NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations…

RECOGNIZING that UN Resolution #87, “Repeal ‘Legalize Prostitution’” argues that it is “a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing”;

BELIEVING that matters with deep moral, social and health implications are often best resolved within individual nations through a careful examination of national customs, traditions and health conditions;

and ALSO BELIEVING that no nation should be forced to legalize or ban prostitution if it does not choose to do so,

REPEALS “The Sex Industry Worker Act,” implemented February 6, 2005.

Nations have sovereignty over moral issues. Prostitution is a moral issue. That's the logic here.

Ithania understands the reasons for this repeal however when the advantages and disadvantages are weighed simply could not support this.

If the UN were to revoke “The Sex Industry Worker Act” then in our view some unscrupulous nations would use this to cease the education and social programmes recommended to end prostitution in the resolution (as no doubt those who want it illegal would have started these programmes due to it being the only way to minimise it). Moreover, the “moral” aspect means that the potential for the desperate to be viewed as second class would increase and many societies could potentially conveniently ignore it.

Also I am sure many nations would argue that prostitution is a health and social issue, with morality being a lesser one. Soliciting can be seen as a direct result of the socio-economic hierarchy within societies and a lack of security for the vulnerable therefore must be addressed in the same context from which they are derived, legalisation and regulation was seen by the UN members as the best way to ensure an end to this.

Seeing as a your country obviously believes in national sovereignty so vehemently, surely individual sovereignty must take equal precedence for they are fundamentally the same merely on a different scale.

(snip) Seeing as a your country obviously believes in national sovereignty so vehemently (snip)

No. I may be a member of the NSO and believe in national sovereignty over many moral, health and social issues, I've supported even controversial resolutions like the ill-fated "Citizen Rule Required." Believe me, I'm as much into democracy and individual freedom as I am into national sovereignty.

That said, I cannot see prostitution as a basic human right on the same level as speech, assembly or religion.

Your arguments about sex education are legitimate, but UN Resolution #118, "The Sex Education Act" already covers the necessity of sex education.

I would support a UN effort following the repeal of "The Sex Industry Worker Act" to demand clean and humane conditions for sex workers in nations that choose to legalize prostitution.

Groot Gouda's The Sex Industry Worker Act was designed as a replacement for the Legalize Prostitution resolution *after* it was repealed. I'm sure most nations know that, if not, I should update NSWiki to include that. Though it wasn't originally concieved until the repeal debates, it did actually take into account one of the major arguments presented in the repeal debate:

Health and safety.

Although my government feels that the UN has become more conservative in the past year (which is neither good nor bad ... just an observation), I think that the strong point in this Free Trade resolution is that by regulating prostitution, governments can better protect public health. This is of public health is something that many moderator nations such as my own would like to see addressed in any subject concerning prostitution.

Ithania understands the reasons for this repeal however when the advantages and disadvantages are weighed simply could not support this.

If the UN were to revoke “The Sex Industry Worker Act” then in our view some unscrupulous nations would use this to cease the education and social programmes recommended to end prostitution in the resolution (as no doubt those who want it illegal would have started these programmes due to it being the only way to minimise it). Moreover, the “moral” aspect means that the potential for the desperate to be viewed as second class would increase and many societies could potentially conveniently ignore it.

Don't make me laugh, especially when the subject is so serious. Unscrupulous nations aren't going to wait for a repeal of "The Sex Industry Worker Act" to do as they wish and prevent their people from prostituting themselves. They will already be cutting the funding out from underneath those programs you mentioned, conveniently not enforcing the legalization of prostitution and ignoring the problems, and all sorts of possible loophole abuse.

Also I am sure many nations would argue that prostitution is a health and social issue, with morality being a lesser one. Soliciting can be seen as a direct result of the socio-economic hierarchy within societies and a lack of security for the vulnerable therefore must be addressed in the same context from which they are derived, legalisation and regulation was seen by the UN members as the best way to ensure an end to this.

You might want to let others decide what the relationship between health and social concerns and morality is, instead of taking it upon yourself to make that decision for them.

