Help Oppose John Lennon's Killer from getting Parole | Page 3 | John Lennon | Fab forum

Please consider registering
Guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Help Oppose John Lennon's Killer from getting Parole
24 August 2012
7.40am
The Strawberry
The Past
Ed Sullivan Show
Forum Posts: 192
Member Since:
13 November 2011
Offline
41

Could it be possible that it's because of all the crap this guy makes up? I thought at one point he said he did it to become famous. Maybe they're afraid he'll shoot someone else.

 

Just a thought.

"Time wounds all heels." -John Lennon
24 August 2012
10.36am
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9305
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline
42

He wanted to become a somebody and thought murdering a celebrity would do that so drew up a list of targets (Johnny Carson was one of the other targets on his list, i think Elizabeth Taylor was another). John was chosen as he was the most accessible tho there were other reasons; believing John was a sellout and a fake and Chapman was the real John Lennon for example. Chapman has since said that he didnt become a somebody thru murdering John.

  

"Well, probably we'll sell less records, less people'll go to see the film, we'll write less songs, and we'll all die of failure" (John Lennon 8/64)
24 August 2012
3.14pm
mr. Sun king coming together
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 6916
Member Since:
19 September 2010
Offline
43

I downloaded some Department of Justice data. I haven't been able to dig into it yet, but I'm confident Chapman will have served more then the average. And Zig, I know this is pedantic, but I have to correct your error.

Zig said

The person that killed John Lennon in front of his wife in cold blood is getting exactly what a jury of his peers sentenced him to – 20 years to "life".

You are not sentenced by a jury; the judge handles all sentencing. In fact, seeing as how he plead guilty to second degree murder, no jury was ever involved. So he is not "getting exactly what a jury of his peers sentenced him to".
(Yes, that was truly nitpicky. I don't care).

I tried to think of something powerful and moving… and failed.  "You were given a choice between war and dishonor - you chose dishonor, and you shall have war" - Winston Churchill
24 August 2012
5.30pm
Zig
The Toppermost of the Poppermost
Moderator



Forum Posts: 3749
Member Since:
14 April 2010
Offline
44

Dipsy said

I'm just of the opinion (as I've stated before in previous posts) that MDC is being treated more harshly because of who he killed rather than because of the crime he committed…But I suppose I'll always think that.

Here is why I do not share that opinion.

As I stated above, this case did not set a precedent for murdering a celebrity. He was sentenced based on the act alone.

Apparently the parole board agreed.

“Despite your positive efforts while incarcerated, your release at this time would greatly undermine respect for the law and tend to trivialize the tragic loss of life which you caused as a result of this heinous, unprovoked, violent, cold and calculated crime,” board member Sally Thompson wrote. Board members Joseph Crangle and Marc Coppola agreed.

They did not say "the tragic loss of John Lennon's life".  To me, the sentence and subsequent denial of parole is more harsh – not because of the crime of murder itself, but how it was committed. Remember, he flew from Hawaii all the way to NYC…twice…before carrying out his act. That is not cheap now and certainly was not back in 1980. This was no ordinary murder, but not just because it was John.

You have every right to feel any way you do about this and I think your regard for human life and fairness is admirable. Those, however, are not traits shared by the S.O.B. in the orange jumpsuit. That is why he will remain in prison for at least another 2 years.

To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.

Every Little Thing you buy from Amazon or iTunes will help the Beatles Bible if you use these links: Amazon | iTunes

24 August 2012
5.33pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9305
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline
45

mr. Sun king coming together said
I downloaded some Department of Justice data. I haven't been able to dig into it yet, but I'm confident Chapman will have served more then the average.

Has the average got anything to do Chapmans sentence or any sentence? The whole point of an average is that some are higher and some are lower.

Not a dig just a comment.

"Well, probably we'll sell less records, less people'll go to see the film, we'll write less songs, and we'll all die of failure" (John Lennon 8/64)
25 August 2012
8.34pm
LTJX
A Beginning
Forum Posts: 7
Member Since:
19 May 2012
Offline
46

mr. Sun king coming together said 

I downloaded some Department of Justice data. I haven't been able to dig into it yet, but I'm confident Chapman will have served more then the average. 

