Blogging Bayport Alameda

November 3, 2006

Be very very quiet, I’m hunting non-Slate supporters

Filed under: Alameda, Election — Lauren Do @ 11:38 am


My photoshop skills aren’t that great, so apologies if the graphic isn’t perfect.  Unfortunately, I don’t have “mad photoshop skillz” like Don Roberts.  In a campaign where there has been a lot of finger pointing about dirty politics, see what one Slate supporter has done in order to intimidate one vocal Slate opponent.

Don Roberts hunting non-Slate supporters

Now, it’s one thing to take a photo of the sign and say, “Hey, we found this at John Knox White’s house,” but it’s an entirely different bag to tell everyone what street he lives on and then conveniently show his house number too.  Now, I realize that folks are going to say, “but, his information is public on the City of Alameda website.”  Yes, I realize that, but there is a difference between disclosing it for purposes of sitting on a city commission or board and airing it to an audience that might be hostile to that person’s opinions.


  1. This is just disgusting.

    We may wonder, what is it that brings so many of these values together, that unifies this point of view?

    – Hold firm to a dogma that Measure A must apply to Alameda Point (even when it would be counterproductive at saving historic structures there!)
    – Air suspicions and accusations that non-slate candidates, and any vocal slate opponents are in the pockets of developers
    – Encourage, or at least tolerate, stalking and personal retribution against anybody that disagrees with them
    – Express fear and loathing of our neighbors in Oakland.

    If you apply this behavior to a larger scale, e.g. the United States, you’ll see the same pattern there with the Republicans in charge:

    – Hold firm to the dogma that we must “stay the course” in Iraq
    – Air suspicions that any non-republican candidate wants to help the terrorists
    – Encourage, or at least tolerate, breaches of constitutional rights, torture, arrest without a proper trial, etc. of anybody who disagrees with them
    – Express fear and loathing of our neighbors in … the rest of the world.

    Interesting pattern, eh?

    Comment by Dan W. — November 3, 2006 @ 12:35 pm

  2. Hardly surprising with Pat Bail (R-Alameda) controlling the purse strings of the Slate and Don Roberts (R-Alameda) as the mouthpiece of the Slate.

    Yet to see that paragon of virtue aka NIMBY speak up …

    Comment by Richard — November 3, 2006 @ 12:46 pm

  3. Lauren,

    There is no difference. If one’s address is on the web, and easily googleable, its out there for anyone to see for any purpose. I wouldn’t put mine out there, and note that most city commission members have not, but he did and it’s out there, as are many posts under his full name. While I applaud his forthright honesty & candidness, I also cannot call it “stalking” or “intimidation” in any way.

    And WRT to Dan’s little rant:

    -Measure A is not “dogma” it’s existing city law. It can’t be changed at the base unless the law is changed. Simple as that.

    -Any candidate for any office from dog-catcher on up is subject to having his/her allegiance associated with their donors, particularlyt when that person votes in favor of his donors’ interests. To wit, google up “enron + bush”

    -Fear and loathing? Did you catch the news that Oakland is the 8th most dangerous city in America? Are you aware that Oakland is experiencing a horrifying wave of gun violence? Did you know that Oaklnd is just a few hundred yards from Alameda? That’s not fear & oathing, that’s caution derived from facts.

    As for the rest of your post, I’m a non-partisan voter who leans Democrat, and am probably the biggest Bush-hater on this blog, so please don’t twist my rational concerns for my local quailty of life into militarist facism.

    Comment by dave — November 3, 2006 @ 12:47 pm

  4. Most of us can be “found” through a number of easy methods. You might be listed in the phone book, with your address or not. If you own property, you are most certainly findable. If you vote, you are on the voter rolls. If you are married, your information is public record in most circumstances. And so forth. But it might take a bit of detective work, even if it’s a minor job, for somebody to find that information. And that hurdle is probably enough, unless you become a target by people who exhibit stalking behavior.

    To broadcast somebody’s address on television is another matter. Don Roberts has just fed his base with some information, stopping short (thankfully) of making any suggestions on what to do with that information. Hopefully, nobody is stupid enough to act on it further.

    Comment by Dan W. — November 3, 2006 @ 1:37 pm

  5. Hey I have one burning question. Is that a new wig or what?. John P.

    Comment by John Piziali — November 3, 2006 @ 2:31 pm

  6. Dave, the fact that you have to hide your name because you are afraid of who might get a hold of it (and other info) speaks directly to the problem.

    I have made my address public so that people, who want to send me something as a part of my affiliation with the Transportation Commission, can do so. I shouldn’t have to hide the info, as so many board members and commissioners feel they must, out of fear of what a nutjob might do.

    It’s pathetic that Don decided he needed to take a trip to my house to look at my campaign signs (I’ve been open and forthright about my personal leanings on the candidates). Had he still had the urge to attempt to embarrass me or or the mayor, he could have shown my sign and announced that it was at my house.

    To purposefully go out of one’s way to announce where I live and show my house is a breach of ettiquette at the very least (and Don loves to preach about anyone who breaks the “spirit” of social rules).

    Keep in mind that others who have come under the Don Roberts Measure A Mafia attack, the Helen Sauses, Marilyn Ashcrafts, and Kate Quicks of the world have received anonymous menacing phone calls and even death threats in one case.

    Don’t tell me it’s not intimidation. (I’m not worried about old Don coming by, but I did sit around last night wondering whether someone might be egging my house last night).

    Imagine the discomfort my wife and I felt at the Library opening when a friend said that our house and address had been featured on the show (I stopped watching ages ago, the humor factor wore off quicklY).

    Your very defense of your own, perfectly justifiable, actions, hiding your identity on this blog, speaks to the inappropriate and intimidating nature of these actions.

    I appreciate your open and openminded opinions, I just disagree with you on this one.

    Comment by John Knox White — November 3, 2006 @ 2:50 pm

  7. I’ve been reading this lovely blog/commentary thing every day for a couple of weeks now, but haven’t been willing and able to chime in before now. I’m sure there are other “listeners” like me in the audience.

    I imagine everyone knows that privacy is a precious and diminishing commodity these days. Moreover, one of the blessings/curses of a smallish town like Alameda is that it *is* very easy for most of us to find someone who knows someone who knows where someone lives, so that privacy and anonymity are particularly rare.

    Still, this television broadcast of anyone’s home address (e.g., John Know White, Don Roberts or Pat Bail) strikes me as creepy, obnoxious, and way way over the line, particularly in the superheated final days leading up to an election. The ultra-smug “gotcha” look on Don Roberts’ face in the video looked like the face of a bully who thinks he just got away with something.

    It is, of course, reasonable to question why someone who might favor amending Measure A for Alameda Point would support a mayoral candidate (Mayor Johnson) when the candidate proclaims her opposition to that position. (BTW, there are about 15 reasons why someone who disagrees with the Mayor on that one issue might still support her, of course, as this blog shows.)

    Would it be OK to take a picture through someone’s open window to show that the products they consumer are inconsistent with their public position on some issue or to check through their garbage/recycling to see what magazines they read to tail them to see where they eat? Shame on the “f-ing snake(s)” who shot that video and aired it.

    Comment by Moderate — November 3, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

  8. John I can only say to you that you have my respect to serve on a City Commission and be willing to state your beliefs on this site.
    To Dave I guess you just don’t think enough of yourself or your comments to stand behind them. John P.

    Comment by John Piziali — November 3, 2006 @ 3:06 pm

  9. Moderate- The F-ing snake that you refer to is that same Bully you were talking about.

    Comment by John Piziali — November 3, 2006 @ 3:09 pm

  10. I see where you come fom JNW. It WAS a classless move on Roberts’ part. At the same time, you have made your address public to those who care about city business and it sems you should accept the good and bad — you signed up for it.

    In your shoes, I confess I’d probably feel the same as you. But I wouldn’t put myself in those shoes intentionally.

    Comment by Dave — November 3, 2006 @ 3:27 pm

  11. Don Roberts is broadcasting on a community access TV station. I believe that the video of John’s house and, especially, the broadcasting of John Knox White’s address is a despicable abuse of the TV medium entrusted to him.

    This is supposed to be a community service station. It’s supposed to promote information about Alameda and it’s people. I’m sure it is not to be used as a vehicle of harassment and political intimidation.

    The agency which governs the use of this station should hear from Alamedans who believe that Don Roberts has abused his position.

