View Full Version : Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants
BMT (RIP)
10-19-2010, 12:04
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_gays_in_military_recruiting_1
BMT
I have been silently following this story for a while now. IMO, the change to this is a good thing, but I am not neive or close-minded about its possible effects, positive and negative. I am curious and was wondering if anyone hear could explain this to me, why would the Obama administration and the Justice Department appeal the court ruling when this is a "change" they supposedly support? Maybe I have my facts wrong and they dont support this???
1stindoor
10-20-2010, 09:41
I have been silently following this story ....why would the Obama administration and the Justice Department appeal the court ruling when this is a "change" they supposedly support? Maybe I have my facts wrong and they dont support this???
I've been following it as well; I think the "administration" remained quiet because they saw the political fallout from "openly" supporting the repeal. By allowing a judge to make the call they get to keep their hands relatively clean...then by making an "appeal" they can both appease the military and their fan base...all the while knowing that the ruling would remain intact.
Personally, I have no issues with gays serving...I thought DADT was an acceptable "compromise" since it was enacted during Clinton's administration.
That definitely makes sense to me. Politics annoy me....Would the appeal really be appeasing the military? According to most media sources the DOD followed the directive and has changed policy accordingly, but I also havent read of any statements directly from the DOD.
That definitely makes sense to me. Politics annoy me...........
But you'll notice it has become a media event of some gays trying to sign back up.
Which proves it's not about serving which they could do under "DADT". It's about the agenda.
So is it next year or the year after when the promotion lists start getting scrubbed for the proper number of gays?
The Reaper
10-20-2010, 15:52
But you'll notice it has become a media event of some gays trying to sign back up.
Which proves it's not about serving which they could do under "DADT". It's about the agenda.
So is it next year or the year after when the promotion lists start getting scrubbed for the proper number of gays?
Guaranteed.
Also look for the complaints about assignments, discrimination, hate crimes, sexual harassment, sexual assaults, etc., etc.
I guess we will need to sleep on our backs, and start showering with our backs to the walls now. If I have to shower with gays, I want to shower with the women as well. If he can keep his lust in check, so can I.
Will gays in the barracks be allowed to share rooms and sodomize one another, or will they automatically be authorized off-post quarters and BAH at the with dependents rate?
Look for a surge of HIV positive soldiers and partners hitting the military medical system as well.
Welcome to the gay Army.:rolleyes:
TR
BMT (RIP)
10-20-2010, 18:04
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601970,00.html
BMT
greenberetTFS
10-20-2010, 18:27
Guaranteed.
Also look for the complaints about assignments, discrimination, hate crimes, sexual harassment, etc., etc.
I guess we will need to sleep on our backs, and start showering with our backs to the walls now. If I have to shower with gays, I want to shower with the women as well. If he can keep his lust in check, so can I.
Will gays in the barracks be allowed to share rooms and sodomize one another, or will they automatically be authorized off-post quarters and BAH at the with dependents rate?
Look for a surge of HIV positive soldiers and partners hitting the military medical system as well.
Welcome to the gay Army.:rolleyes:
TR
I'm just thank GOD I'm not having to serve under these conditions......I reference HIM because HE had something to say regarding this matter........Romans 1:26–27 is a reference in the Bible to homosexuality...........1:26, Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 1:27, In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.............:(:(
Big Teddy :munchin
Nightfall
10-20-2010, 20:33
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601970,00.html
BMT
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday granted the Obama administration's request for a temporary freeze of a California-based federal judge's order telling the military to stop enforcing the policy.
Yet another example of the POTUS not doing one of the many, MANY, things he said he was going to do. Starting to become a habit... Not trying to hijack the thread, I've no dog in this fight other than another politician directly saying something, then doing the opposite. I can handle controversy, just not liars. "How's that hopey changey thing working out for ya?" is becoming one of my favorite quotes.
ProdigalSon
10-20-2010, 21:02
Could always take the Sacred Band of Thebes approach and group everyone who chooses to serve openly. Cheapest approach and prevents other units from having to serve with openly gay people. Someone will cry discrimination and they didn't get the same opportunities xyz.
1stindoor
10-21-2010, 08:24
IMHO that was a non decision. You are asking people to not be themselves and hide an aspect of their life ie be dishonest.
