|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"Stupid News: Your thoughts?"
NightScribe 761 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Fitness Correspondent"
|
08-24-02, 02:39 PM (EST)
 
  |
|
"Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-24-02 AT 03:14 PM (EST)I've been watching a lot of news lately, and I'm aghast at the kinds of stories that are making the news. Terrorism and West Nile Virus aside, can you believe some of the following news stories from the last week? 1. A Florida woman is arrested and jailed for 7 days because a Police Officer noticed that her three infant children were sunburned. For more on this story <http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/22/sunburn.charges.ap/index.html> 2. A woman is fired for speaking Spanish on the job at a retirement home (which has an English only policy). She was neither speaking to a resident or in front of one, but alas, she is fired anyway. Stoopid! 3. Bush proposes a plan called "Healthy Forests". As some of you may know, approximately 350 thousand acres have been lost in Oregon due to a raging forest fire. Even where I live (about 70 miles south of the Or. border) you can see and smell the smoke. It's devastating! Anyway, Bush's plan calls for expediting logging in the area. Great idea -- cut down all the trees and there won't be anything left to burn. Stoopid!
Read more here
<http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/22/bush.timber/index.htm> 4. An 18 year old junkie dies of a heroine overdose and his parents are indited on charges criminal negligence. Um....the parents didn't provide the drugs, nor were they aware he was using them at the time. Stoopid! And those are just the highlights. You would think that with our country on the brink of war and people dropping dead all over the south that our priorities would be a little different, but no -- sometimes people are just STOOPID!!! 
edited to add news links
|
|
|
Top |
| |
L82LIFE 5333 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-24-02, 03:32 PM (EST)
|
|
1. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
I read the story about the heroine addict's parents yesterday and was shocked! He's legally an adult, so why blame the parents? Some may say they should have done a better job, but I disagree. Some people cannot be rehabilitated because they don't want to be. My oldest brother had this problem and my parents tried everything with him-none of it worked.The woman getting fired for speaking what is probably her native tongue-that is just wrong! And now the woman with the sunburned kids has been released because they realized the burns weren't as bad as they had thought. I won't even go there with the forests, because the McNally fire in Sequoia Forest is mighty close to home and has made our Valley air unhealthy for weeks now. Where's the real news??? Hidden in the last few pages of the paper, or during the final 10 minutes of a broadcast. Welcome to America-bring your own handbasket! BTW-Nice to see you around more lately, Scribe.  
|
|
|
Top |
| |
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-24-02, 04:04 PM (EST)
|
|
2. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-24-02 AT 04:11 PM (EST)3. Bush proposes a plan called "Healthy Forests". As some of you may know, approximately 350 thousand acres have been lost in Oregon due to a raging forest fire. Even where I live (about 70 miles south of the Or. border) you can see and smell the smoke. It's devastating! Anyway, Bush's plan calls for expediting logging in the area. Great idea -- cut down all the trees and there won't be anything left to burn. Stoopid!
You're wrong. This is a smart policy. Bush is not advocating cutting down ALL the trees, just clear cutting and constructing roads so that 1) forest fires don't get the raging start that gets them going, and 2) if a fire DOES occur, there are avenues to fight them. Of course, environmentalist extremists, correctly termed "environmentalist Wackos" by Rush Limbaugh, are opposed to this. They're opposed to prosperity, capitalism and individual freedom, also. But they also have no clue what they're talking about, to wit: Fire is a natural part of a forest's life cycle. Some seedlings REQUIRE a periodic forest fire so that they are released from their shells and can begin to take root and start growing. Fire also cleanses the deadwood and accumulated debris from a forest, allowing it to grow back and renew itself afresh. This is how plants evolve into newer and better species. It's PART of nature for a forest to burn (most forest fires are started by lightning, not by man, also). Mother Nature is just taking care of herself by burning away the debris from time to time. The policy of fighting fires for the last 100 years, allowing all that deadwood and stuff to accumulate on the forest floor as rich fuel for burning, is the reason you see such devastating forest fires today. Mother Nature *IS* going to win when she wants and needs to, no matter how much man tries to stop it. but, by the way, and more importantly: Since you're so quick to call George W. Bush "stoopid", I wonder if you'll make the same charge against Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a DEMOCRAT from South Dakota... You see, Mr. Daschle snuck some legislation into (of all things) a defense spending measure... it allows SOUTH DAKOTA to do the logging and clear cutting that Bush wants to do everywhere... but only in South Dakota... NOT in California or Oregon where it is so desperately needed. Senators from California and Oregon were (understandably) very upset at Mr. Daschle, saying "what is good for the South Dakota goose ought to be good for the country's gander". So, are you going to condemn Democrat Daschle the same way you so eagerly condemn Republican Bush? Or will you apply the typical double standard so common of most liberals?  "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas PaineContradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
 |
TechNoir 9741 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-24-02, 04:28 PM (EST)
|
|
3. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
>You're wrong. This is a smart policy.
