Why is Pete Constant allowed to collect a disability retirement from the City of San Jose if he is also currently employed by the same city? Isn’t that called double dipping?
What’s ironic is that very few of the taxpayers of San Jose have a generous, guaranteed retirement benefit, yet we slave away in order to pay the generous, guaranteed retirement benefits of our “servants”.
*That’s* ironic.
John Galt.
Please help me out on this, I really don’t know.
Does the city ordinance prevent private property owners from cutting down trees on all of their property or just the parking strips ? Thanks in advance.
Does anyone have information on the status of Pellier Park upgrades? From what I understood, the tiny park was supposed to include some historic components, walkways, benches, etc.
Any info from the wise SJ Insiders is appreciated!
The problem is that some long gone city arborist allowed the planting of shallow root system trees like liquidamber in parking strips. The spikey little bombs they drop shred bicycle tires, and the shallow roots uplift sidewalks that the homeowner has to pay to have replaced. All because of some idiot aroborist who’s probably living high on a pension we pay for, and probably has free lifetime medical for her/himself and her/his family.
Tina – As you know, before the City Heights project, the Park, championed by our old friend, Leonard McKay, was a disgrace. The Swenson Company has plans to restore it and make the historical elements shine. I will try and get an update to post on the site. Thanks for keeping your eye on this one. TMcE
#7- John Galt,
Due to their age, and size, the trees you have just described are considered “historic trees,” under the ordinance. Most trees are not historic though.
#5, should contact the City before cutting down any tree he/she is not sure of.
Some of the information in this article is just outrageous. Decriminalizing drunks! So, I guess anyone who has suffered an injury, or lost a family member or friend in a drunken driving accident, or suffered property damage caused by a drunk should just suck it up and shut up. This is just plain BS!
6. According to Tom McEnery a few months back, Swenson & Co. is champing at the bit to fulfil its obligation to restore this historic park, which they were permitted to trash during construction on the adjacent property, but were held up waiting for approval from the city.
No word on how long this situation is likely to continue.
If I had to pick a date, I’d choose November 15th as the peak of fall color in San Jose. It’s not exactly Vermont but it’s not bad. The reds & oranges of the Liquidambar and Chinese Pistache, the brilliant yellows of Ginkgo and Modesto Ash. Even the red berries of Pyracantha, Cotoneaster, Hawthorne, and Toyons all seem to be at full vibrancy right now.
We owe this multichromatic spectacle entirely to our wise and selfless City Council. Without their regulations and tree removal ordinances, all the people of San Jose would long ago have chopped down all the trees and this city would resemble a barren moonscape. Fortunately, we the people were wise enough to elect the type of person who understands that every aspect of our lives and personal property need to be controlled and regulated. Without their firm leadership, trees would be removed by little old ladies on fixed incomes for no other reason than that they had grown so big that they occupied the entire backyard and made the house dark and dreary and made it impossible for her to grow her prize roses.
They understand that trees should only be allowed to be removed in extremely urgent circumstances, such as when they stand in the way of a new development that could generate tax revenue for the city.
If this is helpful, I found two City Memos dated 7/27/05 which made reference to Swenson Builder’s intention, but just wasn’t sure what may have stalled the project. According to the memo, completion was approximated for 2006/2007, with no estimated cost increase since it was, at the time, being maintained by the City.
#16- 10 MHz Days,
I find it very hard to believe that people who get drunk, fight, and destroy private property don’t “drive drunk.” They just don’t get caught until they hurt someone or damage something while driving. As to the stats in the Merc, I do not believe it. I’ve seen young guys driving and drinking every time I go downtown on the weekend. Go downtown one weekend and see for yourself. Plaster Ville!
Sobering stations with no consequences to drunks for breaking the law? Sounds like a drunks dream. Are drunks paying to maintain and staff these sobering stations, or are we taxpayers? Oh that’s right, we taxpayers are.
This same article says that San Jose closed its sobering station 4 years ago, which is not true (ie a lie). The sobering station was a county run program for all police agencies to use, not just San Jose. Any “facts” that Sean Webby puts into his articles are very suspect. He is obviously biased against the SJPD which shows in almost every article he writes and he slips in “facts” which are untrue and go unchallenged.
I support the SJPD fully in arresting obnoxious drunks to prevent other problems. Obnoxious drunks are idiots as I got to witness firsthand at the 49ers game yesterday. If they tend to be of one ethnicity then maybe it is time for that particular ethnicity to ask itself if it has a drinking problem and to address it rather than to blame the mean police officer. As far as Sean Webby and the Mercury, the sooner they go out of business and we get a balanced paper to replace it, so much the better.
#17 Kathleen. Those actions you mention are crimes – fighting, destroying private property, drunk driving. The police should and will always arrest people engaged in those behaviors. The debate is over whether or not just being drunk downtown is enough to be arrested. You are assuming that drunk people will commit other crimes. That is what many folks have issue with. Not arresting people who do illegal acts, whether drunk or not.
13. That’s not how I read the article. Drunken driving is not being decriminalized.
The article said that only 10% of arrested drunks are repeat offenders. Thus it would make more sense to reopen a “sobriety center” like we had until a few years ago, which is what most other large cities in California do.
Post-election brings us debates on drunks? Excellent….
1: It is safe to assume that most “drunk” individuals pay taxes. Therefore, they DO pay for the sobering stations. If the basis for paying taxes is that they go to benefit one’s own individual use, then I want a refund on the portion of my tax “contributions” that go to welfare programs, BART and public transit from the 2000 Measure A, homeless and hospital care programs provided by the county, public schools and a whole host of publicly supported programs I have never nor will I ever have a need to do anything with.
2: As anon suggests above, if you are drunk and you commit a higher offense (assault, urinate in public, vandalism, drunk driving, etc..) there should and are penalties. However, if you are drunk after leaving a bar, wobble your way to the corner to catch a cab and go home to sleep it off, where is the harm? To assume a drunk is going to automatically get in a car or assault someone is profiling Kathleen, and profiling is WRONG!!!
K 17 complained:“Sobering stations with no consequences to drunks for breaking the law?” Well, they have only broken the public drunkenness law if they are so drunk that they pose a danger to themselves or others WHERE THEY ARE ARRESTED. Sobering stations would allow them to sober up before getting in a car…and doing real damage to themselves (rarely) or others. The drunk guy in a car accident usually walks away, while his sober victims do not.
No consequences? How about community service? Well, that would also require a court hearing, so that may not work. If we could devise some sort of infraction system akin to a fix-it ticket, maybe we could go somewhere. So, take them to a sobering station. When they sober up, offer a choice—you can sign an infraction, promise to do 50 hours of community service within the next year, or we’ll book you and charge you and take you through court. You nmake the call. Yeah, defense lawyers might come in and say they were still too drunk to make an intelligent choice; to which we respond, you’re right, Book him, Danno.
It is a waste of cop time and court time to criminally prosecute mere public intoxication. Frankly, a good ass kickin’ might be a better remedy, but we can’t do that…and probably their parents didn’t, either. The counseling BS is of little help. College kids and other 20 somethings just seem to get drunk too often. But should we divert slim resources to deal with it in a cop/court/legal way? That takes valuable and short-supplied cop time from catching the really bad guys who do really bad things.
#21-JMO,
Unlike you, and others on here, I don’t have a lax attitude about drunks, or drinking. And YES, I get the difference between drunk in public and committing crimes, but you guys are assuming innocent drunks stumbling around down town are not bothering people, or breaking the law. I’m not going to debate my position or defend it with any one on here. I’ve seen the kind of damage drinking does to an individual and their families. I’ve also seen the way courts let them walk over and over again, after they’ve been arrested for several DUIs. It isn’t until someone is badly injured or killed that much is done.
JMO, I like your idea of either having them sign up for community service or be cited. Either way, I think there needs to be a consequence. I think SJPD should start giving Breathalyzer Tests, and charging for the test like SF does. That way we SOBER taxpayers aren’t stuck footing the bill, and the Police can document what I see on weekends, that there are a lot of drunks out in DT on the weekend. I think the Police need proof of the numbers of people who are drunk in public so this BS accusation of racial profiling by Police will finally be eliminated.
Ok people, we are not talking about Joe (or Josephine, as the case may be), who stops at the bar after work or with a few friends, has one too many, stumbles out home/catches a cab home. That individual is not causing harm to anyone, to any property, or to the City. We are talking about the problem we have downtown that requires a police presence due to the large amount of drunks that get violent and start fights, piss on public structures, harass women, and vandalize structures downtown. This is why the police presence is required downtown.
To the issue of stations, I recently had a conversation with a few police officers. The Sobering stations were a County program, not a San Jose program, and it seems that if drunks wanted to leave the Sobering Station, they were free to, and the police could not stop them.
I am tired of the police being targeted and vilified by the Mercury News and community groups who are part of the problem, not part of the solution. We as a City ask them to do a job, then we harass them for doing it.
I like Kathleen’s logic above. Why stop with drunk tanks though? I think that we should eliminate city run/subsidized homeless shelters, economic assistance to the poor, city run animal care services and any other city (or county for that matter) provided assistance/subsidy geared to those who provide absolutely nothing of benefit to the community. That way we INCOME EARNING taxpayers aren’t stuck footing their bill.
K 22 said petulantly:“I’m not going to debate my position or defend it with any one on here.” Yeah, you’re right Kethleen; we’re all wrong, so don’t annoy you with reason, facts, logic, cost-benefit analysis, etc. And you’re a mediator?????? Whew!
C #22 (K’s other half???) chimed in:“We are talking about the problem we have downtown that requires a police presence due to the large amount of drunks that get violent and start fights, piss on public structures, harass women, and vandalize structures downtown. This is why the police presence is required downtown.”
So, Christian, isn’t the answer to bust them for getting violent, starting fights, pissing on public structures, harassing women (not for harassing men, Christian?), and vandalizing structures? All those crimes are more likely to result in jail time than a PC647. Or do you not want to debate your view, either?
JMO- Judging by your posts to me and others, I seriously doubt you get how to have an intellectual conversation based on facts, reason, or anything else. You take things out of context and you turn it into something personal, even though you don’t have all the facts or information to form your pompous opinions. But that’s what attorneys are paid so well to do isn’t it JMO?
I am not the topic of conversation here, and neither is your opinion of me. The topic is public intoxication, and the supposed disproportionate Police profiling of Latinos in San Jose. When you want to discuss that in a respectful way, I’m fine with that.
26. JMO said, “Yeah, Mark G 24; but before we cut off all those scumbags from any form of help, let’s spay & neuter them, as well.”
Thanks for proving my point so clearly on why debating or discussing anything with you or your pal isn’t worth my time or energy.
Judging by your posts to me and others, I seriously doubt you get how to have an intellectual conversation based on facts, reason, or anything else. You take things out of context and you turn it into something personal, even though you don’t have all the facts or information to form your pompous opinions.
She’s back….. and still does not see the hypocrisy, or irony, of her posts.
On the topic at hand:
Anyone interested in getting on the Task Force that the Council is forming on Public Intoxication is being asked to contact the City Manager, Debra Figona. Or if you just want to submit ideas to help address this issue, please send them to Ms. Figona, and/or the Mayor and Council.
#25 – JMO: You said, “So, Christian, isn’t the answer to bust them for getting violent, starting fights, pissing on public structures, harassing women (not for harassing men, Christian?), and vandalizing structures? All those crimes are more likely to result in jail time than a PC647. Or do you not want to debate your view, either?”
Yes, they should be arrested for those offenses as well – I agree wholeheartedly! As I am sure you know, PC647 – public intoxication not only includes alcohol, but drug use as well.
The sobering station was discussed at last night’s Council meeting. It was a County program, and was cancelled because it was too costly and underutilized. Even though the Council is reconsidering reopening the Sobering station, they expressed serious concerns about the safety and liability of having one. They decided to form a task force to review all options to the problem of public intoxication arrests.
John Galt post #2,
Thanks for all your hard work to pay my salary. I will continue to serve you and everybody else as long as my body will hold out. Your the best…. Thanks buddy.
You have so little interest, time or energy to respond to JMO’s post that you decide to respond to his post to tell him that? Glad you squeezed that in to your schedule. We are all better off for it…If nothing else, you will always have comedy on your side! Thanks for the laugh.
Why is Pete Constant allowed to collect a disability retirement from the City of San Jose if he is also currently employed by the same city? Isn’t that called double dipping?
What’s ironic is that very few of the taxpayers of San Jose have a generous, guaranteed retirement benefit, yet we slave away in order to pay the generous, guaranteed retirement benefits of our “servants”.
*That’s* ironic.
Constant is paid more for his courageous efforts to extinguish the fiery libidos of library patrons.
John Galt.
Please help me out on this, I really don’t know.
Does the city ordinance prevent private property owners from cutting down trees on all of their property or just the parking strips ? Thanks in advance.
Happy Sunday,
Does anyone have information on the status of Pellier Park upgrades? From what I understood, the tiny park was supposed to include some historic components, walkways, benches, etc.
Any info from the wise SJ Insiders is appreciated!
Tina
OGTO #5,
All private property. If the tree is at least 57” in circumfrence measured 2 feet above the ground you’re supposed to get a permit.
The problem is that some long gone city arborist allowed the planting of shallow root system trees like liquidamber in parking strips. The spikey little bombs they drop shred bicycle tires, and the shallow roots uplift sidewalks that the homeowner has to pay to have replaced. All because of some idiot aroborist who’s probably living high on a pension we pay for, and probably has free lifetime medical for her/himself and her/his family.
Oooh, now I’ve seen everything—an ad for “singlemuslim.com” accompanying Ms. Aviles’ post.
Tina – As you know, before the City Heights project, the Park, championed by our old friend, Leonard McKay, was a disgrace. The Swenson Company has plans to restore it and make the historical elements shine. I will try and get an update to post on the site. Thanks for keeping your eye on this one. TMcE
#5-Old Guy Tree Owner,
Just parking strips. Trees owned by you, on your property are under your control.
#7- John Galt,
Due to their age, and size, the trees you have just described are considered “historic trees,” under the ordinance. Most trees are not historic though.
#5, should contact the City before cutting down any tree he/she is not sure of.
Some of the information in this article is just outrageous. Decriminalizing drunks! So, I guess anyone who has suffered an injury, or lost a family member or friend in a drunken driving accident, or suffered property damage caused by a drunk should just suck it up and shut up. This is just plain BS!
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10995681
6. According to Tom McEnery a few months back, Swenson & Co. is champing at the bit to fulfil its obligation to restore this historic park, which they were permitted to trash during construction on the adjacent property, but were held up waiting for approval from the city.
No word on how long this situation is likely to continue.
If I had to pick a date, I’d choose November 15th as the peak of fall color in San Jose. It’s not exactly Vermont but it’s not bad. The reds & oranges of the Liquidambar and Chinese Pistache, the brilliant yellows of Ginkgo and Modesto Ash. Even the red berries of Pyracantha, Cotoneaster, Hawthorne, and Toyons all seem to be at full vibrancy right now.
We owe this multichromatic spectacle entirely to our wise and selfless City Council. Without their regulations and tree removal ordinances, all the people of San Jose would long ago have chopped down all the trees and this city would resemble a barren moonscape. Fortunately, we the people were wise enough to elect the type of person who understands that every aspect of our lives and personal property need to be controlled and regulated. Without their firm leadership, trees would be removed by little old ladies on fixed incomes for no other reason than that they had grown so big that they occupied the entire backyard and made the house dark and dreary and made it impossible for her to grow her prize roses.
They understand that trees should only be allowed to be removed in extremely urgent circumstances, such as when they stand in the way of a new development that could generate tax revenue for the city.
Thank you Tom McEnery.
If this is helpful, I found two City Memos dated 7/27/05 which made reference to Swenson Builder’s intention, but just wasn’t sure what may have stalled the project. According to the memo, completion was approximated for 2006/2007, with no estimated cost increase since it was, at the time, being maintained by the City.
Again, I appreciate your help!
Tina
#16- 10 MHz Days,
I find it very hard to believe that people who get drunk, fight, and destroy private property don’t “drive drunk.” They just don’t get caught until they hurt someone or damage something while driving. As to the stats in the Merc, I do not believe it. I’ve seen young guys driving and drinking every time I go downtown on the weekend. Go downtown one weekend and see for yourself. Plaster Ville!
Sobering stations with no consequences to drunks for breaking the law? Sounds like a drunks dream. Are drunks paying to maintain and staff these sobering stations, or are we taxpayers? Oh that’s right, we taxpayers are.
To 16 10 MHz Days,
This same article says that San Jose closed its sobering station 4 years ago, which is not true (ie a lie). The sobering station was a county run program for all police agencies to use, not just San Jose. Any “facts” that Sean Webby puts into his articles are very suspect. He is obviously biased against the SJPD which shows in almost every article he writes and he slips in “facts” which are untrue and go unchallenged.
I support the SJPD fully in arresting obnoxious drunks to prevent other problems. Obnoxious drunks are idiots as I got to witness firsthand at the 49ers game yesterday. If they tend to be of one ethnicity then maybe it is time for that particular ethnicity to ask itself if it has a drinking problem and to address it rather than to blame the mean police officer. As far as Sean Webby and the Mercury, the sooner they go out of business and we get a balanced paper to replace it, so much the better.
#17 Kathleen. Those actions you mention are crimes – fighting, destroying private property, drunk driving. The police should and will always arrest people engaged in those behaviors. The debate is over whether or not just being drunk downtown is enough to be arrested. You are assuming that drunk people will commit other crimes. That is what many folks have issue with. Not arresting people who do illegal acts, whether drunk or not.
13. That’s not how I read the article. Drunken driving is not being decriminalized.
The article said that only 10% of arrested drunks are repeat offenders. Thus it would make more sense to reopen a “sobriety center” like we had until a few years ago, which is what most other large cities in California do.
Kathleen #17:
Post-election brings us debates on drunks? Excellent….
1: It is safe to assume that most “drunk” individuals pay taxes. Therefore, they DO pay for the sobering stations. If the basis for paying taxes is that they go to benefit one’s own individual use, then I want a refund on the portion of my tax “contributions” that go to welfare programs, BART and public transit from the 2000 Measure A, homeless and hospital care programs provided by the county, public schools and a whole host of publicly supported programs I have never nor will I ever have a need to do anything with.
2: As anon suggests above, if you are drunk and you commit a higher offense (assault, urinate in public, vandalism, drunk driving, etc..) there should and are penalties. However, if you are drunk after leaving a bar, wobble your way to the corner to catch a cab and go home to sleep it off, where is the harm? To assume a drunk is going to automatically get in a car or assault someone is profiling Kathleen, and profiling is WRONG!!!
K 17 complained:“Sobering stations with no consequences to drunks for breaking the law?” Well, they have only broken the public drunkenness law if they are so drunk that they pose a danger to themselves or others WHERE THEY ARE ARRESTED. Sobering stations would allow them to sober up before getting in a car…and doing real damage to themselves (rarely) or others. The drunk guy in a car accident usually walks away, while his sober victims do not.
No consequences? How about community service? Well, that would also require a court hearing, so that may not work. If we could devise some sort of infraction system akin to a fix-it ticket, maybe we could go somewhere. So, take them to a sobering station. When they sober up, offer a choice—you can sign an infraction, promise to do 50 hours of community service within the next year, or we’ll book you and charge you and take you through court. You nmake the call. Yeah, defense lawyers might come in and say they were still too drunk to make an intelligent choice; to which we respond, you’re right, Book him, Danno.
It is a waste of cop time and court time to criminally prosecute mere public intoxication. Frankly, a good ass kickin’ might be a better remedy, but we can’t do that…and probably their parents didn’t, either. The counseling BS is of little help. College kids and other 20 somethings just seem to get drunk too often. But should we divert slim resources to deal with it in a cop/court/legal way? That takes valuable and short-supplied cop time from catching the really bad guys who do really bad things.
#18-Steve,
Well said. I agree 100%.
#21-JMO,
Unlike you, and others on here, I don’t have a lax attitude about drunks, or drinking. And YES, I get the difference between drunk in public and committing crimes, but you guys are assuming innocent drunks stumbling around down town are not bothering people, or breaking the law. I’m not going to debate my position or defend it with any one on here. I’ve seen the kind of damage drinking does to an individual and their families. I’ve also seen the way courts let them walk over and over again, after they’ve been arrested for several DUIs. It isn’t until someone is badly injured or killed that much is done.
JMO, I like your idea of either having them sign up for community service or be cited. Either way, I think there needs to be a consequence. I think SJPD should start giving Breathalyzer Tests, and charging for the test like SF does. That way we SOBER taxpayers aren’t stuck footing the bill, and the Police can document what I see on weekends, that there are a lot of drunks out in DT on the weekend. I think the Police need proof of the numbers of people who are drunk in public so this BS accusation of racial profiling by Police will finally be eliminated.
Ok people, we are not talking about Joe (or Josephine, as the case may be), who stops at the bar after work or with a few friends, has one too many, stumbles out home/catches a cab home. That individual is not causing harm to anyone, to any property, or to the City. We are talking about the problem we have downtown that requires a police presence due to the large amount of drunks that get violent and start fights, piss on public structures, harass women, and vandalize structures downtown. This is why the police presence is required downtown.
To the issue of stations, I recently had a conversation with a few police officers. The Sobering stations were a County program, not a San Jose program, and it seems that if drunks wanted to leave the Sobering Station, they were free to, and the police could not stop them.
I am tired of the police being targeted and vilified by the Mercury News and community groups who are part of the problem, not part of the solution. We as a City ask them to do a job, then we harass them for doing it.
I like Kathleen’s logic above. Why stop with drunk tanks though? I think that we should eliminate city run/subsidized homeless shelters, economic assistance to the poor, city run animal care services and any other city (or county for that matter) provided assistance/subsidy geared to those who provide absolutely nothing of benefit to the community. That way we INCOME EARNING taxpayers aren’t stuck footing their bill.
K 22 said petulantly:“I’m not going to debate my position or defend it with any one on here.” Yeah, you’re right Kethleen; we’re all wrong, so don’t annoy you with reason, facts, logic, cost-benefit analysis, etc. And you’re a mediator?????? Whew!
C #22 (K’s other half???) chimed in:“We are talking about the problem we have downtown that requires a police presence due to the large amount of drunks that get violent and start fights, piss on public structures, harass women, and vandalize structures downtown. This is why the police presence is required downtown.”
So, Christian, isn’t the answer to bust them for getting violent, starting fights, pissing on public structures, harassing women (not for harassing men, Christian?), and vandalizing structures? All those crimes are more likely to result in jail time than a PC647. Or do you not want to debate your view, either?
Yeah, Mark G 24; but before we cut off all those scumbags from any form of help, let’s spay & neuter them, as well.
JMO- Judging by your posts to me and others, I seriously doubt you get how to have an intellectual conversation based on facts, reason, or anything else. You take things out of context and you turn it into something personal, even though you don’t have all the facts or information to form your pompous opinions. But that’s what attorneys are paid so well to do isn’t it JMO?
I am not the topic of conversation here, and neither is your opinion of me. The topic is public intoxication, and the supposed disproportionate Police profiling of Latinos in San Jose. When you want to discuss that in a respectful way, I’m fine with that.
26. JMO said, “Yeah, Mark G 24; but before we cut off all those scumbags from any form of help, let’s spay & neuter them, as well.”
Thanks for proving my point so clearly on why debating or discussing anything with you or your pal isn’t worth my time or energy.
#27
Judging by your posts to me and others, I seriously doubt you get how to have an intellectual conversation based on facts, reason, or anything else. You take things out of context and you turn it into something personal, even though you don’t have all the facts or information to form your pompous opinions.
She’s back….. and still does not see the hypocrisy, or irony, of her posts.
On the topic at hand:
Anyone interested in getting on the Task Force that the Council is forming on Public Intoxication is being asked to contact the City Manager, Debra Figona. Or if you just want to submit ideas to help address this issue, please send them to Ms. Figona, and/or the Mayor and Council.
#25 – JMO: You said, “So, Christian, isn’t the answer to bust them for getting violent, starting fights, pissing on public structures, harassing women (not for harassing men, Christian?), and vandalizing structures? All those crimes are more likely to result in jail time than a PC647. Or do you not want to debate your view, either?”
Yes, they should be arrested for those offenses as well – I agree wholeheartedly! As I am sure you know, PC647 – public intoxication not only includes alcohol, but drug use as well.
The sobering station was discussed at last night’s Council meeting. It was a County program, and was cancelled because it was too costly and underutilized. Even though the Council is reconsidering reopening the Sobering station, they expressed serious concerns about the safety and liability of having one. They decided to form a task force to review all options to the problem of public intoxication arrests.
#28 – “She’s back… and still does not see the hypocrisy, or irony, of her posts.”
Isn’t your post to Kathleen hypocritical, somewhat like the teapot calling the kettle black? Why don’t you just move on and stick to the topic?
John Galt post #2,
Thanks for all your hard work to pay my salary. I will continue to serve you and everybody else as long as my body will hold out. Your the best…. Thanks buddy.
#27 Kathleen:
You have so little interest, time or energy to respond to JMO’s post that you decide to respond to his post to tell him that? Glad you squeezed that in to your schedule. We are all better off for it…If nothing else, you will always have comedy on your side! Thanks for the laugh.
#28: Well said…