Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 7:12:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 17:18:11 GMT -5
Bill Cosby bought Quaaludes and used Benadryl to knock out at least one woman ... something he admitted during a deposition for the sexual assault lawsuit a Temple University employee filed against him.
Cosby gave the shocking testimony in 2005. He eventually settled the case with Andrea Constand for an undisclosed amount of money ... but documents connected to the case were just released today.
During the depo ... Cosby said he had purchased the 'ludes with the intent to give them to women he wanted to have sex with. He also said he had given Constand 3 half-pills of Benadryl.
The AP filed docs asking a court to release the testimony, and Cosby's attorneys tried to have it blocked ... claiming revealing the material would embarrass him.
Of course, Cosby has since been accused of sexual assault by dozens of other women. He has never been criminally charged.Read more: www.tmz.com/#ixzz3f9VQHSED
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 7:12:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 19:06:14 GMT -5
TMZ said it... it must be true!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 7:12:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 19:17:42 GMT -5
TMZ said it... it must be true! Its true because Bill Cosby said it.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,310
|
Post by swamp on Jul 6, 2015 19:19:02 GMT -5
It was on CBS news tonight. They were quoting his answer in a deposition.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 6, 2015 19:21:11 GMT -5
TMZ said it... it must be true! TMZ said it, it MIGHT be true.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 7:12:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 19:39:15 GMT -5
It was on CBS news tonight. They were quoting his answer in a deposition. Was their source TMZ... or the actual deposition, they they obtained through other sources? And, even if he did do it that time, that's no guarantee he's done it other times. People do change, or do "one time" things, you know. Lets find him guilty of doing it with those other women by either PROVING he did it... or him ADMITTING he did it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 7:12:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 19:56:55 GMT -5
It was on CBS news tonight. They were quoting his answer in a deposition. Was their source TMZ... or the actual deposition, they they obtained through other sources? And, even if he did do it that time, that's no guarantee he's done it other times. People do change, or do "one time" things, you know. Lets find him guilty of doing it with those other women by either PROVING he did it... or him ADMITTING he did it. How are we going to prove he did anything? And what is the need to do that to say he is a rapist? He gives women he wants sex with drugs to knock them out. He is a pretty bad guy.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,456
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 6, 2015 20:04:21 GMT -5
It was on CBS news tonight. They were quoting his answer in a deposition. Was their source TMZ... or the actual deposition, they they obtained through other sources? And, even if he did do it that time, that's no guarantee he's done it other times. People do change, or do "one time" things, you know. Lets find him guilty of doing it with those other women by either PROVING he did it... or him ADMITTING he did it. "PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Bill Cosby admitted in 2005 that he got quaaludes with the intent of giving them to young women he wanted to have sex with, and that he gave the sedative to at least one woman and "other people," according to documents obtained Monday by The Associated Press. The AP had gone to court to compel the release of the documents from the deposition in a sexual abuse lawsuit filed by former Temple University employee Andrea Constand — the first of a cascade of sexual abuse lawsuits against him. Cosby's lawyers had objected on the grounds that it would embarrass their client." Bill Cosby said he got drugs to give women for sex My guess is The Associate Press was not quoting or got their info from TMZ. TMZ would have been cited by the AP.
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Jul 6, 2015 20:07:53 GMT -5
I wonder if those 13 or so victims who came forward would agree with you. LINK .
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,310
|
Post by swamp on Jul 6, 2015 20:24:59 GMT -5
It was on CBS news tonight. They were quoting his answer in a deposition. Was their source TMZ... or the actual deposition, they they obtained through other sources? And, even if he did do it that time, that's no guarantee he's done it other times. People do change, or do "one time" things, you know. Lets find him guilty of doing it with those other women by either PROVING he did it... or him ADMITTING he did it. The actual deposition. They sued to get it.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,368
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
Member is Online
|
Post by busymom on Jul 6, 2015 21:22:40 GMT -5
You're a pretty poor excuse of a man, if the only way you can think of to get a woman is to use drugs. I have no doubt that his "people" were capable of keeping him out of jail. With his popularity, & the money he was making at the time, even if he'd gone to trial back then, I doubt he would have served any time. Look at today's current stars who are constantly in trouble: how much jail time do they get? (Think Lindsay Lohan or Justin Bieber.)
