Yacht racer to arsonist
ELF member, turned U.S. witness, describes her double life as high-tech worker and key figure
By Allyn Harvey , Special to the Rocky
Saturday, March 8, 2008
The Seattle Times / 2001
University of Washington staffers and students look at the debris on the south side of the Center for Urban Horticulture after it was set on fire in 2001. The fire, blamed on the Earth Liberation Front, caused $7 million damage and destroyed offices, labs and archives.
Joshua Trujillo / Seattle Post-Intelligencer/2006
Briana Waters, holding her daughter, enters the federal courthouse in Seattle with an unidentified man, for arraignment in 2006. She was convicted Thursday on two counts of arson and will serve five to 20 years in prison.
Jennifer Kolar testified she got her start in activism in Colorado.
Joseph Dibee built the timing devices for the rendering plant fire.
Kevin Tubbs, with other ELF members, burned a slaughterhouse.
Jonathan Paul became romantically involved with Kolar.
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
A former University of Colorado student who left academia for the clandestine world of environmental extremism was a key witness against an activist with the Earth Liberation Front in a trial that ended Thursday.
Jennifer Kolar, 34, who now lives in Seattle, described to jurors a double life of yacht racing and environmental terrorism with the same shadowy, loose-knit group that torched buildings at the Vail Mountain Ski Resort in 1998.
Kolar testified against Briana Waters, telling jurors that her former friend helped her and three others set a massive fire at the University of Washington.
Kolar also admitted to trying in 1998 to burn down the Wray Gun Club in Wray, one of four arsons she confessed to in her deal with prosecutors. Her testimony against Waters was part of her deal.
Waters was on trial for conspiracy, arson and other charges in this blue collar, industrial center about 35 miles south of Seattle. The jury found Waters guilty Thursday, on two counts of arson after a week of deliberation.
This sleepy backdrop for the Waters trial, on a crime that has faded from the memory of many in the Northwest, was thrust into public view Monday when three luxury homes in a posh suburb north of Seattle were destroyed by arsonists who left a banner behind attributing the blaze to ELF. Investigators cautioned against concluding the group was behind the fire despite the banner, which has been sent to an FBI laboratory for analysis.
The Earth Liberation Front is a underground group of environmental extremists who burned down the Two Elks Lodge and other facilities high on the slopes of the Vail ski area in October 1998. Although Kolar lived in Colorado at the time of the fire, she was not involved, according to court documents.
Kolar and Waters are among 19 people charged in connection with a series of ELF arsons in the West between 1996 and 2001, according to a Department of Justice spokeswoman. One committed suicide. Thirteen pleaded guilty after reaching sentencing deals with the government. Four are believed to have fled the country. Waters is the only one to go to trial.
Prosecutors maintained Waters, a 32-year-old violin teacher and mother who lives in Berkeley, Calif., joined with Kolar and three others early on May 21, 2001, to set fire to the Center for Urban Horticulture. The fire caused $7 million in damages and destroyed offices, labs and archives.
Kolar testified that she and three others sneaked across an open field to the targeted facility, used glass cutters to enter through a window and set time-delayed incendiary devices in the office of Toby Bradshaw, a professor of biology they believed to be engaged in genetic engineering of poplar trees. Waters served as the lookout, Kolar said.
The verdict means Waters will serve five to 20 years in prison. Jurors were deadlocked on other charges, including one that would have sent her to jail for a minimum of 30 years.
Kolar, who is accused of a much more active role with the Earth Liberation Front, faces seven years in prison because of her cooperation with the investigation.
"I just decided to go in and tell the truth, and try and put all this behind me," she told jurors.
Fall from grace
Like many other ELF activists, Kolar described a path from academic promise to criminal infamy. She earned a bachelor's degree in applied mathematics from CU in 1995, a master's in astrophysics in 1997, then spent two years working toward a Ph.D. in oceanography, according to university records.