You are not sentenced by a jury; the judge handles all sentencing. In fact, seeing as how he plead guilty to second degree murder, no jury was ever involved. So he is not "getting exactly what a jury of his peers sentenced him to".
(Yes, that was truly nitpicky. I don't care).

 

Let's see, you don't care about being nitpicky, and I don't care if Chapman has to spend the rest of his life in prison.  And I care even less if his sentence is way above average: Good! I'm glad!  It should be, because his horrible crime was way above average.  I also don't care if who he killed is a major factor in his punishment.  He killed someone who made life better, more interesting and more enjoyable for millions of people around the world.  His sentence was 20 years to life, and that includes the possibility of serving life in prison, does it not?  His sentence didn't say anything about depending on a comparison with the average murder sentence.  And going before a judge or jury was entirely Chapman's choice, he chose a plea bargain.  Besides, Judges are often bound by strict sentencing guidelines anyway.  Chapman got more rights than he really deserved – IMO he deserved hanging and I would have been glad to help string him up right on the spot of his evil and pointless deed ("get a rope…").  

Why did Chapman have to use lethal, exploding ammunition – some have described them as "dum-dum bullets" – a type that was even banned by the Geneva convention for use in war, because they caused such horrible wounds!  Lennon might have had a chance at the hospital, but the ammunition Chapman selected and used closed off any real possibility of survival, and Lennon didn't even get near the hospital while still alive.  Chapman is an evil punk, who should suffer for his abominable crime.

And what's with all these people saying Lennon was no better than anyone else?  Of course he was better than almost everyone else.  And the Beatles as a creative group were much more talented and influential than 99.999% of the people of who have ever lived. The fact that we are all still talking about him 32 years after he was brutally and senselessly murdered is pretty good proof of that.  If everyone is equal, then why don't you post some of the great songs you've composed and recorded… -- No? I didn't think so.  Well, Lennon had more than a few of those great songs to his credit (not to mention his books, film and art), so you've got lots of catching up to do (we all do) if you're going to maintain the fantasy of total equality that is.

Honestly, I would prefer to see Charles Manson set free, rather than Mark Chapman.  Manson didn't personally kill anyone and there is some serious doubt about his true level of responsibility for the murders done by others.  If not set free, then I would hope that the big shots of the U.S. prison industry might get together and find a way to transfer Charles Manson in as Chapman's new cellmate!   Charlie was known to be a major Beatles fan – and believe it or not, Manson was not bad at all as a rock musician/songwriter himself (the famous Beach Boys even recorded a Manson-written song and used it on one of their albums!).  Charlie might have a real good time with Chapman, and he might even get the full truth out of Chapman about the murder, if it's there to be gotten out.

25 August 2012
9.22pm
mr. Sun king coming together
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 6916
Member Since:
19 September 2010
Offline
47

LTJX said 

Let's see, you don't care about being nitpicky, and I don't care if Chapman has to spend the rest of his life in prison.  

I'm fine with that.

And I care even less if his sentence is way above average: Good! I'm glad!  It should be, because his horrible crime was way above average.  I also don't care if who he killed is a major factor in his punishment.  He killed someone who made life better, more interesting and more enjoyable for millions of people around the world.  His sentence was 20 years to life, and that includes the possibility of serving life in prison, does it not?

Yes, it does. But it doesn't mean it must be a life sentence, does it?

 His sentence didn't say anything about depending on a comparison with the average murder sentence.  And going before a judge or jury was entirely Chapman's choice, he chose a plea bargain.  Besides, Judges are often bound by strict sentencing guidelines anyway.  Chapman got more rights than he really deserved – IMO he deserved hanging and I would have been glad to help string him up right on the spot of his evil and pointless deed ("get a rope…").  

