|
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 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
This notwithstanding, had Saddam openly renounced weapons of mass destruction, had he collaborated with the UN weapons inspectors, and had he generally done more to reduce suspicions against him, he himself could easily have taken the wind out of the W. Bush Administration's sails on this issue.
But he did not choose to do this. |
Bush would have found another reason to attack, I don't know it and it doesn't matter. Seriously, I was in Japan and I heard they were attacking Afghanistan. I was busy and didn't keep up with the news. Someone then said a few months later they were attacking Iraq. I was quite confused. Americans are smart, hardworking, and extremely professional people, but the American public, like any other country's public is pathetically stupid and would have been swayed by practically anything at the time. So would have Congress. |
I think you make my point too broad here and you misunderstand -- and this is certainly in fashion on this board, so it does not surprise me in the least.
In any case, when I referred to "this issue," I was referring to the Administration's claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction only, and not the entire casus beli, which, as I assume you know, included other issues besides the weapons of mass destruction charge.
Like I said earlier, the W. Bush Administration seems to have had a score to settle with Saddam, and, especially after 9/11 and especially after Saddam's response to 9/11, war was inevitable.
But it did not need to involve a weapons of mass destruction allegation, it was not inevitable that it should have unfolded precisely as it did, and the cause of this, or, if you need to use the word, the fault for this rests equally on Saddam and W. Bush's shoulders. That was my point.
You and Ddeubel talk about "Americans,'" "Congress's," and "the Masters'" "stupidity," and you talk about it condescendingly. Fine. That is your prerogative. But you might want to start improving on this right where you are and read others' points a little more attentively before responding.
I think the general mood on this board is that America, no matter who is running it or what it does, is malicious and in the wrong. This leaves no room for compromise or reconciliation, only a bitter and neverending "argument" that leads nowhere but personal animosity between these simpleton, antiAmerican, very leftist, and, at least at times, very emotional posters, and those of us who try to adopt a more balanced, moderate view, and who are, unfortunately, much fewer in number.
In fact, I concede that the extremists, the conspiracy theorists, and the innocent simpletons ("America hurts innocent people!") have the floor and I wash my hands of this forum. It is just not informative anymore. |
The problem is you focus too much on things and refuse to talk about the wider picture when you are defending an idea. When you focus only on one thing, you can find a defense to it (look at the bible thumpers, this is their theory too). But then again, you are always talking about the wider picture, how in the end, history won't be affected that much by America. Maybe true, but it does affect us now, and most people do care a bit more about now than later. I knew you were only talking about WMD's, but that is too narrow. Taking that away would not have taken the wind out of Saddam's sails.
Finally, I talked about America's public (and the Congress is exactly the same kind of entity) but I made sure to point out that all country's publics are stupid when put together. Did you miss that? |
Then your point is that people as individuals act intelligently, but people, when they form "the public," do not?
Because this is not an original point. Indeed, it is far from exclusive to America and Americans. It almost sounds as if you sympathize with a nation, shocked and terrified by 9/11, that, in a way, blindly struck out at its highest-profile enemy in the Middle East without having a clear understanding as to why it was doing so.
In any case, how might this observation be "constructive" in the sense that it might inspire Americans to somehow modify their behavior -- which, I believe is the point of "constructive criticism," no?
I find it fascinating that you chide me as someone who is unable to take constructive criticism when, prefaced by the usual disclaimer or not, your "constructive criticism" involved calling Americans "stupid," and also, by inference, gullible. And "stupid" is not a word that is often calculated to lead to constructive exchanges of views.
And actually, the problem is that you remain closed to any meaningful exchange of views, your delivery is far from constructive, and you are still misreading what I originally said.
If you think that focusing on weapons of mass destruction (in a thread, incidentally, which treats weapons of mass destruction) is too narrow, then you should suggest widening the scope of the discussion rather than misrepresenting another poster's views to make your point.
Also, I said nothing about "taking the wind out of Saddam's sails," although I did suggest that Saddam miscalculated and mishandled a series of opportunities that would have taken the wind out of Washington and the W. Bush Administration's sails with respect to what was perhaps the centerpiece of its casus beli.
So perhaps you have much to learn on how to couch "constructive criticism" in a constructive manner and tone, as well as in exchanging views productively with people who do not share your worldview... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
You remain closed to any meaningful exchange of views and you are still misreading what I said above.
If you think that focusing on weapons of mass destruction (in a thread, incidentally, which treats weapons of mass destruction) is too narrow, then you should suggest widening the scope of the discussion rather than misrepresenting another poster's views to make your point.
