Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

#1177Almalieque, Posted: Nov 14 2011 at 12:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So you admit that it has nothing to do with being "icky" or a "homophobe/heterophobe"?
#1178 Nov 14 2011 at 12:55 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
It's like he's unable to transitively connect two thoughts together.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1179 Nov 14 2011 at 1:23 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
It's like he's unable to transitively connect two thoughts together.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, after somebody inevitably frags him, his brain should be donated to science. I've never seen such illogic before in my life.
#1180 Nov 14 2011 at 2:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
It's like he's unable to transitively connect two thoughts together.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, after somebody inevitably frags him, his brain should be donated to science. I've never seen such illogic before in my life.

And that single-minded train of thought. The rest of us can post all day about how he's mentally ill and he never bats an eye. It's just the *** thing that gets him lathered up (ha!)
#1181 Nov 14 2011 at 10:26 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
I wanted to hit this again separately..

Vageta wrote:
If it makes you feel better, I'm for slavery reparations too.



Reparations?!?! What do you expect that to solve? You think a pile of money will erase the history of slavery? You think reparations will give people back their roots and ancestry? You think money will put a minority class of people above or on level with their major counterparts?

Change must start within. A fool with a little money is a fool with a lot of money. If any group of people who have been unjustly treated in the past can't gather themselves up first, as individuals, they will never reap the same benefits.

That is why you had woman power movements and the black power movements. These were necessary to reverse the brain washing that has been set in society over the years. I'm sorry if you think money is always the answer, but it simply isn't.

We can't change the past, we just have to deal with it and accept it. The bottom line is that white people had decades of experience in the US before black people were even able to do anything. Simply having money will not change that, you have to be taught HOW to spend and invest that money.

When a person receives a "handout", they are still attached to the giver. Once you learn to be an entrepreneur, you are no longer attached and dependent on society to "look out for you". It's the whole "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish, you feed him for a life time".

This is why Tyler Perry is successful. He realized that black people are not getting fair representation in movies and in plays, so he capitalized on that as an opportunity to change that. As a result, more black films are released.

You have a choice. You can be reactive and hope that someone will throw you a bone. Or, you can be proactive and just go out and get it yourself. Relying on affirmative action to make you successful is reactive. What if Republicans are successful at removing it? Now what? While AA is nice in theory and I have no opposition in it as a first step towards success, at the end of the day, it is not the solution. Furthermore, the "good intent" does not remove its discriminatory roots.
#1182 Nov 14 2011 at 10:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
he's gotta be trolling, there is no other excuse. (other than being a closet poof.)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#1183 Nov 15 2011 at 12:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
Way to avoid the point. You either support a concept or you don't. It's universal. If you believe that there is an exception to your concept, then you state it.


And what concept is it that you're arguing?

Alma wrote:
Neither of us have the power to make any changes or create any nationwide polls. That doesn't have any effect on the consistency of your beliefs.


While that's true, if it was remotely possible for woman to want to desegregate their bathrooms & showers you could with a straight face use your argument (Which is something to do with supporting segregation by sexual orientation as you believe it is equivalent to segregation by gender).

That just isn't a reality of the world you live in, just like segregation by sexual orientation in bathrooms & showers: It's a fantasy.

Alma wrote:
So, that means that you DO BELIEVE that there exist a scenario to logically discriminate against sexuality? Or, is your opinion whatever others believe?


I've said it repeatedly in this thread that "Comfort" was the reason used to justify the discrimination resulting from the implementation of DADT. I didn't like it, but I understood the logic behind it. This entire thread has been one giant circle-jerk of trying to get you to state clearly what logic you would used to re-instate DADT.

Alma wrote:
You had mentioned it, but you never expounded on it. How is it that "plumbing" doesn't matter in the office, but it magically does in the shower and in the living areas? Are you suggesting that there is a difference between working with someone and living with someone?


Plumbing is pretty important in whatever building your in, be it a shower, bathroom, house, or office. I don't have to suggest there's a difference between working & living with someone, as there usually is. Well, except for the military, where you tend to do both!

Alma wrote:
This entire debate has been over DADT and your only counter has been polls of people being comfortable with homosexuals in the military. You made the comparison that "being comfortable with homosexuals in the military" is the same as "supporting DADT".


