 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 2034 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:27 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: manonfire wrote: Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Folks now have TOO MANY rights in the UK, and that's the problem.
Watch for the mega-mosque at the next Olympics. Puke.
Yeah. The right to freedom of religion is just one too many, isn't it?
____________________
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:30 am |
|
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: manonfire wrote: Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Folks now have TOO MANY rights in the UK, and that's the problem.
Watch for the mega-mosque at the next Olympics. Puke.
Yeah. The right to freedom of religion is just one too many, isn't it?
What's your point? Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
But in Britain they can treat Christianity with scorn but when the Muslims want something the red carpet gets laid out.
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:36 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: manonfire wrote: Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Folks now have TOO MANY rights in the UK, and that's the problem.
Watch for the mega-mosque at the next Olympics. Puke.
Yeah. The right to freedom of religion is just one too many, isn't it?
What's your point? Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
But in Britain they can treat Christianity with scorn but when the Muslims want something the red carpet gets laid out.
Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
Hiram: Sally, you don't recall the reasons why folks left England and came to to colonize America? Does the Mayflower ring a bell? England had one government religion at the time, and it was financed by the taxpayers. You call that freedom of religion?
____________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:42 am |
|
manonfire wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: manonfire wrote: Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Folks now have TOO MANY rights in the UK, and that's the problem.
Watch for the mega-mosque at the next Olympics. Puke.
Yeah. The right to freedom of religion is just one too many, isn't it?
What's your point? Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
But in Britain they can treat Christianity with scorn but when the Muslims want something the red carpet gets laid out.
Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
Hiram: Sally, you don't recall the reasons why folks left England and came to to colonize America? Does the Mayflower ring a bell? England had one government religion at the time, and it was financed by the taxpayers. You call that freedom of religion?
Yes, because they still had freedom of religion. They weren't stopped from worshipping whatever they wanted and being part of the dissenting religions of Christianity and they were very outspoken about it. No prob. But they still had to pay duties for things like being buried. They didn't want to pay.
It was about money not freedom of religion. You could be any religion you liked but you still had to pay towards the upkeep of the parish which provided certain services to the community.
You Americans have been brainwashed into believing that people fled because they were being religiously oppressed, in some romaticised notion of "freedom," but that wasn't the case at all.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:48 am by Sally-Anne
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:50 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
Aldaron wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: manonfire wrote: Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Folks now have TOO MANY rights in the UK, and that's the problem.
Watch for the mega-mosque at the next Olympics. Puke.
Yeah. The right to freedom of religion is just one too many, isn't it?
What's your point? Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
But in Britain they can treat Christianity with scorn but when the Muslims want something the red carpet gets laid out.
Britain has had freedom of religion a lot longer than America has.
Hiram: Sally, you don't recall the reasons why folks left England and came to to colonize America? Does the Mayflower ring a bell? England had one government religion at the time, and it was financed by the taxpayers. You call that freedom of religion?
Yes, because they still had freedom of religion. They weren't stopped from worshipping whatever they wanted and being part of the dissenting religions of Christianity and they were very outspoken about it. No prob. But they still had to pay duties for things like being buried. They didn't want to pay.
It was about money not freedom of religion. You could be any religion you liked but you still had to pay towards the parish which provided certain services to the community.
You Americans have been brainwashed into believing that people fled because they were being religiously oppressed, and not "free" in some romaticised notion of the term, but that wasn't the case at all.
Being forced to pay for a church you don't want to attend...yeah, I would consider this to be religious oppression. Wow, I wonder how the English atheists felt about it...
____________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:53 am |
|
manonfire wrote: Being forced to pay for a church you don't want to attend...yeah, I would consider this to be religious oppression. Wow, I wonder how the English atheists felt about it...
Well, look at the state of Britain today and you'll see. It's swung to other extreme and they have had their way, except it was the Christians themselves who did it by undermining their own bible and Christian nation. Just like America will.
For all that was wrong with Church and State hiram, it was a far sight better than what we've inherited through secularism and I've even heard some secularists lamenting what has happened. There will come a day that they will wish they hadn't undermined their own church and Christianity. I'm already lamenting it because it has given way to total secularism and opened the door to Islam.
I mean you no ill-will Hiram, I'm trying to explain to you what happens because America is going through what Britain did 200 yrs ago and I care about America. And look what has happened in Britain. I don't want to see the same thing in America but the cc's over at CF are telling me that it already is happening.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:03 am by Sally-Anne
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:07 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Being forced to pay for a church you don't want to attend...yeah, I would consider this to be religious oppression. Wow, I wonder how the English atheists felt about it...
Well, look at the state of Britain today and you'll see. It's swung to other extreme and they have had their way, except it was the Christians themselves who did it by undermining their own bible and Christian nation. Just like America will.