Also, I said nothing about "taking the wind out of Saddam's [America] sails," although I did suggest that Saddam miscalculated and mishandled a series of opportunities that would have taken the wind out of Washington and the W. Bush Administration's sails with respect to what was perhaps the centerpiece of its casus beli.
|
sorry, typo
But this paragraph is where this started. America would have still found a reason to attack and sway the American public (and it's Congress). That was my opinion. Please tell me where this is wrong.
| Quote: |
I find it fascinating that you chide me as someone who is unable to take constructive criticism when, prefaced by the usual disclaimer or not, your "constructive criticism" involved calling Americans "stupid," and, by inference, gullible. And "stupid" is not a word that is often calculated to lead to constructive exchanges of views.
|
I called ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL publics stupid. You are way to America focused. I SAID ALL PUBLICS. People put togther are inherently stupid. Mob mentality. They are stupid and they are gullible. WHen people don't think for themselves and just go with whatever is being cooked up by the news, government, anti-government people, etc they become stupid.
| Quote: |
Perhaps you have much to learn on how to couch "constructive criticism" in a constructive manner and tone, as well as in exchanging views productively with people who do not share your worldview... |
For someone who constantly goes on about not painting all Americans with the same brush (as we shouldn't), I would love to see you point out even one post where you talked about South America and especially Venezula and didn't paint them all as anti-american ignorant fools. (just so this doesn't seem non-sequitor, your "constructive" criticism of South America isn't ever very constructive). This doesn't mean I am any better. I shouldn't have even started this and my first question was confrontational. But you do have tunnel vision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| America would have still found a reason to attack and sway the American public (and it's Congress). That was my opinion. Please tell me where this is wrong. |
Such an assertion is neither right nor wrong. It is a counterfactual assertion and there is no evidence available to prove or disprove it.
It is not scientific and I cannot prove it wrong, then, any more than you can substantiate it. I have already agreed, however, that it seems likely. So I do not see who you are arguing with on this point.
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| I called ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL publics stupid. You are way to America focused. I SAID ALL PUBLICS. People put togther are inherently stupid. Mob mentality. They are stupid and they are gullible. WHen people don't think for themselves and just go with whatever is being cooked up by the news, government, anti-government people, etc they become stupid. |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| ...the American public, like any other country's public is pathetically stupid and would have been swayed by practically anything at the time. So would have Congress. |
In fact, you referenced not only "the American public" specifically, but also the United States Congress.
Had your intentions been "constructive," you might have begun by explaining that you believe that people, when making up "the public," do not tend to act intelligently, Americans are hardly different, and, for this reason, you feel that the decision to make war against Saddam might have been hasty and ill-considered -- just like most wars in history, incidentally.
You might have suggested that people, all over the world, need to develop a better framework for dealing with and resolving conflicts without going to war -- especially during moments where emotions run high. And I cannot imagine anyone on this forum disagreeing with such a rational and moderately-stated, constructive criticism.
I just do not believe that that was your intention, however.
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| For someone who constantly goes on about not painting all Americans with the same brush (as we shouldn't), I would love to see you point out even one post where you talked about South America and especially Venezula and didn't paint them all as anti-american ignorant fools. |
Show me where I have called them "antiAmerican ignorant fools."
You are going to have to be specific here.
And is this thread about me defending my views on Latin American-style antiAmericanism (do you honestly need me to back this up, because I can and will?), but the weapons of mass destruction allegation and U.S.-sponsored regime change in Iraq? Make up your mind.
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are still missing the point. America was the subject, so I talked about it's public and Congress. I made sure to point out it wasn't confined to America though. You only see the word America and can't move on from that.
First post...
| Quote: |
| Americans are smart, hardworking, and extremely professional people, but the American public, like any other country's public is pathetically stupid and would have been swayed by practically anything at the time. |
Second post...
| Quote: |
Finally, I talked about America's public (and the Congress is exactly the same kind of entity) but I made sure to point out that all country's publics are stupid when put together. Did you miss that? It just happens we are talking about the American one now. I could talk about how stupid the Japanese, Korean, Chinese or Canadian publics when put together are if you like, but it wouldn't have much to do with this topic. |
| Gopher wrote: |
Show me where I have called them "antiAmerican ignorant fools."
You are going to have to be specific here.
And is this thread about me defending my views on Latin American-style antiAmericanism (do you honestly need me to back this up, because I can and will?), but the weapons of mass destruction allegation and U.S.-sponsored regime change in Iraq? Make up your mind. |
No, it's not, but you called my criticism un-constructive. I was just pointing out yours is no different. I can't go through all your posts. I highly doubt anyone who has posted here for awhile is going to call me on it. This is why I put it. I don't have to be specific. To be specific, I would have to post every single comment you ever made anyways...
