07/11/2008
Gay Man Files $60 Suit Against Bible Publishers
Michigan man Bradley LaShawn Fowler has filed a $60 million suit against Zondervan publishing and a $10 million suit against Nashville-based Thomas Nelson Publishing saying versions of their Bibles which call homosexuality a sin violate his consitutional rights:
"'The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims,' the judge wrote. Fowler, 39, alleges Zondervan's Bibles referring to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of 'demoralization, chaos and bewilderment.' The intent of the publisher was to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause 'me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder,' Fowler wrote. Fowler's suit claims Zondervan's text revisions from a 1980s version of the Bible included, and then deleted, a reference to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians without informing the public of the changes."
(via goodasyou)
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 8:03 AM EST by Andy in Michigan, News, Religion | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
This is the LAST thing we need! Are you kidding me? What happened to the separation of Church and State? What about first amendment rights to free speach, etc. If all Bibles stopped printing this today, which they will not, we would still face "physical discomfort and periods of 'demoralization, chaos and bewilderment". I should tell him the same thing I tell my kids who are 6, 8 & 11, life is not fair sport suck it up!
Posted by: RB | Jul 11, 2008 8:48:37 AM
Frivolous Lawsuit. Not a chance in hell. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion. Memo to Bradley Fowler: Christianity the way it is practiced in most of the U.S. today ALWAYS causes "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment." Do what all religious gay people have done since time immemorial -- leave your asshole family and move to a big city. Easier than fighting this non-starter lawsuit.
Posted by: Strepsi | Jul 11, 2008 9:00:54 AM
I dont how much of a legal argument there is here but I got to say, I kind of love the thought. Especially with the Lillian Ladele case and other akin lawsuits.
Posted by: IDNY | Jul 11, 2008 9:01:02 AM
This has nothing to do with the separation of Church and State so I am not sure where you are getting that from. However - this has absolutely everything to do with a complete moron who is confused and apparently bored.
Posted by: yoshi | Jul 11, 2008 9:03:19 AM
As much as I dislike the Bible, I don't think there is a grounds to stop its publication, no matter what interpretation is being printed.
Here's a solution, just print your own 'updated' translation of the Bible where god says homosexuality is divine and righteous Christians are sinners.
Posted by: Wes | Jul 11, 2008 9:12:34 AM
Well, I for one, would like to see him succeed in some fashion. The bible gets a free fucking ride from society and it's the biggest pile of garbage! Everything, EVERYfuckingTHING it says about Jesus is heresay, written no less than 300 years after his supposed death! There is not one, NOT ONE, bit of writing from the time period in which he supposedly lived that can document his existence! And yet, people are brainwashed into believe his outlandish story, which by the way, is not even original. There are accounts of Egyptian and Roman gods with similar background stories. This guy won't win, but only because everybody's too fucking scared to admit the bible is junk.
Posted by: Michael W. | Jul 11, 2008 9:18:59 AM
I have no problem admitting the Bible is junk but I happen to think junk should remain legal to publish.
If you 'ban the bible' you are only playing into the persecution complex of righteous Christians who will point their finger at the 'fascist' homosexuals who are stifling their free speech and religious practice. In the process you will create public sympathy for them and increased resentment for us (read: BACKLASH). Also, they will claim it is further validation of the Bible as it says their religion will be outlawed as the apocalypse approaches.
We should not be ones to burn books here.
Posted by: Wes | Jul 11, 2008 9:36:32 AM
Is this from The Onion?
Posted by: Dan | Jul 11, 2008 9:36:37 AM
MICHAEL W - Right on! The bible, at the very least, should be required to be catagorized as fiction. It's unproven, unverifiable yet continues to be presented and accepted as fact. How many gay bashings in this world could have been avoided if people accepted the bible for what it really is. Fiction.
Posted by: JJ | Jul 11, 2008 9:37:17 AM
I appreciate the sentiments of those who have posted before me; however, I really admire this guy's chutzpah.
Most Americans identify themselves as Christian and for them, what they perceive as "The Word of God" is hugely important. This story illustrates that, even if you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of god, it is based on copies of copies that are translated and retranslated. As anyone who has played the game of Post Office knows (where someone whispers something to the person next to them, that person to the next person etc.) after only a few iterations, the original message is almost unrecognizable.
