|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
The OTHER forum
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 KOPDo you walk around (in real life) with stacks of 'news' articles handy to shove into peoples faces when you talk to them? If you had an aquaintance who did that to you, demanding that you read and respond to them, how long would it take until you to told him to bite you? |
|||||||||
|
obviously 13-Sep-06, 02:56 |
Lol how ironic to mention this in a topic that discusses that same forum. Don't you agree this thread seems to be "calling out" members of that other forum too? |
|||||||||
|
<<yawn>> Ah yes..... time for a group hug? ;p |
|||||||||
|
leo_london 13-Sep-06, 04:23 |
Thats true, but I didnt vote to delete your thread. I see no harm in a little " cross-club " discussion providing everything remains civil. Its interesting to hear what approach other clubs are taking, their ideas of what constitutes acceptable behaviour, their general philosophy with regard to encouraging new members and building a successful club forum etc. Thats why I asked Kem earlier about her experiences away from GK...to see if she had any ideas we could incorporate, or any dire warnings of things we should avoid. |
|||||||||
|
kementari 13-Sep-06, 06:52 |
I doubt it, Leo. It's not unusual to shorten the debates over time because you've already posted thousands of words on a topic and the regulars all know how you feel about something, but good leadership with plenty of communication will prevent the sorts of changes you're talking about. Most mistakes in deletions/bans etc... come from not talking before making a decision. I'm not so worried about that happening anymore now that we're all on the same page. The regulars define the forum-- unless you have some extraordinarily patient regulars, there is a shelf life on how long ideas stay fresh. If you are lucky enough to attract regulars who enjoy writing and teaching, have a diverse set of experiences and knowledge, and are just generally sociable, that shelf life is pretty much indefinite. If you have regulars who just enjoy arguing, and don't really care how they sound, the forum will likely deteriorate into something that nobody wants to take part in as those arguments get shorter and more sarcastic over time. Jeff's first five posts on LSF let me know that I would gladly get on board with any forum he wanted to start, and I have to say that we've got a great group of regulars here. It all comes down to whether or not a person feels like their time in posting is well spent... does it earn them the respect of those they admire and the chance to really engage those they disagree with? A good discussion forum has a lot of opportunities for both. Gameknot's rules (much as a part of me just chafes at them... insulting people creatively is fun) are actually setup in a way that does help to keep a heated debate on track, because a person who is losing one of those in a free-for-all forum but doesn't want to admit it almost invariably resorts to ad hom attacks. Seriously... it's like a hypnotic dance. Three long posts, and when they're refuted point for point, they lash out with the, "Oh yeah, well you smell bad!" retorts. Either that or they pretend that they don't have the time or the education to continue the conversation. The second is a weak cop out and everyone (including the person writing it) knows it, so I would say that you're actually more likely to get people hanging on to the substantive debate with these sorts of rules than you normally would in my regular haunts. It seems like that's the case, at least. This is an experiment for me, too. I've never had to worry about a rulebook before. There's always a fine line between respecting someone when you don't consider their ethics respectable, and it's usually bridged by understanding. i.e., I understand why you're such a ******* now. Or, alternately, geez, you're right, I didn't realize I was being such a *******, thanks for pointing that out! I hope we get lots of both here, because it really is fun watching the conversation flow back and forth across those lines. Good stuff. |
|||||||||
|
leo_london 13-Sep-06, 08:39 |
just a couple more questions... in your experience, what attracts new members ? and.. what do you think is a good " balance " to aim for when trying to set a club " atmosphere " ? The second question really goes back to what I was saying about rival clubs in GK. Do you aim for mainly serious debate, politics, religion, big issues etc, take a relaxed approach and just see what comes up, or is the question redundant because its just up to the membership anyway. It does seem as though some clubs have intentionally set out in a particular direction. |
|||||||||
|