Finally, the American government would have found another reason to attack. The American public at the time was open to anything when it came to terrorism.
I thought you were going to leave anyways??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| ...you called my criticism un-constructive. I was just pointing out yours is no different. I can't go through all your posts. I highly doubt anyone who has posted here for awhile is going to call me on it. This is why I put it. I don't have to be specific. To be specific, I would have to post every single comment you ever made anyways... |
First, your criticism, using words like "pathetic" and "stupid," was inflammatory and not constructive. Constructive criticism aims to persuade someone or something, such as a govt, to modify their behavior. Yet, by using such words as "pathetic" and "stupid" we tend not to persuade but rather put the very people we want to persuade on the defensive -- even if our coreligionists all nod their heads "yes" when we speak this way.
I am perplexed that the people here who most often claim to be innocently offering constructive criticism are the ones who offer the harshest and most simplistic criticism of all and obstinately refuse to moderate their words. Either they do not understand "constructive criticism" or they are laying down a smokescreen.
That, again, is not constructive but rather unproductive and extremely childish.
Constructive criticism, as I hope you already know, not only aims to persuade people whose views do not already coincide with our own, but it goes about it by identifying flaws or problems, in a helpful tone, in order to suggest solutions and propose specific future recommendations. Yet, what most do here, with respect to their "constructive criticism" against the United States, is done to ridicule the U.S., and those who constantly point out American flaws or problems appear to relish it. And I cannot recall ever having seen any proposed solutions, either, only harsh criticism.
Secondly, yes, you do have to be specific. It is unfortunate that you do not see why this is important. And, yes, I'm still calling you on this. Show me exactly where I have said that Latin Americans are "antiAmerican ignorant fools." You cited me when you alleged this, so either you have a specific instance to back it up with or you don't. And I don't think you do.
| laogiaguk wrote: |
| I thought you were going to leave anyways??? |
I am finished posting here as soon as we finish this exchange here.
You have alleged something very specific. Kindly cite your evidence, be specific, or modify what you alleged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| ...you called my criticism un-constructive. I was just pointing out yours is no different. I can't go through all your posts. I highly doubt anyone who has posted here for awhile is going to call me on it. This is why I put it. I don't have to be specific. To be specific, I would have to post every single comment you ever made anyways... |
First, your criticism, using words like "pathetic" and "stupid," was inflammatory and not constructive. Constructive criticism aims to persuade someone or something, such as a govt, to modify their behavior. Yet, by using such words as "pathetic" and "stupid" we tend not to persuade but rather put the very people we want to persuade on the defensive -- even if our coreligionists all nod their heads "yes" when we speak this way.
I am perplexed that the people here who most often claim to be innocently offering constructive criticism are the ones who offer the harshest criticism of all and obstinately refuse to moderate their words.
That, again, is not constructive but rather unproductive and extremely childish.
Secondly, yes, you do have to be specific. It is unfortunate that you do not see why this is important. And, yes, I'm still calling you on this. Show me exactly where I have said that Latin Americans are "antiAmerican ignorant fools." You cited me when you alleged this, so either you have a specific instance to back it up with or you don't. And I don't think you do.
| laogiaguk wrote: |
| I thought you were going to leave anyways??? |
I am finished posting here as soon as we finish this exchange here.
You have alleged something very specific. Kindly cite your evidence, be specific, or modify what you alleged. |
HAHAHA, I counted a minimum of 15 [deleted] posts from June 17, 2006. Did some cleaning recently? And thats only after a little searching!
Anyways, here's one thread.
check it out
| Quote: |
Take U.S. influence away from this child-like, temper-tantrum-throwing region and all will come up roses? |
talking about Peru
| Quote: |
So an important part of the context of U.S. imperialism in the Caribbean Basin, then, was strategic denial of that basin to aspiring European powers.
It is also important to realize that the Latin Americans were utterly irresponsible financially, unable to govern themselves, and thus always getting themselves in way more trouble than they were worth.
[I know this is talking about awhile ago though the next sentence isn't.]
So, "down with the empire!" Chavez chants. That's fine. But if the U.S. went down, someone else would replace them in the Caribbean Basin -- from outside the basin, that is. Because problematic Hispanic culture will always create problematic and highly unstable Hispanic govts in that part of the world, and they will always need a more mature power to guide them. |
| Quote: |
And then there's the corruption issue. It is so pervasive and ubiquitous in Latin America and the Caribbean that I do not believe it will ever go away. It is institutionalized. In many cases, they don't even believe that they are doing anything wrong. |
I believe these are enough to show "Show me where I have called them "antiAmerican ignorant fools." " Well, not the anti-American part, but that is all over your posts. I provided the link to the thread as well.
Also, I was looking for the time you talked about the flag burning rally you went to but I couldn't find it. I remember you had some strong words about South America then...
I hope this helps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sure all good Americans think 500 rusty warheads with residue in them were well worth a trillion dollars, 2,500 lives and 10,000+ serious injuries. 
I mean, surely all those lives and all that money wasn't for nothing, was it? It must really suck to have to fight for nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laogaiguk: there is nothing I said above that the Soviets did not say about the Chileans under Allende, that Kennedy Administration officials or, later, the World Bank, did not express when attempting to assist the Latin Americans modernize and democratize their political economies after the 1960s, or Arbenz did not say about his own cabinet, or, for that matter, that Simon Bolivar himself did not denounce in his famous Letter from Jamaica about the entire region and its petty infighting, that, as someone who seems to be getting into expressing views on Latin American history as you are, I am sure you are totally familiar with and able to discuss.
Are you?
In any case, if you do not see Chavez as a child-like temper-tantrum thrower, then I really cannot help you -- as you probably share his antiAmerican worldview. It is also notable that you seem to be holding yourself out as defending Latin Americans' honor by getting me back for what I may or may not have said about them by calling Americans "pathetically stupid," which, as I said earlier, only confirms my impression that this forum is increasingly made up of grudge-holding, bitter people who do not exchange views productively as much as they follow around and ridicule each other for the pettiest of motives.
And, of course, "child-like temper-tantrum thrower" is not precisely the same as "antiAmerican ignorant fools." So at least now I have taught you to speak accurately, even if you are reduced to personal attack in this thread that ostensibly treats weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
By the way, in closing, here is what a Peruvian had to say about my position on the thread you dredged up...
| Quote: |
hispanics and their countries ARE volatile and the governments ARE unstable. the people as a whole are generally grossly uneducated, both formally and about the world around them. you think americans don't know anything about the world? Try talking to any hispanic about a country besides america or their own.
let me tell you a story about alan garcia, who was president of peru around my childhood. he was a thief who ignored the shining path and focused on stealing from the government. he ran against toledo in the 2000's, about 15 years later....AND ALMOST WON. would you catgorize those millions who voted for him as victims of racism, or ignorance? |
And here is what a Chilean historian has to say about Latin American-style antiAmericanism...
| Quote: |
| Anti-imperialism or "anti-North Americanism" has been a powerful motor of Latin American politics and its vision of the world...[It] has been a favorite recurring weapon in public politics in Latin America. Underlying this is the thesis that the United States is the principal culprit for the general problems of societies south of the Rio Grande... |
http://www.cepchile.cl/dms/archivo_3236_1698/r92_fermandois_ing.pdf
Do with this what you will. It does not much matter to me. You can go now.
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Laogaiguk: there is nothing I said above that the Soviets did not say about the Chileans under Allende, that Kennedy Administration officials or, later, the World Bank, did not express when attempting to assist the Latin Americans modernize and democratize their political economies after the 1960s, or Arbenz said about his own cabinet, or, for that matter, that Simon Bolivar himself said in his famous Letter from Jamaica about the entire region and its petty infighting, that, as someone who seems to be getting into expressing views on Latin American history as you are, I am sure you are totally familiar with and able to discuss.
In any case, if you do not see Chavez as a child-like temper-tantrum thrower, then I really cannot help you -- as you probably share his antiAmerican worldview.
And, of course, "child-like temper-tantrum thrower" is not "antiAmerican ignorant fools." So at least now I have taught you to speak accurately, even if you are reduced to personal attack at this point.
You can go now. |
You still said it, even if other people said it before you. That doesn't make it better.
I can't discuss those things, you are the one with a strange and most likely unhealthy fascination with it. I don't need to. You said it, what more do I need to discuss... I have no views on Latin America, but you do and have let us know you anti-South American views all the time...
This is worse than the bible bashers. Did you think I meant literally you said that? Those quotes I gave say exactly the same thing, they are ignorant...
| Quote: |
Because problematic Hispanic culture will always create problematic and highly unstable Hispanic govts in that part of the world, and they will always need a more mature power to guide them. |
and fools...
| Quote: |
And then there's the corruption issue. It is so pervasive and ubiquitous in Latin America and the Caribbean that I do not believe it will ever go away. It is institutionalized. In many cases, they don't even believe that they are doing anything wrong. |
Not to mention who knows what in any of the posts you deleted... You have over 197 pages of posts. I can't look through them all. I found one, that is all I needed.