Kolar testified that she got her start in activism as an undergraduate working with the Colorado Public Interest Research Group, volunteering with Rocky Mountain Animal Defense and teaching at a student environmental center on the CU campus.
In the winter of 1996-97, she told jurors, she met activist Jonathan Paul at an animal rights conference in Minnesota.
Paul, sentenced last summer to 51 months in prison for his part in the arson that destroyed the Cavel West horse slaughterhouse in Redmond, Ore., was active with the Animal Liberation Front and an ELF cell in Eugene, Ore.
The two were soon in a romantic relationship, even though Paul lived in Oregon, Kolar testified. In the summer of 1997, he asked if she was interested in joining the movement. She said yes.
Kolar testified that she and Paul spent several days mixing an inflammatory brew of vegetable glycerine soap, gasoline and diesel fuel.
On July 21, the couple met three other ELF members - Joseph Dibee, Jake Ferguson and Kevin Tubbs - in Eugene, Ore., and then traveled south to a rendering plant owned by the Belgian company Cavel West.
According to court documents from Oregon, animal rights activists considered Cavel West a particularly heinous facility that destroyed wild horses rounded up and sold by the Bureau of Land Management.
Using the fuel mixture created by Kolar and Paul and delayed timing devices built by Dibee, the group set the horses outside free and burned the slaughterhouse to the ground.
End of friendships
Kolar said she flew home to resume her normal life, embarking on her Ph.D. and working as a consultant for a scientific software company. Paul cut her a check to cover travel expenses to and from the arson.
Kolar's next target was the Wray Gun Club in October 1998, chosen because it was known for hosting contests to shoot prairie dogs.
"We at the RMAD had been unsuccessful trying to stop them, so we decided to burn that gun club down," she testified. The attempt was unsuccessful.
Kolar said she eventually abandoned her academic career and moved to Seattle in 1999, to be closer to her father, she said, and her boyfriend and fellow ELF activist Joe Dibee.
She continued her double life, working in lucrative high-tech jobs in Seattle during the dotcom boom. She lived in a chic North Seattle neighborhood with a boyfriend from outside the movement, and spent weekends racing sailboats at the Corinthian Yacht Club.
According to evidence presented at the Waters trial, Kolar twice in 2001 helped execute successful arsons and then resumed her normal life, racing her sailboat just a few days after the fire at the Center for Urban Horticulture, and starting a vacation in Hawaii a day after burning down a BLM horse corral in Northern California.
The FBI credits Kolar with taking ELF's communication methods to an extremely advanced level. Combined with the group's meticulous use of secretive communication protocols, Kolar's teaching on encryption software and the use of remote servers known as "anonymizers" made detection by law enforcement virtually impossible.
"This extraordinary 'wall of silence' is what kept their identity from being discovered by law enforcement for such a long time," explains a sentencing memorandum prepared by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Oregon.
Asked how she now felt about her new role as a government informant, Kolar admitted it was difficult.
"A lot of the people are people who were my friends," she said. "Briana was my friend."
Comments
Posted by BirdonaWire on March 8, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
These douchebags probably created more environmental harm with their multitude of fires than they saved by destroying buildings. Nice job "saving" the Earth.
Posted by Earl on March 8, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
an once again another proud cu grad proclaims
Kolar testified that she got her start in activism as an undergraduate working with the Colorado Public Interest Research Group, volunteering with Rocky Mountain Animal Defense and teaching at a student environmental center on the CU campus.
GO BUFFS
Posted by Gene on March 8, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Granted, these enviro's are the extreme, but enviromentalism is a religion or an emotional connection with thse people, and NOT a science. Likewise, the push behind the manmade global warming movement is based on politics and emotion, and is quasi-religious. And you can't argue with a person about his religion!
Posted by kathyM on March 8, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope she and her dufus pals get the max.
Posted by J_Phil on March 8, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Friggin hippies... I'm sure it was well worth it... Psssh.
Posted by RickyLee on March 8, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All these worthless morons need LONG prison terms.