Unfortunately, the US Constitution disagrees. The Fifth Amendment is more important then your petty beliefs

Why did Chapman have to use lethal, exploding ammunition – some have described them as "dum-dum bullets" – a type that was even banned by the Geneva convention for use in war, because they caused such horrible wounds!  Lennon might have had a chance at the hospital, but the ammunition Chapman selected and used closed off any real possibility of survival, and Lennon didn't even get near the hospital while still alive.  Chapman is an evil punk, who should suffer for his abominable crime.

32 years in prison isn't suffering? I'm not denying Chapman's an ass, but to deny he hasn't suffered is to reject facts.

And what's with all these people saying Lennon was no better than anyone else?  Of course he was better than almost everyone else.  And the Beatles as a creative group were much more talented and influential than 99.999% of the people of who have ever lived. The fact that we are all still talking about him 32 years after he was brutally and senselessly murdered is pretty good proof of that.

We are saying he is legally no more important then anyone else. Therefore, his killer can't be given excessive punishment due to his victim (8th Amendment to the US Constitution)

 If everyone is equal, then why don't you post some of the great songs you've composed and recorded… -- No? I didn't think so.  Well, Lennon had more than a few of those great songs to his credit (not to mention his books, film and art), so you've got lots of catching up to do (we all do) if you're going to maintain the fantasy of total equality that is.

I've never made that claim – don't make me laugh. I know John was a special man – but in terms of judicial actions, he is no different.

Now, deal with what I actually said, instead of inventing claims.

I tried to think of something powerful and moving… and failed.  "You were given a choice between war and dishonor - you chose dishonor, and you shall have war" - Winston Churchill
25 August 2012
9.47pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9305
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

Its difficult because everyone should be equal in an ideal world, however that is not the case and it would be ignorant to think so. People are more equal than others. The lower down you are the louder you have to shout to get your voice heard, the harder you have to fight to get your case heard. I dont believe its right but it is the way society operates in my opinion.

Should killing a world famous pop star as influential as John bring a greater sentence than the local nightclub singer if nearly everything else is equal (motive, selection policy)? There is an arguement for both sides, however the more famous the person the greater the effect on society on a wider scale is felt. Personally i believe that that is a massive factor in Chapman being kept in prison.

 

As for Manson there is no doubt he was fully responsible for the murders that he instructed his followers to carry out back in 1968. Just because he did not use a knife or scrawl words over the walls in blood should not lessen his responsibility in the crimes or lessen his sentence. He as good as committed the crimes. If you hire someone to kill then it should go without saying that you should be sentenced as if you killed that person yourself. Manson is far more dangerous than Chapman and i despise what Chapman did; after all these years i still cannot understand why John died, i cannot watch any of the documentaries, and its a stuggle to read Beatles solo chronologies for the period of September to December 1980.

"Well, probably we'll sell less records, less people'll go to see the film, we'll write less songs, and we'll all die of failure" (John Lennon 8/64)
25 August 2012
10.05pm
mr. Sun king coming together
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 6916
Member Since:
19 September 2010
Offline
49

Whether or not who you kill should affect your sentence is a argument to be had (I don't support it, personally), but it is established legal doctrine that all men are equal. Zig said it well when he said he killed a human being who was also John Lennon. That is how he is viewed.

I tried to think of something powerful and moving… and failed.  "You were given a choice between war and dishonor - you chose dishonor, and you shall have war" - Winston Churchill
25 August 2012
10.15pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9305
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

mr. Sun king coming together said
Whether or not who you kill should affect your sentence is a argument to be had (I don't support it, personally), but it is established legal doctrine that all men are equal. Zig said it well when he said he killed a human being who was also John Lennon. That is how he is viewed.

Maybe so but it would be naive to think that all men (and women in case someone gets annoyed by that term) are actually trully equal in society. I suppose it comes down to and depends on what you mean by equal and in what specific areas.

If a homeless man is robbed of his possessions would the Police apply themselves as much as if the Mayor was robbed? Unfortunately not. It would be logged and then somehow overlooked.

