You don't seem to get either his or my argument yourself. Sad!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Where exactly does he beg you to throw him out of the country because he practices a form of Islam?
Printable View
You don't seem to get either his or my argument yourself. Sad!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Where exactly does he beg you to throw him out of the country because he practices a form of Islam?
It is quite a stretch to call a magazine primary evidence and take it at face value, because it just as well could be propaganda. You wouldn't take Soviet official explanation for intervention Afghanistan, or Russian for intervention in Syria or American for intervention in Panama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But let's put that aside, and say you're right. ISIS is interested in fighting west regardless of what west does. West is blameless. You're still committing a logical fallacy of equating Muslims with ISIS.
That doesn't apply here for several reasons:Quote:
1) I'm not a Muslim
2) I'm not trying to divert attention from the initial argument
3) That fallacy makes no sense in this case because it doesn't deal with accuracy or truthfulness of statements, only whether the initial statement was answered or whataboutism was employed. If two wife beaters argue and the first one says "you're a wife beater" and the second one answers with "you're a wife beater", the second one is guilty of this particular logical fallacy. Still doesn't change the fact that they're both wife beaters.
Have you listened to the comments from Rafiq? You take exception to equating Muslims with ISIS. Listen to his comments then. Like I said, his group is as close as you'll get to a modernist Muslim think tank in the UK, and one that has had the ear of the PM in the past. What about him do you think lacks credibility? If he doesn't lack credibility, why don't you address his argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
And Husar, as is typical of him, busily constructs his straw man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The official ISIS rag states that our liberalism is one of the main reasons why they attack us, and will continue attacking us (explicitly refuting the possibility that our foreign policies may substantially contribute to our status as targets). And Sarmatian dismisses their official comments by saying it could be propaganda, and thus his own argument, unfounded on primary evidence, should prevail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What do you think his argument is, exactly? Are you referring to something other than the posted interview?Quote:
Have you listened to the comments from Rafiq? You take exception to equating Muslims with ISIS. Listen to his comments then. Like I said, his group is as close as you'll get to a modernist Muslim think tank in the UK, and one that has had the ear of the PM in the past. What about him do you think lacks credibility? If he doesn't lack credibility, why don't you address his argument?
You are right in the sense that IS is founded upon the premise of direct war with - well, everyone, but particularly Europe and America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But IS isn't the only organization out there, and while IS has been bleeding out in their blaze of glory, Al Qaeda is calmly expanding to fill whatever vacuum will remain. Their Long War/Management of Savagery doctrine may prove more worrisome than IS' blunt approach, since it is specifically designed to subvert and manipulate Western foreign policies.
Rafiq's argument is that, until we recognise that this is a Muslim problem founded on Muslims practicing a form of Islam, then we'll never get anywhere towards finding a lasting solution, as it allows Muslims (and he's talking about the UK here, as his group is only concerned with Muslims in the UK) to ignore that fundamental problem. Non-Muslim attempts to excuse Muslims from this gives Muslims the excuse they want to say that this is none of their business. What ISIS represents isn't something that isn't really Islam. It is founded on something that is part of Islam, and history shows that Muslims can readily turn to that. That's not them not being Muslims; them joining or supporting ISIS is indeed Muslim, and denying it makes it easier to deny the problem and allow the problem to persist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
His group's stated challenge is to find a way for Muslims in Britain to be part of Britain. So Sarmatian's and Husar's jibes about wanting to deport Muslims are wide of the mark.
No, I must have missed that post. A link?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Would you accept Russian official comments on their involvement in Ukraine as readily as you accepted this? We have an entire system in place that checks and rechecks "official statements" of our own politicians, precisely because we know we mustn't take them at face value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If you don't like the Russian example, take Kurdish terrorists. They're targeting Turkey, not Austria.
Like it or not, there's a political goal tied to terrorist attacks. That doesn't mean there aren't some moral (from their point of view) reasons as well, but they're not 100% irrational as presented by you (and almost all of western media). So, yes, I'm taking that particular story with a grain of salt.
If we're talking about why ISIS attack the west, are we then to ignore what ISIS say, and instead generate our own explanation independent of anything they say? See my numerous posts about the increased tendency to dismiss primary sources close to the subject as biased, in favour of another narrative that one prefers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
What strawman? You keep insinuating that I'm trying to shift blame from muslims in general just because he said islamism is the root problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I got that he thinks muslim communities should do more and westerners should not say "it has nothing to do with Islam" or "terrorists are not muslims". What you don't seem to grasp is that I never said that and yet you keep accusing me of doing it. You're still acting like a broken record.
