BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Burning down the Haus part 2 - Attack of the Clones

 
  

Page: 1 ... 1213141516(17)

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:24 / 30.08.06
It's true that I probably, actually, shouldn't have even got into that - it's pretty obvious that two people can have different readings of a piece of text - .trampetunia and I just did, after all. The aim was to point out also that people can have different ideas not just about the meaning of a situation but about whether or not it is offensive. However, it was probably an example too far.

Hooooever... By "continually" you mean "once", and by "in the past" you mean "at about the same time", yes, Olula?
 
 
Aertho
14:01 / 30.08.06
Meow.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
14:05 / 30.08.06
(Haus) I apologise sometimes.

Well then, will you please apologise for suggesting I didn't read all Flyboy's post (I had), or for assuming that I wanted to prolong this pointless argument (I didn't, and don't, as I hope should be clear to all)?

I quoted what I quoted because, in essence, it agrees with the point I was trying to make. I will make it now in the simplest form I can:

Music by influential black artists is taken as being representative of black people in general. This can lead to a negative perception.

Now, I appreciate you're used to people making this sort of statement with the unseen rider: "and I agree with them that it should be taken as representative! they are teh bad!" That, however, should not lead you to assume that that is always the case, which, I fear, is what you did. The issue of whether there is a place for the description and/or glorification of violence in song is a wide one, and one which I'll happily talk to you and the board about, but it is secondary to the fact that the presence of description and glorification in rap sometimes leads to a negative perception of black artists (edit! and by extension black people in general), which is the triflingly simple thing I was trying to say.

What I wanted to do was draw some sort of line under this stupid and needless wrangling, so that I could post constructively in the music forum about rap music without it being seen as an attempt at engaging you in this dull and unproductive combat, which, I assure you, is far from the top of my to-do list.

I would like your apologies, and hope to receive them, but regardless: can we leave this be?
 
 
Aertho
14:05 / 30.08.06
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:23 / 30.08.06
Olula: Sorry, that was a little flippant. On kindness, to unpack:

While I understand your point and can see that it is regarding the different possible 'readings' of text, I don't think it was necessary to reference here what those potentially different readings were about, in this case whether trampetunia's posts could be considered informed by homophobia. It might have been a more thoughtful comparison if you had referenced the post without repeating the homophobic/not homophobic assertions.

But would that have been better? I mean, the discussion so far had cited specific examples - primarily Reidcourchie's citation of the July 7 bombings. If I had referenced the post (presumably you mean the discussion in Barbequotes) with a link, then in effect I would have mentioned the key issue of the discussion. If I had said something like "but you yourself have recent experience of posts being interpreted very differently by different people, as was recently evidenced", it would just have sounded sinister, and I would immediately have been open to criticisms that I was making baseless innuendi.

Which is a problem I have with the idea of kindness, or at least the formulation "it would have been kinder to have done x". In certain situations, where x is, for example, petting the kitten who you have instead just urinated over (to see how it likes it), this is a fairly safe bet. The more complex the system, however, the more difficult it is to predict what the kind action is. This is relevant because kindness is not just a description of an action - like "typing" - but also a moral quality.

Now, strictly speaking, it would probably have been kind to have acted immediately yo allay Reidcourchie's fears that straight white men's voices were not going to be given equal weight when talking about prejudice against people who are not white, straight and male. However, would that have been kind to everyone> Would it have been kinder, in the long term, to Reidcourchie? Going further back, it would almost certainly have been kinder to 33 not to add to his woes by challenging his views. And so on.

So, whereas I'm happy to talk about whether what I said was ill-advised, inconsistent, incoherent or just plain stupid, I'm uncomfortable with discussions of kindness, as they seem to suggest that I knew what the action that would subsequently be identified as "kind" was, and then chose not to do it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:03 / 30.08.06
Kay

Well then, will you please apologise for suggesting I didn't read all Flyboy's post (I had),

It's possible, then, that you missed the bit where he said:

This is, to use an accessible everyday idiom, bullshit.

This phrase to me suggests that he did not, in fact, concede that you were right after all, and indeed the rest of the paragraph that you quoted selectively further indicates that he understands your position to be rather different from what you are claiming here. As a general rule, a post which employs the word "bullshit" as descriptive of your arguments is not a complete or ringing endorsement.

As such, I put the most charitable possible spin on this (that you had been distracted, perhaps by a whistling kettle, and not read the enitre post) rather than, say, suggesting that you had decided selectively to quote the part which tallies with your latest rewriting of your position and then claim victory. I apologise for this, and if I return to spending any significant time posting to Barbelith I will do my best not to do it in future.

or for assuming that I wanted to prolong this pointless argument (I didn't, and don't, as I hope should be clear to all)?


I don't think I did. I assumed that you wanted to end it, and end it by getting the last word, and in that last word saying that you were right. I do not know why it is so important to you that you would selectively quote a post which clearly does not "concede your point", or that you would keep changing what you said rather than admit that you spoke unwisely in the first place, but I do know that it is bad for the level of discussion on Barbelith.

Incidentally:

The issue of whether there is a place for the description and/or glorification of violence in song is a wide one, and one which I'll happily talk to you and the board about, but it is secondary to the fact that the presence of description and glorification in rap sometimes leads to a negative perception of black artists, which is the triflingly simple thing I was trying to say.


Well, for starters, you actually started by talking about negative perceptions of black people, not black artists at all, since at that point black artists had not been mentioned, which you identified as the fault of other black people. At this point, nobody else had even mentioned hip-hop, I believe:

I suspect it won't make an awful lot of difference to public perceptions so long as the airwaves are brimful of upbeat, cheerful depictions of black Americans. Shooting each other and fucking their "ho"s, that is. Why bother letting other people charge you with violent misogyny when you can proclaim it for yourself? With friends like these...

If in fact you expressed yourself tragically badly there, and had hallucinated an entire discussion focussed entirely on black artists, for example, that you had eagerly but misguidedly contributed to, then it is a shame you chose to be quite so rude and dismissive when questioned, really. After your first rewriting of this, I asked:

But, Kay, what you actually _said_ was that it was pointless to worry about these little bits of colour prejudice thought up by Sony in the face of all the colour prejudice that was being facilitated by black people, by producing violently misogynistic music. Are you saying that this was absolutely not what you meant? If so, can you clarify what you meant by come on in the thread where you said that? Only, we come across this phrase quite often in these situations, and it seems to have a meaning akin to "I order you to assume that whatever I am saying is acceptable by dint of the fact that I am saying it".

This is just one of the many questions that have remained largely unanswered through the following five pages of blather.

As for the dangers of you starting a new thread on a rap musician - well, I personally would rather put my swingers through a mangle than try to talk to you about rap, especially after a five-page thread in which you managed, if I recall correctly, to mention a single actual hip-hop artist). However, I can't speak for the rest of Barbelith. A good start might be not to quote them selectively and then claim that they have admitted that you were right all along. That tends to hack people off.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:10 / 30.08.06
Ah. It appears that the triflingly simple position needed an edit before it tallied with the previous iterations. I think the main points stand, however.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:38 / 30.08.06
Oh, and incidentally:

Music by influential black artists is taken as being representative of black people in general. This can lead to a negative perception.

Now, I appreciate you're used to people making this sort of statement with the unseen rider: "and I agree with them that it should be taken as representative! they are teh bad!" That, however, should not lead you to assume that that is always the case, which, I fear, is what you did.


I have to ask - have you actually read any of the threads you have participated in? Nobody has accused you of thinking or saying that black people in general are "teh bad!". People have accused you of applying to black people operating in the arts a standard which you would not ever have applied to white people operating in the arts - making them (and then, when cornered, narrowing it down to hip-hop and then to "gangsta rappers") responsible for how black people as a whole are perceived. Your subsequent protestations that, like Uatu the Watcher, you only observe are a little embarrassing, not least because you are observing and making judgements from a postion of white privilege. Compare Jackie Susann's last word on that unlovely monster of a thread, quoting from a member of the Coup:

In the stuff that's called gangsta rap people are talking about the trials and tribulations that they had to go through just to survive in the system. And there are many times where the analysis in there is a lot more pointedly anti-authority than some songs that are considered conscious. There are many songs that are considered conscious that are basically just telling people that are listening that they don't have their head right. What's crazy is that throughout the time that we [The Coup] been around I get all kind of rappers that come up to me that would be wrongly put into the gansgta category, but they're all saying "Yeah we talk about the same shit, we breaking that science down so they know what's goin on." What in their hearts, what they're doing is saying "This is how the world works, I am going to tell you something that makes it easier to survive." What that's coming from is a general love for the people.

Do we need to unlock that thread and go round again?
 
 
Aertho
18:11 / 30.08.06
boring
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
18:55 / 30.08.06
The point: "some music by black artists leads to a negative perception of black people as a whole".

Now, it doesn't matter whether you, or I, or anyone else, thinks that that should be so. It doesn't matter why it should be so. I'm happy to discuss those questions, I think they're interesting, but they're not directly relevant.

What I don't understand is why you imagined, and keep imagining, some kind of hidden racist subtext. I'm not making that statement out of some blinkered process which forbids me saying the same thing of white artists. I just don't think the same thing obtains very much in reverse. I don't think that white musicians are considered as emblematic, as symbolic, and I don't think the equivalent effect is as strong. Dare I suggest that there might be more racism directed at black people than at white people*?

Or, perhaps, you don't agree that people in general can form opinions biased against ethnic groups when prominent members of those groups do things they don't like? I'd say there was quite a lot of that about in society at the moment, but again, I'm willing to discuss it.

I hope you understand me. It's not a complicated thing, and it's not intrinsically racist to say it. I dearly hope we can find something more interesting to do. You're not being "defeated", you're not "losing", it's frankly not that important, so can we just leave it?

*Actually, I suspect that may not be true. Methinks there's probably a hell of a lot of vitriolic hatred directed at whites in the world. But I digress, and that's maybe not the same thing.
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:11 / 30.08.06
You're not being "defeated", you're not "losing", it's frankly not that important, so can we just leave it?

Now, there's something I'd like to see

Actually, I'm glad we have this thread to concentrate all the Hausified debates on Barbelith on one place. If only I could resist the urge to drop by and see where it's going! But it's like a car crash in a highway: we can't help but to slow down and take a look, even though we kind of already know waht it's going to be like.

Sorry, this whole post was provocative and uncalled for.
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:18 / 30.08.06
Methinks there's probably a hell of a lot of vitriolic hatred directed at whites in the world.

Granted, but, speaking as a white straight male myself, I have to admit a good portion of that hatred is well deserved.
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:26 / 30.08.06
Also, forgive me for the threadrot, but from now on I shall always picture Haus as an impatient Quicksilver on therapy.

wow, three in a row...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:31 / 30.08.06
What I don't understand is why you imagined, and keep imagining, some kind of hidden racist subtext.

Ah, the "are you calling me a racist?" defence. Questioned on their actions, the skittish Barbeloid goes for this nuclear option. After all, they reason, to be a racist is, as we know, awful, and as such to call somebody a racist is a matter of tremendous gravity. Therefore, if they tell somebody that they are calling them a racist , that person will back off at once, so shocked are they at the horrible gravity of what they have been told they are doing. You already did this once, above. You have yet to substantiate your claims about my or anyone else's secret thoughts with reference to anything somebody actually said, rather than thinking very loudly

Pretty standard. For reference, I am not calling you a racist, Kay. I'm saying that your argumentation is offensively incoherent and solipsistic, is based on a near-total ignorance of hip-hop, is lousy with white privilege and keeps changing in your reluctance to listen to anyone else. I will add that the vendetta against those who dare to disagree with you which has seen you crash this thread not once but twice with unsubstantiated claims is becoming unseemly.

Now, would you like to try to reduce your claims a little further? Maybe to four words? I notice that that gorgeously Daily Mail "with friends like these..." coda you put in has been dropped, and if you had any sense you would have tried to get it edited out as well, since it rather demonstrates that what you claim you were saying all along you were not. I'm glad that you have dropped all that rather salivatory disapproval about the fucking of hos. I'm profoundly grateful that the mumbly smokescreening about being a natural philosopher has ben dropped. I'm rather enjoying this new commitment to economy.

As such, I'd be happy to discuss anything you like with you, once you show any sign of reading or thinking about what other people say.

You're not being "defeated", you're not "losing"

Oh, I get that.
 
 
Aertho
20:16 / 30.08.06
(Quicksilver's not on therapy. He's merely talking about life as he sees it. SPOILERS! Doc Samson just happens to be there.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:22 / 30.08.06
In fact, for posterity:

I suspect it won't make an awful lot of difference to public perceptions so long as the airwaves are brimful of upbeat, cheerful depictions of black Americans. Shooting each other and fucking their "ho"s, that is. Why bother letting other people charge you with violent misogyny when you can proclaim it for yourself? With friends like these..

Key phrase: Why bother letting other people charge you (black Americans) with violent misogyny when you (not black Americans at all, oh no. Absolutely not. Just a small group of black Americans working in hip-hop. With no condemnation implied. Only observation) can proclaim it for yourself? With friends like these...

Key point: Faced with examples of white European advertising executives and Japanese programmers potentially advancing offensive stereotypes, Kay's immediate response is to find a way to talk instead about the sins of black Americans. And, in fact, to upbraid us for wasting our time looking at offensive stereotypes purveyed by anyone else - even multi-billion dollar corporations with presence in, at a conservative estimate, every other middle-class home in Europe, America and Japan - when the bad habits of (apparently a very small number of) black Americans remain unchecked (I'm not sure how brimful the airwaves of the Netherlands are with "gangsta rap", but notwithstanding).

Makes good sense: after all, nobody on Barbelith dares talk about anything else until the twin crises of world hunger and climate change have been averted. Could one even imagine until then complaining about the iniquities of, say, role-playing games not accurately reflecting that women are weaker than men? Foolish even to propose.

However, id entity and alas, who might actually talk some sweet reason here, are on sabbatical, and having once again volleyed a pearl with deadly accuracy slap-bang into the flightpath of Wilbur over there I think it's time to lock myself out of my suit for a bit again.

Final thought: This is not about winning or losing. It is about taking responsibility. The dialogue of winning and losing, of concession and victory, was not introduced by me here, and I don't think it's a usful dialogue. What would be useful would be for everyone concerned to look at the positions they have at various points adopted and to ask themselves if those positions are in fact the same position, and if not what has happened to change them. I don't find where we have ended up terribly contentious, but I don't see it as the same place as where we started, and I would be a little concerned if I did.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:24 / 30.08.06
On the plus side, I really like Doc Samson.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
20:32 / 30.08.06
There are so many ticks on the plus side, duuuude.
 
 
Olulabelle
20:45 / 30.08.06
Cassandra: boring

Cassandra, if this is boring then don't read it. If you must read it and all you can think of to say is boring, then I feel very sad for you.
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:47 / 30.08.06
Ah, the "are you calling me a racist?" defence. Questioned on their actions, the skittish Barbeloid goes for this nuclear option. After all, they reason, to be a racist is, as we know, awful, and as such to call somebody a racist is a matter of tremendous gravity. Therefore, if they tell somebody that they are calling them a racist , that person will back off at once, so shocked are they at the horrible gravity of what they have been told they are doing.

Oh, is that like saying someone is using rhetorics and/or semantics????


(Quicksilver's not on therapy. He's merely talking about life as he sees it. SPOILERS! Doc Samson just happens to be there.)

Yeah, I remember that, they were deciding if they would let him join the X-Factor. But, hey, if there's one Marvel Comics character that could use some therapy (ther the Bruce Banner, evidently), it's Quicksilver. I mean, talking about abusive parents...
Is it like accusing someone of using rhetorics and semantics?
 
 
The Falcon
20:52 / 30.08.06
I don't think this is boring at all. I've had my problems with Haus, (who hasn't, eh?) but this is a thoroughly merited serving he's tabling. A treat.
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:58 / 30.08.06
I'm having a great time here

And liking Doc Samson? C'MON!!! Haus, you're weird.
 
 
Aertho
21:05 / 30.08.06
Haha. Save the Kleenex. It's boring to reopen a thread just so's Haus can pound into Kay again that ze isn't reading what Haus wants hir to understand.

So from me: Kay, this is Haus. Haus simply requires that you really really really really consider what you're thinking, feeling, writing and reading. Instead of attempting to defend yourself, ask where the confusion lies, and what you can do to alleviate it.



It's boring for Haus. He's taking a break, you know. I'd prefer him to stay and write lively, witty, exciting things, but arguing arguing arguing has got to be boring for him to write, and yes, for me to read.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
21:27 / 30.08.06
Instead of attempting to defend yourself, ask where the confusion lies, and what you can do to alleviate it.

Point taken.
 
 
Tom Coates
21:52 / 30.08.06
Coming in out of nowhere and responding to the thread's initial point, I will say - as I have said in the past - that there is often a difference between being right and persuading people and that in my opinion there are people on the board, Haus included, who on occasion concentrate too much on the former and not enough on the latter. From my position as someone who often has to work out what to do when tensions on the board reach breaking point, I've been sort of forced into having to do this stuff. It's not particularly easy, but I'd say it's in the end more satisfying.

I will repeat here what I've said many times before - that people should be thinking not only about being right but about what they want the result of the discussions to be. Do they want to have a satisfying victory over someone who will end up resenting them and the board and will fight to their dying breath and feel alienated - or do they want to give people a way to save face in the immediate argument and be gradually persuaded in the longer term. I genuinely believe that giving people a space to admit they're wrong without too much loss of face is not only a socially positive thing to do, but also an honourable thing to do. And in the end I think it's a more successful way to get your ideas adopted.

I still think, however, that Haus is a substantial asset to Barbelith. He's a sharp, insightful and well-educated man and a long-term poster with a real sense of the culture & history of the place. I'd rather have a stroppy Haus on the board than no Haus at all by a hell of a long way... But an opinion was asked for, and an opinion I have provided.
 
 
Dead Megatron
21:57 / 30.08.06
I still think, however, that Haus is a substantial asset to Barbelith. He's a sharp, insightful and well-educated man and a long-term poster with a real sense of the culture & history of the place. I'd rather have a stroppy Haus on the board than no Haus at all by a hell of a long way... But an opinion was asked for, and an opinion I have provided.

I said that too earlier, though not as nearly as well put...

Guess this means I win????
 
 
petunia
22:02 / 30.08.06
Haus,

Thanks for taking time off your break to respond, I appreciate it. I'm currently posting through the haze of a mean cold, so apologies for any linguistic flakiness...

The greater attention paid to gendering and sexualising the narrative through the bear simile makes it a meatier post to discuss, I think.

I think this is a good point - the effort made implies greater intent, thus it's worth more consideration.

Speaking of which. .trampetunia, I'm sorry if I misgendered you, or ascribed a gender identification where none was desired. I was under the impression that you had male-identified at some point in the past - in a Late Shift? - but may well be mistaken. I shall endeavour to remember my epicene pronouns in future.

No worries. It was more a question from curiosity than a rhetorical question. More 'oh, have I said x?' rather than 'why do you think you can call me x?!'. Sorry if any snark dribbled out in my post.

For the record, I mix-identify, so whichever pronoun you prefer really...

No such elements were intended, but I assume that you felt that my wording intended to reach past the post and suggest that you yourself were a homophobe, right? And therefore, through the argumentum ad hominem, that your broader argument was not convincing. Since I subsequently and immediately afterwards added:

(Which is not to say that the intent was homophobic, obvs - only that I didn't realise that you would take issue with the statement or find it unfair, because I kind of thought that you had already _said_ it.)

I don't quite understand how that line of argument works.


My aim was to explain my feelings, rather than make a particularly convincing argument. These feelings were, as you have said, grounded in the idea that your post was intended to frame me as a homophobe.

This was more an emotional than a rational response. As such I swept myself into the assumption that your Which is not to say that the intent was homophobic... post was intended to 'cover yourself' from claims of argumentum ad hominem rather than express a true position. In retrospect, and reading your subsequent posts, I fear this was unfounded and unfair. Sorry.

As such, I am deducing that you identify the point at which I am being unfair to you is by describing as remarkably open to being read as x that which you describe as able easily to be read as as x, where in this case x = homophobic (which has the same value as "informed by homophobia", both of which have the same value as "a post made by a homophobe").

If that is correct, then, while I do not entirely understand the reason, I acknowledge that the substitution of "remarkably" for "easily" made you feel that it was somehow being implied that your post, and by extension you, were being accused of homophobia.


Yes, that seems a pretty good summary. Along with the fact that the 'accusation' had been brought up in this thread, which (to me) made it stand out. This is what I felt.

Xoc's current thread on probability in Conversation is quite good at showing the different interpretations available to us in differing qualifiers. I read 'remarkably' as more forceful than 'easily'. But m'eh.

you might want to apologise for suggesting that accusing another member of Barbelith of homophobia is for me something to be used as (I quote) a debating tactic, which is not something it feels nice to have your posts read as instantiating, nor I think something that should be done lightly.

You're right. It's something I did without due consideration. I have seen a lot of instances elsewhere on the internet and in other social situations where this tactic has been used, and I was quick to assign it to your posts.

You're right in that it is something that shouldn't be done lightly. I hadn't fully considered the emotional effect that such accusations might have, and I acted out of a desire to get back at you. This was immature, hypocritical and unhelpful. I apologise for making such posts and I apologise for causing you emotional distress.

you wonder based on a mistaken impression. I was referencing something you said in this thread. It is possible that I misunderstand what you are saying here, but I think that you may have been confused there by the replication of the words you posted in this thread in the "Barbequotes" thread.

You are right. I got confused. My intented point of reference was the fact that the discussion of the apparent homophobia was made in the Barbequotes thread. However, I got confused and instead refered to my post (which had indeed been made in this thread and pasted in the barbequotes thread). I'm not sure what difference this revision makes to a reading of my post. But yeah, that was a mistake.

I think Olulabelle also makes a good point. Her understanding of the issue struck some chord or other in me. Along with the other issues (perceived ad hominimity and all that), I guess I found the reference to my potentially homophobic remarks to be a bit mean - a bit of a diss, rather than a contructive questioning or whatever. But seeing as I had sought to frame you as a fighting/frotting bear, I don't think this position is particularly tenable.

I also think this point...

But would that have been better? I mean, the discussion so far had cited specific examples - primarily Reidcourchie's citation of the July 7 bombings. If I had referenced the post (presumably you mean the discussion in Barbequotes) with a link, then in effect I would have mentioned the key issue of the discussion. If I had said something like "but you yourself have recent experience of posts being interpreted very differently by different people, as was recently evidenced", it would just have sounded sinister, and I would immediately have been open to criticisms that I was making baseless innuendi.

...is a very good point and kinda ties up the discussion in a good way for me. Emotional concerns of 'yr try1ng 2 cal me teh agy basher!' aside, I agree that if you were to make an example to me on the subject of miscommunication (and mine was admittely a good example), you really needed to refer to the post.

I also really like the fact that you have used the proper plural for 'innuendo'.

Um. I think that's about it really. I understand now that you did not intend to make any kind of personal attack on me, and I hope I have explained my own position fully enough to be understood. To quote you:

Hopefully this will conclude the matter with good feeling on both sides.

Thanks again.
 
 
Tom Coates
06:45 / 31.08.06
Megatron, if by 'winning' you mean that you get to demonstrate that my points apply to people other than Haus, then yes you have won. Please people, we all have to live together here, can you think before you post - do you really want to live in a warzone? What are the ways to make honourable peace?
 
 
The resistable rise of Reidcourchie
09:39 / 31.08.06
Now, strictly speaking, it would probably have been kind to have acted immediately yo allay Reidcourchie's fears that straight white men's voices were not going to be given equal weight when talking about prejudice against people who are not white, straight and male. However, would that have been kind to everyone> Would it have been kinder, in the long term, to Reidcourchie?

To anyone else unfortunate enough to still be reading this thread, this wasn't what I was doing, or at least wasn't what I thought I was doing (so difficult to tell now). It's an area of thought I'm pretty unfamiliar with so I asked questions, they may have been, in my ignorance, stupid but Haus managed to overcome his apparent irritation at my idiocy and answer them as did Deva and now I know more about the subject then I did.

Haus if I ask nicely can I be left out of this now?
 
 
Dead Megatron
12:00 / 31.08.06
Megatron, if by 'winning' you mean that you get to demonstrate that my points apply to people other than Haus, then yes you have won. Please people, we all have to live together here, can you think before you post - do you really want to live in a warzone? What are the ways to make honourable peace?

Sorry, that was just me making jokes at the wrong time... again! Actually, I'm just happy that we agree, and your opinion is one I support.

Yay, Haus!

"Everybody wins! It's a happy day for all mankind!"

"But everybody can't win!"

"Oh! Then, everybody looses. It's a sad day for all mankind..."


(this is a quote from a movie about some guys in a military school, but I can't remember the name)
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1213141516(17)

 
  
Add Your Reply