<snip>No, you're wrong. It is not only really bad policy. It is yet another thoughtless, knee jerk, business friendly, extremist example of the kind of government we have been subjected to since W stole the election. Brought to you by the same government that wants meter readers to spy on your book collection. <snip> >The policy of fighting fires for the last 100 years, allowing >all that deadwood and stuff to accumulate on the forest
>floor as rich fuel for burning, is the reason you
>see such devastating forest fires today. Yeah, God designed it really stupidly. George can do a better job. <more snipping .. I can't bear to read it twice> You know, I've been watching these tirades of yours for quite a while now, and I'm just sick to death of you hijacking threads for the same old political purpose. I personally don't feel the need to respond to all of your silly challenges ... like trying to get somebody to defend your anti-Daschle tirade. He is a Senator representing the people of his state to the best of his ability. He isn't my senator, so I'm not going to bother. (On the other hand, I'm quite happy with my senators: <you're gonna love this> Mr. Sarbanes and Ms. Mikulski. Best thing is that I rarely need to write or call them about an issue because I'm pretty certain they will land in the right place.) Oh, and Ms. Scribe .... Yeah, it gets stupider every day. I'm wondering why the news media is making this stuff headline news though ... what don't they want us to pay attention to ?? 
Do you ever just know you should shut up but open your mouth anyway?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-24-02, 04:47 PM (EST)
|
|
4. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-24-02 AT 04:51 PM (EST)Let me put this first:
He is a Senator representing the people of his state to the best of his ability. My point exactly about Mr. Daschle...and Bush is representing ALL the people of the Nation to the best of his ability with the EXACT SAME POLICY. But one is a Democrat and one is a Republican, so again I ask... if Mr. Bush is "stoopid" for the policy, is Mr. Daschle in the same boat? No, you're wrong. It is not only really bad policy. It is yet another thoughtless, knee jerk, business friendly, extremist example of the kind of government we have been subjected to since W stole the election. No, George Bush did not steal the election. Al Gore tried to and failed. George Bush WON Florida, and he WON the national election where it counts: In the Electoral College. Yeah, God designed it really stupidly. George can do a better job. George is trying to help Mother Nature and God do their rightly thing. It's the environmentalist whackos that are causing the true problem and interfering with "God's plan". You know, I've been watching these tirades of yours for quite a while now, and I'm just sick to death of you hijacking threads for the same old political purpose. 1. The title of this whole thresd contains "Your thoughts?" I gave mine. So now you object? 2. It's not a hijack, it's a direct response. The original message mentioned Bush, Bush's plan, and "stoopid". I responded directly. Not a hijack. 3. Typical double standard: It's okay to attack George Bush and call him "dumb" and "stoopid", but it's a "tirade" and "hijacking" (and therefore not okay) for me to defend Bush? It's okay to LIE about Bush's forest policy, but it's a "tirade" and "hijacking" (and therefore not okay) for me to defend Bush AND point out the truth about this policy? In other words, if you agree with it, it's okay to post, but if you oppose it (and you clearly oppose what I say) then it's my "tirade" and "hijacking" and I should just shut up, say nothing, and allow the lies to continue. That's what you're saying. Before you remove the splinter from my eye, remove the board from your own. I personally don't feel the need to respond to all of your silly challenges ... like trying to get somebody to defend your anti-Daschle tirade. Why not? Because it's the TRUTH and you can't refute it? It's not a silly challenge, it's a truth that people who read this attack on George Bush should also know about. Again, the double standard: If YOU don't agree with it, then you call it a "silly challenge" and an "anti-Daschle tirade"... but what about the "anti-Bush tirade" in the original post and in your response? Oh, that's okay, because it's against Republican Bush. Before you remove the splinter from my eye, remove the board from your own. "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas PaineContradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Swami 5885 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-24-02, 06:23 PM (EST)
|
|
8. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
Dawg, I luv ya, but as a card-carrying Liberal (and proud of it!) I gotta stick up for TechNoir here.George W. Bush won a tainted victory, and Florida was the key to his winning it. His bro Jeb spent a lot of time before the election tweaking the rules (legally) to try and give him an edge. And no one really can say for sure what the outcome might have been if Judge Scalili (can't spell his name) hadn't ordered a recount stopped after W. petitioned to stop it. Florida stunk. I don't think W. is stoopid, 'cause you can't get a Harvard MBA if you're stupid. But also, he is not smart. I attended an Ivy League school too, and people who are sorta medium smart, pick their courses carefully and write well can cruise to the finish line. It's called the bottom of the class, and I think that's where W. ranked. His charm & social smarts have served him well, but if daddy's political machine wasn't already built & running I don't think he could have done it on his own. (One reason why i don't like Legacy political candidates--it's too hard to see if they really have the right stuff.)(Gore, too, is a Legacy--I don't like him much either.) I'm not going to address the forestry issues; they vary so much depending on which trees and which forest you are talking about. But on Big Business, I have this to say: business companies have merged and acquired each other until there are too few companies controlling way too much capital & resources. I think you reach a point where size does not result in efficiencies, increased productivity, or any of the other virtues touted by Biggest Business. You can make a good case that the opposite is true. Biggest Businesses are the giant bureacracies they accuse governemtn of being. Give me good old, mid-sized and regional companies that compete with each other--not untouchable megoliths. When they say the business of America is Business--I'm thinking of a regional retailer like Herbergers, not giant Enron. Companies can be too big. Yet these biggest companies have way too much say in government policy & contracts because all the capital they have amassed buys them access. And almost all politicians--left, right and middle--get in line and pucker when bags of money are at stake. So Dawg... You're still over there on the right, and I'm still over here on the left--correct? Oh well, maybe after we're done hijacking thresds together we can fix the country one vote at a time. Even in Florida. (Sorry. I couldn't resist!)  Swami
