Designation of “husband and wife” consigned to the “unenlightened past” by Washington State!

Washington State in the USA is to remove the designations of “Bride and Groom” and “Husband and Wife” from their marriage and divorce statistics.

The State now favours gender-neutral terms!

This is a response to a same-sex “marriage” law which took effect  on 6th December, 2012.

It is only a matter of time before this becomes a global change and along with the aforementioned words,  the words “mother” and “father” will also be banned. Some of these sinister changes have already taken place. How often do we hear the word “partner” in the UK? It is the word of choice for the PC liberals who are out to destroy marriage.

Instead of “husband” or “wife” we hear “partner,” and I have had the unpleasant duty of insisting (when dealing with officialdom) that I do not have a “partner,” I have a husband.

We encourage those who are married to insist on spouses being referred to as “husband” or “wife.” This may seem unimportant to some but it IS important and it does have an effect on the hearer.

44 thoughts on “Designation of “husband and wife” consigned to the “unenlightened past” by Washington State!

  1. Susan

    It is with great pleasure that I note at last that you are beginning to recognise some of the reasons for the need for marriage equality and have began to support this campaign. Maybe I should be calling for your ‘church’ to discipline you for these views, like your ilk called for with Naomi Long, but I will refrain from this call being a tolerant, reasonable individual!

    In your post above you state – “We encourage those who are married to insist on spouses being referred to as “husband” or “wife.” This may seem unimportant to some but it IS important and it does have an effect on the hearer.”

    ABSOLUTELY Susie, it IS important, and I so look forward to the day when I can legally and officially call my spouse my husband and not my (civil) partner! Thanks again for your support for this campaign as it IS important!

    • Very clever nonsense from you, Rob. You know perfectly well that when we speak of marriage, we mean real, Biblical marriage. You know that when we speak of “husband and wife,” we mean a man and woman who are married to each other.

      • Washington State (or any other state) does not deal in biblical marriage (you know the marrying of relatives, multiple wives, marrying your rapist). They deal in a legal entity of marriage of loving committed couples of whatever gender. Churches deal with biblical marriage or whatever book of stuff they use.

        So your comments referring to ‘biblical marriage’ have nothing to do with the marriage of anyone who does not subscribe to your bible.

        It is only civil marriage which is in fact real, even church weddings have to have completed, as part of it, the civil component. If you were only married in a church in Northern Ireland with no civil marriage you would not be really married.

  2. You are now just finding ways to be outraged.

    Simplifying a form so that it can be used by all participants who have access to a service is just that. A practical and pragmatic way of collecting the information needed to provide the service.

    Can you please provide evidence where the words husband and wife (or bride and groom or mother and father) have been banned. To be banned there would have to be some sanction against those who use the terms not simply that their use was not requested or required by a particular body.

    If someone wants to use the word partner then that is their right, just as it is your right to use husband. Of the gay people I know who are married they all use the terms husband or wife in their usual gender specific usage (ie two husbands or two wives) or a child has two dads, fathers, mums, mothers etc. The terms are not being banned it is simply forms are being made more neutral so there does not need to be multiple forms for the same purpose.

    It would seem that what you cannot stomach is the equivalence to your married status which is implied by having the same form to get it. You want to continue to have separate but equal even when the moral and legal separation has been removed.

    This is about your moral outrage vented towards people who you disagree with. That is for you to fume about not for ‘officialdom’ to take any notice of.

  3. A husband is a man and a wife is a woman. That is the meaning of those words. Changing definitions is not “equality” – it is totally unequal when one side gets to change the definitions of terms. Real marriage will always be superior to same-sex fake marriage.

    • Glenn who is changing those words? If I marry a man I will be his husband and he will be mine – no change in definition. To suggest otherwise is dishonest.

      There is no such thing as real marriage – just marriage whether opposite sex or same sex.

      They are equal in the eyes of the law and to unprejudiced unbigoted people which would appear to be the majority. If you assert otherwise then you are in denial of reality – no change there then.

      • In what way am I intolerant Glenn – I am not suggesting that heterosexuals should or should not get married. I am not suggesting that heterosexuals do anything different at all. I am suggesting that homosexuals have the same rights and have access to the same state institutions and responsibilities as heterosexuals. I am not intolerant of your beliefs as I simply disregard them completely and reject any notion that they play any part in my life either from individuals or from religiously inspired law. That is my right and what is codified as freedom of religion.