Being comfortable with homos in the military is not the same as supporting DADT. Thinking they are the same is silly. The majority of Americans & military members now being comfortable with open homosexuals lead to DADT repeal & I used multiple polls from multiple places to show evidence of that. Ya know, because I'm using an argument with facts to support it as opposed to an argument of hypothetical situations that could result from what I'm arguing for.

This is equivalent to you arguing against DADT repeal because then, hypothetically, the straight members of the military might start listening to Cher.

Alma wrote:
Which by concept, is the same as "being comfortable with women in the military" equaling "men and women sharing quarters".


Explain to me how being comfortable with woman in the military equates to them having to share quarters.
Alma wrote:

False. You should look up the word prejudice. Prejudice is all about PREJUDGING.


Prejudice =/= "Prejudging".

Prejudice = "Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience."

Alma wrote:

Not hiring someone because of their skin color does not automatically denote prejudged thoughts. That's why casting is a great example. Do you think all white or all black casts are coincidences? No. People were discriminated, no one of certain races were hired, but that doesn't mean that there were any prejudicial thoughts against one or another.


There tends to be "reason" behind casting decisions, which makes casting non discriminatory, as there is no prejudice involved.

Alma wrote:
I didn't hire you because I wanted an Asian man, but I have no prejudging thoughts towards you or your race.


If you're casting an asian man, then it's non discriminatory. If you're hiring for a cashier in a non ethnic shop, then it's probably discriminatory.

Alma wrote:

That's never prejudice.. As I said, you're just throwing around terminology without understanding it's meaning.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah......A-Hahahahahahahahahah... Hahahah. Heh.

Alma wrote:
Post 206. If you choose not to address it, then that's your problem.


Post 206 was address in post 385. If you still can't explain yourself, you're either a coward, a homophobe, or a ******.

Alma wrote:

Not only is EVERYONE applicable of receiving a minority scholarship, I actually received one during one summer session. The only reason why I support minority scholarships is because there are tons of scholarships that are not based on any merit of the applicant. That doesn't change the fact that it's still discriminatory.

If your goal is to remove unjust racial inequality, affirmative action is a lazy fix me up that doesn't solve the actual problems. Although it is a solution, I still know it's discrimination. There is no other way to look at it.


There's no prejudice involved in affirmative action, so it's non-discriminatory. AA isn't perfect, but until there's a better way to address the advantages of the generational wealth enjoyed by the descendants of slave owners, we've got to do something to attempt to even remotely level the playing field for the descendants of slaves.

Alma wrote:

Quote a statement of mine in support of my argument that supports that definition.


Your entire casting tirade.

Edited, Nov 15th 2011 1:49am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#1184 Nov 15 2011 at 12:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
Post 206 is all you need. I'm just waiting for you to counter something that I actually wrote as opposed to fictional definitions, words and such that you created.


I have created zero words over the course of my existence. I have quoted definitions of words you're misusing, however.

I countered post #206 with this:
Screenshot


And in post #206 you said this:
Alma wrote:

People act like there doesn't exist a scenario in life to justify discrimination against homosexuality. At the same time, TODAY in our society, we have laws, rules and regulations that openly and blatantly discriminate against ***, skin color, height, weight, age, nationality, national background, family background, religious preference, etc. and yet you all somehow believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE for sexuality to be part of that list? What makes sexuality so special that the aforesaid can be discriminated against in the "Land of the Free", but not sexuality?


I have since asked you to name one scenario where you could justify discriminating against homosexuals. I also thought that your logic was because we have "laws, rules, & regulations" that "discriminate" for other things, you thought that it was ok to discriminate due to sexual orientation. You have since said that is not your argument.

So, after quoting directly from post #206, would you like to name a single situation post DADT repeal where it is logical to discriminate against homosexuals?

Or are you a coward, homophobe, or ******?

Alma wrote:
Please look up the words prejudice and discrimination again.


Why, so I can explain to you again what those words mean? What is it that you don't understand?

Alma wrote:
So you admit that it has nothing to do with being "icky" or a "homophobe/heterophobe"?


Not in your case.

Alma wrote:
Reparations?!?!


Separate issue, explained above. Please try & stay on topic, if you'd like to discuss race in depth some more I'd recommend you start another thread.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#1185 Nov 15 2011 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That image is...