Rather than dismiss those who see things differently, we need to engage them and change their hearts and minds. This does not require accepting their views, but we do need to find effective means of reaching them.
Posted by: voet | Jul 11, 2008 9:41:23 AM
Wes, I'm not advocating banning/burning the bible, all I'm saying is that preferential treatment should not be given to it simply because it is "the bible." If this gets to court, what is this guy going to have to but his hand on and swear to? The bible! It and the religion to which it is attached needs to be scrubbed from our government systems. To continue to say "In God We Trust" is to give further validity to the mythological nonsense that keeps people scared, oppressed, persecuted, tormented, emotionally scarred, poor, and ignorant.
Posted by: Michael W. | Jul 11, 2008 9:42:42 AM
@ JJ: Agreed! It should be in the Fiction aisle at Barnes and Noble. And if they have a "Bad Fiction" category, it should be under that. There is not one occurrence of humor and quite a lot of the stories are plagiarized.
Posted by: Michael W. | Jul 11, 2008 9:47:15 AM
I agree with all that (the Bible should not be used in courts, etc), but to see this man succeed in his frivilous lawsuit would be a setback to us and frankly a scary precedent to set.
Posted by: Wes | Jul 11, 2008 9:47:37 AM
to MICHAEL: No, that is NOT why he won't win -- and why he shouldn't. Because it is irrelevant if the Bible is "true" - it is a book. Then what's to stop some Christian person filing a $60 million claim to JK Rowling to change Harry Potter and make Dumbledore straight? And please, $60 milllion? But the real point is that -- as gays -- as a minority who is despised in many places, and who many people would like to erase and silence -- we should be the LAST people trying to curtail freedom of speech or thought or printed words!!!
Posted by: Strepsi | Jul 11, 2008 9:53:27 AM
This man will never win. It goes to much against the grain of free speech. I mean if you were to ban the printing of the bible, you would have to go on and ban the Torah, the Koran, and any other religious text.
To Voet's comment about the bible being translated and retranslated. I agree. My brother is studying to be an Army Chaplin. He is learning Greek and Hebrew and he is amazed at what he is discovering reading the original (or close to original text). He has found that what he was taught out of the bible growing up is flat out wrong or has been mistranslated.
I feel a lot of Christians forget the fact that Jesus didn't say anything on being gay. He was actually usually a friend to the sick, the poor, the misunderstood. It was the religious right back in his day that was persicuting everyone. Perhaps the religous right of today needs to remember that.
Posted by: Matt | Jul 11, 2008 10:20:53 AM
Stupidest lawsuit of the year. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, practice and belief. Surely, at the crux of this guarantee, is the right to interpret the Bible as one believes without interference or persecution. People have a right to interpret the Bible and believe it is the Word of God, no matter what you think or how it makes you feel bad. The Bible is also a historic text, which means interpreting it has historic value that should not be sacrificed to political considerations.
Posted by: Carlos | Jul 11, 2008 10:24:14 AM
The reason why this guy is wrong flat out is because he's asking for money, period. What makes him deserving of 60 million dollars over this? Is he the only gay man in America? No. Do bibles that make negative claims against homosexuality cause problems for all of us? Yes.
He's being a greedy bastard, plain and simple. Being overly-sensitive, and whining about every little thing only hurts us more than helps.
Combating negative stigma from bibles should be done through words and actions, not unnecessary court cases for monetary gain.
Posted by: Some Guy | Jul 11, 2008 10:28:36 AM
to Strepsi: I would agree with you except for this point: Harry Potter is fiction. The bible is not considered fiction. Anything written in it is considered "the truth." His lawsuit is valid in that he asserts the bible has been purposefully mistranslated over time to incur negative treatment to a group of people. If the original intent of the texts used to make up the bible said anything less severe against homosexuality, then he would be right, that it has been mistranslated to show intent to falsely besmirch the character of gay people for some agenda to oppress them. Of course he's not going to win. But your point about gays being despised in many places and that other people would like to see us erased or silenced, what tool are they using to promote those ideas? The fucking bible.
