The questions about this lawsuit that are being asked in the comments section at news sites (eg. CBC etc) are:
1. Does this lawsuit harm Pat Martin and the NDP by making them look like they're not ready for prime time as the Official Opposition?
2. Or, does this lawsuit help the Opposition parties and hurt the Conservatives by keeping the issue in the news and reminding people of the allegations against the Harper Cons?
Where are the log reports of the E-day (or pre-E-day) misdirection calls? These records should show which numbers were called, how many people answered the phone and how long they stayed on the line. This would be vital information if there are any challenges to the results if the number of completed calls was greater than the margin of victory. Racknine would have access to that information for Guelph which has been tied to their servers through Pierre Poutine. I would imagine that Elections Canada got a hold of it in their investigation but wouldn't take anything for granted.
The one consensus that seems to be slowly emerging out of all of this among the press is that at least with regard to Guelph, there appears to be an acknowledgement that something went off the rails with the Conservative campaign there.
On the Friday night show of P&P yesterday, the CBC's Chris Hall was hosting for Evan Solomon who was off. Rob Russo, Greg Weston & Kady O'Malley were on. They pointed out that even the Conservatives are beginning to realize something wrong happened there and they cited the example this week of Conservative MP Michael Chong speaking out against corruption in Guleph.
I would say "2" because Joe Comartin's wife got one of those robocalls and traced the number to Racknine. Racknine was definitely involved. Either they knew the content of the robocall or they should have.
Being sued is a new angle that is apt to keep the story in the news until more information comes in.
Re Michael Chong - that is a division in the Tory party - those MPs who are acting as if these allegations are no big deal and those who are shocked.
Backbenchers have nothing to lose but their reputations. I doubt that the Backbenchers will do what Lucien Bouchard did and form their own grouping with a new name - but they may prove very difficult to whip.
Thanks to Gary for the informative insights into the procees involved in robocalls. Babble at its best.
Yeah Gary should post more often.
Here's one question: Why do we want to attack RackNine?
Because democracy should more appropriately be referred to as corporatism. It is a merger of state and corporate power.
And this is kaos. We refuse to tolerate democracy around here.
Here's one question: Why do we want to attack RackNine?Because democracy should more appropriately be referred to as corporatism. It is a merger of state and corporate power.
And this is kaos. We refuse to tolerate democracy around here.
Some of you believe that; not all of us "around here" do though.
I'd venture to say a few of the people outraged about this care very much about democracy.
But that's a dispute probably best left for one of the many threads that have already been devoted to it.
Those are really good questions, Gary, and it's making me rethink my position on this. I didn't know that services like RackNine's normally provide that kind of guidance. I assumed they were as aloof as, say, Bell Canada would be when they give you a phone line or an internet connection, and that they don't have any responsibility to monitor whether you're using it for things that are legal or illegal.
I can only speak to the one experience I had and have no idea what Racknine's internal policies are but I doubt it's aloof as getting a cellphone or internet service. From my own experience, the more that we did on our own, the less we had to pay the service. We did receive some training. It was actually a lot of fun for a neo-phyte such as myself.
A quick glance at Elections Canada Third Party financial reports shows that our campaign may have been the only registered TP in Canada to employ robocalling. Most of the other "big spenders" took out newspaper and radio ads. That would mean that ALL other robocalls during the writ period had to have been conducted by political parties. If the fraudulent calls were done by "rogues", they may have also violated the Elections Act by not registering (if they spent more than $500.00).
I did write to the CRTC the other day to get a link to their policies on robocalling but haven't heard back yet. Thanks for the positive feedback Duncan and Fidel.
Will it work?
If by 'will it work?' anyone is wondering if it will result in a toned-down Pat Martin, I point to his tweet of today:
7 minute cerebral blowjob for Michael Bliss who happily agreed with Rex that this whole thing is "flatulence" so we should leave PMSH be.
Haha.
I heard Bliss's comments and absolutely could not believe it. He didn't just say it was nothing; he was blaming and insulting the people who were concerned about the electoral fraud, I don't get where Martin said he was agreeing with Rex Murphy, though. This is one issue where Rex has actually seen a lot of it for what it is, and there was a caller shortly afterward who was furious about the dismissal.