kop... "Most people are unaware of the articles I post. I don't think most are AP articles. The interesting thing I find is that nobody refutes the points I make about the Bush administration. No one ever tries to argue that Bush is a competent president. No one ever tries to explain why almost everthing he says is false." I agree with thumper when he says your articles (cut & past) are too long. I do check some of those purported facts and if I find that they are distorted, taken out of context or out right fabrications, I discount the entire article. I then do not believe it worthy of any type of responce. As an example, one you posted earlier reporting the the current Bush administrations stance is not to prevent gays from being fired from their government positions just because they are gay. When I checked that article it was said that the second in command at the Justice department didn't think that the way the federal law was written, that he could defend an individual from being unfairly fired because he was gay. In the same article was a statement from the White House refuting that and saying that it was not the policy of the Bush Adminstration to decriminate against gays in government positons but that their rights to those jobs would be upheld. And the government would defend them in the event that did occur. This example was just many that you posted in the same article. I just checked that one out, found it to be erroneous and discounted the entire article. Just more of distorted facts. So, when I find something that has been distorted and taken out of context, I trash it and don't bother to respond to it. I feel that if its worth posting, then check it out for accuracy before you stand behind that post as to what your true postion is. |
|||||||||
|
kingofpawns 13-Sep-06, 09:43 |
fircrakers, etc.... I don't believe I have ever posted an article on gay people and the Bush administration. If, however, you do find a problem with an article I actually post, please let me know. Obviously, Leo is correct about the line break problem. Thumper, you don't have to read a posted article. You don't respond to every thread posted in the forums you belong to do you? So, just skip them, you know you are not going to agree with them anyway because facts are hard to refute. |
|||||||||
|
kementari 13-Sep-06, 11:11 |
Leo You're welcome, and I'm glad you think it is, too. That makes at least two of us who are fascinated by group dynamics on the internet. <<Some of our current debates have featured before in the LSF, but many of the " new " posts are still surprisingly fresh.>> Occasionally, trying to articulate one's point of view leads to some pretty astonishing insights into just why you have that point of view. That's cool. <<just a couple more questions... in your experience, what attracts new members ?>> That's a tough one. Generally, I would say it's educated conflict. Lots of it. A cozy club is nice, but new members like to be able to jump in and assert themselves, and know that they won't be shouted down by a bunch of people who disagree with them. Verbal warfare, with plenty of participants on both sides of an issue, is a good thing if you're looking to bring in fresh blood and get everyone talking. There needs to be a reason to come back to the same old same old, and for most people, that reason is going to be a sense that they learn more about themselves and the world they live in. <<and.. what do you think is a good " balance " to aim for when trying to set a club " atmosphere " ? The second question really goes back to what I was saying about rival clubs in GK. Do you aim for mainly serious debate, politics, religion, big issues etc, take a relaxed approach and just see what comes up, or is the question redundant because its just up to the membership anyway. It does seem as though some clubs have intentionally set out in a particular direction.>> All of the above. Basically, the atmosphere of the forum is going to reflect the intensity of the people who post there. I like to confine myself to one big thread at a time, so I can really dig into that topic, but others prefer to graze lightly over the buffet of ideas. I prefer a relaxed approach, with a minimum amount of steering, while others prefer a more hands on approach and post lots of topics for discussion. The diversity is good, and taking a relaxed approach towards that fact it is good, too. |
|||||||||
|
anomalocaris 13-Sep-06, 13:27 |
kop |
|||||||||
|
KOP Thankyou. >You don't respond to every thread posted in the forums you belong to do you?< Nope. >So, just skip them, ...< I usually do. >...you know you are not going to agree with them anyway...< I don't know because I don't usually read them. >... because facts are hard to refute.< Media articles contain facts? See Looney Toons #6. |
|||||||||
|
kop... **************************************** 14 Points of Fascism The link below is interesting comparison between 14 points of fascism and the Bush presidency. Do you agree or with any or all of the points? -> www.oldamericancentury.org |
|||||||||
|
kingofpawns 14-Sep-06, 00:12 |
stinky... safe to say that everyone in this forum, left, right, and in the middle is against terorrism. We all want to see terrorism end. I also agree that being president of the US is a very complex and difficult job, but that is all the more reason that we need to be both supportive and critical. I supported Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan, but I quickly had doubts about his strategy and tactics. I didn't understand why he was not committing the troops to catch Bin Laden. Bush almost destroyed Al Qeda there. Only later, first with the Downing Street Memos and Richard Clark's book, did I discover that the real plan was to invade Iraq for whatever reason they could pull off. It was those lies that led me to refer to the Bush administration as the Bush crime family. Sure, there are islamic terrrorists who just want to kill us. But, by far most Islamic people do not or would not want to kill us. Very few are terrorists. There are most a few thousand of them, admitedly more since Bush started the war in Iraq. Why am I so much against the Bush administration? 1. He is above all not up to the job. He doesn't ask question and he doesn't think things through. He surrounds himself with incompetent people. 2. He uses terror to try to maintain political power. As you read in posts in TLSF, I pointed out that there were orange alerts all summer and fall before the 2004 elections. I predicted terror would be the main strategy this fall. Now we have been faced with terrorism since 2001 under Bush. Why does he only start making speeches about terrorism before elections? 3. He is a threat to the US constitution and or personal and private rights. We do not have to give up our freedom rights to fight terrorism. If Bush is right that terrorists hate our freedom, don't they win if give up our freedom and rights? 4. There are also a variety of other reasons, which take too long to enumerate. He is anit environment, science, and alternative energy sources. We must support our leaders, but we must also be vigelent and critical. This country will never fall to terrorists or any forces without. Our only threat is from within and the price of freedom is eternal vigelence. |
|||||||||
|
KOP Yes it's true. I read the whole thing. 8-0 |
|||||||||
|
Interesting Q's: Which people are incompetent that are surrounding him? Your arguments about alerts and all are only ignorant ( and I use the term as defined; "without knowledge"). You don't have any real evidence that any of that was politically driven, except for your own personal dislike for the Right. A threat to the Constitiution and a blundering idiot; you can't have it both ways. Government rights vs. private rights are being tested. They should be. they are constantly in flux -- dynamic. Youre correct about the concern -- are we going to far...how far do we need to go to do the job without infringing upon our rights, but how does this equate to a threat to the Constitution. the man has an opinion (that matters) on how to best defeat terrorists. He is trying to use every tool available...I realize its a slippery slope but you take it way too far...if you have an issue with the Patriot Act, fine. We all ought to know what it is doing, if its helping or hurting, but this is an odd way to turn the guy into Satan. You mention that he is against alternative energy sources and yet, everytime he has the chances he mentions alternative energies as a priority and has even discussed the matter in his State of the Union addresses; clearly this is a fabrication you have adopted for no good reason or you just dont care to educate yourself. A quick trip to whitehouse.gov and click on "energy" and you will find that in the last year alone has addressed the issue multiple times. Where are your facts that demonstrate such a position is one he holds -- this is just pure garbage. |
|||||||||
|
kementari 14-Sep-06, 01:06 |
stinky It happens from time to time. <<leo, im not sure but... on the changes in tlsf, freedom of speech still does exist.>> Freedom is limited when there are no good explanations following the removal of members. It's only semi-free, then, with a nagging uncertainty over whether or not your opinions might offend someone enough to hit the kick button. <<i think the problem (at least as i understand it) wasnt the difference of opinion it was the negativity and thread flooding ( at least in one case)>> We may never know, and that really is the point here. <<the clubs atmosphere has changed a little but in my opinion for the positive.>> Which is cool. Sometimes a shakeup will bring people who enjoy doing something together a little closer. That's a definite plus for everyone. All's well as ends well. <<ideas are exchanged more readily now or maybe just more fun is being had.>> When the opposition goes away, that tends to happen. The flipside of it, of course, is that the hot debates and the clever retorts you used to look forward to die along with that... which means you need to go digging elsewhere to find them. <<either way i like it better there now as oppossed to before.>> Cool. <<kop dont get angry but... many of the post by you were so completely polarized that it left no room for anything but hard feelings.>> Really? I've never seen it that way, personally. If somebody posts something that I disagree with strongly, I look for ways to refute that argument. If I can't refute the argument, I assume that the person may in fact be correct, and that I may need to examine my own position more carefully. <<i have told you many time that starting threads with comments like bush crime family and things like that leave no room for discussion.>> Pshaw. It's just rhetoric. Sometimes it just feels good to let loose with your uncensored opinion in a way that face to face conversation doesn't allow for. I do the same thing when talking about religion... I would never, ever, not even in a million years approach the topic as boldly with a believer face to face. At least not unless we were close friends first, and even then, it would be a very delicate situation. <<if i asked a man if he has a good slutty wife or a bad slutty wife i have left no room for anything but hard feelings.