Not poverty. Not our support of Israel. Rather, suppression of civil liberties and political rights. Chickpea, here are your root causes, even though I know you won't read the book when it comes out.
Princeton Economist Says
Lack of Civil Liberties, Not
Poverty, Breeds Terrorism
July 5, 2007; Page A2
When Princeton economist Alan Krueger saw reports that seven of eight people arrested in the unsuccessful car bombings in Britain were doctors, he wasn't shocked. He wasn't even surprised.
"Each time we have one of these attacks and the backgrounds of the attackers are revealed, this should put to rest the myth that terrorists are attacking us because they are desperately poor," he says. "But this misconception doesn't die."
Less than a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush said, "We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror." A couple of months later, his wife, Laura, said, "Educated children are much more likely to embrace the values that defeat terror." Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn has argued, "The war on terrorism will not be won until we have come to grips with the problem of poverty, and thus the sources of discontent."
The analysis is plausible. It's appealing because it bolsters the case for the worthy goals of fighting poverty and ignorance. But systematic study -- to the extent possible -- suggests it's wrong.
"As a group, terrorists are better educated and from wealthier families than the typical person in the same age group in the societies from which they originate," Mr. Krueger said at the London School of Economics last year in a lecture soon to be published as a book, "What Makes a Terrorist?"
"There is no evidence of a general tendency for impoverished or uneducated people to be more likely to support terrorism or join terrorist organizations than their higher-income, better-educated countrymen," he said. The Sept. 11 attackers were relatively well-off men from a rich country, Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Krueger, 46 years old, is one of those academics whose research extends from the standard fare -- How much more do workers with education earn? What happens to employment when the minimum wage rises? -- to, well, cool stuff. Did Firestone factories produce shoddy tires during a period of labor unrest? (Yes) Are rich people really enjoying life more than the rest of us? (No) Are concert-ticket prices higher for female musicians than males? (Yes)
He began poking around this sordid subject a decade ago when he and a colleague found little connection between economic circumstances and the incidence of violent hate crimes in Germany. Among the statistical pieces of the puzzle a small band of academics have assembled since are these:
? Backgrounds of 148 Palestinian suicide bombers show they were less likely to come from families living in poverty and were more likely to have finished high school than the general population. Biographies of 129 Hezbollah shahids (martyrs) reveal they, too, are less likely to be from poor families than the Lebanese population from which they come. The same goes for available data about an Israeli terrorist organization, Gush Emunim, active in the 1980s.
? Terrorism doesn't increase in the Middle East when economic conditions worsen; indeed, there seems no link. One study finds the number of terrorist incidents is actually higher in countries that spend more on social-welfare programs. Slicing and dicing data finds no discernible pattern that countries that are poorer or more illiterate produce more terrorists. Examining 781 terrorist events classified by the U.S. State Department as "significant" reveals terrorists tend to come from countries distinguished by political oppression, not poverty or inequality.
? Public-opinion polls from Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey find people with more education are more likely to say suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq are justified. Polls of Palestinians find no clear difference in support for terrorism as a means to achieve political ends between the most and least educated.
Data on which all this relies are hardly perfect: Terrorists don't fill out elaborate questionnaires. Better-off, better-educated individuals could be motivated if not by their own circumstances, then by the conditions of their impoverished countrymen. Interviews of terrorists in Pakistan by Harvard terrorism scholar Jessica Stern reveal recruiters there found the poorest neighborhoods to be the most fertile ground, particularly among those who feel Muslims are humiliated by the West. She says Mr. Krueger and like-minded scholars don't yet have enough evidence to prove anything. "We are only just beginning to do really serious large studies in terrorism," she says.
But the conventional wisdom that poverty breeds terrorism is backed by surprisingly little hard evidence. "The evidence is nearly unanimous in rejecting either material deprivation or inadequate education as an important cause of support for terrorism or of participation in terrorist activities," Mr. Krueger asserts. The 9/11 Commission stated flatly: Terrorism is not caused by poverty.
So what is the cause? Suppression of civil liberties and political rights, Mr. Krueger hypothesizes. "When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed," he says, "malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics."
Which -- ironically, given that Mr. Krueger is no fan of the president's actual policies at home or abroad -- is close to Mr. Bush's rhetoric: "Liberty has got the capacity to change enemies into allies."
Write to David Wessel at capital@wsj.com, or chat with him about this column in his online forum.
Replies
297
Beach Fanatic
Yada, yada, yada!!! Can we move on now?
Beach FanaticAuthor
Yada, yada, yada!!! Can we move on now?
I'm happy to. Next up, when I get some time, I'll show you why Karl Rove is very overrated.
Beach Fanatic
It?s a common theme among the majority of examples. Demonstrating political and civil oppression isn?t a belief, it?s something that can be quantified, as are acts of terror. Again, you make a huge jump in your post. You say that I believe is that oppression is a root cause, or a catalyst, which is correct, and you say that my belief is wrong, which is incorrect. With this, you?ve jumped your statement that oppression is not necessarily a catalyst to oppression is not a catalyst. I?ll put the burden on you to explain why it?s an overwhelming theme when looking at examples of terrorism. As for poverty, the original author demonstrated that poverty is not a root cause, or a significant catalyst.
The problem with this post is that you are inventing your own definition of ?root cause?.
See post # 134
A root cause is an initiating cause of a casual chain which leads to an outcome or effect of interest. Commonly, root cause is used to describe the depth in the casual chain where an intervention could reasonably be implemented to change performance and prevent an undesirable outcome.
A root cause isn?t going to be so common as civil and political oppression unless it commonly leads to terrorism, which it does not, as shown in the following examples:
Jewish Germans in the Reich 1933-1945
Cuban anti-Castro Groups
Dalits, the lowest rung on the Indian caste system
Tibetans living under Chinese occupation
The Chinese ethnic minority community within Vietnam
Black South Africans under Apartheid
Cambodian people under the Khmer Rouge
Bosnian Muslims under Serbian Control pre 1992
Indigenous Tribes in Guatemala and Honduras
And furthermore; by the above definition your example of ?civil and political oppression?, must, when absent, lead to an outcome other than terrorism. And yet, we see the following examples:
Timothy McVeigh
Richard Reid ?the shoebomber who grew up in England
Ted Kazinski ?the uni-bomber
Carlos the Jackal
Any anonymous ETA bomber
Under no acceptable definition of ?root cause? will you see ?a common theme among a majority of examples?.
Beach Fanatic
Predictable follow up.......
6thGen now attempts to invent his own definition of oppression.
Spare us the exercise in futility. Go back a re-read Post# 134.
6thGen now attempts to invent his own definition of oppression.
Spare us the exercise in futility. Go back a re-read Post# 134.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Typical Uncle Timmy to ignore the question and get into a pissing contest on definitions. I'm redefining neither. Again, use my drunk driving example.
Root Cause
An identified reason for the presence of a defect or problem.
The most basic reason, which if eliminated, would prevent recurrence.
The source or origin of an event.
----------
A root cause of a consequence is any basic underlying cause that was not in turn caused by more important underlying causes. (If the cause being considered was caused by more important underlying causes, those are candidates for being root causes.)
Now, admit you were wrong stating that oppression is not a catalyst, or in your words, a cataylist.
Root Cause
An identified reason for the presence of a defect or problem.
The most basic reason, which if eliminated, would prevent recurrence.
The source or origin of an event.
----------
A root cause of a consequence is any basic underlying cause that was not in turn caused by more important underlying causes. (If the cause being considered was caused by more important underlying causes, those are candidates for being root causes.)
Now, admit you were wrong stating that oppression is not a catalyst, or in your words, a cataylist.
Edited
Beach Fanatic
Typical Uncle Timmy to ignore the question and get into a pissing contest on definitions. I'm redefining neither. Again, use my drunk driving example.
Root Cause
An identified reason for the presence of a defect or problem.
The most basic reason, which if eliminated, would prevent recurrence.
The source or origin of an event.
----------
A root cause of a consequence is any basic underlying cause that was not in turn caused by more important underlying causes. (If the cause being considered was caused by more important underlying causes, those are candidates for being root causes.)
Now, admit you were wrong stating that oppression is not a catalyst, or in your words, a cataylist.
Of course it is typical of me to ignore your attempts to divert the discussion onto irrelevant tangents and remain focused on the topic at hand. I have been doing so openly and loudly for the entire thread.