    And Dave you are dead wrong. Volunteering for public service does not mean that we should expect to be singled out for threats, harassment and intimidation. That’s not what democracy is supposed to be about. People might disagree with us, maybe even strongly, but it does not mean that if we take a dissenting opinion we have to worry about our local thought police coming after us.

    Clearly we have some Measure A Taliban in this community. If you want to discuss Measure A or even think about discussing Measure A, especially if you are in public office, the Measure A Taliban will unleash a furious hail of ire against you. Don Roberts is one of their leaders and this time I think he has gone too far.

    Comment by Carl Halpern — November 3, 2006 @ 4:37 pm

  12. I’ll be writing to the FCC about this.

    Again, NIMBY’s silence speaks loudly!

    Comment by Richard — November 3, 2006 @ 4:47 pm

  13. If these people get in, in four years they will have created a legacy like Bush in Iraq.

    Comment by Mark — November 3, 2006 @ 6:26 pm

  14. On second thought that Bush remark is stupid, or needs qualifying. In four years I’m sure they will screw things up real good.

    Comment by Mark — November 3, 2006 @ 6:28 pm

  15. If John wants to volunteer his home address as a member of the Transportation Commission, that’s one thing; showing John’s house on television to make a political point is not equivalent and is clearly inappropriate. That kind of tactic can only serve to dissuade good people from participating in civic life.

    Don could have easily made the same point about Mayor Johnson’s campaign sign without going to the extent of mentioning John’s name and showing his house on television, so it brings his intent into question.

    I appreciate the fact that citizens like John put in their time and energy volunteering. They shouldn’t be expected to surrender their privacy, as well.

    By the way, there was an article in the Chronicle today about the effect of negative advertising in political campaigns. I have always had an intuitive sense that negative ads are pernicious, and now there seems to be some empirical evidence. The title of the article is “Attack Ads Affect Our Brains.” Here’s the link if you’d like to read it:

    Mike Rich

    Comment by Mike Rich — November 3, 2006 @ 6:43 pm

  16. I just submitted the following email to Don Roberts’ Alameda Daily News site. We will see whether he prints it or not, but I had to respond to his violation of common sense, safety, courtesy, journalistic ethics, and “small-town” community values.



    Dear Editor,

    Given the current emotional climate permeating Alameda’s election, I was deeply dismayed to find that you had revealed the home address of John Knox White on the air. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Your breach of journalistic ethics, common courtesy, and decency may have put John and his family at risk, and there is no possible justification for such endangerment. None.

    There is no “journalistic necessity” for violating the security of someone’s home and endangering small children. While it may be “fair game” to show the signs at someone’s house, showing and announcing the address needlessly exposes a family to harm. (You do not publish the home addresses of slate supporters or your other ADN correspondents with their letters. Is your cable show exempt from basic politeness?)

    It was rude, inconsiderate, and potentially dangerous to show, mention, or publish John Knox White’s home address in your broadcast, whatever your personal opinion of him or his views. You owe John and his family a public apology, and need to make amends for your breach of community trust and small-town good sense.

    Exasperatedly yours,

    Jon Spangler

    Comment by Jon Spangler — November 4, 2006 @ 12:27 am

  17. Thanks Mike and Jon,

    I just wanted to acknowledge Dave’s point as well. There are two issues here.

    1) You are right, when I made the decision to make my address public, I actually thought about the Pros and Cons of doing so, and this type of thing certainly crossed my mind. So definitely, by doing so, I made it easier for someone to do this.

    2) Just because someone tries to remain availiable to people, that does not give nutjobs the right to broadcast it out on Television or the web. Jon Spangler get’s it right. It’s a breach of the community/small town trust that Don and friends purport to cherish so much.

    A very extreme example of these techniques, are the angry anti-abortion websites out there that publish Drs. addresses so that they can be harassed (and in very extreme instances harmed).

    Don Roberts should be very proud of himself, he’s in good company.

    Comment by John Knox White — November 4, 2006 @ 6:11 am

  18. Greetings. In Comment #7 above, I suggested that Mr. Roberts looked and acted like a “bully.” I then borrowed Pat Bail’s eloquent words from her interview with the East Bay Express to call whomever shot and aired this footage a “f-ing snake.” I also tried to suggest a few other (hypothetical) examples of what also might be inappropriate breaches of privacy, even in small town Alameda where privacy is quite limited and even for people who might become quasi-public figures by choosing to participate in public affairs.