Some of my best friends are Republicans. Well, okay, one is.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-24-02, 09:21 PM (EST)
|
|
13. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-24-02 AT 09:39 PM (EST)I luv u 2, Swami, but I gotta state a couple of things here for your reading pleasure: George W. Bush won a tainted victory, and Florida was the key to his winning it. His bro Jeb spent a lot of time before the election tweaking the rules (legally) to try and give him an edge Okay, in politics, both sides "tweak" things (legally), and I understand that.... just look at how Georgia's congressional districts are twisted and skewed on the map to see an example of this. But George Bush won Florida, and therefore the election. He had the most votes. Every recount (and there have been numerous offical and unofficial ones) show this, and I defy/challenge anyone to show any legitimate count or recount (official or unofficial (such as the ones the newspapers did)) that shows Bush as anything but the winner. In fact, the Gore team was trying to disqualify perfectly legal military absentee ballots in an effort to make the numbers closer. And here are more facts (not opinions, facts) in this matter: The Florida Supreme court flouted both Florida and United States law in attempting to give the election to Gore. The U.S. Supreme Court, by a 7-2 margin, agreed with the Bush side that the Florida Supreme Court was dead wrong. (The 5-4 decision that is so touted was actually whether or not to stop the endless recountings or not). Last, but not least, Bush would have won anyway: The first few presidential elections were not decided by votes of the people, and it isn't REQUIRED that they be, although most states hold votes. The STATES determine the electors to the Electoral College. If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed the incessant recounts to continue, the Florida State Legislature would have named the official slate of Electors for the College, totally disregarding ALL the voting... as was their right (per the U.S. Constitution) if they so chose. The Florida Legislature was Republican-controlled. Bush would've carried Florida, his brother notwithstanding. This might have been challenged in the U.S. House of Representatives, but the Republicans hold that legislative body, as well. George Bush would have been President of the United States, period. The interesting thing would have been in the Senate. Liebermann (or even Gore, according to some legal opinions I read) might have been chosen in that body to be the Vice President. As to the Bush smart/dumb (in this case "stoopid") debate, I'm just getting tired of people around here calling Bush dumb or "stoopid" without anything to back it up, without showing it in any way. Personally, I think Bush IS smart... very smart, and would show this by the way he ran his campaign with the Media solidly and openly against him, by his selections of the Vice Presidential nominee and various other people helping him run the country, etc. As to big business, Swami, you make an excellent point. About a century ago, one President Teddy Roosevelt felt the need to do some breaking up of monopolies, and went about doing so. As you astutely point out, it may be the time that such a thing happens again, and I doubt Bush will be the one to do it. There is a lot more too it all in today's economy and world political structure, of course, and no, I won't get into a huge economic discussion here (hey! Dubya has the MBA, not me!), but your point was a good one. Edited to add: Swami, I love that new sig pic of yours! "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas PaineContradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-24-02, 09:43 PM (EST)
|
|
15. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
As to the Bush smart/dumb (in this case "stoopid") debate, I'm just getting tired of people around here calling Bush dumb or "stoopid" without anything to back it up, without showing it in any way. Perhaps you should re-read both Scribe's original post, as well as her subsequent post, in which she makes it perfectly clear that she is NOT calling GWB "stoopid", but rather his *policy*. But, as we have seen, you are far more willing to stick with your original impression, regardless of facts to the contrary. Regarding the election...Reference <http://www.fair.org/activism/usatoday-recount.html>: On April 4 {2001}, USA Today announced the results of its long-anticipated re-examination of Florida ballots (done in conjunction with the Miami Herald) with the headline: "Newspapers' Recount Shows Bush Prevailed in Fla. Vote." The headline touting a Bush win referred to the paper's estimate of what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not blocked the hand recount of 60 Florida counties that had been ordered by the state Supreme Court. The paper found that Bush likely would have won such a recount. But USA Today's investigation also found something else-- something it chose not to tell its readers: The official hand counts in the remaining seven Florida counties, completed before the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, had missed hundreds, even thousands of potential Gore votes. If those votes had been properly counted, under two of the four counting standards used by the paper to determine valid votes, Gore would have won the entire state by 300 to 400 votes. The paper examined ballots from all 67 counties in Florida, but it only *reported* the results from 60 counties where hand counts were unfinished (except on the paper's website, USAToday.com). The paper's decision to exclude its findings in seven counties was based on its strategy of trying to answer only one narrow question: What would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stepped in and stopped the manual recounts in Florida? The paper therefore included only the *official* results from the seven counties, even though its own investigation found that the official results had potentially missed enough Gore votes to change the outcome of the election. None of this was revealed to USA Today's readers. The April 4 article explained that the "official counts were final and would not have changed if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount." In making this decision, USA Today failed to report some of the most newsworthy aspects of its own ballot review. The Miami Herald, which worked with USA Today on the study, also played down the fact that the re-examination showed that Gore got more votes than Bush under two of the four standards (4/4/01). So not only does this disprove your statement that EVERY recount shows that Bush won, and WOULD inevitably have won, Florida, but it also is startling to note the non-Liberal spin on this story from this major news outlet, considering the vast Leftist Media conspiracy in this country. And one of the biggest contributors to the Bush-Cheney recount effort? Enron. Just saying, is all.  