Seeing as a your country obviously believes in national sovereignty so vehemently, surely individual sovereignty must take equal precedence for they are fundamentally the same merely on a different scale.

Oh sure. Let's start saying the right to self-determination of an individual is just as important, or more so, than the right to self-determination of nations containing billions of people.

Why exactly do you think that makes sense? Because it looks mighty nonsensical to me.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

(snip) I think that the strong point in this Free Trade resolution is that by regulating prostitution, governments can better protect public health. This is of public health is something that many moderator nations such as my own would like to see addressed in any subject concerning prostitution.

Agreed. We also have a legal, and regulated, prostitution industry, and we would be fine with the UN recommending that nations w/ legal prostitution follow strict health guidelines. However, no nation should be forced to accept legal prostitution, especially those with health epidemics related to STDs.

Don't make me laugh, especially when the subject is so serious. Unscrupulous nations aren't going to wait for a repeal of "The Sex Industry Worker Act" to do as they wish and prevent their people from prostituting themselves. They will already be cutting the funding out from underneath those programs you mentioned, conveniently not enforcing the legalization of prostitution and ignoring the problems, and all sorts of possible loophole abuse.

I freely apologise for what clearly seems to have offended you, I was unable to contain my faith in the UN's ability to apply the resolutions passed under it.:rolleyes:

However, while the funding will inevitably be low we feel that there could potentially be some nations which have, for fear of the results of non-compliance, created even the most minimal of programmes which will be lost if this is repealed. If this is repealed there’ll not even be the slightest *incentive* to educate specifically regarding prostitution for those nations so people will be more likely to suffer.

The fact that countless nations will use loopholes is acknowledged, we apologise for the oversight.

You might want to let others decide what the relationship between health and social concerns and morality is, instead of taking it upon yourself to make that decision for them.

I did not state that there was a uniform relationship between them, if you would care to read what I wrote you will notice the use of hedging and modal verbs such as "can" to ensure that no nation believed I was trying to speak for them.

Secondly, I did not use "all", I used "many" and amongst the tens of thousands of members in the UN I am sure that even the smallest number could agree with the hypothetical perspective which was set out.

Moreover the past tense was utilised in reference to the passing of the resolution to clearly indicate that I acknowledge that nation’s views may have changed and that they may now see fit to change that.

Oh sure. Let's start saying the right to self-determination of an individual is just as important, or more so, than the right to self-determination of nations containing billions of people.

Why exactly do you think that makes sense? Because it looks mighty nonsensical to me.

(OOC: I’m of Hobbes’ perspective and an ardent Classical Liberal.)

That view is based upon years of philosophical texts which state that a nation and specifically its government (which the UN effects) is the result of pooled individual sovereignty hence one is derived from the other. In such a case, to us, they are inseparable hence as important as each other.

A nation is simply a gathering of people acting out of self-interest to gain the maximum resources for survival and use the talents others around them possess but they themselves do not in order to provide something they alone would not be able to.

National sovereignty (de facto and de jure taken as given) at the basic level could be construed to suggest that as long nations remain within their confines and don’t cause any harm to others they should be left to self-govern. Individual sovereignty is essentially defined the same therefore Ithania deals with them the same. Numbers is irrelevant, inalienable rights count to us.

Of course, I understand that you will disagree but given that we value individual sovereignty so much we politely request that next time you aren’t quite so offensive, you may choose to ignore that but I think if you gave greater constructive criticism to such a young nation as ours we’d learn to not make mistakes again so easily in future.

(OOC: that’s my polite request because I’m soft-hearted… which I know is my fault but still… I’m not used to the workings of the UN on here yet but like to get involved so I adapt as quickly as possible, a trial by fire if you will.)

Your arguments about sex education are legitimate, but UN Resolution #118, "The Sex Education Act" already covers the necessity of sex education.

-2- All Nations to include in these courses, information about male sexuality, female sexuality, opposite-sex relationships, same-sex relationships, masturbation, birth control methods, abortion right, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases without any value judgment

I understand what you are saying about sex education being covered, however the specific topic of prostitution is not which seemingly could allow this very vulnerable group to be neglected and not get the compassion that society puts into place for many other minorities. That prospect is deeply saddening.

