I've been in this business for 30 years. How long have you been operating your own consulting firm? How many competitors do you have to be price competitive with?
Grow up and join the real world.
The only place you can get consultants for less than $150 per hour are from India and that is for remote support only.
Rather than be a smart aleck, what would you do if: you warned the customer's about the specific viruses they're getting hit with, your warned them of the insufficiency of their current antivirus, you repeatedly told them that we have to upgrade from Outlook Express to a real email program, you warn that they need a much more reliable and secure email server with modern filtering capabilities, and they refuse to acquiesce to any of those recommendations?
Would you take it upon yourself, an outside consultant, to purchase licenses for them, and then go to each workstation and perform the necessary upgrades/changes without management approval on your time and your dime? I highly doubt it.
The one thing I've learned in this business is that people with unlimited funds will do the above without question. The other 90% of businesses operate on shoe-string budgets and will gladly pay the fireman fee if and when a problem arises but don't want the business upset of having to overhaul anything or the "unnecessary" costs.
I'll put that in my morning memo: "Please Note: An anonymous coward on the internet will be glad to replace my 20 years of working with your company and 30 years of experience with setups exactly as yours with his own home spun bargain basement virus repair. I'll gladly repair them when he is finished".
First, my hourly rate is cheap when compared with the rest of the industry averaging $250/hour. But never mind that, how exactly do you expect to run virus scans (60-120 minutes), apply supposed fixes (60 minutes), re-run scans to see if fixes worked (60-120), backup user data and email (30-60 minutes), reformat and reinstall windows (60-120 minutes depending on the speed of the machine), download updates (60-120 minutes), install SP3 (60 minutes), download more updates (60-120 minutes), reinstall antivirus software (30-45 minutes), MS Office (30 minutes), office updates (30-90 minutes), reinstall other applications and printer connections (60-120 minutes), restore user data (60-120 minutes). That's 10 items, most of which all take over an hour. You have to also remember that in a typical office, most people are still running XP on P4 or CoreDuo machines with 1g memory and the slowest hard drives money could buy. Granted they could just buy a new machine. Than have me remove the bloatware, reinstall their applications and reconfigure to work in their custom networking environment.
Now that I've given a sane answer, here's the smart ass answer: I understand why you are called the logic assassin, you are completely devoid of any. Moron!
If they are including spyware/virus in their "cybercrime" definition, the numbers make sense.
Consider this:
I've got a customer who had two of their machines taken out by viruses. At a billable rate of $180/hour, it took approximately 10-12 hours to try the cleaning solutions (which of course did not work) and then reformat and reinstall Windows and the five-million updates to updates to updates. So that's just two occurrences in one week costing the client $4,000.00 for actions due in large part to whoever it was that sent the virus to them in the first place (bogus PDF attachment). This was just for this week. Annually they probably have 3-4 incidents like this per month at a company of just over 50 people. You could point the finger at the bonehead who opened the attachment or the non-functioning antivirus software, but the root cause was the sending of the virus in the first place. Doing the math, that's $2000*4*12 or $96,000.00 not including the costs of the antivirus software and other preventative measures which need to be taken.
Just the annual cost for this one company alone could justify extrapolating the seemingly over-inflated costs of cybercrime.
And who is it that created the dev system used by these "incompetent" "programmers"? 90% of.NET code that actually executes on computers belongs to MS and "programmers" just sort of fill in the blanks. Not to mention that MS still allows an App to reinstall major OS libraries as part of their runtime installation (e.g. replacing the critical MSVCRT*.DLL libraries sometimes with one two years older than was installed because the developer is using the old version of the DevSoftware because they can't afford or refuse to upgrade to the latest and greatest). BTW, doesn't R&D mean Reverse-Engineer And Disassemble in Microsoft parlance?
As for faked spam, I received a letter from Microsoft informing me that I won the Microsoft Sweepstakes. If "Sent By Yahoo Android" is believable then perhaps I actually am a millionaire:)
If the UI is the part of the OS that is crashing, then yes, a new UI will be a great update. However, as is usually the case with MS, adding a new UI when the base OS is crashing, is simply putting perfume on a turd.
