A Malaysian model faces six lashes of the cane for drinking beer at a beach resort in the mainly Muslim country. Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, 32, was busted last year at a hotel nightclub at Cherating in Pahang state, during a raid by the state's religious department, The Telegraph reports. She 'fessed up to drinking beer, …
@ Steve Swann
A duty to interefere?
I saw a documentary years ago that interviewed an elderly (late 60's?) Afghan man. He said "In my country it's legal to smoke heroin, but illegal to drink alcohol. In yours, it's illegal to smoke heroin but legal to drink alcohol. Who can say who is right?"
Laws are made and enforced by people. So who's laws are YOU going to force on every 'backward' country? Yours? The ones enforced in the UK? We have so many wrong and crap laws in the UK that it just proves that our law-makers don't have a clue!
I bet you'd be really receptive to having another country enforce laws on us. Oh, wait a minute, the EU....
re: Would somebody enlighten this ignorant twat about the Taliban and why we are there.
Please do. An 'ignorant twat' I may be, but it's a side I hadn't seen reported on the news before, and it's certainly never been a justification for going. I don't think we should be over there, and I generally don't watch news about it. (Also: abusive insults always make you look superior, good job)
Hey! Look at this from last month!
"Security has plummeted across Helmand since UK troops arrived three years ago, and ordinary people have watched the Taleban grow stronger."
'Why do we bother' = we should publicly condemn these countries/regimes/whatever. We should avoid doing business with these countries. We shouldn't be dying in their countries.
re: getting own house in order, I fully agree.
Further to your invocation of Godwin:
"Perhaps we should've let Hitler exterminate the jews then?"
I think you'll find we, er, did. Something to do with only having evidence courtesy of listening in to Enigma transmissions on the subject and not wanting to give the game away by flattening the death camps. But the ends justified the means...............didn't they?
I've been involved in a fair few protests, right here in the UK, and campaign for equality and civil rights in many ways. Granted I don't travel abroad much, and I do have a love of the Reg indeed, so your points are well taken; Perhaps its time I took more broad ranging stances.
I still don't think that inflicting a beating upon someone is acceptable or excusable, however, and even as I withdraw from this debate (as I clearly have some things to consider now!) I can promise you I won't stop campaigning for an end to such things as unjust laws, brutal physical punishment and religious dogmatism whether its here or abroad.
Mines the one with a WHOLE pile of questions in the pocket. Thanks guys!
What about the scarring, can't that affect her career? Lashes don't always leave just welts, they sometime leave scars. She broke the law, yes, but Malaysia isn't respecting foreign laws on the matter either, which pretty much puts no one in the right.
In the end, because Malaysia failed to follow international procedure, the model will likely be returned unscathed.
Holy DNS hijacking, Batman!
I appear to have aimed for El Reg and hit the Twat-O-Tron by mistake.
The point a lot of people here are missing or muddying with moralising about our right to interfere etc... is that, according to Natural Justice, the punishment should fit the crime and the reparation to society be appropriate to the damage caused.
It doesn't matter what laws, religious or otherwise, Malay, British or even Martian, were broken, or whether or not the woman in question knew about the laws and potential consequences beforehand. The woman is being beaten with a switch which will cause actual bodily harm and scarring for consuming something which is against her religion. This is a barbaric affront to natural justice and, when confronted with such, we bloody well should get upset and angry.
Just like we did with the G20 police tactics, Pete 2, or did you not see any newspapers/ websites/TV/anything at all in the aftermath? Like the official review and U-Turn on police tactics that came as a result?
Unfortunately no such review of practises is likely to happen in this case.
Oh and, hey, you lot at the back? The "phwoar-bit-of-slap-and-tickle-innit?" brigade? To borrow from the Moderatrix: DFO! If you don't understand the difference between boudoir play and being beaten with a switch, do us all the very big favour of not parading your ignorance, please.
An issue over which we actually do have a semblance of control. Putting up a fail sign on matters of opinion is annoying. Gives the impression that a hard and fast fuck up is about to be debunked, and disappoints.
Good use of fail: 'Would somebody enlighten this ignorant twat about the Taliban and why we are there.'
ODFO: 'I hand a FAIL tag out to everyone who reduces these issues to acinine comments, comedy or self-centered utilitarian philosophy.'
I'll bite on this too.
Any laws (or other conventions) which proscribe anything which doesn't cause actual harm to another person (and to hell with offended senses of propriety or morals) are going to lead to crap like that described in the article. Refer to the earlier article regarding the petition to apologise to Alan Turing if you have trouble with the concept. Otherwise you leave a society at the mercy of whatever idiot prejudices are currently in vogue since there is nowhere else to draw a neat line. If it's OK to beat some poor woman for having a beer, it's probably OK to torture you to death for having red hair or wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area or being too fat or whatever subjective shit someone in a position of authority would like to pull out of their butt.
So the "she knew the law, broke it and should take the consequences" is not a good argument. In fact it shows a mentality which is quite contemptable, given the actual facts of the case.
And, since we're at it, what exactly is the objective difference between taking heroin and drinking beer? Just the actual doing, hurting nobody but yourself. Why is it OK to do one and not the other?
And why might beating a woman with a stick (or for that matter, jailing people for getting zonked on alkaloids derived from plants) be a worse thing than having your moral conscience offended?
This is rather a tricky one to be honest. On one hand, she was a practicing Muslim following Muslim law, and knew that drinking alcohol was illegal. She knew full well that she would be tried as a Muslim if caught.
On the other hand, lashings with a cane designed to leave permanent scars does seem rather barbaric to me. Admittedly, it is only six.
I have to wonder...she's the first to be handed this punishment rather than a jail sentence, perhaps she was given the choice of the two and saw this as the lesser of two evils?
This seems extreme to us, as alcohol is such a huge part of our society...probably TOO huge really! But to them I guess it's no different to punishing someone for taking illegal drugs.
One thing that I really can't make my mind up on - this law is ONLY applied to Muslims. Non-Muslims and foreigners are allowed to drink when and where they want, within reason. Would this mean that the choice is given to each individual, or is Muslim/non-Muslim decided for you? And if you're religious enough to accept punishment, then why break the law of your religion in the first place? But then...where do those who believe in Islam on a casual basis stand? Do they even exist? I know rather a lot of casual Christians, does this follow with other religions?
A lot of questions that I can't answer because I neither know nor understand all of the facts. I do think, however, that we all need to stop jumping down the throats of anyone who disagrees with our particular point of view, as we're not necessarily the ones in the right!
How is this different to the UK.
Surely anyone going against the UK's prohibition laws would expect to go to prison where, I'm sure, much violence occurs.
Taking issue with this seems very much like the toaster calling the kettle brushed aluminium.
>>But then...where do those who believe in Islam on a casual basis stand?
Er, outside of Islam, I would think. It's kind of one of those all-or-nothing things.
I'm pleased to see intelligent debate has broken through. The world is quite stupid enough.
@ Tom 94
You, sir, are highly mistaken. The United States of America is not a "christian country." Infact, the highest law of the United States prohibits it from ever being one:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
--The First Amendment to the Constitiution of the United States of America http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/
Some countries do have national religons. Some of them will have religous laws, and therefor religous crimes. The United States of America does not, therefor there are no religous crimes.
The way it works in Singapore
Singapore too uses caning as a deterrent. The way it works is different: women are not caned. Only the men are. A thn rattan cane is soaked in water overnight, and a single lash applied by a martial arts expert. It then proceeds at one lash a day so that the convicted person gets to savour each individual lash in its glorious entirety.
Not sure about the Malaysian way, but am given to understand that women are not caned on the buttocks, but on their palms or calves.
Religions should be banned. Religious nutters should be caned using switches with embedded nails.
I'm pushed to see the difference, she could get 3 years for alcohol, but it's really not a major drug, or come to the UK and get done for 'lethal' pot, just because Brown doesn't know what he's talking about.
Neither drug is particular major, and pot is the lesser of the two.
Doesn't stop Brown wasting money on TV propaganda pretending it's more dangerous than it really is though. Just ask Frank, certainly, don't go on the science of anything like that...
Would this mean that the choice is given to each individual, or is Muslim/non-Muslim decided for you?
In Malaysia (and probably other Islamic countries, but Malaysia is the only one I've lived in) once a muslim, always a muslim - there was recently a landmark case where a woman who'd converted for marriage was allowed to de-convert but that was a huge deal and very special circumstances.