    Comment #11 from Carl Halpern strikes me as extremely important. Even candidates for public office (e.g., Pat Bail) or pompous media figures (e.g., Don Roberts) deserve to be “left alone” in their homes. This idea that one’s home should be respected and protected as a safe haven free from the rancor and conflict of the public controversies of the day is particularly important for “ordinary” citizens of good will (on any side) who are willing and able to speak up and participate in civic affairs. The alternative carries too great a risk of having a chilling affect on free speech and civic involvement. We all owe a thank you to people like John Knox White who are willing to stand up and speak out, whether or not we agree with his point of view.

    I’ve “only” lived in Alameda since 1994, so I’m still relatively “new” to town by traditional Alameda standards. Does anyone know whether there has ever been a push to get an alternative public access show on in addition to or instead of the Don Roberts show?

    After “sleeping on it,” I am even more outraged by this shameful, sleazy, bullying move. Alameda needs to let this bully know he crossed a line. Otherwise, he’ll keep trying to take people’s lunch money right? So, whatever the outcome of the election Tuesday, I think there should be a push (I’ll join the push) for an alternative public access show. I also join in the calls for a public apology from Mr. Roberts and encourage Richard to follow through on contacting the FCC.

    Comment by Moderate — November 4, 2006 @ 7:43 am

  19. Don Roberts show is broadcast on the Alameda Power & Telecom community access TV station, Alameda TV, Channel 31.

    The programming producer is Ed Schneider. His contact information is

    phone: 510.814.5682
    e mail:

    Comment by Carl Halpern — November 4, 2006 @ 7:52 am

  20. Re 7


    Measure is one of the mot significant issue in the race, some would say the most. It’s hard to see how once can support a candidate who differs with them on such a major issue. It’s even harder to imagine 15 reasons to support Johnson.
    Pls clarify and explain your support for M-A and Johnson.

    Comment by Dave — November 4, 2006 @ 1:19 pm

  21. John,

    You are most welcome. Nobody deserves to have his/her home address “outed” as you did, and doing so violates the news and/or editorial policy of every US newspaper I have ever read.

    BTW, my letter to Don Roberts (#16 above) has still not bewen posted on the ADN site as of a few minutes ago (3:15 p.m., Saturday, 11/4/06).

    So much for an even-handed editorial policy onthe ADN…(perhaps some day? And no, I am not holding my breath… 🙂

    RE: 20 (Dave, the anonymous one)–

    Beverly Johnson is a hardworking, intelligent, and capable public servant. At least i can trust her to be sensitive to (and avoid using)potentially racist, exclusionary, and offensive language.

    I may not agree with her all the time (in fact, I consider her views to be a bit too conservative, just as John Knox White does), but I can count on her to have thought through the issues before her and to have done her homework.

    And Bev Johnson helped get the county’s ICLEI global warming audit program underway, so I appreciate her for that, too.

    I’ll be happy to provide at least 15 more, if you need them.

    Oh, BTW: the latest 15 anti-Johnson letters or emails here and on the ADN count, too. I also look at who is opposing ballot measures and candidates when I vote. Aren’t you glad that you are helping voters like me to decide to vote for Bev Johnson?


    Comment by Jon Spangler — November 4, 2006 @ 3:28 pm

  22. Dave et al.,

    Measure A *is* big issue in this race. My own view is that Alameda Point should have a narrow waiver so that we have a *bit* more housing diversity there whenever that place is developed rather than only low income housing at one extreme and $850,000 homes (or whatever the equivalent value will be in the future) at the other. I think a narrow Measure A “waiver” development for Alameda Point need not have a significantly more negative impact on traffic than any other residential development there. (Any type of development there is going to have a significant traffic impact.) But I don’t think Alameda is ready for any changes to Measure A. Furthermore, the two major mayoral candidates favor no amendment.

    So, since I’m not going to vote for an unqualified clown (Mr. Kahn) for mayor, but I want to vote, I have to look to other issues and qualities in the candidates in deciding how to vote.

    So, I’d say my vote is mostly based on my view that Mayor Johnson would be better (or at least less bad) than Mr. D in almost every other respect. For a more specific explanation, I’d echo the sentiments of Jon in comment #21. The phrase “15 reasons” was meant as exaggeration/as shorthand for “many other reasons,” not as a literal assertion that I have 15 separate reasons, though, my guess is that commentary on this blog would include 15 such reasons. But I don’t think the “number of reasons” to vote for someone is more important than one or two good reasons. Comment #21 provides good reasons.

    I didn’t mean to imply that a certain quantity of reasons is more important than the quality of reasons.

    Comment by Moderate — November 4, 2006 @ 5:05 pm

  23. Moderate – I agree the homes built at Bayport though Measure ‘A’complient are the wrong fit for Alameda and miss filling the need for low income housing. But realize Measure ‘A’ did not reccommend that style of development and in fact the city’s general plan is clearly opposed to such walled developments. It was the developer’s choice, and sadly the planning board and CC let it happen. Clearly the question is “Why aren’t affordable houses being built in Alameda?” Clearly there must be a bigger profit margin for developers to build 2,500 – 3600 sf homes than to build 1200 sf homes that use to house larger families in the past. I know families who live in 800 sf houses, I have family who own 400 sf homes in the City, but they would not be Measure ‘A’ complient. Why are we not requiirng developers to build affordable homes instead of ‘under-market homes?” That’s not Measure “A”‘s fault – it is the fault of city staff and officials allowing developer’s to determine what our city will become.
    -Another reason I support the Slate.
    -David Kirwin

    Comment by D.Kirwin — November 4, 2006 @ 6:02 pm

  24. What’s all the fuss over the airing on the Don Roberts Show of John Knox White’s home address? Mr. Knox White is the Chair of the City of Alameda Transportation Commission, and as such, he must file annual Form 700 “Statement of Economic Interests.” Those forms are readily available from the public clerk – his address is part of the public record – anyone can find it out. See below.

    And while I haven’t included the entire form, it goes on to say he has as much as $100,000 per annum in rental income. Mr. John Knox White is a landlord – that must make him part of Alameda’s elite!

    Comment by keepmeasurea — November 4, 2006 @ 6:52 pm

  25. Jeez people – you are trying to make this ADN thing an issue? I think that is too much about nothing. From what I had understood I was inclined to agree Don R was inappropriate in outing someone’s address, even though the address is public info However after viewing laurendo’s link I see this is so much complaining about so little. Don doesn’t announce the address, he is remarking about the Johnson sign where the “I support Measure ‘A’ ” has been cut off from the sign. As the camera zooms in it does pass over the house number, and Don had said the name of the street, I think it was Central or Park. But I had to replay the blog to catch the house number, so it is blog that makes the address better known or “outed.”
    Again this site just attacks people. Wasn’t there any arguable topic on the Don Roberts show? I am amazed you would waste so much energy on this. If anyone wants to judge they should see the evidence at
    Chris thanks for passing on the link, but in the face of the evidence the battle cries of all the posts of BE VERY VERY QUIET seem to ring hollow.
    -David Kirwin

    Comment by D.Kirwin — November 4, 2006 @ 8:59 pm

  26. Howard’s posting his insights all over. I’ll only answer them once:

    Comment by John Knox White — November 4, 2006 @ 9:22 pm

  27. David K., I can understand why you might feel the way you do.

    However, as I am also a father of two (grist for the mill Howard!), I can tell you that neither my wife, nor I, felt anything but harassment.

    With creeps like D. Howard out there, and the possibility of even more unhinged humans tuning in, you might understand the nervousness we felt when Don went out of his way to announce where we live.

    Isn’t he a “journalist,” they are suppose to know about these things. No real journalist publishes someone’s address unless it’s material to the story. It’s pathetic, but completely inappropriate.

    You’re welcome to your opinion. But I’ll tell you I’ve heard from dozens of people in the last couple of days, and none of them agree with you.


    Comment by John Knox White — November 4, 2006 @ 9:38 pm

  28. White – you ticked the box on your form 700:

    “If Rental Property Gross Income Received

    $10,001 – $100,000”

    Why don’t you post some of your schedules from your tax return to tell the tale? I can’t post the excerpt here, but I will on my blog.

    Comment by keepmeasurea — November 4, 2006 @ 9:52 pm

  29. Hah, what a dolt! Can’t you see the range 10,001 – 100,000? Why did you assume 100k? why not 50k?

    What are you? The IRS? Nobody is under any obligation to post their tax returns.

    btw, I have no desire to meet stalkers like you.

    G’night … have fun watching the lonelygirl videos!

    Dave Kirwin and NIMBY, where’s the righteous indignation? Oh wait, the Stalker is a Slate supporter — you folks will just keep quiet and tacitly approve his tactis (like Pat Bail’s).

    Comment by Chris — November 4, 2006 @ 10:04 pm

  30. Chris – my next communication to you will come from my attorney.

    Comment by keepmeasurea — November 4, 2006 @ 10:08 pm

  31. David, ok … now that you mention the “a” word, I have better uses of my time than indulging in a legal battle (although one without premise, if I may add).

    So, to clarify: I was referring to your actions of digging up personal information (although publicly available online and elsewhere) and collating them in one place. The only thing in common with the people who’s personal info you have collated appear to be that they disagree with you.

    P.S: We’ll all be around on 8th Nov!

    Comment by Chris NoLastName — November 5, 2006 @ 10:27 am

  32. David, ok … now that you mention the “a” word, I have better uses of my time than indulging in a legal battle (although one without premise, if I may add).

    So, to clarify: I was referring to your actions of digging up personal information (although publicly available online and elsewhere) and collating them in one place. The only thing in common with the people who’s personal info you have collated appear to be that they disagree with you.

    P.S: We’ll all be around on 8th Nov!

    P.P.S: A recent letter to Don refers to all Alamedans who don’t agree with the Slate as “illegitimate” children. Should we call the attorneys on that?

    Comment by Chris NoLastName — November 5, 2006 @ 10:28 am

  33. Moderate — comment #18:

    You aren’t the only one with this idea of alternative media in Alameda. There’s others out there that are considering this too. It wouldn’t be too hard to set up a compelling Alameda-related “news” show.

    Comment by Dave S. — November 5, 2006 @ 10:43 am

  34. gee, this is sort of grim. Sorry Lauren is rewarded for her effort by us “taking a crap” on her positive note.

    Not feeding the troll makes sense to me, but my sense of justice makes me chafe at the idea of individuals being singled out for legal bullying. There has been a chorus of people (including myself I think) who have taken up a certain adjective to describe a certain individuals behavior, because it seems so accurate. I guess when the troll wins damages against ALL of us he can retire.

    How does that school yard thing go again “sticks and stones may break my bones but….being called by names I deserve to be called will make me sue you.” No that’s not right. Maybe it will come to me later….

    I’ll call my friend Al Franken and get referred to the lawyer who defended him when Fox sued over his use of “fair and balanced”, and LOST.

    Comment by Mark — November 5, 2006 @ 2:24 pm

  35. It is hard to ignore the troll—and there are more than one here for sure—when they come out and tell outright lies about you, which you then have to keep refuting if you are actually one of the people who use their real name. Who knows when or how these false accusations will come back to haunt you? Seeing how easy it is to get someone smeared has really given me a pause. As you can imagine, I have a lot to say but feel very compelled not to say it here. Same is true for other people I know who told me they would never post in a hostile environment like this one.

    Prediction: this post will be followed by an abusive comment by either Chris or Richard.

    Comment by NIMBY — November 5, 2006 @ 2:57 pm

  36. What a wonderful day! Enjoy the sunshine outdoors, because the rainstorms are coming. We spent the day in the community garden, with some wonderful volunteers planting a fall garden with ground cover, some nice flowers and some garlic and onions.

    Comment by Doug Biggs — November 5, 2006 @ 3:41 pm

  37. Thank you Doug. I too was out in the garden enjoying the sun. Our neighbors came over and together with a local parks worker played a fair amount of old folk music. It was refreshing to see that some people still know how to gather as friends and make thier own entertainment. I hope to be seeing them play at CrossTown Coffee soon.
    It was nice to end the weekend on a nice note.
    -Dave kirwin

    Comment by D.Kirwin — November 5, 2006 @ 4:29 pm

  38. Speaking of “defamatory” lawsuits, I have a screenshot of David Howard posting a particularly nasty insinuation against Ken Kahn on this very blog. Lauren had the graciousness to remove it before it was too late.

    Comment by Richard — November 5, 2006 @ 6:43 pm

  39. If Dave is suggesting a future gathering at the CrossTown coffee shop when this is over, I’m with him. After all, that was one reason the place was created.

    Comment by Doug Biggs — November 5, 2006 @ 9:49 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: