Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Is 2500/18000+ Enough?
Topic Started: Jun 16 2006, 08:03 AM (744 Views)
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Jun 16 2006, 11:40 AM
Quote:
 
The Democrats say we can’t win. They also say we can’t find a political solution. In other words, it seems their message to American troops is “surrender or fight to the death.” Winning is not an option.


I'm a Democrat. I haven't said we can't win. I haven't said we can't find a political solution. I think it's a quagmire and we're going to be there a long time, but I certainly hope we can win, and it would be much better to find a political solution. And I definitely don't want us to leave until we've finished the job, and that is most certainly not yet.

I think there are many Democrats who are right where I am. So go take your broad brush and paint another fence.

:wave:

We all tend to paint with 3' wide brushes here.


(As I just did)
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jun 16 2006, 12:40 PM
Quote:
 
The Democrats say we can’t win. They also say we can’t find a political solution. In other words, it seems their message to American troops is “surrender or fight to the death.” Winning is not an option.


I'm a Democrat. I haven't said we can't win. I haven't said we can't find a political solution. I think it's a quagmire and we're going to be there a long time, but I certainly hope we can win, and it would be much better to find a political solution. And I definitely don't want us to leave until we've finished the job, and that is most certainly not yet.

I think there are many Democrats who are right where I am. So go take your broad brush and paint another fence.

As you point out, you are a Democrat. You are not "The Democrats". No broad brush.

I appreciate your judicious thinking on the Iraqi war, Quirt. I hope that you are willing to criticize your own party for the sheer grandstanding of insisting that no amnesty be given. It seems doubly hypocritical that the party line (as distinct from your own position as a Democrat) is to grant amnesty to illegal aliens in the US where they do have direct say in the making of laws, while decrying amnesty in another sovereign nation where they have no say other than diplomatic (and diplomacy is the purview of the Executive branch, not the Legislative much less a particular party).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Jun 16 2006, 02:58 PM
QuirtEvans
Jun 16 2006, 12:40 PM
Quote:
 
The Democrats say we can’t win. They also say we can’t find a political solution. In other words, it seems their message to American troops is “surrender or fight to the death.” Winning is not an option.


I'm a Democrat. I haven't said we can't win. I haven't said we can't find a political solution. I think it's a quagmire and we're going to be there a long time, but I certainly hope we can win, and it would be much better to find a political solution. And I definitely don't want us to leave until we've finished the job, and that is most certainly not yet.

I think there are many Democrats who are right where I am. So go take your broad brush and paint another fence.

As you point out, you are a Democrat. You are not "The Democrats". No broad brush.

I appreciate your judicious thinking on the Iraqi war, Quirt. I hope that you are willing to criticize your own party for the sheer grandstanding of insisting that no amnesty be given. It seems doubly hypocritical that the party line (as distinct from your own position as a Democrat) is to grant amnesty to illegal aliens in the US where they do have direct say in the making of laws, while decrying amnesty in another sovereign nation where they have no say other than diplomatic (and diplomacy is the purview of the Executive branch, not the Legislative much less a particular party).

Quote:
 
It seems doubly hypocritical that the party line (as distinct from your own position as a Democrat) is to grant amnesty to illegal aliens in the US where they do have direct say in the making of laws, while decrying amnesty in another sovereign nation where they have no say other than diplomatic (and diplomacy is the purview of the Executive branch, not the Legislative much less a particular party).


Well, I don't know if it's hypocritical or not, but I'm with the House Republicans as far as amnesty for illegal aliens is concerned. It's a bad idea to reward lawbreaking.

I see Iraq as a different kettle of fish. There, it's a negotiation to end a war, which illegal immigration is not.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 16 2006, 11:58 AM
It seems doubly hypocritical that the party line (as distinct from your own position as a Democrat) is to grant amnesty to illegal aliens in the US where they do have direct say in the making of laws, while decrying amnesty in another sovereign nation where they have no say other than diplomatic (and diplomacy is the purview of the Executive branch, not the Legislative much less a particular party).

You mean the amnesty Iraq wants to give to those who have killed Americans but not to those who have attacked Iraqis; making it very clear that to the Iraqi Prime Minister, killing an American is forgiveable; but an Iraqi life is worth more so no amnesty would be granted.

(And yes, I know that as soon as the Democrats and other patriotic Americans, including the press, vehemently decried this proposed policy, the Iraqi Prime Minister immediately back tracked. Thank God the Democrats and the press were there to point out the total and complete ingratitude the Prime Minister's original announcement showed and what a slap in the face it was to the American troops who are dying there).
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Quote:
 
as soon as the Democrats and other patriotic Americans, including the press


So, that excludes the Republicans, right. You didn't mention them.... :cool:

So, leaving Iraq ASAP, as you have repeatedly called for, does not consist of a de facto amnesty for the murdering thugs that you decried? These guys talk about how the sacrifices of American troops would be "devalued" by amnesty, but you see no devaluation of such sacrifice in surrender. They say they don't want to "reward" those who spilled American blood through amnesty. But amnesty is the consolation prize. It is the set of steak knives and coupon to Chuck E. Cheese's of rewards. Chasing the infidel American crusaders out of Iraq is the jackpot. And that is precisely what the Democrats are for.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
George K
Jun 16 2006, 05:08 PM
Quote:
 
as soon as the Democrats and other patriotic Americans, including the press


So, that excludes the Republicans, right. You didn't mention them.... :cool:


It was the thumpster who said it was the Democrats who raised the alarm about the amnesty plan. I added the press, because they too were outraged. Interestingly, I heard no outcry from the White House.

Quote:
 
So, leaving Iraq ASAP, as you have repeatedly called for, does not consist of a de facto amnesty for the murdering thugs that you decried? These guys talk about how the sacrifices of American troops would be "devalued" by amnesty, but you see no devaluation of such sacrifice in surrender. They say they don't want to "reward" those who spilled American blood through amnesty. But amnesty is the consolation prize. It is the set of steak knives and coupon to Chuck E. Cheese's of rewards. Chasing the infidel American crusaders out of Iraq is the jackpot. And that is precisely what the Democrats are for.


Are you saying one of the reasons we should stay is to punish those Iraqis who have fought against our invasion and occupation?

This is a new reason for us staying. I had never heard this before.

(BTW, I have never said we should surrender -- just admit we have done what we can do and because we are now a major reason for the violence there, and it is now up to the Iraqis to solve the problems -- problems they have had among themselves for centuries.)
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Quote:
 
Are you saying one of the reasons we should stay is to punish those Iraqis who have fought against our invasion and occupation?


No, Rick. You are the one who brought up the outrage over amnesty. Isn't just walking away (which is what you have proposed) tacitly doing the same thing? You are the one who seems outraged that there is no punishment for our enemy, despite this:

Posted Image

Or did I completely misunderstand your post. Are you in favor of amnesty for these people or not? I am confused (again).

If so, then why your post?
If not, then what's wrong with continuing what we are doing, and "bringing justice" to those who have killed our men?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
This is as an aside to the main discussion, but unless there's at least some degree of widespread amnesty in Iraq, there's never going to be peace. A look at both the numerous releases of former terrorists in Northern Ireland and the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission should point the way. It's a bit early to talk in these terms of course.

As yet another aside, regarding the Iraqi prime minister placing a higher emphasis on Iraqi rather than American dead, look at the title of this thread. It doesn't mention British, Australian or Iraqi casualties. Why was that? Do they not count? Does anybody actually know how many Iraqis have died? Does anybody care?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
that is precisely what the Democrats are for.


Once again, George, some Democrats. Not all Democrats. Not "the" Democrats.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Jun 16 2006, 05:43 PM
This is as an aside to the main discussion, but unless there's at least some degree of widespread amnesty in Iraq, there's never going to be peace. A look at both the numerous releases of former terrorists in Northern Ireland and the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission should point the way. It's a bit early to talk in these terms of course.


Of course there will be an amnesty plan. But for al-Maliki to propose one for those killing American (OK coalition forces) but not one for killing or attacking Iraqis is something we all should be aghast at and one we should all oppose.

Quote:
 
As yet another aside, regarding the Iraqi prime minister placing a higher emphasis on Iraqi rather than American dead, look at the title of this thread. It doesn't mention British, Australian or Iraqi casualties. Why was that? Do they not count? Does anybody actually know how many Iraqis have died? Does anybody care?


Yea, I care. The number of other coalition forces killed is small compared to the US, as you might expect given the ratio of US forces compared to other forces and the division of labor. I generally do not raise the number of Iraqis because the onetime I did I was of being too compassionate for the enemy. Plus, there is no official source counting the Iraqis killed.

(As for the title of the thread -- the thread was aimed at US policy. Clearly, if the US leaves, so does everyone else).

Anyway, here is a more detailed breakdown of the carnage:

American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 2500 Total 2016 In Combat
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03): 2363 Total 1919 In Combat
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 2035 Total 1710 In Combat
Since Handover (6/29/04): 1634 Total 1384 In Combat
Since First Election (1/31/05): 1064 Total 899 In Combat

American Wounded
Total Wounded: 18490 (Official) 20000 - 48100 (Estimated)

Other Coalition Troops: 214

Iraqi Deaths 38,475 (minimum) 42,889 (maximum)
(Although the British Medcical Journal Lancet estimates the total Iraqi deaths in excess of 100,000.

Here is the source of my numbers, for anyone who wants to check the methodology:

The Human Cost of Occupation
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
QuirtEvans
Jun 16 2006, 09:02 PM
Quote:
 
that is precisely what the Democrats are for.


Once again, George, some Democrats. Not all Democrats. Not "the" Democrats.

Quirt: Democrats -

Quote Rick:
Quote:
 
(And yes, I know that as soon as the Democrats and other patriotic Americans, including the press, vehemently decried....



Rick: The deaths in the war:

As to methodology, the Lancet article that claims 100000 deaths (cited on the the page quoted) has serious problems with the interpretation. Everyone has jumped on the 100,000 number, however, reading the actual article says something quite different:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.

The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

CI Stands for "Confidence Interval."

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 16 2006, 07:05 PM

Of course there will be an amnesty plan.  But for al-Maliki to propose one for those killing American (OK coalition forces) but not one for killing or attacking Iraqis is something we all should be aghast at and one we should all oppose.

No, Rick, it is not one we should all oppose -- only those who are more interested in making political hay out the events than in stabilizing the region. So it seems entirely consistent that you and Democrats of your ilk and the liberal press are going to get all righteous and self inflated about this issue, since you would sooner walk away from the place and let it implode and then be able to blame Bush for dragging us into an unwinnable war and failing.

You simply are ignorant of the deep traditions of blood debt that has informed the Middle East for millennia. The real problem is vengence between the feuding sects, clans, tribes and peoples. An *amnesty* granted by the government for Iraqi blood could well undermine the authority of the government since they would lose face and confidence from all sides. As wrong as that is to our post-Enlightenment western standards, it is the realpolitick of the region, and al-Maliki and his advisors are well aware of the dynamic.

Ironic that as soon as the Iraqi government starts governing, you object to their decisions and seek to influence Iraqi policy -- and you have the audacity to accuse Bush of meddling in Iraqi politics and not respecting their sovereignty. What unabashed hypocrisy you display.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 16 2006, 08:21 PM
The real problem is vengence between the feuding sects, clans, tribes and peoples.

Really?

Hmmm....who else has been saying the violence we are facing in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism or anything of that sort -- but is a problem which is among the Iraqis, has been there for centuries and that they have to solve themselves?

Quote:
 
An *amnesty* granted by the government for Iraqi blood could well undermine the authority of the government since they would lose face and confidence from all sides. As wrong as that is to our post-Enlightenment western standards, it is the realpolitick of the region, and al-Maliki and his advisors are well aware of the dynamic.


To be honest, I don't really care if this is their tradition or not. What I care about are the Ameriucan troops who are likely to now become the target of choice -- because the government has said anyone who kills an American will get off with no punishment, But if they kill an Iraqi, they are in deep trouble.

Just who would you aim your guns and bombs at if this is what you were told and you wanted to attack the power structure?

If amnesty is what needs to be done to reach a final agreement among the various tribes, sects and other parachial groups, why announce it now while the violence is increasing? There are going to be all sorts of negotiating points which will not be made public unless and until a final deal is announced. This could have been one of them.

So, if you think it is a good idea (or even an acceptable one) for the Iraqi Prime Minister to direct the violence at the Americans, good for you. As an American, I find it abominable for him to do this and fully support those who immediately understood the implications of what al-Maliki said and protested quickly, loudly and vehemently to protect our troops.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Quote:
 
So, if you think it is a good idea (or even an acceptable one) for the Iraqi Prime Minister to direct the violence at the Americans,
Zimmerian Dialectic(tm) once again. I have no more patience to unwind your tangled rhetoric.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

:yawn:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 16 2006, 08:51 PM
Quote:
 
So, if you think it is a good idea (or even an acceptable one) for the Iraqi Prime Minister to direct the violence at the Americans,
Zimmerian Dialectic(tm) once again. I have no more patience to unwind your tangled rhetoric.

Ahhhh, thumps.

I can always tell when your own logic has backed you into a corner you don't know how to get out of. Out comes Zimmerian Dialectic(tm) and your exclamation of exasperation.

It's OK buddy. It's Friday evening, the end of a long week.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Rick, people don't give up talking to you because you backed them into a corner. They give up because it's like talking to a rock. You couldn't figure out the truth about things if your life depended on it because you force everything into your narrow little viewpoint - of which you have only one.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Jun 16 2006, 08:58 PM
:yawn:

what he said :uparrow:

And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
George K
Jun 16 2006, 09:16 PM
QuirtEvans
Jun 16 2006, 09:02 PM
Quote:
 
that is precisely what the Democrats are for.


Once again, George, some Democrats. Not all Democrats. Not "the" Democrats.

Quirt: Democrats -

Quote Rick:
Quote:
 
(And yes, I know that as soon as the Democrats and other patriotic Americans, including the press, vehemently decried....



Rick: The deaths in the war:

As to methodology, the Lancet article that claims 100000 deaths (cited on the the page quoted) has serious problems with the interpretation. Everyone has jumped on the 100,000 number, however, reading the actual article says something quite different:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.

The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

CI Stands for "Confidence Interval."

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

Thank you, George. We have too much interpretation going on and too few facts to base them on.

That is, to me, a fact of high importance. I just hope others don't blow by that even if they don't comment. Those are the kinds of posts that should be stored somewhere else in TNCR so they could be easily referenced when needed.

BTW, that kind of abuse of statistics is one of the worst I've seen. Almost as bad as that typical of the drug industry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
George K
Jun 16 2006, 06:16 PM
QuirtEvans
Jun 16 2006, 09:02 PM
Quote:
 
that is precisely what the Democrats are for.


Once again, George, some Democrats. Not all Democrats. Not "the" Democrats.

Quirt: Democrats -

Quote Rick:
Quote:
 
(And yes, I know that as soon as the Democrats and other patriotic Americans, including the press, vehemently decried....



Rick: The deaths in the war:

As to methodology, the Lancet article that claims 100000 deaths (cited on the the page quoted) has serious problems with the interpretation. Everyone has jumped on the 100,000 number, however, reading the actual article says something quite different:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

etc.



So, George, you have taken one small piece of my post (a paranthetical one, in fact) as well as one small sentence on the website, and have raised concerns about it.

Do you have concerns about the other numbers?

The question was asked how many Iraqis and forces of countries other than the US have been killed. Do you have better numbers than the ones I posted in my post? Or are you simply going to focus only on the one parenthetical number as if it is the only one of substance?

Feel free to provide another estimate. I think the American people should know how many Iraqis have been kiiled since Bush invaded the country. Americans should not the amount of carnage he has unleashed in their name.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
And to think - this man is actually allowed to teach college kids.....
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Rick, your comment may be considered parenthetical, by you. However, here's what you posted:
Quote:
 
Iraqi Deaths 38,475 (minimum) 42,889 (maximum)
(Although the British Medcical Journal Lancet estimates the total Iraqi deaths in excess of 100,000.

Here is the source of my numbers, for anyone who wants to check the methodology:

The Human Cost of Occupation


You invited "anyone" to check the methodology. Which is what I did. THe methodology in the Lancet article is flawed.

The fact that I did not address the other numbers does not mean that I am not concerned. There's that wide brush of assumptions that you use again.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
George, the man thinks the democrat party and the news media are patriotic - do you think really he's going to be able to understand *your* point?
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 16 2006, 10:07 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 16 2006, 08:51 PM
Quote:
 
So, if you think it is a good idea (or even an acceptable one) for the Iraqi Prime Minister to direct the violence at the Americans,
Zimmerian Dialectic(tm) once again. I have no more patience to unwind your tangled rhetoric.

Ahhhh, thumps.

I can always tell when your own logic has backed you into a corner you don't know how to get out of. Out comes Zimmerian Dialectic(tm) and your exclamation of exasperation.

It's OK buddy. It's Friday evening, the end of a long week.

No Rick, not backed into a corner. You make the outlandish allegations that the Iraqi PM is trying to direct violence against American troops, and that I think this is a good idea.

I have neither interest nor inclination to unravel your bizarre convolutions of reason and logic.

You've yet to learn how to take an opponent's argument on its own terms and discuss it intelligently and coherently. All you can do is try to distort it to your own liking and try to drag it on to grounds that suit your purposes and hope that you can defend.

That is the essence of your Zimmerian Dialectic(tm), so when you see Zimmerian Dialectic(tm) don't think "capitulation".

It is simply shorthand for "you've gone off the rails once again".
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Hell - he doesn't even know where the rails are. And if he found them, he'd head in the wrong direction....
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2