If you're muslim, you are under the sharia laws, and that means no staying in a hotel together out of wedlock, no drinking etc. Cherating is a holiday area (they even have a club 18-30!) and I would suspect that the government is annoyed at something, so having a nice, public crackdown.
A few relevant points
1. She was offered the chance to appeal; she chose not to.
2. She's asked for the sentence to be carried out in public.
3. She's stated she agrees with the punishment.
3. The judge has given the same sentence to several men (who have generally appealed).
4. Despite everyone's lubricious fantasies, the caning is carried out while the person punished is fully clothed.
5. The caning is not allowed to break the skin.
http://tinyurl.com/m9ecz8, http://tinyurl.com/lcb4y2, http://tinyurl.com/n9b26w for more background. A lot more heat is being generated about this than it seems to warrant, or that I suspect it would cause if it wasn't happening to a pretty woman in a nasty foreign Muslim country.
Something up your sleeve
When beating women, these religionists have to hold a copy of their 'Glorious' book in their armpit to moderate the stroke. Truly, how 'merciful'.
"...On one hand, she was a practicing Muslim following Muslim law, and knew that drinking alcohol was illegal. She knew full well that she would be tried as a Muslim if caught..."
One could argue that she has no choice but be a practicing Muslim, or else.
And, law-wise, how do international laws work in a case such as this?
It's going to happen
Another great PR coup...
... for the forces of moderate Islam. Beer in Malaysia not only make your head hurt in the morning, but your bottom too.
It's a lot more complicated
1) The Koran says nothing about punishment for drinking alcohol. While it's seen as something Not Good, the Muslim good book considers it to be more a personal matter between the sinner and God.
2) Sisters in Islam, a Malaysian women's Muslim group, has condemned the practice as "cruel and inhuman" and has urged the woman in question, several times, to appeal the decision. With the Koran on their side, there's a good chance the ruling may be mitigated, if not reversed. The woman doesn't want to.
3) The govt. (not the Islamic court) has also tried to give the woman an "out" by suggesting appeal avenues, jail terms (which will, in all probability, quietly melt away to a quick shoo out the door after a couple of months).
4) No man has been caned for alcohol consumption in the past few years; this woman is the first.
So, bearing all the above in mind, why is the woman wanting to go through with it? Only she knows.
Most of the world is shite...
and run by misogynistic men. I think the only reasonable remedy to this issue is to have all the women who live under these conditions move to those parts of the world where women aren't punished for having fun.
"In their religous faith it is a sin to consume alcohol. Chrisitanity has its own crazy practices and you have no right to judge anyone elses."
Yes - Christianity has its own crazy practices, and they deserve to be treated with exactly the same contempt as the crazy Muslim practices.
Barbarians, all of them.
Fair do's - I was proven wrong regarding the States being Christian, but the UK certainly is a Christian country (dating WAY back, past the Tudors etc. but at the moment is recognised as a CofE (Church of England) country). I just assumed (I know - ass, you me etc.) the US was - my bad!
re: It's a lot more complicated
More complicated, and actually a bit more humourous. I'm not sure if booze shows up in the Koran at all, but it does get a look in in the Hadiths (the sayings and doings of the Prophet), and seems a bit more practical than religious (in 7th century terms, when no-one would be hanging out with an array of weapons). It goes something like this:
Some people from a neighbouring tribe came to see Mohammed, with a complaint about a tribe of unbelievers that had been giving them a hard time. They asked Mohammed for a solution. He told them to do four things and avoid four things. Thie first four were the obvious; pray etc. The no-nos included green coloured jars and the hollowed out stumps of palm trees, which he went on to explain were the root of their problems:
Mohammed: "Do you put dates in the hollowed out palm stumps?"
Tribesmen: "Yes, we do"
Mohammed: "And do you then sprinkle water on them?"
Tribesmen: "....errrm yes"
Mohammed: "And after the fermentation has ended do you drink it?"
Tribesmen (a bit sheepish by now as they could see where this was heading): "Perhaps occasionally have the odd swifty, yes."
Mohammed: "And do you end up so intoxicated that one of you belts one of his cousins with his sword?"
Tribesmen ( now totally embarrassed, not least as one of their number had been hiding shamefaced from the Prophet a leg injured in just this way after a particularly heavy session of stump-guzzling): "Funny you should mention it..."
Mohammed: "Can you see where I'm going with this...?"
He then gives them a brief lecture about using water skins tied with string at the neck (even if the rats do nibble them) instead of gourds, green coloured jars, palm stumps etc.
I imagine dry gourds and green coloured jars may well also be a caning offence in Malaysia.
Paris, wouldn't be a big hit in 7th century Arabia
@SisterClamp & Serum
It is indeed very complicated. From what I hear on the grapevine, there are three more of these cases due in the next few weeks. A lot of the furore seems to be that it's generally only women that are being picked up for public consumption of alcohol. No-one's going after the Datuks who drive home pissed as cunts after a bottle of Johnnie Walker, or the Saudis, Kuwaitis, et al teeming in KL's bars, all drinking merrily away. Case in point, I was discussing finer points of Islamic thought just last week in my local in KL with a Saudi guy, who self-identified as Wahabi. He happily troughed through a few pints of Tiger as we talked.
@James81, it is generating a lot of heat here in Malaysia as well, coming only a week or two after the religious police in Shah Alam confiscated all of a 7-11's stock of beer, despite the fact that the local municipal bodies (ie secular) had no authority to pass that sort of legislation, nor to greenlight the raid. The Selangor state authorities forced them to hand the beer back.
I know about five Muslims in this country who I know don't drink, and two of them are my kids. My wife, if we're out having a drink somewhere, is liable to be pulled up for this bullshit, despite not being Malaysian, so this is an issue that affects me VERY personally.
China Miéville, in his fascinating book 'Perdido Street Station', refers to a group of people/creatures who really have only one punishable crime - 'Choice Theft'. Quite a novel (no pun) concept.. For example stealing something from someone also steals that person's choice to have and use the item. Killing someone is effectively stealing that person's choice to live. The concept can be applied to almost any situation: Mugging steals the victim's choice about keeping their money; Noisy neighbours steal their neighbours' rights to peace and quiet. Penalties for infringement were related to the significance of the crime but were generally severe.
Try it on any crime or act you wish - it certainly provokes thought.
Why stop there?
Lets refuse to trade with...
Spain - They kill bulls for "sport"
France - Thet eat horses don't they
USA - Guanatamo (OK its closed now)
Japan - Whale hunting
Germany - Who needs a reason
Israel - Palestinians persecution
Turkey - Human rights violations
Err.. This might leave us a bit isolated
@QuiteEvilGraham & Sarah Bee
"Any laws (or other conventions) which proscribe anything which doesn't cause actual harm to another person (and to hell with offended senses of propriety or morals) are going to lead to crap like that described in the article."
Dude, where I completely disagree with corporal punishment and personally believe this sentence to be abhorrent I must pick you up on the absolutely absurd statement suggesting that alcohol consumption doesn't cause actual harm to another person.
Seriously, most of us here will drink to some extent but hands up anyone who can honestly say they have drunk alcohol and *never* taken an action that has caused actual harm (or indeed serious risk of harm which is pretty much as bad) to another, whether it is driving whilst impaired, fighting, hurtfully mouthing off at loved ones (mental harm is also bad, mmmkay?) or just accidentally walking into people/hitting them whilst flailing around pissed on the dance floor or whatever.
Not to mention the assorted problems that go with alcoholism and dependency.
@Sarah Bee RE: Islam is kind of one of those all-or-nothing things
Actually this is a very common misconception.
There are many degrees of Islam the same way as there are many degrees of Christianity (etc.) - much of the rules attributed to Islam have nothing to do with the Qu'aran or The Prophet Muhammed pbuh but instead have been put in place by political leaders over the years as a way of strengthening their power.
Interestingly enough, and worthy of debate is the comparison between "accepted" Christianity and the word of the Bible versus "accepted" Islam and the word of the Qu'aran. Where I use "accepted" to mean the typical perception of said religion.
If you read the Bible it clearly proscribes a great many things which western "Christian" nations have chosen to ignore whereas the Qu'aran clearly gives a great many rights / benefits that hard-line Islamic states have elected to withdraw.
For a good comparison look at the differences in the way the Bible treats women versus the way the Qu'aran treats women:
Bible: Eve is responsible for Adam eating the forbidden fruit
Qu'aran: Adam and Eve jointly responsible for said eating transgression
B: Women punished for ever (childbirth) for Eve's transgression
Q: Adam and Eve both forgiven for the appley faux pas
B: It is OK for a man to rape a virgin as long as he pays her father and marries her
Q: WTF? Seriosuly? Rape OK? on what fucking planet?