Posted by: Michael W. | Jul 11, 2008 10:34:53 AM
To Carlos: People don't have the right to hurt other people based on their beliefs. Remember the holocaust? I couldn't care less what people believe, but when it interferes with my own personal pursuit of happiness, they better watch the fuck out.
Posted by: Michael W. | Jul 11, 2008 10:40:25 AM
So Carlos,
It's okay for people believe a lie (the Bible)? The "word of God", no, God did not write the Bible.
Historical text? Only if you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Which is way off. Let's start with Gensis, there is no proof any of the people in it ever lived. You have no proof that God created a man named Adam that lived for over 900 years as was common then according to the Bible.
If people are going to believe in a lie how are they going to find God?
Posted by: 1♥ | Jul 11, 2008 10:54:38 AM
Question: Does no one else notice how the headline reads "$60 suit"? I mean, a sixty dollar lawsuit :D. Come on, I'd pay good money to see that.
Posted by: Philip Wester | Jul 11, 2008 10:56:58 AM
Carlos - It's funny you bring up "fear of persecution". Didn't Christians pretty much write the book on persecution? Oh, thats right, they did. It's called The Bible.
Posted by: JJ | Jul 11, 2008 11:15:31 AM
Exodus 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
http://scripturetext.com/exodus/22-18.htm
Yeah, nothing in the Bible which might lead to persecution.
Posted by: John C | Jul 11, 2008 12:03:34 PM
I like where they guy's head is at, and we can be sure religious wingnuts and conservative media are gonna latch on to this like Haggard on Tina. I don't think that's a bad thing. The more press this gets, the more it shines lights onto the irreconcilable differences between fundamentalism of any kind and the success of a representative democracy.
It will force people to either accept Biblical literalism and fundamentalism and never be okay with us, or to accept us and never be okay with fundamentalism. And that will only further our cause, of course, because we're so much more lovable and cute than they are. Oh, no, sorry, it's because we're right and they're wrong, of course.
Posted by: JeffRob | Jul 11, 2008 12:50:38 PM
All this idiot is doing is creating another fundraising boon for the "religious" right. Does NO ONE think out the potential "unintended consequences" of their actions anymore?
The "But Why Can't We Just Stone Them To Death?" crowd has been playing the "We're simply excercising our freedom of religion when we verbally and legally attack gays" tune for a long time; more every year. Falwell was an expert at it, a la "They've taken God out of our schools and put in the homosexuals."
Brother Bradley, wherefore art thy brain?
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jul 11, 2008 12:57:45 PM
What idiot lawyer decided to take this case? Do they think they will settle out of court??
Posted by: anon | Jul 11, 2008 1:06:41 PM
Oh, I see... He's representing himself! That's all we need to know.
Posted by: anon | Jul 11, 2008 1:08:55 PM
This is fantastic!! LET'S MAKE IT CLASS ACTION!! I am sick of people taking this work of fiction to justify hatred, slavery, damnation etc... The fact of the matter is that the bible was not reproduced until hundreds of years after "christ" was alive.
Christians have been in domination mode for centuries and for what? A feel good fuzzy story about a fake place called heaven???
And for blacks to follow christ WTF, isn't there an african religion that would be more appropriate than worshiping a jew???
I feel bad for this guy and hope he wins!!!
Posted by: Ty | Jul 11, 2008 1:29:08 PM
Am I missing something here? I have read this story several times and not once does it mention that Fowler is trying to "ban" the Bible. His issue is with the *incorrect translation* of the text and the subsequent suffering endured. So I am figuring that he is trying to get them to CHANGE the translation and pay for "damages" incurred.
Zondervan's and Thompson's translations use broad interpretations that ignore years of UNBIASED scholarly study that expose their versions to be faulty or just flat out wrong. And even though chock full of errors, their books are considered the gold standard in most Christian communities. If he can prove that they willfully ignored fact for a biased agenda, could it be that he has a case?
I'm definitely interested to see how this goes.
Posted by: soulbrotha | Jul 11, 2008 2:35:28 PM
Queen Please. This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
Get your shit together and take responsibility for your own self oppression.
Go to therapy and get it together.