And nowhere did it say in TFA that only people who have objective facts should respond to this post
And BTW, you question my experience? I'm 47 years old and have been programming for well over 30 years, and have experience with Microsoft as a company from their BASIC on paper tape days and I feel that their products are bloated, bug-ridden and antiquated junk with a really cool paint job, I've said previously that I have experience, both programming and as an end-user with 5,6 & 6.5. And my beef with Windows Phone is that my perception is that it is a piece of crap. So for that reason, I will not buy a Windows Phone phone, I will not program for a Windows Phone phone, I will not recommend a Windows Phone phone and I will provide my experience with previous versions to perspective customer's as evidence as to what kind of crap to expect from a Windows Phone phone in the future. I will always feel they're products are junk, until Microsoft themselves create something, from scratch, that is worth my time and money. I support their garbage on a daily basis because they have lot's of marketing money and in turn I have lot's of customers requiring support (most of them in fact), but I don't have to spend my money on any of it nor am I required by any laws of the slashdot gods to tow the party line.
1. To sync with Windows 7 on the desktop and ride in the wake on its success.
Thanks for making one of my points.
2. Because the kernel is still Windows CE, and was originally intended to be 7.0 (it ended up being a fork that's midway between CE 6.x and 7.0)
The only forking going on is the back door job Microsoft marketing people are trying to do with the phone buying public.
And you keep evading my main premise that on a Windows based phone THE PHONE APP CRASHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Finally, who made you the SlashDot cop? Do yourself a favor and STFU before the entire world recognizes you for what you are.
TFA was "What's your beef with Windows Phone?". If the beef is that "previous versions sucked and I'm not even going to bother with Windows Phone 7", then that's their beef. Just because you think WP7 is a new O/S, don't spout off at folks just because they differ in their opinion. And by the way, if Windows Phone 7 is so new and different why is it Windows Phone SEVEN (a notch up from 6.5) and not Windows Phone 1.
That's just like saying that Windows XP was new simply because they called it XP (or Vista or Windows 7 or Windows 8 for that matter) instead of NT, which is what all they are. UI changes do not a new os make.
Why is it no matter what I post there is always a member of the peanut gallery with an asinine response?
What else do I have to judge WP7 by? Purchase another crap phone to test it? Not going to happen my friend.
I used and wrote programs for WinMo 5, 6, 6.5.........All junk, IMHO! Three strikes, they're out! Not going to waste any more time on their new UI written to their new API which is probably just an additional layer to the previous API which is another layer to the previous API and so on and so on. Android and IOS have proven to be far superior and modern and Microsoft is well.............Microsoft, LOL. I wrote a program with Microsoft's API to pull up a dialog with a folder listing, all correct parameters, BSOD. How am I supposed to fix my code when the stinking API crashes when somebody sneezes? If MS wants to continue to be relevant, they need to stop putting patches on patches on patches on patches and write some modern code, compatibility be damned. What I'd like to see in the latest dictionary is: deprecated: no longer relevant (i.e. Microsoft Operating Systems have been deprecated).
Unless you have physical proof it is completely rewritten, all I have to go on is MS' reputation. And on that note all I have to say is Metro
Seriously, when has Microsoft written any code from scratch? Everything since their humble beginnings acquiring DOS has been a bastardization of someone else's code. Why on earth would you thing they rewrote the Phone app? I bet you all the tea in China that it's the same POS with a new coat of paint on it.
And never mind all of that, The stinking >>>PHONE APP CRASHES IN THREE VERSIONS<<<!!!!! Why in God's name would I spend any more money to see whether they fixed it or not? They are no longer relevant and are trying to play catch-up. Great for them, though, not with my stinking money.
Wave hello to Bill for me on your way back to your cubicle.
which was running 6.5 was replaced with Android Frodo thanks to the talent and generosity of the folks at xda-developers.com. Granted it was still not the speediest demon, but at least the phone app didn't crash as was typical with MS' garbage. I think they forgot that the device is first and foremost a phone.
Just sayin.........
Who do I see about getting my freaking 20 minutes back and the fee for my dogs' vet visit for their hearing being bugged by this moron listening to digital data that sounds like my old CoCo tapes. The point could have been made in a two paragraph article. The only thing viral about this video is the effect on the viewer.....headache, earache, chills.
Actually it's not the competition as much as the ability of a large corporation to lose a ton of money in killing the competition because they know they'll make up for it once the competition is gone. There was an interesting article a few weeks ago here on slashdot about a Euro country ( don't remember which) taking Google to court over offering google maps for free and the country assumed that google would start charging for the maps service (they already started in some cases) once the existing businesses charging for similar services are no longer able to keep their lights on.
