|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tony_Balony
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:17 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Atheism is a religion. |
No. By definition a religion needs a god. People these days readily confuse a strong belief in something to a religion. That is false. A religion needs a god. Atheism is not a religion. |
No - Atheism is a religion. They have a strong belief that a god does not exist but offer no proof one does not exist. Remember back in Scooby Doo, when Shaggy et al found the flashlight and mirrors proving the the pirate ghost was phoney? They haven't found the mirrors yet. They worship "He who cannot be named" or the concept of such.
Atheists also have a rule book that says what is right and wrong and what is clean and unclean but can offer no justification for those positions.
Atheists simply insist their church is best because of their proclaimed omnipresence. Thats the oldest trick in the book and in fact its a not even a trick. I'ts just standard operating procedure.
Dude, I'm Catholic. I've been lied to for 2000 years. I've heard it all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Atheism is a religion. |
No.
By definition a religion needs a god.
People these days readily confuse a strong belief in something to a religion. That is false.
A religion needs a god. Atheism is not a religion. |
By whose definition? What is religion?
Why support such a narrow & "restrictive" definition?
Why try to pigeon-hole or otherwise box-in what has always been cosmick, elusive, beyond mere words & profoundly mysterious?
What ISN'T religion? Moreover, what ISN'T "political"?
Think what you like Funky, my understanding is that these two realms are for all sentient beings, unavoidable & inescapable.
Notice i like to pose a lot of questions?
It's part of my religion 
| Quote: |
| From Latin religiō, meaning "moral obligation" and "worship" < possibly religō "tie back, fasten up" < prefix re- (back) + ligō (to tie). |
| Quote: |
Generally speaking, certain systems of belief that do not involve the existence of one or more deities, such as Buddhism, can be considered a religion, though some people ( such as Funkified ) prefer a stricter definition ... that excludes the possibility of a non-theistic religion.
Others ( such as IGTG ) are in favor of a very general definition of religion: that any belief, such as atheism, or system of beliefs, such as science, is a kind of religion or part of a religion.
In language, such uses are generally considered ... humorous (highly dependent on context.) |
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion
| Quote: |
Etymology
The English word religion is in use since the 13th century, loaned from Anglo-French religiun (11th century), ultimately from the Latin religio, "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety, the res divinae".[4]
The ultimate origins of Latin religio are obscure. 
It is usually accepted to derive from ligare "bind, connect"; likely from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect."
This interpretation is favoured by modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell, but was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.
Another possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare. A historical interpretation due to Cicero on the other hand connects lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Etymology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony_Balony wrote: |
| Dude, I'm Catholic. I've been lied to for 2000 years. I've heard it all. |
Really? Have you heard about this?
800 Years Of Greco-Buddhism
| Quote: |
Greco-Buddhism, sometimes spelt Graeco-Buddhism, refers to the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed between the 4th century BCE and the 5th century CE in the area covered by modern Afghanistan, Pakistan and north-western border regions of modern India namely western portions of Jammu and Kashmir.
It was a cultural consequence of a long chain of interactions begun by Greek forays into India from the time of Alexander the Great, carried further by the establishment of Indo-Greek rule in the area for some centuries, and extended during flourishing of the Hellenized empire of the Kushans.
Greco-Buddhism influenced the artistic (and perhaps the conceptual) development of Buddhism, particularly Mahayana Buddhism,[1] before Buddhism was adopted in Central and Northeastern Asia, from the 1st century CE, ultimately spreading to China, Korea and Japan. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony_Balony
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group
Posted: August 20, 2005
1:00 am Eastern
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."
"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."
"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony_Balony
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda
The footnote in Torcaso v. Watkins referenced Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda,[20] a 1957 case in which an organization of humanists[21] sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used their property "solely and exclusively for religious worship." Despite the group's non-theistic beliefs, the court determined that the activities of the Fellowship of Humanity, which included weekly Sunday meetings, were analogous to the activities of theistic churches and thus entitled to an exemption.[citation needed]
The Fellowship of Humanity case itself referred to humanism but did not mention the term secular humanism. Nonetheless, this case was cited by Justice Black to justify the inclusion of Secular Humanism in the list of religions in his note. Presumably Justice Black added the word secular to emphasize the non-theistic nature of the Fellowship of Humanity and distinguish their brand of humanism from that associated with, for example, Christian humanism.[citation needed]
[edit] Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia
Another case alluded to in the Torcaso v. Watkins footnote, and said by some to have established secular humanism as a religion under the law, is the 1957 tax case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371). The Washington Ethical Society functions much like a church, but regards itself as a non-theistic religious institution, honoring the importance of ethical living without mandating a belief in a supernatural origin for ethics. The case involved denial of the Society's application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption.