Posted by: Mike Friedman | Jul 11, 2008 2:40:01 PM
Sorry, just saw that it said Thomas Nelson Publishing not Thompson's. My bad. I don't know about TNP. Zondervan stands though.
Posted by: soulbrotha | Jul 11, 2008 2:41:26 PM
Funny, on predominately black gay blogs there is a lot of support for Mr Fowler, and his actions are seen as brave. Here on Towleroad he's being called a "moron".
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jul 11, 2008 2:47:56 PM
If there was any ground for this law-suit, Christians would have banned evolution books from printing a long time ago. Nonsense!
Posted by: Rafael | Jul 11, 2008 3:33:00 PM
I do fear that this lawsuit will be thrown out as frivolous. But the backlash could go either way, either starting the conversation that increases awareness or ruffling the feathers of those who think it is blasphemy to even question the version their mama gave them.
No Bible version ever contained the word ``homosexual`` until some mistranslations (maybe intentionally so} were made in the 1940`s.
What amazes me is that, even though a reading of the original words in Greek easily shows that the altered, newfangled versions are wrong, the public still demands the altered version over one depicting what was actually written. The desire to hold onto a justification for homophobia seems to trump most American Christians` desire to seek the truth about what Saul of Tarsus actually wrote.
I wonder if at some point an accurate translation will be accepted by the English speaking masses. If so, it would go a long way toward decreasing the hatred that`s out there, just as occurred when American Christians finally did away with the notion that the Bible said blacks were cursed and inferior.
Posted by: GregV | Jul 11, 2008 3:37:11 PM
Funny, the headline says he's suing for $60. I was trying to imagine why someone would possibly file a suit against a book publisher over $60.
It's a silly suit, and has no chance of winning. As others have noted, imagine the precedent it would set for all stripes of publishing. Why doesn't he sue his family for being a bunch of assholes?
Posted by: Paul Rly | Jul 11, 2008 3:50:08 PM
This guy is excessively ignorant, unaware of the Constitution or the backlash he is inviting. He is only reinforcing the notion that gays threaten religious freedom and expression. You can bet his lawsuit will not get far.
Posted by: Javier | Jul 11, 2008 5:49:45 PM
the time and energy might be better spent directed towards the removal that ridiculous and oppressive book from hotel rooms.
Posted by: A.J. | Jul 11, 2008 6:01:30 PM
In hotels, I always make it a point to put the Gideon Bible on the floor in the hallway. It's often gone in the morning. Once in a while I even throw it in the trash, depending on how annoyed I am about it.
Posted by: Mike Friedman | Jul 11, 2008 6:39:40 PM
Stop hating on Mr. Fowler! He is standing up for the rights of the LGBT community against entrenched religious-based homophobia. This is a brilliant way to get his point across. He's calling attention to so many things we as gay men and lesbians should be angry about: how the Christian right has a stranglehold on discussion of Biblical doctrine; how Christian publishing has spread one dubious interpretation of the Bible; how Christian homophobia damages the live of gay men and lesbians; and, potentially, how traditional legal challenges probably will not be effective to combat these problems. I don't know how the case will turn out, but potentially it could also shed light on how the legal system shields Christian anti-gay propaganda from liability. For those of you who say this just boils down to 1st Amendment issues: You're naive. Nobody has an absolute right to free speech. The First Amendment doesn't give one the right to commit libel against somebody else. I would love to read the legal memo arguing that right-wing Biblical interpretation is unfaithful to the original ancient texts and thus libelous to gay men.
Posted by: Will | Jul 11, 2008 10:07:47 PM
I'm sorry. I thought it would be years before a lawsuit as idiotic as the $65 million "lost pants" DC case. I'd like to sue ANY book citing passages from the Code of Hammurabi, because such a twisted sense of justice has immeasurable pain and suffer for thousands of years. I like to sue them for ONE HUNDRED MILLION dollars hahahaha. (Dr. Evil laugh)
Posted by: Fin De Fichier | Jul 12, 2008 1:09:50 AM
lol @ Will. Whenever I need a good laugh I know I can always come to towleroad where I am assured of finding that some smallminded twat will be spouting off ridiculous absurdities ad nauseam. Yeah good luck in your endeavours on proving in a court of law that a 2000 year old laughably idiotic sub-par work of fiction libeled you. you nutter. I will never cease to be amazed at the number of imbeciles in this country who genuinely believe that freedom of speech should be the law of the land UNTIL they've been personally offended by something and then it's all about the suing and the lawyers and the wah-wah-wahhhh. Grow up and stop whining. You, nor anybody else has a right to NOT be offended by something. ever.