        True intolerance is shown by those who insist that others must respectful of and be beholden to their particular flavour of ‘faith’.

        About the only thing you could accuse me of being intolerant of is your intolerance. I regard that as a right and proper intolerance. You playing victim will not wash as you are far too transparent to pull it off.

        You can deny reality all you like but as I personally know same sex couples who are married (I was at the wedding) I know as in incontrovertible fact that marriage is not only the union of opposite sex people. You can continue to assert that black is white but it will not change reality – neither will stamping your feet or throwing a tantrum.

        • Golfieni,
          You and your ilk are intolerant of those who do not want to give you sanction. If I don’t want to participate in your perversion by baking a cake or taking photos, I will be sued and maybe even put out of business. All you have to do is find someone else, but intolerance says you must punish someone for not wanting to give approval to your perversion.

          Black will never be white, and same-sex unions will never be marriage. As I have stated before, you can call a dandelion a rose all you want, but it will still never be a rose.

  4. The bottom line for all remains, that Christians in the real sense have a Biblical worldview i.e. that Homosexuality is sinful and there is no getting away from this. It is clearly revealed in Romans chapter 1 and in other places. Why therefore call that which is evil good when it comes to Marriage ?

    • Antrimreformer, that bottom line may be true (that christians have a christian world view) but we do not live in a christian theocracy and no-one is bound by your personal beliefs. What you believe is as irrelevant as people believing that the earth is flat and demanding the law takes that into account.

      You just have to get used to the fact that your beliefs are more and more irrelevant to most people and that the privileges you have built up over the centuries are now being dismantled by people who do not and have no wish to be impacted by your worldview..

  5. I am always amazed at people like susan white and her disciple Glenn who mouth off about all life being so sacred, defend the right of all unborn to be born and yet see fit to condemn those born for the lifestyles they lead. So you want everyone born, no abortions, and then you pounce on those once they are born whose lives you do not agree withand condemn them. Hmmm, weird. All life is sacred susan and even gay lives? agreed? Or would you prefer that gay fetuses be aborted? you are a living contradiction. You are not god – remember that.

    • Nicole, I don’t have any “disciples” nor have I ever claimed to be God. That would be blasphemy. We do not refer to the unborn child as a foetus, but rather, a baby. People are not born gay but we are all born sinners. We agree with you that all life is sacred, from conception to the grave. This is why we are opposed to abortion. What do you mean when you say I am a “living contradiction?

      • “People are not born gay”

        How do you know this? The greatest minds of science, medicine and psychology cannot make a statement like that – to them the reasons why people are gay is a question without a specific answer. There are evolving theories which involve genetic and inter uterine development but these are just where the evidence points at the moment. The only thing we know for sure is that all the nurture theories have proved false which has concentrated the search for answers on the nature aspect.

        …but you Susan with your knowledge of all things can make a definitive statement about the origin of homosexuality.

        Can you supply the world with your evidence to support your statement so we can put all these other learned people out of their misery and they can stop searching for answers.

        Of course you could just be putting forward your usual religiously inspired prejudices and possibly beliefs based on your book of stuff but can you actually prove that assertion. If you cannot then all you have done is show you own bigotry.

        • golfieni,

          I do not have the “knowledge of all things,” but I do know that no “gay gene,” has ever been found, although not for the want of trying on the part of gay activists and their supporters.

      • Susan. Just in case you hadn’t noticed, I did ask you a question in my post above. I do expect a reply!
        Do you agree that gay lives are sacred Susan?

      • Genes have not been found for many things, not for want of trying, so that does not by itself mean that they do not exist. Most scientific thought is that it is a complex interaction of possibly multiple genes coupled with triggering biological mechanisms within the uterus. All we really can be certain of is that no one knows (except you of course). As all the nurture claims have been debunked this is seen as the most fruitful direction of research. This research is not carried out by gay activists and their supporters, as you would have it, but by scientists, doctors and psychologists the world over.

        Now given that all those researchers cannot answer the question of the origin of homosexuality (or indeed any sexuality including yours) how can you be so certain that people are not born gay?. What knowledge do you have that they do not?