206598

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1186 Nov 15 2011 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
If this was another forum I frequent I would have paid $10 to make that Alma's avatar & been done with this.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#1187 Nov 15 2011 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
I'd chip in for that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1188Almalieque, Posted: Nov 16 2011 at 1:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) "Isn't perfect"?? It does more harm than good and I have already explained how so and gave you a link. There are much better ways to resolve your concern. If you choose not to accept them, then fine, but don't pretend that they don't exist and AA is the only and/or best option.
#1189Almalieque, Posted: Nov 16 2011 at 1:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Weren't you the one who brought up reparations?! How are you going to bring something up and then tell me to stay on topic?!?!
#1190Almalieque, Posted: Nov 16 2011 at 1:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Allegory tried to question my math. I proved him wrong. Pay attentionSmiley: grin
#1191 Nov 16 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
Oh goody, Alma is drifting further and further away from reality.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1192 Nov 16 2011 at 2:32 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Oh goody, Alma is drifting further and further away from reality.
What reality?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#1193 Nov 17 2011 at 12:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
I'm shortening this reply based off of this response. If there are statements that you want me to address, then let me know. In the beginning, I was asked a very specific question and I responded. This was never "DADT should be reinstated because of x,y and z", but a response to a question towards me. My beef with you was the belief that there doesn't exist a logical reason to ever discriminate against sexuality (or race). Since you have admitted to both being logically discriminated against, then there really isn't anything else to argue about.
I question on why you support a poll that openly admitted to not polling the population with the highest opposition of the repeal. In any case, you believe that there are logical forms of discrimination against sexuality.


Are you stupid or something? Just because there was non prejudicial logic behind DADT & racial segregation doesn't mean it's logical to discriminate for those reasons now. Society has progressed to the point where the majority (straight whites) are "comfortable" around the minority (racial minorities & gays) so it is no longer logical to discriminate for those reasons.

So what now, *****?

Alma wrote:
Being comfortable working with women doesn't lead to men and women sharing rooms, why would it with homosexuals?


Because straights already share those facilities with homosexuals & always have. You want to make an argument to change that, have at it. Deserves it's own thread though as that argument is irrelevant to DADT repeal/reinstatement.

Alma wrote:

Do you know what "preconceived" means?
Do you know what "prejudging" means?


Yup.

Alma wrote:
Characters are fictional, not all characters HAVE to be a certain race, yet we have all black/ white/ asian casts. There is no logic behind that other than "I want an all black cast". This has nothing to do with prejudice, please quit using that term.


So, Tyler Perry is casting African Americans in his movies because he's making a movie for an African American audience it is logical, & non discriminatory (Unless you're using "discriminatory" as a synonym for "to choose or distinguish"), for him to cast all African Americans.

Alma wrote:
"Isn't perfect"?? It does more harm than good and I have already explained how so and gave you a link. There are much better ways to resolve your concern. If you choose not to accept them, then fine, but don't pretend that they don't exist and AA is the only and/or best option. Reparations?!


I might like to hear Alma's thoughts on Affirmative Action & how you'd reform it, but do try & start it in another thread. I'd advise you to think out your argument before you make the post, however, & do try & use some sort of factual data to support it.

Alma wrote:
I was just asking you to provide a reason why homosexuality is so special that it somehow gets different treatment from every other human trait that we claim we shouldn't discriminate against, but do.


Sexual orientation isn't "special". Like all things, it's the logic behind the policy that makes it discriminatory or not. You seem to want to justify sexual orientation segregation in the military now that DADT has been repealed, so the onus is on you to do so.

Alma wrote:
Wait.. So is this your concern? You have no clue in a DADT debate in a DADT thread, what possible regulation that I would support as "logical discrimination" against homosexuals? I'll give you a clue, it's in post 206. I just checked. If this DADT topic is confusing you on what I might think is logical discrimination, then I will gladly post the portion in post 206.


I'm not going to guess, so what is it?

Alma wrote:
How do you know me from Tom? That doesn't even make any sense. You just admitted that this has nothing to do with "icky" or "homophobia". Thanks!


