|
|
Forum: Old Message Board
Thread (Discussion): Kanin's study vindicated - I'm such an idiot!
Message 117971
Kanin's study vindicated
Posted by x_HPierce
on Oct 09, 2003 04:22 PM | Also by x_HPierce
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
First of all thanks to Steve for emailing me the Kanin study. I believe marta obtained the information and sent it to Steve. If that is the case then thanks to marta as well.
Marta authored a thread not too long ago that attempted to expose Mr. Kanin’s study as a sham. I had only seen three abstracts from the study but felt three separate yet agreeing accounts of Mr. Kanin’s study did not appear to be a sham.
Armed with the study I’ll now go back and address marta’s issues with the study.
Marta says:
>>>>
Mr. Eugene Kanin, professor at Purdue University, can officially be discarded as evidence supporting a 41% false rape allegation frequency, not only because his sample size is miniscule…..>>>>
Lets discuss the miniscule sample issue. His study was from a midwest town (pop. 70,000), that had an excellent methodology of handling crimes. In fact the police agency forbids police officers in using their discretion in deciding whether to officially acknowledge a rape complaint, regardless how suspect that complaint might be. Marta’s statement is not accurate. Mr. Kanin’s study was over a NINE YEAR PERIOD. I too would question a single town had it been conducted over a single year. After all, you can find spikes in any city (high or low) that could make a case either way. That was not the case in this study. The AVERAGE over the 9 year period was 41% of all rape allegations were false. The next year Mr. Kanin gained access to two midwestern universities. The findings were from the prior THREE years (not a single year). He found that almost half (50%) of all rape claims from these two universities over the past three years were false allegations. So no, the sampling wasn’t miniscule. In fact it was broad (spanning almost a decade) and included three separate locations. I would have preferred to see studies included outside the midwest but that only implies that midwesterners lie more than east coast or west coast people.
Marta’s other objection is that half the rape claims weren’t valid.
Marta says:
>>>
…, but because only half of the women in his study who fabricated a rape actually pointed the finger at a specific person (last sentence, 6th paragraph of the 'Findings' section in the study). Now last time I checked, there has to be a person at the end of the allegation finger for anyone to actually stand accused, much less suffer the horrible fate of men accused of rape.
>>>
Marta is under the false assumption that if a woman doesn’t point a finger at someone, it isn’t a false rape allegation. That maybe her OPINION but in reality any rape report filed with a police department is considered a false rape allegation if it is found to be false. That’s all. This study was based solely on FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS.
Lets look at that 6th paragraph in Mr. Kanin’s findings.
It says:
>>>
Of the 45 cases of false charges, over one-half (56%, n=27) served the complaint’s need to provide a plausible explanation for some suddenly foreseen, unfortunate, consequence of a consensual encounter, usually sexual, with a male acquaintance. An assailant is identified in approximately one half of these cases.
>>>
The finding in the above was one of Mr. Kanin’s explanations as to why women file false rape reports (alibi function)
So marta’s percentage only illustrates that half the women who admitted filing a false rape report actually identified an attacker to provide an alibi.
What marta didn’t share was that all the above false rape allegations were declared false only because the complainant admitted they were false (page 2, third paragraph).
This isn’t a study about false rape claims proved false in court. This study deals exclusively with FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS: The intentional reporting of a forcible rape by an alleged victim when no rape had occurred (page 1, Introduction, first paragraph).
I suspected that the three abstracts I had read could not have left out a significant piece of information that would nullify its validity. I was right. Marta’s evaluation of Kanin’s study was erroneous.
Since his findings are valid, methodology sound and unbiased, I will be correct in stating that FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS ARE FREQUENT in any future post.
H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 118011 (In Reply to Message 117971)
Take a closer look
Posted by x_Rachel
on Oct 10, 2003 04:17 AM | Also by x_Rachel
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Excerpts from: Columbia Journalism Review
http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6rape.asp
The article begins with questions regarding the wide variations of statistics in false rape allegations, and continues with :
The FBI has been saying since 1991 that the annual rate for the false reporting of forcible sexual assault across the country has been a consistent 8 percent (through 1995, the most recent year available).
More importantly regarding this particular thread, Eugene.J.Kanin also gets a mention quoting the statistics that H.P mentioned.
The article says:
Kanin of Purdue warned against reading too much into his examination of the small midwestern city. "Certainly our intent is not to suggest that the 41% incidence found here to be extrapolated to other populations, particularly in light of our ignorance regarding the the structural variables".
There you have it H.P, straight from the horses mouth.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (117971)
Message 118025 (In Reply to Message 117971)
Kanin disagrees with you!
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 10, 2003 12:06 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
H. Pierce wrote:
> Armed with the study I’ll now go back and address marta’s
> issues with the study.
So you're finally where you should have been when you initially spewed the data, what was it, LAST YEAR? And only because I let you be.
> Marta says:
>
> >>>>
> Mr. Eugene Kanin, professor at Purdue University, can
> officially be discarded as evidence supporting a 41% false
> rape allegation frequency, not only because his sample size
> is miniscule…..>>>>
>
> Lets discuss the miniscule sample issue. His study was from
> a midwest town (pop. 70,000), that had an excellent
> methodology of handling crimes.
But the only relevant number is the number of rape reports.
> Mr. Kanin’s study was over a NINE
> YEAR PERIOD.
Given that there were 63,000 rape reports in the U.S. in ONE year
(http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/02prelimannual.pdf), 109 is a miniscule sample size for NINE years.
> The next year Mr. Kanin gained access to two
> midwestern universities. The findings were from the prior
> THREE years (not a single year). He found that almost half
> (50%) of all rape claims from these two universities over the
> past three years were false allegations.
For which he provides NO data.
> So no, the sampling wasn’t miniscule.
The sample SIZE (from which we determine results, and statistical significance) WAS miniscule= 63,000 rapes in one year in the U.S. x 9 years of study = 576,000 rape claims in the U.S. in nine years. (109 rape claims in Kanin study/576,000) x 100 = 0.019% of the total rapes in the U.S. in the same amount of time = crappy sample size.
> Marta’s other objection is that half the rape claims weren’t
> valid.
Not. My other objection is that fully half of the claims were made without identifying a suspect.
> Marta is under the false assumption that if a woman doesn’t
> point a finger at someone, it isn’t a false rape allegation.
Incorrect again. And here's where your disgusting willingness to lie, distort, etc. is exposed. EVERYBODY who has followed this discussion KNOWS that you originally posted a reference to this study to support Trying to Survive's assertion that false rape ACCUSATIONS, not claims, are a danger to your average man. This argument was never about claims without suspects, it was ALWAYS about whether there is a high incidence of women sending innocent men to jail for rape. If the woman does not point the finger, no one goes to jail.
Mr. Kanin's study DOES NOT support a 41% incidence of false rape ACCUSATIONS.
> I suspected that the three abstracts I had read could not
> have left out a significant piece of information that would
> nullify its validity. I was right.
No you were not. The three ARTICLES (not abstracts) that you read were hysterical rantings about how men have a new fear in life to worry about (in addition to death and taxes): that the next woman they sleep with will falsely ACCUSE THEM (not the air, not an imaginary suspect, but THEM) of rape. No possible reading of the Kanin study supports such a conclusion, which you intended (and still intend) to support by referring to it.
> Since his findings are valid, methodology sound and unbiased,
His findings are valid in one town in the Midwest. Even he admits that more research needs to be done in order to see if they hold true elsewhere:
(p.5, caps added)
Most problematic is the question of the generalizability of
these findings from a single police agency handling a
relatively small number of cases. CERTAINLY, OUR INTENT IS
NOT TO SUGGEST THAT THE 41% INCIDENCE FOUND HERE BE
EXTRAPOLATED TO OTHER POPULATIONS,. . .
> I will be correct in stating that FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS ARE
> FREQUENT in any future post.
No you won't. Even Kanin says so. See above.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (117971)
Message 118044 (In Reply to Message 117971)
Oh, and by the way. . .
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 10, 2003 04:26 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Why are you such a LIAR???? And you're such a bad one at that. Anyone who wants to know which of us is telling the truth can simply GO BACK AND READ the threads where you referenced the study and where I stated my objections to your characterization of it, at which point it should be abundantly clear that you have SERIOUS issues with admitting you are wrong.
I invite anyone to read the following threads (in chronological order)and come to a different conclusion:
http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=13385&t=13385
where H. Pierce wrote:
"False allegations of rape are far more common than most people imagine.
Take Crossfire co-host Tucker Carlson. He was ACCUSED of raping a woman whom he had never met in a city he had never visited.
Or William Hetherington, whose wife ACCUSED him of spousal rape during a bitter child custody dispute. Hetherington was imprisoned in 1985, and to this day is still awaiting justice."
It's might fishy that this thread, where you originally referenced the Kanin study on 08-05-03 at 22:20, is ALL about false rape ACCUSATIONS. Now that you find that the Kanin study doesn't say what you thought it said (because you didn't read it) you're trying to weasel out of it by claiming that you were only ever talking about rape claims? This topic alone suffices to show that you're LYING.
But then there's more:
http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=15464&t=15464
where H. Pierce wrote:
"There is a real problem with women and girls reporting false rapes, attacks and molestation.
I note that your story is from an Australian point of view/law. However, in the United Police States of America you can get a written consent before sex, BUT in some states, if at anytime during sex one partner says they want to stop, you must stop immediatly. Failure to do so will still get you charged with rape."
Again, here you start out the thread by talking about false rape accusations, where the woman accuses a specific man of rape.
Note H. Pierce's miraculously change from clearly talking about false rape accusations to claiming he was always talking about false allegations as well. He had from 09-09-03 20:23 to 09-13-03 05:09 to make it clear that he was talking about false rape allegations that include both women who point the finger and those who don't. This he did not do until I finally found the studies he referenced (but hadn't read), and pointed out his error. Sounds like more evidence of LYING to me.
And to round it all up, there's more of H. Pierce's tortured squirming at:
http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=16145&t=16145
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (117971)
Message 118050 (In Reply to Message 118025)
wrong again marta
Posted by x_HPierce
on Oct 10, 2003 05:50 PM | Also by x_HPierce
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
marta says:
>>>
So you're finally where you should have been when you initially spewed the data, what was it, LAST YEAR? And only because I let you be.
>>>
Wrong again marta. Orolan gave you this cite. I did the one on the Canadian study. You should check your facts before engaging keyboard.
marta says:
>>>
But the only relevant number is the number of rape reports.
>>>
Means nothing. You should know better than that. I've seen entire case studies out of a single clinic validated as accurate. You are grasping at staws and failing. The study was over 9 years where Mr. Kanin only received the information.. didn't get to massage it. Plus look at the other two univiversities that showed a false rape claim of 50%.
marta says:
>>>
No you were not. The three ARTICLES (not abstracts) that you read were hysterical rantings about how men have a new fear in life to worry about (in addition to death and taxes): that the next woman they sleep with will falsely ACCUSE THEM (not the air, not an imaginary suspect, but THEM) of rape. No possible reading of the Kanin study supports such a conclusion, which you intended (and still intend) to support by referring to it.
>>>
Ahh I love it when you stick your foot in your mouth. I never gave you the three abstracts that I read.. so you are pulling this out your butt. You have shown that you can't accept the reality that WOMEN LIE ABOUT RAPE. Not all the time but somewhere between 40 to 50 % of the time. You don't like it because it makes you think that no one will take women's rape serious. I think men would take it more serious if women would confess that their sister lie about it almost as much as they tell the truth.
Better look at his study again, marta he gives ample explanations as to why women tell lies. Wanna concede or do I have to post it all??
marta says:
>>>
His findings are valid in one town in the Midwest. Even he admits that more research needs to be done in order to see if they hold true elsewhere:
>>>
Naw.. you don't get off that easy lady. It is valid.. he only mentions that more research is needed. It in no way invalidates his study or he wouldn't be stupid enough to publish it. You should know better than that.
marta continues with:
>>>
Most problematic is the question of the generalizability of
these findings from a single police agency handling a
relatively small number of cases. CERTAINLY, OUR INTENT IS
NOT TO SUGGEST THAT THE 41% INCIDENCE FOUND HERE BE
EXTRAPOLATED TO OTHER POPULATIONS
>>>
Not so fast. He only said that he has no research other than this finding so far. However, when you take in two other universities with false rape claims higher than the 41% it makes no difference. He at least is smart enough to understand that more work is needed. He is also smart enough to point out femimist ploys to show a zero (laughable) percentage of false report claims... as well as 100% false report claims by opposing groups (also laughable).
No, he is middle of the road and has done his homework as I have. You have not.
You have failed to show that his study is a sham. You failed to read the details and manipulated the data. Shame on you. This was a study on FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS, no false rapes cases that caused harm to males.
You better do a whole lot better if you expect to make it through your third year, girl.
H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118025)
Message 118051 (In Reply to Message 118011)
Not at all Rachel
Posted by x_HPierce
on Oct 10, 2003 05:54 PM | Also by x_HPierce
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
This only says that he can't speak for all cities. Smart move. Too bad other studies don't do that. However, look at his study .. one year it showed almost 70% of all rape cases were false... false only because the women said they were false.
He suggests that other studies be done.. not that his work was invalid.
FALSE RAPE CLAIMS BY WOMEN EQUAL SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 41 AND 50% (AT LEAST) DEAL WITH IT!!!
H. Pierce (proud to educate Rachel one more time)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118011)
Message 118123 (In Reply to Message 118051)
Try a little humble pie H.P.
Posted by x_Rachel
on Oct 13, 2003 07:53 AM | Also by x_Rachel
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Did you read what Kanin said h.p ?
I will quote it again for you in case your contact lens was a little loose at the time:
"Certainly our intent is NOT to suggest that the 41% incidence found here to be extrapolated to other populations"
H.Pierce wrote:
>
> FALSE RAPE CLAIMS BY WOMEN EQUAL SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 41 AND 50%
> (AT LEAST) DEAL WITH IT!!!
Rachel answers:
No H.P., Even Kanin agrees with me.
You are wrong, YOU deal with it !
Rachel (spoon feeding H.P a small serving of humble pie)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118051)
Message 118132 (In Reply to Message 118044)
Knock it off.. you lost!!
Posted by x_HPierce
on Oct 13, 2003 09:28 AM | Also by x_HPierce
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
What a sorry loser you are.
marta called me a liar because I exposed her feminist bias, her inability to pay attention to details and perverting portions of studies to fit her own agenda.
marta says:
>>>
I invite anyone to read the following threads (in chronological order)and come to a different conclusion:
http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=13385&t=13385
where H. Pierce wrote:
"False allegations of rape are far more common than most people imagine.
>>>
Yeah please do you will find that my statment matches Kanin's 100%. The reporting of false rape reports is frequent. There is nothing to argue.. it is a fact.. deal with it.
marta vainly attempts:
>>>
Note H. Pierce's miraculously change from clearly talking about false rape accusations to claiming he was always talking about false allegations as well. He had from 09-09-03 20:23 to 09-13-03 05:09 to make it clear that he was talking about false rape allegations that include both women who point the finger and those who don't. This he did not do until I finally found the studies he referenced (but hadn't read), and pointed out his error. Sounds like more evidence of LYING to me.
And to round it all up, there's more of H. Pierce's tortured squirming at:
http://www.sexcriminals.com/messageboard/read.html?f=1&i=16145&t=16145
>>>>
You are digging yourself a deeper hole. I haven't changed anything, only brought up the fact that Kanin's study was about false allegations, something even a second year lawyer-in-training should have seen. You clearly FAILED to see it until I exposed your 'sham statement' as worthless because THIS WAS A STUDY OF FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS!!!
I have never changed my stance on actual false rape accusations. They are also frequent. You'd have to be more of a fool than you are careless with details not to know that there are innocent men sent to jail on false rape accusations.
You lost marta.
False rape allegations are frequent.
False rape accusations are frequent.
Actual rapes are frequent.
H. Pierce (proud pedosexual)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118044)
Message 118146 (In Reply to Message 118050)
Re: wrong again marta
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 13, 2003 11:00 AM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
H. Pierce wrote:
> >>>
> Wrong again marta. Orolan gave you this cite. I did the one
> on the Canadian study. You should check your facts before
> engaging keyboard.
Go back and read the original thread (in Aug. of 2003). Why are you still lying? You referenced the study long before anyone cited anything.
> I've seen entire case studies out of a single clinic validated > as accurate.
What are you talking about?? As long as the number of cases is high enough, it doesn't matter if they are out of a single clinic, or a single Midwestern town. The Kanin study had an insufficient sample size. A study coming out of 23 hospitals across the United States could still have an insufficient sample size. All you are demonstrating is that you have zero working knowledge of statistics. Even Kanin admits more needs to be done to come to any conclusions.
Until you demonstrate far greater scientific acumen, you're not really in a position, in my mind, to decide that you want to take Kanin's data but leave his analysis and conclusions . . . unless you simply don't want to be taken seriously.
> The study was over 9 years where Mr. Kanin only received the
> information.. didn't get to massage it.
Wha????? Real scientists don't massage data. Kanin made no attempt to massage his data. His sample size fell short of statistically acceptable standards, he accepted and admitted it. Why can't you?
> Ahh I love it when you stick your foot in your mouth. I
> never gave you the three abstracts that I read.. so you are
> pulling this out your butt.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: study authors produce one official abstract for their papers. Can you show me these various "abstracts?"
> You have shown that you can't accept the reality that WOMEN
> LIE ABOUT RAPE.
Except that I've discussed, AND SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION, studies that reasonably support a frequency as high as ~20%. If I couldn't "accept" it, I wouldn't entertain the idea at all.
> Not all the time but somewhere between 40 to 50 % of the
> time . . .
in some Midwestern town oft visited by a one Mr. Eugene Kanin.
> You don't like it because it makes you think that no one will > take women's rape serious.
This conversation has little or nothing to do with whether rapes will be taken seriously. Where a rape has occurred, it is my belief that it is always taken seriously, except, of course, by hysterical maligned individuals such as yourself.
> I think men would take it more serious if women would confess > that their sister lie about it almost as much as they tell the > truth.
The only men I care about take rape very seriously. Funny, MOST well adjusted men that I know don't have this bizarre hysteria about being falsely accused of rape. Maybe it has something to do with their typical way of behaving???
> Better look at his study again, marta he gives ample
> explanations as to why women tell lies. Wanna concede or do
> I have to post it all??
I dare you to. Anyone who reads it, besides other hysterical people like you, will immediately come to the same conclusion
I have: that you can't read something without coming to biased conclusions.
> It is valid.. he only mentions that more research is needed. > It in no way invalidates his study or he wouldn't be stupid
> enough to publish it.
Valid in a town in the Midwest. He says more research is needed to see if the same holds true everywhere. When you (H. Pierce) continue to say, based on this study alone, that it is valid to hold that the frequency of false rape claims is 41%, you are in direct contradiction with the author of the study you cite.
> marta continues with:
> >>>
> Most problematic is the question of the generalizability of
> these findings from a single police agency handling a
> relatively small number of cases. CERTAINLY, OUR INTENT IS
> NOT TO SUGGEST THAT THE 41% INCIDENCE FOUND HERE BE
> EXTRAPOLATED TO OTHER POPULATIONS
> >>>
Actually, it was Kanin that continued with the above.
> Not so fast. He only said that he has no research other than
> this finding so far.
No hid did not. He said that his intent was NOT TO SUGGEST THAT THE 41% FREQUENCY FOUND in the Midwestern town is the same fequency one would find everywhere. If you understood statistics, you would know that he is saying that the sample size is TOO SMALL to come to a conclusion about the frequency of false rape claims anywhere but in the town the study was conducted in - that it MAY hold true elsewhere, but that until more research is conducted, one CAN and SHOULD not speak as though it does.
> He is also smart enough
> to point out femimist ploys to show a zero (laughable)
> percentage of false report claims... as well as 100% false
> report claims by opposing groups (also laughable).
>
> No, he is middle of the road and has done his homework as I
> have. You have not.
This coming from a man who feels free to talk about things of which he has no knowledge (statistics) and who feels no need to actually read studies before he holds their data up as fact??? Now THAT'S laughable.
> You have failed to show that his study is a sham. You failed
> to read the details and manipulated the data.
Apparently you're of the opinion that if you post something enough, it will come true. Unfortunately that's not the way it works. I FOUND, READ and evaluated the study and posted what I thought at the time. I submitted the study to Steve for the benefit of anyone who might want to read it (including your deceitful old self). Those are hardly the actions of a person who "manipulated" the data. After all, if it weren't for me, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now, would we?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118050)
Message 118163 (In Reply to Message 118132)
Re: Knock it off.. you lost!!
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 13, 2003 04:33 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
H. Pierce wrote:
> Yeah please do you will find that my statment matches Kanin's
> 100%. The reporting of false rape reports is frequent.
. . . in a small Midwestern town.
> I have never changed my stance on actual false rape
> accusations. They are also frequent.
25% of a fraction of a decimal place of the total number of rapes that occur in the U.S. in one year is "frequent?" Only in the hysterical mind of a person intent on believing it. The only thing you've done is expose your complete inability to admit that maybe false rape accusations aren't as frequent as you would like them to be. Why you have such a stake in the number being high is beyond me . . . it's as though you want more innocent men to be going to jail . . . or SOMETHING.
> You lost marta.
I didn't know we were competing, but in any event, it remains to be seen who "lost." I'm willing to wait for commentary from others once Steve posts the study and everyone can read it.
> False rape allegations are frequent.
> False rape accusations are frequent.
Can we say "juvenile?"
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118132)
Message 118181 (In Reply to Message 117971)
I'm such an idiot!
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 13, 2003 07:28 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
I completely forgot who I'm talking to. You call yourself a proud pedosexual, but it is clear to me now that you have a HUGE persecution complex. You want to believe that false accusations of rape are high because it fits in nicely with your belief that there are all these big, bad people out there who would hurt you if they could. If you were forced to realize that people aren't half as bad as you make them out to be, you'd have to accept more of their judgment as valid (even if it's in opposition to yours). This you can not do because to do so would be to accept that, as a pedophile, you are a bad person.
How sad.
And to think, here you are insulting a person who has already said that she does not think people should be persecuted for their thoughts/attractions, who has communicated a willingness to think of practical compromises between parents and pedophiles, and who (as it relates to this topic) has agreed that a lot of things that are called rape today are not, in fact, rape.
Do you know you're your own worst enemy? You should stop representing pedophiles. You're not doing them any good.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (117971)
Thread
117971, x_HPierce, Oct 09, 2003 04:22 PM [Kanin's study vindicated]
118011, x_Rachel, Oct 10, 2003 04:17 AM [Take a closer look]
118051, x_HPierce, Oct 10, 2003 05:54 PM [Not at all Rachel]
118123, x_Rachel, Oct 13, 2003 07:53 AM [Try a little humble pie H.P.]
118025, x_marta, Oct 10, 2003 12:06 PM [Kanin disagrees with you!]
118050, x_HPierce, Oct 10, 2003 05:50 PM [wrong again marta]
118146, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 11:00 AM [Re: wrong again marta]
118044, x_marta, Oct 10, 2003 04:26 PM [Oh, and by the way. . .]
118132, x_HPierce, Oct 13, 2003 09:28 AM [Knock it off.. you lost!!]
118163, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 04:33 PM [Re: Knock it off.. you lost!!]
118181, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 07:28 PM [I'm such an idiot!]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