        If all you have is that there has been no gay gene found (yet) then you have nothing on which to base your claim except ignorance – which is no basis for any assertion. You have made the assertion that no-one is born gay so please provide evidence for that assertion. Please provide the evidence (and process) for how I became gay after my birth. If you cannot then you should stop making baseless claims. You use the word truth a lot on this blog – it would be nice to see you actually pay some respect to that word.

  6. Nicole,
    I am not a disciple of any human – I am a disciple of Jesus Christ.

    We do not condemn the people, we condemn the lifestyle. I suppose you never condemn anyone’s lifestyle? Do you condemn the lifestyle of those who are terrorists?

    • Susan – just reread your original post above and you seem to be complaining that “the state now favours gender neutral terms”.

      Perhaps you want to pen a post complaining about your god and bible translators when they call for gender neutrality??? Or maybe that is one of those verses you conveniently choose to ignore, along with the ones about polygamy, marrying your rapist, stoning your child to death etc etc

      Galations 3:28 states “their is neither Jew nor Greek, neither is their bond or free, THERE IS NEITHER MALE OR FEMALE………

      There you have it in your book – gender does not matter!

      • Rob,
        I can’t believe you are as ignorant and illiterate as you pretend to be while mocking Scripture. You totally misrepresent every passage you post.

        Gal. 3:28 is about one’s position before God in regards to salvation; it doesn’t matter one’s gender, race, color, culture, status, etc – if one accepts the Christian faith they are eternally saved.

        Oh, and by the way, polygamy is still a marriage between one man and one woman; then the same man and another woman; then the same man and another woman. Notice it’s always a member of the opposite sex.

      • Rob, in response, we wish to quote from Matthew Henry’s commentary on the verse you mentioned.

        “This privilege of being the children of God now enjoyed in common by all real Christians. The law indeed made a difference between Jew and Greek, between bond and free, and between male and female. But it is not so now; they all stand on the same level, and are all one in Christ Jesus. All who sincerely believe on Christ, of what nation, or sex or condition, soever they be, are accepted of him, and become the children of God through faith in him.”

        So Rob, the verse does not point to a gender neutral Bible, rather it shows that salvation blessings are available to all who repent, be they male or female, bond or free, no-one is excluded because of gender or station in life.

        We have posted about Polygamy in the Old Testament on our blog, and , Glenn has articles on polygamy on his blog “The Watchman’s Bagpipes.”

    • Terrorists hurt people and despite your nonsensical claims homosexuality causes no harm. Christianity on the other hand has a long tradition of hurting people and have been involved in many acts of terrorism.

      • Golfieni,
        We’ve been through this before. It causes harm to people when they are forced to give sanction to homosexuality or lose their jobs, lose their businesses, are jailed, fined, forced to take indoctrination classes, etc.

        The medical and psychological harm to those who participate in homosexual behavior has been demonstrated by study after study – all of which your ilk ignore or marginalize away.

        No Christians have been involved in terrorism. Just because people claim to be Christian, that doesn’t make it so. To be a Christian one has to follow the teachings of Christ, and anyone practicing terrorism is NOT doing that. Christianity has never harmed anyone – those abusing the name of Christ may have, but don’t blame a faith for those who abuse it for their own purposes.

        As to the “born gay” issue, as Susan-Anne pointed out, there is no evidence of such. But the issue remains that if someone IS born with an orientation towards homosexuality due to a genetic defect, they still are not compelled to act on their desire.

      • If people harm themselves because they cannot treat other human beings with equality and respect then that is their problem. You cannot blame a community for the self inflicted harm of a few bigots.

        There is no proof or even indication of physical or mental harm in homosexuality (beyond that generated by hatred, marginalisation and prejudice of people like you).

        Many christians have been involved in terrorism, just because you claim they are not christians does not make them not christians – you are not the arbiter of who is a christian and who is not. But it is interesting that you take that line whilst simultaneously raging against all homosexuals because of what you say some have done. You really are the most blatant of hypocrites.

        Homosexuals may not be compelled to act on their sexuality any more or less than heterosexuals, but why should they not have the same freedoms as heterosexuals to do exactly that ? What gives a group of heterosexuals the right to decide what a group of homosexuals can and cannot do? Why can you not tolerate what another group does when it has zero effect on you? You speak of intolerance in others when that is all that you seem capable of.

        • Golfieni,

          You said Homosexuals may not be compelled to act on their sexuality any more or less than heterosexuals, but why should they not have the same freedoms as heterosexuals to do exactly that ? What gives a group of heterosexuals the right to decide what a group of homosexuals can and cannot do? Why can you not tolerate what another group does when it has zero effect on you?

          NO ONE of any sexual orientation is compelled to act on their desires. By your justification for homosexuality you cannot logically deny the same right of behavior from pedophiles. And you and your ilk continue your lie about there being zero effect on the rest of society – I have already proven the effects: people lose jobs, are fined, jailed, lose businesses and are forced to undergo indoctrination classes for nothing more than refusing to give sanction to homosexual behavior. It that is no effect, then I don’t know what you want. You have schools now required to force indoctrination of homosexuality to kids in kindergarden; you have rules now that anyone claiming to be “trransgender” can use whatever restrooms they want.

          You are lying and lying and lying every time you say no one is harmed. The whole society is being harmed by an extreme minority who wants their sexual proclivities sanctioned by society and are forcing it upon the other 98% of the population.

          It isn’t hate – it is simply pointing out the truth.

      • Some more reading Glenn – maybe guy in video had a point – Jesus protect us from your followers!

        The American blogosphere is falling over itself trying to put distance between “True Christianity” and Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik. The general theme is familiar: “Good Christians” aren’t terrorists. If he claimed to be a Christian, he was either lying, mistaken, or crazy.
        It’s probably easy for a lot of American Christians to dismiss Breivik. After all, he’s European, and all the True Christians broke from that religious tradition back at Plymouth Rock. To many, Norwegian Christianity might as well be Zoroastrianism for all the impact it has on their spiritual beliefs. American Christians are no less exclusionary than the C of E and the Vatican when it comes to proclaiming heresy by those “other pretend Christians.” You know, the ones who are just using Christianity for their own personal ends? (Consider my recent interview with a very well educated Christian who insists that Baptist and Church of Christ theologies constitute entirely different religions!)
        Most Christians are also quick to dismiss the bloody history of the Christian Church. They don’t identify with the Crusades or the Inquisition. They don’t care that Oliver Cromwell’s fierce hatred of Catholics was a powerful force behind the “Irish Campaign” of 1649. The wars of succession in France don’t register, even though all the blood on the ground was either Catholic or Protestant. And anyway, those were different times, and that wasn’t terrorism. So it doesn’t figure into the equation. (I suppose bloody war is somehow less morally reprehensible if the guy on the throne is a Christian, and the attacks are carried out by armies, not “cells.”)
        American Christians are also quick to distance themselves from current Christian events if they’re too bloody. Uganda’s campaign to impose the death penalty on homosexuals, and the brutal regime that already imposes a 14 year prison sentence for a single homosexual act? Not Christian and certainly not terrorism. Never mind that American Christian politicians and pastors have been frequent visitors to Uganda and that disciples of Doug Coe have been acting as indirect “consultants” with David Bahati, the anti-gay bill’s sponsor.
        But no. None of this matters to American Christians. Their brand of Christianity is different in kind. Christians don’t commit terrorist acts. They can’t possibly be terrorists. Only bad guys are terrorists, and Christians are the good guys. Because God is on their side. And that’s the end of the story.
        Except…
        1993: Operation Rescue, a Christian organization, got one of the targets on its “Wanted Posters.” Dr. David Gunn is dead because of Christian terrorists.
        1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett became victims of Christian terrorist Reverend Paul Jennings Hill.
        1994: Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols were killed by Christian terrorist John Salvi.
        1996-98: Christian terrorist Eric Rudolph killed at least two and injured more than 150 in a series of bombings, including Atlanta’s Olympic Centennial Park.
        1998: Christian terrorist James Kopp killed at least one and went on a series of anti-abortion shooting sprees, both in the U.S. and Canada.
        2009: Christian terrorist Scott Roeder killed Dr. George Tiller in Kansas.
        These are just a few notable examples. In total, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings in America committed by Christian terrorists over the issue of abortion alone.
        There are more Christian terrorists waiting in the wings for their chance for martyrdom. In 2010 the Hutaree, a Michigan Christian militia, was spotlighted in the news for conspiring to kill police officers. And oh, yes. There was that unfortunate standoff at Ruby Ridge a few years ago. Randy Weaver was a Christian terrorist in waiting. Again, these are just a couple of prominent examples. The presence of Christian extremists in America is pervasive and surprisingly well documented.
        And yet, if you approach an average Christian on Main Street, USA, and ask about Christian terrorism, you’ll probably be laughed off. True Christians don’t become terrorists. Therefore, there are no Christian terrorists.
        Only… there are lots of them.

