Philadelphia

[Guest pickwick]

>Pick and I traded

>slight barbs. You're the one

>who began to bitch and

>moan. If you can't handle

>the dialogue, get thee to

>a hospice!

 

Bullshit indeed. As Reg says, I made no comment about any person or addressed to any person until you responded to my opinion of a film with a personal attack on me. When I replied in kind you started in complaining. You're the one who can't handle it, so why the hell did you start it in the first place? Business must be slow.

 

>The last word's all yours<<

>

>Perhaps because you're so full of

>it.

>And such noble parting words.

>Would you care for another crack

>at it?

 

Let me. "Bullshit" is not a strong enough word to describe a situation in which I am told that I'm not allowed to say something negative about a film because some gay guys find it moving. What color uniform did they give you when you joined the P.C. Police? Was it pink or lavender?

[Guest TFNH]

>Then see the film again.

>He had a long meeting

>with the firm's senior partner,

>portrayed by Jason Robards, in

>which he was unmistakably auditioning

>for that job, which if

>I recall correctly was a

>major private antitrust action.

 

I recall this scene, and we seem to have very different perceptions as to what took place. I do not see the interaction in the same way you do.

 

>Not true. He was fired

>after a document that he

>needed to file on behalf

>of the client went missing.

> That happened because he

>was not at the office.

> He was not at

>the office because he was

>dealing with symptoms of his

>illness.

 

Again, very differnt perceptions. My take on it was that the documents very conveniently went missing, most likely at the hands of those who wanted him out. The jury's determination seems to have concluded as well that he was not fired because of the missing documents, but rather, because he had AIDS.

>

>So far as disclosure is concerned,

>I seem to recall that

>a major issue at the

>trial was whether anyone at

>his firm knew of his

>illness before he was fired.

> Without establishing that, there

>is no way he could

>prevail. The whole problem

>arose because he failed to

>disclose.

 

It seems that in the context of the movie the awareness of his illness was well proven to the jury.

>

>>Even if his capacities had

>>been diminished he would have

>>been protected by the ADA.

>> Protecting of his privacy

>>is the legal right of

>>all employees, not a deception.

>

>It is highly unethical for an

>attorney to undertake a matter

>for a client if he

>knows that some personal problem

>may interfere with his handling

>of that matter. Attorneys

>are routinely suspended or even

>disbarred for doing such things.

 

This may be true, but again, in the context of the movie he did not have knowledge at the time of undertaking the case that his illness would be an impediment.

>

>

>In truth, a savvy litigator such

>as the one portrayed by

>Hanks in the movie wouldn't

>behave as he did.

>Instead of concealing his illness,

>he would have disclosed it

>to the firm's management immediately.

> That would have put

>them in a position in

>which they couldn't fire or

>in any way penalize him

>without risking some major liability.

 

Speculative at best, and again, at the time he took on the case he had no reason to think that there was anything which would prevent him from fully exercising his duties and therefore he had no reason or legal obligation to disclose anything.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

>Bullshit indeed<

 

I was wondering when the cavalry was going to show up. And such an heroic entrance.

 

>you responded to my opinion of a film with a personal attack on me.<

 

What is it with you and reg? You're convinced you're always under attack. Better stow the chatter and circle your wagons, to borrow more of reggie's martinet vernacular.

 

>When I replied in kind you started in complaining.<

 

Go tell it to the Marines. I was through with you when I told you that you were wrong again. And you're wrong again. Three's a charm, so keep talkin'.

For the record, I never was, nor am I now complaining. All I ever took umbrage with was being accused of slinging mud by reggie. I don't feel I was. Perceptions again. They vex us all. Now, I wonder how I should take your battle cry of "Bullshit"?

 

>why the hell did you start it in the first place?<

 

Start what?

 

>Business must be slow.<

 

Actually I'm swamped, but not too busy to fend off a couple of foul mouthed bullies in my spare moments.

 

>>Would you care for another crack at it?<<

>Let me. "Bullshit"<

 

You must be Mister Cleo. And I thought you were the cavalry. How ridiculous of me.

 

>"Bullshit" is not a strong enough word to describe a situation in which I am told that I'm not allowed to say something negative about a film because some gay guys find it moving.<

 

This dream "situation" you describe with such maturity and tenderness does sound prohibitive to expressing your singular wisdom, but no one ever said you weren't "allowed" to say whatever you please, within the confines of civility (confines both of you have violated already). Please share more of your insights with the rest of us. Just be prepared for replies when you express things that are meant to hurt or demean. I'm not talking about just my replies. Others in the past have taken you to task for the cruel intent of your checkered remarks. Why feign indignation now?

 

>What color uniform did they give you when you joined the P.C. Police?<

 

It's not a matter of politics. It's more a matter of kindness and courtesy. Sadly, these concepts are lost on the two of you. And just because you asked, my uniform is flesh colored, but it wasn't the PC Police I joined, it was the Clown Police. You're busted.

 

>pink or lavender?<

 

Again with the nelly jokes? Isn't your intent here the kind of thing that starts things like "this"?

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

BG,

 

After reading your post (and the one below), I must confess that I too am becoming suspicious that you must be an alternate screen identity for me... :-)

[Guest pickwick]

>What is it with you and

>reg? You're convinced you're always

>under attack.

 

I guess it's a funny little quirk of mine that when someone makes the kind of insulting remark you did to me about "Bambi" I feel that I'm being insulted. How silly of me!

 

>Better stow the

>chatter and circle your wagons,

>to borrow more of reggie's

>martinet vernacular.

>

 

Stow it up your ass, Joey. I'm sure there's plenty of room.

 

>Go tell it to the Marines.

>I was through with you

>when I told you that

>you were wrong again.

 

 

You are never through, Joey. You kept going even after you told Reg he could have the last word. You enjoy yelling at people too much to stop.

 

 

And

>you're wrong again. Three's a

>charm, so keep talkin'.

>For the record, I never was,

>nor am I now complaining.

>All I ever took umbrage

>with was being accused of

>slinging mud by reggie. I

>don't feel I was.

 

Of course not. You were trying to be "civil" and "polite" and "kind" and "courteous" in what you said to me. You were just using those words in the sense that they're used on the Bizarro Planet.

 

 

>Perceptions

>again. They vex us all.

>Now, I wonder how I

>should take your battle cry

>of "Bullshit"?

>

 

Please take it in the most offensive possible way. That's what you deserve for starting another mud-slinging contest in an otherwise peaceful thread.

 

>Start what?

>

 

The insult game that you started when you made that remark to me. Having trouble with your short-term memory again?

 

>>Business must be slow.<

>

>Actually I'm swamped, but not too

>busy to fend off a

>couple of foul mouthed bullies

>in my spare moments.

>

 

Shove it. The idea that I or anyone else on this board could ever "bully" Boston Guy is ludicrous even for you. You started this because you enjoy yelling at people. What is it with you, anyway? Do you have an extra chromosome?

 

>>"Bullshit" is not a strong enough word to describe a situation in which I am told that I'm not allowed to say something negative about a film because some gay guys find it moving.<

>

>This dream "situation" you describe with

>such maturity and tenderness does

>sound prohibitive to expressing your

>singular wisdom, but no one

>ever said you weren't "allowed"

>to say whatever you please,

>within the confines of civility

>(confines both of you have

>violated already).

 

 

Who the hell are you to define "civility"? You are one of the most consistently and gratuitously offensive people here. Your manners would disgrace a sty. One hour with you and the pigs would go on strike for better working conditions.

 

 

Please share more

>of your insights with the

>rest of us. Just be

>prepared for replies when you

>express things that are meant

>to hurt or demean.

 

So after yelling at Reg for presuming to tell you what's in your head, you're now doing the same thing to me? Do you think Reg would feel I'm encroaching on his territory if I use the word "hypocrite" here? It sure seems appropriate.

 

 

>I'm

>not talking about just my

>replies. Others in the past

>have taken you to task

>for the cruel intent

>of your checkered remarks. Why

>feign indignation now?

>

 

Most people feel indignation when they are insulted for expressing an opinion that includes no attack on or

disparagement of any person -- unless you're counting Jonathan Demme.

 

 

>>What color uniform did they give you when you joined the P.C. Police?<

>

>It's not a matter of politics.

>It's more a matter of

>kindness and courtesy. Sadly, these

>concepts are lost on the

>two of you.

 

After all the nasty remarks you've made to people on this board for no reason other than to amuse yourself, you have one hell of a nerve even using words like "kindness" and "courtesy." It's like being lectured on etiquette by Bobby Knight.

 

 

And just

>because you asked, my uniform

>is flesh colored, but it

>wasn't the PC Police I

>joined, it was the Clown

>Police. You're busted.

>

>>pink or lavender?<

>

>Again with the nelly jokes? Isn't

>your intent here the kind

>of thing that starts things

>like "this"?

 

My original intent was to express my opinion about a film that I and several others here find less than excellent. I note that one or two other people chose far more negative language than mine or Reg's to describe it, but for some reason you preferred to ignore them and you decided that only the two of us are

guilty of the deadly P.C. sin of "insensitivity."

 

My intent in this post is to reply to personal insults from a bothersome whore in the only language he seems to understand.

[Guest pickwick]

>I recall this scene, and we

>seem to have very different

>perceptions as to what took

>place. I do not

>see the interaction in the

>same way you do.

>

 

In that scene the Robards character asked the Hanks character several questions on antitrust law, the purpose of which was ultimately revealed to be deciding whether to entrust him with the first chair position on a major suit. I don't think it is accurate to say that the Hanks character was auditioning for the job because he didn't know it was about to offered, at least that's my perception. But when it was offered he certainly should have mentioned his personal problem so that the firm could make an informed decision. Concealing that sort of thing is not good.

 

>Again, very differnt perceptions. My

>take on it was that

>the documents very conveniently went

>missing, most likely at the

>hands of those who wanted

>him out. The jury's determination

>seems to have concluded as

>well that he was not

>fired because of the missing

>documents, but rather, because he

>had AIDS.

>>

 

All true, but that has nothing to do with the point Reg made. Had he been at the office and seen to the filing of the documents personally, nothing would have happened at all. He wasn't there because he was symptomatic. The fact is that an attorney in his position would never handle a crucial filing by faxing it to the office and trusting someone else to take care of it, not unless some dire emergency prevented him from doing it himself.

 

>It seems that in the context

>of the movie the awareness

>of his illness was well

>proven to the jury.

>>

 

The way I remember it there was considerable suspense about whether he could establish that as a fact. Wasn't there a tense cross-examination of the homophobic partner from his firm and also a "surprise" impeachment witness from a firm where the same man had worked before? The whole thing wouldn't have been necessary had the Hanks character been honest to begin with.

 

>This may be true, but again,

>in the context of the

>movie he did not have

>knowledge at the time of

>undertaking the case that his

>illness would be an impediment.

 

I'm sorry, but that's very unrealistic. No attorney in his right mind would believe that he could be first chair in a major private antitrust suit while also dealing with full-blown AIDS. Only someone who has no idea what sort of commitment a project like that requires would think he could handle that. That was definitely one of the holes in the movie's plot.

 

>Speculative at best, and again, at

>the time he took on

>the case he had no

>reason to think that there

>was anything which would prevent

>him from fully exercising his

>duties and therefore he had

>no reason or legal obligation

>to disclose anything.

 

As I said above no attorney would come to such a conclusion. And let me add that an attorney who learns at any point that a personal problem, such as illness, drugs or a family problem, will keep him from devoting the necessary effort to a client matter has an obligation to tell the client at once so that the client can get other counsel. A client matter is about the client, it's not about the attorney.

 

The plot in this film was very unrealistic in terms of what a real attorney or firm would or should do in similar circumstances. This is another example of Hollywood's pattern of trying to create drama by adding silly, contrived plot twists to a situation, a man's career being destroyed by a deadly illness, that has plenty of drama inherent in it already. Why do they keep doing this? I don't get it.

[Traveller]

>My intent in this post is

>to reply to personal insults

>from a bothersome whore in

>the only language he seems

>to understand.

 

Who will rid P of this bothersome whore.

 

Later.

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

RE: 2 distended labias

 

>a funny little quirk of mine....<

 

Is the way your bottom lip trembles when you're about to blow a gasket.

 

>when someone makes the kind of insulting remark you did to me about "Bambi" I feel that I'm being insulted.<

 

Why? By your own admission you don't even know who Bambi is. If you lied about that, you're probably lying about feeling insulted. And let's be serious, you're insulted by the charge that you're too much of a man to cry when a cartoon animal dies? If so, you're a bigger pussy than the one between your legs. (You want sailor talk? I'll give you sailor talk).

 

>Stow it up your ass, Joey.<

 

So, your closeted/repressed desires come to the fore at last. It all makes sense now. You don't hate fags, you hate yourself for wanting to be one. Hopefully you'll someday come to terms with your inner conflicts. I'll be rootin' for ya.

 

>I'm sure there's plenty of room.<

 

See what I mean? Another fag joke. What the hell are you doing here, anyway? Come to bash queers, you brute? And yes, there's more than enough room for both you AND reggie up my ass, seeing as how you're both undoubtedly hung like pidgeons. But keep dreamin' boys!

 

>You are never through, Joey.<

 

It's true. As long as evildoers like you roam the earth, I must remain ever vigilant. Sorry if that puts a kink in your plot to rule the world.

 

>You kept going even after you told Reg he could have the last word.<

 

I said he could have it, not you. And he can still have it. Once I'm done lambasting you two bullqueens.

 

>You enjoy yelling at people too much to stop.<

 

As usual, it's you and your partner in slime that are doing all the yelling.

 

>You were trying to be "civil" and "polite" and "kind" and "courteous" in what you said to me.<

 

Not at all. I could give two shits about you. Why would I be nice to a fag eating monster? It was everyone else here I was being kind to by limiting my remarks to Bambi's mother. I'm still being kind, otherwise I'd tell you what I really think.

 

>You were just using those words in the sense that they're used on the Bizarro Planet.<

 

I'm in a discourse with a couple of bizarre characters. When in Rome....

 

>>Now, I wonder how I should take your battle cry of "Bullshit"?<<

 

>Please take it in the most offensive possible way.<

 

The fact that it dribbled past your slack jaw ensures it's maximum offense.

 

>>Start what?<<

 

>The insult game that you started when you made that remark to me.<

 

What remark?

 

>Having trouble with your short-term memory again?<

 

Yea dude. I'm so fuckin' lit on these killer kind nuggets, that I seem to be, um....... What were we talking about?

 

>>I'm swamped, but not too busy to fend off a couple of foul mouthed bullies in my spare moments.<<

 

>Shove it.<

 

The throbbing veins on your temple are showing. And you don't shove, you gently push.

 

>The idea that I or anyone else on this board could ever "bully" Boston Guy is ludicrous<

 

True. But I didn't say you were bullying BG. It's insensitivity to a host of posters that prompted me to post my crack about you and Bambi's mother. Who'd have thought you'd be so hypocritically sensitive about your own insensitivity? Talk about bizarro. But because of my remark, it's now me that you're trying to bully with all your macho posturing and gutter talk. I say "trying", but you ultimately fail for the simple fact that one needs a set of balls to effectively bully, and you my low-browed friend, have none. It's obvious in every weightless slur you hurl with such impassioned vapidity. Plus you throw like a girl.

 

>You started this because you enjoy yelling at people.<

 

Say, can we hear a different recording?

 

>What is it with you, anyway? Do you have an extra chromosome?<

 

Two extras, actually. And a third nipple.

 

>Who the hell are you...<

 

I might be the albatross of poetic justice, come to roost in the teased and tangled mess of your fright wig. Or I might be the buzzing gnat of righteousness, depositing larvae in the eyes of a tyrant. Maybe I'm David, slinging more than mud at an oafish Goliath. I might be any number of things, but mostly just an arrogant punk. Don't let it get to you.

 

>Your manners would disgrace a sty.<

 

Is that anything like Pinkeye?

 

>One hour with you and the pigs would go on strike for better working conditions.<

 

The workers control the means of production! Solidarity for the proletariate!!

 

>So after yelling at Reg for presuming to tell you what's in your head, you're now doing the same thing to me?<

 

No. It's what actually spills out your foul mouth that has stained this forum with the indelible blotch of contempt.

 

>Do you think Reg would feel I'm encroaching on his territory...<

 

Don't ask me, ask him. Don't you two share the same sty? I know you read the same comic books.

 

>My original intent was to express my opinion about a film that I and several others here find less than excellent.<

 

Earlier it was an "Ugh!", and "hoakey" in the face of those lamenting, now it's less than excellent. Nice backtrack, but I think we've moved on to other offenses by now.

