Lurker > red sox 777

TheRock1525 posted...

It was the Democrats largest gain since 1974 and the third largest since WW2.

Dems didn't just win, they thrashed Republicans and they only hung onto the Senate thanks to a very favorable map (and Florida being Florida). Women are increasing across the board both in state and federal legislatures.

Without massive evolution, the Republicans are on the way out. It's why they cling to things that aren't decided by votes: voter suppression, gerrymandering, filling the courts. They're doubling down on the group that's losing ground in the US.

They were able to gain so much because they had lost so much the previous 8 years that they didn't have a lot of seats to start with.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

TheRock1525 posted...

They really haven't though, they've just relied heavily on things like gerrymandering and voter suppression. And until other generations, millennials are not getting more conservative as they get older.

1000 seats across state legislatures, like 37 governorships, the Supreme Court for a generation. That's not a lot of gains?

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

I mean, I only would have "proved your point" if what I said was false

I said that Republicans feel the same way about Trump as you do about Biden. That's the observation. But the argument is that Republicans who want Biden to win the Democratic nomination because they think he's a weak candidate are fine with attacking him now because they know that the Democratic base won't care or will back him even more. They know that because we've just seen that with the Republican base and Trump. In fact, if Biden is really innocent, my argument is even stronger.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

The claims that Joe Biden acted inappropriately with regards to Ukraine have been thoroughly debunked

You just proved my point.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

We're are the point for partisanship where Democrats would take a parade of evidence against Biden the same way Republicans take the evidence against Trump - as a partisan attack that cannot be allowed to stand as a matter of principle.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Disappointing question from Romney - whether is any evidence that Trump told someone to tell Ukraine about the quid pro quo. Bad question because if there is evidence, it would be presented when the witnesses are called. You can't require evidence to be in the record before calling the witnesses.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

If you believe more than one option applies, pick the strongest one.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Aw yeah, they're talking about another Biden Rule. Looks like poor Joe Biden said many things over the course of his decades in the Senate that Republicans are now adopting as rules!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Republicans will definitely lose the 2020 election if they turn on Trump. And they will lose his supporters for a generation. Stick with Trump, and they are going to win the 2020 election. And probably more elections after that.

I'm not convinced the Democrats actually want witnesses either at this point. They've made it so so easy for the Senate to give grounds not to call witnesses, which the House could have easily avoided. Like charging nothing other than 2 extremely vague non-crimes.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Should President Nixon be retroactively exonerated?

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Stephen Colbert has gone downhill. The old Stephen Colbert would have 100% agreed with Alan Dershowitz and drawn out his argument to its logical conclusion: The President can do no wrong.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

I think it's clear. President Johnson was innocent and so he was acquitted. President Clinton was guilty of crimes, but they were not high crimes, so he was acquitted. President Trump is guilty of offenses that are high, but are not crimes, so he will be acquitted. President Nixon was born 40 years too early.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

pyresword posted...

Yeah I know this is possible in theory, but I'm saying I did not actually hear the White House lawyers argue that position.

Sounds like what you're saying is that they did and it was either after I stopped listening to the radio or on one of the subsequent days, in which case my post can be ignored.

I didn't listen to their whole presentation either but I would assume they did. Although the court is not limited by what either side argues (as opposed to pleads - the court can't change the articles of impeachment). For example, Chief Justice Roberts came up with his completely new theory that Obamacare was actually a tax, which no one had argued.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

I will say, I don't think having a vote on witnesses is the correct procedure here. I think the correct procedure is to have a vote on a motion to dismiss the charges for failing to charge an impeachable offense. That vote should require a majority to pass. And if that vote fails, the vote to hear witnesses should be 100-0 in favor of hearing witnesses.


