Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Trial of the True Believers

By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet. Posted February 7, 2006.


The mindset that led Enron to defraud millions of people is the same that created the Bush administration's legal quagmires.
020706_story
Advertisement

As the trial of Enron's Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay enters its second week, journalists are again pointing to the connections between the Bush family and administration and the former corporate Goliath. It's certainly not difficult to unearth the laundry list of ties between Bush's tight-knit Republican circle and the company that cheated Americans out of over $1 billion in retirement funds and some 4,500 jobs.

But perhaps the more interesting connection between the Bush administration and Enron is how people from both entities have flouted the law by spinning their own versions of reality and defending their actions with claims of good intent.

No one can deny Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling's leadership of Enron was creative. As Peter Elkind, senior writer at Fortune and co-author of "The Smartest Guys in the Room," told AlterNet in a recent interview, "It was the most innovative company in America, we just didn't know how innovative."

Enron traders were encouraged to seek out every loophole in any law that stood in the way of Enron making another buck. This kind of market manipulation has been referred to as a "phantom deal." In the case of the California energy crisis, there was no shortage of electricity, and yet Enron was getting profits by shutting down power plants to artificially push up the price. Without creating anything, Enron was making billions in profits.

But while many of their deals -- as well as the company's profits -- were "phantom," the fallout from the company's collapse was hardly apparitional. Even now, the repercussions of the energy crisis are being felt. Residents in many parts of California are paying record electricity costs as the remaining debt hovers. Thousands of employees lost their jobs, and an even larger number of people lost retirement benefits.

Despite the diligent cataloguing of the many disingenuous deals made by Enron, the outcome of Skilling and Lay's trial is hardly predictable. That's because the prosecution team has to prove that Skilling and Lay intended to mislead investors, and that they knew the company was headed for disaster. But Skilling and Lay repeatedly insist that they were true believers and never thought the company would collapse. This may come down to the issue of what Skilling and Lay allowed themselves to believe.

It may come as no surprise, then, that both men are eager to take the stand. Rather than feeling ashamed or repentant for the collapse of Enron, Skilling and Lay's lawyers have promised the jury that both men will take the stand. In fact, they're eager to let jurors know just how passionately they felt about Enron.

From Peter Elkind and Bethany McLean's interviews in "The Smartest Guys in the Room," it becomes clear that Enron was a cult of personalities -- driven in large part by Jeff Skilling. It was Skilling's repeated refusal to accept defeat that revealed the chink in Enron's armor: The only thing keeping Enron from failing was Skilling and Lay's desperate insistence that Enron was a success.

The alternate reality that Skilling and Lay had so successfully fabricated, by keeping it sealed off from the public and using every loophole to keep afloat, collapsed as soon as the public started asking questions. And while the illegitimacy of the company's deals revealed Enron to be a house of cards, the repercussions from its collapse -- high energy prices, the loss of jobs and retirement funds -- remain a stark reminder of the very real consequences of allowing those with a fervent ideology access to unchecked power. For those so driven, facts become secondary, mere details to be fabricated in order to further furnish their version of reality.

It's an interesting irony that the more incapable Skilling and Lay are of seeing how their actions were wrong or illegal, the more likely they are to escape discipline. Fortune writer Roger Parloff likens this kind of defense to the "Emperor's clothes" metaphor:


Digg!

Onnesha Roychoudhuri is an editorial fellow at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
EnWRONG
Posted by: Tom Degan on Feb 7, 2006 2:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please buy the DVD of The Smartest Guys In The Room. It's one thing to read it, but seeing it with your own eyes....When former Governor Gray Davis begged the president to do something about ENRON's rape of California's economy (which he was constitutionally obliged to do), George W. Bush the "compassionate conservative", the "uniter, not a divider", the man who was "gonna restore honor and integrity to the White House", the hideous, half-witted piece of shit that this country stupidly sent to the oval office, resused to do a damn thing.