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-25-02, 08:49 AM (EST)
|
|
26. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-25-02 AT 09:44 AM (EST)Samiam, this shows nothing, and certainly does not "shut me up" as jizzy suggests. 1) the url you quote is the site of the extremely liberal biased FAIR organization. 2) They are trying hard to disprove the USA Today's report that Bush won the election. The USA today is one of those mainstream papers whose recount I was discussing. The New York Times also tried and failed to prove anything but a Bush win. 3) If you read this report, the FAIR guys try to say that USA Today failed to report votes from 7 counties because they were "unfinished". This is typical leftist spin, and untrue. The USA Today DID report the accurate numbers. 4) Nowhere in this report does FAIR give a count of its own... perhaps because they know such a count would prove Bush won. Nice try, but it resembled Brandon's arrow shot in Survivor III... Edited to add: About Enron... they also gave money to Democrats. And if you're going to mention Enron, let's bring up Global Crossing, a company that did similar things to Enron and financially went south... and Global Crossing's deals with Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas PaineContradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-25-02, 10:22 AM (EST)
|
|
29. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
*sigh* Dawg, I will say it again. It doesn't matter what sites we find to cite, because if something disagrees with what YOU think, you automatically label it Liberal, and therefore necessarily wrong. You ask us to do our own research and find THE TRUTH...but Dawg, what you're asking us to find is YOUR truth. I've seen time and time again that you refuse to budge your position despite facts to the contrary, and that does nothing to bolster your claims. Politics is a dirty business. I don't think there are many politicians on EITHER side of the aisle that are squeaky clean. I'm not saying Democrats/Liberals are perfect and Republicans/Conservatives are evil. I'm saying there's a level playing field here. But you don't seem to be able to understand that. I tire of these "discussions" with you, because they go nowhere. You won't listen to anyone but yourself, and maybe Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh (who both used up their credibility with me long ago). I read both sides and come to my own conclusions, which tend to lean Left. You read both sides and come to your own conclusions, which tend to lean Right. Until you can see that we BOTH have valid opinions, albeit on different sides of an issue, I will avoid future posts to your debates. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go earn some money so I can avoid being an Evil Single Welfare Mom, because that would be WRONG.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-25-02, 10:53 AM (EST)
|
|
31. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-25-02 AT 11:03 AM (EST)In GENERAL, you're right, samiam. We see things from the opposite side of the fence. Where you say Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have no credibility with you, I say that they are extremely credible while Peter Jennings and Dan Rather are not. You're right that politics is dirty and opinionated. However, when some "opinions" are so incorrect as to be smears (such as someone suggesting Dubya wants to cut down all the trees, as was twice suggested in this thresd alone), then I feel the need to state a defense, sometimes even with the words "you're wrong". Last, as to your specific example from FAIR, above, it does not disprove what I said and it does not meet the challenge I issued. I've posted why already, so I won't rehash it here. P.S. Nice new sig pic - if those are really your legs, you oughta be doing commercials on TV that feature legs... "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas PaineContradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-25-02, 10:49 AM (EST)
|
|
30. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
Make sure you're sitting down when reading this people, because... I totally agree with you on this one, Strider.Bush should be distancing himself from this guy like a bad rash. Bush should take an example from Al Gore(!). Before the Democratic Convention in 2000, (now former) Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell was thought to be a top choice for a cabinet position... until the Feds starting looking into corruption charges against Campbell (and they're getting close now, but that's a different story). At the Dem. convention, Campbell could not even get close to Gore, certainly not within camera range. Campbell also just about disappeared during the convention, only being seen with the Georgia delegation on vote night. "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas PaineContradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Strider 580 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
08-24-02, 06:35 PM (EST)
|
|
10. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
There are obviously reasonable opinions on this issue, so why start a post with "You're wrong"? How about, "I disagree with you," or "I have a different view." Or are you so caught up in what you hear on Rush Limbaugh that you can't imagine there's any other opinion in the world but yours?Also, I'm tired of all your debates devolving into a conservative vs. liberal diatribe. You have something to say about the forest policy, fine. But there's no reason to throw in your nonsense about environmentalist wackos. And "the typical double standard so common of most liberals?" What is that supposed to mean? Do you just throw out these snippets of wisdom for fun, or do you think about them? You just called about half the people on this board hypocritical. Again, go ahead and make your point about Daschle, but the additional commentary has no purpose. I've been avoiding responding to you lately, but I'm fed up. We can have debates about issues on this board, but they don't have to be insulting. And don't tell me you weren't trying to be insulting, because you were insulting on this post, and you have been on others. You can't throw out an obvious insult, and then hide behind a claim that you weren't trying to be insulting.  Strider
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Frau Hexe 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
08-24-02, 07:48 PM (EST)
|
|
11. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
The problem is the type of logging Bush wants to promote is the very type of logging that feeds wildfires and causes them to become out of control. As someone who has lived in forested areas all of her life, whose parents lost their home and everything they owned in a wildfire, and whose brother is a CDF fire fighter, I know a little bit about these issues. Bush is simply promoting the logging of the nice big trees that will provide nice pretty timber for his friends' nice pretty houses. The problem is, when we log these larger trees, what is left is the underbrush and the sapplings which are the very fuel these fires feed upon. Once those burn, what's left? Well, dead trees for one, and lots of possibilities for landslides and erosion. And we all know how good that is.Yes, fire is a natural process necessary for the health of forests and trees, but clearcutting is certainly not the answer to this. But then, I guess if we consider the following all of this makes perfect sense. You see, I think if we apply the same principle to all the child kidnappings we've had lately, we'd have a great solution! So, why don't we just kill all the children. That's right "clear cut" all those under the age of eighteen--then we won't have so many kidnappings! Yes, this makes perfect sense to me. 
"I know I can't be the only whatever I am in the room." -Ani Difranco
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-24-02, 09:32 PM (EST)
|
|
14. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
On the issue of forest preservation, clearcutting, and exactly what Bush (and Daschle) have proposed doing, it's time for everyone to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. I say I'm right and y'all are wrong on this issue (and I mean on the facts of these matters). But we'll be yelling that back and forth all night.What I really take exception to is this:
But then, I guess if we consider the following all of this makes perfect sense. You see, I think if we apply the same principle to all the child kidnappings we've had lately, we'd have a great solution! So, why don't we just kill all the children. That's right "clear cut" all those under the age of eighteen--then we won't have so many kidnappings! Yes, this makes perfect sense to me. Not only is that extremely misrepresentative of what Bush and Daschle have proposed, I do not believe that you really want to equate kidnapping and/or murder of children with harvesting of trees for wood. You are probably trying to convey the "curing the disease by killing the patient" idea, but this was, shall we say, not the best analogy. "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas PaineContradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Frau Hexe 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
08-25-02, 05:38 AM (EST)
|
|
25. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
Not only is that extremely misrepresentative of what Bush and Daschle have proposed, I do not believe that you really want to equate kidnapping and/or murder of children with harvesting of trees for wood. You are probably trying to convey the "curing the disease by killing the patient" idea, but this was, shall we say, not the best analogy.
No, actually, this is a perfect analogy to show simply how ludicrous Bush's plan is. Just as it would be ridiculous to take away all the children to prevent kidnapping, it is equally assinine to take away all the trees so they won't burn down. I was not equating these things, but simply applying the same logic that Bush (and you) are using toward logging Oregon to another current problem being plastered across the media. As for everyone doing her own research--try living in a place like, oh, say, the California Redwoods, or hell, even Oregon, where clearcutting abounds, and so do other natural disasters as a result. (See Scribe's post below) The problem is, when one is entirely removed from a situation like this, it is easy to allow one's politics to skew one's thinking. But even most of the old-time loggers up here will tell you that clearcutting does far more harm than good. Just come see all the landslides in the winter, or the wildfires the slash piles start in the summer. But ultimately I'll concede that you and Bush are right: if we cut down all the trees, get rid of all vegetation, then no, we won't have any forest fires. Nor will we have forests, but for those two-foot-high tree farms that do oh so much good. Yes, it's the perfect solution. We won't have to worry about those pesky trees causing us so many problems in the future, and instead of burning up in fires, we'll all just asphyxiate on those lovely greenhouse gases. Hey, I'm all for it. Where's my chainsaw?
"I know I can't be the only whatever I am in the room." -Ani Difranco
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-25-02, 08:58 AM (EST)
|
|
27. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
As for everyone doing her own research--try living in a place like, oh, say, the California Redwoods, or hell, even Oregon, where clearcutting abounds, and so do other natural disasters as a result.Living there is one thing, but it is not a substitute for doing the research for the facts. DO THE RESEARCH! Anyone reading this is on the internet. Start doing research. The truth is out there; and then the researcher can draw his/her own conclusion. But ultimately I'll concede that you and Bush are right: if we cut down all the trees, get rid of all vegetation, then no, we won't have any forest fires. This is why I said "You're wrong" instead of "I disagree with your opinion" in the first place. Neither Bush, Daschle nor I (I note you left out Daschle's name in this) have advocated cutting down all the trees or geting rid of all the vegetation. That is ludicrous on the face of it. "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas PaineContradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
NightScribe 761 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Fitness Correspondent"
|
08-24-02, 08:47 PM (EST)
|
|
12. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
SDawg: First of all, if you re-read my post, in no way did I call GW stupid; I called his "healthy forest initiative" stupid. My feelings about our president will be left out of this discussion because I do want to debate the issues rather than the politics. You and I obviously exist on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but that shouldn't prevent healthy, intellectual debate. I'm not interested in name calling or labeling here. There was no need to go on and on about "environmentalist wackos" as you call people who want to preserve the planet or to even bring up liberal politics. This is an ecological issue rather than a political one. I find it ironic to term a clear cutting initiative "healthy forest". I mean without trees, where is the forest? Secondly, clear cutting is not healthy. Let me tell you about a little town in Northern California called Stafford. In 1996 Pacific Lumber clear cut the entire area above the town, and when the rain came (as it always does in this area), the soil was so disturbed that the entire town was pretty much devastated by landslides. Houses and businesses were destroyed; not to mention that a species of bird is now endangered because their habitat was eradicated. As Hexe discusses in post 11, the cause of most fires up in this area is the underbrush and saplings, not the hundred-year-old redwoods logging companies make millions off of. Perhaps you should do a little more research on the issues of logging and ecological damage before telling me I'm wrong. I live here, and every day I see trucks pull out countless redwoods. This isn't about healthy burning or leaving deadwood on the forest floor. This is about Pacific Lumber cutting down the ancient redwoods because it's very expensive timber, and they make millions a year off of raping our forests. Despite what you already think, I am not against capitalism, but I am against any business that is so blinded by making money that they can't see the big picture. In the long run, when the forests are all gone, there will be horrific untold damage to people, the enviornment, and wildlife. Therefore, anyone liberal or conservative who proposes that cutting down trees in order to prevent wildfires (which you say is a natural part of god's plan) is wrong, and yes, stupid.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