---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Also, I would absolutely need to hear from Joe and Hunter Biden, Victor Shokin, President Zelensky, and President Poroshenko before considering removal. It's not bribery if it was done to combat corruption, in the legitimate discharge of the US President's duty to enforce the laws of the United States. I don't mind hearing from John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, etc. but I'm not sure what they really have to add. I think that part of the case is pretty decisively proven already. I guess if they can testify that Trump told them that he thought the Bidens were innocent, that would matter.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

Out of curiosity, would you support removal in a hypothetical second impeachment alleging an illegal hold, extortion, and bribery rather than abuse of power?

I'd support hearing witnesses in that one. As for removal, that is also a political question, and that's why the Senate tries impeachments rather than a regular court which is only looking at guilt or innocence of the crime. The Senate is supposed to also consider the best interests of the country.

And my problem with removing Trump is that a big part of the country has not yet accepted the outcome of the 2016 election, and neither Pence nor the Republican Party generally can substitute for Trump. He has too many positions favoring the working class, the poor, and minorities that the Republican Party would never implement without him. For the sake of the voters, their choice needs to stay in office until November.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Not_an_Owl posted...

He can't be found to have violated the law because by definition he can't be indicted and is innocent until proven guilty? idk, just spitballing here.

No, the House can impeach him for any statutory crime.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

Question: Dersh absurdly claims that a president can do absolutely anything to help themselves win election as long as it doesnt involve a statutory crime. Though disgusting, how is this even relevant if the Trump admin was found to have broken the law by violating the Impoundment Control Act in withholding the aid?

Because the House didn't charge that crime. No one can be convicted for a crime that has not been charged.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And the burden on the prosecution is not difficult here. All they had to do was allege that Trump attempted to commit bribery by using the powers of his office to receive something of value from a foreign government. They don't have to prove it to get to the stage where they can call witnesses. Just say the words.

I am really really baffled at why they didn't and won't do that, and their answer to Susan Collins yesterday when she asked them didn't shed any light on it.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

pyresword posted...

This was not their defense based on listening to 2-3 hours of the White House defense in the car. They were primarily saying that the Democrats were withholding key information and contending that the actions Trump took were consistent with US interests. (The Democrats case is that they were not--ie. The White House argument was of the form of "the Democrats assessment is incorrect"; not "the Democrats are correct but it doesn't matter)

If anything changed after the opening 2-3 hours then please correct me.

The defense is entitled to present multiple theories and they don't have the burden of proof. They can argue, the case should be dismissed because of A, but if the court disagrees with A, then it should be dismissed because of B, and if not B, then because of C, etc. They don't have to say anything at all.

The prosecution has the burden of proof at trial but before that they also have the burden to charge something that is an impeachable offense.

So here the defense argument is of the form "abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, but even if it were, President's Trump's actions were not an abuse of power, and even if they were an abuse of power, the case should still be dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct." If the Senate agrees with the first one then it doesn't need to consider the others.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And as I'm sure the House knows, around 98% of cases in American courts don't end up in trial. They get settled or dismissed or judged on the pleadings once there are no relevant facts in controversy. The standard for pleading charges in a criminal case is very high. You have to precisely charge a crime before you can go to trial on it.

If you were charged for "abuse of power" in a regular criminal court, you would file a motion to dismiss, and it would get dismissed, without hearing any witnesses. Because abuse of power is not a crime. There's no need to hear any witnesses because nothing they could say has any bearing on whether abuse of power is a crime or not.

Now, if you actually committed another crime, the burden is on the prosecution to charge it. Neither the jury nor the judge can or will do that.

Now if you are a prosecutor and you really want to charge abuse of power, and the trial court dismisses it, you can appeal and argue to the appellate court that it actually is a crime. But the Senate is the highest court for impeachments, so there's no appeal from its decisions.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

If the defense is that the House charged offenses that are not impeachable then refusing to hear witnesses is absolutely the right call. What does it matter what they say if even if they say everything the House says they would say, nothing impeachable happened?

Now, you may ask, what if the witnesses say more than what was in the articles of impeachment? In that case, refusing to hear them is also the correct decision. Every criminal court in the country would agree with this. Because you cannot charge one thing, and then have a trial on completely different crimes. The correct procedure is for the House to go back and charge those other crimes, and then the Senate will hear witnesses regarding them.

This is why prosecutors usually talk to their witnesses before trial - so if the evidence supports more charges you can charge them. The House's procedure of not talking to their own witnesses until trial is unheard of precisely because of this problem. And now they will have to live with it.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

Actually, I have a question: has Alan Dershowitz ever defended anyone who was factually innocent

Alan Dershowitz is a constitutional lawyer. He deals with what laws mean, not what the facts are. I don't think he's said anything about whether Trump did anything, because that's not his job. His job is to explain whether XYZ acts would be legal if they were done.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Meanwhile the House Managers literally answered Susan Collins's question asking whether Trump had committed an actual crime by saying no, then backtracking and saying yes, but they didn't charge it because it's a lesser included offense to something that is not a crime.

I know it's not fair to cherrypick 30 minutes out of 50 hours, but that was really really bad. Also I tuned in at random and that was what I heard so who knows, maybe they've been consistently this bad!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

When Trump is acquitted Dershowitz is going to go down in history as the leading lawyer of our times. People will be learning about him in school in 100 years.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

I think Sleepy Joe is going to be the nominee. After he loses to Trump I hope the DNC will think about adopting winner-take-all primaries so that candidates like Biden and Hillary don't win the nomination by running up big margins across the South again.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Also, our new trade block should have a condition - that member nations have to allow parts of their country that wish to leave the right to leave. So the UK and Spain are not welcome to join unless they allow Scotland and Catalonia free votes on leaving (it doesn't have to be a popular vote, if the Scottish or Catalan governments want to hold local elections to elect delegates to a constitutional convention, whether or not subject to confirmatory referendum, that's fine too).

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

I think the US should encourage other countries to leave the EU by offering any former EU country who leaves the right to enter a common market with the US and the other countries that have left the EU. Then impose tariffs on the EU.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Yes, as of tomorrow, the UK will officially no longer be a member of the EU. That means that under EU law, if they were to rejoin in the future, they would not be able to get the exemptions they currently have, like not having to use the Euro, without the agreement of all the other nations. So it's a lot worse for Britain to rejoin than to remain, so effectively that means this debate is over and there is no going back.

Britain is free again.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Okay, Adam Schiff realized that Hakeem Jeffries screwed up and is trying to reanswer Senator Collins's question (why not charge an actual crime like bribery) now. But his answer still isn't very good. He says that the House could have charged bribery but chose not to because it's a lesser included offense within abuse of power. And if they charged both President Trump would have lawyers who would complain about that too.

Uh, no. Treason and Bribery are specifically named as impeachable crimes. They are not lesser included offenses within abuse of power. And prosecutors charge multiple counts for the same conduct all the time - that's always been allowed in America. You can charge murder 1st degree and murder 2nd degree - the jury can only convict for one of them but the prosecutor can certainly charge both. And if he believes murder 1st degree has happened he should charge both, or the jury might decide that it wasn't premeditated so it doesn't count as murder 1st degree but oh wait, now the defendant walks even though the jury would have convicted for 2nd degree because the prosecutor didn't charge it.

And seriously? The House didn't impeach for bribery because President Trump would have hired Jonathan Turley to criticize it? Well, this is definitely much better from Adam Schiff than Hakeem Jeffries's answer that President Trump didn't commit a crime at all, he did something "akin" to a crime, but it's still pretty bad.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

What's wrong with the House managers? Senator Collins just asked them a very good question - she said that to her, it looked like the facts pled in the Articles of Impeachment would support charges of 2 separate statutory crimes, and asked if the House believed those crimes had been committed, and if so, why weren't they charged?

