Caribarena Antigua The Best Caribbean News Portal

**Justice** » 2010-12-20 00:01

I guess the actions of the government in suppressing the news Antigua is not extraditing Leroy King to the US claiming "Sovereign Immunity". This has carefully been hidden from the people of Antigua even though it is now common knowledge in the US. We must all presume this is because Mr King could implicate further government ministers in the Stanford fraud.

The government has also suppressed the news regarding the Antigua law suit against Antigua. They are again claiming "Sovereign Immunity" and refusing to answer the charges brought against the Antigua government. This is the lawsuit the government claimed did not exist for 6 months, and when they were finally forced to admit there was a law suit said there was no case and would fight it vigorously.

St range way to fight, more like running and hiding. Now the world can truly see the government has something to hide by dodging the Leroy King extradition and the lawsuit.

**The poster formerly known as Rubbish** » 2010-10-26 07:52

Agreed that the origin of this debate is a bit odd. While I think there is a lot of misinformation floating about as to the nature and claims of homeopathy, it is certainly a shame that billboards and newspapers are being used to mount a personal attack against Ms. Wagentrotz, conveniently wielding homeopathy as nothing more than a weapon. I like seeing the issue brought to the public's eye, but not through a campaign of personal spite. I am certainly not defending that.

**The poster formerly known as Rubbish** » 2010-10-26 06:56

I'm glad you reposted the Daily Mail article. As stated earlier, I feel it is the strongest argument that has been made in this discourse so far in favor of homeopathy. At the risk of being redundant, I will address it again here to have it all in one place.

The Mail article is discussing the following paper in the British Journal of Medicine

bmj.com/conte nt/321/7259/471 .full#article-t itle-28
While ostensibly good research (the methods described are fair, thorough, and follow accepted standards of clinical research), there are three vital problems with the paper.

1) As acknowledged by the author of the paper (the homeopath being interviewed by the Daily Mail), the sample sizes of 23 patients for the test group and 27 for the placebo group, are entirely too small to have any statistical significance, meaning no useful conclusions can be drawn from the study

**Facts.** » 2010-10-26 06:55

what can i say .. i guess those who read these post are very passionate about homeopathy.
gue ss in some way the suspected personal nature of this attack on homeopathy and the person who is using this to settle what looks to be a personal score ( because it really has little to do with homeopathy), will bring the worse and best out of some.
I am however happy that we have been afforded to shine a small light on the pro and cons of various medical treatments be it traditional or alternative. in the end we all believe in the same aim to promote well being and health education from our own view points, and in some cases our personal experiences.

l ooking forward to an other discussion on health in the future, thanks formerly know as rubbish:)

**The poster formerly known as Rubbish** » 2010-10-26 06:55

2) The data obtained from this group of 50 patients actually suggests that there is no difference between the homeopathic preparations used and the placebo.
3) In order to address the above two concerns, the researchers included the results from 4 other studies to give a total patient population of 253. Once the data from these studies is included, the researchers claim an observed effect from homeopathy and state that it is statistically significant. The problem is, they only describe the experimental procedure for the 52 patients which showed no clear effect of homeopathy. We do not know how the data from the rest of the studies was gathered, nor how the tests were run. That is a serious flaw. I am actually surprised the BMJ actually published this.

I am not the only one who has brought up these concerns. A second research group attempted to replicate the findings of the above study with a significant pool of 242 patients. Again, the paper was published in the BJM:
bmj.com/co ntent/324/7336/ 520.1.full#ref- 14

**The poster formerly known as Rubbish** » 2010-10-26 06:54

This properly detailed, statistically significant study showed no effect of homeopathy beyond that seen for a placebo. When the trials are properly controlled, homeopathy fails to show an effect.

I have been researching this topic for several years and occasionally find articles flattering to homeopathy which make their way into the peer reviewed literature, but they invariably have had serious, if not obvious, methodological flaws, yield statistically insignificant findings, or can not be replicated by independent labs, the hallmark of a valuable scientific study. For clarity, I am not claiming that I am correct because I have studied this for years, take that remark as you will. My degree of familiarity with the material does not affect objective facts.