LadyT 5567 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-24-02, 04:53 PM (EST)
|
|
5. "Asset Forfeture" |
I think AK or another lawyer can answer this better than I can about the drug question. It's kinda on the same lines. I was a poli sci minor on college, and we studied this a little. A woman brought her brother into town. She went on her way. He later bought drugs. In finding out his activities of the day, he mentioned she brought him into town. Even though she had NO CLUE what he was doing, she lost her car. Why? In the eyes of the Then law(it may have changed) she aided and abetted. In my understanding, the law was originally made to discourage people from using drugs. Like Capitol Punishment, which we know is such a great deterant.The Spanish speaking lady should sue for discrimination. She could win. And that Stupid Lady! I am so pissed off at that! You know how they should punish her, have her sit outside and get a burn like that, but three times as worse, one for each kid. Maybe that will convince her to buuy some Coppertone. And the Logging....not going to touch it 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-24-02, 04:57 PM (EST)
|
|
6. "RE: Asset Forfeture" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-24-02 AT 04:58 PM (EST)Like Capitol Punishment, which we know is such a great deterant. A little humor about the spelling: If there really were capitol punishment (as opposed to capital punishment), maybe it WOULD be a deterant-- on Congress...  "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas PaineContradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-24-02, 05:19 PM (EST)
|
|
7. "RE: Asset Forfeture" |
Another thing about the Asset Forfeiture: There was a law, it may still be in effect, that if you travel with more than $10,000 in cash, it may be seized as products of a drug trade... with NO proof necessary, NO warrant to seize it, and NO explanations required.In other words, if you are in Atlanta and put your car up for auction on ebay, and someone in Kansas City offers $12000 for it... you drive it out there, you get paid your $12,000, complete with receipts. You fly home. Boarding your flight, the FBI seizes the $12,000. They don't care if it's a legitimate sale of a car and you can prove it. Your only recourse is to sue the government in THEIR courts, and PROVE that your transaction was legal... and the judge can still say "No, we'll let the government keep the money." I'm hoping one of these reaches the U.S. Supreme Court soon. One guy had a personal aircraft, some Cessna type. He was transporting over $10,000 in cash. The government seized the money AND the airplane, saying it COULD have been used to transport drugs. No warrant. No due process. Last I heard, he was still trying to get his plane back. "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas PaineContradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
Jizzy 2053 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Roller Coaster Inaugurator"
|
08-24-02, 09:46 PM (EST)
|
|
16. "RE: Stupid News: Your thoughts?" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-24-02 AT 10:04 PM (EST)*waveZZ to Scribe* Nice to see you, hon! Oh...and I won't get into the whole political debate that Dawg seems to start on every other thresd. I want to get my vote out here in the open (just to join with the otherZZ..and ask him politely to shut up about the damn liberal vs conservative BS!) GEEZE!!!! Enough already! How many peeps does it take to tell you this? BEGZZ the blue men to let blusavana come back!! *insert 60 pixel violation here* Edited to say....nothing wrong with stirring the pot (mmmmm..pot *winks as Scribe*)...but you get way out of hand and tend to put words in peeps mouths. Stick with football talk...
|
|
|
Top |
| |
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-24-02, 09:56 PM (EST)
|
|
17. "Oh, those other issues..." |
Heck I didn't even stir the pot on the other issues...1) On the Florida woman and the sunburn: Seems like overzealousness on someone's part, but my understanding is that this is being worked out. 2) Spanish speaker: When I was in the Army, this came up. Two specialists (enlisted) were speaking spanish. The Battalion Sergeant Major told them that they could not speak Spanish while in uniform. The specialists came to me, being an officer, so I looked up the regulation: it said that on OFFICIAL military business, English must be spoken, but in colloquial, personal conversation, there was no restriction. This Sergeant Major was later relieved by the Battalion Commander, although not on this issue. My point in all this: there was a rule in place. I haven't examined this case Nightscribe mentioned, so I don't know what the extent of the rules are, but going by Nightscribe's comment that they had an English-only policy: If that's the rule, it's the rule. I don't know why they have the rule, or why they enforce it so strictly, but if it applies to all on-the-job conversation, and not just to patients being present, then I regret to say that this woman was correctly fired, and probably has no discrimination complaint. OF course, they might have fired her for poor ability, and used the language as an excuse... 3) Was this discussed already? 4) I have to totally agree about the absurdity of this one. This, and the examples given above by me and others, show one dangerous trend: rights are being trampled upon in the name of the war on drugs. Don't get me wrong; I am not for legalization, but they go waayyyyyy too far sometimes in the application of some things. As to the 18 year old... I predict in the near future a raging debate on some of these age issues. Just when IS someone a legal and independent adult? Yes, we vote at 18... but that is because when the Amendment was passed, a young man could be drafted at the age of 18. The age of 18 is generally considered "adult" status... but you can't drink (legally) until you're 21. And some places won't let you buy cigarettes if you're not 21. So this example is going to add to the debate of this... and it ain't gonna stop ME from sippin' my Grand Marnier while watching Survivor 5! "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas PaineContradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
LadyT 5567 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-25-02, 00:58 AM (EST)
|
|
21. "My thoughts here" |
I for one am getting more than a little annoyed at the tone of anything remotely political here. And Dawg, you are the reason for this. You repeatedly say things like "You are wrong" (reference post number 2). No Dawg, opinions are not., In simple English, its an opinion, therefore opinions aren't wrong.You repeatedly call anyone who disagrees with you a liberal, regardless of what their political affliation is. Or a Wacko as in post number two you so eloquently stated. And in that post too, you incorrectly stated that NightScribe called our President "stoopid" She clearly didn't, she called the policy stupid. This is part of your post number 4. Please tell me how the tone of this invites people to want to discuss things with you in a rational manner? The title of this whole thresd contains "Your thoughts?" I gave mine. So now you object? 2. It's not a hijack, it's a direct response. The original message mentioned Bush, Bush's plan, and "stoopid". I responded directly. Not a hijack. 3. Typical double standard: It's okay to attack George Bush and call him "dumb" and "stoopid", but it's a "tirade" and "hijacking" (and therefore not okay) for me to defend Bush? When you use the the language that you use, yes It's okay to LIE about Bush's forest policy, but it's a "tirade" and "hijacking" (and therefore not okay) for me to defend Bush AND point out the truth about this policy? In other words, if you agree with it, it's okay to post, but if you oppose it (and you clearly oppose what I say) then it's my "tirade" and "hijacking" and I should just shut up, say nothing, and allow the lies to continue. That's what you're saying. You don't give us a chance to even come back and refute any point you make. In your words, we are lying. Before you remove the splinter from my eye, remove the board from your own. I personally don't feel the need to respond to all of your silly challenges ... like trying to get somebody to defend your anti-Daschle tirade. Again, anyone who supports Daschale is silly? tell me why anyone here would want to have a conversation about the weather with you here when you consistently put us down? Why not? Because it's the TRUTH and you can't refute it? It's not a silly challenge, it's a truth that people who read this attack on George Bush should also know about. Again, the double standard: If YOU don't agree with it, then you call it a "silly challenge" and an "anti-Daschle tirade"... but what about the "anti-Bush tirade" in the original post and in your response? Oh, that's okay, because it's against Republican Bush. And in post 13...But George Bush won Florida, and therefore the election. He had the most votes. Every recount (and there have been numerous offical and unofficial ones) show this, and I defy/challenge anyone to show any legitimate count or recount (official or unofficial (such as the ones the newspapers did)) that shows Bush as anything but the winner. In fact, the Gore team was trying to disqualify perfectly legal military absentee ballots in an effort to make the numbers closer. in which Sami does do. I can't wait to see your response. If your goal is to get people to listen to you and maybe eventually agree with you and support these ideas, you are so not going about this the right way. You are constantly going after everyone and you do it unkindly You are always one of the first to respond to anything political. So don't tell me that others are defensive to you first. I won't buy it. Why? You have lost all credibility to me in how you TREAT your other board memebers. A few months ago, Jeff Gator mentioned that we should not have any political conversations. I was the first one to say hell no. I regret that now. Maybe we should
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
TechNoir 9741 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-25-02, 01:23 AM (EST)
|
|
22. "RE: My thoughts here" |
I was feeling a bit badly about finally reacting to Dawg's constant demagoguery until I realized that a good part of my annoyance was at the tyrannical and arrogant way he was treating his fellow posters. So thank you LadyT for bringing the focus to that point.I clearly reacted to the statement "You are wrong" ... as if being wrong were a crime not to be tolerated. I thought we (in the States, anyway) lived in a society where folks get to have an opinion. We even get to be wrong without being attacked. You said "A few months ago, Jeff Gator mentioned that we should not have any political conversations. I was the first one to say hell no. I regret that now. Maybe we should" I don't think the problem is "conversation" which implies discourse, reciprocity, and mutual respect. I welcome conversation. Emily Post may be instructive here. In 1922 she said: "Be careful not to let amiable discussion turn into contradiction and argument. The tactful person keeps his prejudices to himself and even when involved in a discussion says quietly “No. I don’t think I agree with you” or “It seems to me thus and so.” One who is well-bred never says “You are wrong!” or “Nothing of the kind!" Perhaps the mannerly discussion of political subjects remains possible. I sincerely hope so. 
who is going off to find her wrist length white gloves now
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-25-02, 10:07 AM (EST)
|
|
28. "RE: My thoughts here" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-25-02 AT 11:21 AM (EST)Perhaps the mannerly discussion of political subjects remains possible. I sincerely hope so. I would hope so, too, TechNoir, but you're not practicing what you are preaching, to wit: First, in Nightscribe's original post, Dubya, his forestry plan, and "Stoopid!" (with exclam, no less) was mentioned at the same time. Now, not only is this anything BUT "civil discourse", it got me riled because of the way Bush has been savagely and personally attacked on these boards. Some of you say this was just referring to the plan, but I say she's calling Dubya stupid also. And this is not a single incidence on these boards where Dubya is called dumb or stupid. Second, in your post #3 above, here is some of the language used: "demogaugery"
"thoughtless"
"knee-jerk"
"stole the election"
"business-friendly" (as if that is a crime)
"extremist" - yes, I've used this word, but you're the one complaining about me not being "civil"... then you go and use the same word. My point on the double standard exactly - it's okay for you to use it, but not for me to. "tirade"
one of my "silly challenges" These last were directed at me. I haven't called many of the anti-Bush comments (like the ones in the original posts, and the assertion that Bush "stole the election") "tirades", but I could, very easily. Again the double standard (pay attention, Jizzy): If you (or someone who agrees with you on the issue) say it, it's okay; if I (in opposition to your stand on the issue) say it, it's a "tirade". I also pointed out that Daschle put in the same language for South Dakota into a bill that Bush wants to do for the Nation. I didn't call Daschle "stoopid", "thoughtless", "knee-jerk" or "business friendly" (as if that is a crime). I just asked if Nightscribe would treat Daschle the same way as Bush, since they're doing the same thing.
I was pointing out very accurately the double standard practiced here and by liberals everywhere. In reply, I was (falsely) accused of saying bad things about Daschle, and accused of making "silly" (not a civil discourse friendly word there) challenges. And for the last time, I stand by my words "You're wrong" in the early post (and I rarely have used those words elsewhere), especially in the several references to Bush wanting to cut down all the trees, which is NOT what he, Daschle or I want to do. However, true to the typical double standard you employ, you won't admit that you do what you accuse me of doing. You also say I am wrong for saying what I said, but you'll never admit you're wrong when one of you do it in the first place (original post) or in a reply to me (post 3). And I suspect that some of the replys, not to mention emails I've received, that are so accusatory of me (and worse) come from the fact that you know I am right in what I say about your double standard. If you want to hate me for it, fine. Just admit it, that's all.
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas PaineContradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Edited to confirm TechNoir's comment below that TechNoir sent me no emails, and my apologies if that seemed to be implied in this post.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
TechNoir 9741 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-25-02, 11:02 AM (EST)
|
|
32. "I admit it." |
LAST EDITED ON 08-25-02 AT 11:05 AM (EST)"you won't admit that you do what you accuse me of doing" I could say "You're wrong" but I won't. Of course I did what I accused you of doing .. I was trying to make a point, but apparently it was not pointed enough. "you'll never admit you're wrong when one of you do it" Again, I could say "You're wrong" but that wouldn't be polite. I do, however, beg to differ. Predicting the future is a risky business Mr. Dawg. So here goes I WAS WRONG TO SINK TO YOUR LEVEL. I thought that by using the same language and similar tactics I could demonstrate how rude and ill conceived it was. I was in error. In future I will make every effort to remain on my pedestal. I actually have better things to do than to respond to personal attacks and I am not so insecure that I have to prove something to folks who engage in them. So rant if you wish. I wouldn't think that punching at air would be very satisfying, but satisfaction must come in many forms. 
who thinks that folks who put so much energy into proving something must not feel very confident.Edited to note that Mr. Dawg received NO emails from me.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-25-02, 11:40 AM (EST)
|
|
34. "Confident?" |
who thinks that folks who put so much energy into proving something must not feel very confidentYou are right: I am not at all confident that our Freedom and Liberty, not to mention the Constitution of the United States Of America, is going to hold up under the constant assaults by liberals (and their close cousins, Socialists), and especially under the constant assaults of the Mainstream Media, which spews anti-Conservative, anti-Republican smears and dogma as "facts". I am not at all confident that the intrusion of Government in every aspect of our lives, by Democrats AND Republicans, can be stopped, because the Mainstream Media, which is supposed to safeguard our liberties by exposing encroachments upon them, instead has become an institution of this extreme bias. I am NOT a Republican (that would mean I am a member of a political party), and while calling me a "Conservative" is close to the truth, I am actually an "Objectivist" after the philosophy so eloquently put forth by Ayn Rand. The Republicans can be called "Democrats Lite". They're encroaching on our freedoms just like Democrats, only more slowly and less blatantly. I am deeply opposed to many of the things that have happened since Sept. 11th, in the name of "security". I am opposed to many things that are done in the name of the "war on drugs" that violate people's rights. If I seem to be attacking liberals exclusively, it is likely because they are the the ones most openly attempting to destroy our freedoms by making government our "caretaker"... or "master". I am tired of being outrageously taxed and having that money go to welfare looters who do not earn it, don't produce with it, do consume it, then come back the next day and ask for more. I am tired of seeing people who are more successful and legitimately earn more money, attacked regularly in our mainstream media as "evil", and taxed MORE than their fair share because they have been successful. I am tired of the Environmental Extremists (that Rush correctly called "wackos" and I gladly borrow his label, since it is truly accurate) *LYING* to the American People abut the environment. The whole ozone business is a sham (one volcano puts out more CFCs than man has EVER made... let's get the volcanos to stop erupting!) and in this thread I perceived another assault on the truth (saying Bush wants to cut down ALL trees) in the name of the environment. It is no coincidence that in Russia, the party that became the Bolsheviks and the Communist Party started out as the... GREEN PARTY. Environmental extremists are the last bastion of socialism (of which communism is one specific brand) on the planet. Do not confuse what I say with "conservation" or "conservationists". I'm all for conserving, taking only what you need, using all that you take with as little waste as possible, and cleaning up as you go. The Environmental Extremists do not want this... they want the destruction of capitalism, and the reduction of man to the cave-dwellers of millenia ago. And, in cahoots with the Mainstream Media, they are doing their best to succeed... at the expense of our Freedom and Liberty. My grandfather died old (92) and free. My dad might die old and free. I'll die free, but am I confident I'll die old, too? No. Confident in the truth of my ideals and philosophy? Absolutely. Confident in the future of Freedom and Liberty? No. "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas PaineContradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