For all that was wrong with Church and State, it was a far sight better than what we've inherited through secularism and I've even heard some secularists lamenting what has happened. There will come a day that they will wish they hadn't undermined their own church and Christianity. I'm already lamenting it because it has given way to total secularism and opened the door to Islam.
I mean you no ill-will Hiram, I'm trying to explain to you what happens because America is going through what Britain did 200 yrs ago. And look what has happened in Britain. I don't want to see the same thing in America but the cc's over at CF are already telling me that it already is happening.
I see America moving toward socialism, like England did, if that's what you mean. Is it?
____________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:19 am |
|
manonfire wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Being forced to pay for a church you don't want to attend...yeah, I would consider this to be religious oppression. Wow, I wonder how the English atheists felt about it...
Well, look at the state of Britain today and you'll see. It's swung to other extreme and they have had their way, except it was the Christians themselves who did it by undermining their own bible and Christian nation. Just like America will.
For all that was wrong with Church and State, it was a far sight better than what we've inherited through secularism and I've even heard some secularists lamenting what has happened. There will come a day that they will wish they hadn't undermined their own church and Christianity. I'm already lamenting it because it has given way to total secularism and opened the door to Islam.
I mean you no ill-will Hiram, I'm trying to explain to you what happens because America is going through what Britain did 200 yrs ago. And look what has happened in Britain. I don't want to see the same thing in America but the cc's over at CF are already telling me that it already is happening.
I see America moving toward socialism, like England did, if that's what you mean. Is it?
Well, not entirely. I'm talking about secularism more than socialism, but it's true that wanting tons and tons of rights for every man and his dog (literally) is something that is aligned with the left.
What has happened in Britain, is that they have disregarded the Christianity in favour of secularism. When the settlers left England for what they regarded as religious freedom, not being tied to a church and state, England set about changing its laws to accomodate those who would not and did not want to leave for the Americas. They did that by undermining the authority of the Bible and pointing out that the Church was corrupt and people should be free to not to have to pay it. The scientists jumped on the bandwagon and that's where Darwin and his crowd come in even further to undermine the authority of both the Bible and God. They made strong arguments for why we shouldn't have church and state but they could only do that by attacking the Bible to undermine the authority of the Church.
So they did succeed in separating Church and State by making it more secular and believing more and more in science and stuff like that. Thinking that God belonged to a by-gone and antiquated Britain and that they were now modern with the "sciences." These men were all Christians, and even the prominent voices in the Church were believing that science was to be believed over the Bible.
There were many factors that converged to make what we see today in Britain. It was political, and yes, in a sense, the Christians loyal to Crown and Country tended to be right-wing. But they too gave way to secularism. It's very sad. What you see in Britain today was brought about by Christians, and they're doing it again by thinking that Islam is no threat because our superior Christian tolerance for appeasement, accommodation, and tolerance will keep us safe as they think it did when they separated Church and State. But they are deceived hiram. Once Islam gets a foothold, they can kiss goodbye to Western democracy, but they are still burying their heads in the sand.
They are asleep, hiram.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:25 am by Sally-Anne
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:37 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Being forced to pay for a church you don't want to attend...yeah, I would consider this to be religious oppression. Wow, I wonder how the English atheists felt about it...
Well, look at the state of Britain today and you'll see. It's swung to other extreme and they have had their way, except it was the Christians themselves who did it by undermining their own bible and Christian nation. Just like America will.
For all that was wrong with Church and State, it was a far sight better than what we've inherited through secularism and I've even heard some secularists lamenting what has happened. There will come a day that they will wish they hadn't undermined their own church and Christianity. I'm already lamenting it because it has given way to total secularism and opened the door to Islam.
I mean you no ill-will Hiram, I'm trying to explain to you what happens because America is going through what Britain did 200 yrs ago. And look what has happened in Britain. I don't want to see the same thing in America but the cc's over at CF are already telling me that it already is happening.
I see America moving toward socialism, like England did, if that's what you mean. Is it?
Well, not entirely. I'm talking about secularism more than socialism, but it's true that wanting tons and tons of rights for every man and his dog (literally) is something that is aligned with the left.
What has happened in Britain, is that they have disregarded the Christianity in favour of secularism. When the settlers left England for what they regarded as religious freedom, not being tied to a church and state, England set about changing its laws to accomodate those who would not and did not want to leave for the Americas. They did that by undermining the authority of the Bible and pointing out that the Church was corrupt and people should be free to not to have to pay it. The scientists jumped on the bandwagon and that's where Darwin and his crowd come in even further to undermine the authority of both the Bible and God. They made strong arguments for why we shouldn't have church and state but they could only do that by attacking the Bible to undermine the authority of the Church.
So they did succeed in separating Church and State by making it more secular and believing more and more in science and stuff like that. Thinking that God belonged to a by-gone and antiquated Britain and that they were now modern with the "sciences." These men were all Christians, and even the prominent voices in the Church were believing that science was to be believed over the Bible.