**The poster formerly known as Rubbish** » 2010-10-26 06:07

Facts, I appreciate your recognition of the need for civility in a constructive dialogue, thanks for that. I'm not taking any comments personally. I suspect you would agree with me that it would be silly to take anything personally from an internet exchange between people who don't know each other and who are posting under anonymous user names. I simply think it is necessary to point out that personal attacks don't amount to substantiation of a claim or challenge. Several of the posts throughout these exchanges have had no substance in terms of the topic at hand, and have been nothing more than personal attacks. The frightening thing is, if you look back at the voting **ons in the bottom right corner of the posts, many of those personal attacks have received "+1" or "+2" votes, as if they are somehow trump cards in this debate. Clearly there are multiple people reading this who do not understand what makes for a sound, or even valid, argument. That is not an attack on anyone, it has been made quite evident by the voting that has been occurring. I simply feel the need to point out that these types of posts do nothing to make a point.

**Facts.** » 2010-10-26 04:06

facts vs rubish final
written by facts, October 20, 2010
About 20 per cent of doctors in Scotland have basic homeopathic training compared with one per cent 15 years ago.
'It isn't just about the remedies, which can be put to the test in trials, but about a greater holistic approach in encouraging self-healing and self-recovery.'
Dr Bob Leckridge, president of the Fac**ty of Homeopathy - the body for doctors, vets, nurses and other health professionals - said: 'This latest research builds on existing evidence that homeopathy works, something that hundreds of doctors and their patients have known for 200 years.'

Read more: dailymail.co.uk /health/article -4040/Homeopath y-works.html#ix zz12sBojlpd
so rubish ? ready for some homeopathic remedy yet seems you have insomnia and nothing esle to do , i just work late. that's a fact.;)

**Facts.** » 2010-10-26 04:06

facts vs rubish 8
written by facts, October 20, 2010
The study was carried out by doctors in Glasgow, led by Dr David Reilly of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital, one of five specialist hospitals in Britain. He said the difference in results from the two treatments was statistically significant.
Dr Reilly said this was the fourth trial carried out by his hospital, all with similar results. In addition, there were positive findings in 70 per cent of a further 180 clinical trials.
'I hope this will encourage doctors to examine the volume of evidence supporting homeopathy - they might be quite surprised at the positive outcome in many trials,' he said.
He added that it would take consistent scientific investigation to persuade some doctors, but attitudes were changing.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...z12sBaAfhW

**Facts.** » 2010-10-26 04:05

facts vs rubish 7
written by facts, October 20, 2010
It works on the principle that a substance which in large doses will cause the symptoms of an illness can be used in minute doses to relieve the same symptoms.
Critics argue that the active substance is so diluted that homeopathic remedies have no more effect than placebo or dummy treatment.
The study put homeopathy to the test in 50 patients suffering from nasal allergies. They were given either a homeopathic preparation or a placebo.
Each day for four weeks patients recruited from general practices and a hospital in London measured their nasal air flow and recorded symptoms such as blocked, runny or itchy nose, sneezing or eye irritation.

Both groups reported that they got better - but on average patients who received homeopathy had a 28 per cent improvement in nasal air flow compared with 3 per cent among those in the placebo group.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...z12sBO2XGe

**Facts.** » 2010-10-26 04:04

Facts vs rubish 6
written by facts, October 20, 2010
now for some scientific evidence why homeopathy works.
not my words but the UK daily mail i guess a league or so above the daily observer antigua.
'Homeopathy works!'

by JENNY HOPE, Daily Mail
Homeopathy really does work and doctors should recognise its healing effects, say researchers.
A study found that allergy sufferers who were given homeopathic treatment were ten times more likely to be cured than those given a dummy pill instead.
Doctors should be more positive about the alternative medicine, which is the only complementary therapy available on the NHS, the researchers said.
Their study attempts to settle the controversy over homeopathic treatment, which critics say is not effective because of the tiny level of active substance used in most remedies.

**Facts.** » 2010-10-26 03:16

Rubbish ( i wish you would change that name)
Please don't take it personal I really enjoy your level of skill and knowledge in this debate, and i wish it wold have been under a different heading as we are blogging on a non homeopathy issue here.
I am sure non of us have the illusion that we are going to reach consensus here.
yet I would like to honestly thank you for your view points and discussion. lets keep at it because Homeopathy is surly worth a second and even third look. lets keep discussing it with an open mind
Salute. Facts.

**Rubbish** » 2010-10-26 00:37

My first comment here was to simply correct a couple of common misconceptions (chicken soup os homeopathy, homeopathy is thousands of years old). Homeopathy is often thought to be synonymous with folk medicine. It is not. In this and previous discussions, I have offered links to credible sources and to the pertinent primary scientific literature (if through a secondary source such as wikipedia, which I am using only as a compendium of referenced primary journal articles and reviews, not as a authoritative source itself). I am met at all turns by unsubstantiated attacks on myself, my honesty, and my knowledge. Yet no one has offered an actual argument against what I have proposed. Calling me names, bold type, all capital digital shouting, and repeating that I am offering an opinion without any support of that charge are not arguments nor proof of anything. The closest thing to a valid point raised in two discussions here trying to discredit my stance has been a link to the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4040/Homeopathy-works.html#ixzz12sBAPNrj

**Rubbish** » 2010-10-26 00:36

I cited the original journal article in the British Medical Journal:
bmj.co m/content/321/7 259/471.full#ar ticle-title-28

and pointed out the weaknesses of the study. Apparently others noticed the same weaknesses and actually repeated the whole study using proper study parameters and statistical analysis, also published in the British Medical Journal:
bmj.co m/content/324/7 336/520.1

The fact that this was an attempt to replicate the original Daily Mail cited study is confirmed by an advocate of homeopathy here: ncbi.nlm.nih.go v/pmc/articles/ PMC1122433/

Pr oblem is, when they did the study properly, they found that there was no difference between homeopathy and placebo.

Pleas e stop with the personal attacks and stick to the argument you have chosen to challenge. If you want to challenge my cited history of homeopathy, please offer pertinent and reliable references. If you want to challenge the proposal that homeopathy is no better than a placebo, please offer reputable and pertinent sources to refute the bulk of accumulated, well documented, and properly conducted research which has established this.

**Super J** » 2010-10-25 22:02

Just read the whole story. Homeopathy is understood by those who choose to understand it. Just because you do not understand does not mean it is rubbish.
Thousa nds of men and women all over the world who understand the principles of Homeopathy use it effectively.
Re ad all sides of the articles, not just the ones who want to pick and choose to support your view, then draw a conclusion. That is called science.
What you do is called RUBBISH.
Now Please stop stinking up the page.

**Rubbish** » 2010-10-25 14:47

"You must think you are smart, quoting an article and then quoting the sources of that article as separate sources."

Wasn 't aware I had done that, but my intelligence has nothing to do with the validity of my position. I have posted the first several links that came up from a) respected, recognized sources and b) advocates of homeopathy to demonstrate that the history of homeopathy is well documented and not a matter of my opinion. If you find two that are cross-reference d, ignore one and look at the others, they tell the same story.

"I do not expect you to get the vaccine analogy."

Plea se enlighten me. Vaccines work by a mechanism which is fairly well understood and has nothing to do with the claims of homeopathy. There is a world of difference between expecting a biological response to small amounts of a protein and expecting a biological response to small molecules which have been diluted to the point of non-existence.

**Rubbish** » 2010-10-25 14:46

"Hahnemann did not invent the law of similars. Hippocrates considered the father of medicine ( by CONVENTIONAL physicians) said " the alike are the cure for the alike." He said it thousands of years before Hahnemann."

Yo u are relying on an etymological fallacy, an argument to authority, and an argument to tradition here; all well defined logical fallacies.

Hah nemann refers to the "law of similars" as foundation of homeopathy. Simple mention of the idea of "like cures like" by Hippocrates does not a) mean it is in fact a natural or physical "law", or b) in any way validate Hahnemann's claims. The term homeopathy and the parameters of its practice were defined by Hahnemann. The fact that some of the terminology was borrowed from ancient predecessors does nothing to validate his claims. Using your logic, Tolkein's stories about Middle Earth must be true because elves were talked about in books long before "The Lord of the Rings".

**Rubbish** » 2010-10-25 14:45

"It is a principle used by Hahnemann in cla*sical homeopathic medicine and used by Sir Dr. Edward Jenner, the father of vaccinations ( a pillar of conventional medicine). "

Vaccination has been shown to work through a mechanism which has no bearing on homeopathy. Properly designed studies of homeopathy have shown that it is no better than placebo, and no feasible mechanism of how it could work has been established.

P lease stick to the topic at hand and leave out the unfounded ad hominem attacks. They do nothing to further your argument.

**Super J** » 2010-10-25 14:03

Some books that might help you: the Student's Companion ( Yey the little orange book we used in primary school), New Worlds to Conquer ( primary school again), Body By God, by Dr. Ben Lerner ( a man who has trained numerous Olympic Champions), Alternative Cures by Bill Gottlieb, Ministry of Healing by Ellen G. White ( of the SDA Church).
I do want you to wear out your brain waves, so you can get History of the World ( no not the book this time, yes the Mel Brookes movie). And while you are at it get Gratuite ( no it is not free, jus the greatest Film short of all times, well it might be free on the internet).
Hope fully next time you say something it might not be RUBBISH.

**Super J** » 2010-10-25 13:34

You must think you are smart, quoting an article and then quoting the sources of that article as separate sources. You are the Real Rubbish.
I do not expect you to get the vaccine analogy. Everything you read is online, but you are not reading the whole story. Hahnemann did not invent the law of similars.
Hippo crates considered the father of medicine ( by CONVENTIONAL physicians) said " the alike are the cure for the alike." He said it thousands of years before Hahnemann.
It is a principle used by Hahnemann in classical homeopathic medicine and used by Sir Dr. Edward Jenner, the father of vaccinations ( a pillar of conventional medicine).
Try reading a book sometimes, and get the whole story.

**Rubbish** » 2010-10-25 11:35

I did not claim that Wikipedia is my source of scientific information. While wikipedia must generally be taken with several grains of salt, the article on homeopathy is spot on and well maintained. The most important part of the article is all of the references of the primary literature therein. But, to satisfy your query for other sources:

And keep in mind, anyone else who is reading this, that all I have stated below is a brief history and summation of the basic principles of homeopathy, something that can be easily checked by anyone who wishes to spend 5 minutes on Google. "Facts". why does that bother you so?

**Rubbish** » 2010-10-25 11:34

From Creighton University's alternative medicine page:
http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/history.htm

From a meta-analysis on homeopathy in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, a reputable, peer reviewed journal exceedingly pertinent to the topic at hand. Read the introduction:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x/full

From the U.S. government's National Institute of Health (NIH) alternative medicine division, the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM):
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#overview

From an alternative medicine web page which is advocating homeopathy:
http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_info/history.html

**Rubbish** » 2010-10-25 11:34

From homeopathic.com , a website maintained by (and the article written by) one Danna Ullman, who is generally recognized as one of the most vocal advocates of homeopathy in the United States:
http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,19

You can shout in bold print all you want, but people here who are interested will read some of these references and realize that what I have stated is not opinion. I can give you endless references, what have you got? If you can find any reputable source which states anything significantly different from the synopsis of homeopathy i have given below, please, post it. Please do your own research.

Oh, and not that this has anything to do with homeopathy, but what is your point about vaccines?

**one love** » 2010-10-25 10:38

Wow and there's my prove. Antiguans will do anything for money. They would probably sell their mother's soul to the devil. I know that times are hard but come on..! Isn't there a point in time were one comes to their senses? A divorce is a personal matter. Can we all just respect that ( even though Mr. Wagentrotz can't) and leave it between those 2 people? Why do Antiguan let themselves be pulled into a matter like this just for a few bucks? I honestly wonder how these greedy people would feel if this was their mom, friend, sister or cousin that was targeted like this. Don't forget what goes around comes around.
GOD please forgive them for they don't know what they are doing...

Peace

**As If** » 2010-10-25 10:04

If? If my aunt had a "Sammy" she would be my uncle now wouldn't she so lets leave if out of it.

I can see about 10 reason's why this is a defamatory slam dunk case

for starters your big If...How about using a likeness or image of a person ( say an actual classical homeopath) without permission in a public add campaign against the same homeopathy.

**Facts** » 2010-10-25 09:54

"Please read into this. Wikipedia has a good article on homeopathy."

WIKI ARE YOU SERIOUS????

Dear Rubbish, are you trying to sell the same point as in the previous tread" homeopath responds to add?
One more time , YOUR OPINION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FACT.
Serious I lost interest after you quote "Wikipedia" as your scientific source and reference's.
We both know that wiki is the biggest pile of opinion on the net, but a little thin on Fact's.
Go back and read the previous exchange we had on this.
I will give you this one to think about " Vaccinations " I know you know where I am coming from so read up and no wiki please in the name of science no wiki.

**be logical** » 2010-10-25 09:35

If the picture was taken in a public place, and if the sign is not telling a lie (about the person) then it is legal, if she brings the case to court she will look stupid. Ie if I see you in a public park and take your picture I can do whatever I want with it....that is basic freedom of speech and freedom of speech is, and should be protected. Now if she can prove that the billboard directly lies about her (not about homeopathy as that would simply be incorrect information not slander) she may have a case

**Rubbish** » 2010-10-25 09:00

While I find the billboard campaign and some of Mr. Wagentrotz's comments to be quite odd, There needs to be some clarification here as to what homeopathy is. Homeopathy is not naturopathy. Homeopathy is not herbalism. No, homeopathy is not "thousands of years old"; it was invented in 1796. No, chicken soup does not constitute homeopathy; chicken soup is a folk remedy.. Please do a little research to confirm this for yourselves, any homeopath will tell you the same thing as I will, but here is a brief summary of what homeopathy is:

**Rubbish** » 2010-10-25 08:59

A German physician named Samuel Hahnemann was translating a text written by a contemporary of his, a Scottish Physician named William Cullen. Cullen noted that ingesting cinchona bark causes symptoms similar to that of malaria. It was also noted that cinchona bark was useful as a treatment of malaria. Hahnemann concluded that ingesting a poison which causes the symptoms of a disease will serve as the cure for that disease. He called this the "law of similars", which is misleading because it is simply a phrase he chose to use; there is no such law.

Hahnemann then created a process which he called "provings" to determine what substances cause disease symptoms in a healthy individual. What this simply entails is giving a healthy person a substance to ingest (often a recognized poison), noting what symptoms the substance elicits. and then looking to see what known diseases share these symptoms. The substance is than viewed as a potential homeopathic cure for that ailment.

**Rubbish** » 2010-10-25 08:58

Recognizing that giving a sick person something which caused the same symptoms of their disease only served to make the person sicker, Hahnemann decided that he needed to dilute his preparations. He next invented a system which he called "potentiation". This entails a series of 10-fold dilutions, each followed by "succusion" - vigorous shaking/banging of the solution. According to homeopaths, the more dilute the solution is, the more powerful it is. So they continue diluting, and then dilute some more.

Now, here's the really interesting part. A 10-fold dilution means 1 mL of solution diluted into a final volume of 10 mL, using pure water or alcohol as the dilution solvent. Once you perform this 10-fold dilution 24 times (1 mL of solution A diluted to make solution B, one mL of solution B diluted to make solution C, and so on), there is only a 3/5 chance that there is even one molecule of the original substance left in the final solution. It has been diluted to the extent of being non existent. That occurs at dilution number 24. Homeopathic preparations commonly are diluted 30x, or even 200x.

**Rubbish** » 2010-10-25 08:57

So to recap, a German physician, quite off the top of his head, and during a time when your barber was also your surgeon and bloodletting was the go to procedure for just about any ailment, decided that diluting a known poison would serve as a potent cure for just about any disease state. All you needed to do was find the poison that causes a healthy person to develop the same symptoms as the person you are trying to treat, and dilute it out of existence while applying a careful shaking methodology . Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Next to nothing was known at the time about bacteria and viruses. Biochemistry and pharmacology did not exist. No one had any idea how the human body actually operated and what caused, let alone cured disease. Hahnemann was successful because his patients didn't die. Of course they didn't, he was feeding them pure water.

Please read into this. Wikipedia has a good article on homeopathy. Again, any homeopath will tell you the same thing about the nature of homeopathy, but they will tell you as if it is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe.

**my way of helping** » 2010-10-25 08:22

you said the deepest and most true thing on here, in Antigua money is most important, this fact hurts and we should change this.

I hate money because of the things it will do to us, i hate it.

**Tobi** » 2010-10-25 08:20

I wonder if this fella could do this in the country where he come from?

**my way of helping** » 2010-10-25 08:18

I agree with you and they should sue this husband and sign company for everything they have. My brother is a doctor/ physician, top in america and the natural herbs and spices are actually used to make medicine so i do not see why homeopathy is considered not to be effective.

are n't those the same things used to make the M.D prescribed drugs? I am ignorant enlighten me.

Husband stop abusing the person's image, these buildboard owners should know the rights of antiguans and barbudans. let me take them to court.

**disgusted** » 2010-10-25 07:28

I hate to think of what type of mind will go to these lenghts. The situation appears very frightening and I hope this lady has her back well protected.

**out side observer** » 2010-10-25 06:57

The Daily Observer could learn a thing or two from this internet upstart Carib Arena when it comes to good ethic's in the Antiguan Media .

Did I say good ethic's in our Antiguan media?????" oops sorry must be my medication that has me so delusional.