And the BJ comment... of about the same calibre as the fart talk he was criticizing. Someone really should take him aside because it's not fiery rhetoric, nor is it really helping any cause. It's just insulting and childish.
I get the feeling that Martin is going "balls to the wall" with the potty mouth stuff on Twitter, as a middle finger to everyone who went after him over his swearing tweets a while back.
I'm more amused by the pearl-clutching it inspires than anything. I think he's figured out that people would rather hear MPs be real on social media than sound like they're being scripted by the communciations department. This is the kind of thing you'd likely hear if you were in a pub having a beer with him or a group of political junkies.
Matt Meier, president of RackNine, posted this on linkedin Nov 2, 2010:
Picture of stack of new electronic hardware, with caption "Adding the final servers for the political superweapon."
so Pierre Poutine -> Matt Meier?
Will it work?
If by 'will it work?' anyone is wondering if it will result in a toned-down Pat Martin, I point to his tweet of today:
No, actually Lou, what I meant was, "Will this scare the shit out of Pat Martin and ensure that he stops blathering on about RackNine and its Edmonton hillbillies?"
That's why I posted this near the start of the thread:
ETA: Here was Martin's last tweet, at 3:19 pm, mentioning RackNine - from the media reports, it looks as if he was served later in the afternoon.
Will there be any more?
I just checked Pat's Tweets.
32 hours and not another peep about RackNine since he was served.
I guess it worked - so far.
He may not have taken the time to talk about it there since then, but he has been talking:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/03/racknine-defamation-lawsuit-an-a...
What is the corporate structure of Racknine? Who are the members of its organization? The only name I can find on their website is Matt Meir.
It's time for the press to investigate more about the corporate structure of Racknine and who other than Matt Meir is involved in its operations.
He may not have taken the time to talk about it there since then, but he has been talking:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/03/racknine-defamation-lawsuit-an-a...
Heh, doesn't count - he didn't repeat any allegations about what they did during the elections. He's on the defensive. They wouldn't even wait for his initial letter of apology! We'll see what the next one looks like. Poor Pat.
Now if someone could muzzle him properly, perhaps the aim could be redirected to where it belongs: the Conservative government?
Please?
I heard Bliss's comments and absolutely could not believe it. He didn't just say it was nothing; he was blaming and insulting the people who were concerned about the electoral fraud, I don't get where Martin said he was agreeing with Rex Murphy, though. This is one issue where Rex has actually seen a lot of it for what it is, and there was a caller shortly afterward who was furious about the dismissal.
So Canadian Historian Michael Bliss thinks this whole thing is no big deal? I'm surprised by that. I know he leans Conservative, but in the past Bliss has been able to be objective. For example, he has praised Pierre Trudeau's strengths and said that Canadians today are "Trudeau's children" because of the enormous impact he had. And Bliss HATES Brian Mulroney. He has said Brian Mulroney is one of the worst Prime Ministers in history and that there are only about 10 Conservatives today who think he was a good PM (L. Ian MacDonald being one?)
When the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal erupted a few years ago, Bliss was once again very critical of Mulroney and implied how unethical and corrupt he was.
The CBC is reporting that, despite Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s claims to the contrary, 14 Conservative MPs employed the services of Front Porch Strategies, an Ohio-based telemarketing firm, during the last federal election period. According to the broadcaster, thousands of calls were made in those MPs’ ridings from the firm’s Columbus headquarters, though with masked phone numbers to hide their origins.
@ Unionist
I'm not too clear on what you want here, except that you think the right target should be Harper.
You don't think Racknine should have been the target, yet you are talking as if you want Martin to repeat the things that got himself sued in the first place, and are happy at the prospect that he may have been intimidated into silence.
Frankly I don't see any point in him repeating those words. So long as he continues to be vocal in criticizing this issue he will not have been muzzled at all, IMO.
As for what he emailed the NP, I don't think calling the suit an attempt to silence is a defensive act. And since he got served on Friday, I think I'll wait at least a few days into the work week before drawing any conclusions.
One of the criticisms that's been made about the Liberals and the NDP over the past week in the media is that "they have been shooting for the fences". Some commentators feel it's unwise to go all out on Harper and the Cons and that it's risky and confusing to just throw everything at them, hoping something sticks.