"Well, probably we'll sell less records, less people'll go to see the film, we'll write less songs, and we'll all die of failure" (John Lennon 8/64)
25 August 2012
10.23pm
unknown
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1233
Member Since:
5 November 2011
Offline

I think it was just John's time to go. Like I always say, "death is just God's way of taking out the trash," so if it wasn't his time he wouldn't have died. There was a story in the paper a couple years ago, and some lady missed her plane flight and died in a car crash on the way home, and the flight she missed ended up crashing anyways. She was just destined to die that day. I would have to say the way John had to die is a pretty bad way of going about it (especially for Yoko and the rest of his family), and if Mark does end up getting a life sentence(which he will) I really won't care, I just don't really believe in prisons.

LTJX said:

Honestly, I would prefer to see Charles Manson set free, rather than Mark Chapman. Manson was not bad at all as a rock musician/songwriter himself (the famous Beach Boys even recorded a Manson-written song and used it on one of their albums!).

Charlie will probably die in prison now. His parole just came up and he was denied. The next one won't be for another twenty years, and right now he's almost eighty. I actually got Charlie Manson's album Lie off iTunes, and I love it. Home is Where Your Happy is amazing, as is Look At Your Game, Girl.

All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
25 August 2012
10.31pm
mr. Sun king coming together
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 6916
Member Since:
19 September 2010
Offline
52

meanmistermustard said

mr. Sun king coming together said
Whether or not who you kill should affect your sentence is a argument to be had (I don't support it, personally), but it is established legal doctrine that all men are equal. Zig said it well when he said he killed a human being who was also John Lennon. That is how he is viewed.

Maybe so but it would be naive to think that all men (and women in case someone gets annoyed by that term) are actually trully equal in society. I suppose it comes down to and depends on what you mean by equal and in what specific areas.

I don't mean in wide and far swaths. In sentence lengths, there is a legal doctrine that should stop varying lengths depending on who you kill. However, MDC has served 32 years for second degree murder. Something doesn't add up. 

I tried to think of something powerful and moving… and failed.  "You were given a choice between war and dishonor - you chose dishonor, and you shall have war" - Winston Churchill
25 August 2012
10.46pm
Zig
The Toppermost of the Poppermost
Moderator



Forum Posts: 3749
Member Since:
14 April 2010
Offline
53

OK people, one more time. The length of his sentence and lack of parole to this point is not based on who, but how he killed. Please put those 3 letters in the right order.

  1. H
  2. O
  3. W

To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.

Every Little Thing you buy from Amazon or iTunes will help the Beatles Bible if you use these links: Amazon | iTunes

25 August 2012
10.58pm
unknown
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1233
Member Since:
5 November 2011
Offline
54

Was the way John was killed that bad? If there was a good way to kill someone, I don't think the way John was killed would be all too far from that. He wasn't tortured first, and it was pretty fast. He also died before getting to the hospital, which, I would think, is much better than him dying in the hospital.

All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
25 August 2012
11.05pm
Zig
The Toppermost of the Poppermost
Moderator



Forum Posts: 3749
Member Since:
14 April 2010
Offline

*deep sigh*

I'm done.

To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.

Every Little Thing you buy from Amazon or iTunes will help the Beatles Bible if you use these links: Amazon | iTunes

25 August 2012
11.53pm
minime
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 516
Member Since:
16 February 2011
Offline
56

So are we discussing now if the murder is first-or second degree? He was fully aware of what he was doing, he wasn't schizophrenia as far as I know, he planned it before and admitted being guilty. So it was a murder, no question about that, but I wouldn't consider it a particular "cruel" one- no torturing was included, the death was fairly quick, no bystanders were injured etc. Honestly, most murders aren't this clean. 

I do think believe the victim's name is the main reason Chapman is still held captive. I find it very scary that people's social status can affect their sentence… 

26 August 2012
1.02am
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9305
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

Not cruel on who? John who was blasted to death yet crawled up the steps gasping for breath and life? Yoko, Julian & Sean who lost a husband and father. The other beatles, his friends and extended family, plus millions of fans?

Fairly quickly? John was alive for many minutes afterwards, still being alive in the hospital operating room when they battled to save him but couldnt due to the fatal damage done by Chapmans actions.