And the answer was that......President's Trump's actions were akin to a crime. He emphasized the word akin repeatedly. Akin? So he didn't commit a crime?

Well, if the House managers are asked straight up if President Trump committed a crime and they say no.....

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Vote away!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

I guess maybe that doesn't matter so much because the witnesses in question mostly are willing to testify if called. And the Senate can rule that Trump's assertions of executive privilege don't apply and the witness can feel free to disobey Trump on that. On the other side, I don't think Joe or Hunter Biden would refuse to comply with a subpoena from the Senate. That would be way too damaging for Joe's campaign.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

ZaziGuado posted...

I don't fully understand how the process would work, but wouldn't any subpoena coming for the Senate trial be coming from the Chief Justice, who holds the highest court in the land and thus has the ultimate authority on the validity of it?

Well, it would be coming from the Chief Justice in his capacity as presiding officer of the Senate, not as Chief Justice of the United States. But there's no appeal from the decisions of the Senate acting as a court of impeachment, so yes, I think if a majority of the senators say the subpoena is valid, then it is conclusively valid.

Enforcement is another question though - supposing the witness just refused to obey the subpoena, it's not clear how the Senate would enforce it. They would issue an arrest warrant, but who will enforce it? The President is in charge of law enforcement and would probably not be instructing law enforcement agencies to give high priority to the arrest warrant the Senate would issue for the witness.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

So I feel like a lot of these gotcha style Twitter posts attacking arguments made by the Trump legal team out of context or praising points made by others (also out of context) show the problem with social media generally. People get an incredibly distorted view of the arguments being made because they are being shown little curated tidbits, presented with a heavy gloss of editorial bias by the person making the tweet.

It's not hard to make a nuanced argument look ridiculous by selectively choosing a 140-character window and omitting what comes before and after (and beyond that, the context provided by 800 years of precedent and legal theory in the US, UK, and England). But I feel like people on the left actually believe that these Twitter posts constitute effective refutations of arguments made by the Trump lawyers. And bad media outlets are happy to engage in the same kind of bad journalism, to a somewhat lesser extent than people on Twitter.

I think this is a serious problem that society needs to deal with. It's gotten quite serious because we're now at the point where actual intelligent people believe everything they read on Twitter without independent verification.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And it is settled, longstanding law, that a defendant can only be convicted for what has actually been charged. So if a defendant is charged with murder, and the evidence at trial shows no murder, but does prove the defendant committed shoplifting, the jury cannot return a verdict of guilty as to shoplifting. Because it was never charged! The prosecution has to set forth their theory before trial, when the charges are filed, and they cannot suddenly charge something new during the trial.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

They could have charged extortion/bribery (and maybe that would have even been more effective given public confusion), but that really underplays why what Trump did was so bad. If he was just extorting someone in his personal capacity it would be a lot less damaging to the country; the real damage here is in a) using the vast powers of the presidency to advance personal ends rather than public ends and b) in doing so, interfering in his re-election.

If he was extorting someone in his personal capacity that would probably not be impeachable. If he was extorting someone in his capacity as the President of the United States....well, then that looks like a serious problem. Extortion and bribery definitely sound a lot worse than "abuse of power."

Abuse of power could mean almost anything - and that is the crux of the Dershowitz argument - it's not so much that abuse of power as applied to Trump's actions are not impeachable, but that abuse of power could also be applied to other things which are definitely not impeachable. And it can be applied to those things because it is so vague. And it is so vague because there is no definition as to what it means. And there is no definition as to what it means because it is not a statutory crime and doesn't resemble an analogous statutory crime.

So the solution then, is for the charges to be dismissed, and if the House wants to try again and charge something more substantive, it can.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

Saying that impeachment requires a statutory crime is an absurd argument because many of the worst things that a president can do are things that only they can do, and thus it makes no sense for them to be crimes (especially if the position of the justice department is that the president cannot be indicted while in office). These crimes mostly fall under the banner of abusing the fiduciary trust placed in the president (which is whats being alleged as abuse of power), which is pretty much what the term of art high crimes and misdemeanors was understood to mean by the founders.