It's my contention that this is exactly what AT&T & Verizon have done.
You're kind of picking nits though. Their use of the term 'unlimited' has certain implications that may actually negate parts of the contract that are in conflict with those implied terms of service. Such as while there is no guarantee of a certain amount of speed 100% of the time, there is a guarantee that the company would not purposely degrade your service simply for using it.
If they wanted the ability to throttle a customer's throughput, it should have been spelled out in the contract. The reason they did not is that it would have put a limit on their "unlimited" service. The bean counters made a choice that any lawsuit would be less costly than losing customers for lack of having an unlimited plan. The only difference between this and what Ford did with the Pinto is that nobody will probably die from having their internet throttled.
I completely agree with you on your point. But.....
They should not have marketed and sold unlimited accounts offering the 100/100/100 knowing full well they could not provide that. If I were to sell you a car that you can take anywhere for $10,000, sign a contract and take your money only for you to find that the car is a matchbox, I'd probably go to jail.
They know their capacity better than any of us. If we know they could not provide this type of service, I'm sure they knew this as well and IMHO feel that they have defrauded their customers and should have some cost for that fraud. I can guarantee that the average non-techie user has no clue about the limitation/cost. All they know is that they signed up for unlimited access and expect it to be unlimited. Anything else is......well, limited.
They knowingly and willingly over sold their infrastructure (bait) and now that customers are trying to use the service they signed up for, their service is being throttled (switch). Period.
The real truth here is that they offered services which they knew they could not provide and rather than do the correct thing and increase their infrastructure capacity, they opted to increase shareholder profits and to purchase the other smaller companies who were coerced into selling selling off their business for lack of ability to compete with the unlimited plans. Now that they have a large percentage of the market share, their strategy is to punish the customer that they probably wouldn't even have if it was not for the unlimited plans. Basically they gambled that customers would not utilize the service and lost. However, unlike when we get our pockets emptied at a casino, they're somehow able to pawn their losses on the customers.
I couldn't imagine a more clear example of a ponzi scheme than this.
My whole fucking post was about my fucking research you fucking fucktard. I don't give a fuck what any site you have to fucking offer has to say as I've had my fill of retarded fucking view talking to your dumb ass.
Retard!!!
Your problem is that you didn't present any facts, just your sooooooo obviously uninformed opinion and then called me a retard you cock sucking mother fucking child. Preset just one fucking fact to prove your fucking point or go back and bother the people on IRC you little fucking child.
Lurkmore? CamTran? You website is a veritable cornucopia of helpful information. It's so high-tech, vi took almost 1 second to load your html. Maybe should have your vim.
The minimum legal age of marriage is not where the problem is. With parental consent, you can get married at 15 years old, pretty much anywhere in the world. The problem is that divorce is legal, too easily attainable and way too favourable to women (it's not the 50s anymore!), giving women the ability to do the following:
>Marry
> stay thin so she can fuck as many guys as she can
> While she's at home, making her husband's daily life as shit as possible
> Divorce
> She takes all of the guy's money
> She's still thin, she still fucks tons of guys
>> Possible final stage a) Living off of her ex-husband for the rest of her life
>> Possible final stage b) She gets married, her ex-husband finds out, goes to court and loses, he now has to pay more
>> Possible final stage c) She gets married, her ex-husband finds out, goes to court and wins, he no longer has to pay (very unlikely)
>> Possible final stage d) She meets someone that she says she loves, they both live off of her ex-husband for the rest of her life; she still fucks other guys
> Ex-husband can never move on with his life, can never get a better job, will very likely lose everything he has and live like a turd, will not be able to marry because his new wife will now be paying for his ex-wife, can only be saved if he can prove that his ex-wife is married.
This is the real problem with marriage.
A mysoginist and a retard. I learn more and more about you on every post. I'm not sure about marriage, but you sure do make a good case for abortion, pinhead
Slashdot Mirror
............or Craigslist.....LOL.
Agreed! Unfortunately not my call.
I've been in this business for 30 years. How long have you been operating your own consulting firm? How many competitors do you have to be price competitive with?
Grow up and join the real world.
The only place you can get consultants for less than $150 per hour are from India and that is for remote support only.