And there are many more examples such as these. Really to call authorities that do things like caning people "Islamic" makes as much sense as calling North Korea "Democratic" or the crusades "Christian"
Sorry for the rant, carry on.
@ C Rogers
The Reg still the best place to find eggcorns.
Thanks for "free reign".
<<but hands up anyone who can honestly say they have drunk alcohol and *never* taken an action that has caused actual harm....>>
Totally agree. That's how I met my missus. THAT'S actual harm!*
<<.....whilst flailing around pissed on the dance floor or whatever>>
You bet. Flailing around? I'm 53 - years old, and on Senior's Dance Nite, I can't even _see_ the other coffin-dodgers, let alone miss them. I must've put dozens into intensive care.
*Where did you meet your missus? On a prayer mat in Finsbury Park Mosque? Or do you play chess a lot?
My 4 wives were arranged for me by close family. I met them on our respective wedding days. We were all completely sober, or at least I was and their eyes didn't seem bloodshot or anything.
The tall one's father has a nice run of shops, the feisty one comes from a family of doctors, the older one is a really good cook and I think the other one used to be good at something or other, though I can't remember what. I am sure it'll come to me.
Never be seen dead in Finsbury Park Mosque, fucking liberal pussies.
@ Steve Swann
Nicely restrained rebuke for that "northern monkey" laddie.
I spent two years in newly independent Malaysia after it emerged from years of terrorist atrocities inflicted by political extremists. Sad to see that beautiful country now sliding backwards into the control of religious extremists who will soon reduce the country to to the same level of anarchy we are witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Extremism in all its forms, religious, political and economic, is always configured against the interests of the majority and to the benefit of a very small minority. For evidence look no further than the economic lunacy of deregulated and unrestrained free markets. However, you can console yourself with the knowledge that you will benefit from what the economic extremists call the "trickle down effect". Bit like the suicide bombers who are promised the consolation of 27 virgins.
'...Spain - They kill bulls for "sport..."'
Well, no: we kill them for "art" and manliness' sake.
And half of us would like this idiocy prohibited, because of what it says about us. Also, we've had seven deaths, including a minor's, quite recently. We crucify driving under the influence but then when an idiot gets trampled by a bull we homage him and declare a birthplace-wide mourning day. Pure Darwin Awards material.
You're forgetting the US and their insistence that someone who did the digital equivalent of walking into a house through and unlocked door get serious jail time as a terrorist -- they're also the ones who find it fun to let their prisoners enjoy something called "waterboarding". Or the UK where you can be jailed for picking mushrooms out of the ground and making tea with them -- they also like to jail you here if you're forgotten your password.
@Max Jalil & @Lee & @Cameron Colley
"even though [e] is safer and has far less negative physical and social impact than drink"
That's true - there was a debate on where some Lord or MP was trying to get e lagalised, and his arguement was something like 20 people die a year in the UK due to e alone, yet 100 people die a year in the UK due to horse riding...
@Lee - all I can say is "lol"! :D
The drink goes to Cameron for his excellent ideas regarding wild mushrooms :D
Just want to add some facts that were left out of the article or ignored by the commenters.
*The part time model is from Singapore and was visiting Malaysia. She is Muslim, married with 2 kids.
*She pleaded guilty and has paid the fine. She WANTS the caning to be carried out in public to call attention to her belief that 'The law is a little bit wrong'
*The recipient is fully clothed and the flogger cannot raise his arm high. The blows are delivered using a thin stick, so that they don't break the skin.
*The law forbidding alcohol applies only to Muslims, who make up about 60 percent of the population. The country's Buddhist, Christian or Hindu population can drink freely.
*Malaysia's civil court does not call for caning for alcohol consumption only the Shariah court does.
You owe me a new keyboard, sunshine. Or, at least the feisty wife. (Same value, I reckon..)
10 points!!! :-) Oh, and Finsbury Park Mosque? I'll be hooked if I go there, too...
Dude, I did make a point by saying actual harm. Consumption of whatever is not an excuse.
But there must be millions of people who have a drunk, smoke, inject and harm no-one.
