Homophobic Landscapers?

[HeightsGuy]

I think what they did was genious from a marketing perspective, and I think it was much more calculating than you think. All that is left for these Bozos to do now is get in front of a few of the more conservative churches around town and talk about all the hate mail and death threats they have recieved from non-believers. I'll guarantee by next spring they will have increased their bookings tenfold. Hate wrapped in piousness is a big seller these days.

[nmainguy]

while not a rick casey fan I do appreciate his comments about posting other peoples' personal information.

But there is no excuse for hateful phone calls, e-mails and forum postings, much less death threats. And certainly not for the Internet posting of the Farbers' home address and phone number. (Nor for the posting of the address and driver's license numbers of the gay couple they turned down.)

Posting information is just as hateful as the original act IMO.

The email recipient's TDL #s were published on the Farber's forum. Why would they or anyone else do that? BTW, The Farber's contact info has always been in the public domain so there's a big hole in their "Poor me being picked on" whine.

[KinkaidAlum]

Dal and others-

I was thinking that was what Casey was going for but it was certainly unclear. Maybe his copy editors chopped the article up?

Or, maybe it's just another indicator that without competition, the Chronicle isn't worth a damn?

[Mark F. Barnes]

I think what they did was genious from a marketing perspective, and I think it was much more calculating than you think. All that is left for these Bozos to do now is get in front of a few of the more conservative churches around town and talk about all the hate mail and death threats they have recieved from non-believers. I'll guarantee by next spring they will have increased their bookings tenfold. Hate wrapped in piousness is a big seller these days.

I will agree that whether calculated or just dumb luck, the hate and crap-slinging by the opposition saved them face, because they took the low road and allowed the thing to blow up. The Forum on their site could have been shut down, all they did was take away their link, which was their six degrees of separation, while still allowing yet another smelting pot for hate boil over. I can see the calculation there. The degree of wrongfulness of the original act, whether you agree or not, was washed away in the fall out. Ghandi and Dr. King were no fools. There are alternatives to burning down your own neighborhoods. This is not different than after the Rodney King verdict, except this took place on the Internet. One side now has evidence to sew to their flocks and say, "They Gay community is full of hate and radicals." Right or Wrong there was an enormous amount of it. I have read it justified by some as, "They were outraged and something had to be done." Well it may have backfired. Sure they have definitely lost the business from some, but as was pointed out before, their way of handling it has gained them others. There is still a lot of the "Old Guard" out there, that didn't know who they were, and now they do, and you can bet you arse they get their business. Hate is always a doulble edged sword, it's tricky and can bite your arse in a minute. Oh well you live and learn.

[Mark F. Barnes]

The email recipient's TDL #s were published on the Farber's forum. Why would they or anyone else do that? BTW, The Farber's contact info has always been in the public domain so there's a big hole in their "Poor me being picked on" whine.

Not trying to argue but there are 5000 public data search engines that will give you everything that was posted, and ten dollars to a nickle that's where it was obtained. The power of the Internet, if it's public data it can be found. Why? Who the (Eff-you-see-Kay) knows! Radicals are radicals, they come n all shapes, sizes, gender and sexual orientation.

"Hey T.J. take that stupid foil beanie off and get back to work"

[jmancuso]

who ever mentioned businesses pimpin' those jesus fish thingies as being annoying is dead on.

[musicman]

The email recipient's TDL #s were published on the Farber's forum. Why would they or anyone else do that? BTW, The Farber's contact info has always been in the public domain so there's a big hole in their "Poor me being picked on" whine.

So Farber himself put his driver's license number on there? i doubt it but if that is the case, then that is fine. But if someone else put it there that is bad.

It is just as bad that someone put the gay couple's information out there.

The reason they were put out, pure hate and stupidity, just like the Farbers' comments.

[Pumapayam]

She described the experience as being "privileged to see just what happens when you make the homosexuals and the devil mad."

Wow, she put gays and the devil on the same team.

She just keeps on making it worse.

[nmainguy]

So Farber himself put his driver's license number on there? i doubt it but if that is the case, then that is fine. But if someone else put it there that is bad.

It is just as bad that someone put the gay couple's information out there.

The reason they were put out, pure hate and stupidity, just like the Farbers' comments.

I don't know if the Farbers put their TDL#'s out there. I do know the email recipient's TDL#'s were published on the Farber's forum. It would be intresting to know the who, what and why of that.

[TJones]

"Hey T.J. take that stupid foil beanie off and get back to work"

I'll get right on that Mark, just as soon as you remove your Bra-Helmet !

[musicman]

I don't know if the Farbers put their TDL#'s out there. I do know the email recipient's TDL#'s were published on the Farber's forum. It would be intresting to know the who, what and why of that.

Not sure if you're implying the Farbers placed it out there or it was done anonymously, but either way it is unacceptable. Why? like i said earlier pure hate and stupidity

[VicMan]

As for the people who made the Farbers "look good": Next time, guys, don't let your enemies claim moral superiority over you!

[GREASER]

this may be a joke...didnt read the whold thing thru, but a post on Baytown Sun board had the same thing..said it happened in Baytown?

[torvald]

it seems to have found it's way on myspace.com bulletin posts and two in my bulk email folder this morning:

***REPOST***

Hey guys please repost this, apparently in houston it is not illegal to discriminate against homosexuals, as you know I am against all kinds of discrimination, whether its agaisnt blacks, hispanics, asians, muslims, jews, buddhists etc....

I saw something on the news today about this landscaping company who refused to give service to a gay couple in houston for the simple fact that they were gay.

If you're against hateful biggoting, racism and discrimination, please write a polite letter to this company that refused to give service to customers for the simple fact that they were gay....

Here is the address and phone number, I also attached the article from khou.com

Garden guy inc

6229 Indigo St

Houston, TX 77074

(281) 208-4400

ARTICLE:

Houston law allows discrimination against gays

06:10 PM CDT on Friday, October 20, 2006

By Wendell Edwards / 11 News

It started out as a simple search for a decent landscaper. But it exposed an ugly truth about Houston -- businesses can legally discriminate against gays.

The couple will have to find another landscaping company because they're gay.

The gay couple at the center of this controversy asked that we not use their names. Their story became public with an e-mail that has been making the rounds all week.

The couple wrote to their friends: "Please the see below the note we received from one of the companies we contacted. I'm still shocked at the ignorance that exists in today's society."

The attached reply from the landscaping company was cordial, brief but a bit shocking:

"I am appreciative of your time on the phone today and glad you contacted us. I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work for homosexuals. Best of luck in finding someone else to fill your landscaping needs.

All my best,

Sabrina

Todd and Sabrina Farber

Owners, Garden Guy, Inc."

That e-mail came from Sabrina Farber. She and her husband Todd own Garden Guy, Inc. in Houston.

We found a picture of them on their Web site and quotes of scripture reciting Biblical definition of marriage.

We left messages for the Farbers but no one returned our phone calls. Friday afternoon, we received the following e-mail:

"To the Houston Media

We did not refuse service with malicious intent. We do not hate homosexuals and we are sorry that we hurt [ the gay couple ]. We meant to uphold our right as a small business owner to choose who our clients are. We are humbly sorry for the hurt that it has caused.

Respectfully,

Todd and Sabrina Farber"

It turns out, though, that they did nothing illegal.

"That's the biggest issue. This is not against the law and that is a travesty," said Jerry Simoneaux, attorney

Jerry Simoneaux is an attorney that specializes in gay issues.

He said other cities like Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth and El Paso have adopted ordinances that would prohibit discrimination based on sexuality.

"We need something like that in Houston, but we don't have it," said Simoneaux.

There is an effort to propose a similar ordinance in Houston.

In the meantime, the gay couple is hoping their story helps spark a boycott of the Garden Guy, Inc.

IF YOU GUYS THINK THIS IS WRONG AND HATEFUL PLEASE CALL THEM DURING THE DAY OR WRITE THEM A LETTER

ALSO, PLEASE REPOST THIS TO LET EVERYONE ELSE KNOW ABOUT THIS COMPANY AND THEIR HOMOPHOBIA,

Here the address and number again...

Garden guy inc

6229 Indigo St

Houston, TX 77074

(281) 208-4400

The original article can be found at....