He should be impeached for that alone.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: nWRONG Posted by: holli
Yes they are well intentioned.
Posted by: johnecolby on Feb 7, 2006 2:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I am sure that in their own ways Hitler, Stalin, Mao and a long list of terrible dictators believed their intentions were good in their strange logics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NO, they are not! Posted by: Bic Pentameter
Kudos. . .
Posted by: The Old Hippie on Feb 7, 2006 3:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An excellent and knowledgeable analysis of the reality of the altered realities we all are now facing, and many are just beginning to realize is their reality.

With the full one-party-control now completed, and with Karl Rove's arrogantly renewed open threat to Republican reps, that if they vote against the president, they will be cut off from any support - I am a bit cynical as to any real punishment of the Bush administration, its corporatists cronies and sycophants, for their well proven purposeful, and profitable destruction of the Constitutional Republic, in favor of the reality of the openly corrupt "profits-over-even-life-for the very few" Theocratic/Corporatist Oligarchy that is now the better description of our nation.

I am not alone in my cynicism, as I am seeing more and more of it expressed in the forums, (i.e. here, Huffington Post, Truthout, Crooks and Liars, et al,) - Not that any of us are giving up, just that we have witnessed so very many jaw-dropping destructive and arrogant disregards and/or abuses of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the regulatory structures, the Checks and Balances, the Separation of Church and State - not to mention the open theft of the Treasury, proven lies for an illegal war of profits, open support of corporate profits over the needs of the citizens, the corruption of the last three national elections, and all of it supported by the 5-corporation-controlled media - And none of it corrected or punished in any real way at all.  So far.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kudos. . . Posted by: diof09
» RE: Kudos. . . Posted by: Lincoln fan
Bullshit...
Posted by: adp3d on Feb 7, 2006 3:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...and more to do with whether or not supposedly "good intentions" and a deliberately skewed sense of reality can excuse unconscionable actions."

Consider this...

Your Honor, I really, in good conscience, even though I had 6 gin and tonics at the club, I really, truly didn't intend to hit and kill that boy on his bicyle...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bullshit... Posted by: mazur
esromel
Posted by: esromel on Feb 7, 2006 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is very hard for me to believe a liar, cheat, thief and murderer isn't aware of what they are doing. To state the leaders of Enron didn't fully understand their actions sounds to me like you at the Alternet are making excuses for the guys who ran the company, as though an alternate view of stealing somehow makes a difference. They were, and still are the smartest thieves in the room, and I'm laying my bet that they walk, whether they are pardoned by the creature in the fantisy house D.C., or the turkey's in California believe that the rich and greedy wouldn't really cheat them like that.
It grates on me that most Americans are such stupid little children that they must be led around.
I disown you all, until you grow a brain, and while your at it grow some guts and a little spine to stand all by yourselves without holding onto big daddy's hand. Big daddy is a baby killer, deserter, and has never paid a bill in his misbegotten, defective, shallow, worthless life. He is NOT leadership material, he is NOT a tactician, NOR is he an economist...or haven't you noticed? And the boys who ran Enron will run rings around you and feed everyone a better batch of spin both before and after they walk. And you will all sit there and take it...silly children that you are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: esromel Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: esromel Posted by: eringhorm
» Exactly! Posted by: Bic Pentameter
» Question Posted by: sterlingwisdom
An Old Joke
Posted by: O.B.Server on Feb 7, 2006 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Dubya/Enron mentality reminds me of the old joke about the wife who comes home and catches her husband in the act with another woman. The husband and friend finish what they are doing and put on their clothes and the woman leaves. The husband than denies there was another woman present. And the wife finally begins to doubt what she saw.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An Old Joke Posted by: JSquercia
True Believers
Posted by: diof09 on Feb 7, 2006 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's fairly obvious what undergirds the Enron execs and the Bush Administration: their cultism. I believe it was Sidney Blumenthal who quoted Bush as telling journalists: "We'll (Administration) be out their creating the reality and you (journalists) will be left behind to record it." They see themselves as the "shapers" of the reality not "responders" to a separate reality out there. No wonder so many of these cultists want to close our schools and allow themselves to be indoctrinated by Rush, Sean and Co. for hours on end nearly every day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» True manipulators Posted by: Bic Pentameter
Wiretaps are for Blackmail.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Feb 7, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even though this article suggests that the illegal wire taping is an attempt to protect the Executive power from congressional oversight, I have a different take.

In a perfect world with sincere honest politicians I would accept her proposals, but the Bush administration has shown that it is not honest, sincere or trustworthy. Therefore, I conclude that this administration has and is using the illegal wiretaps to blackmail members of Congress, the DOD, private business leaders and any other persons who show any inclination to challenge the Executive ruling elite. The wiretaps are for control, pure and raw.

Why then would the White House risk exposure of its wiretapping subjects if it were not that it would expose those whom it wishes to tape, as subjects for blackmail nothing more?

Indeed, we see other abuses of power with the so called “no fly lists.” There are 80 thousand people on these lists. If indeed, any of those on the lists are terrorists, don’t you think that the FBI with reporters in tow would be breaking down their doors in a “New York minute?” I would believe so. “Perp” walks would be front-page news.

But, those “no flyers” are just unfortunate people who have been chosen by some nameless functionary in the White House to be blacklisted by the Rove machine, nothing more. I would bet there are an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend or two on these lists. How can any “no flyer” prove that he or she does not belong on the list? They can’t because there is no procedure to challenge the placement; therefore, the procedure is beyond discovery and not “news” ready.

This is just one example of the rule by fiat that the Bush administration uses to control and subjugate the public, others exist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wiretaps are for Blackmail. Posted by: JSquercia
How to avoid the "discontents" of civlization.
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 7, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Without that, psychiatrists may have labels for him, but the penal code does not."

Exactly. But psychiatry defends lying when in the service of "primary narcissism." That is, it is healthy to pursue your self-interest by whatever means necessary. The laws are civilization's attempt to curb the power of the "child within."

My guess is that all of the indicted, plus the President and his cronies, have received the support of trained medical experts. Freud borrowed Nietzsche's vision of a constant war between the elitist creators and the ignorant masses and internalized it in the individual.

It's more familiar as Ayn Rand's philosophy. Those from the 70s will recognize it as Erhard Seminar Training. Those extoll taking what you want as something you need, which translates into free markets.

Selfishness brings happiness is the message. It also eventuates in a war of all against all, since all are your enemies. Hollywood embraces it, also, as in "Get Rich or Die." And that's because "success" defined in monetary terms applies to organized crime as well as corporate crime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

donata
Posted by: donata on Feb 7, 2006 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see that many had the same reaction that I did: so Hitlar was innocent cause he 'believed'? The drunk didn't willfully 'kill' with his car? What I didn't see directly stated is that we actually recoiled from the author's conclusion that the court would have to prove 'knowledge' and the pollyanna defense can work. Now if they switched their tact to an insanity defense....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conservative Street Cred
Posted by: dlf on Feb 7, 2006 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Specter rightly points out in his questions for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, with well-established programs like FISA in place, the rational question is: Why does the administration continue to put our safety secondary to its agenda to expand executive power? Specter writes, "The FISA Court has a record establishing its reliability for non-disclosure or leaking contrasted with concerns that disclosure to many members of Congress involved a high risk of disclosure or leaking. The FISA Court is at least as reliable, if not more so, than the Executive Branch on avoiding disclosure or leaks."

Interesting that Specter argues that the administration isn't forthright, but tells Sen. Leahy he trust Gonzales is honorable and truthful, therefore he doesn't need to be sworn in. The real problem is the Left acknowledges a portion of the doublespeak put forth by the political puppets who represent us. This gives them some credibility. When the Left begins to point out every contradiction, everyday, ad nauseam the public will begin to see the pattern. As long as the left gives credence to these bellowing blowhearts the public will trust they are telling us half the truth rather than they are telling half-truths.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Conservative Street Cred Posted by: JSquercia
State of Mind
Posted by: chinasdad on Feb 7, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most criminal laws are written so that an irrational subjective belief that what you did was legal is not a defense. Securities, health fraud and tax law are exceptions. The rationale is that these are exceptionally complex areas of the law but, at least in the first two areas, anyone involved in those fields will have access to specialty lawyers. The practical result is that prosecutors have that deliberate ignorance is a defense in areas that cost people millions of dollars but not for charges, such as receiving stolen property, that have much fewer consequences to society or rewards for the defendant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Find It Interesting That........
Posted by: JPG on Feb 7, 2006 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in any of the discussions of Enron, etc., that never once have I seen the legal concept of FIDUCIARY DUTY mentioned! This is basic legal confine that is encumbent upon ALL coroporate officers, whether they want it or not. Thereby, the "I didn't know what was happening" defense aggregiously fails. It is the FIDUCIARY DUTY of a corporate officer to know what is going on and to "protect and defend" the assets and monies of all interested parties, e.g. stockholders, employees, vendors, etc. Why is this never mentioned?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Like peas in a pod.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 7, 2006 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despots don't usually make torture and killing a central aim of their regimes. People are tortured and killed, rather, because they stand in the way of the despot's higher purpose.

This is the common core of the mindset of each dictator, despot, and many criminals throughout history: their unshakable certainty of personal righteousness; their belief that they know better, and thus are not bound by the rules that the rest of society has agreed to live by. And by their flouting of the law (let alone the guiding principles of humanity), that commonality seems to extend to many in the Bush Corporatocracy as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Like peas in a pod. Posted by: cacky
Parasites
Posted by: ScottP on Feb 7, 2006 10:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our fundamental challenge is to awaken the public to the reality that the overpaid executives are parasites, not enablers of efficiency as they and their stooges claim. The decline of the middle class is not coincident with the mansion building spree of the robber barons, it is in fact caused by it. The resources that should be used for investment in infrastructure (both visible as well as informational) is subverted to lavish lifestyles with trophy mansions in the mountains that sit unused for 360 days a year.

To find the real criminals in the country, one does not need to get warrants to look at accounting books. One only needs to go to Sun Valley, Lake Tahoe, or Palm Springs and look at who has the title to the property behind the gates. Imagine what an idiot you would have to be to have $20M in the bank, but not be able to think of anything better to do with it than to buy a big tract in a forest, cut down the trees, and build a mansion that you only will visit for 5 days every other year. These people are not geniuses, they're shallow and selfish.

When the public realizes that tax reform means taxing the rich, and realizes the most damaging crooks are not the guys stealing a pair of socks but rather the executives profiting from making socks in sweatshops, solutions to problems like Enron will come easily.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please inform me
Posted by: condenser on Feb 7, 2006 12:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How exactly does one prove what another is thinking? There is no way BUT to look at the accompanying actions and extrapolate what the thinking was. Nothing else will lead you anywhere as close to knowing what's in their heads.
Blatantly adding phantom transcations to hide or create revenue is clearly illegal. Ask the tax man. Making them more complexe and hard to understand still requires you to start from a single basic proposition. You can also look at it from the top down. At every step of the way the preceding level of complexity is simpler. Legality or illegality doesn't enter when you reach 3, 4 or 5 muddled transactions. Somewhere along the line you must knowingly introduce something illegal for it to appear and have the effect you want. It didn't come out of the complexity of the scam. Understanding of the scam is irrelevant. The notion of illegality, in this case, comes from the fact that it was done to deceive, whatever "it" was. The crime was deception for profit.
Knowledge of the end result is sufficient. People were deceived and Kenny boy and his pals knew of it as their begging fo help clearly shows when the money was drying up. Had the deals been real, the money would not have run out. The profits were not profits at all.
I'm getting the sick feeling that the law is on trial here. If the law demands that one proves what they were thinking, then they will all walk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Please inform me Posted by: Doubtom
No one to blame but ourselves
Posted by: tohellinahandbasket on Feb 7, 2006 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If our leaders (both corporate and governmental) can't tell the difference between reality and their own version of it, it's because progressive and moderate thinkers in the Democratic and Republican Parties have allowed themselves to be sidelined by the extremists whose world vision doesn't countenance liberal ideas like debate, consensus and moderation.

How has this come to pass? A nation founded upon liberal ideals brung low like this? It's almost inconceivable - almost.