Well, that's why Alan Dershowitz says you can also impeach for a "crime-like" action. DACA for instance would probably qualify because if anyone other than the President did it, it would be aiding and abetting illegal immigration on a massive scale.

Personally, I think the Democrats should have just charged extortion and attempted bribery, which I think there would be no question are impeachable offenses.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And as far as mass wielding of the pardon power goes, President Andrew Johnson pardoned everyone who had supported the Confederacy in the Civil War. President Carter I think pardoned everyone who had dodged the draft during the Vietnam War. President Obama, while not pardoning them outright, effectively pardoned millions of people in the country illegally with DACA. All Democrats and all impeachable under your standard.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

You're oversimplifying Alan Dershowitz's argument. He's saying that for abuse of power to be impeachable it needs to be an actual criminal offense, or at least have the characteristics of a criminal offense. Abuse of power is not in the statute books. It's not a crime. And as a description of a crime, it is so vague that if even if Congress passed a law banning "abuse of power" it would be unenforceable due to vagueness.

You may not like his argument, and you can certainly say that he had different views 20 years ago, but there's nothing absurd about it.


---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/dan_f_jacobson/status/1222612120321261570?s=21

Is this really different from Democrats offering handouts if they win?

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

ZaziGuado posted...

I don't care which side you are on, Dershowitz's claim that anything a president has done that he sees as helping himself get elected is unimpeachable according to the Constitution because they think their election is beneficial to the public is some galaxy brain shit.

It's an old argument. I think Julius Caesar used it to get himself 4 terms as dictator. Although you know, if after the first 3 terms as dictator, the country was in such a state of crisis as to need to name a dictator "in perpetuity with the power to revise the constitution" you'd think maybe it's not such a great idea to give the same dictator who couldn't fix things in his first 3 terms a 4th term!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/donald-trump-john-bolton-white-house-book/index.html

Because Bolton is the author. But if he, say leaked his book to the New York Times and they published it, I don't think they can be prosecuted for breaking the classification laws. They weren't for Watergate.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

The Onion is really socking it to the mainstream Democrats lately:

https://politics.theonion.com/sanders-unveils-job-training-program-to-provide-meaning-1841328164


---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Also, I don't think there's anything in principle preventing a false statement from being classified. For example, the report intelligence agencies gave President Bush that said that Iraq had WMDs - that would be both classified and false.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

1. It was a Perfect Phone Call and he didnt do anything
2. He was just investigating corruption (even though he didnt do it)
3. QPQ is fine for Trump as long as hes legitimately investigating Biden for supposedly doing... exactly what hes actually doing?
4. You cant impeach for abuse of power
etc etc etc

None of these are contradictory. He can make a statement of the form, I didn't do X, but if I did X, it would be okay because Y. Or he can make statements of the type, if I did A then because of J I'm innocent, and if I did B then because of K I'm innocent, but I'm not saying if I did A or B.

People conducting law enforcement investigations regularly do things that would be breaking the law if not done as part of a legitimate investigation - every police search is like this. So don't think 3 is a good argument. And 4 is a pure legal argument that could not ever contradict any factual claims.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

If it was actually Classified stuff, couldnt he get it pulled from shelves?

Or is Barnes & Noble part of the Deep State

I don't think that's how the classification law works. Once it's in the hands of a publisher, they can publish it even if it's classified.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LOTM, you should read some answers to complaints filed in civil court. People will regularly plead around 20 boilerplate "affirmative defenses," of which at most 1 or 2 have any applicability to the case. They don't lose anything by throwing in the kitchen sink and if some evidence turns up later that would support one of the affirmative defenses, they won't be precluded from presenting it.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

If it's a brokered convention Trump is winning.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Vote away!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!