Opposed, simply because I like "Sex Industry Worker Act" as a proposal. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with proporly regulated prostitution, and I find it in no way inherently immoral. Sex is sex, it's natural.

I freely apologise for what clearly seems to have offended you, I was unable to contain my faith in the UN's ability to apply the resolutions passed under it.:rolleyes:

I suggest you start containing it.

However, while the funding will inevitably be low we feel that there could potentially be some nations which have, for fear of the results of non-compliance, created even the most minimal of programmes which will be lost if this is repealed. If this is repealed there’ll not even be the slightest *incentive* to educate specifically regarding prostitution for those nations so people will be more likely to suffer.

There will also be a significant lessening of the resentment and anger that crazy dictators with a fondness for ridiculously powerful weaponry feel towards the UN. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

The fact that countless nations will use loopholes is acknowledged, we apologise for the oversight.

Hell, most of them just flat-out ignore UN decisions after complaining about them during the resolution debate. The ones who don't ignore the UN decisions are the ones who tend to just find ways around the ones they don't like.

I did not state that there was a uniform relationship between them, if you would care to read what I wrote you will notice the use of hedging and modal verbs such as "can" to ensure that no nation believed I was trying to speak for them.

Well that's great! Thank you for pointing that out. How about you take some of that humility and help repeal a resolution that tells every nation in the UN they should run things that way?

(OOC: I’m of Hobbes’ perspective and an ardent Classical Liberal.)

(OOC: that’s my polite request because I’m soft-hearted… which I know is my fault but still… I’m not used to the workings of the UN on here yet but like to get involved so I adapt as quickly as possible, a trial by fire if you will.)


OOC: Interesting. My nation is an anarcho-socialist federation. They like to balance collectivism and individualism in a practical way. And they don't like people fucking that up through UN legislation, hard-nosed folks that they are.

Also, try not to take IC tone too seriously. Edward is a decent guy, but he's been around a long time and pretty bitter at the UN by this point, so he likes to vent that frustration at it.

Personally, I like your performance so far. Keep it up, and make sure to do a lot of reading. :)

Back IC:

That view is based upon years of philosophical texts which state that a nation and specifically its government (which the UN effects) is the result of pooled individual sovereignty hence one is derived from the other. In such a case, to us, they are inseparable hence as important as each other.

A nation is simply a gathering of people acting out of self-interest to gain the maximum resources for survival and use the talents others around them possess but they themselves do not in order to provide something they alone would not be able to.

National sovereignty (de facto and de jure taken as given) at the basic level could be construed to suggest that as long nations remain within their confines and don’t cause any harm to others they should be left to self-govern. Individual sovereignty is essentially defined the same therefore Ithania deals with them the same. Numbers is irrelevant, inalienable rights count to us.

Of course, I understand that you will disagree but given that we value individual sovereignty so much we politely request that next time you aren’t quite so offensive, you may choose to ignore that but I think if you gave greater constructive criticism to such a young nation as ours we’d learn to not make mistakes again so easily in future.

That's a lovely philosophy. Unfortunately, the applicability of the principle that inalienable rights are essential doesn't apply so well when you consider that the UN has no army, no police force, and thousands of member nations who are quite willing to ignore or abuse international law. What good, if there's no way to enforce those rights, are you doing if you try to enforce those rights? None. So what's the best we can do here? My opinion is that the best we can do is, since we can't effectively uphold individual sovereignty, to uphold national sovereignty. That is something good that the UN can do, and I would like that to be what it does.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Without totally ignoring the argument over the merits of this idea, what can be done to the actual draft to make it better or more passable? Would encouraging a new UN resolution dealing with safe and clean prostitution be a good idea?

That's a lovely philosophy. Unfortunately, the applicability of the principle that inalienable rights are essential doesn't apply so well when you consider that the UN has no army, no police force, and thousands of member nations who are quite willing to ignore or abuse international law. What good, if there's no way to enforce those rights, are you doing if you try to enforce those rights? None. So what's the best we can do here? My opinion is that the best we can do is, since we can't effectively uphold individual sovereignty, to uphold national sovereignty. That is something good that the UN can do, and I would like that to be what it does.