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 6, 2015 21:32:29 GMT -5
Just because Bill Cosby himself (under oath, in a deposition) admitted to drugging women doesn't make it true! Right?
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Jul 6, 2015 21:33:46 GMT -5
Bieber & Lohan were (and still are occasionally ) doing stupid sh*t - but Cosby was slipping drugs to women in order to rape them.
His clean-cut "Dr Huxtable" character back in the 70's made him appear to be a lovable family man with values who could be trusted.
But Cosby the person is nothing like the roll he played on TV.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 6, 2015 21:40:10 GMT -5
Was their source TMZ... or the actual deposition, they they obtained through other sources? And, even if he did do it that time, that's no guarantee he's done it other times. People do change, or do "one time" things, you know. Lets find him guilty of doing it with those other women by either PROVING he did it... or him ADMITTING he did it. "PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Bill Cosby admitted in 2005 that he got quaaludes with the intent of giving them to young women he wanted to have sex with, and that he gave the sedative to at least one woman and "other people," according to documents obtained Monday by The Associated Press. The AP had gone to court to compel the release of the documents from the deposition in a sexual abuse lawsuit filed by former Temple University employee Andrea Constand — the first of a cascade of sexual abuse lawsuits against him. Cosby's lawyers had objected on the grounds that it would embarrass their client." Bill Cosby said he got drugs to give women for sex My guess is The Associate Press was not quoting or got their info from TMZ. TMZ would have been cited by the AP. he's toast.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 7:12:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 21:56:11 GMT -5
Was their source TMZ... or the actual deposition, they they obtained through other sources? And, even if he did do it that time, that's no guarantee he's done it other times. People do change, or do "one time" things, you know. Lets find him guilty of doing it with those other women by either PROVING he did it... or him ADMITTING he did it. The actual deposition. They sued to get it. Fair enough. Then he did it the one time. There's proof via admission. I stole (shoplifted) a bag of M&M's once when I was a kid... does that mean every time I've eaten candy since then, that it was stolen? ETA: does it say "with the intent of giving it to them without their knowledge or consent"? Is it not possible that he intended to give it to them in the same manner that most people offer a woman they are interested in sleeping with a Cosmopolitan or a beer or a Long Island Iced Tea?... "hey babe... want a Quaalude?" (heh, heh, heh,... maybe if she takes it, she'll loosen up and I'll score!)
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,456
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 6, 2015 22:06:35 GMT -5
"PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Bill Cosby admitted in 2005 that he got quaaludes with the intent of giving them to young women he wanted to have sex with, and that he gave the sedative to at least one woman and "other people," according to documents obtained Monday by The Associated Press. The AP had gone to court to compel the release of the documents from the deposition in a sexual abuse lawsuit filed by former Temple University employee Andrea Constand — the first of a cascade of sexual abuse lawsuits against him. Cosby's lawyers had objected on the grounds that it would embarrass their client." Bill Cosby said he got drugs to give women for sex My guess is The Associate Press was not quoting or got their info from TMZ. TMZ would have been cited by the AP. he's toast. Does not bode well for him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 7:12:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 5:02:00 GMT -5
The actual deposition. They sued to get it. Fair enough. Then he did it the one time. There's proof via admission. I stole (shoplifted) a bag of M&M's once when I was a kid... does that mean every time I've eaten candy since then, that it was stolen? ETA: does it say "with the intent of giving it to them without their knowledge or consent"? Is it not possible that he intended to give it to them in the same manner that most people offer a woman they are interested in sleeping with a Cosmopolitan or a beer or a Long Island Iced Tea?... "hey babe... want a Quaalude?" (heh, heh, heh,... maybe if she takes it, she'll loosen up and I'll score!) Jeffrey Dalhmer quit eating people too. People can change.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 7, 2015 5:30:05 GMT -5
Jeffrey Dahmer quit eating people when he was arrested, tried, found guilty, thrown in jail and very quickly killed by another inmate. I don't think he reached an epiphany anywhere in there.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jul 7, 2015 8:04:48 GMT -5
Heard a clip on the radio of one of the victims that interviewed with Anderson Cooper last night saying being drugged with quaaludes fits her experience. Also that she was told not to report it side he was Hugh Hefners best friend. (Person speaking worked at a playboy club) Which is somewhat interesting because Holly Madison came out in her book about Hugh using quaaludes and Hugh and his camp are trying to denounce her whole book.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 7, 2015 10:19:29 GMT -5
You're preaching to the choir, @hickle. There were no pro-Cosby holdouts left by the end of the last Cosby thread we had. Just too many allegations to dismiss.
The more contentious issue was whether the victims should pay a penalty for not disclosing the rapes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 7:12:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 18:58:50 GMT -5
Jeffrey Dahmer quit eating people when he was arrested, tried, found guilty, thrown in jail and very quickly killed by another inmate. I don't think he reached an epiphany anywhere in there. I was just about to mention that... but you covered it for me!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 7:12:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 19:02:35 GMT -5
You're preaching to the choir, @hickle. There were no pro-Cosby holdouts left by the end of the last Cosby thread we had. Just too many allegations to dismiss. The more contentious issue was whether the victims should pay a penalty for not disclosing the rapes. That may depend on how you define "pro-Cosby holdout". I dismiss all allegations without proof or admission (I'm a big fan of the whole "innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing). I will say his character got damaged somewhat by all the allegations... but I do not condemn him for acts that have not been proven against him.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,402
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 7, 2015 19:09:08 GMT -5
I thought he seemed like an asshole before I knew about all these allegations. He was pretentious and mean on camera enough times that I figure it is only worse in real life. I don't know if any or all of these women were raped, but at the end of the day - my opinion is totally meaningless.
|
|
msventoux
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 12, 2011 22:32:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,014
|
Post by msventoux on Jul 7, 2015 19:39:49 GMT -5
I thought he seemed like an asshole before I knew about all these allegations. He was pretentious and mean on camera enough times that I figure it is only worse in real life. I don't know if any or all of these women were raped, but at the end of the day - my opinion is totally meaningless. Thank you! Even when I was a kid watching the Cosby show I couldn't stand him. Everyone I've talked with him about always goes on about how hysterical he is and how he seems like a great guy. I never understood it. I didn't get a predator vibe from him, but he always seemed like a jackass to me.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 7, 2015 19:46:15 GMT -5
You're preaching to the choir, @hickle. There were no pro-Cosby holdouts left by the end of the last Cosby thread we had. Just too many allegations to dismiss. The more contentious issue was whether the victims should pay a penalty for not disclosing the rapes. That may depend on how you define "pro-Cosby holdout". I dismiss all allegations without proof or admission (I'm a big fan of the whole "innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing). I will say his character got damaged somewhat by all the allegations... but I do not condemn him for acts that have not been proven against him. When it comes to convicting somebody and punishing them for a crime, I agree with holding to the most rigorous standard. Realistically, I don't always hold out that long. With Mr. Cosby I was willing to have faith in his innocence while there were only a dozen plaintiffs with clear monetary motives bringing forward decades-old charges that had never been reported to police. But then plaintiffs came forward that had filed charges after the fact, and plaintiffs came forward that weren't hitting Mr. Cosby up for money, and twelve accusers grew to close to 30, and my respect for him just couldn't surmount that. Eventually a critical mass of evidence builds up and it becomes illogical to believe that e.g. every single one of his accusers was jumping on the Cosby express to riches. I generally try to hold out as long as I can in favour of "innocent" in criminal matters, but at some point one has to acknowledge that the only reasonable conclusion is that Joe Accused is guilty as sin, even if it can't be proven in a courtroom.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,402
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 7, 2015 19:46:56 GMT -5
I think he got the "good guy" tag because he has stayed with his original wife. That is pretty rare in Hollywood.