>> Not sure where you're coming from here, stinky. If somebody asked my husband that, he would respond by saying that I don't sleep around. He would certainly be willing to listen to evidence that I was, in fact, sleeping around on him, but he would simply ignore a person who couldn't back up an assertion like that. If Bush is indeed guilty of gross misuse of power in the name of protecting special interests who have a vested interest in keeping people like him in power (which a close scrutiny of what I here on the news and read online does lead me to believe is true, even if he is too dumb to realize it), it is not at all unreasonable to label that behavior criminal. Ignorance is not an excuse. That goes for the American public this election year, as well. Do you know anything about the people who will be on the ballot this November? <<shouldnt we first establish if shes even a slutty wife first?>> Well, yes. I would imagine that the extensive links to articles and expressions of distaste for specific acts and statements by the man and his appointed trusted advisors would count as an attempt to establish his case. <<no sense arguing with a fence post. not calling kop a fence post just saying even if I am the fence post still no sense in trying to share ideas.>> I find that very sad. <<why bother anymore, why keep causing arguments?>> To learn. <<it was in the best interest of the club to get rid of kop. maybe even was in kops best interest. kop not trying to set you out or cause trouble but your case is the only one im even remotely familiar with. the others will have to ask dok or whoever banned them. i havent even been online much lately.>> Okay. In any case, glad you're here stinky. Don't forget, the bikini party is on Friday. |
|||||||||
|
kementari 14-Sep-06, 02:05 |
dok <<response KOP...are you on Zoloft now?>> We're glad to have you here, and I know the two of you have a long history of going back and forth with each other, but when I read something like that addressed to me, it just makes me want to up the ante. Since our hands are somewhat tied in that respect, can I respectfully ask that you keep the ad hominems www.fallacyfiles.org" target="_blank">-> www.fallacyfiles.org subtle and/or non-existent, and use them only when you're really and truly annoyed? They shouldn't really be necessary to make your point, and if you make them few and far between, it does increase their impact quite a bit. <<Which people are incompetent that are surrounding him?>> Wow. That's a post for a whole separate thread. I'll order these by the relative damage that I believe, based on the evidence of their words and actions, that these people have done to our country. Number one incompetent shmuck would be Donald Rummsfeld, who brought us the classic quote, "I will fire the next man who talks about the need for a post-war plan." Number two (and this is a tough call) would be Alberto Gonzales, the author of a kinder and gentler policy on torture and how we can get around those prickly little laws. We can start there on a different thread, if you would like. <<A threat to the Constitiution and a blundering idiot; you can't have it both ways.>> Sure you can. A person does not need to be clever to destroy something. <<Government rights vs. private rights are being tested. They should be. they are constantly in flux -- dynamic. Youre correct about the concern -- are we going to far...how far do we need to go to do the job without infringing upon our rights, but how does this equate to a threat to the Constitution.>> (As an aside, I like the way you write, glad to have you here.) That's an extremely good question, and I agree that the rhetoric can get in the way. Again, though, we need a new thread for this debate. <<You mention that he is against alternative energy sources and yet, everytime he has the chances he mentions alternative energies as a priority and has even discussed the matter in his State of the Union addresses; clearly this is a fabrication you have adopted for no good reason or you just dont care to educate yourself.>> Are you seriously suggesting that words are the same as actions in politics? That's an extraordinary claim. Has Bush done something to back those words up that I'm unaware of? <<A quick trip to whitehouse.gov and click on "energy" and you will find that in the last year alone has addressed the issue multiple times. Where are your facts that demonstrate such a position is one he holds -- this is just pure garbage.>> Facts are always good. It's late and I'll leave this to kop to start the next thread, which I'm sure he won't mind doing. I'll toss out a teaser with a few facts from a paper sponsered by the Sierra Club with regards to the 2005 Energy Bill www.sierraclub.org" target="_blank">-> www.sierraclub.org (For those of you who don't like to click links, but also don't believe that those environmentalist whackos have any real cause for concern, may I gently suggest that this is a link worth reading? It gives highlights of decisions that affect you and your children. It's important.) Bush's idea of "alternate energy sources", as far as I can tell, involves deregulating our current industries (to the point where one seriously wonders whether or not our current energy policies were drafted entirely by the lobbyists) and pushing for more nuclear power. I used to date a guy who wrote his thesis on disposal of waste products from those facilities... his take on nuclear power was that it was a very large and ugly accident waiting to happen. It's an alternative, but it is emphatically not a "safe" alternative. What better target could a terrorist possibly want? <<A quick trip to whitehouse.gov and click on "energy" and you will find that in the last year alone has addressed the issue multiple times.>> Hehheh... I prefer www.whitehouse.org" target="_blank">-> www.whitehouse.org . Right up there with the esteemed Onion (shameless plug) I" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class=ext>www.theonion.com" target="_blank">-> www.theonion.com went there, and I checked it out to see if there have been any new developments. I found roughly 200 million allocated to the types of research that need to be front and center in our nation's energy policy discussions. Compare that with the billions of dollars in tax cuts and incentives for oil, gas, coal, and nuclear (each!), and I think you have a good idea why environmentalists feel that Bush and our current elected leaders are a little light on environmental issues. |
|||||||||
|
Actually Kem kop seems to be behaving with some sense of thoughtfulness that he never demonstrated before ( due to a lack of responsibility) then lets just get used to the fact that this is the 1st Amendment Club and was formed so that I and everyone else could take a swing so long as we didnt cross the line of death defined in some place here as the GK Rules. I find it amazing as well that I was reprimanded on my very first post here...I thought it would take a few before things got fun...but, I guess I was wrong...the flashing lights of freedom dimmed the moment I made a harmless jab....sad, indeed, sad. So, shall we get on with it...or shall we be really mean to each other and make it the 2nd amendment Club...the right to bear arms, Im sure you know. Now as for your points above. Thanks for the "i like your writing style comment" makes me feel good. I suspect that will be the last compliment I shall hear from these here parts. So, lets start with the Sierra Club...this is basically a club, interestingly enough , that would destroy the worlds economy to save a grasshopper... Second, so Im to take the "some guy I dated" as a fact source. Because if thats as far as we need to go to fact check oursleves and opinions...this is going to a lot funner than I had previously suspected. France ( a whole country, defined by their complete inability to manufacture anything twice and have it be identical to the first model has ahuge and succcessful Nuclear Energy program. Thats why they are always on the side of the terrorists...they dont need to fix any middle eastern problems...they got the "rods" sorry for the pun...seeing as we are speaking of the french..and they are doing fine. They always seem to be in for a nice kickback as well... Next, you know, I dont know anybody that is against the environment. I polled an old girlfriend and it has been confirmed that everyone cares about the environment. Problem is neither side of the aisle wants to do anything that actually works. The Right wants to incentivize (if thats a word) businesses to be clean. The Left wants to create massive programs using billions of dollars to protect things that 1) dont need protecting and 2)are basically a huge bureacracy that is just another Tennessee Volunteer Program renewed from the 30's. 3) The best way to get results has always been to give large incentives to smart people that can make things happen because they have the right people, the right ideas and are willing to invest their hard earned cash into something that will give someone a return. Right now, as I see it...nobody has done a damn bit of good anywhere to solve this problem so for kop to make this a reason to call Bush a criminal is a bit like me calling you a tomato because youre blood is as red as mine. No logic, no facts, nothing but bologna cuz he hates the guy. Oh, one more thing -- "the little words and actions comment" tell me you seriously think anyone has a monopoly in any govt position on this...before we get too far. Because I believe that the Left ran this country for like 40 years and during that time...we basically created every problem we are taking about now. Theyre politicians. Some are good, I suppose, most are power mongers...and like to prattle. Few are good...but the problem is, even if they are good kop is a perfect example of why it doesnt matter -- because politics has become so devisive there isnt any room any more for nice people in the middle that think for themselves and care...they end up on his crime list because they think the Patriot Act might actually stop a terrorist act from occurring... |
|||||||||
|
Is it just me or .. versus robust disection of issues? dok with respect: <<Im here to express my free spech. So, unless youre saying I cant take a swing at the fact that in this club kop seems to be behaving with some sense of thoughtfulness that he never demonstrated before ( due to a lack of responsibility) then lets just get used to the fact that this is the 1st Amendment Club and was formed so that I and everyone else could take a swing so long as we didnt cross the line of death defined in some place here as the GK Rules. >> I'm new here but i though that the agenda was freedom of speech/debate but NO personal attacks. Perhaps a mod could clarrify this? <<So, lets start with the Sierra Club...this is basically a club, interestingly enough , that would destroy the worlds economy to save a grasshopper...>> rather than attempt to refute or challenge any of the assertions presented in the Sierra club link that Kem provided you've make a demeaning comment. I'm interested in understanding how you think that fosters intelligent advancement in understanding of issues? |
|||||||||
|
Mark sheesh, why the hostility? I thought this was like a free speech zone...and Ive already been pounced on twice in 2 comments...neither of which was really a big deal. If you have some deep affection for the Sierra Club I can understand your position, but I think theyre nuts. Or cant we say that here? Really...Im not being facetious...can we say that or not? |
|||||||||
|
saintinsanity 14-Sep-06, 03:38 |
Heh heh This could really become a great discussion. |
|||||||||
|
free....as in, EVERY position is given space for expression. It may be helpful for you to review the contents of my previous post. To summarise the issue i'm trying to clarify is the diference between attack based on a percieved and expressed character flaw the and the freedom to explore concepts/ideas. if you review some of the posts here ( kems may be a good start as she's particularly eloquent) you may start to understand the difference between robust debate of issues based on the infomation presented and the use of what kem describes as "ad hominims" which for those of us such as myself who speak no latin, roughly translates i believe as subtituting the above process with perossnal slur/attacks. In direct answer to your question: << If you have some deep affection for the Sierra Club I can understand your position, but I think theyre nuts. Or cant we say that here?>> I have no feelings for the Seira club at all. They do however (at the link provided by kem ) present data that supports a position. I'd have more respect for your position if, rather than using an attribution of the "sanity" of the organisation based on what i assume may ideological considerations, you presented DATA or conceptual arguments that refuted their position. It's not up to me to decide what you can or can't say but the above would be my overal impression. |
|||||||||
|
DOK on twice in 2 comments...neither of which was really a big deal.*** The temerity of this question and comment on top of what you've already posted, almost makes me speeches - almost. You show up here and are welcome to stay and say whatever you want - provided GK rules yadayadayada - But you're first two posts take a jab at KOP with your Zoloft comment and your second post was about as defensive as a child, IMHO. You seem to be taking no responsibility for your tone and comments, and then stand there shurgging, "I don't get it". Here's the thing, I *know* you're not a child, and I am sure you are quite capable of looking bakc at your comments, especially in light of your history to one of the posters here, and you can see the part you have played. If you are unable to see your part, then I encourage a litte more spiritual growth. Although, its only when you love yourself enough to fidn that path that you will grow and it might be too much to expect, IMHO. It will be nice to have your conservative opinion here. Did you get tired of agreeing with all the other conservative opinions on TLSF? Much more discussion will be had here for sure, and no one here has to worry about getting banned because you are annoyed. Now, lets try and play nice. Were we ot going to start a new thread? KOP this is kidn fo your baby, might I suggest one? |
|||||||||
|
obviously 14-Sep-06, 07:08 |
dok >You seem to be taking no responsibility for your tone and comments This forum allows to speak out as long as it doesn't annoy the mods too much. jdh71 had voted to censor one of my threads, it wasn't breaking any rule but it might anger LSF lol. Donot argue with these mods if you'd like to stay dok, Jeff almost banned me for sabotaging the club by instigating dissent and upseting people. The rules at TSF more much clearer: it is ok to argue, just don't disagree with their opinions. |
|||||||||
|
obviously |
|||||||||
|
obviously 14-Sep-06, 07:21 |
|
|||||||||
|
obviously 14-Sep-06, 07:26 |
voting |
|||||||||
|
leo_london 14-Sep-06, 08:08 |
However, recent posts here have focused on a couple of specific remarks by DoK, so I will give my take on that particular issue. I think we have to distinguish between general good natured ( I hope ) banter and actual personal insults. I thought the remarks belonged in the former category, both kop and I have known Dok for some considerable time and personally I would not have found the remarks insulting if they had been addressed to me. Irritating... maybe, insulting...no. Its not easy for the mods, things we might all accept as part of the " knock about " from people who are familiar to us become insults from a total stranger. Therefore it is probably better to err on the side of caution, without becoming too uptight about every word that is posted. |
|||||||||
|
obviously about banning people</sarcasm> your argument is bunk. if we got rid of people for annoying us, you'd have gone the way of dinosaur a long time ago. does it bother you being wrong all the time? |
|||||||||
|
obviously 14-Sep-06, 11:57 |
jdh Speak for yourself dude. |
|||||||||
| ||||||||||
