.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
AndyMan 7
Recommended Posts
1. This war is not about oil.
2. We make fun of the French on a personal level. And for being wusses. They make fun (whine) about us on a political level. Those wusses.
2. We make fun of the French on a personal level. And for being wusses. They make fun (whine) about us on a political level. Those wusses.
QuoteI want to know if you consider the behavior I described to be the actions of a patriot, since you are the DZ.com expert on patriotism.
You aren't a native born American, are you, John? How long have you been a naturalized citizen? I would guess quite a while since you feel qualified to lecture us on patriotism.
kallend 1,648
Quote
QuoteI want to know if you consider the behavior I described to be the actions of a patriot, since you are the DZ.com expert on patriotism.
You aren't a native born American, are you, John? How long have you been a naturalized citizen? I would guess quite a while since you feel qualified to lecture us on patriotism.
It was not a lecture, it was a QUESTION. Your response is just another attempt to avoid answering the question.
The word "patriot" is a word in the English language and the question is reasonable. How about an answer.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,648
Well, I checked Sangiro's rules for the use of DZ.com, and I couldn't find anything that said only US citizens may participate.
So I'll ask once again of our self-proclaimed experts on patriotism:
Is it the action of a patriot to get your well connected father to obtain a billet for you in the National Guard so you don't have to go to Vietnam, and then not turn up for your duty?
So I'll ask once again of our self-proclaimed experts on patriotism:
Is it the action of a patriot to get your well connected father to obtain a billet for you in the National Guard so you don't have to go to Vietnam, and then not turn up for your duty?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuote
QuoteI want to know if you consider the behavior I described to be the actions of a patriot, since you are the DZ.com expert on patriotism.
You aren't a native born American, are you, John? How long have you been a naturalized citizen? I would guess quite a while since you feel qualified to lecture us on patriotism.QuoteIt was not a lecture, it was a QUESTION. Your response is just another attempt to avoid answering the question.
QuoteThe word "patriot" is a word in the English language and the question is reasonable. How about an answer.
John, I believe this is the second time in so many days you have confused me with someone else. I haven't made a single statement on this thread or any other, regarding Patriotism up to this point. I haven't said what I thought it is, declared whether I was or wasn't, criticized anyone who said they were or weren't, or made a single comment regarding Patriotism. Your question to me and the obvious defensivness of your answer is not only out of line but unresponsive.
If you and I were discussing something skydiving related, I don't think it's out of line to ask about your experience. Therefore, don't think it's out of line to ask where your base of knowledge regarding Patriotism comes from.
Patriotism isn't something you read about in books. It isn't something you understand by debating. Short answer is its something you feel in your heart. If you have been in this country for some time and haven't applied for citizenship, I think it's important to the have that information on the table. It is germain to this discussion and helps give the reader some insight as to what your life experience has been and whether or not you truely understand the emotionality of being a Patriot.
A Patriot loves their country and is willing to die for it. If you don't feel that way, then you really have no idea what Patriotism is and explaining it is like explaining skydiving to a whuffo.
So are you a citizen or aren't you? If not, why not?
QuoteIs it the action of a patriot to get your well connected father to obtain a billet for you in the National Guard so you don't have to go to Vietnam, and then not turn up for your duty?
I'll answer the question for you if you can prove to me with facts (no speculation) that Bush joined the National Guard specifically to avoid going to Vietnam. I've served in the National Guard during war time. I didn't do it to avoid war. We need some evidence.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin
AndyMan 7
QuotePatriotism isn't something you read about in books. It isn't something you understand by debating. Short answer is its something you feel in your heart. If you have been in this country for some time and haven't applied for citizenship, I think it's important to the have that information on the table. It is germain to this discussion and helps give the reader some insight as to what your life experience has been and whether or not you truely understand the emotionality of being a Patriot
What makes you think he isn't an English patriot? Is there a difference between American patriotism and that held by others in the rest of the world?
Am I allowed to be a Canadian patriot while living in Chicago?
_Am
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
sfc 0
QuoteQuote
1. This war is not about oil.
You really believe this???
I don't know why people pretend this is just about terrorism, sure we really need to kick Saddam's ass because of that as well this time, but oil is still a big factor just like it was when we went in for the first time, and we should not be ashamed of protecting our interests, the damage that these guys can do to us economically is massive, just look at what is happenning to the gas prices now, imagine what would happen if the oil stopped?
Found this on the BBC New web site, it's all about oil and money and war with iraq, it is an interesting view on the French perspective. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2757797.stmQuote
France's economic ties to Iraq
Economics is an important factor in any Iraqi war
By John Laurenson
In Paris
Opinion polls show almost 80% of people in France are against a US-led war against Iraq.
Many of those see American military and economic aims in Iraq as one and the same thing.
America's critics claim that America's policy on Iraq is driven by its appetite for oil.
But could similar claims be made about France?
Power games
During the late 1970s, French companies started work on the Tamuz One nuclear reactor near Baghdad - designed to produce plutonium - and on a second reactor, Tamuz Two.
Mr Chirac has extensive links with Baghdad
The first was destroyed by Israeli fighter bombers in 1981.
During the Iran-Iraq war, France was soon supplying Iraq with top level military hardware of its own.
All told, France sold some $25bn-worth of weaponry to Iraq before the UN embargo was imposed after the Gulf War.
A report commissioned by the French parliament published last September puts the value of French exports to Iraq since sanctions were imposed at $3.5bn.
Agnes Levallois, a specialist in business in the Middle East, cites the example of French pharmaceutical firms, all of whom she says sell antibiotics and other basic medicines in Iraq.
Oil the spur
In July 2001, when relations chilled, Saddam froze these companies' contracts, but renewed them once diplomatic relations thawed.
Even in 2001, France sold Iraq $650m-worth of goods, more than any other country, and was the Western country with the largest number of stands at last November's Baghdad Trade Fair.
But above all, the French are interested in Iraqi oil.
Nicolas Sarkis, of Arab Oil and Gas magazine, says France's state-controlled TotalFinaElf is poised to win contracts to drill the largest unexploited oil reserves in the world.
Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi banker who presides the Iraqi National Council - the American-backed organisation supposed to bring democracy to a post-Saddam Iraq - has said that American firms will be given a "preponderant role".
If war is unleashed on Iraq, it will not only be a blow to French diplomacy but to French industry as well.
What I get tired of is people like John who come to this country to take advantage of what we have built and then bashing our President, the American people, and much of what we stand for. Then lecturing us about patriotism. John has been in this country for over 10 years sucking on the American nipple and very seldom does he have anything positive to say about America or the American People. He apparently has a certain degree of guilt about living here which is why he refuses to answer questions about it. Yes, I think there is a difference in what is Patriotic in different countries around the world. I think some countries are more beloved by there people than others. You think what is Patriotism in N. Korea is the same as it is in Canada?
Shark 0
QuoteBush joined the National Guard specifically to avoid going to Vietnam.
I believe it was the Air National Guard. And his reason was he was flying F-4s. Let's see, Nam or jets?
Speer 0
We're all at least part time bystanders, I do not deny the charge. However, I cannot use that for a defense. I have spent my fair share of time creating the smoke of which you perhaps speak. Being an old fart, I've had a lot of years to watch, and participate... So, to make it clear, I have been a part of the United States efforts to secure peace, safety, freedom for anyone who wants it, and what ever other descriptions of our activities anyone may wish to hurl. I expect to be held accountable to a higher being (and I'm not entirely comfortable with my every performance), so, I'm not very threatened by the judgement of other humans.
There are a lot of things for which I am embarrassed (the things I should have known better about), and a few for which I am ashamed (those things I DID know better, and chose to do them anyway). The problem is it is all too easy to stand back as an un-involved bystander, and feel no obligation to act responsibly.
It's fashionable to wax poetic on things of love and the senselessness of destruction, but then that's the easy part. I believe that all things evil are senseless, but that doesn't stop them from existing. Claiming to be a proponent of peace doesn't absolve anyone from the responsibility to act, even if the required response is violent. I know many people truly believe the "required" response has to be one other than violence. I wish that were true...I hope it becomes true in this case...I've seen enough ugliness already.
Mark Twain had it half right... "Writers are realists who think they're romantics, (Warriors) Soldiers are romantics who think they are realists". I haven't had too much experience with writers who are realists, but I have found that warriors are remarkably "romantic" if that means dedication to ideals of faithfulness to one another and Country. The comments elsewhere on this post, I believe, refer to this bond with likeminded sufferers who have made the commitment. Statements regarding the inability of others to understand that bond are for the most part valid. Don't take offense if you aren't part of the group.
Many thanks to the Brits, Aussies, S. Koreans, and others I've worked with. The pride, professionalism and dedication with which they served brings honor to their respective counties. Thank you gentlemen, I as an American, thank you.
And Godspeed to all who serve in the name of the U.S.
DUM SPIRO, SPERO
Russ
Generally, it is your choice; will your life serve as an example... or a warning?
There are a lot of things for which I am embarrassed (the things I should have known better about), and a few for which I am ashamed (those things I DID know better, and chose to do them anyway). The problem is it is all too easy to stand back as an un-involved bystander, and feel no obligation to act responsibly.
It's fashionable to wax poetic on things of love and the senselessness of destruction, but then that's the easy part. I believe that all things evil are senseless, but that doesn't stop them from existing. Claiming to be a proponent of peace doesn't absolve anyone from the responsibility to act, even if the required response is violent. I know many people truly believe the "required" response has to be one other than violence. I wish that were true...I hope it becomes true in this case...I've seen enough ugliness already.
Mark Twain had it half right... "Writers are realists who think they're romantics, (Warriors) Soldiers are romantics who think they are realists". I haven't had too much experience with writers who are realists, but I have found that warriors are remarkably "romantic" if that means dedication to ideals of faithfulness to one another and Country. The comments elsewhere on this post, I believe, refer to this bond with likeminded sufferers who have made the commitment. Statements regarding the inability of others to understand that bond are for the most part valid. Don't take offense if you aren't part of the group.
Many thanks to the Brits, Aussies, S. Koreans, and others I've worked with. The pride, professionalism and dedication with which they served brings honor to their respective counties. Thank you gentlemen, I as an American, thank you.
And Godspeed to all who serve in the name of the U.S.
DUM SPIRO, SPERO
Russ
Generally, it is your choice; will your life serve as an example... or a warning?
QuoteWe're all at least part time bystanders, I do not deny the charge. However, I cannot use that for a defense. I have spent my fair share of time creating the smoke of which you perhaps speak. Being an old fart, I've had a lot of years to watch, and participate... So, to make it clear, I have been a part of the United States efforts to secure peace, safety, freedom for anyone who wants it, and what ever other descriptions of our activities anyone may wish to hurl. I expect to be held accountable to a higher being (and I'm not entirely comfortable with my every performance), so, I'm not very threatened by the judgement of other humans.
There are a lot of things for which I am embarrassed (the things I should have known better about), and a few for which I am ashamed (those things I DID know better, and chose to do them anyway). The problem is it is all too easy to stand back as an un-involved bystander, and feel no obligation to act responsibly.
It's fashionable to wax poetic on things of love and the senselessness of destruction, but then that's the easy part. I believe that all things evil are senseless, but that doesn't stop them from existing. Claiming to be a proponent of peace doesn't absolve anyone from the responsibility to act, even if the required response is violent. I know many people truly believe the "required" response has to be one other than violence. I wish that were true...I hope it becomes true in this case...I've seen enough ugliness already.
Mark Twain had it half right... "Writers are realists who think they're romantics, (Warriors) Soldiers are romantics who think they are realists". I haven't had too much experience with writers who are realists, but I have found that warriors are remarkably "romantic" if that means dedication to ideals of faithfulness to one another and Country. The comments elsewhere on this post, I believe, refer to this bond with likeminded sufferers who have made the commitment. Statements regarding the inability of others to understand that bond are for the most part valid. Don't take offense if you aren't part of the group.
Many thanks to the Brits, Aussies, S. Koreans, and others I've worked with. The pride, professionalism and dedication with which they served brings honor to their respective counties. Thank you gentlemen, I as an American, thank you.
And Godspeed to all who serve in the name of the U.S.
DUM SPIRO, SPERO
That has to be one of the best posts I've read in this and similar threads that have heated this site up lately. I've given up on the political debating on this site as much as possible because I look forward to coming here and reading skydiving related topics, not to see what political idealogy is being catered to or bashed at the moment. Ultimately, I feel that we will all be held accountable to a higher being and I can relate a lot to this post because I've made some of the same decissions in my life as well. It seems the truth is usually allways the simplest answer and rings true to everyones ears, even if they refuse to acknowledge it.
"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING
kallend 1,648
QuoteWhat I get tired of is people like John who come to this country to take advantage of what we have built and then bashing our President, the American people, and much of what we stand for. Then lecturing us about patriotism. John has been in this country for over 10 years sucking on the American nipple and very seldom does he have anything positive to say about America or the American People. He apparently has a certain degree of guilt about living here which is why he refuses to answer questions about it. Yes, I think there is a difference in what is Patriotic in different countries around the world. I think some countries are more beloved by there people than others. You think what is Patriotism in N. Korea is the same as it is in Canada?
Your personal attack on me was brought on by a simple question - one that you apparently don't wish to answer. Why not - too embarrassing for you?
How about commenting on the message instead of the messenger. If anything I wrote is factually incorrect or has faulty logic, please tell me. Otherwise your ad-hominem attack is just another example of debate by baloney.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Speer 0
It really ISN'T about oil for America...it is a consequence / "collateral" damage however. The WORLD can do without Iraq's oil, even if it does inflate the price somewhat. France however, is not in the same position...the loss of Iraqi oil will apparently have a much greater negative impact on them. Is that driving their political position? They stand to lose a rather tidy profit in foreign trade with the demise of Saddam's regime(as will Germany)...Is that driving their political position?
Your BBC reference just states what has been known for years. France (and Germany) have been significant trading partners with Iraq.
Not that America has not made similar mistakes in dealing with less than "nice" leaders. After all, the last "Leader of the Free World" boasted how his crowning achievement was the nuclear treaty with N Korea... and lamented the fact on how President Bush had thrown it all away with his "Axis of Evil" speech. How giving money, food, and technology to the N. Koreans had reduced the nuclear threat to the world.... So we know how every great crisis in the past has been averted by diplomacy, right? Every time a despot threatened his neighbors, reason has prevailed, right? All we have to do is give a fanatic more time, right? If we hold hands, sing KUM BA YA, kiss them on the cheek, break bread with them, give them a little more land, ignore the slaughter in their own land (it's none of our business, right?), treat them with respect...they'll turn into a nice person, right? Just like that success story, N. Korea. Whaaat?? we trusted them!! and thanked them nicely!!! smiled approvingly, and patted ourselves on the back for being so civilized!! Now we find out that they've been hard at work on Nukes since the ink was still wet on the treaty in '94!!! while we fed their starving people!!!
It will negatively impact our economy in the short term...it is a cost, not benefit, to start a war with Iraq. No, this war if it comes will cost America dearly. Lives, money, respect, and friends through out the world. Since few will seriously debate the fact that Iraq has used WMD, and that Saddam is evil, what price do we force our children to pay when the time comes to deal with the problem we don't solve today? Do any of you truly believe that Saddam's Iraq will not become a greater threat?
Russ
Generally, it is your choice; will your life serve as an example... or a warning?
Your BBC reference just states what has been known for years. France (and Germany) have been significant trading partners with Iraq.
Not that America has not made similar mistakes in dealing with less than "nice" leaders. After all, the last "Leader of the Free World" boasted how his crowning achievement was the nuclear treaty with N Korea... and lamented the fact on how President Bush had thrown it all away with his "Axis of Evil" speech. How giving money, food, and technology to the N. Koreans had reduced the nuclear threat to the world.... So we know how every great crisis in the past has been averted by diplomacy, right? Every time a despot threatened his neighbors, reason has prevailed, right? All we have to do is give a fanatic more time, right? If we hold hands, sing KUM BA YA, kiss them on the cheek, break bread with them, give them a little more land, ignore the slaughter in their own land (it's none of our business, right?), treat them with respect...they'll turn into a nice person, right? Just like that success story, N. Korea. Whaaat?? we trusted them!! and thanked them nicely!!! smiled approvingly, and patted ourselves on the back for being so civilized!! Now we find out that they've been hard at work on Nukes since the ink was still wet on the treaty in '94!!! while we fed their starving people!!!
It will negatively impact our economy in the short term...it is a cost, not benefit, to start a war with Iraq. No, this war if it comes will cost America dearly. Lives, money, respect, and friends through out the world. Since few will seriously debate the fact that Iraq has used WMD, and that Saddam is evil, what price do we force our children to pay when the time comes to deal with the problem we don't solve today? Do any of you truly believe that Saddam's Iraq will not become a greater threat?
Russ
Generally, it is your choice; will your life serve as an example... or a warning?
Speer 0
Thank you for your kind words.
Amen to your reluctance to take up political disscussion. I popped onto this forum the other day just to see what was here...and couln't help reading the Anti-Americanism thread. Then couldn't help myself from commenting...
It remains as you say, FREEDOM ISN'T FREE
Russ
Generally, it is your choice; will your life serve as an example... or a warning?
Amen to your reluctance to take up political disscussion. I popped onto this forum the other day just to see what was here...and couln't help reading the Anti-Americanism thread. Then couldn't help myself from commenting...
It remains as you say, FREEDOM ISN'T FREE
Russ
Generally, it is your choice; will your life serve as an example... or a warning?
Michele 1
Russ, well spoken and well presented...not to mention well thought-out. Thanks!
No, I cannot see how it will be better in 6 months, 1 year, 5 years. I believe that there are far more issues being negotiated behind the scenes and are playing out in an interesting manner. Hands are being tipped, as it were.
The powerplay in the UN is intriguing. Bush has stated in the past, if the UN fails to act on 1441, which was unanimous at the outset, it becomes a "useless" appendage (personal belief? Not necessarily)...what seems to be occurring with France, Germany, and yes Russia are all protecting their financial interests and economic treaties in Iraq, some (it would seem) against the embargo. In November 2002, there was unanimity in the Security Council. February 14, 2003 there is not. What has changed in the meantime is that France, Germany and Russia have figured out that the US is serious - unlike perceptions prior - and are making a move to protect their own vital interests.
I do not know offhand what percentage of oil France and Germany import from the region - I would suggest that it is higher than the US's importation. I am not certain what position Russia has, except that there clearly is one.
As for WMD, Iraq has played a shell game for many many years, always conceding just enough to keep the Security Council at bay, in the nick of time. They continually buy themselves additional months, which turn into years, which turn into decades. Everyone knows that there are WMD - components of all of them have been sold by all parties. At this point, however, there is a clear need to account for, and destroy, them. Saddam Hussein has NOT kept the terms of the cease fire from 1991. He has not dealt fairly and honestly with the Security Council. Untold amounts of money and time have been spent (not to mention bandwidth - thanks, HH) debating this issue, but the time for words and diplomacy, having NOT worked for the last 12 years, is over. There comes a time when the UN must deal decisively with this issue, and I believe that this time is now.
People argue and posit that this time is no different than 1991; I propose that now is far different than then. In 1991, there was agression in Kuwait, and the mandate of the war was simple - push Saddam back over his own borders, and disarm him so this could not happen again. We never marched into Iraq with the intent to take him down, to change his regime. This time, it is wholly clear that the regime change is the goal. Because of the history between France and Iraq, regime change is frightening and threatening to the French. Their economy will be hughly affected. Their alliances will be known. And they are fighting to deter that change however they can. Further, France has a large Islamic population. Chirac is hard-pressed to keep his constituency happy should they agree easily to a war.
It is not about the oil only. And it is not about America's use for that oil. While that does indeed have some impact, it is not all, nor most, of the issue. There are many and varied, and I don't know even a fraction of them to speak intelligently on it.
I cannot see how it can get better on it's own. And, like most difficult situations, it will get worse before it gets better. And I believe we will see an entirely different UN at the outcome of this than what we see currently - good or ill, it will be a different one.
Thanks, Russ, for bringing this back to a level wherein ideas, positions, thoughts and concerns can be addressed with maturity and without namecalling and mudslinging.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
QuoteDo any of you truly believe that Saddam's Iraq will not become a greater threat?
No, I cannot see how it will be better in 6 months, 1 year, 5 years. I believe that there are far more issues being negotiated behind the scenes and are playing out in an interesting manner. Hands are being tipped, as it were.
The powerplay in the UN is intriguing. Bush has stated in the past, if the UN fails to act on 1441, which was unanimous at the outset, it becomes a "useless" appendage (personal belief? Not necessarily)...what seems to be occurring with France, Germany, and yes Russia are all protecting their financial interests and economic treaties in Iraq, some (it would seem) against the embargo. In November 2002, there was unanimity in the Security Council. February 14, 2003 there is not. What has changed in the meantime is that France, Germany and Russia have figured out that the US is serious - unlike perceptions prior - and are making a move to protect their own vital interests.
I do not know offhand what percentage of oil France and Germany import from the region - I would suggest that it is higher than the US's importation. I am not certain what position Russia has, except that there clearly is one.
As for WMD, Iraq has played a shell game for many many years, always conceding just enough to keep the Security Council at bay, in the nick of time. They continually buy themselves additional months, which turn into years, which turn into decades. Everyone knows that there are WMD - components of all of them have been sold by all parties. At this point, however, there is a clear need to account for, and destroy, them. Saddam Hussein has NOT kept the terms of the cease fire from 1991. He has not dealt fairly and honestly with the Security Council. Untold amounts of money and time have been spent (not to mention bandwidth - thanks, HH) debating this issue, but the time for words and diplomacy, having NOT worked for the last 12 years, is over. There comes a time when the UN must deal decisively with this issue, and I believe that this time is now.
People argue and posit that this time is no different than 1991; I propose that now is far different than then. In 1991, there was agression in Kuwait, and the mandate of the war was simple - push Saddam back over his own borders, and disarm him so this could not happen again. We never marched into Iraq with the intent to take him down, to change his regime. This time, it is wholly clear that the regime change is the goal. Because of the history between France and Iraq, regime change is frightening and threatening to the French. Their economy will be hughly affected. Their alliances will be known. And they are fighting to deter that change however they can. Further, France has a large Islamic population. Chirac is hard-pressed to keep his constituency happy should they agree easily to a war.
It is not about the oil only. And it is not about America's use for that oil. While that does indeed have some impact, it is not all, nor most, of the issue. There are many and varied, and I don't know even a fraction of them to speak intelligently on it.
I cannot see how it can get better on it's own. And, like most difficult situations, it will get worse before it gets better. And I believe we will see an entirely different UN at the outcome of this than what we see currently - good or ill, it will be a different one.
Thanks, Russ, for bringing this back to a level wherein ideas, positions, thoughts and concerns can be addressed with maturity and without namecalling and mudslinging.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
n2skdvn 0
kudos michele..kudos
--
--
if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN
my site
my site
Speer 0
Thanks Michele,
Me thinks you are rather well informed... and you present the issues very well.
As for mudslinging, I confess I've done a little, but when it really mattered, I just wore the mud.
Russ
Generally, it is your choice; will your life serve as an example... or a warning?
Me thinks you are rather well informed... and you present the issues very well.
As for mudslinging, I confess I've done a little, but when it really mattered, I just wore the mud.
Russ
Generally, it is your choice; will your life serve as an example... or a warning?
12bhi 0
And I will say it one more time,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Cant we all just
get along
QuoteAm I allowed to be a Canadian patriot while living in Chicago?
You know, in some circles, a US citizen who is a patriot to another country can be labeled a traitor if he acts on those beliefs.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin
You have just given a perfect example of "special pleading" - one form of a completely meaningless argument. A good explanation for this concept can be found in the "Baloney Detection Kit", by well known author Carl Sagan. You can find it here: - http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/baloney.htm
Indeed, if it is the case that myself, or phreezone, or anyone else here can not understand the value of serving because we haven't been there, indeed that can be said of by far the vast majority of US population. Aparently, the majority of Americans is unqualified to understand what you're talking about. This also aplies to most US presidents, including the current one .
_Am
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites