|
Post by Amadan on Oct 2, 2017 6:10:54 GMT -5
Oh, sure I have. You just happen to not agree its an "actual reasoned argument" but your agreement isn't required. No, you have not made an argument. You've expressed the fact that you hold Melania Trump and everyone connected with the Trump administration in contempt. And implied that the librarian therefore was doing a brave thing by... going off on Dr. Seuess or something. You haven't actually articulated an argument. Of any kind. I even framed a couple of possibilities for you. But of course you didn't respond, because you can't. Saying outright "She did the right thing because it was Melania Trump and therefore rejecting anything she offers was correct" would sound as ridiculous as it is. So you danced around a bit with old Warner Brothers cartoons and Geisel's wartime propaganda, and pretended, dishonestly, that everyone was overlooking that or trying to claim Geisel was a saint, but when that was addressed, you did a little sidestep and went back to "You're all awful and I'm the one brave soul speaking Truth so I don't need to explain anything, nyah nyah." Hey, if this is about DeVos and what the administration is doing to public education, then explain that. The librarian's actual letter is here. She actually does articulate her argument better than you do. You haven't, you've just parroted some vague insinuations that Dr. Seuss is racist and also "Boo Melania Trump!" Here, I'll help you out more: this is the article our brave truth-telling librarian refers to. It's about a blog article by the granddaughter of Japanese-American internees who wrote about Geisel's wartime propaganda, and went on to draw comparisons between some of the fantastic creatures in his Dr. Seuss books and black caricatures and "Orientalist" stereotypes. It's at best a stretch. But we know this is not really about Dr. Seuss at all, don't we? Nobody thinks the librarian rejected Dr. Seuss books because children would be poisoned by "literary blackface" or "Orientalist narratives." Clearly, not even her (or will she soon be posting an apology for her own minstrelry when she dressed up as the Cat in the Hat?) It was about Melania Trump. She even made half of a good argument pointing out that Melania could be more active in her selections, or choose schools in more dire need. It still was a stupid and ungracious way to make her point, but I'll give her credit for being articulate and literate in a way that you are not in her letter which was basically a very polite "Fuck you" to Melania Trump. I know you love feeling virtuous, believing that if everyone is disagreeing with you, it's because you're right. Sometimes that's true. Probably not about you, specifically, but sometimes the one iconoclast or curmudgeon is right and the crowd is wrong. The problem is, for that to be true, you'd have to actually believe nonsense like this: No one in this thread is on Team Trump. And "lynch mob".... gosh. One might almost suspect you of using inflammatory racially-charged language as a deflection. For someone as hyperreactive as you are to anything that could possibly be construed as racist, maybe you should not compare people civilly disagreeing with you with a lynch mob.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 2, 2017 8:10:21 GMT -5
First, the fact that we all agree the librarian was wrong doesn't make us a "lynch mob." By that reasoning, the resistance movement is a "lynch mob," seeing as how everyone in it pretty vehemently agrees that Trump is wrong about pretty much everything, and says so constantly (myself included). What on earth does Betsy DeVos have to do with Dr. Seuss's books? That's a completely serious question. If the librarian's letter is about a protest of Betsy DeVos, then in fact ANYTHING Melania gave to the school should be rejected, correct? So it's not about the damn books or Dr. Seuss at all. But even if you think that's cool and the way to go, it still makes the librarian a liar and a hypocrite, because that's not in fact what her stated justification was for returning the books. She went on at some length about how other schools were poor and her school was privileged and so books should go to them instead and how Dr. Seuss books were a tired cliche and full of racism and she give a list full of other books she liked better -- but she didn't say "anything you could possibly give, Melania, is unacceptable because Betsy DeVos." (And as we've already pointed out, her CiaH costume is a pretty clear demonstration that everything she said about Seuss was insincere at best.) I very seriously, in all sincerity, cannot see a way out of this that makes this librarian not look like a jackass. And I say that as someone who completely loathes Trump and DeVos. ETA: Unfortunately, I see what this librarian did -- and the cheering for it -- as being rather akin to what certain Trump followers do. They really do not give a crap what Trump does or what he says about it or how obviously bogus his statements are, as long as it upsets liberals. Here, it seems it doesn't particularly matter what the reasons are for what this librarian did or what she said about it and how her own behavior conflicted with what she said. All that matters is that it was a diss on Melania Trump. And yeah, that's not my playbook and never will be. It's part of what I hate most about the Trump movement, in fact. You've already stated you're on Team Melania for reasons of your own. I've stated I am not for reasons of my own. You are bound and determined to condemn Ms. Soeiro because you dislike how she rebuffed Melania's book donations. I feel she handled the rejection with grace, politeness and she was very clear why she was rejecting the donations. All the rest of this is teeth gnashing and grinding by you and others who keep trying---and failing dismally--to normalize the Trumps. In the battle between Soeiro and the Trumps, I've chosen my side. Here, it seems it doesn't particularly matter what the reasons are for what this librarian did or what she said about it and how her own behavior conflicted with what she said. All that matters is that it was a diss on Melania Trump. Yep. That sounds about right... I'm never on Team Melania because she's on Team Trump, and that tells me all I need to know about her. ^ Right. If one is going to say in advance that they'll never side with someone on anything, then the specific details of any particular event involving that person become irrelevant, at that point. Yep. Pretty much. I never will side with the Trumps on anything. I do not align myself with my enemies OR their spouses. I do not side with a White supremacist OR his spouse and if that's "irrelevant" to you that's okay too. Feel free to join in on the dogpile, michaelw, but know this: A fight between a wealthy, pampered, spoiled trophy wife and an anonymous school librarian is in no way a fair fight. Donald Trump spent eight years trashing everything Barack Obama did, good, bad or indifferent. I intend to return the favor. That's a firm, unhesitating, and completely principled position which I do not alter because it annoys a few posters on a debate board.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 2, 2017 8:41:50 GMT -5
Donald Trump spent eight years trashing everything Barack Obama did, good, bad or indifferent. I intend to return the favor. That's a firm, unhesitating, and completely principled position which I do not alter because it annoys a few posters on a debate board. Okay, that's as close as you've come to an actual answer. Can we actually talk about it, or do you want to just keep snarling "No, you"? I'm going to use the principle of good faith here and hope the shitfest need not continue, but the next move is yours. So: If your position is that Melania Trump (and by extension, everything connected with the administration) needs to be opposed at every step, even to the degree that gifts to libraries should be refused, that is a firm, unhesitating, and principled position. It's not one I necessarily agree with, but it is at least comprehensible. I have questions about just how far you think that should be taken, because it seems there are a lot of problems with "Refuse everything anyone connected with the administration offers." But I think you are incorrect if you're asserting that this was the librarian's position. See her letter, that I posted above. She mentioned her opposition to DeVos, yes, and exhorted Melania to use her position as First Lady to advocate for less "cliched" books, or to look at more disadvantaged school districts, and those are actually reasonable points. But that would imply that, had Melania offered books Ms. Soeiro found more worthy, or offered them to an underprivileged school district, she'd have been okay with the gift. That's not the absolute rejection you seem to be advocating. Also, Soeiro implied that Dr. Seuss is racist because of the aforementioned linked blog post - and note, it was a blog post by someone with an (understandable) axe to grind against Geisel, not a well thought scholarly work, just someone's opinion. You picked up that argument and ran with it, never mind that it's at best a thin argument, and has nothing to do with the Trumps. Nor do the Trumps have anything to do with what was pointed out subsequently, that Soeiro apparently had no problems with Dr. Seuss not long ago. So the two issues were conflated. No one here is trying to "lynch" you, nor is anyone siding with white supremacists against some poor librarian. The problem is that this board is a place for "thoughtful discussion" and that means teasing apart motives and analyzing tactics, which is why we may be sympathetic, to varying degrees, to what Ms. Soeiro was trying to express, but find the way she actually did it to be ineffective at best, and hypocritical at worst (when she blasts Melania for offering up "cliched" and "racist" books that she herself was dressing up for). Then you come along and say everyone who criticizes her is on Team Trump and you're the one person with a principled stand. If everything is that black and white, there isn't much to discuss, is there? Do you want to persuade everyone that we should just reflexively flip the bird at anything connected with anyone connected with the Trumps, period, always, end of story? If so, I would really, sincerely like you to make that case because I want to understand how you think that will work in the real world of politics. I understand how it might feel good, if you really think you're fighting an evil white supremacist regime, but it is not effective. It isn't even effective here, where you're alienating people who are, despite the way we've been sniping back and forth, generally more closely aligned to you than to the Trumps politically. How is it going to be effective in the outside world? Just write off a substantial portion of the population and prepare for literal war? That is what the real die-hards on the other side are doing, and it isn't "respectability politics" to want to avoid that.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 2, 2017 12:18:09 GMT -5
This shouldn't be about siding with the Trumps. It's about was the librarian out of line.
Question one: If Michelle Obama had donated the same book to the same library, would the librarian had reacted the same way?
My opinion is no. Therefore all of her posturing was BS. It means no matter what book Mrs. Trump gave, she would have found fault. And it means that she's blinded by her hatred of Trump.
Question two: If she had reacted the same way to Mrs. Obama donating that same book, at least she would have been consistent. But would you (General you) have supported it or felt differently.
My opinion: No, I'd feel the same way. It was rude and out of line. (As were many of the things that were said about Mrs. Obama during and even after her tenor as first lady.)
One doesn't have to support or tolerant Trump to recognize bad behavior against them. If we can't do that, how can we expect to have legitimate criticisms of Trump (And there are legion) to be taken seriously?
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 2, 2017 12:19:16 GMT -5
Oh, and on Twitter at some point, I saw someone say if Trump said not to jump off a bridge, there are some who would because they assume everything he does and says is wrong. Interesting concept.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 12:27:11 GMT -5
If Melania Trump personally donated a million dollars to a Puerto Rican organization for hurricane aid, should the organization reject it to show opposition to Trump?
If Melania Trump donated direly needed school supplies to an impoverished inner city school, should the school reject it to show opposition to Trump?
If Melania personally strapped on hip-high boots and went down to Puerto Rico to help victims with her own two hands, should she be sent away and shamed?
If yes -- well, I definitely don't agree, but I suppose at least it is consistent with the argument that everything Trump and his family do should be snubbed, whether or not it would be acceptable from someone else.*
If no -- then the "this is all about a firm, unhesitating opposition to Trump no matter what" argument falls apart like wet toilet paper.
ETA:
Still wouldn't exonerate the librarian from hypocrisy, though, because that is not what her letter says. And it is pretty much impossible to get away from her hypocrisy in dissing Dr. Seuss books as cliche and racist while she cavorts about in Cat in the Hat costumes.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 2, 2017 12:36:42 GMT -5
This shouldn't be about siding with the Trumps. It's about was the librarian out of line. Well, it is about siding with the Trumps. That's why I'm giving NT the benefit of the doubt. If you really believe something in an absolute manner, and stick to it no matter what, then that is a consistent and principled position. It might be wrong, or counterproductive, but it's consistent. The problem is that the librarian, here, threw in some unrelated arguments (about alleged racism in Dr. Seuss) which proved to be both ill-founded and hypocritical, which made it pretty obvious that the real reason was simply opposition to the Trumps, but she tried to add a "racism" angle just to make the rejection stick harder. And NT ran with that, which means we wound up with a couple of pages of nonsense about whether The Cat in the Hat is racist. The librarian, of course, could not just say, on behalf of a public library, that they're rejecting anything from Melania Trump. So she invented this racism justification. And that's where we are. With some folks on the left practically wanting to start a civil war - they won't even accept library donations if they come from a Trump - and plenty of folks on the right hankering to oblige them.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 2, 2017 12:42:14 GMT -5
This shouldn't be about siding with the Trumps. It's about was the librarian out of line. Question one: If Michelle Obama had donated the same book to the same library, would the librarian had reacted the same way? My opinion is no. Therefore all of her posturing was BS. It means no matter what book Mrs. Trump gave, she would have found fault. And it means that she's blinded by her hatred of Trump. Question two: If she had reacted the same way to Mrs. Obama donating that same book, at least she would have been consistent. But would you (General you) have supported it or felt differently. My opinion: No, I'd feel the same way. It was rude and out of line. (As were many of the things that were said about Mrs. Obama during and even after her tenor as first lady.) One doesn't have to support or tolerant Trump to recognize bad behavior against them. If we can't do that, how can we expect to have legitimate criticisms of Trump (And there are legion) to be taken seriously? Who am I supposed to be taken seriously by? Why do I have to recognize bad behavior directed at the Trumps when they behave badly all the time? Donald Trump puts nothing but negativity out into the world. Against our allies and his enemies. Against gays and Muslims and women and NFL players and Gold Star families and anyone else he's railing against. He is a terrible human being who treats other human beings terribly. Why should I feel any sympathy for a man who has a long and ugly history of treating others like shit? Melania gets no pass from me. She's a willing accomplice to this crap. IF this were Michelle Obama, I'd feel differently. Just as I would feel differently if it were Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan. That's because even if I wasn't fond of their spouses, they were intelligent, refined, cultured and dignified First Ladies, not trophy wives. And you couldn't Google them for nude pics. It's unnecessary to me to have someone else deem my criticism of Trump as legitimate. It's legitimate to me and that's good enough. If Melania Trump personally donated a million dollars to a Puerto Rican organization for hurricane aid, should the organization reject it to show opposition to Trump? If Melania Trump donated direly needed school supplies to an impoverished inner city school, should the school reject it to show opposition to Trump? If Melania personally strapped on hip-high boots and went down to Puerto Rico to help victims with her own two hands, should she be sent away and shamed? If yes -- well, I definitely don't agree, but I suppose at least it is consistent with the argument that everything Trump and his family do should be snubbed, whether or not it would be acceptable from someone else. If no -- then the "this is all about a firm, unhesitating opposition to Trump no matter what" argument falls apart like wet toilet paper. I don't do "IF's." Mostly because "IF's" are a weak way to make a point, but in this case, it's even weaker because Melania Trump isn't going to do ANY of your "IF's." I'll respond to Amadan later as I don't have the time now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 12:56:44 GMT -5
I also would much prefer a Michelle Obama or Laura Bush as First Lady.
But come on. You've just chided me for being all stuffy and prissy because I care about the librarian being rude, dismissing me as being all about "respectability politics". Well, what on earth is getting all freaked out about Melania's nude shots other than "respectability politics"? You pull out your smelling salts for that, but sneer at me because I give a shit about rude behavior?
I also am a bit weirded out by the fact that one can google nude shots of our First Lady, but I honestly don't care all that much about it. If nude shots of Michelle from her salad days in college, I'd also be weirded out but it wouldn't make me think less of her. Sure, it's a new thing to have such photos available of first ladies, but I don't sneer at and condemn nude models generally, so I can't quite see why I should dismiss Melania as a worthless human being because of it.
Posing nude beats being rude, in my book.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 2, 2017 13:11:49 GMT -5
I guarantee you, as Millennials age and move into politics, that Melania will not be the last high profile politician or politician's wife who turns out to have regrettable pics floating around out there. It's going to be harder and harder to be a public figure with a lifetime of Facebook posts and tweets for opponents to dig up.
But I'll wait for NT's answer to the other stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 13:15:13 GMT -5
My opposition to Trump arises from his actions, policies, and behavior that I feel are harmful to our country. Much of that actually stems from his rude, disrespectful behavior. To the extent Melania defends such things, I have a problem with her. But her being naked twenty years ago? Meh. Her merely standing by her husband and not divorcing him even though he is a jackass? Well, I didn't condemn Huma for standing by hers.
If Trump actually does some things I like, I'm not going to condemn him for those things, though I will continue to decry at the top of my lungs the many, many things I don't like. Melania doing nice First Lady things? I'm not going to piss on her for them. I'll save my fire for the shitty stuff that needs burning.
I just do not see how I can condemn Trump and his supporters when they are rude, stubborn, jackasses just gleefully sticking it to liberals for the pure sake of sticking it to liberals -- and yet cheer liberals for doing the same to Trump or conservatives. I don't see how I can sneer at Melania for having posed nude without sneering at all of the other people who pose nude. I don't see how I can shrug and say I don't actually much care about Bill Clinton getting a consensual blow job in the Oval Office, and yet wring my hands at Melania's long-ago nude shots. I don't see how I condemn conservatives and Republicans for blind party loyalty in supporting Trump's behavior no matter what he does, and yet cheer liberals for bad behavior. And I don't see how I cheer on this librarian for condemning Seuss as racist and cliche while she wears a Cat in the Hat costume and without also chastising President Obama for promoting such racist books.
Intellectual honesty matters. Holding people to comparable standards matters. Otherwise, it all comes down to "we can all be total fucking assholes as long as it is in the service of our beliefs."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 13:16:19 GMT -5
I guarantee you, as Millennials age and move into politics, that Melania will not be the last high profile politician or politician's wife who turns out to have regrettable pics floating around out there. It's going to be harder and harder to be a public figure with a lifetime of Facebook posts and tweets for opponents to dig up. But I'll wait for NT's answer to the other stuff. Remember what it was all so very shocking that Bill Clinton tried pot? I mean, it was ilLEGal, amirite?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 2, 2017 14:41:32 GMT -5
"First Lady" (or "First Spouse," or "First Gentleman") isn't actually an office in the US government. So the fact that such a person has nude photos or the like out there is, well, inconsequential, especially given that fact that the person in question here was a professional model.
After all, there are semi-nude photos of Obama and and other high-profile politicians out there (people who actually held office). Is it just the boobies that are oh-so-scary here?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 2, 2017 17:21:19 GMT -5
^ Right. If one is going to say in advance that they'll never side with someone on anything, then the specific details of any particular event involving that person become irrelevant, at that point. Yep. Pretty much. I never will side with the Trumps on anything. I do not align myself with my enemies OR their spouses. I do not side with a White supremacist OR his spouse and if that's "irrelevant" to you that's okay too. And what's your stance on learning to read? Seems like a fair question, given your reply here and the topic of the thread.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 2, 2017 19:15:43 GMT -5
Donald Trump spent eight years trashing everything Barack Obama did, good, bad or indifferent. I intend to return the favor. That's a firm, unhesitating, and completely principled position which I do not alter because it annoys a few posters on a debate board. Okay, that's as close as you've come to an actual answer. Can we actually talk about it, or do you want to just keep snarling "No, you"? I'm going to use the principle of good faith here and hope the shitfest need not continue, but the next move is yours. Sure, why the hell not? Just so long as we both go into it knowing there's shit under both our fingernails. Normally, I would agree, but this is not a normal administration. Please note that I did not say a normal Republican administration. There's too much craziness which comes out the Trump White House for even the staunchest Republican to take in without the occasional raised eyebrow or mouth dangling agape in shock and awe. Yes, there are a lot of problems with "Refuse everything anyone connected with the administration offers," but Mitch McConnell practically wrote the playbook on how to obstruct, tie up, shut down, defy and block everything connected with the previous administration and pay no political price for doing so. In part because Obama was too timid to get up McConnell's ass like a hemorrhoid, so when Antonin Scalia shuffled off to his eternal rest and opened a Supreme Court vacancy for the president to fill as was his Constitutional prerogative, Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a boring, but safe as milk moderate. Someone he thought the Republicans would go along with. Obama should have chosen a eminently qualified and committed liberal jurist instead of Garland, but no, he didn't want to go to war with McConnell and Chuck Grassley or whip up the Democratic base. More fool him. It cost him bigly and the GOP's obstruction and refusal to even meet with Garland led to the only accomplishment of the Republican stranglehold on Washington: the installation of Neil Gorsuch into a seat he never should have filled. Being a bastard works. That was my personal tipping point. Republicans don't just play hardball. They stick spikes in the ball, coat the spikes with poison and kick the ball right into the balls of the Democrats. The Democrats just wince, say "ouch" and tell them not to play so rough. Because that's not in The Rules. The Rules only work as long as both side follow The Rules. When one side doesn't, I say Fuck The Rules. I make my own rules and mine says I do not sip tea with the enemy. Ipso facto, Donald Trump is the enemy. How far do I take my loathing and scorn for All Things Trump? To the limit. That's how far. I did not say Ms. Soeiro's rejection of Melania Trump's books were an "absolute rejection" of All Things Trump. That's MY philosophy. Perhaps had Mrs. Trump scoped out a list of the best books for children as chosen by three librarians, she would have found recommendations of Oh No, George!, Interstellar Cinderella and Sonya's Chicken. But alas, no Green Eggs and Ham or The Cat In the Hat. Darn. Soeiro explained to Melania why she was rejecting her offering and quite coherently considering who Melania huffs the farts of every night. What's so offensive about being candid? Besides the fact some folks don't like candor? Offering a gift does mean you are obligated to accept it. Especially if you don't have any use for it where another school might. Soeiro didn't simply say "Ew!" to Melania's books. She suggested its not simply schools like hers which excel in need of books and she provided alternative children's books. In light of the way Betsy DeVos is deconstructing public education, those Dr. Seuss books might find a better home in a school library in Chicago, Cleveland or Columbus where they might be needed as well as appreciated. Melania selected Soeiro's school because it is a successful one. It would have been a better gesture to put those books into the hands of children who really need them. It's got everything to do with the Trumps since it was one of the Trump who sent to Soeiro books from an author with an undeniably racist history. I really don't give a damn if Soeiro wore a hat based on a Dr. Seuss book as it is no more relevant than Michelle and Barack Obama reading a Seuss work to children. What does that prove? Hypocrisy or perhaps Soeiro and the Obamas were unaware of Theodore Geisel's problematic past? Additionally, what is this "blog post" you speak of? I see where Soeiro linked to an article by Grace Hwang Lynch published in School Library Journal. For sure that makes it obscure, but it ain't no blog. I'm certain you don't mean, "Was the Cat in the Hat Black? The Hidden Racism of Children’s Literature, and the Need for Diverse Books" by Philip Nei. So which blog post are referring to and where's this alleged axe they're grinding against Geisel? Hmph. That's odd. I'm not detecting any sympathy for Ms. Soeiro in any post in this thread besides my own. Which makes my view the contrarian view as everybody else is pretty much marching in lockstep this librarian is an ungrateful and boorish scold and someone should write a stern letter to her bosses telling them so! Which is why you're jumping my shit along with Cassandra, michaelw, Vince, Opty and robeiae. You say Ms. Soeiro's actions were ineffective? That's even odder since this thread is going on five pages deep where as far more important threads are gathering dust. This librarian seems to have pissed off more than a few folks who simply can't believe such gauche behavior could be directed at The First Nude Lady of the United States of Amerikka. Maybe it's just me, but that seems pretty damn effective. There you go again. I never said I was the only person with a principled stand and I never everyone who criticizes Soeiro is on Team Trump. How many times have I told you I'm only responsible for what I say and not for your erroneous interpretations. But as the only Black person on an overwhelmingly White board, you'll have to understand I do see things in Black and White. Or you don't. It doesn't really matter either way. I hardly need to persuade anyone of anything. I'm not here to proselytize and I'm not here to convert and I'm not here to recruit. I only express one man's opinion and you can take it or you can leave it, but I don't have to constantly explain it to people with an I.Q. higher than a potted plant and I certainly don't have to justify it. You're badly mistaken if you think I'm "alienating" people who are generally more closely aligned to me than to the Trumps. WHO here am I supposed to be "closely aligned" to? YOU? This board has less than 40 members and I can count on one hand how many I feel I'm "closely aligned" to politically. The alternative to being "closely aligned" to others whose views diverge wildly from my own isn't war, literally, figuratively or metaphorically. The alternative is you work your side of the street and leave me be to work my side and if and when our divergent perspectives converge, that is when we can sit down and try to find our commonalities instead of our differences. But I don't need you anymore than you need me. I'll get done what I need to get done without your assistance or advice on how I should conduct myself and treat my enemies. I have no interest in unifying with anyone who doesn't acknowledge my issues, my opinions, my priorities and my life are every bit as vitally important as yours are to you. I will only work with those who view me as an equal. I am not a supplicant. We're not changing the world here, Amadan. Quiet as its kept nobody gives a damn about anything anyone says here about anything. You haven't figured that out yet? After all, you don't like me and I don't like you. Besides that what else do we have in common? Good talk, dude. Let's not do it again anytime soon, okay?
|
|