|
On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist.
Hmmm.
I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did.
The basic pattern of living here is:
I want X
I try for X
I can't get X
I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil!
Down with X!
The process that should follow the last one above is:
What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all!
|
On December 05 2009 05:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:13 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. From what I recall, this has got to be the best explanation of what communism is that I've seen in a long, long time. I approve. Well, I disagree with your political identity, but I approve that that is your definition of communism. Because that's what it was supposed to be. If only people actually can get through Marx. Oh! I appreciate, thanks! :---) It's funny, you know, people have in mind communism as some sort of super-socialism, with the State controlling everything. Like USSR. State Communism is an oxymoron. Communism means disappearance of the State. Rosa Luxembourg made a wonderful critic of Leninist State, and the power of bureaaucracy in early USSR.
If I recall, Marx actually ridiculed those people who claimed that communism was the general division of resources for everybody, or anybody that said communism was, well, something. He said that since nobody has seen communism before, nobody knows what it is, so any pre-existing ideas as to what communism is would result in a society that is not communist.
I also seem to recall how Marx, though opposed to (what masqueraded as, with asymmetric information galore) capitalism, was also appreciative of economics in his work. He was probably the first and last supporter of anti-capitalism that I have seen that has ever had any such appreciation of the ideas of economics, even if I completely disagree with his ideology.
|
On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all!
...
I don't think this has anything to do with Marx...
|
On December 05 2009 05:18 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 05:10 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 04:55 InToTheWannaB wrote:
I have not read the book, but from reading some of the links and responses I have a question. Does this book propose a alternative to a global free market? I mean sure free market capitalism has problems, but so does every economic system. she does have a point where she talks about how we need to replace capitalism with "democracy," in the same way that michael moore did in his latest movie about "capitalism vs. democracy." although, I'm still confused why people think capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive. If anything they are complements as one cannot exist without the other. Hmmm. I recommand you Jacques Rancière's "Hate of Democracy". I am pretty sure that it is translated, and he is a wonderful philosopher. I have looked it up, I can still read a bit of French (well, not really, but I can at least understand the title T_T) but I haven't seen a copy of it around here and I don't exactly have any money to shell out for it. edit: found it in my school library: due 01/08/2010 T_T
Well, there is no emergency :-) You can read it later, I guess!
Rancière is just amazing. He is very careful with what he says, very rigorous, and very open-minded. He brings a completely different approach on the idea of Democracy, which is very original and incredibly refreshing. It's the kind of philosopher you can disagree with and still be incredibly happy to read him.
On top of that, it is quite short.
|
On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx...
Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible!
|
On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible!
Karl Marx married Jenny von Westphalen, the educated daughter of a Prussian baron, on June 19, 1843 in the Pauluskirche, at Bad Kreuznach. Marx and Jenny had seven children but due to poverty only three survived to adulthood
|
On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. I've seen more subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible!
I have seen mmore subtle trolls in my nerd's life.
|
On December 05 2009 05:26 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible! Show nested quote +Karl Marx married Jenny von Westphalen, the educated daughter of a Prussian baron, on June 19, 1843 in the Pauluskirche, at Bad Kreuznach. Marx and Jenny had seven children but due to poverty only three survived to adulthood
Those kids where all from Engel's sperm.
|
On December 05 2009 05:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. I've seen more subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible! I have seen mmore subtle trolls in my nerd's life.
Are you saying that you would have sex with Marx if he appeared in your room?
|
On December 05 2009 05:29 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. I've seen more subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible! I have seen mmore subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Are you saying that you would have sex with Marx if he appeared in your room?
Is there a mod somewhere to ban this moron?
|
On December 05 2009 05:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:29 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:
[quote]
isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things.
If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. I've seen more subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible! I have seen mmore subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Are you saying that you would have sex with Marx if he appeared in your room? Is there a mod somewhere to ban this moron?
Wow. Touchy much? I thought you were a fan of universal liberation? Meaning -- if you don't like my posts, don't read them! But don't ask the mod (read: the state!) to ban me! Fascist!
|
On December 05 2009 05:31 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 05:29 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 05:24 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 05:23 Caller wrote:On December 05 2009 05:21 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On December 05 2009 04:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:44 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
If it was common knowledge, there would be two categories of people: cynical bastards and marxists. so what are you? libertarian anarchist? Hum. No. Anticapitalist and Marxist I guess. Or "communist" if you prefer. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Stalinian or Trotskist has been. Communism has never existed. USSR, China, Cuba... etc... were/are bureaucratic State Capitalism. So if you call communism, as did Marx, a process towards universal emancipation, then you can call me communist. I've seen more subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Hmmm. I disagree. I think he is a man who never had sex with the amount of kind of women he wanted and, so, decided to dedicate his life to attacking those who did. The basic pattern of living here is: I want X I try for X I can't get X I must be evil....Wait, no, that's not it...X is evil! Down with X! The process that should follow the last one above is: What a whiny bitch I have been! I will now reform my ways and capture X after all! ... I don't think this has anything to do with Marx... Do you really think Marx had sex? That possibility is logically impossible! I have seen mmore subtle trolls in my nerd's life. Are you saying that you would have sex with Marx if he appeared in your room? Is there a mod somewhere to ban this moron? Wow. Touchy much? I thought you were a fan of universal liberation? Meaning -- if you don't like my posts, don't read them! But don't ask the mod (read: the state!) to ban me! Fascist!
At least I loled;
|
i think a mod should ban you too
at least temporarily
|
On December 05 2009 05:33 travis wrote:
i think a mod should ban you too
at least temporarily
Reason?
|
On December 05 2009 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:33 travis wrote:
i think a mod should ban you too
at least temporarily Reason?
Clearly: Travis and I are in agreement that anyone who wants to sleep with Marx needs to spend more time self-reflecting than posting on TL!
|
thanks for the info, but based on the description of the book, this has been the subject of much debate from a lot of sources in the past years. how can come it come as a shock?
|
On December 05 2009 04:48 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:27 freelander wrote:On December 04 2009 22:58 Kong John wrote:
Im going to buy AND read it because of this thread, so screw you people. i will download it and read it. Good luck reading a 600 page book on your computer
EBOOK READER
no i dont have one but I will soon
|
On December 05 2009 05:02 tinman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 04:33 koreasilver wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. There is much more than just that. Right. Life in the American South prior to the Civil War was much more than just slavery. That didn't, however, change the fact that slavery was a great moral evil that desperately needed to be addressed, did it?
Oh, I didn't notice that it could be read like that. I meant to say it in a way as to say "there is much more wrong with it than just that".
|
On December 05 2009 05:52 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2009 05:02 tinman wrote:On December 05 2009 04:33 koreasilver wrote:On December 05 2009 04:28 .risingdragoon wrote:On December 05 2009 04:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2009 04:00 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll have to read it.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by it, given that capitalism has no allegiance except to the pursuit of money and that it is transformative as power consolidates. If you knew how happy I am to read something like that here, you would feel like some kind of angel. isn't that common knowledge? hiring and firing based on profit margin, growth by acquisition followed by reorganization - these aren't benevolent, humanist things. There is much more than just that. Right. Life in the American South prior to the Civil War was much more than just slavery. That didn't, however, change the fact that slavery was a great moral evil that desperately needed to be addressed, did it? Oh, I didn't notice that it could be read like that. I meant to say it in a way as to say "there is much more wrong with it than just that".
This is nonsense.
|
I step away for 15 min to make lunch and this thread gets dosed with BULLSHIT
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
