The truth, the whole truth

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Oct 9, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...news/20030929/ts_usnews/thetruththewholetruth


    If you rely on newspapers and tv networks for your news, chances are you have no idea that the controversial performance of western reporters in Iraq (news - web sites) is emerging as a big issue. The mainstream media have virtually ignored the stunning charges made by John Burns, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times. But those charges are all over the Internet and carried by Fox News and conservative commentators.

    In the new book Embedded, Burns says the vast majority of correspondents in prewar Iraq played ball with Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and downplayed the viciousness of the regime. He says Iraq was "a grotesque charnel house" and a genuine threat to America, but to protect their access, the reporters did not tell the truth. Burns names no names (he should now), but he is particularly contemptuous of the BBC and CNN.

    Burns's comments are echoed by those of U.S. District Court Judge Don Walter of Shreveport, La. This is another Internet-only story that you aren't likely to find in newspapers. Walter was vehemently antiwar but changed his mind after an assignment in Iraq as a U.S. adviser on Iraq's courts. He says we should have invaded sooner to halt the incredible butchery and torture that the United Nations (news - web sites), France, and Russia knew all about and were quite willing to tolerate. And he is distressed by the reporting on Iraq now: "The steady drip, drip, drip of bad news may destroy our will to fulfill the obligations we have assumed. WE ARE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE TRUTH FROM THE NEWS MEDIA." (Capitals are his.)

    Some members of Congress are sounding the same theme. Georgia Democrat Jim Marshall says negative media coverage is getting our troops in Iraq killed and encouraging Baathist holdouts to think they can drive the United States out. Marshall, a Vietnam vet, said there is "a disconnect between the reporting and the reality," partly because the 27 reporters left in Iraq are "all huddled in a hotel."

    Marshall and a bipartisan group of six other representatives just returned from Iraq. The lawmakers charged that reporters have developed an overall negative tone and a "police blotter" mind-set stressing attacks and little else. Ranking member Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, said he found the creativeness and flexibility of the U.S. forces impressive, including their 3,100 projects in northern Iraq, from soccer fields to schools to refineries, "all good stuff, and that isn't being reported."

    The campaign for more balance in Iraq reporting has been driven by Internet bloggers, notably Andrew Sullivan (AndrewSullivan.com) and law Prof. Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee (Instapundit.com). Reynolds deplores "the lazy Vietnam-templating, the `of course America must be losing' spin, the implicit and sometimes explicit sneer."

    Safer. Both Reynolds and Sullivan encourage U.S. soldiers and others in Iraq to send in their own reports, which have generally been positive and hopeful. "I don't trust most of the journalists, I'm afraid," Sullivan wrote in a July appeal for firsthand accounts. Letters home from Iraq are now regularly put up on the Internet. One last week from Senior Chief Petty Officer Art Messer of the Navy Seabees said: "The countryside is getting more safe by the day despite all the attacks you are hearing about. Imagine if every shooting incident or robbery committed in Los Angeles was blown out of proportion."

    The Internet campaign is another example of the new media going around the old media, in this case to counter stories by quagmire-oriented reporters. Perhaps goaded by Internet coverage, USA Today became the first mainstream outlet (as far as I can see) to highlight problems in current Iraq coverage. A strong article last week by Peter Johnson quoted this from MSNBC's Bob Arnot in Iraq: "I contrast some of the infectious enthusiasm I see here with what I see on TV, and I say, `Oh, my God, am I in the same country?' " time magazine's Brian Bennett added: "What gets in the headlines is the American soldier getting shot, not the American soldiers rebuilding a school or digging a well." Bennett says the violence and threats are real, but so are growing signs of stability in Iraqi life, with restaurants reopening every day and women feeling increasingly safe on the street.

