Friday, December 29, 2006

Sometimes You Gotta Laugh

Just to keep from crying. AP-AOL had a survey to see who Americans considered the worst villain of 2006:

Worst Villains
  • President George W. Bush (25%)
  • Osama Bin Laden (8%)
  • Saddam Hussein (6%)
  • President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran (5%)
  • North Korean leader Kim Jong II (2%)
  • Donald Rumsfeld (2%)
  • Satan (1%)
  • Hugo Chavez (1%)
  • Tom Cruise (1%)
  • Dick Cheney (1%)
  • Hillary Clinton (1%)
  • John Kerry (1%)
  • Rosie O’Donnell (1%)
AP-AOL News Poll Reveals: America Perplexed by George W. Bush

OK, worse than Satan I can understand, but ... worse than Dick Cheney? That has to hurt.

On the other side, an underwhelming 13 per cent of respondents said President Bush was the "biggest hero," which made him number one there, too, above the troops in Iraq, Jesus, Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, and others.


Blogger Theresa said...

Wasn't sure if you had seen this yet...

For those of you that don't know, this is the infectious disease doctor that Jim keeps repeatedly defaming - Ruth Jacobs.

Top Infectious Disease Specialists
Infectious-disease specialists diagnose and treat all infectious
diseases--fungal, bacterial, viral, and tropical--including AIDS.

December 29, 2006 10:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everybody knows that you get into the Washingtonian "best of" list by paying them. It's not like they went around and sampled infectious disease specialists and picked the best one. You give them money, they give you publicity. If Dr. Jacobs thinks it's worthwhile to buy an award, that's fine, but the rest of us are not impressed.

December 30, 2006 12:34 AM  
Blogger JimK said...


There are at least forty people listed there -- how many infectious disease specialists do you think there are in this area?

Not to take anything away from her, but it looks like it would be real embarrassing to be left off that list. I can't imagine that this is something that a doctor would brag about, but she does.


December 30, 2006 12:50 AM  
Blogger Theresa said...


I just search my health care provider and got 300.

December 30, 2006 1:29 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...


What's your point?

I consider Ruth a colleague, and have never imputed that she was anything BUT capable in her specialty. Nor has anyone else, for that matter.

That being said, she has no business promulgating nonsense in other fields for which she has no expertise, either personal or professional. It's abusive for her to imply otherwise, which is what you're doing by posting this "recognition." She is as entitled as anyone to state her positions on sexual orientation and gender identity, and it would be most welcome if she would provide the disclaimer that her positions are theological ones, not medical ones. That's all.

December 30, 2006 2:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would also note that, based on Ruth's votes as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee, it seems that she is totally at odds with the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics when it comes to matters of sexual orientation.

December 30, 2006 4:03 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

I think her opinions come from the fact that she treats daily patients suffering from AIDs and other diseases that could be avoided...

And that she is concerned that MCPS policies will send her more patients.

And that once again, MCPS is willfully hurting children by not appropriately educating them on the dangers of certain behaviors - because of the pressures exerted by the gay community and teacher's unions (forced into tolerate everything).

I don't think it has anything to do with religon.

Once again, Montgomery County is about to prove that it doesn't care about the health and safety of our kids.

Why should one be surprised, given the current pro gay advocacy leadership of the MEA - why should one be surprised at all ?

Disappointed, but unfortunately, not one bit surprised.

December 30, 2006 6:53 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, there is a section in the new curriculum on sexual orientation, both in 8th and 10th grades. Are you thinking that MCPS should include information there about infectious diseases, rather than in the infectious disease section of the curriculum?

Or are you still talking about the condom section?


December 30, 2006 7:07 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, I'm thinking -- 300 infectious disease specialists? In the Washington area? -- sorry, but I need to see a link for that one. I use a big HMO, and they have nothing like that.


December 30, 2006 7:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


If the MCPS units on STIs did not thoroughly discuss the dangers involved in sexual activity, I would agree with much of what you say.

The Staff repeatedly assured the Citizens Advisory Committee in 2003-05 that these matters were discussed in the STI units. Student members of the CAC who had taken the courses assured us that the information was presented over and over. In the Spring of 2005, I had the MCPS Director of Health Education present to the CAC all the materials used in the STI units, so that members could see for themselves how comprehensive the units were.

Thus, I believe that the legitimate concerns presented by Ruth have been, and will continue to be, addressed by MCPS.

What she has pressed on the CAC has been the proposition that all homosexual behavior is inherently so dangerous that MCPS should place discredited conversion therapy ideas in the health curriculum and should tell gay students that they must remain lifelong celebates, eschewing even lifelong monogamous relationship. These ideas have been rejected by all mainstream health care professional associations. That is why the CAC overwhelmingly rejected so many of her recommendations.

MCPS is being asked to choose between (1) the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association, and (2) Dr. Ruth Jacbos. I think this is an easy call.

December 30, 2006 9:28 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

I think, that instead of saying things like "some homosexuals experience a new sense of belonging" etc, etc and nothing to counter that with the FACTS that homosexuals are at a greater risk for suicide, early death, increased risk of AIDS is IRRESPONSIBLE.

Flat out irresponsible. Period.
The STI section HAS NOT been updated since 1999. So to introduce the new health curriculum UNTIL that happens is irresponsible.

And when you update the STI section, you TELL THOSE KIDS that 40% of new AIDs infections in the US (sorry, Africa is NOT RELEVANT to a US sex ed curriculum) is caused by MSM. You tell them. And you also tell them what percentage of identified male homosexuals are infected with AIDS.

Your BS, David, about stigmatizing the gay population by hiding this information from the kids is going to do NOTHING but get some boys infected and they'll end up dead. And I hope those kids parents sue the heck out of the county.

December 30, 2006 9:48 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

I searched United Health Care with a 50 mile radius for infectious disease spedialists. I searched with 50 miles radius because I thought John Hopkins doctors should be included.

It should be noted that the doctors MCPS has been relying on for the health care section are not on the list of recognized doctors, per Retta.

December 30, 2006 9:51 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

David, a quibble. "Homosexual behavior" is not covered by the new curricula at all, neither was it covered by the curricula associated with your name, as I recall. Focusing the discussion on "homosexual behavior" is a trick, a frame to make it seem that all gay people do is engage in ... h.b. Certainly, you can be gay as all git-out (I just came back from Arizona, y'know) and not engage in any "homosexual behavior" at all.

The new curriculum talks about sexual orientation. It's about how people feel, how people are, how people are perceived. There's nothing in the courses that would lead to the topic of any health risk. Being gay is not a risk.


December 30, 2006 10:29 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

let's review what we are planning on telling the kiddies according the CAC recommended curriculum, shall we ?

- that is perfectly normal to be homosexual and they might experience joy by coming out.
- that a "significant portion of the population" is gay
- that lots of homosexuals remember feeling 'different' at a young age.
- that you have a gender identity which could differ from your physical sexual identity, but, not to worry, you can take hormones to fix this !
- that you should use a condom for oral, anal, and vaginal sex.

Now lets review what we are NOT telling the kiddies :

- that homosexuals are at an increased risk of dying at young age from either an infectious disease or suicide
- we are not defining 'a significant number' - hey, I think significant is 30%, not 5%.
- that most teenagers are confused all of the time.
- that the AMA classifys transgenderism as a gender identity disorder and JHU has stopped doing sex change operations
- that condoms are not recommended for anal sex, and are actually more likely to break.

Hey, sounds fair and balanced to me !

December 31, 2006 12:44 AM  
Blogger Theresa said...

Oh, and aren't you the one Jim that keeps insisting that all teenagers are sexually active ?

Come on, so it is okay to talk about the behavior but we are going to assume that the teenagers encouraged to believe that they are gay and there is nothing wrong with that .... are going to abstinent ? Aren't you the one continually saying that all teenagers are having sex - you must mean except the gay ones, right ?