I felt like the show he did where he asked kids questions was just mean. He would bring them in and basically make fun of them for being ignorant.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 7:12:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 20:03:54 GMT -5
That may depend on how you define "pro-Cosby holdout". I dismiss all allegations without proof or admission (I'm a big fan of the whole "innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing). I will say his character got damaged somewhat by all the allegations... but I do not condemn him for acts that have not been proven against him. When it comes to convicting somebody and punishing them for a crime, I agree with holding to the most rigorous standard. Realistically, I don't always hold out that long. With Mr. Cosby I was willing to have faith in his innocence while there were only a dozen plaintiffs with clear monetary motives bringing forward decades-old charges that had never been reported to police. But then plaintiffs came forward that had filed charges after the fact, and plaintiffs came forward that weren't hitting Mr. Cosby up for money, and twelve accusers grew to close to 30, and my respect for him just couldn't surmount that. Eventually a critical mass of evidence builds up and it becomes illogical to believe that e.g. every single one of his accusers was jumping on the Cosby express to riches. I generally try to hold out as long as I can in favour of "innocent" in criminal matters, but at some point one has to acknowledge that the only reasonable conclusion is that Joe Accused is guilty as sin, even if it can't be proven in a courtroom.I disagree. One should always hold to the standard of "if Joe Accused is 'guilty as sin', there will be proof of that guilt." Now... that proof may be a long time before it's found... but it IS out there. Maybe it's not JUST the person that believe in Justice in me... maybe it's also the Agnostic in me. Who knows. So if 100 people accused you, independently, for whatever reason, of committing a crime (even though you hadn't done anything wrong)... you'd say that you were guilty... because with 100 people saying so, you'd reasonably believe it? I mean... according to you, with 100 people, it's reasonable to assume... right?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 7:12:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 20:35:23 GMT -5
When it comes to convicting somebody and punishing them for a crime, I agree with holding to the most rigorous standard. Realistically, I don't always hold out that long. With Mr. Cosby I was willing to have faith in his innocence while there were only a dozen plaintiffs with clear monetary motives bringing forward decades-old charges that had never been reported to police. But then plaintiffs came forward that had filed charges after the fact, and plaintiffs came forward that weren't hitting Mr. Cosby up for money, and twelve accusers grew to close to 30, and my respect for him just couldn't surmount that. Eventually a critical mass of evidence builds up and it becomes illogical to believe that e.g. every single one of his accusers was jumping on the Cosby express to riches. I generally try to hold out as long as I can in favour of "innocent" in criminal matters, but at some point one has to acknowledge that the only reasonable conclusion is that Joe Accused is guilty as sin, even if it can't be proven in a courtroom.I disagree. One should always hold to the standard of "if Joe Accused is 'guilty as sin', there will be proof of that guilt." Now... that proof may be a long time before it's found... but it IS out there. Maybe it's not JUST the person that believe in Justice in me... maybe it's also the Agnostic in me. Who knows. So if 100 people accused you, independently, for whatever reason, of committing a crime (even though you hadn't done anything wrong)... you'd say that you were guilty... because with 100 people saying so, you'd reasonably believe it? I mean... according to you, with 100 people, it's reasonable to assume... right? When I was in college we studied justification in regards to knowledge. I am guessing you think you do not have proper justification to say Cosby is guilty. Is that correct? If you mother or someone you respect told you something negative about her neighbor, would you believe her simply because you know she is trustworthy on this type of thing? Is that your problem with the women accusing Cosby, you do not think them trustworthy or have no knowledge of that? I think for many, including myself and apparently Virgil, the sheer number of accusations across time and seemingly with out ulterior motive is justification enough. Why is that not justification enough for you? Apologies to Virgil if I misunderstood his reasoning.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 7, 2015 20:56:07 GMT -5