    Columnist Tom Friedman of the New York Times says he is a "worried optimist" who thinks things in Iraq are not as good as they should be by now but not as bad as they seem from afar. That view might be a starting point for the big media to discuss how the "look from afar" got so skewed.
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    ** Are liberals now controlling the media? Strange that the liberals here aren't responding to any of the "good news" posts **


    By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON - President Bush on Saturday offered a portrait of Iraq as a country where life is returning to normal after war, insisting that "Iraq is making progress" despite a steady drumbeat of bad news.

    Bush said that progress was coming as a result of his "clear strategy." But Democrats retorted, "The president did not plan well for winning the peace and rebuilding the nation."

    Bush complained this week that the "filter" of the news media is blocking positive developments from reaching Americans, and he opened a public-relations offensive to present an alternative view.

    In his weekly radio address, Bush said Iraq is a place where markets are bustling, shelves are full, oil is flowing and satellite dishes are sprouting up.

    "Since the liberation of that country, thousands of new businesses have been launched," Bush said. "With our assistance, Iraqis are building the roads and ports and railways necessary for commerce."

    Bush noted other developments: an independent central bank; a new system to absorb foreign capital; a new currency.

    He made a new pitch for his $87 billion spending request for military operations and rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. He said it was critical for helping Iraq reach its potential — and for keeping America safer from terrorism.

    "I urge Congress to pass my budget request soon so this vital work can proceed," Bush said.
     
  3. Bry
    Offline

    Bry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +3
    hmmm. I did respond to the where to find the good news post. Like I said, I'd love to hear some good news. How about showing us some? It's interesting that you would insinuate that the focus on bad news in the media is a new trend, or a tendency of what you would call the "liberal" press. It seems to me that the media has for a very long time opted for overaccentuating the negative and all but ignoring the positive. That's the problem with having a press that nees to market itself to the masses. And it is one symptom more of the sickness that pervades our capitalist system: the number of media outlets has shrunk at an alarming rate, and those that remain are in the hands of precious few, and those with corporate interests and a political agenda. Our evolution has already passed the stage of competition. Even big cities in the US rarely have more than one or two newspapers. This is the system which you and your conservative cohorts praise for providing the most freedoms, but I see you have no problem with complaining when it doesn't seem to suit your agenda. How about criticising the entire system, rather than being content to complain about those select syptoms that don't support your agenda?

    -Bry
     
  4. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    How about you read the article, there is some right in there. Or did you read till you read "media" and decide to debate rather than acknowledge?

    I'd like for you to show me where I "praised" the media. There are a few outlets that provide a more balanced coverage, but most of them tend to report the bad from Iraq and ignore the good (sort of like you). Until you can show me where I praised them, shut the fuck up with your ridiculous accusations.

    I am posting in the Iraq section of this forum about how the media in general has been ignoring positive reports coming from within Iraq. There was a radio address by our president covering this very subject. I provided the article and the link. I think I am perfectly on topic.

    Speaking of agendas, it's clear yours is to just argue anything, regardless of whether or not it is on topic or based in any way on supported facts.

    Properly written sentences don't always equate to intelligent posts. You may want to keep that in mind.
     
  5. Bry
    Offline

    Bry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +3
    I'll try to keep that in mind, jim. As always I appreciate your fine, even-keeled, and well thought out responses, as evidenced by your angry lashing out with accusations, and powerful rebuttals like "shut the fuck up." How could I fail to be impressed by that, jim? How could I fail to take seriously your impugning my intelligence?

    Shall we start with this one?
    "How about you read the article, there is some right in there. Or did you read till you read "media" and decide to debate rather than acknowledge?"
    I did read the articles, jim. The "good news" which you seem to think is elaborated in these two articles, I simply don't see. We should count what comes from the mouth of George Bush as objective reporting? You expect me to accept that FOX is the most objective news outlet in the US? I already acknowledged that it was good to see the good news as in the Where to find the good news thread. Unfortunately, none of the items by itself amounts to a front page article. Perhaps all news papers should be required to include a column on their front page, next to the latest bombing or assasination or riot or religious pogrom, that lists the "good news" which you seem to think abounds. Another well dug! Road paved! Iraqis beat GIs in friendly soccer match on field built by GIs! In any case, I don't think anyone is under the impression that the Army is resting on their laurels or that no steps are being taken to restore Iraq to an acceptable level of function. So when you challenge the "liberals" to make a commentary on these articles, what sort of commentary are you expecting?

    I'd like for you to show me where I suggested that you praised the media. Did you read my post, jim, or did you just see it was from me and suddenly develope Tourets syndrome? Does this sound familiar? Have I ignored the good, jim? What exactly were my accusations? I said "This is the system which you and your conservative cohorts praise for providing the most freedoms." but I was referring to the capitalist system, of which our media is a product. The main argument of my post was that, as a direct result of the capitalist system which you are so fond of defending, the media is controlled by a few, and they are forced to focus on the negative because that is what sells. You didn't respond to that at all, jim. So I ask you again, did you read my post?

    um, here again, did I ever suggest that you were somehow off topic? No. I suggested it was convenient to criticize the symptom (negative media coverage) when it fits your agenda, but that ignores the real cause, which is the capitalist system, which you regularly defend. Is it the properly constructed sentences that are throwing you off?

    Well, here we are again exchanging insults. I'm not going to back down this time, because I'm sick of your stupid double standards of expecting those who disagree with you to maintain a respectful tone, while you consistently allow yourself recourse to insults and wild accusations. It's your site, you'll do what you like. I hope you enjoy the consensus of the five regular posters here who agree with your discourse and self-righteousness.
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    For the very post you claimed to have read:

    You were so busy trying to be sarcastic with your references to the digging of wells and paving of roads that you neglected to mention the actual content of the good news.

    You originally post a general statement about us "praising the system" and now you give a whole new sentence as to what you MEANT to state, and you're wondering why I didn't respond to something you didn't write to begin with? :rolleyes:

    And what exactly is my agenda? I guess I'm guilty of pointing out that there is in fact good news coming out of what too many people are calling a failed attempt at helping the Iraqi's gain their freedom.

    And don't get all gung ho about your intelligence, my sarcasm was tongue in cheek to you. Intelligence will come from within, not from fancy words. You've neither impressed me or changed my views in any way with your content. You get an A in English, oh joy!

    Who asked you to back down the first time? Oh, thats right, the FACTS were getting in the way in that thread, liberals don't like them pesky facts! Feel free to start the thread again and get whipped back to reality with even more facts.

    I could give 2 shits what your tone is, and I don't recall saying otherwise. As long as the posts are on topic, all is fair game. You condemned what I posted and then basically called me a hypocrite from positions I've taken previously. You can dish out your little jabs, however misguided and untruthful they are, and you'll get them thrown right back in your face.
     
  7. Bry
    Offline

    Bry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +3
    Jim, you still haven't addressed the content of my post. Here again you have seen fit to insult instead of providing an argument. So I ask you, are you really as dense as your posts would suggest? Or do you embrace your hypocracy?

    I did address this, by saying that Bush's atempts to save his political reputation is no substitute for reports from the press. In the end, is it really "good news" anyway, that we are making progress in the very areas that one would most expect to make progress?

    sorry jim, I think it was clearly expressed in my first post, repeated in my second post, and still has gone completely ignored my you. FYI, "media" is NOT a system. "Capitalism" IS a system. I'm sorry I'm not writing on a third grade level. I expected you to be able to handle it. I won't make that mistake again.

    Your agenda, I would say, is something like stupid and uncritical defence of an illegal war, the continuation and aggravation of racial inequalities, and a general applauding of an injust and corrupt economic system. That and the insulting of people who offer alternative viewpoints. Do you know what "agenda" means? Your response here would indicate otherwise, much as your failure to understand the word "system". In order to maintain any discussion, it is necessary that we both use the same language. I'm writing in English, what language are you writing in?

    I'm not gung ho about my intelligence. I simply have trouble accepting insults to my intelligence from a lobotomy candidate, especially one who argues that "intelligence" is an appropriate measure of who should and should not be treated as "equal" by law. As for whether or not I have impressed you or changed your views, I couldn't care less.

    Noone asked me to back down, I dropped the thread by choice when I realized that there, as here, it was easier for you and jackass to resort to insults than to construct and present a viable argument. There, as here, you hypocritically accused me of not addressing the "facts" you presented, though in fact I addressed point by point all of your assertions. So you don't accept that a medical system that discriminates based on race has the obligation to make dramatic changes (in fact, you went so far as to put the guilt on the minorities for not having sought second opinions). So you don't accept the incontrovertible figures that show that a black person who makes 60,000 a year is less likely to be approved for a loan than a white person that makes 40,000. What can I say? More damning evidence, I couldn't even invent. In sum, you dismissed incontrovertible evidence, even suggesting that is the fault of blacks that they are discriminated against, and then resorted to insults for whatever was left. So, you can quip about "liberals" running from facts, but the assertion is as vacuous as your head. Let me spell it out for you, so we can be sure to understand each other:

    assertion 1:Jim says Bry runs from facts and doesn't address arguments in posts.

    assertion 2:Jim substitutes insults for argument and declines twice to address the arguments he had been presented with.

    conclusion: Jim is a hypocrite.

    To the contrary, jim, you have on many occasions insisted that those people intransigent enough to present an opposing perspective enter their posts in a respectful way or get the fuck out, while applauding the most idiotic, baseless, and emotion driven posts that just happen to agree with your agenda (there's that word, again. See above if you have forgotten already my interpretation of your agenda.) And look, there again we have found one more way you have earned the title of hypocrite! Congratulations!
     
  8. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I've addressed your post, twice now in fact. And it spelled "hypocrisy" Mr. intelligence.

    So when bad reports come in it's all GB's fault, but when good news comes in it's him saving his political ass? Nice spin, go to the yahoo boards if you expect anyone to listen to that garbage. Oh, and by the way, it's spelled "attempts".

    "my you"? Then "Capitalism" should have been in your first post. I guess we're supposed to be mind readers here. I'm reading your feeble mind now and I'm drawing blanks.

    My "agenda" is to share viewpoints on MANY political discussions, as well as many every day subjects in the forums below. YOU brought race as an issue on the Donovan McNabb thread. I just pointed out the fact that whites are superior in almost every aspect, which you think is racist, and I call bullshit.

    I don't insult everyone with different opinions, just those that think they can speak down to others. There have been quite a few on this board that have offered different opinions that weren't insulted. Look in the Canada section and get a clue from Isaac Brock.

    Just an FYI - it's spelled "defense" & "unjust", Mr. IQ

    You're an idiot! My discussion about intelligence and blacks had to do with who should get a job if all else was considered equal. I guess the best way for you to debate is twisting others words?

    "No one" is 2 separate words, thank you. You may have found the facts insulting, but they tell the whole story. I'm sorry if you are offended that I provided facts that whites are far superior to blacks in just about every facet of life. Deal with it, it's not going to change in our lifetime. And feel free to read the thread again and see who started with the cursing and put downs! It's there for all to read!

    Actually, no! You "dropped the thread by choice" after I posted MANY relevant facts. I suppose that was just good timing.

    Nice try, too bad it's a lie! I said I would have went for a second opinion if I was treated in such a manner, and so should they have. I acknowledged that it was a shame that physicians acted in this fashion.

    And I asked you to show whether or not criminal backgrounds were taken into account when these decisions were made. You provided a link that just showed flat numbers, with no circumstances involved at all. Lie #2

    Again, your spin on what I said is as transparent as wonder womans airplane! And you are damn right I insulted you in that thread after the complete garbage you posted! "What's your excuse"... Remember that? I don't give a rats ass if your grandfather had no decency after he left the war, it has no bearing on my life whatsoever. I owe blacks NOTHING, and they're lucky if they get that!

    Assertion #1 - See Donovan McNabb thread, See Bry run.

    Assertion #2 - I've avoided ZERO debates/confrontations/questions since I've been on this board. I beat you down in the other thread like a red headed step child. Now you're angry and you'll whine in every thread because now you're my bitch!

    Wrong again, dolt! I've instructed Vyxen to bring something to the table other than name calling, as she hadn't posted on topic in nearly every one of her posts. I instructed Spillmind to quit with references to my son, which was being posted in the Iraq forum. Please, show me these MANY occasions. And I want them to be where I was insulting and then spoke out against them doing the same in return. The search function is on the upper right hand side of the page and spelled "search".

    P.S. Blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, but I imagine most can spell properly.
     
  9. eric
    Online

    eric Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Bry, I am not going to attack you personally, but I do believe your views can be a little too philosophical sometimes. Keep in mind that philosophy needs to be tempered by reality. Let us take Captialism as an example; in theory it may not be the most ideal economic system, but in reality it works. Let us make a comparison to socialism, which many intellectuals have embraced.

    Now the worldwide discrediting of socialism has left our intellectual leaders in an odd dilemma. The system that they hailed for decades as a moral and philosophical ideal has been shown to be disastrous in practice, leading to stagnation at best and starvation at worst. Meanwhile, capitalism has led to the creation of unprecedented wealth, advanced technology, and widespread prosperity. Yet capitalism is denounced by these same intellectuals as a system of greed, materialism, and ruthless “dog-eat-dog” competition.

    So it would seem that the system that enforces virtue leads to poverty—while the system that encourages vice leads to prosperity.

    There must be a trade-off, in this view, between being moral and being practical. Given this alternative, the cynical "realists" choose the practical. They conclude that some degree of vice must be tolerated in order to achieve the higher "social good" of prosperity, so they seek a “third way” compromise between the moral ideal of socialism and the practical necessity of capitalism. But the "idealists" will have none of this, so they conclude that if capitalism leads to prosperity, then prosperity itself must be evil. They declare that affluence is a disease and join the environmentalists.

    But there is another answer to this dilemma; there is a solution to this apparent contradiction between the moral and the practical. That solution is to re-examine the premise that capitalism is immoral. If we do this, we can see that every characteristic that makes capitalism practical is also a principle that makes capitalism moral.

    Capitalism is practical, many economists have argued, because it allows individuals to act on their own thinking rather than being forced to obey the decrees of bureaucrats. Under capitalism, every problem of economic production is tackled by thousands, even millions, of minds. The people whose thinking is successful will thrive. They succeed because they find opportunities that others don't see, because they develop new products that no one else has thought of, or because they discover more efficient production methods that have never been tried before.

    In a free market, where everyone is free to start a business, raise capital, and place his product on the market—each individual thinker has the opportunity to put his ideas into practice, and to succeed or fail based on the merits of his idea. Those who succeed bring us new and improved products at an ever lower cost, creating economic progress and prosperity.

    In the regulatory state, by contrast, the edicts of politicians and bureaucrats override the thinking of individuals. The result is that political expediency, rather than the truth or falsity of an idea, determines who gets to put his ideas into practice. Thus, for example, a popular health scare about silicone implants or electric power lines is backed by judicial action, in defiance of provable scientific facts; the congressional districts in which ethanol is produced are regarded as more important than the fuel’s economic value; a union leader's ability to deliver votes trumps the employer's judgment concerning what he can afford to pay; and so on.

    Stated in more fundamental terms, it is the rational thinking of individuals that causes the production of wealth. But government regulation acts to stymie individual thought, subordinating the knowledge and creativity of millions of individuals to the edicts of public officials.

    Thus, the practical value of capitalism flows from the need to protect the creativity and freedom of thought of the individual. But isn’t this also a profound moral principle? Most of today's intellectuals still recognize that we need to protect the thinking of the artist or the scientist—but the same principle applies equally to the worker, the executive, and the industrialist. Only capitalism fully recognizes the moral right of the individual to think and to act on his thinking—not just in his personal life or intellectual life, but also in his economic life.

    Economic production is not just a matter of thinking; it is also a matter of motivation. Thus, according to economists, the practicality of capitalism also stems from the fact that it allows individuals to set their own plans and pursue their own goals. Individuals are allowed to decide what career they would enjoy most; what products would give them the best value for their money; what opportunities would give them the best return on their investment; and so on. And capitalism does not merely offer the individual the freedom to pursue his own goals; it also rewards him for doing so. It offers him, as an incentive and reward for achieving his ambitions, the prospect of making money. As a result, people in a free market will work harder, longer, and smarter; they will take more risks and endure more hardships—so long as the work is theirs to choose and theirs to profit from.

    In a state-run economy, by contrast, the central planning of government officials wipes out the plans of individuals. Since they don't own the business, can't control the course of their own careers, and don't stand to gain or lose from their actions, the workers' predominant attitude is apathy. And why should they care? If they succeed in increasing production, the extra wealth will be used to support those who haven't succeeded. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is the motto of the welfare state. But in such a system, who would want to be the man of ability, conscripted into a life of unrewarded drudgery so that others can consume the product of his labor? It is no surprise that every society that has approached this socialist ideal has found few volunteers to be the men of ability who keep the economy running.

    Stated in more fundamental terms, capitalism is practical because it relies on the inexhaustible motive-power of self-interest. Under capitalism, people are driven by loyalty to their own goals and by the ambition to improve their lives. They are driven by the idea that one's own life is an irreplaceable value not to be sacrificed or wasted.

    But this is also a crucial moral principle: the principle that each man is an end in himself, not a mere cog in the collective machine to be exploited for the ends of others. Most of today's intellectuals reflexively condemn self-interest; yet this is the same quality enshrined by our nation's founders when they proclaimed the individual's right to "the pursuit of happiness." It is only capitalism that recognizes this right.

    The fundamental characteristics that make capitalism practical—its respect for the freedom of the mind and for the sanctity of the individual—are also profound moral ideals. This is the answer to the dilemma of the moral vs. the practical. The answer is that capitalism is a system of virtue—the virtues of rational thought, productive work, and pride in the value of one's own person. The reward for these virtues—and for the political system that protects and encourages them—is an ever-increasing wealth and prosperity.
     
  10. janeeng
    Online

    janeeng Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Wow, now this is some ass kick arguments going on here! Chill pills passed out to all! :)

    There is such a thing as debate, but this sure has gone beyond that. I have to agree with the media, they tend to lean towards the Liberal way, focus on the bad, not the good! let's show all the wrong, great for the upcoming elections.

    For race, though I believe this thread has nothing to do with it, but I can tell you through my own experiences that it's a one sided situation - for education levels and test grades go, it is a FACT in some BIG corporations that the test grades of White vs Black, the whites are and have to be HIGHER than those of the Black, this I know for FACT! I was handed those grade levels right down from the Vice President of a company I worked for and I was quite pissed at what I read. For medical, I have to agree with this issue, I believe in 2nd opinions!

    I am not really sure why there is the insults, maybe Jim has thrown some insults, but I as a parent myself, should someone have started on me about my upbringing, I too would throw back - I have seen and read the debates here, I have seen Isaac Brock on here, who I can admire and respect, I think he has great and intelligent posts on here, and he spoke to Jim on the canadian threads and Jim appoligized to him! I have seen others that come on here, and don't aruge about posts, just like to stir shit and then blame others.

    Maybe Jim, you should have a complaint section and let people vent their problems in another area, quite personally I think it's bullshit - I do think, though, if someone to insult me or anything about my family without knowing me, I too would come back mad.

    Everybody seems to have opinions and facts! both are looked at and debated, but when it comes to lies and bullshit, I don't even think it's worth reading.

    Sorry Bry, to a point, I have to understand Jim - If you do look back to the beginning you did come on this board throwing shit, and at me too! of course, I tried to come back at you.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page