I think there is some truth to this. As Pierre Trudeau would say, "reason before passion". Andrew Coyne has a point when he says that the best way for the Opposition parties to go after the Government is to engage in a logical, calm, step-by-step cross-examination of what the evidence shows about Harper and the Cons. And from a legal perspective, this is definitely the best way to impeach the credibility of someone in a courtroom.
As for Pat Martin, and the rest of the Opposition, NDP & Liberal, I would suggest confining remarks that can't be proven to the House of Commons where they are protected by privilege, and stick to those things which have been proven when speaking outside of the House.
Personally, I think that Rex has more to be ashamed about than Pat Martin. At least Pat Martin was accurate!
"So who are the masterminds of the RackNine rascals' robocalls of deceit into NDP held swing ridings? Surely these young punks didn't unilaterally construct this massive conspiracy to defraud the electoral system and initiate hundreds of thousands of phone calls into NDP swing ridings."These are statements of fact, alleging wrongdoing on RackNine's part - criminal wrongdoing, actually. How is that not defamatory?
Actually, this statement exonerates the "rascals": "Surely these young punks didn't unilaterally construct this massive conspiracy...". He assigns the blame to the "masterminds", not the "RackNine rascals".
None of Pat's statements look to me like they'd pass muster to lose a libel case (at worst, it's namecalling such as "punks" and "rascals"). That said, Unionist, I agree with you that I doubt Pat intended to avoid implicating RackNine in his diatribes, it was just good fortune.
I have some information to add to Gary's questions above.
If there was a conspiracy to misdirect voters, and the evidence is compelling even if miles from being proven, then there is only one place for the data to have come from: the Conservatives CMIS database. This is the incredible tool that is at the base of every bit of contact they do, plus a lot of data commercialy purchased from telemarketers.
This is where the supporters of other parties are identified. There is just no way that RackNine would have been contracted to do ANY identification of who to call.
The normal relation with a robocall server I know of is where you supply everything- phone numbers, times to call, scripts. As Gary mentioned, there can be varying amounts of advice/help paid for in getting this done. But if you can do everything you'll be just providing data including the phone numbers, your credit card, and get data reports.
Assuming there was a conspiracy, I am unclear what was the likely role of a firm like RackNine, but here is what makes sense.
1.] As noted, they were provided the numbers of who called. There is no way that they generated and provided this information.
2.] Someone had to figure out the logistics of this. Who do you tell to go and where to, to misdirerct them. This is going to require some fairly sophisticated data crunching, and the operative has to make the choices of where to send people, and then write the scripts. The scripts themselves would be simple, since you are not trying to get replies and info, you are simply directing them with false information.
The logistics could be done either from party national/regional campaign headquarters, or it could have been done from riding campaign headquarters by on eof the staff with access to the CMIS system. We apparently know of one case of the latter: Guelph.
Bottom line: whatever RackNine's exact role, someone supplied them with the voters to contact. The only reasonable surmise is that it was the Conservative Party.
If they were doing any of the logistics and script writing, they would require secured direct access to CMIS for doing this work.
Otherwise, they were just a server who was used for the robcalls.
Put yourself in the shoes of the brain trust at national campaign HQ. If you are going to do a black op like this you want as few people to know about it as possible, and that they be th emost loyal. The logical place to plan the logistics is in the riding campaigns. But that means way too many people involved. That would not be the rule, and the Guelph case may even have been a freelancer who heard about what was going on.
Even planning and running this out of national HQ would involve a lot of people and be heard of by quite a few more. It would make sense to contract this out to a small frim of loyal Conservatives.
As far as Pat Martin goes, admittedly I have not paid close attention to everything Pat Martin said, but I think Unionists points are pretty strained.
Pat said that obviously RackNine were not the masterminds here. The point/question why bring them in at all is strained and/or dumb. They are in the news as invloved. Pat is the NDP attack dog with a license/mandate to use what is around. So he does.
You can sit around and parse whether in this case what Pat did was a net benefit. But that's kind of dumb. He's obvioulsy not tightly scripted and closely calculating. If he was, he wouldn't be Pat Martin. There is obvioulsy a general Caucus decision that it is beneficial to have Pat out there doing his thing. So he is not reigned in. Presumably is encouraged.
If he in some cases is not helping around a particular issue, it is accepted that will happen. But I dont see any compelling evidence that is true in this case.
Actually, this statement exonerates the "rascals": "Surely these young punks didn't unilaterally construct this massive conspiracy...". He assigns the blame to the "masterminds", not the "RackNine rascals".
Ah I see... so if I said, "Surely that young punk Winston wasn't acting alone when he shot JFK - it had to come from way higher up", you would see that as "exonerating" Winston? I guess we read English sentences differently.
@ Unionist
I'm not too clear on what you want here, except that you think the right target should be Harper.
You don't think Racknine should have been the target, yet you are talking as if you want Martin to repeat the things that got himself sued in the first place, and are happy at the prospect that he may have been intimidated into silence.
No, Smith. I wish Pat Martin had never opened his loud mouth in the first place about RackNine, because they're not the villain we should be concentrating on here.
No, I don't want him to repeat his asinine statements about RackNine, about "Edmonton hillbillies", and the rest.
No, I'm not "happy" he has been intimidated into silence (ETA: on second thought, yeah, maybe I am). I am, however, happy to see that he follows the typical syndrome of what he is, namely, a bully. He comes out with fists arrogantly swinging, until some bigger bully is seen rounding the corner. Then, suddenly, the bully becomes a coward.
You see, he was yapping publicly about RackNine until the very afternoon when he was served. Then he went silent. I'll be monitoring him to see if he ever says anything about RackNine's involvement in electoral fraud again (and no, I'm not talking about accusing them of suing him to shut him up - I'm talking about implicating them in electoral fraud).
Full disclosure to those who don't know yet: I can't stand this rabid pro-Israel, pro-war, Québec-bashing individual. So I follow his misfortunes with a healthy dose of [i]schadenfreude[/i].
you can check it out video for electoral fraud at parliament hill 12 pm to 3pm
here:
http://kevino.ca/content/action-against-electoral-fraud-monday-march-5th
I will join them this noon i cancelled my class.
1.] As noted, they were provided the numbers of who called. There is no way that they generated and provided this information.Don't think it's as categorical as that and I don't doubt that lists could have been generated by the central campaign database.
However, vendors like Racknine have access to riding level phone lists which have tens of thousands of numbers. They can (legallY) "rent" the list to robocall customers. If the local campaign uses the list to call homes and find out voter intention, there will be a report on the results including the phone numbers sorted by party of preference. Both the local campaign and the vendor would have access to the list. That list could be used for follow-up calls to supporters and non-supporters. So it's not impossible.
Full disclosure to those who don't know yet: I can't stand this rabid pro-Israel, pro-war, Québec-bashing individual. So I follow his misfortunes with a healthy dose of [i]schadenfreude[/i].
Gotcha. I expected as much, and just wanted to clarify.
I agree in part. I think Martin should have thought before he spoke, but while I don't think Racknine is the ultimate target, neither do I believe they were just innocently doing a job . Their extensive association with the Harperites, and the link above regarding the "political superweapon" would seem to indicate they enjoyed their work.
When we see a business aiding another party in alleged crime or unethical behaviour, or doing business to support it, we don't shy away from calling them on it. General Electric aren't just innocent contractors; they build parts for nuclear weapons, and everyone knows it.
If there is some evidence to that effect in this case I don't see any reason why Martin or anyone else should decline to criticize it simply because they weren't the organizers.
I don't hope that he shuts up. I just hope that before he does speak he thinks a bit more carefully and strategically.
Full disclosure to those who don't know yet: I can't stand this rabid pro-Israel, pro-war, Québec-bashing individual. So I follow his misfortunes with a healthy dose of [i]schadenfreude[/i].
Gotcha. I expected as much, and just wanted to clarify.
What do you mean - you haven't seen me rant for years against Martin? I'm better than he is at being a loudmouth. I just don't attract as much media blowback. 
Their extensive association with the Harperites, and the link above regarding the "political superweapon" would seem to indicate they enjoyed their work.
That may be true. But what you just said is not defamatory. What Martin said is.
When we see a business aiding another party in alleged crime or unethical behaviour, or doing business to support it, we don't shy away from calling them on it. General Electric aren't just innocent contractors; they build parts for nuclear weapons, and everyone knows it.
I agree. But if the charge is, "GE produces parts knowing they will be used for nuclear weapons", that's not libellous. But if you say, "GE is part of a conspiracy to threaten Iran with nuclear extinction - and some tactical weapons have already been used - but the real masterminds are far higher up", well, I don't think even babble would allow that post to stand without editing or deletion.
