Nato Secretary-General admits Europe is far behind US in world understanding - Russian Ukrainian Belarus Travel Music Woman Dating News

	The Russian Meeting Place: A place to meet people and talk about all things Russian... International Discussions about Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Travel, Music, Russian News, Ukrainian culture, Belarusian Dating, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kiev and other intelligent topics about life in the former Soviet Union.

Pages: 1

Nato Secretary-General admits Europe is far behind US in world understanding
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: FlashingEyes

The New York Times (today)

The secretary-general of NATO said on Thursday that there was a critical "perception gap" between Europe and the United States on the subject of global terror and that Europeans must move closer to the American view of the seriousness of the threat.

The U.S. "focused very much on the fight against terror while in Europe we focused to a lesser extent on the consequences to the world," Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said in an interview. "We looked at it from different angles, and that for me is one of the reasons you saw such frictions in the trans-Atlantic relationship."

Europe is lagging behind the U.S. in merging external and internal security to combat terrorism, he said, and Europe has to catch up.

"If the gap is to be bridged, it has to be done from the European side and not from the United States," de Hoop Scheffer said...

All I have to add is that 150 years ago the United States and Eastern Europe was socially divided into a bunch of tribes with different languages and social histories, much like Western Europe was at the same time. But socially, the United States and Eastern Europe has evolved into a unified society with common language and shared history, while Western Europe is still stuck about where it was 150 years ago. This prevents Western Europeans from understanding world events with the same subtlety that Americans do. Technology has changed, but socially, Western Europe has to catch up.

Posted by: AkMike

Finally they're getting the big picture..

Posted by: Jim_FL

The big picture

Didn't Ashcroft just resign because we're all ship-shape safe and secure??

Quote:

Claiming that "the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved," US Attorney General John Ashcroft bid farewell to the Department of Justice Tuesday

Posted by: Jerico

Hurray !!!
Were safe from terrorist now

Now lets make all the illegals legal just to spruce things up.

Posted by: BradIL

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim_FL
The big picture
Didn't Ashcroft just resign because we're all ship-shape safe and secure??

Jim--- the Democrats in Illinois... among my best friends... will love ya'!
I'd only ask--- just how much can a man's gallbladder take?

Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

Western Europeans don't understand much about the world in general - they're a bunch of overfed, overly liberal spoiled French poodles with an inferiority complex towards the US.

Posted by: Jutman

and Pawel.. thanks somebody above for that..

Posted by: Jutman

And nobody has the brain, to thinks its a political statement, more than a reel statement???

Political - a attempt to breech out between the two worlds and secondly: His job is not at stake.

Posted by: rob_we

Actually when Germany didn´t join the "anti terror force" some of our conservatives ran to washington and kissed asses there, telling Mr. Bush "they would have of course" ... bad luck they couldn´t decide that...

So we stupid non-terror-understanding absolutely nationalistic small-country-notknowinganythingoftheworld western-europeans just missed the threat. We missed it so much that there is no threat here, probably because the terrorists think we still grow nothing but potatoes here

. So in fact we do not really have a huge terror problem, no hords of machine gunned soldiers in our airports, no fingerprint controlls all over, no problem to go to cuba and actually love our small country not knowinganything of the wold life and we travel wherever we want without problems.
The people in the countries we travel like us and we like them. (all the other non us notknowinganythingeither countries we go)
So the fact that we actually should be "modern" enough to bleed for the mess that is caused by the us I have to say: We are stupid medieval knownothings. Ane we love it

And what this guy says:
Hihi I personally don´t give a toss. There are idiots and great thinkers everywhere. Lets see what the future will tell about him.. Im glad that europe is different. I love my freedom here

And it seems there is always a cozy place free at Georges ass for anybody who needs it... BTW we all know that Mr. Bush is THE politician with THE most elaborated experience in foreign diplomacy...

Posted by: Rennie

Quote:

Originally posted by FlashingEyes
This prevents Western Europeans from understanding world events with the same subtlety that Americans do. Technology has changed, but socially, Western Europe has to catch up.

Paul Recer, Associated Press, 11/20/02
WASHINGTON (AP) Ask young Americans to pick out Iraq on a map of the Middle East, and only 13 percent can locate it despite a barrage of headlines and broadcast reports about a possible war against Saddam Hussein.