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/kho...y.59c51a93.html

.

[Mark F. Barnes]

I think we need Red to weigh in on this, since this is his area of expertise.

But before you get on a frivolous band wagon you should fully understand the term "discrimination" from a legal standpoint. Now this is not a moral argument, it is a legal one. But "Black's Legal Dictionary" defines it as this:

discrimination n. unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability. Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of public facilities based on race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex, or sexual orientation. The rights to protest discrimination or enforce one's rights to equal treatment are provided in various federal and state laws, which allow for private lawsuits with the right to damages. There are also federal and state commissions to investigate and enforce equal rights.

civil rights n. those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection. Positive civil rights include the right to vote, the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a democratic society, such as equal access to public schools, recreation, transportation, public facilities, and housing and equal and fair treatment by law enforcement and the courts.

I do not care what you think of the right or wrong issue of this Garden Guy Inc. action against the two people in question. There is no legal precedence to base any ordinance on. If they owned a "public" facility there would be something to work with. But from a legal standpoint there is nothing , absolutely nothing you or anyone else can do. Boycott them, Tell your friends to boycott them. Take out a full page and asking people to boycott them. Only choose you words carefully and speak nothing but what you know to be the truth, because you open yourself up to other legal terms that can really cost you dearly.

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.

This is just meant to be informative and not argumentative. Lines have been crossed on both sides of this issue. Just yesterday evidently some questionably pictures in bad taste were posted on the Garden Guy Forum that have done more harm than good to the original cause. If a person wants to exert the energy to try and better a cause, just be sure they direct their energy in a positive and productive manner. Because using this very instance as an example, non-productive and misdirected energy, drove the focus of the original issue off point, and the reaction over shadowed the extent of the first issue. Thus the term, don't shoot yourself in the foot.

Please don't think that because Jerry Simoneaux has found a way to get his name in the media, attached to a high profile issue, to possibly get his phone ringing; don't let it draw you into a frivolous lawsuit or legal issue. Don't get caught up in the hype. Whether the Farber's are right or wrong in their beliefs is a moral argument that can go on for ages, Whether they chose to do work for the other two people in question, again is a moral issue, where they crossed the line of stupidity was to put it in writing in an email. You have to give them credit, they were truthful, they could have very well have lied, and probably should have, and just gave a scheduling issue or whatever as an excuse, but they didn't. You can try to sue them for being stupid if you like, and you can try to start a movement to bring an ordinance against stupidity, all you want. But guess what, if they pass an ordinance against stupidity, it will shut the entire Harris county beaurocricy down, because they do stupid stuff every day.

[Jeebus]

Would this whole ordeal be looked at any differently if the gay couple had contracted the Garden Guy company, only to read their website, and then write a letter to the landscaper letting them know that they no longer wish their business because of their harsh Christian beliefs?

Do you think the news would cover a gay couple "discriminating" against anti-gay marriage Christians?

I want to know how far some of you want to take this "equal treatment". You obviously want it to be a crime for a small independent business to discriminate against anyone. So what happens when you get your way and gay businesses don't want to do business with neo-con Christians? What about Jewish businesses that don't want to serve Muslim customers & visa versa?

Those of you who are against the Garden Guy's freedom to choose their customers, are you willing to live in a world where everyone has to serve everyone, no matter their personal beliefs? Before you answer, realize that I'm only talking about small independent businesses & contractors. I am not talking about large business, publicly traded companies, franchises, or governmently operated business - only small independent business owners & contractors.

As a side-note, I wonder if many of you who have been vocal, really don't care either way, but were just offended by the Landscapers outspoken, and unnessessary honesty? Had they simply turned away the business and not revealed their reasons, would we have even ever heard this story? Probably not.

[nmainguy]

Would this whole ordeal be looked at any differently if the gay couple had contracted the Garden Guy company, only to read their website, and then write a letter to the landscaper letting them know that they no longer wish their business because of their harsh Christian beliefs?

I thought we all agreed it was completely legal for the Farbers to blatantly discriminate against gay people. That's all they did and all some of us did was point it out, state our opinions and post their contact information so as to inform others that there is a buisness that won't do work for gays.

Isn't that what you're defending Jeebs? Their right to be loutish bigots? You won. See?

[Mark F. Barnes]

I thought we all agreed it was completely legal for the Farbers to blatantly discriminate against gay people. That's all they did and all some of us did was point it out, state our opinions and post their contact information so as to inform others that there is a buisness that won't do work for gays.

Isn't that what you're defending Jeebs? Their right to be loutish bigots? You won. See?

I thought it was all agreed also until your buddy torvald posted #194 above, rehashing the same old argument again. Now you're defending him in the HPL thread, I suppose you are trying to do it here also? Hey you all won, the Garden Guy is getting phone calls for business from every homophobic christian zealot in the country. See how that double edge sword thing works?

[torvald]

I thought it was all agreed also until your buddy torvald posted #194 above, rehashing the same old argument again. Now you're defending him in the HPL thread, I suppose you are trying to do it here also? Hey you all won, the Garden Guy is getting phone calls for business from every homophobic christian zealot in the country. See how that double edge sword thing works?

all i did was post the e-mail i received this morning and said:

"it seems to have found it's way on myspace.com bulletin posts and two in my bulk email folder this morning:"

everything was all agreed until i posted? i didn't even give my

opinion on it. i was just saying that it isn't over for some just

finding out about it and i am sure more pandemonium will ensue.

is this why you were so rude to me in the library thread?

[sevfiv]

I thought it was all agreed also until your buddy torvald posted #194 above, rehashing the same old argument again. Now you're defending him in the HPL thread, I suppose you are trying to do it here also? Hey you all won, the Garden Guy is getting phone calls for business from every homophobic christian zealot in the country. See how that double edge sword thing works?

umm, post 194 was a repost from some bulletin board...

and also, the spread of information about garden guy is just that - to inform, and help folks make informed choices, not necessarily to take business away from him from those that do choose to use his services.

[Gary]

Would this whole ordeal be looked at any differently if the gay couple had contracted the Garden Guy company, only to read their website, and then write a letter to the landscaper letting them know that they no longer wish their business because of their harsh Christian beliefs?

Do you think the news would cover a gay couple "discriminating" against anti-gay marriage Christians?

I want to know how far some of you want to take this "equal treatment". You obviously want it to be a crime for a small independent business to discriminate against anyone. So what happens when you get your way and gay businesses don't want to do business with neo-con Christians? What about Jewish businesses that don't want to serve Muslim customers & visa versa?

Those of you who are against the Garden Guy's freedom to choose their customers, are you willing to live in a world where everyone has to serve everyone, no matter their personal beliefs? Before you answer, realize that I'm only talking about small independent businesses & contractors. I am not talking about large business, publicly traded companies, franchises, or governmently operated business - only small independent business owners & contractors.

As a side-note, I wonder if many of you who have been vocal, really don't care either way, but were just offended by the Landscapers outspoken, and unnessessary honesty? Had they simply turned away the business and not revealed their reasons, would we have even ever heard this story? Probably not.

I was in the process of chiming in on this until I read Jeebus' post, and in keeping with reputation all I can say is, "good post".

[TJones]

What is the harm in letting the Gay populous know not to waste their time calling these people for any landscaping needs. Now, if some in the heterosexual community feel the need not to waste their time calling them because of that business' beliefs, well, isn't it their right to be informed and choose whether or not to do business with them ?

[Gary]

What is the harm in letting the Gay populous know not to waste their time calling these people for any landscaping needs. Now, if some in the heterosexual community feel the need not to waste their time calling them because of that business' beliefs, well, isn't it their right to be informed and choose whether or not to do business with them ?

And all the people said, Amen!

[sevfiv]

What is the harm in letting the Gay populous know not to waste their time calling these people for any landscaping needs. Now, if some in the heterosexual community feel the need not to waste their time calling them because of that business' beliefs, well, isn't it their right to be informed and choose whether or not to do business with them ?

yay! it is all about the dissemination of information. of course, there will always be flame-throwers (bad choice of words, maybe) and those who are rude on both sides

[Jeebus]

I thought we all agreed it was completely legal for the Farbers to blatantly discriminate against gay people. That's all they did and all some of us did was point it out, state our opinions and post their contact information so as to inform others that there is a buisness that won't do work for gays.