**proud Antiguans** » 2010-10-25 06:54

As much as many of us are intrigued or disgusted with this revenge campaign by Juergen wagentrotz and his minions, like LMR and signs Plus.
( to those 2 we hope you sold your soul and self respect for good money. However we will never use your business again)
I must say we in Antigua are not stupid, we can see this campaign for what it is nasty personal attack of a rich guy with no boundaries.
Com pliments to Carib Arena because we are sure Mr Wagentrotz must have offered you some good money to print his filth. It is clear from your articles and posts that you told him where to stick it, thanks you for being a real media outlet with integrity

**Proud ANU Queen** » 2010-10-25 05:25

Hasn't the practice of Homeopathy medicine been around for thousands of years? The Chinese have been using it forever. As a result, they have low rates of obesity, heart attacks and strokes. As a matter of fact, I still resort to the remedies of my grand and great grand parents, because western medicine is poison to the body. Some drugs have very serious side effects and some has rat posison as one of its ingredients. I actually know of someone in the U.S. who takes 22 pills a day to stay ailve, and rat poison is the active ingredient in one of them. As a result, his Pancreas became swollen and painful.

One more thing, do you know the ingredients in the flu shot? Please google it, and see for yourselves, before you start knocking natural remedies.

Shame on this man for tryig to destroy his wife's career.

**the nerve of this dude** » 2010-10-25 03:43

in one word, disgusting
I hope you will be called to account in our court of law.
and i hear that this campaign is just part of the deplorable behavior of this fellow Juergen Kurt Wagentrotz
some of it is now in the hands of the police.

**fnpsr** » 2010-10-25 02:37

Joan, I thank you for bringing that to my attention. However, I would even go further and replace the billboard and put something else in its place.

**Joan** » 2010-10-25 02:19

If you take notice caribarena erased the face from the picture.

**fnpsr** » 2010-10-25 02:00

Caribarena, I believe that you are contributing to the shameful acts of this individual by showing the picture of the billboard. You could have run the article and used some other art form. This is a personal matter between a husband and a wife who are going through a divorce and as anyone knows, divorce can be dirty. This individual does not have a problem with Homeopathy, he has a problem with his wife who is a homeopath and is using such to destroy her.

Suppose this individual had a problem with cricket, would he be allowed and would the media publish an image of Sir Vivian Richards? I think not.

Therefore , I urge you to replace the picture of the billboard.

**Bole'** » 2010-10-25 01:47

Mrs. Wagentrots, I know it's kind of shocking to find out that your face spread all over the island on billboards, but maybe consider that even bad publicity is good publicity, and sensible people would figure the shameless attack on you, but still will know that there is a practice homeopath on the island,

**Bole'** » 2010-10-25 00:03

Shame shame a bunch of greedy Bloodhounds.

**JP Farnsworth** » 2010-10-24 23:46

Chicken is homopathy? is it not? lots of what we use like bush tea is that homeopathy?
I guess the poster of all this anti-homeopathi c stuff could be called a homeophobic?

**buckhunter** » 2010-10-24 23:22

Money buy's everything in Antigua. This man has no style

DC » 2010-10-24 23:10

I can't believe the authorities are allowing this! It is clear that Jurgen Wagentrotz does have a personal vendetta against his wife. More importantly, his stunningly immature conduct borders on ha**ment, and I wouldn't be surprised if it struck fear into his soon-to-be ex-wife. If he is willing to go this far, we (Ms. Wagentrotz included) have to wonder, just how far is he willing to go?

I think this billboard should taken down immediately, and that local media should henceforth refuse to aid this hounding of Ms. Wagentrotz.

I find it troubling that the billboard was allowed to go up at all.

Title	Answers
How do you keep people safe and seen on your roads at night?	0
what kind of plants do giant african snails affect?	0
wat are the names of plant pests in antigua?	0
how can i get in touch with musicians to start a new touring reggae band in antigua	2
who agrees that the government should pay the school teaches and improve the libraries instead of buying school students expensive tablets	1

Title	Answers	Hits
Was there a police report filed by Royal Caribbean Vision of the seas for the man, wife and 11 yr old child removed from the ship on December 20th, 2012 ? He allegedly attacked a man with a service dog on the ship and was set on the dock that day with hi	0	28740
PWD in shambles, what is the purpose of their position? I'm tired of these people in the dept who jsut come eac day to make you feel uncomfortable because of their miserable lives. someone needs to look into this.	0	14597
What is the world's largest airline?	2	5305
What is the amount ZDK owes for electricity ?	1	3648
any audio or video of Minister Farrakhan speech at the Multi-purpose Centre?	1	3564

47 Comments In This Article

Add comment

Follow us on Facebook

Popular Questions

Ask Your Question

Spotlight on Education

Latest Opinion Pieces

Most Read Opinions This Month

Search Directory

Directory Listings

App

CARIBARENA