OK
So far, no takers.
I note particularly the absence of Mr. Donald Siebold, who seems to be the one bitching like crazy about Swiller's posts (that is you Donnie, isn't it?).
People seem to want to know why you are suing the town. Now's your chance to speak up. Of course, that means that you also risk getting shot down.
Do your reasons hold up to scrutiny, or are you afraid that they will be torn to shreds.
If you believe in what you're doing tell us why.
Send us your posting and we'll put it up there on the main page: cuzzincookie@hotmail.com
Speak now or forever... (well you get the rest).
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Form A Line, Stop Pushing!
OK, so far the throngs crowding in for the chance to post on the main page is...understated.
Swiller knows his stuff, but a laugh riot he isn't.
So, you got something to say, drop the Uncle a line - SIGNED - you can post with an alias but the Uncle gets to know your secret identity.
cuzzincookie@hotmail.com
By the way. Have you noticed that GM says their cars are designed with "Professional Grade Engineering?"
Who do they think builds all the other cars? Ardent hobbyists?
Swiller knows his stuff, but a laugh riot he isn't.
So, you got something to say, drop the Uncle a line - SIGNED - you can post with an alias but the Uncle gets to know your secret identity.
cuzzincookie@hotmail.com
By the way. Have you noticed that GM says their cars are designed with "Professional Grade Engineering?"
Who do they think builds all the other cars? Ardent hobbyists?
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Let’s Be Clear
Swiller in for Betty
Below is an article from the Cornwall Local. There was a fundraiser to pay for the lawsuit against the town laws that allow the Brodsky Project and Legacy Ridge expansion to go forward.
I’d be interested in knowing if it really raised any money, or if it was merely a show to divert attention from the people who are really paying for this lawsuit. And I am guessing that those people are the one’s who stand to gain the most from the lawsuit.
Let’s be clear. The lawsuit will be thrown out in court. It will then be appealed. The appeal will lose. But, all this will slow the developments down. That is the goal. To try and make things as unpleasant for the developers as possible so they will give up.
And, if they do give up - does that mean that the land won’t be developed?
Of course not. The land will be sold.
And the highest bidder will be the Vaad haKirya, the land owning arm of the people who run Kiryas Joel. And with enough land they will stand a good chance of getting a court to allow annexation.
And that’s the goal of all this.
In the article below we see that Caruso finally steps out of the shadows as the hand behind this whole lawsuit. There he is with his political whore, Bob Donnelly. Selling out the town.
And why not? The town rejected his bid to get to the County Legislature, so, if he’s to have any chance at taking over Bill Larkin’s little empire, he better make his bosses friends happy. And if that means getting them a chunk of Woodbury, wasn’t that his goal the whole time? All we have to go on are his actions.
Cornwall Local
March 17, 2006
by Ken Cashman
They’re unlikely allies who may be starting a beautiful friendship. Three Woodbury homeowners have filed a lawsuit against their town and a group of Cornwall residents may be bacing them financially.
The lawsuit is an Article 78 petition that challenges local laws that make it possible to reduce lot sizes and include more homes in two developments.
One of those developments, Legacy ridge, would be built in the portion of Woodbury that is located in the Cornwall School District.
As a result, Cornwall and Woodbury taxpayers were gathered at a fund-raising event in Mountainville on March 12. Ralph Caruso, a Woodbury resident and a recent candidate for the county legislature, was one of the people who spoke at the gathering.
We’re trying to fom a coalition between the two towns," he explained. "It’s important to work together to make sure that the lawsuit is successful."
Jim Bacon, a New Paltz attorney is representing the three petitioners - John Seyferth, Don Siebold and Karin Ungerer - in their attempt to have the local laws annulled. He expects that their case will be heard by Judge Elaine Slobod during the next two months. At least part of bacon’s argument will be that the town took action before it had the necessary input and approval from the county.
The Cornwall people at the meeting were less concerned with procedures than with the impact of the development on their school district. The change in zoning would enable Legacy Ridge to grow from 160 to over 280 units, which could mean hundreds of additional students going to Cornwall schools.
Cornwall Supervisor Richard Randazzo had a strong reaction to the proposal. "It’s important that we stay fully engaged in this," he said at the March 12th meeting. "It’s a political issue in that government has a responsibility to make good decisions for people. I hope they’ll [the Woodbury Town Board] look long and hard at what I consider to be an over-development of that area.
