Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#1152Almalieque, Posted: Nov 13 2011 at 3:35 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) But not to the extent where there is enough opposition to prevent homosexual gains, which is what I clarified.
#1153 Nov 13 2011 at 3:56 AM Rating: Excellent
alma wrote:
I'm not confused at all.
The lady doth protest too much. Just come out of the closet already.
____________________________
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
#1154 Nov 13 2011 at 3:59 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Vageta wrote:

Whelp, reading the actual text of DADT, it certainly appears to be the "main"reason.


Only if you are defining "comfort" in the most basic definition. This is the same level of "comfort" on why women and men are separated. You can't support it when it doesn't affect homosexuality and call it a weak argument when it opposes homosexuality and not be a hypocrite.

Vageta wrote:

You're purposefully making a useless false equivalent.


How so? How is saying something being different equivalent to saying something being equivalent? I just blew you away and you have nothing to counter with.

Vageta wrote:

Only Alma's definition of discrimination, not the "unjust prejudice" one.


There you go again, making crap up. What definition? Under your belief, any lawsuit over discrimination should be upheld. Just because YOU think it's unjust, doesn't mean everyone else does. Hence once again, the hooters case vs flight attendant cases. One was upheld and the other was not. They were both discrimination cases.

WTF does "prejudice" have anything to do with "discrimination"? This is more evidence of you just throwing around words in hopes of making a solid argument.

Please explain to me how not hiring someone at a desk job, simply because of the color of their skin is not "unjust"? You some how support this, but have yet said how it isn't "unjust". So, you believe in the "two wrongs make a right" theory.......

Vageta wrote:

Nope, since I don't find affirmative action discrimination (unjust prejudice) I still very much believe skin color & sexual orientation can't logically be discriminated against. The onus is on you, as always, to try & convince me using Alma logic that there's a situation where it's cool to discriminate against guys who like to suck ****.

But you're a coward, so...


What does prejudice have anything to do with discrimination?

How is denying someone a desk job simply because of their skin color not "unjust"?

How does your opinion outweigh the opinion of the people who can't support their families because they can't get hired simply due to their skin colors? Just because you support affirmative action, doesn't mean it isn't discrimination.

I asked you a very specific question to differentiate affirmative action and discrimination and you haven't.

I told you on post 206. The onus is on you to counter. All you have done was deny anything was said.

Vageta wrote:
Post #385.

Post #206 includes gays are icky (SHOWERS!), but that remains an illogical reason to discriminate.


"Showers" doesn't equal "Gays are icky". That's just nonsense that you created. I have female friends that flirt with me who wouldn't feel comfortable being naked in front of me. They don't think I'm "icky". There's even women that I've seen naked before that will still be modest about nudity.

As I said, acceptance of homosexuality has nothing to do with sexual modesty. Those are two different issues. Stop making crap up.

Vageta wrote:
Bzzzt. Wrong.


How so?
#1155 Nov 13 2011 at 5:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
Only if you are defining "comfort" in the most basic definition. This is the same level of "comfort" on why women and men are separated. You can't support it when it doesn't affect homosexuality and call it a weak argument when it opposes homosexuality and not be a hypocrite.


Sure I can, provided the polls show more people being comfortable with homosexuals in the military now as opposed to a minority being comfortable when DADT was implemented. If you want to apply that to gender too, then you gots to get the womans to poll that the majority of them would be comfortable with co-ed facilities. Since thats a fantasy, its a false equivalent.

Alma wrote:
How so? How is saying something being different equivalent to saying something being equivalent? I just blew you away and you have nothing to counter with.


Read above. Also, I knew you secretly wanted to blow me all this time, but now I have proof!

Alma wrote:
There you go again, making crap up. What definition? Under your belief, any lawsuit over discrimination should be upheld.


Only if the reason for the discrimination can be proven to be due to "unjust prejudice"!
Alma wrote:

Just because YOU think it's unjust, doesn't mean everyone else does.


This is true, but its a good thing we have laws that differentiate what can & cannot be discriminated against. Like sexual orientation, which is one of those things that are illegal to discriminate because of.

Alma wrote:
WTF does "prejudice" have anything to do with "discrimination"? This is more evidence of you just throwing around words in hopes of making a solid argument.