And of course we are focusing on the definitions, because you are inventing your own in order to back up your weak assertion that civil and political oppression is a root cause of terrorism.
Now let?s examine the NEW definitions you have provided from other sources (good to see you aren?t making up your own anymore)
Root Cause
The most basic reason, which if eliminated, would prevent recurrence.
Hmmm, interesting because when we eliminate civil and political oppression (assuming that is a root cause) theoretically we will prevent terrorism. And yet we do not see this.
In fact ETA was founded as an independence movement during Franco?s military dictatorship of Spain, and yet it has only used terrorism following the end of civil and political oppression under Franco and the establishment of democracy in Spain.
Exactly opposite the point you are trying to make.
Beach Fanatic
And I?m not done????.
Let?s look at the following definition you have provided:
A root cause of a consequence is any basic underlying cause that was not in turn caused by more important underlying causes. (If the cause being considered was caused by more important underlying causes, those are candidates for being root causes.)
Now are you saying that civil and political oppression doesn?t have any underlying causes? Nationalism? Religion? Economics? History?
Thank you for providing the previous definitions, you have bolstered my point tremendously.
Let?s look at the following definition you have provided:
A root cause of a consequence is any basic underlying cause that was not in turn caused by more important underlying causes. (If the cause being considered was caused by more important underlying causes, those are candidates for being root causes.)
Now are you saying that civil and political oppression doesn?t have any underlying causes? Nationalism? Religion? Economics? History?
Thank you for providing the previous definitions, you have bolstered my point tremendously.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Again, you are the one on the tangent. Answer one simple question. You said before that political and civil oppression was not a catalyist (sic). Do you believe that oppression is a catalyst for terrorism?
Beach Fanatic
Again, you are the one on the tangent. Answer one simple question. You said before that political and civil oppression was not a catalyist (sic). Do you believe that oppression is a catalyst for terrorism?
Well ok, I guess you need yet one more wack over the head???.
?Political oppression is not necessarily a cataylist.?-Uncle Timmy
Keep chasing that boogieman 6thGen????????
Hint: 6thGen ? We are debating whether civil and political oppression is a root cause of terrorism. After you concede that point then we can go on to another topic and start a new thread where you examine the following, completely separate topic of:
Is civil and political oppression sometimes a catalyst, or factor in terrorism?
Well seeing as that you are your own worst enemy today, I?ll leave you to it for now.
Can?t wait to see what ill-though out argument you?re going to throw out next.
Beach FanaticAuthor
I hesitate to bring this up, because I know you will continue to avoid the one simple question I asked, as you have continued to do. I think we could reach a consensus that drunk driving and tired driving are root causes of accidents between the hours of 11pm and 4am. Following your logic, they are not root causes since everyone that drives tired or drunk isn?t involved in an accident, since every accident wasn?t caused by someone tired or drunk, since eliminating drunk driving and tired driving would not eliminate vehicular accents between 11pm and 4am, and since it doesn?t explain why people drink or what makes them tired. Therefore, and this is key, drunkenness and lack of sleep are not responsible for accidents between 11pm and 4am.
Banned
why have the arabs never solved the issue of the palestinian refugee problem? because it would not suit their purpose of using this scam problem to scapegoat israel.
everyone in the middle east is open about this. it's only uneducated people in the west who refuse to acknowledge it even though the arab council is fairly open about it. only their approved propaganda spouts conflicting fallacies about the "isreali occupiers". nobody believes that except their palestinian pawns and the westerners! and the west seems to accept it as an excuse for terrorism, so why not keep using it?
isreal is still coping with the issue of resolving the problems of absorbing tens of millions of jewish refugees each year into their very small country somehow. providing them with housing, food, education, job training and money. in the last 5 years the country's population doubled. despite the poverty and difficulties of having a country that is entirely made up of first and second generation refugees, most exiled from their arab homes and lands or escaped concentration camps. they have focused all their energies on building and educating. in fact, 1 in 10 isrealis has written and registered a patent for technological advances. windows, voicemail, your cell phone, aol instant messenger, all invented in isreal, by isrealis.
those arabs who make up 20% of israel's population are also eligible for those social programs and benefits. in addition, they have a disproportionate representation in the isreal knesset to ensure their rights.
so, why is that with the ghettoization of palestinians in jordan and syria, they never revolt in those countries? because they simply get mowed down by the arab govts. their is NO space for dissention there.
