of a thousand adults at ramdom would indicate that most people can't differentiate between stem cell research, new embryonic stem cell lines and existing embryonic stem cell lines. There is a very real difference between the three and the creators of that ad must know it.”

Janet, How is it remotely possible to cover the differences between the types of stem cell research in a 30 second ad? You can lament the fact that we have a sound byte culture if you like, but accusing one political ad of not covering the nuances of an issue is ridiculous. No political ads do that. There isn’t time and the GOP are certainly as guilty as the Democrats in that regard.

“Concentrating on the red herring that Rush created is not going to help. Rush stepped over the line on that one. It has not been helpful to the debate of the facts of the matter.”

On that we are in complete agreement

“I'm sorry. I don't understand what you are trying to say. I would go further and state that virtually everyone is in favor of funding stem cell research. And it is being funded by the feds, states, charities and private investment. The only exception is using federal funding involving creating new embryonic stem cell lines. The feds do fund embryonic stem cell research on existing lines. Their is also no federal laws preventing others from creating new embryonic lines"

Earlier this year, Talent co-sponsored a bill that would ban all embryonic stem-cell research and impose a $1 million fine and jail sentence on violators. That to me looks like the actions of someone who opposes embryonic stem cell research. He eventually withdrew his support but I am guessing his change of heart was more political than personal. Either way, given Fox’s own beliefs there is certainly reason to feel safer with the other candidate.

“The greatest gains have involved ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH (which IS federally funded) and umbilibcal cord blood stem cells (also federally funded). This research has already produced viable treatments. The scientific community also sees some major breakthroughs coming in the near future. They know enough now to make knowedgable predictions.”

There are adult stems only for certain systems in the body. One example is the hematopoietic stem cell which has been in use for years in bone marrow transplants. But, for some systems, such as the pancreatic beta cells there are no adult stem cells - the option is not available. In addition to this adult cells have other obstacle,s Adult stem cells may be unsuitable for regeneration of damaged tissues in the case of elderly patients or due to presence of cancer in the bone marrow. Finally it's been very difficult to grow sufficient numbers of adult stem cells to regenerate tissues or create replacement organs. All of these are potential areas the embryonic stem cell research could address.

“The potential for EMBRYONIC stem cell research results has been vastly overhyped. Not only have no viable treatments materialized, enough is now known that the scientific community doesn' see it coming soon. All of this information is available to the layman in many magazines, newspapers and on the internet.”

The majority of medical journals I have read feel that there is great promise in stem cell research. It may be a ways off but because something is not around the corner is no reason to not pursue it.

“I can tell you one major obstacle I read about recently. Embyonic stem cells cause tumors in lab animals. A professor from MIT said that solving the tumor problem is the equivalent to finding a cure for cancer. Quite a big problem to be solved before they can even start develope to individual applications.”

In lab rats the rate that developed cancer was about 20% of the mice injected. Many got better. According to one medical journal I read it is possible to use a procedure called nuclear transplantation to replace the DNA of an embryonic stem cell with DNA from one of the patient's own cells, eliminating the problem of immune rejection

”Fair enough. His current ad addresses stem cell research. But he is talking about EMBRYONIC stem cell research. And this is a difference with a real difference. I would say this is the first red herring.”

Well no. embryonic stem cell research is stem cell research. Just like adult stem cell research is stem cell research. The ad didn’t get into specifics but again the GOP didn’t care about the Spector ad which certainly was more general than the Missouri ad. But your right they avoided a potential firestorm with some voters by not getting specific and explaining which kind of stem cell reaearch they were differing on.

“Second, in the ad in Missouri he accused Talent of trying to criminalize the science that gives a chance for a cure and voted against stem cell research. Neither statement is true.”

I’m sorry but you are wrong. First off the ad said, Jim talent “wanted to criminalize the science that gives us hope," Which is true Earlier this year, Talent co-sponsored a bill that would ban all embryonic stem-cell research and impose a $1 million fine and jail sentence on violators. In fairness he eventually withdrew support for his own bill but he wanted to criminalize it.

“Additionally, I suffer from a chronic, debillitating and frequently painfull disease. Close to fifteen years now. And it will end my life sooner rather than later. And that doesn't entitle me to lie and than hide behind my poor, pitiful victimhood. That was the point that seems to have gotten so many in a dither. How callous and uncaring Grammie is.”

I am genuinely very sorry you are suffering. However, I don’t think cutting an ad for a candidate you support is hiding behind victim hood. I don’t know the man but Fox certainly has a vested interest in a cure. That ad to me said “Vote for this person, they are in favor of pursing what I believe will help people like me.” If you want to argue that you think he is wrong in what will work that is fair. If you think that the ad oversimplified the issue that is certainly fair (on about any political ad ever made for that matter.) When I jumped in this thread I mistakenly thought you were taking the Limbaugh position on the matter that Fox was faking. I think personal any attacks on Fox is a pretty low thing to do. But If you think his ideas aabout science are wrong that is fair. I disagree but it is a valid line of argument. If you think he misrepresented certain things that is also fair. I think you are not allowing for the fact that he had 30 seconds to make his case and I think he honestly believe that the Democrats are right on this issue. but there is nothing wrong to saying lets delve further into this Or I disagree.

Olbermann proves himself once again to be nothing but a useful idiot to terrorists.

Olbermann proves himself once again to be nothing but a useful idiot to terrorists.

Failed sportcaster tells us the "news"
Psychotic rants and always Tom Cruise
It's so pathetic
You'll need anesthetic
When Meltdown comes on I hit snooze

Larry Brock..... from your posting....