Paris - who does she hurt?
I think you need to be clearer in what you mean. Literally your statement reads "alcohol harms no-one except the person taking it" which is clearly not correct.
Read your initial post in a neutral manner and you will see what I mean.
However I stick by my assertion that no-one who drinks on at least a semi-regular basis has *never* committed a reprehensible act due at least in part to the alcohol partaken.
To clear some possible misconceptions:
I am not Muslim.
I was not brough up Muslim.
I am not actually a believer in anything other than what we as humans make for ourselves.
I do not have 4 wives.
The feisty one is actually up for grabs if someone makes me a decent offer though.
I do drink alcohol. Occasional I drink to excess. The rest of the time I drink way more than that.
I do not condone corporal punishment at all.
However i have little sympathy for those who break well known laws of countries they are in.
In short this means I think the drinking woman is stupid and deserves punishment, but that punishment should be civilised and not include whipping and buttocks in teh same sentence.
But mainly I have a problem with people assuming that a bunch of fucking lunatics who are out to oppress people in the [convenient] name of religion X are in some way indicative and authoritative for teh rest of religion X.
The problem here is people taking their own values and projecting them on others. You may have no problem with alcohol but many groups do. I am pretty sure there are legitimate groups out there that happily accept practices you find repulsive but I assume [hopefully wrongly] that you would have no sympathy with them if they came over to your town, committed their acts and then were prosecuted for doing so.
The feisty one is yours as long as I get to take photos.
You English swine
Not so long ago you went in for the practice of beating children (usually male) at school.
mmm, they did that here in NZ when I was a school a mere 60 years ago.
"The woman broke the law, it was a stupid law but she was aware of it's existence when she so publicly ignored it."
So why was it on sale ? Is that not entrapement ? Should the seller not also be guilty of an offence?
"If you were caught anally invading a 14 year old Malaysian boy you may have countless defenses as to why it's a stupid law, doesn't change the opinion of the majority."
So the state lining the little boys up in a bar and offering a service is OK, but anyone actually participating would be wrong ?
I think you need to re-think your stance on this particular case.
I agree customs and religious beliefs should be respected in other cultures, but entrapement by the state is a different matter. And I think you'll find Amnesty International agrees!
@AC Is that not entrapement (sic)?
No it's not.
You can't spell it and you don't know what it means, but that doesn't stop you being a patronising little cock. Go away.
Still here? Consider that alcohol and cigarettes are on sale in shops in the UK, and that minors are allowed in these shops, but aren't allowed to buy them. Have Amnesty cottoned on to this scandal? No? You should probably let them know.
Only applies to Muslims
Please note that Islamic laws in Malaysia are only applicable to Muslims. They do not apply to other groups like Chinese, Hindus etc. In this case the model is a Malaysian Muslim (though she lives in Singapore was back to see her family). Its obvious eh knew the law and still transgressed and she is happy to get the punishment to be over and done with.
Incidently this applies to toursists as well. If you are a non-Muslim and visit Malaysia, you can happily drink alcohol and sleep with other women/men. However, any Muslim visiting Malaysia may not drink alcohol in Sharia controlled states. Also they cannot sleep with anyone who is not their wife/husband (this applies to whole of Malaysia).
btw this is not entrapment. The alcohol is widely available so that other ethnic groups and tourists can buy it. Malaysia is not a totally dry country.
Somone mentioned Dubai. There you can drink acohol in hotels only. You cannot drink in public nor be drunk outside. Thats mainly for the tourists. But have you seen a local Dubai arab drink? Naaaaarrrrr!!!!
By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 20th August 2009 12:03 GMT
*edit for yawns*
Yes, ASBOs are little deterrence, but meeting violence and anti-social behavior with more violence? Surely there's a better, more civilised way.
Ship the buggers off to the new territory? Iraqistan
I like your thinking !!!!!
have you noticed that whilst punishments have become more & more liberal, with the need for reform & rehabilitation, the crimes being committed are becoming more & more violent and frequent.
could be a coincidence ... just saying
oh, and to the grammar police, GET A LIFE !
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Justin Bieber BEGGED for a $200k RIM JOB – and got REJECTED
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Review Bigger on the inside: WD’s Tardis-like Black² Dual Drive laptop disk
- Inside Steve Ballmer’s fondleslab rear-guard action