Speaking of Journalistic Courage ...

Sussex County Online User Forums: Fenwick Island Discussion Forum: Speaking of Journalistic Courage ...
By Eric Magill on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 11:58 am:

I find it ironic that some on this forum would accuse Sussex County Online of not displaying journalistic courage when they choose to hide behind Sussex County Online to display their "courage" anonymously.

Mr. Soprano's comments on the issue of journalistic courage and censorship, however, have given me reason to consider what we should do about the anonymous postings on this forum, posts that have reached the level of hissing contests.

First, I thank people like Bill and Elsie Weistling and Chris Clark and the others who have had the courage to post their real names with their posts.

Second, I didn't expect to have to do this on a forum of adults like I did with the teenagers on my Henlopen Conference Sports forum, but I'm going to set up some policies for future posts on the Fenwick Island Discussion Forum.

I understand that there are those who fear repercussions from using their real names, but I'm also not going to allow anonymous posts that may or may not be factual from people who just want to get back at someone for past injustices.

1. We will not allow posts that comment on someone's personal life rather than their public performance.

2. We may or may not allow anonymous posts for specific accusations of wrong-doing. If we know the post is true, we will let it stand. If we don't know if it's true or not, we will remove it and ask for proof before re-posting it. You can always call us at 537-4198 or email us at emagill@scdel.net to have us look into the situation.

3. We will allow anonymous posts for an opinion on a topic or to ask questions (i.e., where was FIPD during the winter storm?, or where is FI council getting the money to pay the back taxes?, etc.).

I welcome questions or comments, either on this forum or directed to me at 537-4198 or emagill@scdel.net, regarding these policies.

There is a lot of gray area here, but for the time being, this is how I choose to handle this.

It's a shame that the actions of Fenwick council have led to such frustration (notice this isn't happening with any of the other towns), but expressing that frustration without accountability lowers everyone here to council's level of trying to do things without accountability.

Eric Magill
Publisher, Sussex County Online

By Elsie on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 01:18 pm:

Well said and a good idea.

By Anthony L. Soprano on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 04:10 pm:

This board was a slippery slope to begin with, given the atmosphere in FI. Annonimity is the backbone of any internet message board/chatroom. I really don't think anyone is in fear of anything, some of the individuals involved in this sordid affair are neighbors of many who post here,do business with many who post here and must coexist with those who post here, so annonimity really is a must. Given the lack of opportunity to speak out in this town how could you be surprised that some comments may be a bit rough. You certainly have the right to remove posts that are vulgar or obscene,but by definition, removal of anything else, constitutes censorship. I have never scene a board that forbids annonimity for obvious reasons. If asking for journalistic courage offended you, I apologize, but there is a big difference between journalism and message boards. If you remove annonimity, you should close down the board. By the way, I'll bet none of your teenage contributors, had to make 2 escrow account supplimental payments on their mortgage in the last 13 months. A very poor analogy.

By Sussex226 on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 08:10 pm:

It's a shame that the actions of Fenwick council have led to such frustration (notice this isn't happening with any of the other towns), but expressing that frustration without accountability lowers everyone here to council's level of trying to do things without accountability.

Eric Magill
Publisher, Sussex County Online

Dear Eric,
Recently, I was chatting with another journalist, like yourself, who told me the job of a reporter was to report the facts without adding personal opinion, distortion or discrimination. It was also concluded that it is sometimes a very difficult job.

In my opinion your above underlined statement contains your opinion, a distortion of facts & unprofessionalism. Surely, any Judge of this land would agree this is *leading* your readers.

If the editor can't be unbiased I think it's time to close the board.


By Anthony L. Soprano on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 08:34 pm:

Follow up: "There is a lot of gray area here, but for the time being, this is how I choose to handle this". A discussion forum is not just discussing facts, but also opinions, you have no right to impose your will on people's opinions. Your rules also speak of how a post will be permitted if YOU know it is true. How much info have you gleaned from this board's annonimous contributors. I guess the bottom line is play by Eric's rules or Eric takes his ball and goes home.Since you are imposing your will. I would say your actions will intimdate people from posting,so I would look for a Huge decline in participation. I'm quite disappointed. CLOSE IT DOWN, that might be the best way to show Journalistic Integrity. You only have 5 or 6 people who identify themselves anyway,and who knows at this point what anyones agenda may be. I wonder why the Council's Ghostwriter contributors are not taken down. Perhaps we all have learned how hard it is to be a policeman.
PS. Woodward and Bernstein took a lot of heat too.

