Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jul 6th, 2003, 09:40 AM       
"Boo-hoo-hoo, I'm a wee weiner crybaby."
-Vinth McFruitycallMaxaJew.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Jul 6th, 2003, 05:34 PM       
"The 1st bomb needed to be approved by Truman, but after that, there was no provision mandating civilian leadership. Groves didn't even ok the dropping on Nagasaki with Truman. Furthermore, nobody could be certain that the Japanese would've surrendered post-bombings, since they damn near didn't. Had they not, plans were in the working for more bombs. Groves would've kept dropping them, and Truman estimated that another one could've been ready in one week. Truman also set the ball rolling on developing a Hydrogen bomb."

It needed consent from the Joint Chiefs, which they gave, and they required authorization from the Commander in Chief. I'm not sure where you heard this Kev, but it simply isn't so. Truman nodded to Nagasaki too. From what I've been reading about the Army and Navy actions during WW ][, it seems a general would be given a certain jurisdiction over an allotted number of men and materials, he would then study his pdf (principal direction of fire) and submit plans based upon his cabilities and the general time line of probably success tp the Joint Chiefs, and wait for approval. Much like MacArthur's RENO missions, many of which were aborted. The JCs would discuss it, revise it, submit it to the President, who would pronounce judgement, and then it would be cycled all the way back down to the general in queston to fulfill.

". . .but considering what the "Japs" had done to us, add to that the heavy (and racist) propaganda mill that was spinning out stories, and you have one outraged public."

So outraged that they allowed Roosevelt to wage his private little war against the Germans while we lost 80,000 men in the Pacific Theatre and 70% of our standing Army Air Force in the region needlessly. So outraged that only a hand-full of citizens lobbied for MacArthur to recieve the support he needed to wage a war against Japan while the US drove troops into Italy. So outraged that Australia was forced to draft female citizens on wide scale latifundium in order to feed what troops he did have, making Australia give more in the Lend-Lease agreement than she recieved, while supplies were instead given to the Dutch and French. . .Thats was one outraged public.

"Not dropping the bomb by that point may have proven to be a political nightmare for Truman."

He didn't seek the nomination for VP under Roosevelt, it was forced on him by the Democratic public, likewise he didn't wish the nomination for a second term. In fact, he sought to have Adlai Stevenson run, but was trned down, and also inquired whether Eisenhower felt he was ready for political aspiration. He had no political nightmare. Read his memiors.

"Determined, yes. Invincible? No. Prolonging the war may have cost American lives, but I personally don't see that as a moral justification for killing the innocent."

So you are contending uitlander lives are worth more than your countrymen. I see. I would sacrifice any hundred Nips in order to protect a single American, their actions in China and the Philippines are unconcionable. They handled themselves with the basest barbarism, and were duly accorded the fruits of their labours. Civilians suffer in times of war; Emotionally, fiscally and sometimes physically. They are not innocent in as much as their continuance to abide within that country supports the actions of their country. I believe non-combatant lives should never be taken, if at all possible to avoid, but I won't shed any tears over those that are. War is not, and never will be, civilized. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect otherwise.

"They barely surrendered after both of the bombs."

Discoarse is a two bladed sword, and I believe you have here fallen upon it. Either the second bomb was unnecessary because they were ready to surrender, your first argugment, or both bombs were a waste because they 'barely' surrendered after two. Which is it? Was too not enough, or too much? I'm afraid I don't follow.

They actually surrendered after the first one, the communique they initially sent was one of acceptance, but because of the fluidity in Japanese, it seemed to American linguists they were 'considering' a surrender, when in fact, they were considering the terms. Like in 1905, and 1918, they believed that the conditions were negotiable, as the US had always compromised with them in the past, it was there mistake as much as it was ours, and they paid for it. Just like our ships paid for their hostilities in China before the war began, where they were sunk simply because they were there.

It may interest you to know that Hiroshima was not even the first suggested target: Kyoto was also considered but its unrivalled beauty ruled it out. We wished a display of power, not distruction. It exploded 580 metres (roughly1,885 feet) above the ground, not on impact like many people believe. We were flexing, not stirking.