why does it happen in isreal? because isreal allows them more freedoms than those arab countries and because the arab council funds it and rewards it. all suicide bombers are given HUGE cash awards, homes and cars. it pays to be a murderer and a criminal in the palestinian territories.
even after isreal pulled out of gaza and, in the process, destroying over 100 isreali generational farms, there has not been ONE DAY that the palestinians haven't shot rockets into isreali homes and schools. EVERY SINGLE DAY. you're welcome.
you NEVER hear about the nursery schools that are bombed by the PLO EVERYDAY on our news. the west is so ignorant. they don't understand that what makes terrorists is facism and hate. they are so patronizing about the arabic culture, they don't realize that there is a different view on what creates a level of respect.
i will tell you that while the arabs hate isreal. they respect them. isreal knows how to engage them in a culturally appropriate way. they MOCK america and europe. they know we will believe any crap they feed us.
ignorance makes terrorists. and pacifism. the pacifism required to allow facist, fundamentalist extremist to treat violence as a "cultural right". and the ignorance required to insist that there is some kind of equality in a terrorist's attack of defenseless civilians and a country's military's attempt to defend their people. that's what it takes to make terrorism grow.
everyone in the middle east is open about this. it's only uneducated people in the west who refuse to acknowledge it even though the arab council is fairly open about it. only their approved propaganda spouts conflicting fallacies about the "isreali occupiers". nobody believes that except their palestinian pawns and the westerners! and the west seems to accept it as an excuse for terrorism, so why not keep using it?
isreal is still coping with the issue of resolving the problems of absorbing tens of millions of jewish refugees each year into their very small country somehow. providing them with housing, food, education, job training and money. in the last 5 years the country's population doubled. despite the poverty and difficulties of having a country that is entirely made up of first and second generation refugees, most exiled from their arab homes and lands or escaped concentration camps. they have focused all their energies on building and educating. in fact, 1 in 10 isrealis has written and registered a patent for technological advances. windows, voicemail, your cell phone, aol instant messenger, all invented in isreal, by isrealis.
those arabs who make up 20% of israel's population are also eligible for those social programs and benefits. in addition, they have a disproportionate representation in the isreal knesset to ensure their rights.
so, why is that with the ghettoization of palestinians in jordan and syria, they never revolt in those countries? because they simply get mowed down by the arab govts. their is NO space for dissention there.
why does it happen in isreal? because isreal allows them more freedoms than those arab countries and because the arab council funds it and rewards it. all suicide bombers are given HUGE cash awards, homes and cars. it pays to be a murderer and a criminal in the palestinian territories.
even after isreal pulled out of gaza and, in the process, destroying over 100 isreali generational farms, there has not been ONE DAY that the palestinians haven't shot rockets into isreali homes and schools. EVERY SINGLE DAY. you're welcome.
you NEVER hear about the nursery schools that are bombed by the PLO EVERYDAY on our news. the west is so ignorant. they don't understand that what makes terrorists is facism and hate. they are so patronizing about the arabic culture, they don't realize that there is a different view on what creates a level of respect.
i will tell you that while the arabs hate isreal. they respect them. isreal knows how to engage them in a culturally appropriate way. they MOCK america and europe. they know we will believe any crap they feed us.
ignorance makes terrorists. and pacifism. the pacifism required to allow facist, fundamentalist extremist to treat violence as a "cultural right". and the ignorance required to insist that there is some kind of equality in a terrorist's attack of defenseless civilians and a country's military's attempt to defend their people. that's what it takes to make terrorism grow.
Beach Fanatic
I hesitate to bring this up, because I know you will continue to avoid the one simple question I asked, as you have continued to do. I think we could reach a consensus that drunk driving and tired driving are root causes of accidents between the hours of 11pm and 4am. Following your logic, they are not root causes since everyone that drives tired or drunk isn?t involved in an accident, since every accident wasn?t caused by someone tired or drunk, since eliminating drunk driving and tired driving would not eliminate vehicular accents between 11pm and 4am, and since it doesn?t explain why people drink or what makes them tired. Therefore, and this is key, drunkenness and lack of sleep are not responsible for accidents between 11pm and 4am.