Posted by: Blake | Jul 12, 2008 2:59:20 AM
Well, at least this kind of lawsuit will bring light to how easy it is for ANYONE to convert the Bible, an already "idiotic sub-par work of fiction", to a weapon. A weapon used to hide behind while justifing verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence...including murder. If the Publisher has taken it upon themselves to edit and/or inject personal opinion without guidance, then maybe they should be held accountable. Otherwise the Bible becomes a 2000 year old Biblepedia,
'the free Bible that anyone can edit'...
BUT IT IS BLANCH!
Posted by: Kiki | Jul 12, 2008 9:50:26 AM
To Blake: All you have demonstrated is that a) you can't make a rational argument (just personal attacks); and b) you do not know what "free speech" actually means. Your definition of free speech is that anything anyone ever says or publishes under any circumstances is free from legal challenge. That is simply untrue. Don't believe it? Get a legal education. Or just use common sense. (You've obviously heard of slander and libel laws, but apparently you think they violate the 1st Amendment. They don't.) There are lots of limits on speech. Or do you mean that free speech should be absolute? If so, then you think false advertising, slander, libel, and all forms of verbal harassment should be legal. Well, that's an interesting theory, but it's beyond the pale. And by the way, Fowler's point is not that the he is "offended" by an ancient text. Fowler's point is that gay men are being libeled by a malicious mistranslation of an ancient text. It's really not that subtle a distinction, but obviously it's too subtle a distinction for you.
Posted by: Will | Jul 12, 2008 12:04:36 PM
Whether you believe in it as the word of God or not, the Bible -is- flawed in its translation. It would be great if this lawsuit (even though I think he's asking too much money, and even if he loses) at least brought attention to this fact and helped correct it. Some people here are definitely getting mixed up on free speech etc too. I love freedom of expression, but would a history book be allowed to print if it said that the reason Jews were persecuted in the Holocaust was because it is a sin to be Jewish? No it wouldn't. And that's essentially what the Bible is... it's used to "educate" in churches, in homes, in catechism and confirmation classes. And it's saying that being gay is a sin... when there wasn't even a proper word for homosexual when it was first written.
Sadly, this case is already being criticized by fellow gays, so I fear that this case will indeed just strip up protests and not open up minds. If only people took the time to do some self-educating instead of blasting uninformed opinions all over the net.
Posted by: JV | Jul 12, 2008 4:34:35 PM
Since the above 2 comments so beautifully demonstrate the average person's astoundingly feeble minded censorial motives on the topic at hand far better than I ever could myself, I rest my case on that particular topic.
Oh and by the way JV? There ARE books that explicitly say "that the reason Jews were persecuted in the Holocaust was because it is a sin to be Jewish"(as punishment for their "crime" of trying to live outside Israel) the book is the hilariously crazy "Jerusalem Countdown" by the equally batshit lunatic pastor John Hagee. I'm sure there are many others as well.
Not only was it 'allowed to be sold', it's sold over a million copies. And because the last thing the government should be doing is making itself the arbiter of truth or fiction as published in books, it SHOULD be allowed to be sold freely. It should also be condemned as the contemptible, anti-semitic, religiously deranged idiocy that it clearly is. I can't believe I actually have to explain how the first amendment to the constitution actually works to people in the 21st fucking century. You who believe that this person actually has a case against the publisher think that freedom of expression and speech are all well and good.....until the day that something someone says gives you an emotional ouchie, and then all bets are off. And in your fallacious selective reasoning, you are no better than the fundgelical christian whackjobs that want to remove books like Heather has two mommies from local libraries.