By Eric Magill on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 08:59 pm:

To Sussex 226:
This is a forum for expressing opinions, etc., not a story. If I were to put that into a story, then you would have a point.

On the other hand, we have presented more than enough corroboration in our stories (violations of FOIA, violations of the town charter, not to mention the violations of their oaths of office) to back that statement up as fact, not distortion.

The job of a reporter is to get as close to the truth as possible (obviously that is more difficult at times than others), and when necessary, point out when public officials abuse their power or fail to be truthful.

Eric Magill
Publisher, Sussex County Online

By Eric Magill on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 09:54 pm:

To Mr. Soprano:
We are not imposing our will on people's opinions. They are free to express their opinions within the guidelines we have established, which allow a lot of freedom compared to many news organizations that review posts to determine if they should be posted (i.e., the News-Journal).

We also haven't said people can't post anonymously. You, for instance, can continue using your many pseudonyms, but your posts will have to be within our guidelines. If you can't live with the new posting guidelines, so be it.

As for your previous post, we provided this forum originally to give the townspeople an opportunity to voice their opinions and be heard. A few, meanwhile, have abused that privilege (posting on a forum is a privilege, not a right as you seem to think it is).

These are the rules of the game. Whether anyone chooses to play is up to them.

Eric Magill
Publisher, Sussex County Online

By Sussex226 on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 11:09 pm:

Thank you for your reply.

This is a forum for expressing opinions, etc., not a story. If I were to put that into a story, then you would have a point.

Are you trying to say that for the sake of this message board you have lowered yourself to that of the Council you incriminate?

A priest is a priest, a doctor is a doctor, a journalist is a journalist -- all live by an oath of standards of some sort, the good ones do - different yet the same.

Thank you for your reply -bitter and reprimanding as it was. You are certainly free to be as good or as bad a journalist as you want to be.

Good night.

By Eric Magill on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 12:41 am:

You say I have lowered myself to council's level, yet I believe I have been accountable for every word I've written here. Are you saying council didn't avoid accountability for its actions ... until those actions were exposed?

As far as journalists go, I've been in the business 20 years and know that any journalist who says they don't have an opinion on the issues they cover is a bald-faced lier.

The difference between the good and bad journalists is the good ones don't allow their opinions to seep into their news stories. I don't believe I have allowed that to happen in our stories, but if you feel otherwise, feel free to point those instances out to me.

By Sussex226 on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 07:51 am:

Let's keep this accurate-- please.
You say I have lowered myself to council's level,
My inquiry was in the form of a question [?] I didn't *say* anything.

yet I believe I have been accountable for every word I've written here. Are you saying council didn't avoid accountability for its actions... until those actions were exposed?

Certainly, all of us can find difference with the definition of accountability or how it should be implemented. It's a simple thing --to account for. So far I have not been shown where there is actual non-accountablity; actual checkbooks, figures or money long gone or missing in thin air; according to SCO everything found wrong has been acknowledged and fixed --so have these things been accounted for or not??

Question- am I to assume you are accountable for every message posted here, or is it just your message board?

Accountability-- I guess it all depends on the view you want to see from where you sit.

Thank You

By Bill Weistling, jr. on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 09:54 am:

"Appreciate people who feel it's their responsibility to inform the public about government's actions and records. It's not a smere campaign, only calling up accountability" News Journal.

By Eric Magill on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 07:47 pm:

I believe the legal profession would call your question "asked and answered".

For the sake of accuracy, I did say that council held itself accountable ... but not until its actions were exposed. That's hardly something to take comfort in.

If not for the citizens of Fenwick, some key employees in the police department, and Vicki Carmean, much of what council has done would still be unknown.

The bottom line is certain council members have willfully violated their oaths of office to uphold the laws of the town (missed audits), the laws of the state (repeated FOIA violations), and possibly the laws of the federal government (waiting on the COPS Grants investigation for that).