I agree to a point...it was a non-decision...but it also allowed Clinton to get his administration back on track after it was sidelined by the same questions. I don't think it had anything to do with people hiding who they were...it had to do with people wanting open acceptance versus tolerance.
Personally, I don't care who you sleep with...I don't think people I work with want to see me groping my wife or talking about our sex life. Conversely, I don't care to see or hear another Soldier doing it or talking about it with his/her "significant other."
I agree with other comments made...it's a media event. And if the rules are completely changed...expect to see issues with housing, medical, marriage, etc. Then watch as Joe Private argues that he should be given BAH with dependants to live with his girlfriend because someone else is getting it to live with his/her "life partner."
I have been watching this story unfold for years, and the only reason why I thought DADT was an acceptable compromise is that it kept us from wasting a lot of time, energy, and resources.
Could always take the Sacred Band of Thebes approach and group everyone who chooses to serve openly.
They could though that might backfire (no pun intended) as well, since claims of a return to segregation wouldn't help the military either.
FWIW regarding the Sacred Band of Thebes, USMC vet and author Stephen Pressfield had a distinctly un PC yet pragmatic opinion on the roots of their martial prowess in The Virtues of War
The elite regiment of Greece is the Sacred Band of Thebes. Its numbers are three hundred. The unit is constituted, so the poets declare, of pairs of lovers. The notion is that each man, dreading disgrace in the eyes of his beloved, will fight like one possessed, or, if overrun, stand by his comrade to the last. "What rubbish!" Telamon is corrosive on the subject. "If bungholing your mate was all it took to make first-rate soldiers, the sergeant's chore would be no more than 'Face about and bend over!'" My father likewise knows Thebes well, having endured three years there as a hostage in his youth. Of course the Sacred Band is not pairs of lovers. How, after the youth's first beard? What the band is, is the boldest and most athletic of Thebes's noblest families, including, this day, six Olympic champions and scores of prizewinners from Greece's lesser games. The expenses of the regiment are borne by the state, her members relieved of all civic obligation, save training for war.
I guess the "right" to feel unharrassed isn't extended to heterosexual service members.
1stindoor
10-22-2010, 06:36
I don't know...seems to me that Genie was released from the bottle years ago.
Why do we assume, as straight men, that WE are going to be harrassed by gay men in any particular situation? I mean, in reality, it probably wont happen. I dont picture homosexuals as sexually starved zombies waiting to jump any man that enters the room. Personally, I have never assumed that I would even be hit on while hanging around my gay friends and it has never happened. I dont believe we should jump to those conclusions.
1stindoor
10-22-2010, 09:34
I don't think that's the issue. At least not in the senior ranks...I think it's more of an issue of someone "hitting on" another in junior ranks. I try to put it into perspective...
Imagine trying to pick up some girl at a bar and instead of just getting turned down politely...or even rudely, instead she chooses to get a bunch of her friends to jump you, and beat you to death...I mean...afterall...what makes you think she would even like you like that?:rolleyes:
Why do we assume, as straight men, that WE are going to be harrassed by gay men in any particular situation?...........
Are you saying that people in positions of power will not/do not use their position to gain advantage over people under them who are sexually different from them?
I think there have been a number of quite public cases of men going after women. And a few of women going after men.
So gays will not go after non-gays? Is that what you're saying?
1stindoor
10-22-2010, 09:47
Are you saying that people in positions of power will not/do not use their position to gain advantage over people under them who are sexually different from them?
This is another one of the potential problems we'll see in a few years...that coupled with discrimination allegations because someone is "out."
I am saying that we shouldn't assume homosexuals will always go after heterosexuals. Sure it can happen and likely will, but just as in heterosexual situations a polite turn down is probably all that is needed. Some people will always try to take advantage of other people if they feel they can benefit from it. But, this doesnt prevent us from gaining employment, buying goods, or living our lives they way we choose too.
I also believe the majority of the issue will come in the junior ranks. The younger population doesnt seem to be ready to accept this yet. After all, high high school students still use "gay" as a negative term and an insult and we can also consider the recent homosexual suicides resulting from bullying. Could we assume this type of reaction would be worse within incoming soldiers of the same age group?