 

>I note that one or two other people chose far more negative language than mine or Reg's to describe it, but for some reason you preferred to ignore them<

 

That's what you get for shoving your way to the front of the line.

 

>My intent in this post is to reply to personal insults from a bothersome whore in the only language he seems to understand.<

 

Really? What language is that? That of a prison gaurd? First I implied you were insensitive, then I called you a bruiser. I didn't even call you a clown until after you started cussing. That hardly compares with calling every one of my posts "bullshit" and telling me to shove things up my ass. Rather than it being the language you think I understand, Mr. Cleo, I believe it's more like the languge you're most comfortable with. In fact, it becomes you, so don't stop now.

 

>only the two of us are guilty of the deadly P.C. sin of "insensitivity."<

 

Then get thee to a nunnery!

 

Bottom line: you guys got ugly when I referred to reg as "sweetie", because he hates girly talk.

 

So long, girlfriend.

[Guest Konga]

>Who will rid P of this

>bothersome whore.

 

I'll try.

 

Down, Joey boy! Heel!

[Bilbo]

RE: 2 distended labias

 

Ya know, being forcibly retired, I don't take many clients anymore. So it was really surprising when I had more than one this weekend with three nipples. Actually, it seemed like three of the five or so alleged clients had a third nipple. And now Joey mentions people with a third nipple. Is there something else going on I haven't heard about yet? Yeah, I know I'm a little out of the loop, being in Houston, etc. etc. but y'all would let me know if there were something about three nipples going on, wouldn't you?

[Guest pickwick]

RE: 2 distended labias

 

>Is the way your bottom lip

>trembles when you're about to

>blow a gasket.

>

 

Blow a gasket? Joey, nothing a trivial chap like you could ever say or do could make me do that. You're just a loud-mouthed hooker, not Alan Greenspan.

 

>Why? By your own admission you

>don't even know who Bambi

>is. If you lied about

>that,

 

It's you who are lying. I said no such thing.

 

>(You want sailor

>talk? I'll give you sailor

>talk).

 

I'm sure you've learned plenty of it at first hand (no pun intended).

 

>So, your closeted/repressed desires come to

>the fore at last. It

>all makes sense now. You

>don't hate fags, you hate

>yourself for wanting to be

>one. Hopefully you'll someday come

>to terms with your inner

>conflicts. I'll be rootin' for

>ya.

>

 

You've been reading "The Left-Wing Hatemongers' Psychobabble Handbook" again, have you? Is that the Third Edition with an introduction by Al Sharpton?

 

>And yes, there's more than

>enough room for both you

>AND reggie up my ass,

>seeing as how you're both

>undoubtedly hung like pidgeons. But

>keep dreamin' boys!

 

Instead of going to the city dump, I'll stop by your place the next time I need to get rid of a used fire hydrant.

 

>It's true. As long as evildoers

>like you roam the earth,

 

You're the evildoer, Joey. You never seem to tire of expressing hatred and contempt for others. But that's okay. I've been yelled at by experts. You're not even a talented amateur.

 

>I said he could have it,

>not you. And he can

>still have it. Once I'm

>done lambasting you two bullqueens.

 

You'll never be done. Hatred like yours always needs a target, and if none presents itself you'll simply make one up, as you did in this case.

 

>As usual, it's you and your

>partner in slime that are

>doing all the yelling.

>

 

You're lying again. It's you who started this little mud-fest, so quit whining about it.

 

>Not at all. I could give

>two shits about you. Why

>would I be nice to

>a fag eating monster? It

>was everyone else here I

>was being kind to by

>limiting my remarks to Bambi's

>mother. I'm still being kind,

>otherwise I'd tell you what

>I really think.

>

 

If you wanted to be kind, you'd jump off the Sears Tower. Do you need directions? Or transportation?

 

>The throbbing veins on your temple

>are showing.

 

Nothing's throbbing, Joe. You haven't said anything that got me going since you told the board about your mugging.

 

>It's insensitivity

>to a host of posters

>that prompted me to post

>my crack about you and

>Bambi's mother.

 

Ah yes, "insensitivity," for the P.C. Nazis it makes up Deadly Sins ## 1 through 6.

 

>I might

>be any number of things,

>but mostly just an arrogant

>punk.

 

I think you're being too hard on yourself here. Could we soften that to "middle-aged, trash-talking bumboy"?