Posted by greenleaf on March 8, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gene,
Indeed these "enviros" are the extreme. It always saddens me when young people who have so much promise throw it away in senseless acts of violence, no matter what their cause. They displayed a failure of common sense and a misplaced belief that their target somehow justified the attack on itself. Even if some of us in the environmental community disagree with the practices of some of the victims, that doesn't justify the vandalism to their property. It was just luck that one of their time delayed bombs didn't blow them up or some other person who just happened by. Two wrongs never make a right.
Thank you Gene for using the more polite term "enviros" to describe environmentalists. It's a logical shortening of the word that shouldn't insult anyone.
As to environmentalism being a religion and not a science? I think that our friends in the religious community might disagree with that. I am aware of no deity, unless you are thinking of " mother earth ", that might be "worshipped by "enviros".
As to environmentalism not being a science. As a scientist, I can see how it is science as it is practiced and studied by some of us. For others, it might be described as a code of ethics. Maybe it's also a philosophy, or way of living. I think environmentalism incorporates many people of different beliefs, agendas, religions and politics.
To conclude Gene, I think that some aspects of environmentalism can be a science (ecology), but I don't think it can accurately be called a religion. No dogma,+ no god specific to the belief system and no scheduled meetings in a specific meeting place = no religion. What do you think?
Posted by Justin_Credible on March 8, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fry them.
Posted by Denis on March 8, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bad luck..if you want my opinion. I'm always amazed at the flippant attitudes of the so called Enviros towards Criminal Acts committed by their Fellow Extremists. I don't know very many people that aren't concerned with the Environment and who aren't willing to make certain personal sacrifices in order to protect it.
For these folks to simply committ Terrorist Acts and then return to their extravagant digs and lifestyles of Boat racing, trips to Hawaii, boyfriends, and high tech jobs, like nothing ever happened is not merely Sociopathic, or Schitzoidal, it's Criminal, and no wonder they can't get any support from rational citizens for their extreme ideas.
The only sad part of this story is that the prosecutors allowed her to pick and choose which crimes she was willing to admit to. Far better to have given her life in prison..and then let her negotiate her way out by dropping a dime on the rest of her circle of crazies. I'm sure she knows a whole lot more than she's admitting to.
Posted by sobifall on March 8, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
With all due respect, I suggest that a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion. Buddhism is one that immediately springs to mind. Taoism, too. There are plenty of others.
Besides, I think you hit on the "god" factor with your mother earth hypothesis. Gaia comes closest to this. I know Lovelock said "superorganism," but I think there are some who, if you pinned them down, would indeed regard the Gaia superorg as their god. I know some people who do, in fact, but I've no idea how prevalent that is.
Dogma is not a dirty word, and as to dogma, it would be hard to argue for a specific locus for a rigorously codified dogma of environmentalism in general. OTOH it would not be too difficult to discern dogmatic expression common to various schools of envirothought.
Specific meeting times and places? Why is this is a qualification for religion? Even if it is, enviros do meet, in specific places at specific times. All of these crimes were committed and prepared for during meetings. They might not have resembled worship services, but they might have been considered by their participants to be tantamount to acts of worship. Who knows?
Obviously, none of what I've said here proves that E=religion. I think it can certainly be much like one. The fact that lots of religious people (including some followers of Jesus) adhere to certain kinds of envirothought and practice, and that non-religious people do the same, has no bearing on the argument, really.
Environmentalism can be thought of as a philosophy, a way of living, or a code of ethics. If it's any of these things, it's certainly got dogma. For some people, it has a "god." It's got a highest purpose to it, one that in some ways and in the minds of some people transcends the purely human experience. E seems more religious to me than not.
Posted by greenleaf on March 8, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sobifall,
I might have let my words get ahead of me. I still don't see a religion in environmentalism. I have been a botanist and environmentalist since 1970. In this time I have encountered scientists (myself), philosophers, Christians, Buddhists, Catholics, Democrats, independents(myself), Republicans, atheists, nihilists, hippies and vegetarians, but no one who worshipped any "god" of environmentalism. Not Gaia, and not seriously a "mother earth". While I would love to meet a druid tree worshipper, none have ever identified themselves at meetings I have attended.
I also wouldn't agree that an organizational meeting of any kind ( such as environmental organizations have) is any more a religious gathering than a board meeting for a business. They meet irregularly and discuss business and issues. There is no priest, nuns, bible or any other scriptures.
As for transcending the "purely human experience" to me that describes perfectly transcendentalism as practiced by Henry David Thoreau of Walden pond fame. I would also consider that to be philosophy and not religion.
These are the reasons environmentalism seems to me to be far from a religion in the traditional sense of that concept.
I suppose from a strictly semantic standpoint that you may have me with "dogma". But it's still not religious dogma.
Posted by SASQUATCH on March 8, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a bunch of lunatics. The only thing that separated this crowd of environuts from the other greenies roaming free in our streets was a match.
Posted by rickg19611 on March 8, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Typical enviro-nut and animal rights terrorist. Boulder is no different than Islamabad Pakistan. Just a cesspool of extremist nuts.
Posted by greenleaf on March 8, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sas and rickg,
The one thing keeping you from making a meaningful contribution to the discussion is your choice of words. Insults aren't debating points and they only serve to make it appear that you either have a weak argument or lack the words to communicate in any meaningful fashion.
I know YOU can do better sas, what about you rick? Any hope for something of value or do we just get to read more venom and unproductive Rush Limbaugh vocabulary lists?
Posted by Gene on March 8, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Greenleaf,
Relax, buddy. And what is wrong with Rushbo? Regarding your question to me on environmentalism as religion, it is not an original concept with me. Let me provide a speech on the subject, by Michael Crighton, who has a science background like you, and is much smarter than me. As you know, I am not one to argue point by point and offer so-called "proof." If you have time; http://www.crichton-official.com/spee...
Posted by SASQUATCH on March 8, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Greenleaf,
Did the same authority that gave these greenies their right to tourch provide you with the authority to be the arbiter and judge of what constitutes a "contribution" on this forum?
By the way, do you know any of these envirosavages?
You are right, that's already better.
Posted by greenleaf on March 8, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Gene,
Thanks for the Crichton post, I will make time to read it ( I'll post here later after reading it).
To answer your question about good old Rushbo, I compare him to William F. Buckley ( admittedly a once in a generation phenomenon), whom I know we both admire. Buckley used eloquence where Rush uses insult. Buckley used logic and reasoning to support his arguments whereas Rush uses false dualities and exaggeration.
I loved listening to Buckley, even when I disagreed with him. He was an artist, a word smith, as you so kindly said about me, Gene (I could never be in Buckley's league). To me Rush is static as in a poorly tuned radio. Buckley was a gentleman. Rush is a bully who uses words as if they were clubs. Rush is a propagandist ( just like Michael Moore )whereas Buckley was the voice and spirit of modern conservatism.
This is why I admire Buckley and have so little respect for Rush Limbaugh.
I think conservatives deserve a far better spokesman. What do you think Gene?
Posted by Charles_B on March 8, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Denis:
"I'm always amazed at the flippant attitudes of the so called Enviros towards Criminal Acts committed by their Fellow Extremists."
Could you provide some examples?
Posted by Charles_B on March 8, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sobifall:
"Dogma is not a dirty word..."
No, but it's useful to know what it means:
"A point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds."
So the connotation is certainly negative.
It describes religion perfectly...science...not so much.
Posted by Charles_B on March 8, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SASQUATCH:
You got nailed. And your response was to further illustrate the nailer's point.
Posted by greenleaf on March 8, 2008 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SASQUATCH, You can do better. I've seen you do better! Why cheapen your own argument to the point that it HAS no point?
Consider a quotation usually attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
I remember this quote myself when I have nothing intelligent to add to a discussion. It could prove a useful tool for you as well.
Posted by Gene on March 8, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now greenleaf;
You were the first one here to interject the name of Limbaugh (2:34 p.m.". . . venom and unproductive Rush Limbaugh vocabulary lists?") and it was in a negative way. I merely asked what is wrong with Rushbo?
- Then you try to compare him to William F. Buckley, which is not exactly fair. He would never claim to be. Buckley was one of the founders of the conservative movement. An icon that Rush grew up admiring. Probably equal to Russell Kirk in importance. There is a great story of Buckley flying up to the wilds of Michigan to interview Russell Kirk when he was starting National Review. When you say Rush uses insult, etc. all it proves is you don’t care for him, most likely his philosophy. Which is fine. He has a totally unique style, has rejuvenated a.m. radio, an created the talk radio industry. If you don’t like him or listen to him, fine. He is as brilliant in his field as Buckley was in his. When you get an audience of 20 million, come back and tell me how smart you are.
Posted by somebunnyluvsme on March 8, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amazing, that a person of such high high academic intellect, has such a total absence of common sense. It also disturbs me, that the prosecutor is making no requirement here for restitution, Here we have an admitted felon, with a huge earning potential, and we aren't requiring restitution. Why? People tend to think long and hard, before doing things that hit them in the pocket book!
Posted by greenleaf on March 8, 2008 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi GGene,
Good for you, if you personally believe in Rush, to defend him. I personally don't like his style and believe in at least attempting to find some level of consensus rather than engaging on the basis of insult and acrimony.
Comparing him to William F. Buckley isn't fair at all, but I wasn't attempting to be fair, I was just stating what I see to be fact. Can you picture Rush and Buckley in a debate? Who would you listen to?
My point buddy is simple: the last thing I as an independent want is a weak conservative movement. I also don't want a weak liberal movement, If I can't have my third party ( probably won't happen in my lifetime!), I want balance between the parties. Does that make sense to you Gene? I want them to play to each other's strengths while cancelling each other's weaknesses! For that reason as much as any other I want a William F. Buckley for this generation of conservatives. Rush offends more than the 20 million people you say he reaches. I bet Buckley reached and influenced 2-3 times as many people and thats what the conservative movement needs.
I'm sorry Gene, I have to go for now, but I will comment on your Michael Crichton link tomorrow A.M.
Thanks for talking Gene! I still owe you a Pinus contorta neat!
Posted by vlada on March 9, 2008 at 1:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What do you think of the government using the Patriot Act to negate the normal statue of limitations in these trials? (they did) I am not condoning what the defendants did at all, nor do I espouse their actions. I do question using the Patriot Act to extend this investigation. Being tried under new laws as terrorists- putting them in the same category as say Ayman al-Zawahiri or Osama bin Laden. Not really the same thing is it? Yes they were stupid but lets remember they were not thinking of “terrorism” they way we are now.
Posted by greenleaf on March 9, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gene,
As promised, I read the Michael Crichton piece on environmentalism as religion. It's a well written work. He writes from the viewpoint of a secular humanist, which is unusual for most scientists. I know that he is a physician by training and he mentioned a strong anthropology influence in his writing.
He seems to believe that humans are hard-wired to a need for some form of theism. To put it another way, he seems to be saying " if god didn't exist we would have to invent him" .
I can see what you mean about this subject, and I will have to give it more thought and perhaps, reassess my personal definition of religion.
I agree with him that we need to stick to the science and get rid of the emotions in the environmental debate. but from what I see in these forums: good luck with that!
I disagree with certain comments he made about DDT and Global Warming that don't match up at all with my personal experience and readings on those subjects. As I have indicated in other postings, many scientists who doubted global warming as recently as last year are now believers. Crichton wrote this piece in 2003, so perhaps he has joined our ranks by now. A point can also be made that whatever his college and professional work were, they didn't involve environmental science.
So Gene thank you for sharing this article. It was certainly thought provoking. There's obviously more to Crichton than " Jurassic Park" and " The Andromeda Strain" which I also enjoyed reading.
Thanks buddy!
Posted by vlada on March 9, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
greenleaf and gene are flirting?
Posted by incognitoboy on March 9, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hey gene..... rush limbaugh brilliant??
you seem to believe that 20 million listeners and his ability to far outlast his actual usefulness makes him brilliant.
i'd love to see that blowhard try to match wits IN PERSON with bill or hillary clinton, without resorting to name-calling and demagoguery.
while it may be true that not all conservatives are stupid, most stupid people are conservative.
now.... THERE'S some SERIOUS name calling and demagoguery!! HA!
have a nice day! ;-)
Posted by greenleaf on March 9, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
viada,
gene and I are pretty far apart politically, but we are trying to be civil to one another and to reach across the metaphorical divide so as to reach a few understandings. I think that you would agree that there is nothing insidious or even silly about that?
incognitoboy,
I don't care for Rush either ( please see my above postings ), but gene has succinctly listed some of the reasons he respects the man. You and I certainly disagree with him, but don't you think we can respect his opinion as we would expect him to respect ours? He delivered his message without insult or acrimony - you didn't! We can't expect respect if we don't give it!
Posted by Gene on March 9, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey guys,
Thanks greenleaf for looking at the Crichton speech on Environmental Religion. I urge you to keep an open scientific mind on the global warming and DDT aspects as well! I think the point of the speech was, the environment is now so politicized it is difficult to be objective.
Regarding Rushbo; one last comment. I realize he too, raises so many emotions, that it is difficult to be objective. I will not argue more on the subject. But I flatly reject all the accusations that have been made against him here. He does not lie, etc. If he did any of these things he would be off the air. He has absolutely no one covering for him like the main stream media does for each other. He makes a mistake, he apologizes for it. It is documented.
A little off topic, but related to political analysis, and the thing Rushbo does so well. I just this morning heard Rep. Peter King (R-NY) made a comment to the effect, if O. wins the election, the Islamo-Fascists or Palestinians will be dancing in the streets. Then the press immediately had McCain denouncing Peter King for saying it. I about went nuts. Of course it is true. And here was McCain trying to be a nice guy, nice guy to the Democrats of all people. I mean, he is running against O., he should not be coddling the guy. This is why, I worry that McCain will loose. He is unwilling to take the fight to the Democrats, because he is afraid of what the press will say. What a loser. Here the ball was teed up for him. He wouldn’t hit it. Now, this is MY critical thinking and analysis, the type of thing that is taught by Rushbo. I predict he will say exactly the same thing tomorrow morning on the radio that I just said. Why? Because of critical thinking. Not because he is being mean. Not because he is trying to tell me what to say. Remember, I said it here first. We listen to Rushbo because he agrees with us! Like I said, I will say no more.
Posted by Charles_B on March 9, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Peter King (R-NY) made a comment to the effect, if O. wins the election, the Islamo-Fascists or Palestinians will be dancing in the streets. Then the press immediately had McCain denouncing Peter King for saying it. I about went nuts. Of course it is true."
It's true! It's true!
Gene, why will they be dancing? They will have lost their most valuable recruiting tool- a warmongering Republican president so stupid he invaded the wrong country- handing al Qaida new stomping grounds.
Regarding Rush:
"He makes a mistake, he apologizes for it. It is documented."
Funny stuff Gene.
Here's a link which you'll no doubt reject as not credible even though it uses Rush's own words to show him for the lying piece of garbage that he is:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics...
You're clueless.
Posted by Gene on March 9, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
180 degrees off, Charles_B!
Posted by greenleaf on March 9, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gene, and Charles_B,
At least we are speaking to each other civilly! Gene, I think that the divide on Rush might be too wide to span and we may just have to agree to disagree. But that's OK! The important thing is to keep these discussions going so that we can better understand one another.
Amen to your comment that the environment is too politicized! Like it or not, we all live in the same environment, drinking the same water and breathing the same air. If there is any subject upon which we need to find some agreement, it would have to be that.
Thanks for your respectful postings, gentlemen!
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.