Same goes for Israel or Iran, according to a National Geographic study that finds there has been little to no improvement in students' knowledge of geography since 1988.

The society survey released Wednesday found that only about one in seven of Americans between the age of 18 and 24, the prime age for military warriors, could find Iraq. The score was the same for Iran, an Iraqi neighbor.

Although the majority, 58 percent, of the young Americans surveyed knew that the Taliban and al-Qaida were based in Afghanistan, only 17 percent could find that country on a world map. A U.S.-led force attacked the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan in October 2001, and President Bush has said he is prepared to use force to rid Iraq of any chemical, nuclear or biological weapons programs.

The survey asked 56 geographic and current events questions of young people in nine countries and scored the results with traditional grades. The surveyed Americans got a "D," with an average of 23 correct answers. Mexico ranked last with an average score of 21, just three points from a failing grade.

Topping the scoring was Sweden, with an average of 40, followed by Germany and Italy, each with 38. None of the countries got an "A," which required average scores of 42 correct answers or better on the 56 questions.

"If our young people can't find places on a map and lack awareness of current events, how can they understand the world's cultural, economic and natural resource issues that confront us?" John Fahey, president of the National Geographic Society, said in a statement.

National Geographic is convening an international panel of policy makers and business and media leaders to find ways to improve geographic education and to encourage interest in world affairs, the society said.

Other findings from the survey:

Thirty-four percent of the young Americans knew that the island used on last season's "Survivor" show was located in the South Pacific, but only 30 percent could locate the state of New Jersey on a map. The "Survivor" show's location was the Marquesas Islands in the eastern South Pacific.

When asked to find 10 specific states on a map of the United States, only California and Texas could be located by a large majority of those surveyed. Both states were correctly located by 89 percent of the participants. Only 51 percent could find New York, the nation's third most populous state.

On a world map, Americans could find on average only seven of 16 countries in the quiz. Only 89 percent of the Americans surveyed could find their own country on the map.

In the world map test, Swedes could find an average of 13 of the 16 countries. Germans and Italians were next, with an average of 12 each.

Only 71 percent of the surveyed Americans could locate on the map the Pacific Ocean, the world's largest body of water. Worldwide, three in 10 of those surveyed could not correctly locate the Pacific Ocean.

Although 81 percent of the surveyed Americans knew that the Middle East is the Earth's largest oil exporter, only 24 percent could find Saudi Arabia on the map.

The international survey was conducted for the National Geographic by RoperASW. The results are based on face-to-face interviews with at least 300 men and women aged 18 to 24 in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, Britain and the United States.

Posted by: FlashingEyes

Interestingly I just ran a poll of 300 people - Americans - and they all nailed the questions, 95% and higher on every question (except the survivor episode location). Of course if you're only asking 300 people out of a country of 200 million it probably matters what sort of group you choose.

But I think more interesting is that, even though I and plenty of other Americans like myself have a great knowledge of geography, the world is no longer defined that way. I recognize this; most Americans recognize it, which I think is why lots of Americans don't bother to memorize geographical locations. The terrorists don't recognize geographical boundaries; ideas don't recognize geographical boundaries; Americans recognize that geographical boundaries are less important than many Europeans think in understanding the world. This sort of approach (memorizing geography) is sort of an old-fashioned view of how the world works. Like the American Indians, the European tribes of today might well be better at the geography of the land, but they don't understand modern society. In order for Europe to catch up, they need to do more to obscure geographical boundaries in their thoughts, like Americans. Americans driving from one state to another don't really give it much thought - they don't say "oh the language and laws are very different here - now I can't wear my religious symbols," for instance. Similarly, when Europe has caught up to America socially, Europeans will be able to do the same.

Posted by: Rennie

Quote:

Originally posted by FlashingEyes
Americans recognize that geographical boundaries are less important than many Europeans think in understanding the world. This sort of approach (memorizing geography) is sort of an old-fashioned view of how the world works. Like the American Indians, the European tribes of today might well be better at the geography of the land, but they don't understand modern society. In order for Europe to catch up, they need to do more to obscure geographical boundaries in their thoughts, like Americans.

I'm surprised you say that - it seems to me national boundaries are even more important today than they were 100 or 200 years ago. Border patrols, strict immigration controls, visa restrictions...we all know what it's like.

As to whether America, Europe, China or the Seychelles has the best society, I think anyone who claims that their society is the greatest needs sedation. Each society is different and has their own pluses and minuses. It surprises me in such an international forum, that there seems to be so little understanding between people. How the hell are you going to be able to live with a foreigner in your houses?

Posted by: Jim_FL

Quote:

Originally posted by Rennie
Border patrols, strict immigration controls, visa restrictions...we all know what it's like.

Yes, WE all know what it's like, but sadly, a vast majority of US citizens have no clue what it's like

. Truth be told, I never gave US immigration policy or proceedure a second thought before I met my wife. I now know far more than I ever wanted to, and have a newfound compassion for immigrants I see on the street.

And if anyone thinks geographic borders don't count for much anymore, they need to look around them.....Isreal, Northern Ireland /Ireland, Haiti /Dominican Rep. and so many more.......

Posted by: lolomarseille

Well, the stupid dutch named secgen of Nato is only the puppet and cocksucker of militarist ignorant rednecks like some here

the motto is; did the world understood AmeriKa?
so i hope bush will be better in this next 4 yrs, and after i hope it will not be fags like scharwzie but real fat ameuurrrican males

in balistic, you have a curve

please, arrogant fat people; reach the top ! reach it! asap!
after we will enjoy

Posted by: Pawel_PL.USA

Lolo, was that supposed to be an example of the quintessence of "the high culture of social democracy" ?

Posted by: FlashingEyes

rennie,

I'm not surprised it seems to you that artificial, man-made boundaries are more important now than ever - that is so typical of Western European old thinkers, like you and foul-mouthed lolo, and so like most Europeans you have difficulty seeing that the future is a world where such boundaries are less and less important, thus you have difficulty understanding world society the way Americans do.

The US government is, as usual, far behind the leading edge of American society in it's organisation and operational proceedures - but this is typical of all governments, not just America. For instance, the war on terrorism just began and Americans have understood that the terrorists needed to be wiped out for decades. Pointing to the US government as an example of advanced US thinking only shows conscious obtuseness.

Posted by: Rennie

Quote:

Originally posted by FlashingEyes
rennie,

I'm not surprised it seems to you that artificial, man-made boundaries are more important now than ever - that is so typical of Western European old thinkers, like you and foul-mouthed lolo, and so like most Europeans you have difficulty seeing that the future is a world where such boundaries are less and less important, thus you have difficulty understanding world society the way Americans do.

The US government is, as usual, far behind the leading edge of American society in it's organisation and operational proceedures - but this is typical of all governments, not just America. For instance, the war on terrorism just began and Americans have understood that the terrorists needed to be wiped out for decades. Pointing to the US government as an example of advanced US thinking only shows conscious obtuseness.

FlashingEyes, apologies if you've misunderstood me - 100, or 200 years ago, you could quite happily wander across most country borders without too much trouble. Nowadays, with much stricter controls in place, it's much harder to move around with such ease. You've got to admit, even your beloved USA has dropped the shutters and tightened immigration controls with alacrity. Personally, I'd love it if the world merged into one big happy family without borders and jingoistic nationalists ranting about how much better their country is.

However, I do like the way you speak on behalf of the American people, it somehow reassures me. The dichotomy in your post between your nationalism and your vision of a global village is funny though!

By the way, I'm not European, so insulting Europeans doesn't really tickle me the way you want it too

P.S. If it's any consolation, I don't really understand Lolo either.

Posted by: FlashingEyes

Rennie,

Calling me a nationalist is like calling a Tom Clancy novel something from the Romantic period. If you don't get the differences between Napoleanic Europe and modern America then it explains a lot. In 1904 it wasn't as simple as you like to think to cross borders. Yes some of it was done then just as today but the laws and enforcement attempts were there - only the technology has improved. This is true both for the United States, especially on the Mexican border, and in Europe, especially on the French/German border. In 1804 it wasn't as simple as you like to think either. The United States/Canadian border was strictly guarded (with good reason as England would soon try to invade from there), and all Europe was at war with Napolean, so the borders were pretty carefully watched. Hmm...maybe if you go back 10,000 years you can make a case - but then apes are pretty territorial just like early humans were.

Posted by: Rennie

Hi FlashingEyes,

I never called you a nationalist. However, you are obviously proud of being an American and seem certain in the belief of American superiority to the rest of the world, so you'd definitely make an unlikely hippy.

I don't get your reference to "Napoleonic Europe" in this context, could you expand on that? I certainly don't remember Napoleon being asked for fingerprints at any borders he crossed. Oh, and apes did wandered all over the place without passports - you wouldn't be where you are today if your ancestors hadn't left Africa.

With regards to ease of immigration over the years, if we extend to 214 years ago, America brought in the Naturalisation act of 1790 -"Any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States" and from then on, slowly closed the door to immigration until 1921 when for the first time ever, quotas were placed on immigration and imposed passports for the first time too. Can you imagine...as long as you're white, until 1921, you could wander into the US and settle. Now look where you are - and tell me it was just as difficult even 80-odd years ago as it is today.

Wow, amazing what a relaxed (and ever so slightly pissed brain) remembers from school!

Posted by: rob_we

...when I visited the us last time I had a conversation with a guy (nice guy actually) in my hotel. he was selling shower curtains and traveling through the us. He asked me where I was from. I said "im from germany!" He askes me then " if i came with the bus, the train, or the plane"... I think this prooves the universal knowledge of geography in the us

Posted by: FlashingEyes

rennie,

It seems you want to make conscious omissions. For instance, your state..."FlashingEyes...your nationalism" and then state "I never called you a nationalist". Some would say that is an omission I prefer the more accurate word "lie".

I am proud of the superiority of ideas that happen to be the same ideas that America is founded on. That is not the same as being proud of America. I am an idealist not a nationalist. Of course the distinction may be too complex for you, since you don't understand what I said about the difference between today and Napoleanic Europe. Whether the technology of Napolean's day was papers or fingerprints, a system existed and was enforced to protect territorial borders.

Your obtuseness about whether territorialism existed before modern technology is laughable. Apes/animals don't/didn't "wander all over the place" as you claim because even though they don't use modern technologies, their territories are well established and protected.

The existance of different standards for immigration from one time to another is not the same thing as "free to wander across borders," as you claim, and this is another conscious omission on your part that I think again the more accurate word is "lie". Although it was easier to immigrate, it wasn't necessarily easier to "wander across the border". The borders were protected then as now.

Any response henceforth that you make other than proving that animals have not for tens of thousands of years been territorial, will be met only by my request that you prove such.

Posted by: Jim_FL

Quote:

Originally posted by FlashingEyes:
and so like most Europeans you have difficulty seeing that the future is a world where such boundaries are less and less important, thus you have difficulty understanding world society the way Americans do.
and
Americans recognize that geographical boundaries are less important than many Europeans think in understanding the world.
and
This prevents Western Europeans from understanding world events with the same subtlety that Americans do. Technology has changed, but socially, Western Europe has to catch up.
and
European tribes of today might well be better at the geography of the land, but they don't understand modern society.

I think if you read this:

Quote:

From Mirriam Webster Online:
Main Entry: na�tion�al�ism
Pronunciation: 'nash-n&-"li-z&m, 'na-sh&-n&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

It can be clearly seen that Rennie was spot-on with her comment

Quote:

Originally posted by FlashingEyes:
It seems you want to make conscious omissions. For instance, your state..."FlashingEyes...your nationalism" and then state "I never called you a nationalist". Some would say that is an omission I prefer the more accurate word "lie".

If we all return to our dictionaries

we can see the definition of "nationalist" FlashingEyes chose to use in accusing Rennie but then we can see ANOTHER definition:

Quote:

From Mirriam Webster Online:
Main Entry: 1na�tion�al�ist
Pronunciation: -list, -ist
Function: noun
2 capitalized : a member of or of a political party or group advocating national independence or strong national government

which is also VERY commonly associated with the word (and the definition that comes to mind when I hear the word. Therefore, unless FlashingEyes can PROVE which definition Rennie was thinking of when she answered that she did not call him a nationalist, then we must all assume she did not. And any further attempt by FlashingEyes to argue this point further will be met by me asking him to PROVE what the other poster was thinking at the time of their response

Posted by: Jim_FL

As far as "obtuse" as it refered to my earlier post:
If you are going to publicly denigrate an entire continent then you must also concede that Americans, as a group, are only as strong as their weakest link.
Furthermore:

Quote:

Originally posted by FlashingEyes:
Your obtuseness about whether territorialism existed before modern technology is laughable. Apes/animals don't/didn't "wander all over the place" as you claim because even though they don't use modern technologies, their territories are well established and protected.

Any response henceforth that you make other than proving that animals have not for tens of thousands of years been territorial, will be met only by my request that you prove such.

Originally published in: Nomadic Peoples, Commission on Nomadic Peoples, No 30 1992 & No 33 1993, Uppsala.
Nomadic peoples face many threats today, but the most serious is the attempt to stop them moving around.
Over the last 40 years the Raika camel nomads in Rajasthan, India, have lost access to half of the common lands previously used as pasture.
In Kenya, Government attempts to bring traditional Maasai lands under private title have ended up removing large areas of land from grazing. In some cases nearly half the land is now in the hands of non-Maasai.
In Inner Mongolia much of the best grazing land has been turned over to irrigated farming. With privatization nomads have to contract for the right to graze traditional lands. More and more are becoming semi-nomadic and even sedentary ranchers.
Some present day examples of free roaming animals (non territorial) are:
Antelope
Badgers
Buffalo (Bison)
Gazelles
Goats
Lions
Panthers
Polar bears

Quote:

Originally posted by FlashingEyes:
The existance of different standards for immigration from one time to another is not the same thing as "free to wander across borders," as you claim, and this is another conscious omission on your part that I think again the more accurate word is "lie". Although it was easier to immigrate, it wasn't necessarily easier to "wander across the border". The borders were protected then as now.

Ohh you mean the way our Mexican border is protected now? What, are you joking?

Posted by: FlashingEyes

Jim as usual spends such a long time to say so little:

1) when Rennie talked about my "nationalism" it called me a nationalist under any definition

2) one must prove that all animals have not been territorial to prove that territorialianism has not existed for 10's of thousands of years.

Because I don't have any respect for Jim's history of cussing and insults against me and other members I typically ignore him, although I always treat everyone with the basic respect of not acting like, say, Jim has.

Posted by: Rennie

The existance of different standards for immigration from one time to another is not the same thing as "free to wander across borders," as you claim, and this is another conscious omission on your part that I think again the more accurate word is "lie". Although it was easier to immigrate, it wasn't necessarily easier to "wander across the border". The borders were protected then as now.

Any response henceforth that you make other than proving that animals have not for tens of thousands of years been territorial, will be met only by my request that you prove such. [/B][/QUOTE]Look in a dictionary and understand the meaning of the words "nationalism" (which is to word I used to describe your views) and "nationalist" (which is what you accused me of calling you). In any event, it's off topic and not really that important.

Bless you Flash, you're not very good at this debating thing, are you? It's schoolkiddies stuff to bring in random topics (Napoleon, territorial animals, "lies") then demanding I try and prove something YOU yourself introduced into the debate while throwing in a few random insults as cover!

As for immigration, let's repeat for the hard of reading:

You said:"In 1904 it wasn't as simple as you like to think to cross borders. Yes some of it was done then just as today but the laws and enforcement attempts were there - only the technology has improved. "

I said:"With regards to ease of immigration over the years, if we extend to 214 years ago, America brought in the Naturalisation act of 1790 -"Any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States" and from then on, slowly closed the door to immigration until 1921 when for the first time ever, quotas were placed on immigration and imposed passports for the first time too. Can you imagine...as long as you're white, until 1921, you could wander into the US and settle. Now look where you are - and tell me it was just as difficult even 80-odd years ago as it is today."

Nowhere did I say there were no border controls or any commentary on technology. Just simply that it was easier and that the laws were most definitely not the same. Is it that difficult a statement to accept? I await your cunning onslaught (ok...*that* may have been a lie

Posted by: Jim_FL

Quote:

Originally posted by FlashingEyes
Jim as usual spends such a long time to say so little:

1) when Rennie talked about my "nationalism" it called me a nationalist under any definition

Incorrect, as my post proved. Once again, in order for Rennie to be a liar YOU must prove what definition the poster was thinking at the time of the post, a virtual impossibility. Enough with the *linguistics* crap already, huh? It really serves no purpose

Quote:

Originally posted by FlashingEyes

2) one must prove that all animals have not been territorial to prove that territorialianism has not existed for 10's of thousands of years.

Originally you stated:
"Apes/animals don't/didn't "wander all over the place" as you claim because even though they don't use modern technologies, their territories are well established and protected." Now that it has been shown they they did and many species still do to this day, you decide to toss in the word "ALL". There are thousands of species of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and insects that simply - follow the food. This includes humans on all continents of the globe except Antarctica, although for humans it has become substantially more difficult in the last 50 years.

Quote:

Originally posted by FlashingEyes

Because I don't have any respect for Jim's history of cussing and insults against me and other members

I would dearly like to see you produce a single personal insult from me directed at you or any other forum member. It has never happened.

Quote:

Originally posted by FlashingEyes

I always treat everyone with the basic respect of not acting like, say, Jim has.

You appear to treat everyone with pro-american, pro-christian pontification that while often verbose, is rarely with any tenor or substratum. Yet you demand that anyone with a different point of view, must present irrefutable proof to support their opposing view. When they do, you try to deny the truth or accuracy of it, or simply change the parameters, which negates the evidence presented.(this is not an insult, but merely an observation)

Posted by: Jim_FL

Quote:

Originally posted by FlashingEyes
In order for Europe to catch up, they need to do more to obscure geographical boundaries in their thoughts, like Americans. Americans driving from one state to another don't really give it much thought - they don't say "oh the language and laws are very different here - now I can't wear my religious symbols," for instance. Similarly, when Europe has caught up to America socially, Europeans will be able to do the same.

Isn't this EXACTLY what the Schengen treaty was designed to, and is doing? While they may be "behind" for a variety of reasons, it does not appear that they are moving in the wrong direction.

Furthermore, the laws CAN be very different from state to state. Speed limits being a very simplistic example, capitol punishement being one thats a bit more extreme.

Posted by: FlashingEyes

Rennie - same response since you failed to clash with my argument:

The existance of different standards for immigration from one time to another is not the same thing as "free to wander across borders," as you claim, and this is another conscious omission on your part that I think again the more accurate word is "lie". Although it was easier to immigrate, it wasn't necessarily easier to "wander across the border". The borders were protected then as now.

Any response henceforth that you make other than proving that animals have not for tens of thousands of years been territorial, will be met only by my request that you prove such.

Jim - I'm ignoring you because I've lost all respect for your words and actions, although I try to treat everyone with a basic respect by not directing cussing and insults at them like you have done to me and others.

I'm going to accept the quibbling argument that talking about someone's nationalism doesn't mean calling that person a nationalist, as long as the following is also true:

If I talk about Rennie's absolutism, I am therefore NOT calling Rennie an absolutist.

If I talk about Rennie's *****iism, I am therefore NOT calling Rennie a *****.

If I talk about Rennie's Communism, I am therefore NOT calling Rennie a Communist.

If I talk about Rennie's Darwinism, I am therefore NOT calling Rennie a Darwinist.

If I talk about Rennie's egoism, I am therefore NOT calling Rennie an egoist.

If I talk about Rennie's facism, I am therefore NOT calling Rennie an facist.

If I say that Jim's ignorism, lyingism, assininism, piece of white-trashism qualities are contrasted with his attempts to appear intelligent, I would therefore NOT be calling Jim an ignorant, lying, assinine, piece of white trash.

I guess that's how Jim justifies his statement that he has never insulted anyone here. HAHAHAAHAHA

But, seriously, I can't accept the quibbling argument that talking about someones "ism" isn't the same as calling them an "ist" or whatever base root a particular word has. It is the same, so:

I retract any reference about Rennie's absolutism, *****iism, Communism, Darwinism, and egoism, because to say that Rennie was these things would be petty name calling and WOULD after all be calling her the implied other names.

I (sigh, this is hard) also retract any reference about Jim's ignorism, lyingism, assininism, piece of white trashism self because to say that Jim was these things would be petty name calling and WOULD after all be calling him the implied other names.

It's too bad, though, that certain other people don't have the decencyism to admit it.

Posted by: lolomarseille

more than usual, it's perfect ******** and nonsense
at the beginning you think:"hey a different point of view, well i don't agree but let's see" then, after making the effort to read all, it's sad to see that it could have me more accurate by just random the keyboard