The supervisor also said that "we know there is little capacity" in the school district. Woodbury has to give that a lot of weight in making its decision. Every community is doing up-zoning not down-zoning."
The three Woodbury homeowners are looking for financial support for their upcoming lagal battles. People who would like to help them can contact Don Siebold at 928-9310 or send contributions to him a 7 Adriane Drive, Highland Mills, NY 10930. People wishing to send checks should make them out to James Bacon, Esq.
Bob Donnelly, a guest at the fund-raiser, compared the quest to David fighting Goliath. He said that Goliath is a project that might be worth $150 million, while "David is maybe 10 people who have shouldered the fight."
Joe Swanson, a former Mountainville resident, suggested that the local laws affect "not only Legacy Ridge, but a lot of acreage that could be developed."
Speaking of the impact on the school district, Bacon explained that it’s a mistake to "look at cost per student without considering the need for new (school) buildings or more buses."
To which Randazzo responded, "It’s a known fact that single family homes don’t offset the costs of new students."
Below is an article from the Cornwall Local. There was a fundraiser to pay for the lawsuit against the town laws that allow the Brodsky Project and Legacy Ridge expansion to go forward.
I’d be interested in knowing if it really raised any money, or if it was merely a show to divert attention from the people who are really paying for this lawsuit. And I am guessing that those people are the one’s who stand to gain the most from the lawsuit.
Let’s be clear. The lawsuit will be thrown out in court. It will then be appealed. The appeal will lose. But, all this will slow the developments down. That is the goal. To try and make things as unpleasant for the developers as possible so they will give up.
And, if they do give up - does that mean that the land won’t be developed?
Of course not. The land will be sold.
And the highest bidder will be the Vaad haKirya, the land owning arm of the people who run Kiryas Joel. And with enough land they will stand a good chance of getting a court to allow annexation.
And that’s the goal of all this.
In the article below we see that Caruso finally steps out of the shadows as the hand behind this whole lawsuit. There he is with his political whore, Bob Donnelly. Selling out the town.
And why not? The town rejected his bid to get to the County Legislature, so, if he’s to have any chance at taking over Bill Larkin’s little empire, he better make his bosses friends happy. And if that means getting them a chunk of Woodbury, wasn’t that his goal the whole time? All we have to go on are his actions.
Cornwall Local
March 17, 2006
by Ken Cashman
They’re unlikely allies who may be starting a beautiful friendship. Three Woodbury homeowners have filed a lawsuit against their town and a group of Cornwall residents may be bacing them financially.
The lawsuit is an Article 78 petition that challenges local laws that make it possible to reduce lot sizes and include more homes in two developments.
One of those developments, Legacy ridge, would be built in the portion of Woodbury that is located in the Cornwall School District.
As a result, Cornwall and Woodbury taxpayers were gathered at a fund-raising event in Mountainville on March 12. Ralph Caruso, a Woodbury resident and a recent candidate for the county legislature, was one of the people who spoke at the gathering.
We’re trying to fom a coalition between the two towns," he explained. "It’s important to work together to make sure that the lawsuit is successful."
Jim Bacon, a New Paltz attorney is representing the three petitioners - John Seyferth, Don Siebold and Karin Ungerer - in their attempt to have the local laws annulled. He expects that their case will be heard by Judge Elaine Slobod during the next two months. At least part of bacon’s argument will be that the town took action before it had the necessary input and approval from the county.
The Cornwall people at the meeting were less concerned with procedures than with the impact of the development on their school district. The change in zoning would enable Legacy Ridge to grow from 160 to over 280 units, which could mean hundreds of additional students going to Cornwall schools.
Cornwall Supervisor Richard Randazzo had a strong reaction to the proposal. "It’s important that we stay fully engaged in this," he said at the March 12th meeting. "It’s a political issue in that government has a responsibility to make good decisions for people. I hope they’ll [the Woodbury Town Board] look long and hard at what I consider to be an over-development of that area.
The supervisor also said that "we know there is little capacity" in the school district. Woodbury has to give that a lot of weight in making its decision. Every community is doing up-zoning not down-zoning."
The three Woodbury homeowners are looking for financial support for their upcoming lagal battles. People who would like to help them can contact Don Siebold at 928-9310 or send contributions to him a 7 Adriane Drive, Highland Mills, NY 10930. People wishing to send checks should make them out to James Bacon, Esq.
Bob Donnelly, a guest at the fund-raiser, compared the quest to David fighting Goliath. He said that Goliath is a project that might be worth $150 million, while "David is maybe 10 people who have shouldered the fight."
Joe Swanson, a former Mountainville resident, suggested that the local laws affect "not only Legacy Ridge, but a lot of acreage that could be developed."
Speaking of the impact on the school district, Bacon explained that it’s a mistake to "look at cost per student without considering the need for new (school) buildings or more buses."
To which Randazzo responded, "It’s a known fact that single family homes don’t offset the costs of new students."
"Suburban Residential (Medium Density): These areas contain the heart of Cornwall’s residential development from the village west around the
Canterbury area to a point east of the Thruway and in the developed portion of Beaver Dam Lake. Densities allow for half-acre single-family lots with multifamily and townhouse units in selected areas as well as Senior Housing at higher densities."
And he has the nerve to say: "Every community is doing up-zoning not down-zoning."
Cornwall and New Windsor are adding over a thjousand new units to the school district and he claims to have his panties in a twist because Legacy Ridge is adding 120 units? Every time that Cornwall or New Windsor adds a house they are also adding commuters wh are going to head right down Route32, clogging Woodbury, on their way to the throughway.
Hypocrisy is alive and well in Cornwall.
And as long as we have Caruso, it’s here in Woodbury too.
All The News Caruso Would Choose
Swiller in for Betty.
There have been a couple of interesting pieces in some of the local papers recently. The first was in the Photo News a little over a month ago. Since then I have spoken to Bob Quinn, the editor there, about correcting a one sided and totally error filled story. He has yet to say what he intends to do, so meanwhile, here is the article (in its entirty) with the worst mistakes in bold followed by my comments in blue.
Highland Mills - To build or not to build, that is the question in the Town of Woodbury. Zoning and land development, always a dominant issue there, has become white hot — with three of the town residents suing over the matter.
The year 1988 is as good a time as any to begin this tale, although the last two years are when the excitement takes place. Woodbury adopted its current Master Plan in March 1988.
The Planning Board, appointed by the elected Town Board, has the authority to approve or deny land development applications. In doing so, the Planning Board referred to both the zoning laws passed by the Town Board and the Master Plan written by the Planning Board itself.
An amendment to the Town Law of the State of New York changes the “Master Plan” to a “Comprehensive Plan,” which is to be prepared and adopted by the elected Town Board. This leaves the Planning Board with a narrower role of interpreting the zoning laws and Comprehensive Plan — both written by others.
Like the Master Plan, a Comprehensive Plan includes goals and objectives and the principles and practices to achieve them; finer details are left to the zoning laws. The Woodbury Town Board set out to write a Comprehensive Plan in July 2004.
That November, representatives of Rockland County developer Bill Brodsky of Carteret Group, Inc., asked the Town Board to amend the zoning law. The amendments, passed a year later on Nov. 3, 2005, as Local Laws 4 through 8, allowed for Brodsky’s Woodbury Suburban Project (WP3) located between Dunderberg and Nininger Roads and for increased development throughout the town.Due to the size constraints, the water and sewage requirements and the required givebacks to the Town, these laws could affect 6 or 7 properties, not the entire town. They are the Niemand property, the Central Valley Golf Course, Legacy Ridge, WP3, Noah Weg’s property, the Arden Convention Center (there may be one other). Further, each of these would have to be decided on separately.
It took 30 years, from 1973 to 2003, for Woodbury’s population to double from 5,000 to 10,000. Local Laws 4 through 8 would have the effect of an immediate pursuit of the 20,000 mark. This number is inflammatory and baseless, nowhere in the article does Houston even attempt to justify it.
The allowed housing units on the 400-acre WP3 project would increase from 147 or 175 to 451, 460 or 652 — depending upon who is doing the counting. The number is 451, if there is any justification for these other numbers it is not presented.
Among the other effects of the new local laws would be to allow 281 units on two-acre lots in the Legacy Ridge project, up from 164 units on three-acre lots.