The Reaper
10-22-2010, 11:11
I am saying that we shouldn't assume homosexuals will always go after heterosexuals. Sure it can happen and likely will, but just as in heterosexual situations a polite turn down is probably all that is needed. Some people will always try to take advantage of other people if they feel they can benefit from it. But, this doesnt prevent us from gaining employment, buying goods, or living our lives they way we choose too.
I also believe the majority of the issue will come in the junior ranks. The younger population doesnt seem to be ready to accept this yet. After all, high high school students still use "gay" as a negative term and an insult and we can also consider the recent homosexual suicides resulting from bullying. Could we assume this type of reaction would be worse within incoming soldiers of the same age group?
What if it is unwelcome?
Will it be harassment?
Hostile environment?
It would be if I hit on a female in my workplace. Why not if a gay man tries to hit on me? Am I supposed to be flattered?
Why is it necessary to have seperate barracks and restrooms for men and women if there are locks on doors, shower curtains, and toilet stall doors?
Why not just build one set of barracks, and one set of unisex restrooms? We can all control ourselves, right? Good order and discipline and all that.
TR
Is the military prepared to answer any of these questions???? For some reason, I doubt it.
Is the military prepared to answer any of these questions???? For some reason, I doubt it.
But yet it is time to end DADT?
The key question is "Will allowing gays to serve openly help, hurt or be a neutral impact on the military?"
Will allowing the small number of gays who serve openly be "worth it" to the military?
Will gays be counted as a minority group and require special consideration on promotion boards like Blacks and women have?
And who says who is gay? If being gay gives a person a leg up on promotions why not list "gay" as your sexual prefference - even if you're married to a member of the opposite sex?
So many questions without answers - but yet it's time.
But yet it is time to end DADT?
The key question is "Will allowing gays to serve openly help, hurt or be a neutral impact on the military?"
Will allowing the small number of gays who serve openly be "worth it" to the military?
Will gays be counted as a minority group and require special consideration on promotion boards like Blacks and women have?
And who says who is gay? If being gay gives a person a leg up on promotions why not list "gay" as your sexual preference - even if you're married to a member of the opposite sex?
So many questions without answers - but yet it's time.IMO, another question worth answering is "How does one determine 'worth it'?"
Is the issue of "worth it" centrally about military effectiveness in an operational sense or should the broader potential for improved civil-military relations also receive consideration?
As for the current president, I've always been of the view that he deliberately misled the GLBT community so they'd vote for him and that he had no real intention of delivering if doing so entailed anything resembling a political risk. MOO, this issue is too important to be left to a blase commander in chief.
Ex-Congressman Mark Foley (Rep-FL) might be a good subject-matter expert to offer his insight on some of the points being brought up over the topic.
Richard :munchin
Why do we assume, as straight men, that WE are going to be harrassed by gay men in any particular situation? I mean, in reality, it probably wont happen. I dont picture homosexuals as sexually starved zombies waiting to jump any man that enters the room. Personally, I have never assumed that I would even be hit on while hanging around my gay friends and it has never happened. I dont believe we should jump to those conclusions.
I've been hit on by gay men, even after I made it clear I was straight. Some gays have a sick fetish of hooking up with heterosexuals. And given the amount of alcohol the junior ranks consume, I guarantee some gay dude is going to misread a straight guy, make a move, and get beat when said straight male sobers up. And the straight male is going to be held 100% accountable even though he would not have acted if the gay guy didn't try to hook up with him. Bad news IMO.
IMO, another question worth answering is "How does one determine 'worth it'?"
Is the issue of "worth it" centrally about military effectiveness in an operational sense or should the broader potential for improved civil-military relations also receive consideration?...................
I think the "worth it" for anybody in the military would be military effectiveness. The case can be made for any gay individual that they are "worth it".
Which is why many in the military are in favor of the continuation of DADT. It is individual.
When DADT is fully repealed than it swings from "individual" to "group". Now the group gains rights as a group - not the individual. The group becomes protected with special rights.
I wonder what or who the new EO NCOs will be? I would put that in pink but it is a serious question.
alright4u
10-22-2010, 19:05
[QUOTE=The Reaper;353302]Guaranteed.
Also look for the complaints about assignments, discrimination, hate crimes, sexual harassment, sexual assaults, etc., etc.