There were many factors that converged to make what we see today in Britain. It was political, and yes, in a sense, the Christians loyal to Crown and Country tended to be right-wing. But they too gave way to secularism. It's very sad. What you see in Britain today was brought about by Christians, and they're doing it again by thinking that Islam is no threat because our superior Christian tolerance for appeasement, accommodation, and tolerance will keep us safe. But they are deceived hiram. Once Islam gets a foothold, they can kiss goodbye to Western democracy, but they are still burying their heads in the sand.
They are asleep, hiram.
Hiram: Yes, secular humanism has taken a strong hold here in America. Secular humanism and the radical left go hand and hand. Where you see one, you see the other. Political correctness is one of the tools used to keep the silent majority, silent. Our public schools and intitutions of higher learning have been infiltrated with secular humanists teachers brainwashing our chidren with Marxist ideology.
I sincerely believe that at this point, a revolution will be the only hope of taking our country back from the evil known as secular humanism.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:38 am by manonfire
____________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson
|
limana
Supercalafragalistic Limana
| Joined: | Fri Jul 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1271 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 02:47 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Manslaughter? Some dumbass sets off a bomb and it murders someone, which lets face it, it has every chance of killing someone when dumbass is setting bombs off wily nilly in the community, but he gets manslaughter.
Yes. That is textbook manslaughter.
Uhh, no. That would be depraved-heart murder.
____________________
"There's only so many times you can say "cesspool of filth and perversion" before the words start losing their sting."
- Hyperbole 3/10/2009
|
Merlin
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Aug 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6387 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 03:12 am |
|
Yes, the British "freedom of religion" was so splendid that it caused my ancestors to come to America as indentured servants just to get away from it.
____________________
Be like a dog: if you can't eat it or hump it, piss on it and walk away.
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:39 pm |
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism. End of story. ...
Clearly not, since the thread has continued about 5 pages beyond the "end."
____________________
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." -- Mythbuster Adam Savage
"Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence." -- ComputerGear T-Shirt
"Well THAT was a slap and a tickle!" -- William the Bloody
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:48 pm |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: Fair enough. But would you be sad to hear someone bombed the places the jews were to be gassed and even with some casualties like the soliders caring it out and a number of intended gas victims? I mean, if it meant the holocust never happened?
Well, like many of Stiggy's "what-if's" they're not rooted in reality so the question is irrelevant.
Sorry, but the "reality" is that many who have engaged in bombing of abortuaries have the mindset Stiggy analogized.
____________________
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." -- Mythbuster Adam Savage
"Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence." -- ComputerGear T-Shirt
"Well THAT was a slap and a tickle!" -- William the Bloody
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:56 pm |
|
ToniLoryn wrote: ...
I don't know about this one, Stiggy. This is a tricky one. At first glance it seems an obvious act of terror to bomb a building. But you said something that made me think. You likened blowing up a place where babies will be killed to ovens for jews. If someone bombed an area where jews were to be gassed, i wouldn't consider that an act of terror.
I was surprised everyone else just seemed to ignore that analogy. To me, and I suspect to those who agreed with my post, it's obvious.
____________________
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." -- Mythbuster Adam Savage
"Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence." -- ComputerGear T-Shirt
"Well THAT was a slap and a tickle!" -- William the Bloody
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 06:06 pm |
|
Ok, I don't have patience to trudge through the whole thread...
First of all, thanks to Yoda or whoever saw to it that I get some more Fundy cred at FSTDT.  
Secondly, IIRC neither I nor any of those who said "Amen" to my post ever said, "Hooray, bombing abortuaries is a great idea!" On the contrary, I specifically said it is "impossible" to guarantee that there would be no collateral casualties, and on that basis I find the practice morally objectionable; on the occasions where there are in fact no such casualties, it is basically a matter of the bombers getting "lucky." And since the others who concern you so much expressed agreement with *my* post, I will assume, unless they say otherwise, that they share my objections to the practice.
In summary (in case someone wants to FSTDT-ize me again) -- Bombing abortuaries not *inherently* terroristic, not of evil intent, but unwise and should be avoided.
____________________
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." -- Mythbuster Adam Savage
"Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence." -- ComputerGear T-Shirt
"Well THAT was a slap and a tickle!" -- William the Bloody
|
Cajun
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 910 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 06:38 pm |
|
NorrinRadd wrote: Ok, I don't have patience to trudge through the whole thread...
First of all, thanks to Yoda or whoever saw to it that I get some more Fundy cred at FSTDT.
Secondly, IIRC neither I nor any of those who said "Amen" to my post ever said, "Hooray, bombing abortuaries is a great idea!" On the contrary, I specifically said it is "impossible" to guarantee that there would be no collateral casualties, and on that basis I find the practice morally objectionable; on the occasions where there are in fact no such casualties, it is basically a matter of the bombers getting "lucky." And since the others who concern you so much expressed agreement with *my* post, I will assume, unless they say otherwise, that they share my objections to the practice.
In summary (in case someone wants to FSTDT-ize me again) -- Bombing abortuaries not *inherently* terroristic, not of evil intent, but unwise and should be avoided.
Agreed.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 10:08 pm |
|
NorrinRadd wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism. End of story. ...
Clearly not, since the thread has continued about 5 pages beyond the "end."
For me it is. I believe that bombing abortion clinics is an act of terrorism. Ok, a building can't feel terror, but I'm sure the people in the surrounding area feel terrified when they wake up and find their neighbourhood resembles Beiruit because some nutcase is on the loose blowing up buildings.
And I'm sure that if some nutcase starting blowing up empty church buildings, or one of your loved ones was killed in a bungled abortion clinic bombing, you lot would quickly change your stance. But how could you? Blowing up empty buildings is only dumb and not terrorism so no-one needs feel terrified so I'm sure you lot would carry on as normal and not feel any alarm over it. Whatever.
Last edited on Tue Oct 28th, 2008 10:24 pm by Sally-Anne
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 10:12 pm |
|
Cajun wrote: NorrinRadd wrote: Ok, I don't have patience to trudge through the whole thread...
First of all, thanks to Yoda or whoever saw to it that I get some more Fundy cred at FSTDT.
Secondly, IIRC neither I nor any of those who said "Amen" to my post ever said, "Hooray, bombing abortuaries is a great idea!" On the contrary, I specifically said it is "impossible" to guarantee that there would be no collateral casualties, and on that basis I find the practice morally objectionable; on the occasions where there are in fact no such casualties, it is basically a matter of the bombers getting "lucky." And since the others who concern you so much expressed agreement with *my* post, I will assume, unless they say otherwise, that they share my objections to the practice.
In summary (in case someone wants to FSTDT-ize me again) -- Bombing abortuaries not *inherently* terroristic, not of evil intent, but unwise and should be avoided.
Agreed.
I don't and I wont ever agree. I lived in London surrounded by IRA terrorism and every line that has been used in here to argue against what is terrorism was used by them. Different cause, same justification.
I don't agree with you lot and I never will, because if I do then I will have justified the IRA's arguments and I wont ever do that. I opposed them but if I start using double standards then I'd have to agree with the IRA because they used the same reasonings that you lot are. It aint ever gonna happen.
Last edited on Tue Oct 28th, 2008 10:20 pm by Sally-Anne
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 07:17 am |
|
Cajun wrote: There is no God but Yahweh, and Jesus Christ is His Son.
Hallelujah to that! That is the best line in this entire thread.
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:58 pm |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: NorrinRadd wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism. End of story. ...
Clearly not, since the thread has continued about 5 pages beyond the "end."
For me it is. I believe that bombing abortion clinics is an act of terrorism. Ok, a building can't feel terror, but I'm sure the people in the surrounding area feel terrified when they wake up and find their neighbourhood resembles Beiruit because some nutcase is on the loose blowing up buildings.
And I'm sure that if some nutcase starting blowing up empty church buildings, or one of your loved ones was killed in a bungled abortion clinic bombing, you lot would quickly change your stance. But how could you? Blowing up empty buildings is only dumb and not terrorism so no-one needs feel terrified so I'm sure you lot would carry on as normal and not feel any alarm over it. Whatever.
You've been one of my best friends here, so I'm sorry to see that we're probably not going to be able to find agreement on this. I consider "intent" to be relevant when assigning the label. In the bombing of abortuaries, I would reserve the "terrorist" label for those who perform the act with the *intent* causing terror (presumably as a way of changing behavior), not for those who only seek to destroy the means of pre-birth infanticide.
Sally-Anne also wrote:
I don't and I wont ever agree. I lived in London surrounded by IRA terrorism and every line that has been used in here to argue against what is terrorism was used by them. Different cause, same justification.
I don't agree with you lot and I never will, because if I do then I will have justified the IRA's arguments and I wont ever do that. I opposed them but if I start using double standards then I'd have to agree with the IRA because they used the same reasonings that you lot are. It aint ever gonna happen.
Well, I'm sorry you had those experiences, and that they have so colored your views. I have to say I'm kind of puzzled as to how the IRA would liken their activities to the destruction of one of the Holocaust gas chambers, but then I don't recall the active days of the IRA that well.
____________________
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." -- Mythbuster Adam Savage
"Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence." -- ComputerGear T-Shirt
"Well THAT was a slap and a tickle!" -- William the Bloody
|
Current time is 09:05 pm | Page:   ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   |
|
|
|
|