The Society terms its practice Ethical Culture. Though Ethical Culture is based on a humanist philosophy, it is regarded by some as a type of religious humanism. Hence, it would seem most accurate to say that this case affirmed that a religion need not be theistic to qualify as a religion under the law, rather than asserting that it established generic secular humanism as a religion.
In the cases of both the Fellowship of Humanity and the Washington Ethical Society, the court decisions turned not so much on the particular beliefs of practitioners as on the function and form of the practice being similar to the function and form of the practices in other religious institutions.
[edit] Peloza v. Capistrano School District
The implication in Justice Black's footnote that secular humanism is a religion has been seized upon by religious opponents of the teaching of the theory of evolution, who have made the argument that teaching evolution amounts to teaching a religious idea.
The claim that secular humanism could be considered a religion for legal purposes was examined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Peloza v. Capistrano School District in 1994. In this case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case.
The decision in a subsequent case, Kalka v. Hawk et al., offered this commentary:[21]
The Court's statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a "religion" under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the "Fellowship of Humanity" qualified as a religious organization under California law. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony_Balony wrote: |
| Quote: |
Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda
The footnote in Torcaso v. Watkins referenced Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda,[20] a 1957 case in which an organization of humanists[21] sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used their property "solely and exclusively for religious worship." Despite the group's non-theistic beliefs, the court determined that the activities of the Fellowship of Humanity, which included weekly Sunday meetings, were analogous to the activities of theistic churches and thus entitled to an exemption.[citation needed]
The Fellowship of Humanity case itself referred to humanism but did not mention the term secular humanism. Nonetheless, this case was cited by Justice Black to justify the inclusion of Secular Humanism in the list of religions in his note. Presumably Justice Black added the word secular to emphasize the non-theistic nature of the Fellowship of Humanity and distinguish their brand of humanism from that associated with, for example, Christian humanism.[citation needed]
[edit] Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia
Another case alluded to in the Torcaso v. Watkins footnote, and said by some to have established secular humanism as a religion under the law, is the 1957 tax case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371). The Washington Ethical Society functions much like a church, but regards itself as a non-theistic religious institution, honoring the importance of ethical living without mandating a belief in a supernatural origin for ethics. The case involved denial of the Society's application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption.
The Society terms its practice Ethical Culture. Though Ethical Culture is based on a humanist philosophy, it is regarded by some as a type of religious humanism. Hence, it would seem most accurate to say that this case affirmed that a religion need not be theistic to qualify as a religion under the law, rather than asserting that it established generic secular humanism as a religion.
In the cases of both the Fellowship of Humanity and the Washington Ethical Society, the court decisions turned not so much on the particular beliefs of practitioners as on the function and form of the practice being similar to the function and form of the practices in other religious institutions.
[edit] Peloza v. Capistrano School District
The implication in Justice Black's footnote that secular humanism is a religion has been seized upon by religious opponents of the teaching of the theory of evolution, who have made the argument that teaching evolution amounts to teaching a religious idea.
The claim that secular humanism could be considered a religion for legal purposes was examined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Peloza v. Capistrano School District in 1994. In this case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case.
The decision in a subsequent case, Kalka v. Hawk et al., offered this commentary:[21]
The Court's statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a "religion" under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the "Fellowship of Humanity" qualified as a religious organization under California law. |
|
The activities were analogous, not the same. Nice try, this means crap, like your opinion. Atheism is not a religion, no matter how much you want it to be. Just because a dolphin lives in the water doesn't mean it's a fish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
well. if there is a religion that never meets, has no central tenents, no belief in a higher power, no sacraments, no catchecism, no saints, no giving of money to the church, no hell, no original sin, the central authority, no local authority, no hierarchy and no after life then that is a religion on the right track.
but i would like to know the links between rosaries and buddhist prayer beads and all the links in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The issue of what is a religion is controversial. Funkdafied said that a religion is a position that posits a god. That�s basically true, but if you want to get really technical, science also qualifies as a religion if the definition of �a religion� is that which is based on axioms. Science certainly is based on an axiom�.that mind and language directly correspond to a mind-independent, external reality and, as such, we can have true, objective knowledge. Science assumes the latter to be true without need for proof and, if you wanna be picky, it qualifies as a religion, because a religion is any belief that requires blind faith. Atheism however is lack of a belief in an entity. Does lack of belief in tables and chairs constitute a religion? Does lack of belief in elephants constitute a religion? Assuming your answer is no, why does lack of belief in the universe being a fascist regime constitute a religion? Atheism is lack of belief. Religion is blind faith a belief is true. Atheism therefore is not a religion as it posits nothing as axiomatic.