When it comes to convicting somebody and punishing them for a crime, I agree with holding to the most rigorous standard. Realistically, I don't always hold out that long. With Mr. Cosby I was willing to have faith in his innocence while there were only a dozen plaintiffs with clear monetary motives bringing forward decades-old charges that had never been reported to police. But then plaintiffs came forward that had filed charges after the fact, and plaintiffs came forward that weren't hitting Mr. Cosby up for money, and twelve accusers grew to close to 30, and my respect for him just couldn't surmount that. Eventually a critical mass of evidence builds up and it becomes illogical to believe that e.g. every single one of his accusers was jumping on the Cosby express to riches. I generally try to hold out as long as I can in favour of "innocent" in criminal matters, but at some point one has to acknowledge that the only reasonable conclusion is that Joe Accused is guilty as sin, even if it can't be proven in a courtroom.I disagree. One should always hold to the standard of "if Joe Accused is 'guilty as sin', there will be proof of that guilt." Now... that proof may be a long time before it's found... but it IS out there. Maybe it's not JUST the person that believe in Justice in me... maybe it's also the Agnostic in me. Who knows. So if 100 people accused you, independently, for whatever reason, of committing a crime (even though you hadn't done anything wrong)... you'd say that you were guilty... because with 100 people saying so, you'd reasonably believe it? I mean... according to you, with 100 people, it's reasonable to assume... right? It would be reasonable to assume I was guilty, yes. Depending on why the people were accusing me, I might well sympathize with them. For example, supposing The Captain was a shapeshifter and, in retribution for my insulting Baymax, she drugged me, drove me to the White House, hid me in a closet, shape-shifted into me, ran into the oval office and decapitated Pres. Obama, carried his head back to the closet with the SS in hot pursuit, ducked into the closet, stuck Pres. Obama's head in my hand, and shape-shifted into a mop just as I was coming around, I wouldn't blame the SS agents for shooting me into Swiss cheese even though I was nothing more than a hapless victim. Even the accused has to accept that sometimes things look so bad that it's fundamentally illogical for strangers (or in extreme cases, even friends and family members) to believe in their innocence. That doesn't mean we can lock people up without a trial, but it doesn't mean we have to pretend Mr. Cosby is innocent when speaking/writing informally either.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jul 7, 2015 21:23:31 GMT -5
I disagree. One should always hold to the standard of "if Joe Accused is 'guilty as sin', there will be proof of that guilt." Now... that proof may be a long time before it's found... but it IS out there. Maybe it's not JUST the person that believe in Justice in me... maybe it's also the Agnostic in me. Who knows. So if 100 people accused you, independently, for whatever reason, of committing a crime (even though you hadn't done anything wrong)... you'd say that you were guilty... because with 100 people saying so, you'd reasonably believe it? I mean... according to you, with 100 people, it's reasonable to assume... right? It would be reasonable to assume I was guilty, yes. Depending on why the people were accusing me, I might well sympathize with them. For example, supposing The Captain was a shapeshifter and, in retribution for my insulting Baymax, she drugged me, drove me to the White House, hid me in a closet, shape-shifted into me, ran into the oval office and decapitated Pres. Obama, carried his head back to the closet with the SS in hot pursuit, ducked into the closet, stuck Pres. Obama's head in my hand, and shape-shifted into a mop just as I was coming around, I wouldn't blame the SS agents for shooting me into Swiss cheese even though I was nothing more than a hapless victim. Even the accused has to accept that sometimes things look so bad that it's fundamentally illogical for strangers (or in extreme cases, even friends and family members) to believe in their innocence. That doesn't mean we can lock people up without a trial, but it doesn't mean we have to pretend Mr. Cosby is innocent when speaking/writing informally either. And I thought you knew me... .
I'm much more subtle than that. Besides that's too quick and painless IMHO. If I'm seeking revenge it will...last awhile.
You know what they say: Revenge is a dish best served cold...
Carry on.
|
|