Have they been accountable on those issues? They only addressed the missed audits when shamed into it by Carmean in September ... they continue to view FOIA as a nuisance, not the law.

But, I guess you can live with that.

By F.I. victim on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 08:46 pm:

Dear Mr.Magill
I want to thank you for having your on-line service. I am a Fenwick Island homeowner (for over 20 years) and I view with alarm the proceedings of the infamous town council. I only hope that their mismanagment doesn't cause my taxes to rise further than they are. Without your service we part time residents would be completely in the dark about what's going on. Examples of fiscal waste are all around from a fleet of unused police vehicles sitting at the town office or watching the garbage truck crew taking a half hour to collect the trash from our street. I'm sure that the budget could be cut by 10% instead of being raised by that amount. I hope that your enterprise is successful so that you will continue providing this service.

By Bill Weistling, jr. on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 09:15 pm:

To F.I. Victim:
I can't comment on all of your complaints, but I take exception to the one about the 'GARBAGE TRUCK CREW TAKING A HALF HOUR TO COLLECT THE TRASH FROM OUR STREET". Please id your street and complain to Neil and ask for an explanation. I know he'll respond to your concerns.
In a half-hr. time frame, the FIPW moves FAST on the trash pick-up. I live adjacent to Bunting Ave., the longest street in FI. In a half hour time frame they have covered this street and many of the side streets.
Call and express your concerns. Complain, but pursue it.

By Sussex226 on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 12:33 am:

In final response to you...
What you write I can read online or in the newspaper. You write nothing new, nothing that convinces me that this is anything more than hype here. IMCO, You are leaning very heavily on assumption, hearsay and Mrs. Carmean's say so. May I remind you- Mrs. Carmean sending an another letter does not, my friend, constitute a FOIA violation. It is just another letter stating her point of view. Blind faith can be dangerous.

BTW- Where you were BEFORE Mrs. Carmean arrived? Mrs. Weistling has inquired at every Council Meeting she's attended about the audits for as long as I can remember now, perhaps two to three years. Why isn't she your hero?

None of this adds up to me... Why this viciousness from you? I'm very curious now, what is it exactly you, Eric Magill, have to gain from bringing down this Council? Sell more advertising to keep this site online?

I'm sorry, I have no use for this mental masturbation you give me.

By Another Concerned Resident on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 01:54 am:

Dear F. I. victim.....

Im wondering something, so please correct me if I am wrong. Are you tired of complaining about FIPD that you have to move on and find things wrong with another dept. in town? Have you taken into consideration how many people actually live in Fenwick Island as a FULL TIME resident? IF you pay attention, judging by what you are complaining about you are not, there are more and more people living in Fenwick permanently. MR . VICTIM, just viewing what u have typed in here about the GARBAGE CREW TAKING A HALF HOUR TO GO THROUGH YOUR STREET holds and bears no meaning to the actual problem in town. Those men do a great job and to hear a PART TIME resident as yourself complain about something as miniscule as this, completely blows my mind as to what you will complain of next. There's an old adage my folks told me when i was growing up, they said IF YOU HAVE NOTHING NICE TO SAY DON'T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL...

Mr.Magill ,
I also would like to thank you. I find ur on-line service to be very resourceful and very descriptive of the happenings that take place in town... Please keep up the good work and once again... THANK YOU

By Eric Magill on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 08:47 am:

Now there's a mental image I could do without ...

I guess you will simply choose to be in denial since you obviously can't handle the truth.

Nothing I've written here has been based on hearsay. Your blind loyalty shows me that you have a vested personal interest in defending this council ... perhaps you are a councilperson, or are responding for a councilperson who I have had similar conversations with on the phone? Certainly, your posts attempt to put the kind of spin on these mis-deeds that council tried to put on them before being caught.

Assumption and hearsay? Apparently, you missed the news of the dozen FOIA violations Fenwick council has been found guilty of in the past year, including a remedy ordered by the AG's office to hold a special meeting and allow public comment to properly hire Hudson as OIC. The deadline for that meeting is today.

No question Elsie Weistling is one of the heroes who have led to the uncovering of so many things council tried to hide. Without the efforts of her, Bill Weistling, the Fenwick Island Concerned Citizens, past employees, and yes, Vicki Carmean, little of Fenwick council's mis-deeds would have been brought to light.

I'll take no credit for that. We've simply reported what others have brought to us through their research. They are the ones who deserve the credit for starting to right the sinking ship in Fenwick.

By Eric Magill on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 08:53 am:

I should also add ... I've done nothing to bring down this council. Council has done this to itself. Interestingly, that charge has been levelled at me by a specific councilperson.

By Elsie Weistling on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 01:42 pm:

Thanks, but no thanks, as far as this hero worshipping mess goes! Don't play that card! No one wants any of this to be happening!
Ms. Carmean doesn't, I know for a fact! And though I have asked questions for years and years of each and every Council, I never wanted to hear anything like I am hearing these days. But, if it is happening and involves the Town and the Council, I want to be aware of it, you can be sure. That's why I have attended all of the meetings I could for the last 15 years or so, if not longer.
My questions have always been designed to prevent just these sort of things, to give notice to Council if I thought I saw something I thought they had not foreseen or seemed to look not so ideal,... corrective, if you will, with the intention of helping, not harming. I have to think Councils have felt that as my intention for years or they wouldn't have kept me on the various committees.
Of course, now, some members of Council don't feel the same way if I am to judge by the difference in the way I am treated by some compared to the past. Just know, whatever I am doing is not personal against any Council persons. I am addressing issues that have come up that concern me. If you think I am attacking you personally, it is your perception and not my intention. And the fact that you think something I am addressing is personal ought to really make you think again if it hits you that way!
For heaven's sakes, I was on Council with two of you Council Members when you came on board. Bill and I have worked closely with many of you Council Members over the last decade on one committee or another. There are business type of personal relationships that exist as a result. Maybe that long history of working within the Town government gives us an insight to ask more questions than most. Maybe that gives others reason to listen to us. But we haven't been the ones to discover what has come out. An Officer of the Law or an Auditor has.
We only support the fact that it is public information and should be openly disclosed to the public. From conversations with her, I can tell you that is what Ms. Carmean feels as well and acts on with guidance from the Attorney General's office in many instances. If she feels something should be out in the public, she doesn't necessarily blurt it out publicly. She checks first in most of the instances, sometimes with Tempe, sometimes with the AG's office and when it is so obviously public, she just knows.
My personal opinion is that it sounds like most of the legal fees building up right now in this town could have been avoided if there was less ego involved and more real communication experienced. How sad is that...for all of us!
And the same kind of non-communication is coming through loudly and clearly on the initial email that put my name in the text as the should be hero! This pattern please has to change for the good of all of this town.
And, Eric, might I suggest that you don't allow that writer to get you drawn into his/her battle. It's an age old tactic. No one believes that the last version spoken is necessarily the one to believe or not to believe.
No one is a winner here no matter how things come out... on these emails, in the hearing, with the OIG, with the State, with DOL, with FOIA and the AG's office, in the audit, in the Town admin offices, in the police department, even among Council with the apparent in-fighting and with the tensions between Council and some of the public. I only see lose, lose.
If nothing else has come out of all of this, it is that public apathy allows for many kinds of little, even unintentional, mistakes to become big ones and bigger messes. So, I will keep asking the questions and suggest everyone else does too.
Even Council would have to admit (you know which members in particular I mean), I personally have not been that hard on Council even if they don't care for the fact that I am in that group, especially given my Accounting and other background! Maybe I am giving you too much credit and you don't even realize that, but I certainly hope not for the sake of the Town. Am writing on a personal level here, not representing the group.
Not a hero by any means,
just a Fenwick Island Concerned Citizen!
: ) Couldn't resist! : )

By NMagdeburger on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 11:20 pm:

Sussex226-- Why do you feel threatend by the fact that the inner workings of the Council have been opened up for public view and comment? Why is it "dangerous" to ask questions of our public officials? It appears from your writings that you are confused by what has happened and why it has happened. This public outcry is not nor has it ever been personal. This is not an attack on you. What is happening is a communication of a populace requesting that its governing body address issues of legitimate concern. It is about a call from your fellow Fenwick Islanders to open up government and answer some questions about how things are being run in town hall. This is not about "bringing you down"; it is about building Fenwick up so that it works properly and smoothly again. It is about fixing the problems instead of trying to cover them up. It is about following the law. It is about upholding the Charter. It is about fiscal responsibility and accountability. It is about balancing Fenwick's checkbooks. It is about having a budget and a plan for future growth and expenditures. It is about spending my money and yours wisely. It is about getting on with business in the year 2003 AND doing it lawfully. This is not about spinning stories or placing blame. It is about doing what is right, doing what is just and doing it in a truthful manner so that this little town that all of us love can move into an era of congenial cooperation. The FOIA complaints Mrs. Carmean filed are not "her point of view" as you imply. Rather, the FOIA complaints are her lawful right, as a citizen, to ask the Attorney General to investigate and rule on whether the Council is conducting its business in a lawful manner. Mrs. Carmean isn't trying to express her own opinion but is rather seeking a legal one. Guess what? Attorney General Brady's "point of view" is that not all that has happened in the past several months has complied with the law. So, again, Sussex226 who are you? Did you stand all day in the hot sun with Mrs. Carmean this summer running for election? Did you promise to keep the lines of communication to town council open to the public? Did you call and congratulate her when she was elected? Did you take an oath of office to uphold the laws of Delaware and the Charter of Fenwick? If so, please do what you promised to do. Sussex226, this is not personal. Stop torturing yourself with your "mental masturbations" about whether or not you are being unjustly vilified and start doing something to correct the problems. Stand shoulder to shoulder with Mrs. Carmean and work through the problems Fenwick is facing. Seek the public's input. There are some great solutions being suggested if only you would take the time to listen. Work with Mrs. Carmean. Knowing her as I do, I suspect she would welcome your assistance and cooperation.

By Sussex226 on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 07:51 am:

A wonderful argument! -- but on the wrong subject. Your dear Mom must be very proud of you ;) Please step a little more toward center, into the right conversation-- mine.

My issue here is with Eric's Ethics as editor-- and still is. He's sitting on two sides of one fence and using both sets of rules. One set of ethics for his jouralist hat and different for his editor hat.

Mrs. Carmean is wonderful person... it's a shame the way Mr. Magill keeps throwing her name around.

again, Thank you.

By Eric Magill on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 09:31 am:

I'm not going to pretend that I can make sense of much of what you write, but I assume you believe I have been biased in the stories I've written because of my statements here.

At some point, I assume you will actually provide evidence of this.

Here is a link to all of the stories we have written about Fenwick since we started covering the town in July 2002. http://www.sussexcountyonline.com/news/localnews/fenwickisland/index.html.

Go through the stories, find what you think is evidence of bias, and we'll discuss it.

By NMagdeburger on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 08:34 pm:


I find your comments curious and again misdirected. In your desire to cast blame on others (a diversion perhaps?), you fail to grasp that I WAS in your conversation. In fact, if you would take the time to listen, I think you will find that Mr. Magill, Mrs. Carmean, Chris Clarke, Elsie Wiestling and the other Fenwick Island Concerned Citizens have also ALWAYS been IN on YOUR conversation. We all want to help Fenwick (and, consequently, you) back on her feet. I suspect the problem is that you just don't like to hear the message, particularly when it is put into print in Mr. Magill's paper.

I again humbly beseech you to stop throwing stones and start building bridges. Perhaps if you were able to stop your "mental masturbations" in this regard, you could still learn to enjoy the real thing--open government responsive to public input, i.e., a real democracy.

As for my mom, I don't know what her feelings are about me and the fact that I responded to your e-mail as I have not discussed it with her. What I can say is that I concur wholeheartedly in your opinion of her. She IS a wonderful person and I am proud of her and the way she has done what is right even though she has been subjected to a lot of unkind behavior. Now, the only thing that would invoke more pride is if you would do the same. Please join those of us who are tired of the name calling and are ready, willing and able to find solutions.

Here's hoping that you get "lucky" and realize before it is too late that the real thing is better than what can ever be imagined.

By Sussex226 on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 09:07 pm:

Eric, I guess it is only fair--

"While there are certainly legitimate reasons for holding executive sessions, ->the manner in which Fenwick Island has flaunted the FOIA is certainly questionable and perhaps another issue for the attorney general's office."