 

>No. It's what actually spills out

>your foul mouth that has

>stained this forum with the

>indelible blotch of contempt.

 

You are the one who has dragged hatred and filth into what was previously a peaceful thread. It was a lousy thing for you to do, so it's no wonder you want to blame it on someone else. No doubt that's how you react to all your problems.

 

>Don't ask me, ask him. Don't

>you two share the same

>sty? I know you read

>the same comic books.

 

When YOU learn to read I can give you some references.

 

>Earlier it was an "Ugh!", and

>"hoakey" in the face of

>those lamenting, now it's less

>than excellent. Nice backtrack, but

>I think we've moved on

>to other offenses by now.

 

I'm sure you want to move on, Joey, but the fact is you started yelling at me because I made a completely inoffensive remark. If you would just take your Ritalin regularly, things like this might not happen.

 

>>I note that one or two other people chose far more negative language than mine or Reg's to describe it, but for some reason you preferred to ignore them<

>

>That's what you get for shoving

>your way to the front

>of the line.

 

No, it's what I get for being on the board when The Hateful Hooker felt like throwing some dirt.

 

>Really? What language is that? That

>of a prison gaurd?

 

You got it right on the first guess! See what I mean about the Ritalin? Now if you had just been taking it yesterday none of this might have happened.

 

>That hardly

>compares with calling every one

>of my posts "bullshit" and

>telling me to shove things

>up my ass.

 

Surely this is nothing you haven't heard in the course of your professional activities? Could I be mistaken? Do you do business exclusively with mutes?

 

>So long, girlfriend.

 

Don't go away, mad, Joey. Just go to hell.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: 2 distended labias

 

Bilbo,

 

First there was body piercing, then tatoos, now the fad is stopping in to your local body shop and having a third nipple affixed... well it wouldn't surprise me in the least :-)

[Boston Guy]

Unless you are in Ohio tonight, I am fairly certain that I am me and not you. :-)

[Guest Joey Ciccone]

final thoughts

 

>It's you who are lying. I said no such thing.<

 

Barf!

 

>>Who will rid P of this bothersome whore?<<

 

>>>I'll try. Down, Joey boy! Heel!<<<

 

ruff... 

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

You mean... we're not in Kansas anymore?

 

:-)

[Guest regulation]

Animal Control

 

Pick, I see that Joey is off his medication again. Hopefully, one of his neighbors will hear the howling and call Animal Control before too long.

 

Have a nice weekend,

R.

[Will]

Well, for a change, it's not I who am in Ohio tonight. Instead, I'm writing to you from Paris (as in France). Thus this thread is cold because it's been a few days since I have been able to tend to e-mail, etc.

 

It's probably obvious that I hate to disagree with either BG or TY, and I therefore hasten to say that we don't disagree even in this case. It also goes without saying that I am aware that the responses to works of art in whatever medium will vary enormously from person to person. While I do think I would find some responses "invalid" (in that they really aren't responses to the work of art at all), I'm not concerned about validity. It's a curious and terribly unfortunate fact that people, like me, who are in the habit of making critical (i.e., analytical) assessments of works of art can sometimes give the impression that their's is the only opinion that counts. Counts for what? It seems to me that one of the major purposes of a work of art is communication; but another, and to my mind equally important, purpose is the creation of community. Thus, I was not talking about who I think is "qualified" to make judgments of PHILDADELPHIA or anything else. I was also speaking out of my own subjectivity, just as anyone else does. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear, but it doesn't alter my own negative estimation of PHILADELPHIA.

 

More important is the idea of educating critical faculties. To me, it doesn't matter how one begins, whether with understanding why a particular political theory has the consequences it does, or how, say, Greek sculpture reinforced certain canonical ideas about the nature of society in the fifth century. Therefore, when I talk about developing critical faculties regarding works of art (once again, in any medium whatever) I am NOT talking about telling "good" from "bad." What I am talking about it is being able to discern the ways in which the parts work together to form the message, how they articulate and inflect that message, how they seem aimed at one audience rather than another. That's the sort of thing I'm interested in when it comes to "critical" thinking, which has to do with understanding something or somebody and not at all with judging something or somebody.

 

Are we in accord? I couldn't stand to be the odd man out with BH and TY!!!!!!!!!!

 

Cheers from Paris.