I guess we will need to sleep on our backs, and start showering with our backs to the walls now. If I have to shower with gays, I want to shower with the women as well. If he can keep his lust in check, so can I.
Will gays in the barracks be allowed to share rooms and sodomize one another, or will they automatically be authorized off-post quarters and BAH at the with dependents rate?
Look for a surge of HIV positive soldiers and partners hitting the military medical system as well.
Welcome to the gay Army.:rolleyes:
And imagine the rifle company CO is queer. Unreal. Sorry for not being PC.
AngelsSix
10-24-2010, 07:07
All I am going to add here is from a medical standpoint, and you med folks correct me if I am wrong.
When I worked at Portsmouth, if a sailor turned up HIV positive, he/she was re-tested to confirm and then moved to a "special unit" at the hospital. There was a whole ward dedicated to these folks.
I know the Army has a "special troops battalion", I pass it all the time. So why would it be an issue? I am certain the Army has a similar program to deal with HIV positive individuals.
....... I am certain the Army has a similar program to deal with HIV positive individuals.
The purpose of the military is to deploy - go places - do things.
Any time a service member is unable to do that someone has to step in and take their place.
We have discussed single parents (male & female) & prego's many times here.
By forcing "social norms" into the military it has impacted readiness. The repeal of DADT is the forcing of another "social norm" into the military.
HIV can not be dealt with like single parents or pregos - and it will impact readiness. And it will increase health care costs.
The Reaper
10-24-2010, 07:53
All I am going to add here is from a medical standpoint, and you med folks correct me if I am wrong.
When I worked at Portsmouth, if a sailor turned up HIV positive, he/she was re-tested to confirm and then moved to a "special unit" at the hospital. There was a whole ward dedicated to these folks.
I know the Army has a "special troops battalion", I pass it all the time. So why would it be an issue? I am certain the Army has a similar program to deal with HIV positive individuals.
How long between transmissable infection and discovery/notification? IIRC, HIV testing is annual and prior to overseas deployment. How many people will be infected in the interim? Gay HIV patients are not the most sexually responsible individuals to begin with. I have regularly seen soldiers who are identified as HIV positive and who are ordered not to have unprotected sex continuing to do so and transmitting the disease to multiple partners before being caught.
I do not think segregating or quarrantining infected soldiers is going to be an acceptable solution. Gay rights groups are not going to tolerate it. BTW, a Special Troops Battalion is a Corps support organization.
I have watched soldiers bleed to death. We carried a transfusion kit with us to prevent that in the future. Not sure I would want to be deciding whether to hook up to the gay soldier as a donor or not based on a year old HIV test.
The HIV issue is just one that is going to pop up as we try to allow gays to openly serve in the US military.
The primary purpose of the US military is to fight and win the nation's wars. Last time I checked, enlistment and reenlistment rates were adequate to support the current strength demands. I do not think that the social experiment of bringing a few hundred gay soldiers into the military is going to be worth the net cost to good order and discipline within the force. This could affect the ability of the military to accomplish its assigned mission. It is definitely going to cause friction and drama as it progresses.
IMHO, Americans can lead whatever deviant sexual lifestyles they want to, within the limits of the law. At the same time, I do not need anyone flaunting their sexuality in my face, or my children's faces. Anyone who has been to Key West, or certain parts of San Francisco has seen what I am talking about. I have rights too, and yours end where mine begin.
TR
PedOncoDoc
10-24-2010, 15:21
The primary purpose of the US military is to fight and win the nation's wars. Last time I checked, enlistment and reenlistment rates were adequate to support the current strength demands. I do not think that the social experiment of bringing a few hundred gay soldiers into the military is going to be worth the net cost to good order and discipline within the force. This could affect the ability of the military to accomplish its assigned mission. It is definitely going to cause friction and drama as it progresses.
I have wondered if this was the exact intention of this "experiment."
I have rights too, and yours end where mine begin.
Well said, and truer words have rarely been spoken - just don't let the ACLU hear you say it.
Roguish Lawyer
10-24-2010, 17:11
You could solve these problems by assigning them all to the Navy, yes? ;)
AngelsSix
10-24-2010, 18:14
How long between transmissable infection and discovery/notification? IIRC, HIV testing is annual and prior to overseas deployment. How many people will be infected in the interim? Gay HIV patients are not the most sexually responsible individuals to begin with. I have regularly seen soldiers who are identified as HIV positive and who are ordered not to have unprotected sex continuing to do so and transmitting the disease to multiple partners before being caught.