| Tony Balony wrote: |
| No - Atheism is a religion. They have a strong belief that a god does not exist but offer no proof one does not exist. Remember back in Scooby Doo, when Shaggy et al found the flashlight and mirrors proving the the pirate ghost was phoney? They haven't found the mirrors yet. They worship "He who cannot be named" or the concept of such. |
1. We cannot prove God doesn�t exist
2. Therefore �God exists� is a reasonable position
is again a pathetic fallacy. Look up �Russell�s Teapot�. I cannot prove to you that invisible aliens don�t inhabit Antarctica. Do you believe they do? Why not, since it�s impossible to disprove it? We can�t disprove hobgoblins. We can�t disprove fairies. We cannot disprove Thor, but that�s a pathetic basis for belief in them. We are all atheists about the vile God Muslims pray to 5 times per day. Atheists just go one god further.
| Tony Balony wrote: |
| ]Atheists also have a rule book that says what is right and wrong and what is clean and unclean but can offer no justification for those positions. |
Like I said before, you are basically admitting you would commit genocide, rape and theft were it not for your celestial barbarian. The only thing stopping you killing, raping and robbing is your fear of a divine punishment or yearning for a divine reward � a disgusting basis for morality.
Science reveals the true roots of human morality. Moral genes derive their existence from naturally selected genes in our evolutionary past. It is far more good to do things for their own sake than as a way to suck up to God. There is kindness and generosity in human nature and it has a straightforwardly Darwinian explanation. For much of our prehistory, humans lived in conditions that favored altruistic genes. Gene survival depended on doing deals with our peers. The �I�ll scratch your back if you scratch mine� principle. Morality is a lot older than religion. Chimps, dolphins and elephants are not successful species just via brute force. Working together produces mutual benefits. T-Rex and Spinosaurus could kill anything by themselves � we can�t. Hyena v Lion? Lion wins. 30 hyenas v lion? Hyenas win. Humans are hyena-like creatures.
It is our genetic inheritence that explains why those of us with no allegiance to a Pope or Immam, holy book or Ayatola to tell us what is good still manage to ground ourselves in a moral consensus widely agreed upon. As social animals, we worked out that it wasn�t acceptable to live in a society where it was acceptable to rape, kill and steel. As such, we continue to change, evolve as to what�s right and wrong. 50 years ago, most people were racist. Now, only a few are (including Tony Balony of course, since his religion, his book are totally hateful). 50 years ago in Brooklyn, it was impossible for gays to walk hand in hand on the streets. Now it is easy. Some of us lag behind and some of us are ahead, but all of us are ahead of Abraham, Muhhamad, St Paul. The progressive shift usually happens in opposition to religion. It�s driven by improved education, newspaper editorials, soap operas, Congressional speaches and novels.
| Tony Balony wrote: |
Atheists simply insist their church is best because of their proclaimed omnipresence. Thats the oldest trick in the book and in fact its a not even a trick. I'ts just standard operating procedure.
Dude, I'm Catholic. I've been lied to for 2000 years. I've heard it all. |
How many bottles of soju had you drunk before typing the above? Gotta be at least 4.
There is no sense of wonder, curiosity about the world in Christianity or Islam. In atheism, there is. By disclaiming the idea of a next life, we can have more excitement in this one. The here and now is all we have and an inspiration to make the most of it. Atheism is life-affirming in a way religion can never be. Science reveals the majesty of reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
1. We cannot prove God doesn�t exist
2. Therefore �God exists� is a reasonable position |
I think the earlier point was that
1. We cannot prove God exists
2. Therefore �God does not exist� is a reasonable position
Is subject to the same weaknesses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whose point was that?
Anyway,
1. We cannot prove God exists
2. Therefore �God does not exist� is a reasonable position
is not subject to the same weaknesses. If you can't prove to me that X exists, one is entitled to withhold belief. To continue to believe in the absence of proof is blind faith.
In
1. We cannot prove X doesn't exist
2. Therefore �X exists� is a reasonable position
One is not entitled to believe....in fairies, hobgoblins, Thor and invisible moon aliens. Inability to prove lack of existence, solely, is a pathetic basis for belief. A dearth of evidence for X or Y's lack of existence alone is always a pathetic basis for belief. Usually believers in X or Y have some other criteria for their belief (scripture, laws of the universe, other 'evidence' of design) rather than just the above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony_Balony
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi -
1) I have never said god exists. I have said I have faith that god exists.
2) The inability to disprove that god exists does not make god exist.
I don't kneel to science as god. Science is fleeting, flawed and vain as are scientists. I will not kneel to someone whose dad was well connected with the MIT admissions board and got B's and wrote a paper on diesel aerosalization.