Furthermore, you religious moderates who blather on all the time about "mistranslations" of the bible being used for malice are grossly misinformed and misguided. Sorry, but there are very few ways to translate passages like "And he that blasphemeth the name of the lord, he shall surely be put to death" or "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." or my personal favorite "...if...the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die". Read that again, it is advocating the murder of women who are found to not be virgins on their wedding night. There aren't very many ways to "translate" this special sort of insanity. The bible REALLY IS a masterwork of disgustingly petty, homicidal, homophobic, misogynistic bullshit, and it is incumbent upon us to say so.
Posted by: Blake | Jul 12, 2008 6:28:38 PM
Well said, BLAKE. Especially the last paragraph.
Posted by: bleepers | Jul 12, 2008 11:49:36 PM
Blake, you don't need to explain to me or anyone else how the 1st Amendment works. In fact, you're incapable of explaining how it works because clearly you don't know a thing about the law. You should also not try to explain how to translate ancient texts because clearly you're not trained in that area, either. Oh, and nobody will ever ask you to expound on Biblical exegesis; basic logic; subtle rhetoric; literary aesthetics; civilized discourse; public policy; or how to win an argument. In fact, the only subject that you seem to know well is how to be a pretentious douchebag.
Posted by: Will | Jul 13, 2008 12:01:27 AM
Oh, please. Bleepers = Blake. Add "effective aliases" to the list of subjects you don't know a thing about.
Posted by: Will | Jul 13, 2008 12:10:28 AM
LMAO. You totally pegged me. I AM a pretentious douchebag! I was high as a kite when I wrote that. I don't even know what language the Bible was written in, much less how to translate that language effectively! And you're right: everything I know about the 1st Amendment I learned through conversations with my friends while we were smoking bowls.
Posted by: Blake | Jul 13, 2008 12:25:59 AM
lol. are you always so quick to concoct such laughably unlettered and unconvincing attempts at masquerading as your opponent when you've so clearly (badly) lost an argument? It must be a terrible bother going through life with such a feeble intellect. ta!
Posted by: Blake | Jul 13, 2008 5:40:14 AM
lol. are you always so quick to concoct such laughably unlettered and unconvincing attempts at masquerading as your opponent when you've so clearly (badly) lost an argument? It must be a terrible bother going through life with such a feeble intellect. ta!
Posted by: Bleepers | Jul 13, 2008 10:17:07 AM
Yes, run away because you are out of personal attacks. Luckily, your messages will still be here here as a testament to what a poser you are.
Posted by: Will | Jul 13, 2008 2:15:09 PM
Thank you, Blake, for saying everything that needed to be said.
Posted by: DCN | Jul 13, 2008 11:35:53 PM
I was just taking in the opinions of the masses, when something about it annoyed me. 1) The need for two people of opposing opinions to immediately berate or insult each other 2) The trend of belittling someone else's issues despite how petty it may or may not be and 3) The blind group following of one person's opinion without first questioning it or creating an opinion of one's own.
Is it so much to ask to have discussion without resulting to snark, satire, and jabs @ one's personal intellect? Far be it from me create a major ripple but are my words not valid?
Posted by: Bystander | Jul 14, 2008 11:31:11 AM
I personally believe to file a $60 million lawsuit was overkill and could the biggest factor in deciding whether it is a valid claim or not. However the idea behind it may not be as foolhardy as others have been so quick label it. It does have the possibility of creating an open discussions of what the Bible does and does not say and it's effects on others. Also while I'm not a practicing Christian (I do believe in some of the Christian morals), I think it's unfair for others classify the Bible and it's concepts such as Heaven as complete fluff (fiction though it may be), as that undermines the people here who might be Christian and/or believe in some of it concepts.
To veer back to my thoughts on the case; laws aside, the case may fail due to the long history Christianity as in this country. Despite the "seperation of Church and State," they still aren't seperate entities as evidenced in the current issues with same-sex marriage. Laws included, Mr. Fowler as much right to challenge the offensive print in the Bible as the publishing company has to print it. The only thing that matters is how well each party can present it's argument and it will interesting to see if this case gets court time. However I would suggest Mr. Fowler re-evaluate the asking suit if he is want's this to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Bystander | Jul 14, 2008 11:55:17 AM