Isn't that what you're defending Jeebs? Their right to be loutish bigots? You won. See?

I never realized that we had all come to an agreement. Between all the name calling, accusations of hate mongering & small-minded bigotry, I must have missed our accord. Nothing was ever about me winning. It was about the realization of certain rights we should all have in this society.

To The Board My point is to try and get you to put yourself in your own shoes in this hypothetical society of forced service contracts. Imagine being gay and cutting hair for a living. Imagine having some homo-phobe walk in with his friend and begin talking about how in church last Sunday that all gays were going to hell for their lifestyles. Imagine them doing this on purpose, knowing very well that you're gay, and that it bothers you. All the while they remain polite and proper, yet still state their beliefs to you. Imagine them having as many people from their church as they could, getting their haircuts at your barborshop in an effort just to upset you. Wouldn't you like the right to tell them no, you will not cut their hair? The right to take their homophobic hate somewhere else?

In your uptopian society, you would be discriminating against them if you told them no, which would be a crime. It would be the same for everyone. No one would have the right to serve their own beliefs.

So which way do you want it? I ask only because you all need realize you can't have it both ways.

[Mark F. Barnes]

all i did was post the e-mail i received this morning and said:

"it seems to have found it's way on myspace.com bulletin posts and two in my bulk email folder this morning:"

everything was all agreed until i posted? i didn't even give my

opinion on it. i was just saying that it isn't over for some just

finding out about it and i am sure more pandemonium will ensue.

is this why you were so rude to me in the library thread?

Look I will take it slow this time. You posted this C&P from whatever source. It gives the appearance of you agreeing with it and all I did was reply to the "legal" stance, just because the was a lawyer "Jerry Simoneaux " mentioned, and an insinuation made that their may possibly be some legal positioning available to anyone that wanted to pursue the issue any further. Myself i could give a damn if the Garden Guy ever plant another tulip as long as he lives. It's just the issue has been so scewed into something it is not. Almost everyone is screaming "Discrimination", and by the legal definition there has been none. Right or wrong, there is no "Discrimination" legally, however is what they did wrong, that's a matter of opinion. Myself I am a business man, I don't care if your gay, straight, or whatever. My wife is Lebanese and a lot of her friends are Muslim. Most people consider my wife a Mulatto, of which technically who knows, I really don't care........Back to what I was saying, your post screamed of "Discrimination", so I see your position and hey, that's your opinion, cool. Then in the HPL thread you go on and on about the homeless, but then came the "Leer" factor. I felt like you were taking a position of "Discrimination" against this person for looking at you. He or she may be mentally challenged as well as homeless, it happens you know, and sometimes that is the main contributing factor to their homelessness. I just took it that you had singled him or her out because the looked at you in a way you did not like it. And you were then searching for references to ordinances to have him or her removed from the premises, like he or she has no right to be there because they made you feel "uncomfortable". Now maybe that is not what you meant but that is how I took it and that is how it appeared to me. That to me is no different than the Garden Guy not wanted to do the work for the guys in the heights, because I am sure they were not "comfortable" with working for them, be it their religious zealot beliefs or whatever. Do you see my point? It's not personal I just saw contradiction in your actions, which led to the Hypocrisy definition. Maybe be I took it all wrong, but I am looking from an objective angle nothing more. That is what these forums are for to try and post an opinion and get different viewpoints, am I not correct in that?

[musicman]

all i did was post the e-mail i received this morning and said:

"it seems to have found it's way on myspace.com bulletin posts and two in my bulk email folder this morning:"

It would have been fine if you JUST posted that...but instead you're posting the same email that's started this all including their personal information. It's ALREADY here!

[TJones]

I never realized that we had all come to an agreement. Between all the name calling, accusations of hate mongering & small-minded bigotry, I must have missed our accord. Nothing was ever about me winning. It was about the realization of certain rights we should all have in this society.

To The Board My point is to try and get you to put yourself in your own shoes in this hypothetical society of forced service contracts. Imagine being gay and cutting hair for a living. Imagine having some homo-phobe walk in with his friend and begin talking about how in church last Sunday that all gays were going to hell for their lifestyles. Imagine them doing this on purpose, knowing very well that you're gay, and that it bothers you. All the while they remain polite and proper, yet still state their beliefs to you. Imagine them having as many people from their church as they could, getting their haircuts at your barborshop in an effort just to upset you. Wouldn't you like the right to tell them no, you will not cut their hair? The right to take their homophobic hate somewhere else?

In your uptopian society, you would be discriminating against them if you told them no, which would be a crime. It would be the same for everyone. No one would have the right to serve their own beliefs.

So which way do you want it? I ask only because you all need realize you can't have it both ways.

I am sure the gay guy would give a haircut that would insure that customer would not come back and the customer would tell all his buddies with the same beliefs NOT to go see the gay guy that whacked his hair.

The gay stylist would also have enough sensibilties to refuse another appointment or business with said customer for scheduling reasons or something as not to be such a douchebag, instead of saying outright that "He doesn't cut hair for breeders because of his beliefs and convictions."

If poor Mrs. Dumbass Farber would have used those tactics to begin with, this thread would have never been started.

[nmainguy]

Imagine being gay and cutting hair for a living. Imagine having some homo-phobe walk in with his friend and begin talking about how in church last Sunday that all gays were going to hell for their lifestyles. Imagine them doing this on purpose, knowing very well that you're gay, and that it bothers you. All the while they remain polite and proper, yet still state their beliefs to you. Imagine them having as many people from their church as they could, getting their haircuts at your barborshop in an effort just to upset you. Wouldn't you like the right to tell them no, you will not cut their hair? The right to take their homophobic hate somewhere else?

Nope, I'd just pretty them up like this thus insuring they'll never be back:

[torvald]

It would have been fine if you JUST posted that...but instead you're posting the same email that's started this all including their personal information. It's ALREADY here!

well, i was illustrating what info was going around. i felt it was

pertinent to the thread. i did not agree or disagree with it as

i was just stating that the quoted text was being circulated.

Look I will take it slow this time. You posted this C&P from whatever source. It gives the appearance of you agreeing with it and all I did was reply to the "legal" stance, just because the was a lawyer "Jerry Simoneaux " mentioned, and an insinuation made that their may possibly be some legal positioning available to anyone that wanted to pursue the issue any further. Myself i could give a damn if the Garden Guy ever plant another tulip as long as he lives. It's just the issue has been so scewed into something it is not. Almost everyone is screaming "Discrimination", and by the legal definition there has been none. Right or wrong, there is no "Discrimination" legally, however is what they did wrong, that's a matter of opinion. Myself I am a business man, I don't care if your gay, straight, or whatever. My wife is Lebanese and a lot of her friends are Muslim. Most people consider my wife a Mulatto, of which technically who knows, I really don't care........Back to what I was saying, your post screamed of "Discrimination", so I see your position and hey, that's your opinion, cool. Then in the HPL thread you go on and on about the homeless, but then came the "Leer" factor. I felt like you were taking a position of "Discrimination" against this person for looking at you. He or she may be mentally challenged as well as homeless, it happens you know, and sometimes that is the main contributing factor to their homelessness. I just took it that you had singled him or her out because the looked at you in a way you did not like it. And you were then searching for references to ordinances to have him or her removed from the premises, like he or she has no right to be there because they made you feel "uncomfortable". Now maybe that is not what you meant but that is how I took it and that is how it appeared to me. That to me is no different than the Garden Guy not wanted to do the work for the guys in the heights, because I am sure they were not "comfortable" with working for them, be it their religious zealot beliefs or whatever. Do you see my point? It's not personal I just saw contradiction in your actions, which led to the Hypocrisy definition. Maybe be I took it all wrong, but I am looking from an objective angle nothing more. That is what these forums are for to try and post an opinion and get different viewpoints, am I not correct in that?

it seems that you have some sort of other issue going on. if

some guy was looking at your wife how this person was looking

at me, you would be offended... anyone would. i'm not going to

describe it because it's offensive.

i wasn't searching for references to have anyone removed.

i am not sure what anyone being lebanese has to do with how

you replied to my post. it did seem personal and you seem very

passionate about something i'm just not sure what it is.