Considering that the UN lacks any power to implement, as you said, how can it therefore protect national sovereignty? By creating laws which allow flexibility and reduce outside influence? If such laws are created what is to stop a nation ignoring those laws and invading anyway or forcing its opinion on another via intimidation… after all they needn’t fear repercussion from the UN so it would be "hot air"?

Surely it would be better to not be a member of the UN or disband it if it has no power to speak of to uphold this national sovereignty? It, apparently, yields the same result as would occur should the UN not exist… or is this what you desire? (We are unsure of your beliefs, should the answer be yes ignore what was said.)

You believe its role is to protect national sovereignty; we believe it is to protect individual sovereignty. A house of cards collapses when you remove one card hence displaying the value of the individual in the national structure. When you have a plant you must support the root to yield a healthy crop and in the same way we believe the UN’s primary duty is to protect the unit; the fundamental building block of nationsso we encourage legislation which has that effect.

Simply giving up is not an option to us. Taking a moral stand and making a statement of principles in the hope it encourages plurality of perspective within member nations is; so even if it seemingly fails that means we must try to make sure it doesn’t in the future no matter how long it takes.

Of course, this is strictly in our view. :)

(OCC: I have a little white wine on a Saturday... okay, a lot... if I'm not out so I took things to heart more than I normally do. Won't happen again)

Without totally ignoring the argument over the merits of this idea, what can be done to the actual draft to make it better or more passable? Would encouraging a new UN resolution dealing with safe and clean prostitution be a good idea?

As to the actual proposal I would say no amendment necessary unless you wish to sound like a (as we put it in Ithania) “wet”. To make additions would appear to be suggesting laws within the resolution as some kind of “programme” which could potentially alienate those voters which wish to ensure greater national sovereignty. As it is the future is left to interpretation, to make amendments might make some leaders believe that you are going to at least try to force “social initiatives” on them.

Alternatively, nations which *want* the UN to try to create health and safety codes might be more likely to vote in favour if there is the suggestion this opens the way to legislation for that purpose. The lack of mention in a resolution might make them fear this will create a worryingly uncertain future. Then again, it is equally possible that they would see the allowance of national self-decision as enough.

Representative for Ithania:
Eleanor A. Harroway

(OOC: I just like pretending to be awkward.)

Considering that the UN lacks any power to implement, as you said, how can it therefore protect national sovereignty? By creating laws which allow flexibility and reduce outside influence? If such laws are created what is to stop a nation ignoring those laws and invading anyway or forcing its opinion on another via intimidation… after all they needn’t fear repercussion from the UN so it would be "hot air"?

The UN can protect national sovereignty from its own intrusions into said sovereignty by refraining from useless meddling in domestic policies.

You believe its role is to protect national sovereignty; we believe it is to protect individual sovereignty. A house of cards collapses when you remove one card hence displaying the value of the individual in the national structure. When you have a plant you must support the root to yield a healthy crop and in the same way we believe the UN’s primary duty is to protect the unit; the fundamental building block of nationsso we encourage legislation which has that effect.

The United Nations is an international body. It's building blocks are member nations. Sure, we can point to smaller entities within nations, but why? We can point to smaller entities within individuals, such as bacteria. We can point to the building blocks of bacteria, molecular substances. We can point to the underlying atomic structure of those molecular substances, or the subatomic particles that make up the atoms. Should we protect the subatomic particles since they are the true fundamental building blocks? Of course not. It's ludicrous to suggest that protecting something is the UN's duty just because they are part of the underlying structure of our reality.

Simply giving up is not an option to us. Taking a moral stand and making a statement of principles in the hope it encourages plurality of perspective within member nations is; so even if it seemingly fails that means we must try to make sure it doesn’t in the future no matter how long it takes.

I'm perfectly fine with making a statement of principle. See my resolution "Right to Self-Protection" if you want an example. UN legislation does not have to use strong language that gives it's dictates the force of law and makes it anti-sovereignty.