Enough already, said John Seyferth, Karin Ungerer and Don Siebold, who on last Dec. 4 filed an Article 78 lawsuit against the Town Board, Planning Board and developer.
These Woodbury residents are asking a state Supreme Court judge to “annul, vacate, and in all aspects void” the Town Board’s enactment of zoning amendments contained in Local Laws 4 through 8 and the Town Board’s statement of findings pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act for the WP3 project.
Siebold is an appointed member of the Town of Woodbury’s Zoning Board of Appeals and, like his fellow petitioners, Siebold lives in the vicinity of the WP3 project. “My only concern is to preserve the character of the Town by controlled growth and not over-development, and being able to afford to live in Woodbury,” said Siebold. “The Town never mitigated the traffic.” Many of us feel there are other reasons, none of us were approached by Houston.
The Woodbury Town Board passed Local Laws 4 through 8 while it was working not only on a Comprehensive Plan, but on an Open Space Plan as well. Obviously, town business goes forward. The Town is bound by SEQRA to follow a given time frame.
Released during this time was a draft of the Southeastern Orange County Traffic and Land Use Study, which recommended that the Town of Woodbury “reduce permitted intensity of residential development on land located along the north side of Dunderberg Road/Nininger Road,” just the opposite of the new local laws. This was not part of the study group’s recommendations and was attached, unilaterally, by the County without the imprimatur of the group, in violation of the groups own rules. The same rider called for increased development on Route 32 - calling for an increase in density there to 4 units per acre - this is also unacceptable. The rider appears to be aimed at preserving Woodbury’s Nininger Road as an “access route” for Kiryas Joel traffic.
Included in the Article 78 legal papers is a Nov. 17, 2005, letter from Orange County Planning Commissioner David Church, Orange County Commissioner of Planning, in which “the petitions to rezone the subject properties (Local Laws 6, 7 and 8)” were disapproved. Local Laws 4 and 5 were mentioned in the letter, but were neither approved nor disapproved. This was the third such letter From the County Planners office on these laws, which were submitted to the planner in June (and in slightly amended form in July). Under SEQRA, only the first letter carries any authority. That first letter had no objections.
“That was not an oversight,” said Church. “We often remain silent on some of the issues brought to us.”
The letter of disapproval was not received by the Woodbury Town Board prior to its passing Local Laws 4 through 8. A supermajority of four votes of the five-member Town Board is needed to override a recommendation of such a disapproval. As stated above, this letter had no relevance to the process and so there was no need for a supermajority.
Church’s letter referred to “significant public and private speculation” surrounding the potential sale and annexation of the 400-acre WP3 properties to the Village of Kiryas Joel if the new Woodbury local laws were not enacted. Church favored the analysis of alternative “as a means of comparing and contrasting significant adverse and beneficial environmental impacts with that of the preferred 451-unit alternative.”
The town made no such analysis, although it would have improved its case for amending the zoning laws. The likelihood of a lawsuit from the land-owning arm of Kiryas Joel is a near certainty. The realities of the situation demands that the Town remain circumspect. To deny this is to live in a fantasy world.
The petitioners list three courses of action. The first is that the Town Board acted too soon, despite the four yes votes, by not allowing 30 days to pass after its October 21 submittal to the county. The second is that Local Laws 4 through 8 do not conform to the Town’s 1988 Master Plan. The Master Plan remains in effect until superseded by a Comprehensive Plan that has yet to be passed by the Town Board. The third cause of action would be that the Town Board failed to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of SEQRA.First, as stated, once the County Planner submitted its first response there was no legal need to resubmit or to lend any weight to any further responses. Second, as shown by pages 34 and 35 of the Master Plan, this project is in full compliance with that document. There are no violations of SEQRA, nor does this charge state any - merely saying “It’s illegal” with no further details is of no value.
Five days after the passage of Local Laws 4 through 8, a new supervisor and a new councilman were elected to the Woodbury Town Board. The new board was seated in January of this year.
If Local Laws 4 through 8 are voided by the court, a re-vote could be quite different. Or exactly the same.
Town Supervisor John Burke defeated incumbent Sheila Conroy, who cast one of the four “yes” votes. He said this week that he didn’t know how far the lawsuit had gotten in the legal process.
“I’ve heard nothing about it since the December filing of the suit,” said Burke.