Prejudice is in the definition:

dis·crim·i·na·tion/disˌkriməˈnāSHən/

Noun:

1. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or ***.

2. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

Also, lol @ "throwing around words in hopes of making a solid argument". Coincidentally, thats exactly what post #206 is!

Alma wrote:
Please explain to me how not hiring someone at a desk job, simply because of the color of their skin is not "unjust"? You some how support this, but have yet said how it isn't "unjust". So, you believe in the "two wrongs make a right" theory.......


Until something better than affirmative action comes along, I'm going to support it. I don't believe that Affirmative action is prejudicial, but the Klan probably disagrees with me. I couldn't care less.

Alma wrote:
What does prejudice have anything to do with discrimination?


Quite a bit, according to the definition.
Alma wrote:

How is denying someone a desk job simply because of their skin color not "unjust"?


If it's affirmative action, which is legal.
Alma wrote:

How does your opinion outweigh the opinion of the people who can't support their families because they can't get hired simply due to their skin colors?


It doesn't. Everyone has opinions!
Alma wrote:

Just because you support affirmative action, doesn't mean it isn't discrimination.


Just because you don't support it, doesn't mean it is.
Alma wrote:

I asked you a very specific question to differentiate affirmative action and discrimination and you haven't.


Not hiring you because you're black is discrimination. Hiring you because you're black is not discrimination (Affirmative action). Not hiring you because you're a fucking idiot is not discrimination.

Alma wrote:
"Showers" doesn't equal "Gays are icky". That's just nonsense that you created. I have female friends that flirt with me who wouldn't feel comfortable being naked in front of me. They don't think I'm "icky". There's even women that I've seen naked before that will still be modest about nudity.


Why must you turn this forum into a den of lies? We all know you've never seen a girl naked.


____________________________
"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


#1156 Nov 13 2011 at 6:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Quote:
Why must you turn this forum into a den of lies? We all know you've never seen a girl naked.

Every time Alma posts, it's a lie. He thinks it's the truth, but we all know better.

Of course, he could have been talking about his cousin or something...
#1157 Nov 13 2011 at 7:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
I tried to read Alma's exchange with Allegory, but trying to follow his thought processes makes my brain hurt...
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#1158 Nov 13 2011 at 7:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Quote:
I simply stated that if the subset of religious people only contains a small amount of opposition (another subset), then there is no way that particular small subset of a subset can outweigh the total subset of people favoring homosexuality. The only way that position of sexuality would be upheld would be if there were enough people in the nonreligious subset that opposed homosexuality. Since they are all under the same set, if that occurred, you can't claim that the opposition were in the "minority".


No, because the people who favor freedom of sexual choice do not use that as issue that they automatically select for in a candidate. If you understood how sets worked, it would be the 'vocal minority' subset, whereby one group bases 70~100% of their decision of an issue and other groups base 5-20% of their decision off the issue. If you don't control for other factors, which candidate elections do not, then you will see those issues skew the candidate pool even though they do not reflect majority opinion.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#1159 Nov 13 2011 at 8:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,917 posts
Alma wrote:
But not to the extent where there is enough opposition to prevent homosexual gains, which is what I clarified.

Not "clarified," "backpaddled." You said:
Quote:
People continuously argue that it's religion that attacks homosexuality when something isn't supported. Then these same people turn around and claim that majority of the religious people support it?!?! Nope, pick one. Both can't occur.

Which is wrong, and has already been demonstrated as such. I have no interest in dealing with any additional restrictions or addendum you tack on after the fact to try and hide your mistake.

Edited, Nov 13th 2011 8:41am by Allegory
#1160 Nov 13 2011 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Alma wrote:
There's even women that I've seen naked before that will still be modest about nudity.


Why must you turn this forum into a den of lies? We all know you've never seen a girl naked.


It could have been his mom. Smiley: schooled
#1161 Nov 13 2011 at 12:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Was she ugly? It might have turned him ***.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1162Almalieque, Posted: Nov 13 2011 at 2:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Another half of post... too much in one post..
#1163 Nov 13 2011 at 2:57 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Vageta wrote:
Prejudice is in the definition:

dis·crim·i·na·tion/disˌkriməˈnāSHən/

Noun:

1. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or ***.

2. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

Also, lol @ "throwing around words in hopes of making a solid argument". Coincidentally, thats exactly what post #206 is!


You're such a tool. A predictable tool..

There is no need to be prejudiced in order to discriminate. We're talking strictly about discrimination. I can discriminate against someone's skin color and not prejudge them. So, there is no need to bring up "prejudice" as a criterion.

Vageta wrote:

Until something better than affirmative action comes along, I'm going to support it. I don't believe that Affirmative action is prejudicial, but the Klan probably disagrees with me. I couldn't care less.


Did you even read my post? affirmative action is a lazy fix me up that doesn't solve the problem. It's like school vouchers. It actually makes the situation worse. There's a ton of solutions that heavily outweigh affirmative action. One goes back to the question I asked Jophiel. Why do you think Tyler Perry is so successful?

It's cool that you think the best way to fight discrimination is with discrimination, but don't deny that it's still discrimination.

Vageta wrote:

Quite a bit, according to the definition.


Then you should reread the definition. It is not necessary and since we were not talking about prejudging anyone, then guess what? It isn't part of the conversation.

Vageta wrote:

If it's affirmative action, which is legal.
.....

Just because you don't support it, doesn't mean it is.



How can you tell? What's the difference? So, if it's legal, like how slavery was at one point, then you support it?

Vageta wrote:
Not hiring you because you're black is discrimination. Hiring you because you're black is not discrimination (Affirmative action). Not hiring you because you're a ******* idiot is not discrimination.


You do realize by hiring a less qualified person because s/he's black/white/hispanic/asian to fulfill a position, you're also denying a person because s/he is black/white/hispanic/asian? Surely you realize this? Affirmative action isn't that big of a deal when it comes to hiring as it is with promoting. Promoting is where the problems occur.

Vageta wrote:
Why must you turn this forum into a den of lies? We all know you've never seen a girl naked.


So, you do realize that not every woman is comfortable being naked in front of men and it's not because they think men are "icky".


#1164Almalieque, Posted: Nov 13 2011 at 3:11 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Look, if you don't have the balls to just admit that you misread my post, then so be it. I was too general at first, then I made a typo in the above the statement. In any case, I haven't made any additional changes since then and yet you had continued to argue against me. You even stated that subsets can't be quantified. You are wrong, just man up and admit to it. We all make mistakes. I was too general and I made a typo.. It's not a big deal.. If anyone is back peddling, it's you.
#1165 Nov 13 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,917 posts
Alma wrote:
Look, if you don't have the balls to just admit that you misread my post

The post that I never responded to and you weren't talking to me in and that doesn't in anyway affect you being wrong about the stuff I did respond to? Post #206 indeed.

Getting back to the post I did respond to:
Alma wrote:
People continuously argue that it's religion that attacks homosexuality when something isn't supported. Then these same people turn around and claim that majority of the religious people support it?!?! Nope, pick one. Both can't occur.

And both can certainly occur. Religion can be attacking homosexuality at the same time the majority of religious individuals support homosexuality. You said they can't, but they can. It's that simple.

I don't even care about homosexuality here. I'm more offended by your inability to an imagine a scenario where this could be possible.
#1166 Nov 13 2011 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,889 posts
Allegory wrote:
I'm more offended by your inability to an imagine a scenario where this could be possible.
No need to imagine when your scenario is exactly how reality is, but our lowest common denominator over there doesn't exactly spend much time there.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1167 Nov 13 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
what the f-ck does this have to do with sexual modesty anyway? Are you obsessed with the idea that someone is looking at your junk Alma?
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#1168 Nov 13 2011 at 10:15 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Olorinus wrote:
what the f-ck does this have to do with sexual modesty anyway? Are you obsessed with the idea that someone is looking at your junk Alma?


Welcome to page 5. Smiley: lol
#1169 Nov 14 2011 at 3:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
You are truly ignorant. What's being argued is concept. Concepts are universal. You either support sexual modesty as an excuse for segregation or you don't. If you believe that there is a difference in situations, then you must state the difference. So far, you have failed to do that.


I believe that if you'd like to reinstate DADT due to sexual modesty, you're going to need to get the majority of the armed forces to overwhelmingly decide that they need separate facilities for ****** JUST LIKE you'd need the opposite to happen to desegregate by gender.

Good luck with that.

Alma wrote:
You are full of crap because your counter is that "people are comfortable with homosexuals, so therefore it's no longer ok", but you already argued that there isn't any logical discrimination against sexuality. So which one is it? If another poll said that people were uncomfortable, would you accept that as an argument? If not, then why are you pretending that it matters?


If the polling went another way I may have accepted extending DADT, but it didn't, so I don't have too. "Comfort" mattered when the majority was opposed to DADT repeal, it matters much less so now. Unless your name is Alma.

Alma wrote:

It doesn't matter if 100% of the people polled said that they are comfortable working with homosexuals, that has nothing to do with sexual modesty. You're only pretending that it does to support your argument. Unless you're denying the fact that women are separated due to sexual modesty, along with potential sexual harassment and sexual assault then you're wrong. Unless, you can provide other reasons on why they are segregated.


I believe I mentioned plumbing earlier. Segregation by gender & sexual orientation are two very different things, & not only because of modesty.

Alma wrote:
Do you believe women are comfortable working with men? Does that have anything to do with where they sleep and shower? No. It doesn't. You're the one making false equivalences.


Quote where I made them equivalent.

Alma wrote:
This is about concept, so unless you can argue against the concept, then you have nothing.


It'd help if you told me what concept you've now decided to argue for/against.

Alma wrote:
There is no need to be prejudiced in order to discriminate. We're talking strictly about discrimination. I can discriminate against someone's skin color and not prejudge them. So, there is no need to bring up "prejudice" as a criterion.


You do not need to be prejudiced to choose between two or more things. You DO need to be prejudice to just plain old not hire blacks. If you have a logical reason to discriminate (Example: You must be this tall to use this ride): it's (usually) NOT prejudice. What this entire god **** thread amounts to is you running around screaming "it's not prejudice to discriminate due to sexual orientation" while giving zero reasons to justify said discrimination.

Which means you're a homophobe in denial. We all know this, we just want you to admit it & be done with it. Varrus can, so I can't understand why you can't except for cowardice.

Alma wrote:
Did you even read my post? affirmative action is a lazy fix me up that doesn't solve the problem. It's like school vouchers. It actually makes the situation worse.


Tell that to anyone who's received a minority scholarship.
Alma wrote:

There's a ton of solutions that heavily outweigh affirmative action. One goes back to the question I asked Jophiel. Why do you think Tyler Perry is so successful?

It's cool that you think the best way to fight discrimination is with discrimination, but don't deny that it's still discrimination.


If it makes you feel better, I'm for slavery reparations too. As I said previously, you aren't ever going to convince me that affirmative action is discrimination. Perhaps if you knew how to make a coherent argument, you'd have a better shot at it. But I have a better chance of being an astronaut that that happening.

Alma wrote:
Then you should reread the definition. It is not necessary and since we were not talking about prejudging anyone, then guess what? It isn't part of the conversation.


Remove prejudice from the definition of discrimination & it literally becomes a synonym for "choose" & "distinguish", which is "Alma's" definition of discrimination, which is not the definition ANYONE else in this thread is using besides Alma.

So have fun arguing with yourself I guess.

Alma wrote:
How can you tell? What's the difference? So, if it's legal, like how slavery was at one point, then you support it?


It's certainly more socially acceptable if it's legal. Doesn't mean I have to like or support it, but it means I'm not a complete tool for doing so. You wouldn't come off as a homophobe if you had a logical reason to discriminate against homosexuals, but ya don't, so you do in this and every SSM thread on this forum, ever.

Alma wrote:
You do realize by hiring a less qualified person because s/he's black/white/hispanic/asian to fulfill a position, you're also denying a person because s/he is black/white/hispanic/asian? Surely you realize this?


And you do realize it's only discriminatory if prejudice is involved, right?

Alma wrote:
So, you do realize that not every woman is comfortable being naked in front of men and it's not because they think men are "icky".


It's also because they're self conscious & embarrassed. Kind of like how you'd feel in a communal shower with any other man, whether they were *** or not.



____________________________
"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


#1170 Nov 14 2011 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
You know, when I was in high school I played sports. I knew for a fact that some of my team mates were *******. I never understood why that should be a problem.

My mother went to nursing school half a century ago, and lived in the dorm with lesbians then, and didn't have a problem with them.

Is it just (some) straight men who are so freaked out by the idea of *** men seeing them naked?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1171 Nov 14 2011 at 8:04 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,889 posts
Samira wrote:
Is it just (some) straight men who are so freaked out by the idea of *** men seeing them naked?
Pretty much. They're usually the ones that women barely look at, but they're just SO CERTAIN that *** men will just stare at them endlessly without DADT. At no point does it make sense.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1172 Nov 14 2011 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
Samira wrote:
Is it just (some) straight men who are so freaked out by the idea of *** men seeing them naked?
I don't think it can even be explained that "rationally" as they're already having *** men seeing them naked.
____________________________
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

#1173Almalieque, Posted: Nov 14 2011 at 11:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You responded to a post that wasn't directed to you. How is that any different from the other following post on the same subject not directed at you?
#1174 Nov 14 2011 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Alma wrote:
Look, if you don't have the balls to just admit that you misread my post

The post that I never responded to and you weren't talking to me in and that doesn't in anyway affect you being wrong about the stuff I did respond to? Post #206 indeed.

Getting back to the post I did respond to:
Alma wrote:
People continuously argue that it's religion that attacks homosexuality when something isn't supported. Then these same people turn around and claim that majority of the religious people support it?!?! Nope, pick one. Both can't occur.

And both can certainly occur. Religion can be attacking homosexuality at the same time the majority of religious individuals support homosexuality. You said they can't, but they can. It's that simple.

I don't even care about homosexuality here. I'm more offended by your inability to an imagine a scenario where this could be possible.


You responded to a post that wasn't directed to you. How is that any different from the other following post on the same subject not directed at you?

Look, if you don't have the balls to just admit that you misread my post, then so be it. I was too general at first, then I made a typo in the following statement. In any case, I haven't made any additional changes since then and yet you had continued to argue against me. You even stated that subsets can't be quantified. You are wrong, just man up and admit to it. We all make mistakes. I was too general and I made a typo.. It's not a big deal.. If anyone is back peddling, it's you.


Are you still arguing 'for' the continuance of DADT?

It's gone Alma. Smiley: frown
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#1175 Nov 14 2011 at 12:08 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Vageta wrote:
I believe that if you'd like to reinstate DADT due to sexual modesty, you're going to need to get the majority of the armed forces to overwhelmingly decide that they need separate facilities for ****** JUST LIKE you'd need the opposite to happen to desegregate by gender.

Good luck with that.


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.

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.

Vageta wrote:
If the polling went another way I may have accepted extending DADT, but it didn't, so I don't have too. "Comfort" mattered when the majority was opposed to DADT repeal, it matters much less so now. Unless your name is Alma.


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

Vageta wrote:

I believe I mentioned plumbing earlier. Segregation by gender & sexual orientation are two very different things, & not only because of modesty.


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?

Vageta wrote:

Quote where I made them equivalent.


Vageta wrote:
Sure I can, provided the polls show more people being comfortable with homosexuals in the military now as opposed to a minority being comfortable when DADT was implemented. If you want to apply that to gender too, then you gots to get the womans to poll that the majority of them would be comfortable with co-ed facilities.


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

Vageta wrote:
You do not need to be prejudiced to choose between two or more things. You DO need to be prejudice to just plain old not hire blacks.


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

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

Vageta wrote:
If you have a logical reason to discriminate (Example: You must be this tall to use this ride): it's (usually) NOT prejudice.


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

Vageta wrote:
What this entire god **** thread amounts to is you running around screaming "it's not prejudice to discriminate due to sexual orientation" while giving zero reasons to justify said discrimination.

Which means you're a homophobe in denial. We all know this, we just want you to admit it & be done with it. Varrus can, so I can't understand why you can't except for cowardice.


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



#1176 Nov 14 2011 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 64 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (64)