I do not think segregating or quarrantining infected soldiers is going to be an acceptable solution. Gay rights groups are not going to tolerate it. BTW, a Special Troops Battalion is a Corps support organization.
I have watched soldiers bleed to death. We carried a transfusion kit with us to prevent that in the future. Not sure I would want to be deciding whether to hook up to the gay soldier as a donor or not based on a year old HIV test.
The HIV issue is just one that is going to pop up as we try to allow gays to openly serve in the US military.
The primary purpose of the US military is to fight and win the nation's wars. Last time I checked, enlistment and reenlistment rates were adequate to support the current strength demands. I do not think that the social experiment of bringing a few hundred gay soldiers into the military is going to be worth the net cost to good order and discipline within the force. This could affect the ability of the military to accomplish its assigned mission. It is definitely going to cause friction and drama as it progresses.
IMHO, Americans can lead whatever deviant sexual lifestyles they want to, within the limits of the law. At the same time, I do not need anyone flaunting their sexuality in my face, or my children's faces. Anyone who has been to Key West, or certain parts of San Francisco has seen what I am talking about. I have rights too, and yours end where mine begin.
TR
Straight out of AR 600-110:
The U.S. Army Special Operations Command and Ranger organizations are totally closed to HIV-positive soldiers.
Soldiers who are HIV-positive will not be assigned to the following organizations, if the soldier's medical condition requires frequent medical follow-up and the duty location would be geographically isolated from an Army medical treatment facility capable of providing that follow-up:
o TOE or MTOE units if previously diagnosed as HIV positive.
o U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command
o U.S. Army Cadet Command
o U.S. Army Recruiting Command
By the way, gays are not the only people that turn up HIV positive. Plenty of people that are defined as heterosexual also come up HIV positive. The HIV rate in some foreign countries is ridiculous. Soldiers, sailors, marines, and the like have come up HIV positive from visiting foreign brothels, using drugs, and from blood transfusions.
I understand the complications that openly gay personnel in the military pose. But there HAVE been gay people in the military since the Romans ruled and I don't think that is going to change. If it is simply an issue of how open they are, then I think they will figure out real quick that being openly gay is not the way to go if they want to stay in the military.
AngelsSix
10-24-2010, 18:15
You could solve these problems by assigning them all to the Navy, yes? ;)
We did that a loooong time ago, there are still carriers sailing and planes flying. So go ahead, send up all the gays. We get port visits!:D
........ If it is simply an issue of how open they are, then I think they will figure out real quick that being openly gay is not the way to go if they want to stay in the military.
Wrong - That will not be the problem. Once DADT is repealed then being openly gay is "the norm". Any problem and it is the other person's not the gay person's.
That is what we have been saying about DADT and it's repeal.
A gay does not like an assignment, a duty, a detail it's off to EO to file a complaint. I've been on the edge of more than on of those and I can tell you they take up a lot of time. Now if they call a congressman they can really ball things up.
So which side of AR 670-1 do the transgenders have to follow? Male or female? How about the PT test? Can transgenders try out for SF? How about a guy who makes it into SF but decides he's really a female and wants a sex change? Should the Army give it to him? Is he, now her, still an 18 series?
The door is fixin' to swing wide open and nobody is sure what's at the end of the hallway but they are ready to run down it with their eyes wide shut.
And females on ships? Everyone remember "the Love Boat" from the first Gulf War?
AngelsSix
10-25-2010, 03:59
You are forgetting the half and half people. A local county jail had a person that was in the midst of the sex change. Apparently it involves years of hormone theropy, several opersations etc. Long story short it was female above the waist and male below the waist. The quandry was where do you put someone like that? It considerered itsself female even before the change was undertaken and had female brests however he/she also had a penis. What do you do with someone like that? These are very real situations that will arise folks. Ladies, do you want to take a shower with someone that is a male in body but female in their mind and parts are already getting there?
I am glad the we are having a insightful discussion on this subject, everyone is bringing some very valid stuff to the table that I had never considered myself. I am retiring in April, so much of what is going on will not affect me. I do like to see how other people view it.