Until you can prove otherwise, it certainly seems to me & everyone else that you didn't want DADT repealed or homosexual marriages because you seem to have something against gays.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#1194 Nov 17 2011 at 4:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Are you stupid? After 24 fucking pages you're asking this?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1195 Nov 17 2011 at 6:56 AM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe wrote:
Oh goody, Alma is drifting further and further away from reality.
Screenshot

Alma world.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#1196 Nov 17 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Vageta wrote:

Are you stupid or something? Just because there was non prejudicial logic behind DADT & racial segregation doesn't mean it's logical to discriminate for those reasons now. Society has progressed to the point where the majority (straight whites) are "comfortable" around the minority (racial minorities & gays) so it is no longer logical to discriminate for those reasons.

So what now, *****?


Your problem is that you're basing "logic" from popularity. It doesn't matter what the majority or minority believes. It's either logical or it's not. Just because the rest of society believes the world is flat, that doesn't make it logical.

You're simply blind and or in denial.

I can't stress the fact that actions are louder than words. You're wanting to believe something that simply isn't reality. Why do you think the majority of open homosexuals in the military are women?

Just yesterday my Commander was referencing an article of how society is growing further and further away from the military where you have civilians in charge of things that they don't understand. He followed with the change of DADT alone was evident of that and said "well, at least the Chaplain can hate it" and everyone laughed.

Vageta wrote:
Because straights already share those facilities with homosexuals & always have. You want to make an argument to change that, have at it. Deserves it's own thread though as that argument is irrelevant to DADT repeal/reinstatement.


We're talking about reasoning and logic for the discrimination, not for the change of anything.

Vageta wrote:
Yup.


Explain their relationship. Obviously you don't understand, if you don't realize that prejudice is the act of having preconceiving thoughts.

Vageta wrote:
So, Tyler Perry is casting African Americans in his movies because he's making a movie for an African American audience it is logical, & non discriminatory (Unless you're using "discriminatory" as a synonym for "to choose or distinguish"), for him to cast all African Americans.


Logic has nothing to do with discrimination. You have this stupid philosophy that discrimination can only be done for malicious reasons. One can just as well equally discriminate for good. It's all relative to what side you're on.

It's "logical" to steal from crooks and give it to the poor. It doesn't change the fact that it's still stealing.

Since you're for reparations and AA, all ethnic minorities should get 50% off of all purchases and not pay taxes. Where does it end?

No, it's not discriminatory as "to choose or distinguish", it's discriminatory because Joe Smith, the main character's best friend, could be of any race, but the director refuse to hire anyone that's white. There is no logical reason why Joe can't be white.

That is no different than not hiring someone non Asian at an Asian food market or an attractive woman as a flight attendant.

Vageta wrote:
I might like to hear Alma's thoughts on Affirmative Action & how you'd reform it, but do try & start it in another thread. I'd advise you to think out your argument before you make the post, however, & do try & use some sort of factual data to support it.


YOU WERE THE ONE WHO MENTIONED REPARATIONS. Obviously, you see the failure in it and now you don't want to talk about it. That's fine, just stop pretending otherwise.

Vageta wrote:
Sexual orientation isn't "special". Like all things, it's the logic behind the policy that makes it discriminatory or not. You seem to want to justify sexual orientation segregation in the military now that DADT has been repealed, so the onus is on you to do so.


Logic has nothing to do in whether if it's discrimination or not. Logic has everything to do with whether we should accept the discrimination or not.

You said that we shouldn't segregate on ***, yet we have all boys and girls schools..Why is that ok, but not ok to have all white and black schools?

Vageta wrote:

I'm not going to guess, so what is it?


Well tell me first that you have no idea what possible discrimination against homosexuals that I might support in a DADT thread debating DADT.

Vageta wrote:
Until you can prove otherwise, it certainly seems to me & everyone else that you didn't want DADT repealed or homosexual marriages because you seem to have something against gays.


Like I said.. How do you know me from Tom or Harry? You admitted that it wasn't about being "icky" and all you have said was "not in your case". Give me a reason that you would accept as not "icky" or "homophobia" supporting DADT that has nothing to do with the popularity of the nation.





#1197 Nov 17 2011 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Vageta wrote:

Are you stupid or something? Just because there was non prejudicial logic behind DADT & racial segregation doesn't mean it's logical to discriminate for those reasons now. Society has progressed to the point where the majority (straight whites) are "comfortable" around the minority (racial minorities & gays) so it is no longer logical to discriminate for those reasons.

So what now, *****?


Your problem is that you're basing "logic" from popularity. It doesn't matter what the majority or minority believes. It's either logical or it's not. Just because the rest of society believes the world is flat, that doesn't make it logical.

You're simply blind and or in denial.

I can't stress the fact that actions are louder than words. You're wanting to believe something that simply isn't reality. Why do you think the majority of open homosexuals in the military are women?

Just yesterday my Commander was referencing an article of how society is growing further and further away from the military where you have civilians in charge of things that they don't understand. He followed with the change of DADT alone was evident of that and said "well, at least the Chaplain can hate it" and everyone laughed.

Vageta wrote:
Because straights already share those facilities with homosexuals & always have. You want to make an argument to change that, have at it. Deserves it's own thread though as that argument is irrelevant to DADT repeal/reinstatement.


We're talking about reasoning and logic for the discrimination, not for the change of anything.

Vageta wrote:
Yup.


Explain their relationship. Obviously you don't understand, if you don't realize that prejudice is the act of having preconceiving thoughts.

Vageta wrote:
So, Tyler Perry is casting African Americans in his movies because he's making a movie for an African American audience it is logical, & non discriminatory (Unless you're using "discriminatory" as a synonym for "to choose or distinguish"), for him to cast all African Americans.


Logic has nothing to do with discrimination. You have this stupid philosophy that discrimination can only be done for malicious reasons. One can just as well equally discriminate for good. It's all relative to what side you're on.

It's "logical" to steal from crooks and give it to the poor. It doesn't change the fact that it's still stealing.

Since you're for reparations and AA, all ethnic minorities should get 50% off of all purchases and not pay taxes. Where does it end?

No, it's not discriminatory as "to choose or distinguish", it's discriminatory because Joe Smith, the main character's best friend, could be of any race, but the director refuse to hire anyone that's white. There is no logical reason why Joe can't be white.

That is no different than not hiring someone non Asian at an Asian food market or an attractive woman as a flight attendant.

Vageta wrote:
I might like to hear Alma's thoughts on Affirmative Action & how you'd reform it, but do try & start it in another thread. I'd advise you to think out your argument before you make the post, however, & do try & use some sort of factual data to support it.


YOU WERE THE ONE WHO MENTIONED REPARATIONS. Obviously, you see the failure in it and now you don't want to talk about it. That's fine, just stop pretending otherwise.

Vageta wrote:
Sexual orientation isn't "special". Like all things, it's the logic behind the policy that makes it discriminatory or not. You seem to want to justify sexual orientation segregation in the military now that DADT has been repealed, so the onus is on you to do so.


Logic has nothing to do in whether if it's discrimination or not. Logic has everything to do with whether we should accept the discrimination or not.

You said that we shouldn't segregate on ***, yet we have all boys and girls schools..Why is that ok, but not ok to have all white and black schools?

Vageta wrote:

I'm not going to guess, so what is it?


Well tell me first that you have no idea what possible discrimination against homosexuals that I might support in a DADT thread debating DADT.

Vageta wrote:
Until you can prove otherwise, it certainly seems to me & everyone else that you didn't want DADT repealed or homosexual marriages because you seem to have something against gays.


Like I said.. How do you know me from Tom or Harry? You admitted that it wasn't about being "icky" and all you have said was "not in your case". Give me a reason that you would accept as not "icky" or "homophobia" supporting DADT that has nothing to do with the popularity of the nation.





Alma, you should venture out of this thread and try another.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#1198 Nov 17 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
No! There are gayz to shove back in the closet!!
#1199 Nov 17 2011 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Fuck you Elinda. He's where he belongs, not fucking up other threads with his stupid.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1200 Nov 17 2011 at 4:56 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
No he should stay here, the more he posts here the less he post elsewhere.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#1201 Nov 18 2011 at 1:11 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Elinda wrote:
Alma, you should venture out of this thread and try another.


Don't worry, I am. I was told to start another thread on AA and reparations (even though he was the one to bring it up). The topic of homosexuality is played out, boring and we've been saying the same thing in repeat now. I'm curious on his defense that reparations and AA outweighs education, self-respect, motivation and a plan in life.

He talked himself into a corner and now he doesn't want to talk about it in this thread. That's fine with me. There's no "off topic" there.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)