        • Golfieni,
          Your litany of so-called examples of Christian terrorists and murder, etc demonstrated nothing other than people claim to do things in the name of Christ without actually doing what Christ commands. But atheists are responsible for more murders and terrorism than has ever been perpetrated by any other belief system (other than perhaps Islam, a religion whose holy books call for the extermination of Christians, Jews and anyone else who refuses to become Muslim). Just look at the 20th century and the millions murdered by Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot, et al. Any so-called Christian atrocity can’t even light a candle to that stuff.

          But, again, just because people have claimed to be Christian, that doesn’t mean they are. Every organization has a rule book, and if you don’t follow the rules then you can’t claim to be a member of that organization. Too many people claiming to be Christians don’t follow the rule book of the club and so are not Christians.

          Oh, and the Crusades were fought mostly by mercenaries, and they were for one purpose – to stop the spread of Islam. I suppose you’d rather be under sharia law and then you’d be executed for being a homosexual.

      • I don’t feel my profession is relevant at this time.

        Also. You appear to have missed approving one of my posts two posts above!?

        • Rob,
          You cannot expect us to approve a comment containing information we have not researched, as to do so could put true Christians in danger in India. By the way, is it possible that you interviewed me (Mrs.White,) in 2008?

      • Susan and Glenn.

        I have just gone and checked my diary and it is indeed Sunday!

        You spend much time and effort on this blog trying to apply your interpretation of the bible, or scripture as you prefer to call it, to individuals lives who do not see it as relevant to them, whilst you choose to blatantly ignore it!

        I read that “six days shall you labour and do all your work, but the seventh is a sabbath onto the lord, on it you shall do no work”. Yet I find you and Glenn using the immoral, unnatural Internet on a Sunday?! I remember when my great grandmother would peel potatoes on a sat night etc so she could just read her bible and pray on a Sunday and spend time with her family! She would be horrified how standards have declined!

        Susie and Glenn, curious where you find the authority to use the unnatural Internet in your bible?

        • Rob,
          We are instructed in Scripture to be always ready to give an answer for the hope within us and “always” includes Sundays. It is always right to share the Gospel of Christ and to contend for the faith and that is what we (and Glenn) endeavour to do seven days a week on our respective blogs.

        • Golfieni:
          I read that “six days shall you labour and do all your work, but the seventh is a sabbath onto the lord, on it you shall do no work”. Yet I find you and Glenn using the immoral, unnatural Internet on a Sunday?! I remember when my great grandmother would peel potatoes on a sat night etc so she could just read her bible and pray on a Sunday and spend time with her family! She would be horrified how standards have declined!
          Susie and Glenn, curious where you find the authority to use the unnatural Internet in your bible?

          So the internet is immoral? By whose standards? I didn’t know tools could be immoral! But your statement about the Sabbath again prove your total ignorance in regards the Bible and the Christian faith. You just pick out atheist talking points as if they’ve never been answered before. But try reading this article about why we don’t do the Sabbath – you might learn something.
          http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/05/are-christians-required-to-keep-sabbath.html

      • Susie. If you have a read over this thread, you will see that you accuse me in the wrong! It was Glenn that took the conversation down the route of christian terrorists by making the false statement that “no Christians have been involved in terrorism”. I was merely posting to highlight his falsehood!

        I await my apology Susan, with bated breath!

        • Sir,

          Despite what you say, you and golfieni have taken Glenn’s comment and constructed a straw man out of it. How many times do you people have to be told the same thing. No TRUE Christian would ever be involved in terrorism. To quote the late Keith Green, a TRUE Christian, (from his song, “How can they live without Jesus”),

          “Yes phonies have come and wrong’s been done, even killing in Jesus’ name, but if you’ve been burned, here’s what I’ve learned, the Lord’s not the one to blame.)

          You can hear this song on Youtube, just key in “songs of Keith Green.”

      • Glenn,

        I think I have discovered your problem. You are unable to read and to follow a basic conversation between adults. If you wish to respond to Rob (Spelt ROB) about his posts on christian terrorism or Sunday observance breaches then I suggest you address him. It is quite simple – Start the post with Rob (spelt ROB).

        Now that is cleared up I can move on to your responses to on the posts I actually made although with your criminally poor level of competence in dialogue and in understanding basic concepts of human biology and sexuality, I am not sure there is much point.

        First off Sexuality 101. There are several sexualities running from Heterosexual to Homosexual with varying degrees of bisexuality in the middle (the greedy ones). These orientations form the normal human variation of sexuality. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are just two points either end of a continuum. They describe the sexual attractions of individuals in society. Did you notice that paedophiles were not mentioned in that explanation ? There is a reason for that – paedophilia is a philia not an orientation (the clue was in the word there Glenn so that even the bewildered could spot it). Persons of any orientation could be a paedophile because it has nothing to do with sexuality. The only people who ever seem to conflate those two things are christian apologists and bigots.

        As for your claims to harm on the rest of society – I have already said there is no harm caused by sexuality. There is self inflicted harm by bigots who want the right to discriminate and may lose their jobs but that is their problem and they cannot lay the blame for their prejudice at anyone else door but their own (or perhaps their god or church).

        Calling me a liar will not advance your cause – what you need is evidence which you have so far been unable to supply – your links to so called studies are to nonsense which has been debunked and disowned many times that is why you can only link t the likes of CARM because only christian apologists would publish such incoherent nonsense.

        Glenn, I fear you have lost the ability to determine what truth is and the hatred you spew out against your fellow (equal) humans is a disgrace to your religion. It is safe to say that you are not a true christian as it is impossible to see the outworking of christ through you.

        I point you to a statement from the Bishop of Buckingham

        “The bad news is that, as a matter of shameful fact, the Church does appear to contain noisy minorities of homophobes and bigots who use verses from the Bible as a collection of soundbites to validate their disgust”

        recognise anyone?

        • Golfieni and Rob – it is hard to tell the difference. One homosexualist is like any other and it’s difficult to keep up with your excuses to support perversion.

          You’re all the same – homosexualists who use Kinsey’s lies about “sexuality 101” to support your perversion.

          Then you say the problems with homosexuality are really because of “bigots” (i.e., those who disagree with being forced to sanction homosexuality).

          The percentage of homosexual pedophiles to homosexuals is exponentially greater than the percentage of heterosexual pedophiles to heterosexuals. I.e., a grossly higher proportion of homosexuals are also pedophiles when compared to heterosexuals.

          But that has nothing to do with the conversation, does it. The point was that if you sanction one sexual perversion, you have no logical or moral justification to not sanction every other sexual perversion except for your own bigotry.

          So, if a person doesn’t want to give personal sanction to homosexuality (i.e., in your system of upside down thinking the person is a bigot), then it’s THEIR fault that they suffer harm! Homosexuals want someone to take photos of their fake wedding and a photographer who has a long list of immoral things she will not photograph, doesn’t have to photograph anything on her list except same-sex unions and if she doesn’t she gets huge fines and has to attend an indoctrination class, and it’s really her fault she was harmed. Right – she is harmed by bigots like you who cannot tolerate her beliefs.

          Not one item on any of those links provide has ever been debunked by anyone, and if you really believe otherwise, you are really, really self-deceived.

          And of course when the truth about homosexuality is exposed, it must be because of hatred in your upside-down world.

          You wouldn’t know what a real Christian is because you have no idea what the faith teaches. The Bishop of Buckingham is a disgrace to the name of Christ. And, no, I don’t recognize anyone described by him, except for himself.

          You are unwilling to be taught, you are unwilling to be corrected, and you are unwilling to accept what God say about homosexuality, and you are intolerant of any opposing views (obvious by your consistent name-calling of “bigot” and “homophobe”)

          You both have been described in the Bible as a fool, and I will not argue with that.

      • Glenn

        Perhaps you should establish facts before you have a pop at myself or Golfieni, thought I suppose when have you let the facts get in the way of what you want to say!

        Sort out who you quoting as you you are attributing some of my comments to Golfieni!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s