If there is some evidence to that effect in this case I don't see any reason why Martin or anyone else should decline to criticize it simply because they weren't the organizers.
He accused them of participating in electoral fraud - no reasonable person could draw any other conclusion from his rants. As for evidence, I'm sure he and the party are frantically trying to collect some to see whether they have a reasonable chance of defending against the lawsuit, or whether they need to issue an apology/retraction and hope for a settlement.
I don't hope that he shuts up. I just hope that before he does speak he thinks a bit more carefully and strategically.
Not possible. [url=https://twitter.com/#!/PatMartinMP]Sample his tweets on any subject[/url] if you don't believe me.
Some say he's the party's attack dog, and that's his job. Attack dogs have to be muzzled in public places. I don't see why he should have privileges that ordinary dogs don't.
[/quote]
Put yourself in the shoes of the brain trust at national campaign HQ. If you are going to do a black op like this you want as few people to know about it as possible, and that they be th emost loyal. The logical place to plan the logistics is in the riding campaigns. But that means way too many people involved. That would not be the rule, and the Guelph case may even have been a freelancer who heard about what was going on.
Even planning and running this out of national HQ would involve a lot of people and be heard of by quite a few more. It would make sense to contract this out to a small frim of loyal Conservatives.
Yes, this is a logical surmising of what may have happened. It once again relates to the concept of Plausible Deniability.
The best explanation and dramatization of Plausible Deniability that I have seen occurs in Oliver Stone's "JFK" in the scene with Donald Sutherland's 'Mr. X'. (Sutherland is of course the father of Keifer Sutherland, the grandson of Tommy Douglas! 
)
As 'Mr. X' explains, in this case involving the Kennedy assassination, when you have plausible deniability the goal is to make sure that no one in the power structure hierarchy knows anything about the specific details of the operation. As he states, "There are no compromising connections, except at the most secret point."
No vote has been taken, nothing's been written down on paper, but everyone knows what the objective is - Kennedy must die. Someone in the chain is chosen to arrange some of the details of the operation, and someone else is chosen to arrange another aspect of it. But no one person knows exactly how it was arranged.
What do you mean - you haven't seen me rant for years against Martin? I'm better than he is at being a loudmouth. I just don't attract as much media blowback.
Of course, and as I said, I expected it. But if I were to just assume and make an accusation I might rightly get called on it. Nothing wrong in checking. Also, I don't think your feelings toward him are unfair.
I agree with you about him making accusations which were reckless enough that he finds himself accused of libel. On the other hand, I think it is fair to target Racknine insofar as they should have at the very least done a bit of due diligence to ensure that they didn't actively assist in the commission of a crime, unknowingly or not.
I think their reaction and lack of proaction, like that of the PM, is telling. And again, I don't hope that Martin shuts up. I just hope he smartens up.
[drift]
(Sutherland is of course the father of Keifer Sutherland, the grandson of Tommy Douglas!Who played the role of a merciless, torturing secret agent! What would Tommy say? (no need to answer) [/drift])
The latest Conservative strategy today is:
1. Blame it on Elections Canada (Maurice Vellacott)
2. Tell the Liberals to open their books (Dean Del Maestro)
Actually, this statement exonerates the "rascals": "Surely these young punks didn't unilaterally construct this massive conspiracy...". He assigns the blame to the "masterminds", not the "RackNine rascals".Ah I see... so if I said, "Surely that young punk Winston wasn't acting alone when he shot JFK - it had to come from way higher up", you would see that as "exonerating" Winston? I guess we read English sentences differently.
The last House Select Committee on Assassinations declared it most likely that Lee Harvey "Winston" did not act alone and that it probably was a conspiracy. And Lee Harvey Winston had to be killed because he was likely both a conspirator to the assassination as well as their designated patsy.
And it's obvious that the Harpers thought they could get away with it by denying any and all connections to the very methods which tainted the last federal election in Canada. The bottom line is that the election was tainted regardless of who ordered the banana republic style election rigging.
If the Harpers' phony majority wasn't in question before, it is now. Harper will be as hated by Canadians as Brian Mulroney was by 1991. Watch for the "blowback" to unfold in weeks and months to come.
Fidel, how confident are you of that happening? So far we are being told by the Canadian press & pollsters that unless Stephen Harper is personally implicated in this scandal, there is nothing to see here. Don Martin & Nik Nanos said on CTV today that polls show no effect on the Conservatives, John Ibbitson, Margaret Wente and others are busily writing columns saying that the Opposition is overreaching and that such electoral fraud might happen in Russia, but not Canada.
The emerging narrative is that this was just a few rogue individuals and that no one connected with Harper or the Conservative central campaign would try to engage in electoral fraud.
Although not everyone is saying that.
Specifically, it's not the way Terry Milewski is covering the story for the National. Rex Murphy took it seriously, as did most of the people I heard who phoned him on Sunday. And although I haven't seen him on TV, Evan Solomon even covered this on radio from the perspective that it is very serious, and even got Dean del Mastro to admit that something went wrong in Guelph.
Even Andrew Coyne, and the National Post have strongly criticized the government and Harper himself for this.
As I posted in another thread, Nycol Turmel was asking in Question Period today about a big cheque that went from the Government of Canada to Rack Nine, and Harper refused to answer, instead using the day's selected robo answer.
Although not everyone is saying that.
Specifically, it's not the way Terry Milewski is covering the story for the National. Rex Murphy took it seriously, as did most of the people I heard who phoned him on Sunday. And although I haven't seen him on TV, Evan Solomon even covered this on radio from the perspective that it is very serious, and even got Dean del Mastro to admit that something went wrong in Guelph.
Even Andrew Coyne, and the National Post have strongly criticized the government and Harper himself for this.
Andrew Coyne, contrary to popular belief, is not a Conservative, so I'm not surprised he is able to be objective about how corrupt the Cons can be.
As for Rex Murphy, he did do a piece on Robo-Con last week after 'At Issue', but wasn't he making light of some of the allegations on his Sunday radio show? That's what someone in another thread reported. Rex apparently had on historian Michael Bliss who basically agreed with the Conservatives that this is all just being 'sore losers' on the part of the Liberals and NDP.
He may have said that about SOME allegations; I missed the first half hour of the show. But the impression I got was that he took the matter very seriously.
And Rex Murphy is not responsible for what comes out of Michaek Bliss's mouth. Nor should any talk show be restricted to just one point of view. That's one point on which I think Pat Martin was wrong. It didn't sound to me like Murphy was agreeing with his argument; he just let him have his say.
The NDP is now officially the largest and most gagged opposition party ever to oppose a phony majority government/dictatorship in Ottawa.
@ Debater
Even CTV seems to be keeping a decent perspective on this. Charlie Angus interviewed regarding the Conservatives' attempt to divert attention to Vikileaks:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/smokescreen/#clip633256
(guess he must have left his gag at the drycleaners)
I'd love to see an end to lawsuits being used to silence political opposition or critism. The laws need to be changed so that libel and slander lawsuits can't be abused like this.
I'd love to see an end to lawsuits being used to silence political opposition or critism. The laws need to be changed so that libel and slander lawsuits can't be abused like this.
Yeah, if Pat Martin accuses a company or a person (no matter who they are) of criminal acts, he had better be able to prove his allegations.
What would be so wrong if Pat Martin only talked about things he knew about?
Or an even more radical notion: Why not focus his fire on Harper and his gang of thugs, instead of spouting off at the mouth about some two-bit phone-call-for-hire companies?
In which case his actions aren't cowardly at all; they are just the result of a lesson in common sense.
I am fine with your opinion of him, Unionist. I don't always like everything he says either. But I think there is enough spin on this story as it is. I don't think anyone expects him to repeat things which may have been slanderous. That is not the same thing as no longer dealing with this issue.
Pat Martin should just apologize about any allegations he made about RackNine. Even talking about RackNine in the context of exposing the rotten nature of these electoral crimes is a total diversion, which he did only for sound bites and to hear himself rant. I don't know why he was allowed to continue after the initial warning anyway.
Well whaddya know. It took the election of a new leader, and a month and a half, but someone up there finally listened to me:
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/apology-on-behalf-patrick-martin-ndp-to-mr-matt-... loudmouth jerk Pat Martin apologizes to RackNine and Matt Meier[/url]
Hopefully that will suffice to save some of the members' hard-earned money. And hopefully they will fit the loudmouth with a tighter muzzle next time round.