I think that the bottom line is that we need to get to the core of the problem, which is really our politics in this country. You can blame gays for wanting to serve their country, but I don't think anyone has considered the "finer" points of the debate, so to speak.
1stindoor
10-25-2010, 07:17
How about a guy who makes it into SF but decides he's really a female and wants a sex change? Should the Army give it to him? Is he, now her, still an 18 series?
With apologies to my 3rd SFG brothers...yes...but you don't have to call her "Colonel" any more.
1stindoor
10-25-2010, 07:19
And females on ships? Everyone remember "the Love Boat" from the first Gulf War?
Does anyone else find it ironic that the biggest "naysayers" of women on subs have been the wives of submariners?
1stindoor
10-25-2010, 07:26
You can blame gays for wanting to serve their country, but I don't think anyone has considered the "finer" points of the debate, so to speak.
I don't blame gay people for wanting to serve. I think it's a noble profession. However, their sexual orientation is simply not conducive to good discipline and order...especially when "activist" politicians and judges are involved.
Why do we assume, as straight men, that WE are going to be harrassed by gay men in any particular situation? I mean, in reality, it probably wont happen. I dont picture homosexuals as sexually starved zombies waiting to jump any man that enters the room. Personally, I have never assumed that I would even be hit on while hanging around my gay friends and it has never happened. I dont believe we should jump to those conclusions.
And yet, all-women gyms such as Curves exist, and many instructors across a wide spectrum of subjects hold "women only" classes 'so the poor dears don't feel intimidated by those brutish, sex-starved men that can't control their sexual urges'. No assumptions there that created a new reality.
spherojon
10-25-2010, 15:33
Why not just build one set of barracks, and one set of unisex restrooms? We can all control ourselves, right? Good order and discipline and all that.
TR
Looks like Starship Troopers was ahead of its time.
I think there are a lot of great points here. I am most concerned on where it stops. Like stated before, is the Army going to allow sex changes, and females in body but male in mind into SF or any other elite unit? Does HIV become an overwhelming issue in the standard Armed forces? Then of course you are going to have sexual harassment on both sides. I would think that the last thing a commander would want is a "combat" ready unit that is uncomfortably distracted. I just see this rolling into a giant Charlie Foxtrot.
Green Light
10-25-2010, 15:40
With apologies to my 3rd SFG brothers...yes...but you don't have to call her "Colonel" any more.
My wife has a REAL problem with men getting plastic surgery to play like they're women. She says no matter what some guy does to himself, he will never be a woman. In her estimation, he'll never understand what real women go through.
I have to agree. Womanhood is even more than genetic, it resides at the molecular (DNA) level. You can't change that. Having that surgery doesn't make you a woman, just a gelding.
This used to be classified as a mental illness. It was removed from the DSM-II (and later editions) not due to research disproving it, but due to political pressures. If you don't think it's an illness, just watch (as long as you can stomach it) any gay/lesbian parade. It's pretty sick.
I don't wish them ill, and the sickos who commit crimes against them should be tried and convicted just like anyone else. But the types of displays of "solidarity" that we see on the news is going to ruin the military. For these and other reasons already stated, this needs to be stopped.
It's bad enough that congressmen have a "wide stance" (no disagreement from me, Richard), the military doesn't need the same stuff going on in the barracks.
BMT (RIP)
11-01-2010, 16:56
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/01/federal-court-extends-hold-ruling-dont-ask-dont-tell/
BMT
1stindoor
11-02-2010, 06:59
"Indefinitely Extends..."
That'll put the ball (no pun intended) squarely into the Administrations court. They'll have to step up and go to Congress or recognize that once again they've overstepped their reach.
zuluzerosix
11-02-2010, 09:47
Now where is Lady Gaga!!
He is off practicing his NEW Army Combatives. It's called " Slap Fighting."
Sorry, it was hard to resisit that one.
Roguish Lawyer
11-03-2010, 09:50
I think these guys want to join! Apologies in advance . . . :)
1stindoor
11-04-2010, 07:04
I'm going to sue you for mental anguish. :p
I thought those were lawyers....R.L. you had that one coming.
zuluzerosix
11-04-2010, 09:20
I think these guys want to join! Apologies in advance . . . :)
The one of the left is "John Rambone."