 

Murder is cruel however it is committed be it slow, fast, clean or horrid.

 

Chapman knew full well what he was doing, if it hadnt of been John it would have been Carson, Taylor or whoever else was on the list and most easy accessible. He drew up list of names before selecting John. He planned it all out, travelled to NY, decided for whatever reason to return home to his wife in Hawaii, then returned in December 1980 determined to carry it thru. On the 8th December Chapman first got John to sign Double Fantasy (sickeningly having since been sold for large amounts of money), he then waited for a number of hours for Johns return passing the time by casually chatting to other fans. Finally when John returned to the Dokata with Yoko he called out "Mr Lennon" before opening fire 4 or 5 times. After this he waited for the police to arrive. When asked if he knew what he had done he reponded something like "i shot John Lennon" (i forget the exact quote).

Stick in another name and apply the main frame of that and you still get a sicking, deplorable, well planned murder committed by a determined murderer whose main motive was to become a "somebody".

 

Not getting at anyone in particular when i write this but sometimes its now made out to appear that Chapman is becoming a victim of injustice because he shot John Lennon which is complete and utter bollocks and a thought i find horrendous.

"Well, probably we'll sell less records, less people'll go to see the film, we'll write less songs, and we'll all die of failure" (John Lennon 8/64)
26 August 2012
1.53am
LTJX
A Beginning
Forum Posts: 7
Member Since:
19 May 2012
Offline
58


mr. Sun king coming together said

Unfortunately, the US Constitution disagrees. The Fifth Amendment is more important then your petty beliefs

I try not to cultivate petty beliefs, but I don't think the 5th Amendment is even relevant in this case.  Chapman was indicted by a Grand Jury, he was not forced to testify against himself (I don't believe he testified at all) and he was not put in a double jeopardy situation.  I said he should have been executed, and that has always been an accepted form of punishment for murder under American statute and legal tradition.  Chapman could have been legally executed as long as they had first convened a Grand Jury and then tried him for 1st Degree Murder, which it obviously was.  The 2nd degree plea bargain was a sham compromise by a timid and/or lazy DA.  In truth, it was a cold-blooded, highly-premeditated, planned killing than did not involve any "heat of the moment" or "passion of infidelity" issues or even the most far-fetched suggestion of "self-defense" – all factors which are sometimes seen as mitigating murder and assault.  Therefore, I believe it's quite proper that the Parole Commission (or whatever it's called) in denying his release, describes Chapman's awful crime in the 1st Degree Murder language that is absolutely accurate in reality; if not in the abstract technicalities of the bogus plea bargain deal.  He shot a completely innocent man in the back not once, but 5 times!, using a form of explosive ammunition that Chapman specifically selected for its infamous reputation of producing especially horrible and deadly wounds in its victims.  

If you really think that everyone is legally equal, maybe you just haven't seen enough of how the real world works behind the scenes.  

 We are saying he is legally no more important then anyone else. Therefore, his killer can't be given excessive punishment due to his victim (8th Amendment to the US Constitution)

Correction: the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says only the following:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

As you can see above, the 8th Amendment says nothing about "excessive punishment" as you claim it does.  It prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments" and it says absolutely NOTHING about the identity of the victim not being considered.  That's a legal concept you have proposed, not the Constitution.  There is nothing especially cruel or unusual about Chapman's sentence, even if it lasts his entire lifetime.  All imprisonment is cruel.  In this case, it's meant to be.

26 August 2012
2.21am
mr. Sun king coming together
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 6916
Member Since:
19 September 2010
Offline

LTJX said


mr. Sun king coming together said

Unfortunately, the US Constitution disagrees. The Fifth Amendment is more important then your petty beliefs

I try not to cultivate petty beliefs, but I don't think the 5th Amendment is even relevant in this case.  Chapman was indicted by a Grand Jury, he was not forced to testify against himself (I don't believe he testified at all) and he was not put in a double jeopardy situation.  I said he should have been executed, and that has always been an accepted form of punishment for murder under American statute and legal tradition.  Chapman could have been legally executed as long as they had first convened a Grand Jury and then tried him for 1st Degree Murder, which it obviously was.  The 2nd degree plea bargain was a sham compromise by a timid and/or lazy DA.  In truth, it was a cold-blooded, highly-premeditated, planned killing than did not involve any "heat of the moment" or "passion of infidelity" issues or even the most far-fetched suggestion of "self-defense" – all factors which are sometimes seen as mitigating murder and assault.  Therefore, I believe it's quite proper that the Parole Commission (or whatever it's called) in denying his release, describes Chapman's awful crime in the 1st Degree Murder language that is absolutely accurate in reality; if not in the abstract technicalities of the bogus plea bargain deal.  He shot a completely innocent man in the back not once, but 5 times!, using a form of explosive ammunition that Chapman specifically selected for its infamous reputation of producing especially horrible and deadly wounds in its victims.  

If you really think that everyone is legally equal, maybe you just haven't seen enough of how the real world works behind the scenes.  

Honestly, I'm not even seeing why I put in the part about the fifth amendment. It does seem very However beside the point.

About the legally equal: I must be an idealist. I see no reason to have who you kill dictate sentence length, and obviously you disagree. 

Death penalty: It is obviously a practice that has been used in very similar circumstances (Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald's killer, was sentenced to it. He died of lung cancer before he could be executed, but it is still a perfectly valid resource). I however, don't support it, but that's besides the point.

 

 We are saying he is legally no more important then anyone else. Therefore, his killer can't be given excessive punishment due to his victim (8th Amendment to the US Constitution)

Correction: the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says only the following:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

As you can see above, the 8th Amendment says nothing about "excessive punishment" as you claim it does.  It prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments" and it says absolutely NOTHING about the identity of the victim not being considered.  That's a legal concept you have proposed, not the Constitution.  There is nothing especially cruel or unusual about Chapman's sentence, even if it lasts his entire lifetime.  All imprisonment is cruel.  In this case, it's meant to be.

If I may quote Justice William Brennan (Furman v Georgia, 1972): 

The test, then, will ordinarily be a cumulative one: if a punishment is unusually severe, if there is a strong probability that it is inflicted arbitrarily, if it is substantially rejected by contemporary society, and if there is no reason to believe that it serves any penal purpose more effectively than some less severe punishment, then the continued infliction of that punishment violates the command of the Clause that the State may not inflict inhuman and uncivilized punishments upon those convicted of crimes."

 


I maintain that allows cruel and unusual (the wording of the Constitution) to equal excessive punishment. I meant to say cruel and unusual, but i wrote excessive, hoping to get the same point across. Point taken on identity.

 

Edit: I'm very pleased we can continue on a pleasant path, at least in tone. I'd much prefer to continue this discussion in a civil tone, as it makes everything better. Welcome to the forum, by the way.

I tried to think of something powerful and moving… and failed.  "You were given a choice between war and dishonor - you chose dishonor, and you shall have war" - Winston Churchill
26 August 2012
2.42am
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 9305
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

Im sorry but explain to me how this is is a cruel punishment. Because he hasnt been released? The sentence was 20 years to life. Chapman is not a victim. And why is this punishment excessive?

"Well, probably we'll sell less records, less people'll go to see the film, we'll write less songs, and we'll all die of failure" (John Lennon 8/64)
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: Ahhh Girl, Annadog40, C.R.A., MrMoonlight, Bulldog
66 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 9305

mr. Sun king coming together: 6916

parlance: 4936

mithveaen: 4651

Ahhh Girl: 4583

Zig: 3749

Annadog40: 3682

Mr. Kite: 3315

Ron Nasty: 2972

fabfouremily: 2927

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 87

Members: 2524

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 34

Topics: 3172

Posts: 130068

Newest Members: SaxonMothersSon, HAWAIIBEATLESFAN, all8daysaweek, batbear, mal evans

Moderators: Ahhh Girl (4583), meanmistermustard (9305), Zig (3749), Joe (3417)

Administrators: Joe (3417), Ellie (1)

Members Birthdays
Today: None
Upcoming: Filipe