You aint impressing nobody.. neither does your thought process or use of the English language.

JT, please see my posts at 10/26. Just to let you know that I am formulating a response.

Thanks,

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"JT, please see my posts at 10/26. Just to let you know that I am formulating a response"

I took six days to get back to you. take your time.

that was me btw

Re: Johnny Dollar's comments...Stalin couldn't have said it any better.

Re: Johnny Dollar's comments...Joseph Stalin couldn't have said it any better.

Re: Johnny Dollar's comments...

"We should put Prager, Medved, Hannity and that ilk in camps. Keep them in Manzanar like facilities."

Joseph Stalin couldn't have said it any better.

Jt, I got halfway through my first response and then accidently deleted it. Don't ask me how. I am very new to this new world of the internet and am struggling with the mechanics.

Thank you for a rare treat. Receiving an answer that is polite, honest and not a verbal attack impugning every thing from my birth (inbred) to my motives (brainwashed) to my mental status (imbecile) to my sexual practices (bestiality through pediophilia).

1. M J Fox ad for Arlen Spector:
A simple declarative statement that is completely accurate in both its description of the research involved and the political stance of the candidate should not upset anyone. Spector is a little out of my neck of the woods, although I know him through C-Span. I, like many, would have preferred that he lost in his tough primary race to a conservative challenger. But what is there to complain about in that situation? Given the facts of the ad the only legitimate response is a an ad stating any difference between Spector and others or that there is no difference on that point.

Was there any response? I don't know. I, like you, don't recall any critisism on a national level. But again, the only critisism one can honestly make is to critisize Arlen Spector for his stance.
However, had the ad been against a Rick Santorum and had the added message that Santorum wants to stop biomedical research and criminalize it, I think you would had seen the same firestorm that you see now.

2. Thirty second ad too short for accurate terminology.
An ad made by professionals and featuring a professional actor could have and should have used the term'new embryonic stem cell research'. Just as you and I understand the difference, many other citizens would too. Without accurately stating what the various candidates he mentions by name do or don't support leaves him open to just what has occurred. Nuanced debate in thirty seconds on a subject that could fill a book? No. Two words omitted? The ad uses a falsehood to lay the foundation for all that it claims.

3. Categorizing stem cell research.
I can't find a way to understand this or agree with you.

If you take biomedical research as the set, the next largest sets include stem cell research. Under the subset of stem cell research you have further subsets. The subsets of embryonic, new embryonic lines, adult, umbilical cord and probably a few more. There is no way a subset can = a larger subset or a set. Stem cell research can not equal biomedical research.

4. Talent re banning and criminalizing stem cell research.
You are right. I viewed the video again and that is what he said. I also spent some time trying to find the bill you mentioned. I'm not very good at research on the net.

I took the reference to criminalization as referring to the amendment on the ballot in Missouri re cloning. M J Fox admits he didn't read it and just knew he could depend on the people working with him for the truth. Plus I haven't heard that he has said no, I was talking about Senate Bill whatever.

I found some references to it but conflicting analysis and nothing so definitive as your statement. It was earlier this week, but I don't remember seeing anything that characterized it the way you have. Could you point me to an unbiased source so I can learn a bit more before commenting further.

However, while listening again I caught something I had overlooked. Directly prior to the qoute we discussed just above M J Fox said 'Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research.' I guess we're back to the same disagreement because that falls in the new embryonic stem cell = stem cell debate we have been having.

Nor does it excuse him for reversing the position of the candidates in Maryland. Cardin has voted against new embryonic stem cell research to make a protest.

5. The promise of research.
We are back to the same battle. I say 'embryonic stem cell research' results have been overhyped. You counter with "stem cell rsearch' is the best hope. The two statements are not mutually exclusive. You are refuting a claim that has not been made.

6. Viability of research.
I assume the difference between you and me at this point is the best way to allocate funds in the different areas of stem cell research. I believe taxpayer money should be divided based on the odds. And right now embryonic stem cell treatments or cures are the longshot. Other types of cell research has produced results and seems to be ahead for more results to come.

Nothing wrong with betting on the longshot. When it hits, the payout is a gold mine. But don't bet the bank on the longshot. Be a good bookie. Play the odds and layoff so you are covered and always come out ahead.

And this is the crux of what we are debating. Where does our money do the best good. I think the rules we have now are working quite nicely. The feds money is tilted away from embryonic stem cell esearch and towards the, as of now, more promising research. State, private and charitible money is being divided as those entities see fit.

And that is why this has all become such an issue. From what I understand, the private money isn't going to the embryonic research. Want to bet there were groups of people wanting the feds to subsidize buggy manufacturers because the auto was driving them out of business?:).

I have some second hand experience with government funding and how recipients of it operate.
My Dad was an Auditor for the DOD. And he talked in generalities of the difficulties in assuring the money was not being wasted, particularly in the scientific and medical fields. Money is fungible. And there is an entire culture of people who will do virtually anything to keep that federal money coming. Including hyping their research beyond recognition.

You are obviously far more knowledgable in this area than I am. But, while an advantage, it may also skew your views if you are invested (as in engaged) in a particular aspect. And by making myself aware of the basic terminology and reading work done for a layman I feel confident that I can also make a valid, informed decision.

One last observation i have to make.
For two people who disagree, we agree about a lot. It is obvious we both have strong opinions based on research and we could both be right in varying degrees.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

I have a few more things I want to mention, but I have to go for now.

No preview. Hope it isn't too badly mispelled and awkward.