I love the fact that you think you are better. I have seen your fights with EFLTrainer or others. You resort to namecalling all the time.
I haven't insulted you at all. I have said you have tunnel vision, make unconstructive criticism too, someone who paints all South Americans people with the same brush and this time I said you have an unhealthy fascination with South America when talking in terms of America. All of these are my opinions of you and were not insults, but truths (in my opinion).
It's not me who's going anyways. Isn't it you who can go now???
Also, I have come to the aid of America against bashers all the time when they were wrong (often). You know this. I don't have many political arguments outside of this board as most of my friends are cool, but I aid my American friends against stupid BA newbie Canadians or Australians all the time. I have praised America in many threads and will continue to do so when deemed right, but I will put it down when I also think it is wrong. I have never, not ONCE seen you come to the aid of Canada when people bash it for even more stupid reasons than the anti-American ones (and this happens a lot, though I doubt you have seen them since they aren't focused on America).
You are just so FOCUSED on anti-americanism you are truly incapable of talking about it.
EDIT
to your edit, you found 2 people. Really!!!, should I find 2 people who say bad things about all of America. I think I could find a few more.
Anyways it is not the topic that I am talking about. You post consistently about the horror that South America is without ever offering constructive criticism. You paint them all with the same brush all the time. These things you are against people doing to America. The topic of South America isn't my focus here, but your opinion of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| The topic of [insert whatever you like] isn't my focus here, but your opinion of it. |
And that just about sums it up, doesn't it.
| Quote: |
| ...you found 2 people. Really!!! |
No. I identified a well-known, deeply-embetted pattern, and I cited more than two people in that post, and you know it. You are closed to exploring this, however. Still, I can try one more time.
You seem to believe that when I report that corruption is "pervasive and ubiquitous in Latin America and the Caribbean...It is institutionalized. In many cases, they don't even believe that they are doing anything wrong," that this somehow is the same as calling Latin Americans "fools."
But, again, you are showing you know nothing about actual ground conditions there. But don't take my word for it, ask Alan Riding, whose Distant Neighbors is still required reading for many U.S. undergrads studying Mexico. Pay particularly close attention to Riding's description of how the Mexican police are structured and how they function. (You could easily graph this description onto any Central American country except Costa Rica; Brazil; and many other Latin American states, except probably Chile -- at least as far as day-to-day policing goes.)
It is at least as rampant in political circles.
And pointing this out and reporting it here on this forum is in no way anything more than pointing this out and reporting it. You see it as an insult for reasons that probably only you can explain.
| Quote: |
| You post consistently about [Latin] America...without ever offering constructive criticism. |
This, too, is correct. I post about Latin America whenever it comes up in someone else's anti-U.S. diatribe just as when interesting events come up in the news, such as Oscar Arias's recent election. And, whatever your point may be, I never claimed to be offering constructive criticism to Latin Americans and I do not believe that very many Latin Americans read or comment on these threads. I think that by not picking up Che Guevara's banner or adopting the regnant PC attitudes about the Third World, that my views somehow offend you and the other hyper liberals here.
But you will get no apologies from me on this point. Because the fact of the matter is you are pretty much ignorant on most if not all things Latin American -- and this by your own admission.
And your use of the word "horror," which I redacted above, was simply not consistent with my posting on Latin America. I believe I have attempted, and mostly failed, to draw peoples' attention to actual ground conditions in Latin America and the Caribbean so that they might be better informed than merely reciting the left's Bill of Particulars concerning how Washington has unilaterally done all kinds of things to the poor, passive, and innocent region -- that is, Latin America's history unfolded not so much in the way that Chavez and his coreligionists allege, but according to locally-derived impulses and culturally-derived attitudes of their own making.
I have also read your post below and there would be little point in attempting to exchange any views with you on any topic when your only tactic is to turn the discussion around as much as you can so that it deals with me personally, just as you admit that your initial intent was to provoke a confrontation.
You are not worth any more of my time.
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:26 pm; edited 9 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| The topic of [insert whatever you like] isn't my focus here, but your opinion of it. |
And that just about sums it up, doesn't it. |
Yes, it does very nicely actually.
Anyways, if you want, send a PM. I think we have both said all we can really say. We are destroying this thread, which I hate when people do it to me. Sorry OP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's the same article I posted on the first page of this thread, genius. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WorldWide
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL
OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL
and regional control, because the jews hate muslims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
and regional control, because the jews hate muslims.
|
And you hate Americans, despite spelling "centre" the American way. |
|
| 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