As for burden of proof, science touters would do well to use the scientific method to show doesn't exist. But they don't. Supernatural beings don't have mass. God has no physical mass yet but still is comprised of every particle in the universe. Do you have a lab scale that big? Do you want to be ghost busters and collect god ectoplasm?
Instead of attacking this argument front-wise, it would be best for you to develop an oblique approach.
All morality is valid. Morality is a construct. Can you prove morality exists? The morality of genocide, murder et al is valid in that exists and that you cannot prove it is wrong or bad other than your faith.
Human Secularism is the rule part and this is the crux of my disagreement. HS's promote their beliefs not as faith but as an absolute truth. I find this repellent. You want sheer obedience on what they say is right and wrong because you say you know the truth by things like science.
As I said before, HS's are just another annoying faith peddler on the sidewalk of my life but actually they are worse due to their supremacist
attitude. They are quite vigorous in the pursuit of power, esp after discovering the "deny the god head loophole".
I find the idea of atheism entertaining and enlightening. I'm not hostile to the idea. The HS's and HS are bad news. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony_Balony
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony Balony wrote: |
| I don't kneel to science as god. Science is fleeting, flawed and vain as are scientists. I will not kneel to someone whose dad was well connected with the MIT admissions board and got B's and wrote a paper on diesel aerosalization. |
The scientific book of knowledge is evidenced, justified and true belief subject to review. Vanity, flaws, fleeting�.these have minimal significance.
I bow to the science and philosophy god because it tells me many interesting things about reality. That�s what a real Bible or Koran would be � a book with every single fact about reality. All the things dear to me � wildlife, nuclear energy, certain drugs, the cosmos, dinosaurs � have been delivered by science.
| Tony Balony wrote: |
| As for burden of proof, science touters would do well to use the scientific method to show doesn't exist |
It�s impossible to show that God doesn�t exist. Again, look up "Russell's teapot". It's a logical fallacy. In any case, the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim. Theists believe and claim God exists. Atheists lack belief in the claim. People who believe in Elephantman need to provide evidence of existence; people who lack belief in elephantman are under no obligation to provide evidence of his lack of existence. Theists cannot provide scientific evidence of God and thus their belief is faith-based. Atheists lack belief because of the dearth of evidence.
1. A says X exists
2. B disagrees with 1 and asks for proof
3. A says he can't - it's faith-based belief - so B should prove 2
4. B can't prove 2 because it's impossible
5. A says that because of 4, 1 is true
Again, awful reasoning.
| Tony Balony wrote: |
| But they don't. Supernatural beings don't have mass. God has no physical mass yet but still is comprised of every particle in the universe. Do you have a lab scale that big? Do you want to be ghost busters and collect god ectoplasm? |
I�d bet a month�s salary that the origin of the universe and life on Earth has a naturalistic explanation, but please, let�s not get into that here.
| Tony Balony wrote: |
| All morality is valid. Morality is a construct. Can you prove morality exists? The morality of genocide, murder et al is valid in that exists and that you cannot prove it is wrong or bad other than your faith. |
Well, firstly, not all morality is valid at all. Judeo-christian morality is invalid, since it posits that the only reason one doesn't go out and commit genocide, theft of land, rape and ethnic cleansing (which there's lots of in the Bible/Koran) is because of God and his celestial dictatorship. That is totally irreconcilable with nature, reason, sanity and decency. In other words, religions posit an immoral and invalid basis for morality.
People who commit genocide aren�t sane. Morality should be in accordance with reason, sanity, nature and demonstrable truth.
| Tony Balony wrote: |
Human Secularism is the rule part and this is the crux of my disagreement. HS's promote their beliefs not as faith but as an absolute truth. I find this repellent. You want sheer obedience on what they say is right and wrong because you say you know the truth by things like science.
As I said before, HS's are just another annoying faith peddler on the sidewalk of my life but actually they are worse due to their supremacist
attitude. They are quite vigorous in the pursuit of power, esp after discovering the "deny the god head loophole".
I find the idea of atheism entertaining and enlightening. I'm not hostile to the idea. The HS's and HS are bad news. |
Unnecessary paranoia. Muslims are a threat. Lefties are a threat with their low fertility rates, �welcome all with open arms� immigration, tolerance for Muslims, intolerance for opposition to and mockery of Islam, opposition to nuclear power expansion�.these guys are truly dangerous. So are folks in the States trying to get Intelligent Design into science classes against the advice of a scientific consensus. Folks who oppose vital Stem cell research�.these nutcases are a real disease. SH�s are pretty benign, frankly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| SH�s are pretty benign, frankly. |
Its true. At worst they're only arrogant, long-winded, gas bags. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| SH�s are pretty benign, frankly. |
Its true. At worst they're only arrogant, long-winded, gas bags. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