When asked about a possible re-vote if the petitioners won in court, Burke said “that is speculation — we’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there. The Town Board will sit down and decide where to go once the court rules.”
There have been a couple of interesting pieces in some of the local papers recently. The first was in the Photo News a little over a month ago. Since then I have spoken to Bob Quinn, the editor there, about correcting a one sided and totally error filled story. He has yet to say what he intends to do, so meanwhile, here is the article (in its entirty) with the worst mistakes in bold followed by my comments in blue.
Highland Mills - To build or not to build, that is the question in the Town of Woodbury. Zoning and land development, always a dominant issue there, has become white hot — with three of the town residents suing over the matter.
The year 1988 is as good a time as any to begin this tale, although the last two years are when the excitement takes place. Woodbury adopted its current Master Plan in March 1988.
The Planning Board, appointed by the elected Town Board, has the authority to approve or deny land development applications. In doing so, the Planning Board referred to both the zoning laws passed by the Town Board and the Master Plan written by the Planning Board itself.
An amendment to the Town Law of the State of New York changes the “Master Plan” to a “Comprehensive Plan,” which is to be prepared and adopted by the elected Town Board. This leaves the Planning Board with a narrower role of interpreting the zoning laws and Comprehensive Plan — both written by others.
Like the Master Plan, a Comprehensive Plan includes goals and objectives and the principles and practices to achieve them; finer details are left to the zoning laws. The Woodbury Town Board set out to write a Comprehensive Plan in July 2004.
That November, representatives of Rockland County developer Bill Brodsky of Carteret Group, Inc., asked the Town Board to amend the zoning law. The amendments, passed a year later on Nov. 3, 2005, as Local Laws 4 through 8, allowed for Brodsky’s Woodbury Suburban Project (WP3) located between Dunderberg and Nininger Roads and for increased development throughout the town.Due to the size constraints, the water and sewage requirements and the required givebacks to the Town, these laws could affect 6 or 7 properties, not the entire town. They are the Niemand property, the Central Valley Golf Course, Legacy Ridge, WP3, Noah Weg’s property, the Arden Convention Center (there may be one other). Further, each of these would have to be decided on separately.
It took 30 years, from 1973 to 2003, for Woodbury’s population to double from 5,000 to 10,000. Local Laws 4 through 8 would have the effect of an immediate pursuit of the 20,000 mark. This number is inflammatory and baseless, nowhere in the article does Houston even attempt to justify it.
The allowed housing units on the 400-acre WP3 project would increase from 147 or 175 to 451, 460 or 652 — depending upon who is doing the counting. The number is 451, if there is any justification for these other numbers it is not presented.
Among the other effects of the new local laws would be to allow 281 units on two-acre lots in the Legacy Ridge project, up from 164 units on three-acre lots.
Enough already, said John Seyferth, Karin Ungerer and Don Siebold, who on last Dec. 4 filed an Article 78 lawsuit against the Town Board, Planning Board and developer.
These Woodbury residents are asking a state Supreme Court judge to “annul, vacate, and in all aspects void” the Town Board’s enactment of zoning amendments contained in Local Laws 4 through 8 and the Town Board’s statement of findings pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act for the WP3 project.
Siebold is an appointed member of the Town of Woodbury’s Zoning Board of Appeals and, like his fellow petitioners, Siebold lives in the vicinity of the WP3 project. “My only concern is to preserve the character of the Town by controlled growth and not over-development, and being able to afford to live in Woodbury,” said Siebold. “The Town never mitigated the traffic.” Many of us feel there are other reasons, none of us were approached by Houston.
The Woodbury Town Board passed Local Laws 4 through 8 while it was working not only on a Comprehensive Plan, but on an Open Space Plan as well. Obviously, town business goes forward. The Town is bound by SEQRA to follow a given time frame.
Released during this time was a draft of the Southeastern Orange County Traffic and Land Use Study, which recommended that the Town of Woodbury “reduce permitted intensity of residential development on land located along the north side of Dunderberg Road/Nininger Road,” just the opposite of the new local laws. This was not part of the study group’s recommendations and was attached, unilaterally, by the County without the imprimatur of the group, in violation of the groups own rules. The same rider called for increased development on Route 32 - calling for an increase in density there to 4 units per acre - this is also unacceptable. The rider appears to be aimed at preserving Woodbury’s Nininger Road as an “access route” for Kiryas Joel traffic.
Included in the Article 78 legal papers is a Nov. 17, 2005, letter from Orange County Planning Commissioner David Church, Orange County Commissioner of Planning, in which “the petitions to rezone the subject properties (Local Laws 6, 7 and 8)” were disapproved. Local Laws 4 and 5 were mentioned in the letter, but were neither approved nor disapproved. This was the third such letter From the County Planners office on these laws, which were submitted to the planner in June (and in slightly amended form in July). Under SEQRA, only the first letter carries any authority. That first letter had no objections.
“That was not an oversight,” said Church. “We often remain silent on some of the issues brought to us.”
The letter of disapproval was not received by the Woodbury Town Board prior to its passing Local Laws 4 through 8. A supermajority of four votes of the five-member Town Board is needed to override a recommendation of such a disapproval. As stated above, this letter had no relevance to the process and so there was no need for a supermajority.
Church’s letter referred to “significant public and private speculation” surrounding the potential sale and annexation of the 400-acre WP3 properties to the Village of Kiryas Joel if the new Woodbury local laws were not enacted. Church favored the analysis of alternative “as a means of comparing and contrasting significant adverse and beneficial environmental impacts with that of the preferred 451-unit alternative.”
The town made no such analysis, although it would have improved its case for amending the zoning laws. The likelihood of a lawsuit from the land-owning arm of Kiryas Joel is a near certainty. The realities of the situation demands that the Town remain circumspect. To deny this is to live in a fantasy world.
The petitioners list three courses of action. The first is that the Town Board acted too soon, despite the four yes votes, by not allowing 30 days to pass after its October 21 submittal to the county. The second is that Local Laws 4 through 8 do not conform to the Town’s 1988 Master Plan. The Master Plan remains in effect until superseded by a Comprehensive Plan that has yet to be passed by the Town Board. The third cause of action would be that the Town Board failed to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of SEQRA.First, as stated, once the County Planner submitted its first response there was no legal need to resubmit or to lend any weight to any further responses. Second, as shown by pages 34 and 35 of the Master Plan, this project is in full compliance with that document. There are no violations of SEQRA, nor does this charge state any - merely saying “It’s illegal” with no further details is of no value.
Five days after the passage of Local Laws 4 through 8, a new supervisor and a new councilman were elected to the Woodbury Town Board. The new board was seated in January of this year.
If Local Laws 4 through 8 are voided by the court, a re-vote could be quite different. Or exactly the same.
Town Supervisor John Burke defeated incumbent Sheila Conroy, who cast one of the four “yes” votes. He said this week that he didn’t know how far the lawsuit had gotten in the legal process.
“I’ve heard nothing about it since the December filing of the suit,” said Burke.
When asked about a possible re-vote if the petitioners won in court, Burke said “that is speculation — we’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there. The Town Board will sit down and decide where to go once the court rules.”
The Uncle Cries Uncle
OK, the Uncle admits it. He is just too frazzled to be a good host. Luckily Swiller keeps writing that he has stuff to post, so today he gets to do a data dump and put up his impacted postings.
Next time, it could be your turn. If you have something that you think deserves to be on the main page here, send to CuzzinCookie@hotmail.com and if it is halfway interesting you too can play uncle.
Next time, it could be your turn. If you have something that you think deserves to be on the main page here, send to CuzzinCookie@hotmail.com and if it is halfway interesting you too can play uncle.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
All I Know Is What I Read In The Papers
Two weeks ago, when John Burke was asked about the Ungerer, Seyferth, Siebold lawsuit against Woodbury he said "I've heard nothing about it since the December filing of the suit." (Photo News, 2/17, p. 34)
Is that all the involvement or interest that we want from the Town Supervisor?
Is that all the involvement or interest that we want from the Town Supervisor?
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
A Simple Question.
In that Don Siebold and Ralph Caruso have again and again and again taken positions that would lead to KJ's Vaad haKirya buying up the Brodsky property and other adjoining properties (such as the Roselawn Inn), and in that Siebold does what Caruso wants and Caruso does what Larkin wants and Larkin does what Szegedin wants, what conclusions can we draw? (Feel free to throw in folks such as Fred Ungerer, who does what Siebold wants)
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)