The bomb delivered to Nagasaki was supposed to strike Kokura, now part of Kitakyushu, but as it was under heavy cloud-cover so the aircraft was diverted to its second target. Kokura, unlike Nagasaki, was a military manufacturing holding: Remember the Kokura Army Arsenal?

I think you need to brush up a bit Kev, these bombings were not as heartless as modern Americans who misremember the circumstances like to believe. I realize its all the rage to condemn America at every turn, but whether one choses to believe it or not, we've had some good and able men abiding by this nation.

"They weren't certain even after all of the murder and destruction, and had Hirohito and Suzuki not pushed for it (putting their lives in jeopardy from their own people), the war would've been prolonged. Had things been slightly different internally, the "bloodiest war ever" may have continue, only now with the standards much lower."

Pure conjecture. Maybe Jane Fonda would have flown to Japan and fucked Hirohito and given birth to the anti-AmeriChrist bringing about the end of the world before 1969. Or maybe clouds would have given birth to kittens, horses begun singing in Gaelish and neon frogs with yellow wings saved the planet from ultimate destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Jul 6th, 2003, 06:16 PM       
Quote:
Or maybe clouds would have given birth to kittens, horses begun singing in Gaelish and neon frogs with yellow wings saved the planet from ultimate destruction.
Thats beautiful, man.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 8th, 2003, 01:50 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
It needed consent from the Joint Chiefs, which they gave, and they required authorization from the Commander in Chief. I'm not sure where you heard this Kev, but it simply isn't so. Truman nodded to Nagasaki too.
I'm away for a week, on a friend'scomputer, so I can't provide the citation immediately. To my understanding, Truman gave the stamp of approval to Groves to act as necessary, andalthough maybe Truman approved of the Nagasaki bomb, I don't believe he needed to sign off on it (perhaps I'm wrong).


Quote:
From what I've been reading about the Army and Navy actions during WW ][, it seems a general would be given a certain jurisdiction over an allotted number of men and materials, he would then study his pdf (principal direction of fire) and submit plans based upon his cabilities and the general time line of probably success tp the Joint Chiefs, and wait for approval. Much like MacArthur's RENO missions, many of which were aborted. The JCs would discuss it, revise it, submit it to the President, who would pronounce judgement, and then it would be cycled all the way back down to the general in queston to fulfill.
Right, but Groves to my recollection had been handed full reign over the nuclear program, and ran it as a general expectedly would.

Quote:
So outraged that they allowed Roosevelt to wage his private little war against the Germans while we lost 80,000 men in the Pacific Theatre and 70% of our standing Army Air Force in the region needlessly. So outraged that only a hand-full of citizens lobbied for MacArthur to recieve the support he needed to wage a war against Japan while the US drove troops into Italy. So outraged that Australia was forced to draft female citizens on wide scale latifundium in order to feed what troops he did have, making Australia give more in the Lend-Lease agreement than she recieved, while supplies were instead given to the Dutch and French. . .Thats was one outraged public.
So apparently "unoutraged" (according to you at least) that we sent over thousands of our men to die. The allocation of various resources seems to have less to do with the broader public, and more to do with the movers and shakers in the Executive and Legislative branches.

Deny it if you wish, but the fact is, Americans hated the fucking Japanese.

Quote:
"Not dropping the bomb by that point may have proven to be a political nightmare for Truman."

He didn't seek the nomination for VP under Roosevelt, it was forced on him by the Democratic public, likewise he didn't wish the nomination for a second term. In fact, he sought to have Adlai Stevenson run, but was trned down, and also inquired whether Eisenhower felt he was ready for political aspiration. He had no political nightmare. Read his memiors.
Post-H/N pollsshow that most Americans were fine with the bombings. Granted, most would have no idea of the full ramifications for a few years, but they still knew they had fucked up two cities hardcore. Truman had an obligation to answer to the public blood lust, and he furthermore had an obligation to use weapons that drained some $2 billion from the American coffers.

Quote:
"Determined, yes. Invincible? No. Prolonging the war may have cost American lives, but I personally don't see that as a moral justification for killing the innocent."

So you are contending uitlander lives are worth more than your countrymen. I see. I would sacrifice any hundred Nips in order to protect a single American,
Well, that's where we differ. I value human life, whereas you apparently value social security numbers.


Quote:
their actions in China and the Philippines are unconcionable. They handled themselves with the basest barbarism, and were duly accorded the fruits of their labours. Civilians suffer in times of war; Emotionally, fiscally and sometimes physically. They are not innocent in as much as their continuance to abide within that country supports the actions of their country.
This is utter nonsense. Every nation's hierarchy has a role in convinving their public that they are righteous and just. People in every country are prideful, as well as maliable. What you just said is the same pure shit that pieces of garbage like Osama Bin Laden use to justify the killing of innocent people.

Quote:
I believe non-combatant lives should never be taken, if at all possible to avoid, but I won't shed any tears over those that are. War is not, and never will be, civilized. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect otherwise.
Discourse is a two bladed sword, and blah blah....you justify using nuclear weapons, as did people back in the day, on the grounds that it was the most humane route to take, and would preserve the most lives all around. This is the rationale behind most progression in weaponry, that it shall be more precise, more direct, and more containable.

However you apparently don't care about how many "nips" you kill, nor do you care how. So don't chastize me on the grounds of humanity, because I realize it will never be humane, THAT is why I oppose it. I ask for just war if any, not humane. The two words together create an oxymoron. It is not just to punish the civilian population of any country in order to pressure or lobby the government into an action it may not have otherwise taken. Terrorists do this, not heroes.

Quote:
"They barely surrendered after both of the bombs."

Discoarse is a two bladed sword, and I believe you have here fallen upon it. Either the second bomb was unnecessary because they were ready to surrender, your first argugment, or both bombs were a waste because they 'barely' surrendered after two. Which is it? Was too not enough, or too much? I'm afraid I don't follow.
My argument was that whether or not they would've surrendered, the bombings were unjust. Period.

Quote:
They actually surrendered after the first one, the communique they initially sent was one of acceptance, but because of the fluidity in Japanese, it seemed to American linguists they were 'considering' a surrender, when in fact, they were considering the terms.
Right, but the terms were unconditioal, and until they adhered to that, the war was still going on. The government's war cabinet wouldn't surrender, even after Nagasaki.

Quote:
It may interest you to know that Hiroshima was not even the first suggested target: Kyoto was also considered but its unrivalled beauty ruled it out. We wished a display of power, not distruction. It exploded 580 metres (roughly1,885 feet) above the ground, not on impact like many people believe. We were flexing, not stirking.
I'm aware of Truman's discretion over Kyoto, and that's admirable. However beauty and art are secondary luxuries next to human life in my book.

Quote:
The bomb delivered to Nagasaki was supposed to strike Kokura, now part of Kitakyushu, but as it was under heavy cloud-cover so the aircraft was diverted to its second target. Kokura, unlike Nagasaki, was a military manufacturing holding: Remember the Kokura Army Arsenal?
I'm aware they had selected a group of possible targets, and weather implications caused them to delay. This doesn't change the point, nor thesubstance of my argument.

Quote:
I think you need to brush up a bit Kev, these bombings were not as heartless as modern Americans who misremember the circumstances like to believe. I realize its all the rage to condemn America at every turn, but whether one choses to believe it or not, we've had some good and able men abiding by this nation.
I realize it's likewise all the rage to Red-bait someone who questions our government's actions, it's a tactic Vince is quite fond of.

I understand the circumstances, I understand how bloody WW II was, and I realize the stubbornness of the Japanese Empire. All of this considered, I disagree with the actions that were taken. I can't change history, nor can I condemn Truman too harshly, because he was in the position, not I. It couldn't have been an easy decision (although he reacted to the bombings with quite the zeal).

Bringing things back to the point, this is precisely the point. Perhaps Ror you view the world as a marble cookie, one side white, the other black, but I do not. We began by questioning the validity of Americans who you claim are merely advocates of socialism at best, and Stalinist spies at worste. According to you, these people could not be nationalists (of course denying the reality that over 1 million Russian Communists died defending their national identity from Germany).

Forgiving and ignoring the remaing condescension that ended your response, I suppose I'll conclude with this: America is great not because of blind nationalists who put (supposedly) the needs of the nation first, but by a whole range of ideas, ranging from Buckley conservatives to Chomsky Leftists. You can love this country, and not support her actions domestically and abroad all of the time. Period.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Jul 9th, 2003, 05:51 PM       
"Deny it if you wish, but the fact is, Americans hated the fucking Japanese."

I'll admit to you honestly, when I found out I was going to be stationed in Yokosuka, I tried to file for different orders because I still held a grudge. Took a few years and an appreciation of their endeavours in the Pacific War to turn my anger into admiration, but I managed to come around. The American people, by and large, I'm sure felt similarly, but there just as many who had respect for them. Even MacArthur held the Japanese in high esteem during the coarse of the war, I believe that speaks well of the diversity in American opinion of the time.

"Post-H/N pollsshow that most Americans were fine with the bombings. Granted, most would have no idea of the full ramifications for a few years, but they still knew they had fucked up two cities hardcore. Truman had an obligation to answer to the public blood lust, and he furthermore had an obligation to use weapons that drained some $2 billion from the American coffers."

Hardcare? We killed 118,000 men and women with the combined strikes, the total is placed at 160K due to sickness and cancer since. Japan lost less than two million men and women, miltary and civilian combined. . .Now compare that with China where over ten million lives were lost. Those bombs, in light of the informaton understood at the time, and situation as it existed, were the most desperate and sad necessity. I'm not proud of the action, but I stand by it Kev.


"Well, that's where we differ. I value human life, whereas you apparently value social security numbers."

You know nothing about what I value, and such a commentary reflect it. If you value human life, you should be thankful for Truman's actions as they saved needless hardship and suffering. If nothing else, they saved the 12,000 men of Bataan who had neither food nor water in their internment camp as the Japanese intended to take no prisoners whatsoever and were thus unable to care for them.


"This is utter nonsense. Every nation's hierarchy has a role in convinving their public that they are righteous and just. People in every country are prideful, as well as maliable. What you just said is the same pure shit that pieces of garbage like Osama Bin Laden use to justify the killing of innocent people."

Kev. . .Our Forefathers viewed government as a necessary evil, necessary because an organ must be in place which will intercede on behalf of the people against temporal powers which exist elsewhere in the world. Evil, because often it abuses the powers with which it has been entrusted towards tyannical ends. They believed, as I do, that the people are ultimately responsible for ensuring their government acts according to their will, and that they must resist any actions which take place without their authority. It is that spirit which is behind the "Not In Our Name" anti-Iraqi Engagement bumperstickers, and I do not believe that spirit is peculiar to America either. The People are responsible Kev, and saying they have mislead by craft politicians does not alleviate them of their duties one bit.


"Discourse is a two bladed sword, and blah blah....you justify using nuclear weapons, as did people back in the day, on the grounds that it was the most humane route to take, and would preserve the most lives all around. This is the rationale behind most progression in weaponry, that it shall be more precise, more direct, and more containable."

And someday we may get there, but I hope not too soon. It is good for people to remember that war is a last resort, when it becomes to precise, to sterile, the people will be quicker to embrace it.

"However you apparently don't care about how many "nips" you kill, nor do you care how. So don't chastize me on the grounds of humanity, because I realize it will never be humane, THAT is why I oppose it. I ask for just war if any, not humane. The two words together create an oxymoron. It is not just to punish the civilian population of any country in order to pressure or lobby the government into an action it may not have otherwise taken. Terrorists do this, not heroes."

A just war should be as human as possible, its why we don't use powdered cobalt to dust field, or napalm and flamethrowing weaponry on human targets. its the reason why lethal chemical agents are banned. Its why biological weapons are never condoned. The targets the bombs were designed for needed to be dropped on Japan for a reason: They needed to realize that despire their projected power they could be reached. They were initially targeted for military sites and set to detonate high enough above the gound that those on ground zero would not feel the full affect. You want to call our World War 2 generation terrorists? Fine, you are entitled to an opinion, but personally, I thinkt hat is probably the cruelest commentary I've ever witnessed. I think now I might have been wrong to encourage you to enter politics.

"Right, but the terms were unconditioal, and until they adhered to that, the war was still going on. The government's war cabinet wouldn't surrender, even after Nagasaki."

Read the conditions, and tell me which one we shoudl have sacrificed in the name of peace. We sacrficed Prague to Russia in the name of peace, and No Korea to the Chinese. . .How many innocent lived does peace require? War is more honest than that sort of treachery.

"I realize it's likewise all the rage to Red-bait someone who questions our government's actions, it's a tactic Vince is quite fond of."

Kevin, you are left brother. I don't need to red-bait you, you glow Crimson when the nights flicker off. I'm a blind nationalists in many regards, not because I don't see error in past actions, but because I know the limitation to human understanding, and that for those who had to make such decisions, the options we see looking back were not available to them. I a soft judge on the past, those men did the best they could, and I could not have asked for more. It was a different world then, and one I cannot help but feel I would feel more comfortable living in.

"I understand the circumstances, I understand how bloody WW II was, and I realize the stubbornness of the Japanese Empire. All of this considered, I disagree with the actions that were taken. I can't change history, nor can I condemn Truman too harshly, because he was in the position, not I. It couldn't have been an easy decision (although he reacted to the bombings with quite the zeal). "

I'm glad to hear that, many of my friends would not have even made that concession.

"Forgiving and ignoring the remaing condescension that ended your response, I suppose I'll conclude with this: America is great not because of blind nationalists who put (supposedly) the needs of the nation first, but by a whole range of ideas, ranging from Buckley conservatives to Chomsky Leftists. You can love this country, and not support her actions domestically and abroad all of the time. Period."

I've never disagreed on this point, I only resist what I feel undermines the Supreme Law of the Land. Communism is such a philosophy which would render our Constitution powerless.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 16th, 2003, 03:22 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
The American people, by and large, I'm sure felt similarly, but there just as many who had respect for them. Even MacArthur held the Japanese in high esteem during the coarse of the war, I believe that speaks well of the diversity in American opinion of the time.
I'm sure many soldiers held respect for the grit of the Japanese, but it doesn't change the fact that racism (often perpetuated by our government) created serious resentment for the Japanese.

Quote:
Hardcare? We killed 118,000 men and women with the combined strikes, the total is placed at 160K due to sickness and cancer since. Japan lost less than two million men and women, miltary and civilian combined
Women and children were burned alive, bodies piled up in the dried up streams, because people rushed to cool off their burning flesh. Over 100,000 people, many innocent lives, were brutally murdered. The act shouldn't be beliitled simply due to the number (as if 100,000 lives, as well as countless other lives due to the radiation, is a small ordeal).


Quote:
You know nothing about what I value, and such a commentary reflect it. If you value human life, you should be thankful for Truman's actions as they saved needless hardship and suffering. If nothing else, they saved the 12,000 men of Bataan who had neither food nor water in their internment camp as the Japanese intended to take no prisoners whatsoever and were thus unable to care for them.
12,000 men+ isn't 100,000+ of predominantly innocent lives.


Quote:
Kev. . .Our Forefathers viewed government as a necessary evil, necessary because an organ must be in place which will intercede on behalf of the people against temporal powers which exist elsewhere in the world. Evil, because often it abuses the powers with which it has been entrusted towards tyannical ends. They believed, as I do, that the people are ultimately responsible for ensuring their government acts according to their will, and that they must resist any actions which take place without their authority.
I'm as much of an advocate of active citizenry as you are, but I feel your conclusions are a bit off. The Forefathers also feared the naive propensity of the masses to become rallied behind poor or ill-conceived plans, thus the fear that the "masses are asses." Are founding fathers may have been idealistic, but they certainly weren't stupid. They knew that the very nature of civic involement tended to create a mass of follwers, following behind a considerably smaller class of leaders.


Quote:
It is that spirit which is behind the "Not In Our Name" anti-Iraqi Engagement bumperstickers, and I do not believe that spirit is peculiar to America either. The People are responsible Kev, and saying they have mislead by craft politicians does not alleviate them of their duties one bit.
Such thinking clears every horrible ruler and politician for their misdeeds, down the line from Hitler to Hussein.


Quote:
The targets the bombs were designed for needed to be dropped on Japan for a reason: They needed to realize that despire their projected power they could be reached. They were initially targeted for military sites and set to detonate high enough above the gound that those on ground zero would not feel the full affect. You want to call our World War 2 generation terrorists? Fine, you are entitled to an opinion, but personally, I thinkt hat is probably the cruelest commentary I've ever witnessed. I think now I might have been wrong to encourage you to enter politics.

Whatever. I never once called WW II vets terrorists. I'm not some relativist who sees an American ROTC soldier trying to get through college as the same thing as a murderer from Hamas or Islamic Jihad. I do however think that the decision makers at the top, INCLUDING President Truman, used poor discretion when deciding to use such terrible weapons. I think you are kidding yourself if you believe that the dropping of the bombs wasn't a culmination of several things, some sinister, and some righteous. My point is IMO, when you weigh the two, the righteous arguments were not worth the consequences.

Quote:
Read the conditions, and tell me which one we shoudl have sacrificed in the name of peace. We sacrficed Prague to Russia in the name of peace, and No Korea to the Chinese. . .How many innocent lived does peace require? War is more honest than that sort of treachery.
The unconditional peace was FDR's baby with the Soviets, and I feel that an agreement could've been reached on the terms. Negotiations could've been held. Men could've solved things in a civil fashion.

I find it funny though that you think dropping two atomic bombs was worth it to stop the bloodiest war we had ever seen, yet letting go of a stipulation and conducting negotiations would've been outrageous.

Quote:
Kevin, you are left brother. I don't need to red-bait you, you glow Crimson when the nights flicker off. I'm a blind nationalists in many regards, not because I don't see error in past actions, but because I know the limitation to human understanding, and that for those who had to make such decisions, the options we see looking back were not available to them. I a soft judge on the past, those men did the best they could, and I could not have asked for more. It was a different world then, and one I cannot help but feel I would feel more comfortable living in.
Not questioning the actions of the past, while at the same time relinquishing all blame from the present and past leadership, doesn't seem to be a good place to me.

Just shrugging our collective shoulders and saying "well, they did the best they could" isn't enough. You can hold that same respect and umnderstanding while at the same time calling them out for the wrongs they've commited (something you frequently do regarding folks such as FDR).


Quote:
I've never disagreed on this point, I only resist what I feel undermines the Supreme Law of the Land. Communism is such a philosophy which would render our Constitution powerless.
I'd be interested to hear how the arguments made by the above posted article would lead to such a thing. If anything, the modern Liberal progressives are the defenders of the Constitution, not its defilers.

Also, on the argument last post over whether or not Truman approved the Nagasaki bombing, I promised you a citation. The directive to drop the atomic bomb, dated 8/25/45, drafted by General Groves to General Carl Spaatz to be submitted at Potsdam, declared that "Additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by the project staff." This needed to be signed off on by Stimson and General Marshall, but it ultimately gave Groves the discretion. The potential targets had previously been agreed upon, but perhaps Truman and the JCS had to sign off on that. But it seems as if Truman didn't have a say about the second bombing, specifically when/where/and if.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Grande Grande is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In front of the computer
Grande is probably a spambot
Old Jul 19th, 2003, 01:06 AM       
ho hum, what a conundrum.
__________________
You know what happens when you slice a golfball in half? Someone gets mad at you. I found this out the hard way.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 19th, 2003, 02:44 AM       
shat ap.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:29 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.