->"Such arrogance is inappropriate for town council, not to mention the Sussex County Council seat Baunchalk aspires to this November."


Fenwick Island Concerned Citizens:
"Citizens groups tend to rise up when residents begin to feel disenfranchised by their government. For some time, a lot of folks in Fenwick Island have felt their concerns have not been heard. ->It all boils down to one word: Arrogance."

->The majority of council members have shown little concern for how their actions and attitudes are perceived by the public. Guess what? Smirks and condescending remarks from the dais don't do much to instill confidence. They do go a long way toward invoking anger among the citizenry. Nobody likes to be played the fool."

"She's been chastised in public ->and lambasted in private by other council members for taking a stand against hypocrisies, large and small, committed in the past few months by her fellow council members."
in private?=hearsay

->"and you just know it's going to be like about with the Sussex County Crud -- it's bound to get even worse before it gets better."
wishful thinking or assumption


However you see this--
I see no point in examining every word you've written, I hope these examples are enough. Unlike some, I do believe you have listened, even if we don't agree.

Thank You.

By Sussex226 on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 09:32 pm:


errr, What can I say? You've been so kind! Thanks for the sermon. Yes, I see the light and the answer is plain to see-- geez!
:) My compliments-- like mother like daughter! -or is it like daughter like mother? Not important- Well anyway...good luck to you too.

By NMagdeburger on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 10:10 pm:


Your sarcastic comments only underscore my point, don't they?

By bill weistling, jr. on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 10:39 pm:

Further quotes for Sussex 226 to peruse:
President Baunchalk:
"As a Council we have no trouble with the findings, we'll continue to do what we've always done. Council's actions are consistent with our committment to follow FOIA and be vigilant in protecting the interests of our citizens."
WAVE 6/12/'02.
Reaction to 6 FOIA violations for March 2002.

By Sussex226 on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 07:45 am:


Sarcastic?? I'm sorry I've upset you by saying how much likeness you are to your mother-- but if it upsets you-- I understand and withdraw my compliment. Sincerely, no insult was intended. My Apoligies.

By Sussex226 on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 07:54 am:

Please sit down- relax, The quotes above I submitted are sentences from SCO articles that were written by Eric or Kerin. They have ALL & ONLY to do with if those particular sentences crossed the jouralist line into personal opininon.
Thank you.

By Sussex226 on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 08:12 am:

perhaps my use of "quotation marks" is confusing to you. They are not personal transcribed spoken quotes as you have submitted. Thank you.

By Eric Magill on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 10:19 am:

The examples you've given are from columns, clearly labeled as "commentary" and "columns" -- not from news articles. Guess I should have specified that for you.

By NMagdeburger on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 11:13 am:


I have no problem being compared to my mother. As I have stated publically, with my name posted, I am proud of my mother for what SHE has done while on town council. Also, as you have experienced first hand by sitting next to her at council meetings (without your cloak of anonymity), my mother thinks and acts for herself. To suggest otherwise is only another one of your mean spirited attempts to try and belittle her and/or intimidate her and/or embarrass her. Frankly, I'm not sure what you intend by such statements; however, I would have thought by now you have learned, first hand, that these types of statements have not stopped my mother from doing what is right. So, in case you misunderstood my point, let me re-phrase it: Please stop the nastiness, please stop the sarcasm, please stop the attempts to divert the story. Take all that energy you devote to those activities and channel it to solve the problems. This isn't about me, my mom, Mr. Magill's ethics or anybody else. It is and should be about getting Fenwick back up and running. So, if your apology was sincere, it is accepted. However, given what you have said and how you have said it, I suspect that your apology is not sincere. And, unfortunately, this lack of sincerity, Mr. Sussex226, has been the problem all along....Can't you refrain?

By Sussex226 on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 01:08 pm:

My questions regarding the misuse of opinions and hearsay by SCO have been answered. I will pay better attention the heading in the future.

I'm sorry NMagdeburger can't understand my issue was only with SCO and has caused herself to get so upset.

Thank you Eric.

By Curious Reader on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 11:56 pm:

Was that an apology to Eric as well, Sussex226?

Add a Message

This is a public posting area. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" box and leave the "Password" box empty. Your e-mail address is optional.