So on one hand you justify the curriculum based on the fact that "oh, we are just talking about feelings" and in the next breath you say that all teenagers are sexually active ? Come on, even you must see the fallacy in that position.

December 31, 2006 12:48 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, it sounds like we agree that it would be good if there could be special instruction for gay students. Robert here has mentioned that, and I have mentioned it, and a lot of people think it would be neat if gay students could actually get some information particular to their own situation.

Thanks to the CRC and the Family Blah Blah groups that support them, that won't happen. If CRC wants to agree that MCPS should call off the dogs, drop the stigma and stereotyping, and have special sessions for gay students, I'll bet we could get together on that -- it would indicate an interest in protecting and informing those members of our society, and I would be proud to see our county move forward with that sort of supportive, informative plan. As it is, I think the best that gay students can hope for is to make contact with a groups like GLSEN or SMYAL, who can provide them with information outside the classroom.

At least there's that.


December 31, 2006 1:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa writes:

Now lets review what we are NOT telling the kiddies :

- that homosexuals are at an increased risk of dying at young age from either an infectious disease or suicide
- we are not defining 'a significant number' - hey, I think significant is 30%, not 5%.
- that most teenagers are confused all of the time.
- that the AMA classifys transgenderism as a gender identity disorder and JHU has stopped doing sex change operations
- that condoms are not recommended for anal sex, and are actually more likely to break.

My responses:

1. The more a group is marginalized, the more members of the group are prone to self-destructive behavior. You appear to simply assume that gay people are inherently wildly promiscuous, and that therefore they should be scared into the closet or at least lifelong celebacy. I want for my children what you want for yours: Committed life-long monogamous relationships based on love, honesty and trust. There are certainly enough examples of such same-sex relationships in our own community here in Montgomery County to rebut what appears to be your assumption.

2. “Significant number” in this context clearly means that it is not so rare as to be insignificant.

3. You have a pretty low opinion of teenagers. I do remember being confused about stuff back then. I was never confused about my strong attraction to the opposite sex. The confusion my sons faced was how to navigate this world when they discovered that their attraction was not to the opposite sex. A vital purpose of education is to help children through their confusions so that they can be happy, healthy people.

4. We have discussed the significance of the APA DSM IV before in this space. It is necessary so that insurance will cover those rare instances in which gender reassignment is appropriate. The DSM IV states a problem, and, in some instances, gender reassignment steps are the cure.

5. Actually, the Centers for Disease Control DOES recommend condoms for anal intercourse, while warning that they are more likely to break in anal, as compared to vaginal, intercourse. Jim presented the following CDC material during the CAC deliberations on the Condom Demonstration Lesson. (I wonder why Ruth didn’t back it?)

“Can I get HIV from anal sex?

“Yes. In fact, unprotected (without a condom) anal sex (intercourse) is considered to be very risky behavior. It is possible for either sex partner to become infected with HIV during anal sex. HIV can be found in the blood, semen, pre-seminal fluid, or vaginal fluid of a person infected with the virus. In general, the person receiving the semen is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the virus to enter the body during anal sex.

“However, a person who inserts his penis into an infected partner also is at risk because HIV can enter through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis) or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis.

“Not having (abstaining from) sex is the most effective way to avoid HIV. If people choose to have anal sex, they should use a latex condom. Most of the time, condoms work well. However, condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex. Thus, even with a condom, anal sex can be risky. A person should use generous amounts of water-based lubricant in addition to the condom to reduce the chances of the condom breaking.

“For more information on latex condoms, see "Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases."

I believe the Staff should include this CDC statement in the Condom Demonstration Lesson.

P.S. Jim’s “quibble” makes a good point. And as he has noted before, most anal intercourse is between heterosexual couples.

December 31, 2006 8:46 AM  
Blogger Theresa said...

1. The more a group is marginalized, the more members of the group are prone to self-destructive behavior.

OK David, that's the same argument, different spin. You don't want to marginalize the gay population via the public school curriculum, so you would prefer we hide the facts from the children who may be vulnerable to experimentation at this age. With this approach, you will leave them susceptible to older male predators.