Yet, while the extremists stormed to power, the rest of us pondered. Yes, we sat on our posteriors and fretted and tutted and wondered at how our fellow citizens could be duped by such idiocy.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men (read people) to do nothing. Or to paraphrase Ogden Nash, thinking is nice but action is quicker.

Time to mobilise, folks. Time to go house to house, person to person, and peel away the rose-tinted glasses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about industry standards?
Posted by: Mudtiger on Feb 7, 2006 3:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am unclear as to what type of standards the court will use in determining guilt with respect to Skilling and Lay's knowledge, but I think that perhaps a good indicator would be what other corporations in the industry would have done in similiar circumstances. For these two theives to claim they were "true believers" and "didn't know" shouldn't suffice, as officers they had to know profits don't just appear out of thin air.
Great article! It is nice to read something thought-provoking and original in a proffesion that is so often redundant. Keep up the good work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

its a rigged game
Posted by: The Gardener on Feb 7, 2006 5:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guilty or morally responsible are two very different things. First to be guilty in the eyes of the law there has to be a law that was broken. So what are the laws that protect the investor against this type of thing?
Morally, you assume that two execs making tens of millions a year are going to be in the know about the finances of their company. Its part of the job description. If they don’t do their job they could be fired. Right? Well you would think so anyway.
It was the Board of Directors job specifically or as people love to say it was their "fiduciary" responsibility to oversee all of this. And how many Directors were there? Maybe 10 and none did it. But again what law was broken??
I am not big on lots of new laws, but the bottom line on Enron is it was just a rigged game and as long as the Exec didn’t know he is not guilty even though he is being paid to do a job that includes knowing.
Morally these guys are bottom feeders. The morality gets lost with the “opportunity” to make a lot of money. There is a certain rightness in making huge profits and having a soaring stock price. And this rightness seems to justify a lot of wrong nesses at least until those profits stop. It can even become criminal if people then lose money. If people expect things to change those wrongs need to be wrong even if you made lots of money.
It is part of the law that ignorance of it is not an excuse. Until that idea is part of the corporate law only the most blatant fools will get caught.

Id like corporations to put into their contracts with theses highly paid execs that these same execs would be expected to know the finances of the company and that the exec accepts that fact and states that he is in the know. You would see a lot fewer blind eyes turned and the audits would be more real. The assumption is that if you signed off on it, you did the homework and are personally attesting to the math being correct.
I’d also like to see these execs having to return pay and stocks if they fudged on their performance or were found to have not done their job of truly knowing.
We have in this country this rigged game of corporate America. The laws that are passed having to do with commerce are largely influenced by the fincial contributions corporations make to politicians. The decisions on what to donate and to who are made by these same execs! The politician does not want to piss off the corporations or his funds will get cut off and his opponent will be funded instead.
Finally Id like to see that only individual citizens could donate money to political campaigns or politicians, action committees and whatever other thing someone could create to get money out of corporations to influence government. Both the unions and the corporations are not what this country was founded on. It is suppose to be a government by the people and for the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: its a rigged game Posted by: dlf
Good Intentions.... what the f....?
Posted by: cacky on Feb 7, 2006 11:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The prospect of our legal system coddling the likes Lay (and Bush) is sickening in the extreme. Their alternate reality is an EXCUSE? Please God don't let this be a viable legal defense in this mixed up world. Might as well throw out all the laws. For one thing, there is no possible way for Lay and Skilling to not have understood their actions. What they did was not the good intentions of true believers, but the addiction -like hope and desire to continue getting away with it. Their tender regard for the people of California speaks for itself. They are not mentally ill but morally ill, and businessmen of their caliber are not simply ignorant about business and financial practice. For the second thing, as an "ordinary person", if I break a law, any law ,I am going to be told that ignorance is no excuse. If I lie,cheat, steal, manipulate, defraud, and attempt to destroy evidence, NO ONE is going to believe for a second that I did it innocently. What do we have to do to convince the public that high profile crooks are not unfortunate princes? If a jury feels sorry for them, I am going to puke for days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We can only tell lies if we beleive in them ourselves
Posted by: WHB on Feb 7, 2006 11:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to womder if Bidh and friends keep on saying the same line over and over again so that they will belive it themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]