Going even further, I'm perfectly fine with practical legislation by this body on truly international issues. There is much good the UN can do. I'd like it to do that good instead of wasting time attacking national sovereignty under the false hope of changing the ways of lunatic autocracies and oppressive democracies.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Hey everyone I just wanted to restate the true reason for this post and highlight some areas of this repeal that I believe are great and thus should be discussed more in depth.

from Tarmsden

The United Nations…

RECOGNIZING that UN Resolution #87, “Repeal ‘Legalize Prostitution’” argues that it is “a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing”;

BELIEVING that matters with deep moral, social and health implications are often best resolved within individual nations through a careful examination of national customs, traditions and health conditions;

and ALSO BELIEVING that no nation should be forced to legalize or ban prostitution if it does not choose to do so,

REPEALS “The Sex Industry Worker Act,” implemented February 6, 2005.

I am sorry Tarmsden for the highlights but I believe that what is highlighted is what is needed to be debated a bit more in depth.

My nation believes that no nation has the rite to dictate our freedoms to us by any resolution, Thus we are in agreement with this repeal. Furthermore my country is a Democracy I refuse to let another nation pass and keep legislation telling my people what to do and not to do.

Resolution #87 is fine and good until all of a sudden the nations of the world get some type of sexually transmitted disease that threatens to wipe out half the worlds population!

Furthermore the only change in this repeal would be to encourage a replacement for resolution #87

This replacement which may have (If wanted) the healthcare system of each country make contraceptives affordable for any “lady or Gentleman of the night.” And if that is a stretch for other nations then a replacement witch a person needs to apply for a Prostitution license witch would cost a small amount of money. That license would make it so that prices are lowered down for Prostitutes to be able to practice safe sex. And the only reason for lowering contraceptive prices is because a lot of people that “sell themselves” are dirt poor. Heck half of them cant even find a decent job if they tried. Besides by practicing safer sex one would be possibly helping stop the spread of a sexual disease epidemic (if one ever began or came into existence).

In the end the biggest fear is disease and a drop of healthcare standards for not just Greenhamland but for ever nation.

Thank you for your time

-GreenHamland's Ambassador to the UN-

Should we protect the subatomic particles since they are the true fundamental building blocks? Of course not.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/quark.jpg

Should we protect the subatomic particles since they are the true fundamental building blocks? Of course not.

With respect to Minister Jones, I beg to differ. If something was a serious threat to the atoms and subatomic particles in the world of NationStates, we could be in serious trouble, and I would sincerely hope the UN would help do something about it.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

(OOC: :D )

People, can you possibly imagine forcing a nation with a serious AIDS epidemic to legalize prostitution? I'm ready to offer this up as a proposal as soon as I have the time to run a TG campaign.

One point: the Workplace Safety Act covers the health & safety aspects of this resolution adequately. Prostitution is a job like any other, so if this were repealed, there would be no need for a replacement on that line.

People, can you possibly imagine forcing a nation with a serious AIDS epidemic to legalize prostitution?

Yes, if you had to get checked for AIDS periodically while a prostitute, and possibly after every "job".

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Yes, if you had to get checked for AIDS periodically while a prostitute, and possibly after every "job".
That is so abominably silly. Besides, his question isn't so much, as I understand it, "would it be possible to mitigate the potential problems of legalised prostitution?", but, "would it actually be beneficial to force legalisation in the first place?"

My problem with Resolution #91 is the absolutely automatic assonant assumption of its supporters that legalised prostitution will be better. I'm inclined to think for the most part it will be. But shouldn't the decision be made on whether it actually is, rather than the vague hypothesis that of course legalising it will be all nice and happy? I'd prefer to see the decision delegated to local councils and the like, who can review the policy, and see if it works. If it doesn't, and if legalised prostitution only facilitates illegal activities, then there is no point forcing them to maintain it, where they might effectively combat illegal prostitution.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

Yes, if you had to get checked for AIDS periodically while a prostitute, and possibly after every "job".So far as I know, HIV tests are only valid after six months; they don't account for anything you could have done in the interim. Then there are the three-month tests, which aren't as accurate.

With respect to Minister Jones, I beg to differ. If something was a serious threat to the atoms and subatomic particles in the world of NationStates, we could be in serious trouble, and I would sincerely hope the UN would help do something about it.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

(OOC: :D )

Personally, given the UN's record on resolutions with scientific significance, I would hope it stayed the hell away from interfering with the subatomic particles.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

(OOC: Hehehehe. This is why I love debating. And very nice card, Hack. :D )

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/quark.jpg

OOC: GEEK ALERT! GEEK ALERT! :p

That is so abominably silly. Besides, his question isn't so much, as I understand it, "would it be possible to mitigate the potential problems of legalised prostitution?", but, "would it actually be beneficial to force legalisation in the first place?"

Ah. In that case, no it wouldn't.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

One point: the Workplace Safety Act covers the health & safety aspects of this resolution adequately. Prostitution is a job like any other, so if this were repealed, there would be no need for a replacement on that line.

If it were repealed then that’s a different ball game a new proposal could be put forth to ensure countries that do have it legal and choose to have it legal have some way of making sure that health and well being in there countries are being helped further by the UN. Prostitution may be a job like another, but its one of the most dangerous vocations even in today’s standards because keep in mind who usually end up prostitutes. Poor women and men who have tried everything possible to get a decent job there are no unions in prostitution so its practically slave labor plus the johns that some of the prostitutes see can be abusive and beat them around in addition to give the prostitute AIDS. By repealing this resolution you can be saving a lot of headaches for the UN down the road. Oh yes and one other thing not everyone lives a wonder bread lifestyle yes there are people that have to work and life isn’t fair, but it should be up to individual countries to what they want there people to do or not to do and not have a resolution telling everyone you must legalize this. Remember everyone the UN is Democratic by that meaning you have a vote and a rite to speak and be heard. Lately thou it seems like these resolutions have been getting in hear that seem like they are forcing other UN members to do this or face the consequences my country particularly dose not agree with this considering MY people have a choice. I leave it to them to choose were there fate lies and I believe the UN should take similar approaches in the future.

Thank you everyone for letting me take the floor have a great nite

-The UN Ambassador of GreenHamland-

With respect to Minister Jones, I beg to differ. If something was a serious threat to the atoms and subatomic particles in the world of NationStates, we could be in serious trouble, and I would sincerely hope the UN would help do something about it.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

With all due respect Mr. Lopez, I believe the UN has already passed legislation reguarding the safety of certain atomic particles (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

With all due respect Mr. Lopez, I believe the UN has already passed legislation reguarding the safety of certain atomic particles (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

With all due respect to Representative Flibble, I was not under the impression that atomic particles are "safe" when they bang into each other and cause explosions.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

OOC: Perhaps we'd better end this threadjack. ;)

With all due respect to Representative Flibble, I was not under the impression that atomic particles are "safe" when they bang into each other and cause explosions.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United NationsMr. Lopez, I never said that the resolution protected their safety.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: Perhaps we'd better end this threadjack. ;)
OOC: I know, but I had to make this last comment.:D

If it were repealed then that’s a different ball game a new proposal could be put forth to ensure countries that do have it legal and choose to have it legal have some way of making sure that health and well being in there countries are being helped further by the UN.
That would be illegal for optionality, most likely.

Prostitution may be a job like another, but its one of the most dangerous vocations even in today’s standards because keep in mind who usually end up prostitutes. Poor women and men who have tried everything possible to get a decent job there are no unions in prostitution so its practically slave labor
Yes, there are. "The Right to Form Unions" does not exclude prostitutes.

plus the johns that some of the prostitutes see can be abusive and beat them around in addition to give the prostitute AIDS.
Well, I think the idea of #91 was to stop that...

But this doesn't counteract my point that workplace safety, whether it's a bandsaw or asbestos, or sexual abuse or an STD, is already covered by the UN.

I'm not sure I understand much of the rest.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I am recruiting any nation of considerable stature to assist me with a possible TG campaign this week, so that this can be proposed. If interested, please TG me. Thank you for your help.

Gruenberg with all due Respect I was half asleep while writing my last post... sorry!


-GreenHamland's Ambassador to the UN-