Their safety is more important than any stigma the gay population may or may not sustain by simply presenting FACTS about the disease rate. Actually, it might help some of the more promiscious male homosexuals to realize that the AIDS disease is NOT GONE, and they need to be more careful in their sexual practices.

I am not suggesting making numbers up. I am suggesting taking the most recent statistics about the infection rate of AIDs and of new cases in the gay population and presenting this information alongside the rates in the heterosexual population. I am suggesting teaching FACTS.

You are suggesting hiding this information from vulnerable teenagers because 1) it will stigmatize the gay population and 2) this stigma now contributes to the promiscious behavior of gays. Hey, knowing the facts helps people make good decisions. Before I decide to engage in bungy jumping, it would be helpful to investigate the number of people killed doing this. Before I decide to experiment with an older gay adult male - who can show me the ropes as a young male teenager, it would be helpful if I knew what the chances were I might die from that decision. And if my public school has told me it is perfectly normal to be gay, and not warned me that the behavior carries risks, and I decide to experiment somewhat in part because of what my public school is telling me is ok, that public school could and SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE if I contract AIDS during my experimentation.

The safety of the kids TRUMPS any stupid misplaced desire to not stigmatize the gay population by hiding the reality and consequences of practicing this lifestyle.

3. You have a pretty low opinion of teenagers.

I have a 16 year old, remember ? She is trying to figure out what her career choices should be, where she wants to go to college, etc. She doesn't usually stop to think about the meaning of life, and my goal is to try to get her to be a nicer person. She is way to pretty and smart for her own good, and a real b^&^&*h to her boyfriends.

My point was that the curriculum, as it currently stands, implies that feeling confused at a young age may imply you are gay. I think most teenagers are confused, its perfectly normal for them. So you shouldn't imply that it is a sign of being gay.

4. Ok David, you can't point to the AMA when you like what it says (like homosexuality is not a diseases) and then diss it when you don't like what is says (transgenderism). If it is a disease, it is a disease. If it is not, it is not.

To say, oh, we just asked the AMA to classify it that way because we wanted it covered by the insurance is ridiculous.

They say it is a disease, the curriculum should present it as a disease. Period.

4. The condom video, as it was originally released to the CAC, was just fine. I liked it and showed it to my daughter even.

I don't believe it needs to be reworked at all. If you don't mention anal sex in it, then you don't have to go back and add the fact that condoms weren't really designed for anal sex.

December 31, 2006 12:02 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

I forgot 2.

I am simply insisting that you define significant.

Quote several different studies.

Significant number is way too nebulous. You should define the term.

Other some teenagers are going to walk away thinking you mean 30%.

December 31, 2006 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


If MCPS were really softpedaling the risks of STIs, including AIDS, then you would have a point. But the fact of the matter is that MCPS pushes the facts on STIs very vigorously. I suggest that if CRC is concerned about STIs (and not just trying to push gay people back into the closet) then it should ask its representative on the CAC to ask the MCPS Staff to provide a presentation on the STI Units as currently taught. If there are deficiencies, then those deficiencies can be addressed.

December 31, 2006 12:49 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Theresa, your statment that most teenagers are confused all the time is absurd. Teenagers know who they are sexually attracted to and are not at all confused about that. Those who are gay may be confused by the reactions of people like you who tell them there is something wrong with what they are feeling and that they are to be rejected for it.

Minority groups that have been stigmatized and forced to the margins of society by bigotry like yours all suffer from higher rates of problems because of the social rejection, not because of who they are. Blacks are more like to die violent deaths, or end up in jail, or drop out of school. I don't hear you ranting about how we should be teaching young black people that its inherently dangerous to be black. Of course not, that kind of bigotry is no longer socially acceptable.

You bitch about gays having high disease rates but people like you do everything you can to interfere with stable gay relationships which would prevent disease. If you were so concerned about gays having risky sex you'd be a firm supporter of equal marriage for same sex couples, but you're not are you?! Any rational person would admit that its far easier for a gay person to restrict themselves to one person they're attracted to to have sex with then to restrict themselves to none at all. But instead of setting the realistic goal you push the unrealistic one because you don't care about gay people, you care only about stigmatizing them.

January 01, 2007 1:00 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

"Theresa, your statment that most teenagers are confused all the time is absurd."

I did not mean about their sexual orientation - I meant in general. Teenagers are emotional, period, and tend to have mood swings, and overreact, etc. At least my teenager does. And my daughters friends seems to be the same way...

And just because gays can't get married does not mean they can't exercise a monogamous relationship.

I am against gay marriage because if we take the example of the Netherlands, or any other country that has legalized gay marriage, you see a corresponding decrease in the numbers of marriages overall. Before any move is made to institute this in the US, it would be prudent to review the impact it has had on other societies.

And that impact is not good.

January 01, 2007 1:33 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, I'm glad you brought that up. Maybe you can tell me how that works. Say, a place legalizes gay marriage. Does that mean that guys who would've married women, marry other guys instead?

I'm serious, can you explain how that would work? I honestly have never understood that argument, but you seem to.


January 01, 2007 1:40 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

No, it means you invalidate the concept of marriage by allowing gays to marry.

So the marriage rate in general goes down.

And in every country where they have legalized gay marriage, the marriage rate goes down and more couples have kids out of wedlock.

Perhaps, you could argue, it is a parallel development as opposed to a cause and effect. Legalizing gay marriage is just a sign of how progressive and secular a particular population has become, and accordingly the marriage rate drops, adherence to a traditional concept of family goes out the window - and society and children especially suffer.

January 01, 2007 4:39 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, do you think having a marriage license from the government is an essential part of the traditional family? What do you think these people are doing? Are they choosing to raise kids as single parents? Are they forming communes where everybody shares? Are they starting polygamous families? Or are they just ceasing to have kids? Tell me how this works.

I think this is a most interesting argument, that allowing gays to marry would somehow undermine the so-called traditional family (maybe we should call it the faux-traditional family, or, kinder, the neotraditional family).


January 01, 2007 5:11 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

My understanding of the Netherlands is they have kids without bothering to get married, and then they drift apart, drift into another relationship, have another kid, etc.

there have been several articles published on this Jim.

January 01, 2007 5:51 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, that would be the impression by someone reading the articles put out by Weekly Standard, Townhall, Heritage Foundation, and other rightwing sites that have a viewpoint to promote. It is possible though to dig into the data a little bit.

After the sexual and economic revolutions of the 1960s, a lot more people everywhere in the world lived together without marrying, including in the Netherlands. I doubt it is often quite as casual as you describe, but the legal institution of marriage lost a lot of its impact as women became able to provide for themselves.


January 01, 2007 6:47 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I had missed this thread. Sorry, because Theresa continues to insult me.

1) The AMA doesn't list GID as a disease, the APA lists it as a sexuality disorder in the DSM.

2)It's not a disease, it's a medical condition, with an accepted treatment. It doesn't progress, it just is. You feel the way you feel, and it doesn't change.

3) If, for the time being, you insist on listing it as Gender Identity Disorder, go ahead. For the kids it would be irrelevant.

4) The important point is the treatment. The accepted treatment for those who fulfill the criteria is gender reassignment with or without hormonal therapy and genital reconstruction. This is what you detest. There is no psychiatric treatment for this condition, in spite of one hundred years of attempts.

5) As a scientist, you should understand this logic. If the cure for a "mental disorder" is hormonal and surgical treatment, then it's not hard to infer that the diagnosis of mental illness is wrong, and the problem is primarily in the body rather than the mind. It really isn't that hard to understand, particularly with all the research data on other intersex conditions. I've pointed this out, but neither you nor Ruth apparently has any interest in learning anything that opposes your religious perspective.

January 01, 2007 6:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If the cure for a "mental disorder" is hormonal and surgical treatment, then it's not hard to infer that the diagnosis of mental illness is wrong, and the problem is primarily in the body rather than the mind. It really isn't that hard to understand, particularly with all the research data on other intersex conditions."

In any other scenario, other than sex, this kind of treatment would be considered absurd. If one thought, for example, they were Napoleon, treatment would consist of convincing that person otherwise. We wouldn't give them plastic surgery to make them look like Napoleon. Why, then, if someone thinks they are a different gender than they are, would treatment be to surgically fulfill the fantasy? Why wouldn't we continue to convince them to accept who they are? Why does the APA consider this a disorder? Why does a prestigious center like Johns Hopkins refuse to do this type of treatment?

January 02, 2007 5:45 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

1) Most academic centers do not perform genital reconstruction on adults because they have no demand. They had their day; the procedure has effectively been privatized.

2) Johns Hopkins is not prestigious on this issue. The reason you cite Hopkins is because of the impact of one man, Paul McHugh, who is an intolerant religious bigot who knows nothing about sex and gender. I have been in communication with him for years, and he is almost as ignorant as you are. He refuses to deal with the science on this issue, publishing only in religious journals. I and others have challenged him to discuss this scientifically, and he has always refused, coward that he is. He is also no longer at Hopkins. Btw, he was an expert on eating disroders, not sexuality.

3) Psychiatry tried for a century, Anon, and failed utterly. Over the past forty years, as we've learned about human sexual development, we've understood about gender identity and sexual orientation and the like, so we can apply fresh perspectives to seemingly intractable problems. And, guess what? They work! So we go from a situation with 2% success to one with 98% success, and you whine about it because of your fear and ignorance. The APAs understand and accept this -- you do not. That's not much of a surprise.

I would suggest that should you get an ulcer you visit your internist and demand to be treated for stress. No antibiotics. After all, we used to believe gastric ulcers were caused by stress. According to you, just because we know better doesn't mean we should accept it and treat the condition any differently. While you're at it, you can show up as Napoleon.

January 02, 2007 10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Johns Hopkins is not prestigious on this issue."

They're prestigious in all medical areas. Having performed the first such surgery in this country, they would have superior knowledge of it.

January 02, 2007 1:57 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Theresa said "I am against gay marriage because if we take the example of the Netherlands, or any other country that has legalized gay marriage, you see a corresponding decrease in the numbers of marriages overall."

That's a lie.

T]here is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution. If anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. A decade after Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws, heterosexual marriage rates had risen 10.7% in Denmark; 12.7% in Norway; and a whopping 28.8% in Sweden.

In Denmark over the last few years, marriage rates are the highest
they've been since the early 1970s. Divorce rates among heterosexual couples, on the other hand, have fallen. A decade after each country passed its partnership law, divorce rates had dropped 13.9% in Denmark; 6% in Norway; and 13.7% in Sweden. On average, divorce rates among heterosexuals remain lower now than in the years before same-sex partnerships were legalized.

January 02, 2007 3:03 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Theresa also said "And just because gays can't get married does not mean they can't exercise a monogamous relationship.".

That's rather biogted of you Theresa. If its important to heteroesuals to have marriage for the sake of monogamous relationships its important to gays for the same reason. If gays don't need marriage neither do heterosexuals.

January 02, 2007 3:30 PM  
Blogger andrea said...

Theresa, sorry but your "explanation" of the Netherlands sounds exactly like the US currently(and you can't balme it on gay marriage)- so I don't buy it- your so-called facts nor your explanation.

January 02, 2007 7:54 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Hopkins may have been the first US hospital to perform SRS, though I'm not even sure about that, but they last did back in the 70's, so they're not at all qualified to discuss the procedure. Even when the surgery was performed the most they ever did was two per month. The best American surgeons now do as many as five a week.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about treatment for an intersex condition, and, believe it or not Anon, there are a number of shrinks at Hopkins that treat trans persons in the standard manner, and have done so for decades.

January 02, 2007 8:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You're being so pleasant, I'm not even going to respond.

Geez, you can't get a rise out of anyone anymore!

January 02, 2007 9:16 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Thanks for the compliment, I guess.

January 03, 2007 2:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home