Why should the fire me?
Rather than be a smart aleck, what would you do if: you warned the customer's about the specific viruses they're getting hit with, your warned them of the insufficiency of their current antivirus, you repeatedly told them that we have to upgrade from Outlook Express to a real email program, you warn that they need a much more reliable and secure email server with modern filtering capabilities, and they refuse to acquiesce to any of those recommendations?
Would you take it upon yourself, an outside consultant, to purchase licenses for them, and then go to each workstation and perform the necessary upgrades/changes without management approval on your time and your dime? I highly doubt it.
The one thing I've learned in this business is that people with unlimited funds will do the above without question. The other 90% of businesses operate on shoe-string budgets and will gladly pay the fireman fee if and when a problem arises but don't want the business upset of having to overhaul anything or the "unnecessary" costs.
I'll put that in my morning memo: "Please Note: An anonymous coward on the internet will be glad to replace my 20 years of working with your company and 30 years of experience with setups exactly as yours with his own home spun bargain basement virus repair. I'll gladly repair them when he is finished".
First, my hourly rate is cheap when compared with the rest of the industry averaging $250/hour. But never mind that, how exactly do you expect to run virus scans (60-120 minutes), apply supposed fixes (60 minutes), re-run scans to see if fixes worked (60-120), backup user data and email (30-60 minutes), reformat and reinstall windows (60-120 minutes depending on the speed of the machine), download updates (60-120 minutes), install SP3 (60 minutes), download more updates (60-120 minutes), reinstall antivirus software (30-45 minutes), MS Office (30 minutes), office updates (30-90 minutes), reinstall other applications and printer connections (60-120 minutes), restore user data (60-120 minutes). That's 10 items, most of which all take over an hour. You have to also remember that in a typical office, most people are still running XP on P4 or CoreDuo machines with 1g memory and the slowest hard drives money could buy. Granted they could just buy a new machine. Than have me remove the bloatware, reinstall their applications and reconfigure to work in their custom networking environment.
Now that I've given a sane answer, here's the smart ass answer: I understand why you are called the logic assassin, you are completely devoid of any. Moron!
If they are including spyware/virus in their "cybercrime" definition, the numbers make sense.
Consider this:
I've got a customer who had two of their machines taken out by viruses. At a billable rate of $180/hour, it took approximately 10-12 hours to try the cleaning solutions (which of course did not work) and then reformat and reinstall Windows and the five-million updates to updates to updates. So that's just two occurrences in one week costing the client $4,000.00 for actions due in large part to whoever it was that sent the virus to them in the first place (bogus PDF attachment). This was just for this week. Annually they probably have 3-4 incidents like this per month at a company of just over 50 people. You could point the finger at the bonehead who opened the attachment or the non-functioning antivirus software, but the root cause was the sending of the virus in the first place. Doing the math, that's $2000*4*12 or $96,000.00 not including the costs of the antivirus software and other preventative measures which need to be taken.
Just the annual cost for this one company alone could justify extrapolating the seemingly over-inflated costs of cybercrime.
And who is it that created the dev system used by these "incompetent" "programmers"? 90% of .NET code that actually executes on computers belongs to MS and "programmers" just sort of fill in the blanks. Not to mention that MS still allows an App to reinstall major OS libraries as part of their runtime installation (e.g. replacing the critical MSVCRT*.DLL libraries sometimes with one two years older than was installed because the developer is using the old version of the DevSoftware because they can't afford or refuse to upgrade to the latest and greatest). BTW, doesn't R&D mean Reverse-Engineer And Disassemble in Microsoft parlance?
As for faked spam, I received a letter from Microsoft informing me that I won the Microsoft Sweepstakes. If "Sent By Yahoo Android" is believable then perhaps I actually am a millionaire :)
/troll
If the UI is the part of the OS that is crashing, then yes, a new UI will be a great update. However, as is usually the case with MS, adding a new UI when the base OS is crashing, is simply putting perfume on a turd.
And nowhere did it say in TFA that only people who have objective facts should respond to this post
And BTW, you question my experience? I'm 47 years old and have been programming for well over 30 years, and have experience with Microsoft as a company from their BASIC on paper tape days and I feel that their products are bloated, bug-ridden and antiquated junk with a really cool paint job, I've said previously that I have experience, both programming and as an end-user with 5,6 & 6.5. And my beef with Windows Phone is that my perception is that it is a piece of crap. So for that reason, I will not buy a Windows Phone phone, I will not program for a Windows Phone phone, I will not recommend a Windows Phone phone and I will provide my experience with previous versions to perspective customer's as evidence as to what kind of crap to expect from a Windows Phone phone in the future. I will always feel they're products are junk, until Microsoft themselves create something, from scratch, that is worth my time and money. I support their garbage on a daily basis because they have lot's of marketing money and in turn I have lot's of customers requiring support (most of them in fact), but I don't have to spend my money on any of it nor am I required by any laws of the slashdot gods to tow the party line.
1. To sync with Windows 7 on the desktop and ride in the wake on its success.
Thanks for making one of my points.
2. Because the kernel is still Windows CE, and was originally intended to be 7.0 (it ended up being a fork that's midway between CE 6.x and 7.0)
The only forking going on is the back door job Microsoft marketing people are trying to do with the phone buying public.
And you keep evading my main premise that on a Windows based phone THE PHONE APP CRASHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Finally, who made you the SlashDot cop? Do yourself a favor and STFU before the entire world recognizes you for what you are.
TFA was "What's your beef with Windows Phone?". If the beef is that "previous versions sucked and I'm not even going to bother with Windows Phone 7", then that's their beef. Just because you think WP7 is a new O/S, don't spout off at folks just because they differ in their opinion. And by the way, if Windows Phone 7 is so new and different why is it Windows Phone SEVEN (a notch up from 6.5) and not Windows Phone 1.
That's just like saying that Windows XP was new simply because they called it XP (or Vista or Windows 7 or Windows 8 for that matter) instead of NT, which is what all they are. UI changes do not a new os make.
Just sayin.....
No more food for the troll here./troll
Why is it no matter what I post there is always a member of the peanut gallery with an asinine response?
What else do I have to judge WP7 by? Purchase another crap phone to test it? Not going to happen my friend.
I used and wrote programs for WinMo 5, 6, 6.5.........All junk, IMHO! Three strikes, they're out! Not going to waste any more time on their new UI written to their new API which is probably just an additional layer to the previous API which is another layer to the previous API and so on and so on. Android and IOS have proven to be far superior and modern and Microsoft is well.............Microsoft, LOL. I wrote a program with Microsoft's API to pull up a dialog with a folder listing, all correct parameters, BSOD. How am I supposed to fix my code when the stinking API crashes when somebody sneezes? If MS wants to continue to be relevant, they need to stop putting patches on patches on patches on patches and write some modern code, compatibility be damned. What I'd like to see in the latest dictionary is: deprecated: no longer relevant (i.e. Microsoft Operating Systems have been deprecated).
Unless you have physical proof it is completely rewritten, all I have to go on is MS' reputation. And on that note all I have to say is Metro
Seriously, when has Microsoft written any code from scratch? Everything since their humble beginnings acquiring DOS has been a bastardization of someone else's code. Why on earth would you thing they rewrote the Phone app? I bet you all the tea in China that it's the same POS with a new coat of paint on it.
And never mind all of that, The stinking >>>PHONE APP CRASHES IN THREE VERSIONS<<<!!!!! Why in God's name would I spend any more money to see whether they fixed it or not? They are no longer relevant and are trying to play catch-up. Great for them, though, not with my stinking money.
Wave hello to Bill for me on your way back to your cubicle.
which was running 6.5 was replaced with Android Frodo thanks to the talent and generosity of the folks at xda-developers.com. Granted it was still not the speediest demon, but at least the phone app didn't crash as was typical with MS' garbage. I think they forgot that the device is first and foremost a phone. Just sayin.........
Couldn't agree more.
Who do I see about getting my freaking 20 minutes back and the fee for my dogs' vet visit for their hearing being bugged by this moron listening to digital data that sounds like my old CoCo tapes. The point could have been made in a two paragraph article. The only thing viral about this video is the effect on the viewer.....headache, earache, chills.
What a waste of time, brain cells and bandwidth.
Not one piece of advertising from AT&T said "You can get 10Mbits 100% of the time with no data limit"
Actually, their advertising did offer "Unlimited 3G Service" with lot's of visuals of people watching streaming videos.
Actually it's not the competition as much as the ability of a large corporation to lose a ton of money in killing the competition because they know they'll make up for it once the competition is gone. There was an interesting article a few weeks ago here on slashdot about a Euro country ( don't remember which) taking Google to court over offering google maps for free and the country assumed that google would start charging for the maps service (they already started in some cases) once the existing businesses charging for similar services are no longer able to keep their lights on.
It's my contention that this is exactly what AT&T & Verizon have done.
You're kind of picking nits though. Their use of the term 'unlimited' has certain implications that may actually negate parts of the contract that are in conflict with those implied terms of service. Such as while there is no guarantee of a certain amount of speed 100% of the time, there is a guarantee that the company would not purposely degrade your service simply for using it.
If they wanted the ability to throttle a customer's throughput, it should have been spelled out in the contract. The reason they did not is that it would have put a limit on their "unlimited" service. The bean counters made a choice that any lawsuit would be less costly than losing customers for lack of having an unlimited plan. The only difference between this and what Ford did with the Pinto is that nobody will probably die from having their internet throttled.
I sense a class action in their future.
I completely agree with you on your point. But.....
They should not have marketed and sold unlimited accounts offering the 100/100/100 knowing full well they could not provide that. If I were to sell you a car that you can take anywhere for $10,000, sign a contract and take your money only for you to find that the car is a matchbox, I'd probably go to jail.
They know their capacity better than any of us. If we know they could not provide this type of service, I'm sure they knew this as well and IMHO feel that they have defrauded their customers and should have some cost for that fraud. I can guarantee that the average non-techie user has no clue about the limitation/cost. All they know is that they signed up for unlimited access and expect it to be unlimited. Anything else is......well, limited.
They knowingly and willingly over sold their infrastructure (bait) and now that customers are trying to use the service they signed up for, their service is being throttled (switch). Period.
The real truth here is that they offered services which they knew they could not provide and rather than do the correct thing and increase their infrastructure capacity, they opted to increase shareholder profits and to purchase the other smaller companies who were coerced into selling selling off their business for lack of ability to compete with the unlimited plans. Now that they have a large percentage of the market share, their strategy is to punish the customer that they probably wouldn't even have if it was not for the unlimited plans. Basically they gambled that customers would not utilize the service and lost. However, unlike when we get our pockets emptied at a casino, they're somehow able to pawn their losses on the customers.
I couldn't imagine a more clear example of a ponzi scheme than this.
Actually, once you called me retarded, you lost all credibility. Gripping about it now is just plain too late and you truly are an idiot.
My whole fucking post was about my fucking research you fucking fucktard. I don't give a fuck what any site you have to fucking offer has to say as I've had my fill of retarded fucking view talking to your dumb ass. Retard!!!
Your problem is that you didn't present any facts, just your sooooooo obviously uninformed opinion and then called me a retard you cock sucking mother fucking child. Preset just one fucking fact to prove your fucking point or go back and bother the people on IRC you little fucking child.
Lurkmore? CamTran? You website is a veritable cornucopia of helpful information. It's so high-tech, vi took almost 1 second to load your html. Maybe should have your vim.
You truly are one retarded little troll.
The minimum legal age of marriage is not where the problem is. With parental consent, you can get married at 15 years old, pretty much anywhere in the world. The problem is that divorce is legal, too easily attainable and way too favourable to women (it's not the 50s anymore!), giving women the ability to do the following: >Marry > stay thin so she can fuck as many guys as she can > While she's at home, making her husband's daily life as shit as possible > Divorce > She takes all of the guy's money > She's still thin, she still fucks tons of guys >> Possible final stage a) Living off of her ex-husband for the rest of her life >> Possible final stage b) She gets married, her ex-husband finds out, goes to court and loses, he now has to pay more >> Possible final stage c) She gets married, her ex-husband finds out, goes to court and wins, he no longer has to pay (very unlikely) >> Possible final stage d) She meets someone that she says she loves, they both live off of her ex-husband for the rest of her life; she still fucks other guys > Ex-husband can never move on with his life, can never get a better job, will very likely lose everything he has and live like a turd, will not be able to marry because his new wife will now be paying for his ex-wife, can only be saved if he can prove that his ex-wife is married. This is the real problem with marriage.
A mysoginist and a retard. I learn more and more about you on every post. I'm not sure about marriage, but you sure do make a good case for abortion, pinhead