No this is the real key ? Drunkeness and lack of sleep are responsible for some accidents between 11pm and 4am. But they do not represent the most basic reason for a vast majority or all accidents and therefore do not qualify as the ?root causes?.
You seem to be under the impression that simply generating a list of common factors will somehow arrive at the root causes.
Variable A and/or Variable B and/or Variable C = Outcome
People hit a lot of deer at night. Many accidents between 11pm and 4am are caused simply by impaired vision because of the darkness, and as always (regardless of the time of day) many accidents are simply the result of bad weather conditions.
Drunk Driving and/or Tiredness and/or Hitting Deer and/or Visual Impairment due to Darkness and/or Bad Weather = the ?root causes? of accidents between 11 pm and 4 am???
Uh, no ?these are simply a list of common, or contributing factors.
A true root cause will be:
Variable A = Outcome
And multiple ?root causes? will be:
Variable A + Variable B + Variable C = Outcome
The primary difference being that the elimination of the ?root cause? or one of the multiple ?root causes? will result in a different outcome.
It is interesting to note how adding a qualifier to your ?outcome? can change the relationship of the ?variables? to it.
The following are probably true:
Drunk Driving is the root cause of accidents between 11pm and 4am within a 5 mile radius of nightclubs.
Tiredness is a root cause of accidents between 11pm and 4 am in Saudi Arabia, (where no one drinks, it doesn?t rain much, and there aren?t any deer to hit.)
However if you define your outcome broadly, then you must accept the possibility that no root cause or causes can be identified that will suffice.
There isn?t necessarily a ?root cause? for every given situation.
Likewise Terrorism is probably too broad a term to generate any identifiable ?root cause?. And it certainly isn?t ?civil and political oppression? since this is absent from far too many examples.
Perhaps you ought to consider asking the following questions:
What is the root cause of Palestinian terrorism?
What is the root cause of terrorism in support of a Nationalist separatism movement?
What is the root cause of social-revolutionary terrorism in Latin America?
What is the root cause of terrorism by organized crime?
What is the root cause of state sponsored terrorism?
Etc.
You may have better luck convincing someone that ?civil and political oppression? is one of the root causes of one of these more specific examples.
Meow
Is this a word problem? I am starting to get that pit in my stomach and wanting to call a math tutor. :shock:
Beach FanaticAuthor
Is this a word problem? I am starting to get that pit in my stomach and wanting to call a math tutor. :shock:
Remember that scene in Ferris Bueller when the kid was passed out on his desk when Stein was talking about "something-d-o-o-economics"? That was me reading that, minus the puddle of drool.
Beach Fanatic
Remember that scene in Ferris Bueller when the kid was passed out on his desk when Stein was talking about "something-d-o-o-economics"? That was me reading that, minus the puddle of drool.
You?ve seemed a little confused from page one.
Perhaps you ought to just leave these issues to the intellectual big boys.
Beach FanaticAuthor
You?ve seemed a little confused from page one.
Perhaps you ought to just leave these issues to the intellectual big boys.
No, I'm just tired of your pissing contest of splitting hairs once the crux of the argument has been demonstrated. Like I said, it's like Clinton asking the prosecutor to define the meaning of the word "is".
Beach Fanatic
No, I'm just tired of your pissing contest of splitting hairs once the crux of the argument has been demonstrated. Like I said, it's like Clinton asking the prosecutor to define the meaning of the word "is".
Unfortunately for you, splitting hairs is what wins arguments.
Sorry your little house of cards based on poor arguments and ill-defined logic came crashing down.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Unfortunately for you, splitting hairs is what wins arguments.
Sorry your little house of cards based on poor arguments and ill-defined logic came crashing down.
Sorry that your self esteem depends on declaring yourself the winner of internet arguments and thinking that you've proved yourself to people who don't know you under an assumed name against people that you don't know and who don't take you seriously.
Meow
Sorry that your self esteem depends on declaring yourself the winner of internet arguments and thinking that you've proved yourself to people who don't know you under an assumed name against people that you don't know and who don't take you seriously.
Wait a minute here busterGen! Some of us do know Uncle Timmy. Do you know anyone on this board? YOU are the one hiding behind a "name", unless your first name is 6th and the last name is Gen. Play fair!!!
Beach FanaticAuthor
Wait a minute here busterGen! Some of us do know Uncle Timmy. Do you know anyone on this board? YOU are the one hiding behind a "name", unless your first name is 6th and the last name is Gen. Play fair!!!
I don't hang out with internet people.
But I have met Smiling Joe. And believe it or not Chickpea (thanks to her detailed description of herself I realized it). And probably a few others that have come across my secret Cheney lair in Washington.
Beach Fanatic
why have the arabs never solved the issue of the palestinian refugee problem? because it would not suit their purpose of using this scam problem to scapegoat israel.
everyone in the middle east is open about this. it's only uneducated people in the west who refuse to acknowledge it even though the arab council is fairly open about it. only their approved propaganda spouts conflicting fallacies about the "isreali occupiers". nobody believes that except their palestinian pawns and the westerners! and the west seems to accept it as an excuse for terrorism, so why not keep using it?
isreal is still coping with the issue of resolving the problems of absorbing tens of millions of jewish refugees each year into their very small country somehow. providing them with housing, food, education, job training and money. in the last 5 years the country's population doubled. despite the poverty and difficulties of having a country that is entirely made up of first and second generation refugees, most exiled from their arab homes and lands or escaped concentration camps. they have focused all their energies on building and educating. in fact, 1 in 10 isrealis has written and registered a patent for technological advances. windows, voicemail, your cell phone, aol instant messenger, all invented in isreal, by isrealis.
those arabs who make up 20% of israel's population are also eligible for those social programs and benefits. in addition, they have a disproportionate representation in the isreal knesset to ensure their rights.
so, why is that with the ghettoization of palestinians in jordan and syria, they never revolt in those countries? because they simply get mowed down by the arab govts. their is NO space for dissention there.
why does it happen in isreal? because isreal allows them more freedoms than those arab countries and because the arab council funds it and rewards it. all suicide bombers are given HUGE cash awards, homes and cars. it pays to be a murderer and a criminal in the palestinian territories.
even after isreal pulled out of gaza and, in the process, destroying over 100 isreali generational farms, there has not been ONE DAY that the palestinians haven't shot rockets into isreali homes and schools. EVERY SINGLE DAY. you're welcome.
you NEVER hear about the nursery schools that are bombed by the PLO EVERYDAY on our news. the west is so ignorant. they don't understand that what makes terrorists is facism and hate. they are so patronizing about the arabic culture, they don't realize that there is a different view on what creates a level of respect.
i will tell you that while the arabs hate isreal. they respect them. isreal knows how to engage them in a culturally appropriate way. they MOCK america and europe. they know we will believe any crap they feed us.
ignorance makes terrorists. and pacifism. the pacifism required to allow facist, fundamentalist extremist to treat violence as a "cultural right". and the ignorance required to insist that there is some kind of equality in a terrorist's attack of defenseless civilians and a country's military's attempt to defend their people. that's what it takes to make terrorism grow.
Raven,
I am not quite sure or clear I follow what your point here is. You are certainly partially right that many arab countries have abandoned the Palestinians (financially, politically, morally even), although on the other hand, some countries like Jordan and Lebanon opened up their borders to scores of refugees, and in 1974-75, this became one of the root causes of the civil unrest that led to a civil war that lasted 20 years + in Lebanon.
Not sure how to address the points you make about Palestinians lobbying rockets daily - until some of the wrongs that were done to them, and until their youth feel they have some semblance of a political voice and some hope for a future, the cycle of violence and destruction will continue.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Not sure how to address the points you make about Palestinians lobbying rockets daily - until some of the wrongs that were done to them, and until their youth feel they have some semblance of a political voice and some hope for a future, the cycle of violence and destruction will continue.
What about Southern blacks? They were treated worse than Palestinians, but you don't see rockets fired from southern Atlanta.
Meow
I don't hang out with internet people.
But I have met Smiling Joe. And believe it or not Chickpea (thanks to her detailed description of herself I realized it). And probably a few others that have come across my secret Cheney lair in Washington.
Who would have thought that I would be called internet people in this lifetime!!!Edited
SoWal Expert
I don't hang out with internet people.Then what do you call these "discussions?" :funn:Admit it, you are hanging out with internet people.
Meow
Then what do you call these "discussions?" :funn:Admit it, you are hanging out with internet people.
:funn:
Poor 6thGen...he is in the vortex and he can't get out!
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.