You said it would be ideal to throw out all muslims but at least all muslims immigration should be stopped. You use Rafiq to support your point, so where does he agree with you on that? If you're merely trying to prove that Islam is part of the problem, then you're just Captain Obvious fighting windmills.
It's pretty clear Sarmatian is saying that primary sources need context and complementary investigation to be best utilized, something I hope you don't wish to dispute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
When we're talking about motives, what better source is there than the horse's mouth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
A couple of questions.
Q: If you dismiss the quoted article as biased ISIS propaganda, how do you determine a better source to explain their motives?
Q: On what grounds do you dismiss what Haras Rafiq has said?
The horse's feet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You can look at further primary documents, observed actions of the group, reports of defectors, insiders, spies, and other observers (which count as primary sources)...Quote:
Q: If you dismiss the quoted article as biased ISIS propaganda, how do you determine a better source to explain their motives?
Am I to understand that you are saying that a single primary source can tell us everything we need or can know about a subject?
I don't see that I have.Quote:
Q: On what grounds do you dismiss what Haras Rafiq has said?
Do other primary sources contradict that article?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I don't see anything contradicting the notion that IS hates "us", but you can't use this document in explaining or studying specific IS actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The document as a source is incomplete, not useless. Can't you see the distinction.
But that document specifically addresses a number of points, and one in particular (explicitly emphasised in case we think otherwise), which are still being put forward, including by the leader of the UK's opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What other primary sources contradict this? Is this point not being made clear enough?Quote:
"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.
"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
I repeatedly said that the specific motivation of IS to attack the West existentially is not contradicted.
Please read my words, not your own mind.
Well I got my own mind and I don't think anything will happen
I hope others will stop pointing to foreign policy as the reason why ISIS attacks the west. Or indeed, any reason except that we're different from how they want us to be, and they won't stop until we follow their prescribed way of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Montmorency explained my position better than I could have, so thank you mate.
THE reason, probably not. But A reason surely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The first question is a vital one for historians and journalists alike. Remember, no matter how "spun" the first-person source may be, it generally provides an accurate sense of how they WANT to be viewed. That, of itself, does tell you something. Obviously, relying solely on first person sources has its limitations. Caesar's discussion of the culture of Long-haired Gaul was hardly a complete treatment and was written for the Roman middle classes -- his electorate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
It doesn't have to be the reason ISIS in particular attacks us. But that still leaves it as a reason for people to join ISIS, for other groups to attack us or for some of the more moderate people to become radicalized or be hesitant in defending us. Just because they mindlessly hate us, we don't have to become their best recruiting argument or even violate our own morals. I'm well aware that there are things we cannot do anything about or where people will blame us irrationally, but if we give up trying to do the right thing, well, especially then we got ourselves to blame, no? And we could make the situation worse than it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Then I refer you to Haras Rafiq, whose group is dedicated to making things better for Muslims in Britain. Do you have a better idea of how things are for Muslims in Britain, how things go bad, and how things can be made better? If you're so confident about demolishing my sources, what alternative sources do you have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I don't need primary sources if empirical data show your hypothesis is, at very least, incomplete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Why isn't ISIS attacking Serbia? It's closer to them, there are millions of Muslims living either in the country or in the near vicinity of the country, security isn't nearly as good as in western countries... Or other countries in the area - Montenegro, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania...
There obviously are more factors at play rather than just:
1) not Muslim country
2) proximity
3) how easy it is to carry out an attack
I don't need primary sources if empirical data show your hypothesis is, at very least, incomplete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Why isn't ISIS attacking Serbia? It's closer to them, there are millions of Muslims living either in the country or in the near vicinity of the country, security isn't nearly as good as in western countries... Or other countries in the area - Montenegro, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania...
There obviously are more factors at play rather than just:
1) not Muslim country
2) proximity
3) how easy it is to carry out an attack
I wasn't demolishing your sources, what Rafiq says is quite interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
What I challenged was your conclusion that all muslims should be expelled or all immigration stopped and I asked where Rafiq mentions this as a solution? And just because he does not see your foreign policy as they key factor in radicalization of individuals, that does not mean it was and is perfect.
ISIS are a construction of foreign policy. They are the end product of a number of groups funded and armed over the last few decades (principally) by the US and Saudi Arabia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Seeing them as an organic grassroots movement of ordinary Muslims is laughable. Yes when asked certain questions the average Muslim on the street will give fairly ISIS neutral answers sometimes (cue big daily mail headlines and the right wing rubbing themselves to a foamy conclusion) but ISIS are demonstrably a foreign and extreme ideology. If they weren't then we wouldn't just be seeing the odd lone nutter committing murder.
I refer you to the primary sources. What sources are you deriving your conclusions from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Why are you fixating on primary sources? Empirical evidence trump (no pun intended) primary sources. They always have.
If a primary source state than 1 000 000 people lived in an ancient city, and archeologists dig up that ancient city and conclude that no more than a 100 000 could have lived there, we naturally conclude that the primary source is wrong.
You're an intelligent man, I'm dumbfounded that you can not grasp this, even taking into account emotional weight of the issue for you.
Then what's the empirical evidence of what ISIS is and what they intend to do? In particular, where they relate to us. Rather than a general argument of empirical evidence trumps primary sources, show me where or how empirical evidence trumps primary sources in this particular case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Before I answer that, I have to ask you to define "us"? British, Europeans, Christians, non-Muslims...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
So, the question is how does the agenda of a specific political organization (ISIS) relate to a specific country (UK).
Shouldn't be too hard to answer. Based on available evidence and trends, they want you hurt, bowed, broken, defeated... to a degree that you become irrelevant on the world stage, at least in the area that concerns them.
Hang on. They specifically said that what we do on the world stage is secondary to what we are, which is not them. What do you have to counter the primary source which I'd quoted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Also, would it be ok to accept the argument you've given, whatever the truth of the matter? That we should have no business in their world?
That's 2 questions. The first relates to evidence. The second is asking for your opinion.
It's his pattern. He finds one element or piece of evidence that can be bent to fit under his existing canopy of beliefs and then that becomes his default defence - to demand everyone engages with this factual object the same way he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Then on what grounds do you dismiss the primary evidence of their intentions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
On the grounds that a manifesto created by, and tailored for disillusioned western born Muslims is window dressing to the primary engines driving isis in the middle east. I suggest you read more about the great gulf that exists between local Arab fighters in isis and "foreign fighters". The same occurred in Afghanistan. The imported radicals have starkly different agendas and cultures to the locals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
A quick dig found this. Probably plenty more recent stuff:
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014...ihadi-fighters
May because they are all the same to you, doesn't mean that are all the same to them.
Latest reported remarks from Corbyn get my thumbs up:
Quote:
"London overheats and the cost of living there rises, while communities in to much of the rest of the country have seen their local economies hollowed out, industries decline and stable jobs gone."
He adds that too many people are "trapped in precarious low-paid work while a few at the top get much richer".
The UK must "harness the talents... in every nation and region" and cannot "try to sustain its economy on the back of the growth of the financial sector in one corner of England".
What foreign fighters and local Arab fighters? The locals here are Britons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Yes, and it says they're the ones doing all the suicide bombings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And in the latest case, his sister, who is as close to the primary source as you're going to get given the original didn't leave any notes behind, said that he was motivated to do so from seeing victims of US bombs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yes, this single piece of irrevocable primary source evidence clearly proves how irrational Britons are and how their school system is just one big failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Yup, and this single poster shows how this single poster tries to pin absolutely everything on Britain and how it's all the fault of the British. This episode has shown me what victim blaming means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
You've asked for an answer based on available empirical evidence, relating specifically to ISIS and UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If you want to discuss the truthfulness of their "manifesto", ie. whether their stated intentions accurately reflect their behaviour, we need a slightly bigger sample than 1 (UK).
I'm not sure what is the right answer here. On purely moral terms, probably yes. In practical terms, it's debatable.Quote:
Also, would it be ok to accept the argument you've given, whatever the truth of the matter? That we should have no business in their world?
Your tears are like butter in my hair. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I'll take that as an apology for your extrapolating from a sample size of one.
1 > 0. The questions I want to ask are, why are ISIS, al-Qaeda and their like attacking the UK, and how do we end it? Talking about foreign policy means nothing to me, as I already favour us having nothing to do with the middle east, thus removing the interference argument. In any case, I once believed in that argument, except that evidence coming up refutes that argument. I've taken on that evidence and changed my belief in what it is that causes ISIS and other Islamists to attack the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Also, if on purely moral terms, we probably should have no business in the middle east, do you accept the reciprocal, which is the basis of all diplomacy? That the middle east should have no business with us? If the middle east views any westerners, and more specifically, any Britons in the middle east as infringing on their autonomy, should we reciprocate, in whatever manner our society can accept? If not, why is the argument applicable in one direction but not in the other?
I'm guessing withdrawing militarily and politically from ME would be a start. Stop providing direct and indirect assistance to those who won't withdraw. Stop dominating international political fora. There are ways to start and see if you're going in the right direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But, as Furunculus states, being a great power means exerting influence on others, and dealing with the occasional backlash.
Of course, although in this case, no business means stop exerting military, political and economic pressure on state level. Doesn't mean that no single Briton should ever step there.Quote:
Also, if on purely moral terms, we probably should have no business in the middle east, do you accept the reciprocal, which is the basis of all diplomacy? That the middle east should have no business with us? If the middle east views any westerners, and more specifically, any Britons in the middle east as infringing on their autonomy, should we reciprocate, in whatever manner our society can accept? If not, why is the argument applicable in one direction but not in the other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Isn't that a completely false and insincere argument anyway? Where is the reciprocal treaty due to which all the middle easterners are in the UK and how many UK citizens are in Saudi Arabia because of the same treaty? What kind of reciprocity are we talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
And why exactly do the wishes of ISIS count regarding the treaties the UK has with say, Lebanon? Is Lebanon suddenly responsible for the things ISIS wishes for? Should UK policy be based on the same logic as that of islamic terrorists who blow up British children because they dislike US actions? Is ISIS logic now the new gold standard of logic and something we should aspire to?
How do we disregard the evidence of the official ISIS rag and what "The Beatles" are supposed to have said? Any "westerners" (which includes Japanese as well) caught on ISIS territory have been executed, other than those serving ISIS. While we're not going to do the same to Muslims, that approach, which has few exceptions so far, does not suggest the exclusion only applies to those in the military, political and economic spheres. And that empirical evidence is backed up by the ISIS mouthpiece, which voices the philosophy that underpins this approach: we're going to be persecuted for as long as we're different from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Some reports are suggesting a hung parliament. Though the breakdown is that young people are majority labour, old people are majority conservative, the middle are 50/50. Given the Baby Boomers are biggest demographic and most likely to vote, still going to be a Conservative win.
This despite that the conservatives have been doing their utmost to fuck up thier inevitable victory.
Corbyn has done well to bring it back around, despite all the attempts at sabotage from within Labour he might actually do better than his predecessor which is pretty incredible given the circumstances. It is looking a lot closer than I thought it would.
After reading Pannonian, I think Labour would do better than predicted if their candidates managed to tie their shoes properly. Or maybe he just isn't a Corbyn fan....Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Just about anyone could have done better than Corbyn against the stack of incompetence that is May. May has managed to make Corbyn almost look like he knows what he's doing. May has managed to make Corbyn look like he's interested in reaching out to floaters (at least in comparison with her). Corbyn is the master of rallies to the already converted whilst avoiding anyone who might disagree with him. May has been avoiding all engagements altogether. If she really does have more important things to do than engage in public debate, why the hell did she call an election in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'm so disappointed that Corbyn refuses to promise nuclear apocalypse. The deeply held conviction to murder millions is an essential prerequisite in any leader.
You mean he puts himself over Labour policy as voted on in the last conference? Just like he did with the EU, incidentally. Labour party policy as stated in the manifesto is secondary to what the Dear Leader wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
The manifesto explicitly says he must obliterate somewhere with nuclear fury? Must have missed that page. Could you quote?
I'm pretty sure the last manifesto supported being part of the EU. While the last Labour conference voted in favour of Trfdent. Unless you're taking on Corbyn's idea of sending the submarines out without missiles. That was a genius idea from him, keeping the union jobs whilst keeping him in with the CND crowd he's spent his career courting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
The deeply held conviction to do anything to[ do his utmost to protect the lives of his people is an essential part of leadership, if he cant even lie about his unwillingness to retaliate the protection of mutually assured destruction goes out the window.
MAD only makes sense to idiots. Anyone with a flicker of sense can see that if one of the four other counties capable of launching a nuclear attack did so, then no one's smoking corpse will gain satisfaction from creating a giant crater on some other corner of the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
That's how MAD works!
I'll ask again. Where in the manifesto is there a commitment to nuclear assault?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The very idea of MAD is that the other man is likely to fire back out of spite, making the benefits of an attack moot. That very uncertainty of success is what stops them firing first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
A leader that shows a blatant and unmistakeable unwillingness to retaliate puts a massive "feel free to kill me" sign on his nation's back.
Yes a leader should do their utmost. That means organising things so the country functions, people have enough food, a place to live, and something to do. Children are educated and disease is minimised. There is social cohesion and law and order, but also privacy and liberty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
All that is very hard to do. Most people in the world would sign up to them. But it's made a lot harder when so much money/lives/potential is pissed away to appease armchair generals (not to mention the real ones). Put the nasty toys down human, and go and read a book.
The "other man" in this example is apt. That one leader or collective in charged decided to attack. Not the people of shanghai, Chicago or Marseilles. Why obliterate them? It's absurd. That's like something a toddler would do. Grow up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Does Corbyn have any record of doing any of the above? Compared with, say, Yvette Cooper or Andy Burnham?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Labour Says It Does Back Trident After Jeremy Corbyn Suggests It Could Be Scrapped
http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/...596c47302.jpegQuote:
Appearing on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Corbyn – a lifelong campaigner against nuclear weapons - claimed the party was having a “discussion” about whether renewing Trident should be in Labour’s election manifesto.
Within hours, Labour’s press office issued a statement saying the party still supported renewing the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent – a decision made at Labour conference in 2015 when Corbyn was leader.
But Corbyn suggested the decision had not yet been taken, and when asked by Marr this morning if a commitment to Trident would be in Labour’s manifesto, he said: “We haven’t completed work on the manifesto yet, as you’d expect. We’re less than 100 hours into this election campaign.
He added: “We’re having that discussion within the Labour party and we will produce our manifesto early in May.”
Within hours, a spokesperson for Labour tried to be much more definitive said: “The decision to renew Trident has been taken and Labour supports that.
“We also want Britain to do much more to pursue a proactive, multilateral disarmament strategy.”
Ukraine, North Korea. One of them is immune from invasion. Guess why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
BTW, it's the closing stages of the campaign. Why isn't Corbyn taking a holiday? After all, that's what he did at an equivalent stage of the EU referendum campaign.
You are a middle of the road small c conservative northerner about to go through the kind of political menopause that InsaneApache went through. You'll go one nation tory first, then off the chart. It is an odd condition that Northern men sometimes get. You'll get obsessed with your vanishing culture and foreigners. It's like a kind of primal forest ape response.
Give it another 10 years and you'll be like these people on question time the other night :
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/skwaw...wins-ge17/amp/
Of course be doesn't. He's a politician. They are rarely good administrators, even though they spend their lives trying to become them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Cooper has Sure Start to her name. One of the current shadow cabinet ministers attributes Sure Start to helping her cope with early motherhood and putting her on her road to what she's become. What has Corbyn ever done that's comparable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
From what I've seen, I'm fairly closely aligned with old Labour. That's proper old Labour, going back to its early governments and aspirational roots, not Tony Benn's Labour. You should read up on Nye Bevan's views on nuclear disarmament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
This other man has just condemned you and everyone you care about to die in nuclear fire on those people's behalf and you think it is the act of a toddler to retaliate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
What the hell is your malfunction?
Aneurin Bevan on unilateral nuclear disarmament.Quote:
I knew this morning that I was going to make a speech that would offend, and even hurt, many of my friends. I know that you are deeply convinced that the action you suggest is the most effective way of influencing international affairs. I am deeply convinced that you are wrong. It is therefore not a question of who is in favour of the hydrogen bomb, but a question of what is the most effective way of getting the damn thing destroyed. It is the most difficult of all problems facing mankind. But if you carry this resolution and follow out all its implications — and do not run away from it — you will send a British Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked into the conference chamber. ... And you call that statesmanship? I call it an emotional spasm.
This is hilarious!Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The entire planet is doomed to die in nuclear fire....in a bit.
You can kill a man with a single weapon. Why murder a few million innocent people at the same time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
We'll have found fusion power by then. Or fusion power will have found us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
See above. And Nye Bevan has done far more for this country than Corbyn ever has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho