Question for Objectivists
23 Feb 2011, 12:48 am
Interesting that a social animal would think that the needs of others are not important. There must be some kind of illusion in our worlds.
Perhaps the external structures we have created illude some that they don't depend on others for survival. And, illude others further to believe they are above the animal kingdom, and even significantly different than their neighbor.
Altruism doesn't exist in the sense that whenever we provide help to another human we are helping an individual that shares essentially the same genetic material, regardless of family connection. We would not exist today without the evolutionary advantage of cooperation within the species beyond what we commonly understand as family.
We normally receive a healthy boost of oxytocin whenever we take care of others; even our domesticated animals. Evolution does not provide a reward like this unless it enhances chances for survival.
Reuvyn brought up an interesting point about the homogenous nature of Denmark. It has been reported that a person can leave their child in a stroller on the sidewalk without fear from others. Denmark rates as having the happiest population among countries in the world. People take care of each other; this is the way humans are designed.
Unfortunately an heterogenous culture can illude us into believing that there is no need to help our neighbors; the differences become the focus rather than the similiarities.
The reason that some isolated upper class people are not as happy as the homogenous poor is obvious; they don't hold the social bonds created by mutual need that are part of human nature. Research shows that social bonds are the number one factor in happiness.
The fact that many people believe they are self sufficient and think that everyone should be self sufficient may lead to the downfall of our country. Perhaps, it is a result of our heterogenous culture that cannot be overcome. It is evident though, if we are not willing to raise the revenue and provide the services people need, our country will not survive in its current form. Our national debt is a reflection that our sense of nation is weak.
The origin of this is human nature; we can't escape it. If we don't comply, we face consequences as a nation and a species.
Capitalism is also reflective of human nature. It works great in Denmark; they have the ability to tame it.
23 Feb 2011, 3:06 am
aghogday wrote:
Interesting that a social animal would think that the needs of others are not important. There must be some kind of illusion in our worlds.
Perhaps the external structures we have created illude some that they don't depend on others for survival. And, illude others further to believe they are above the animal kingdom, and even significantly different than their neighbor.
Altruism doesn't exist in the sense that whenever we provide help to another human we are helping an individual that shares essentially the same genetic material, regardless of family connection. We would not exist today without the evolutionary advantage of cooperation within the species beyond what we commonly understand as family.
We normally receive a healthy boost of oxytocin whenever we take care of others; even our domesticated animals. Evolution does not provide a reward like this unless it enhances chances for survival.
Reuvyn brought up an interesting point about the homogenous nature of Denmark. It has been reported that a person can leave their child in a stroller on the sidewalk without fear from others. Denmark rates as having the happiest population among countries in the world. People take care of each other; this is the way humans are designed.
Unfortunately an heterogenous culture can illude us into believing that there is no need to help our neighbors; the differences become the focus rather than the similiarities.
The reason that some isolated upper class people are not as happy as the homogenous poor is obvious; they don't hold the social bonds created by mutual need that are part of human nature. Research shows that social bonds are the number one factor in happiness.
The fact that many people believe they are self sufficient and think that everyone should be self sufficient may lead to the downfall of our country. Perhaps, it is a result of our heterogenous culture that cannot be overcome. It is evident though, if we are not willing to raise the revenue and provide the services people need, our country will not survive in its current form. Our national debt is a reflection that our sense of nation is weak.
The origin of this is human nature; we can't escape it. If we don't comply, we face consequences as a nation and a species.
Capitalism is also reflective of human nature. It works great in Denmark; they have the ability to tame it.
Perhaps the external structures we have created illude some that they don't depend on others for survival. And, illude others further to believe they are above the animal kingdom, and even significantly different than their neighbor.
Altruism doesn't exist in the sense that whenever we provide help to another human we are helping an individual that shares essentially the same genetic material, regardless of family connection. We would not exist today without the evolutionary advantage of cooperation within the species beyond what we commonly understand as family.
We normally receive a healthy boost of oxytocin whenever we take care of others; even our domesticated animals. Evolution does not provide a reward like this unless it enhances chances for survival.
Reuvyn brought up an interesting point about the homogenous nature of Denmark. It has been reported that a person can leave their child in a stroller on the sidewalk without fear from others. Denmark rates as having the happiest population among countries in the world. People take care of each other; this is the way humans are designed.
Unfortunately an heterogenous culture can illude us into believing that there is no need to help our neighbors; the differences become the focus rather than the similiarities.
The reason that some isolated upper class people are not as happy as the homogenous poor is obvious; they don't hold the social bonds created by mutual need that are part of human nature. Research shows that social bonds are the number one factor in happiness.
The fact that many people believe they are self sufficient and think that everyone should be self sufficient may lead to the downfall of our country. Perhaps, it is a result of our heterogenous culture that cannot be overcome. It is evident though, if we are not willing to raise the revenue and provide the services people need, our country will not survive in its current form. Our national debt is a reflection that our sense of nation is weak.
The origin of this is human nature; we can't escape it. If we don't comply, we face consequences as a nation and a species.
Capitalism is also reflective of human nature. It works great in Denmark; they have the ability to tame it.
John Howard said that the best gift a government can give a person is to get out of their way. He also said, as was the philosophical underpinning of his government, that the best chance at welfare anyone has is a job. Socialism and communism and form of communalism doesn't supply jobs. It might give you welfare, but not a job. A person is happiest when they can provide for themselves, not arbitrarily sacrifice for others.
Have you ever noticed how the farther Left you go, the angrier people become?
And, lastly but very much not leastly, to quote Gene Simmons:
"I want everyone here to give me all the money they don't want."
Stupid wealth-redistributing type idiotic statements that have no value in the REAL world. Socialism only works in theory. I wonder why that is...
A clue, it has nothing to do with the fact that, as Ayn Rand seminally said, selfishness is a virtue. It rather has to do with envy. Which, according to everyone from God down, is a sin.
_________________
Oh, God, cleanse me of sins I do not perceive, and forgive me those of others.
- Pascal Bruckner
23 Feb 2011, 9:44 am
aghogday wrote:
The origin of this is human nature; we can't escape it. If we don't comply, we face consequences as a nation and a species.
Capitalism is also reflective of human nature. It works great in Denmark; they have the ability to tame it.
Three hundred years of peace, brotherhood and democracy and what as Denmark produced?
The world's best butter.
ruveyn
23 Feb 2011, 11:27 am
Quote:
Um. Ayn Rand lived her life in the active PROMOTION of philanthropy. Buy a dictionary, then read it. The definition of philanthropy is endowment, charity is almsgiving, altruism is arbitrary sacrifice. I think she was right to abhor altruism. Why would I live MY life for YOUR sake? Makes no sense, does it?
People always act towards their own preferences. Some people choose to help others through the same "arbitrary" whims that make people choose to value their own happiness, property, or values. Meaning is not prescribed, it is derived. If someone chooses to live their life for others, it's as sensible as any other life style. Even if you would say that it's less Rational, it's a person's own prerogative if they value irrationality and romanticism over rationality. Rationality might be objective, but saying that one should accept rationality is a subjective opinion. In the same way, Ayn Rand can say that altruism is irrational, that she abhors it, but she cannot say that it should universally be abhorred, because that is an emotional reaction to a cold fact, and emotional reactions are subjective.
Quote:
She was not existential
I didn't say she was. I said that she tried to take existentialism as her philosophy's name. A clear exercise in Unspeak.
Quote:
She was objective about everything. Including herself. She was not existential. Even in its original, un-Kantian perverted form, espoused by Kierkegaard. She was objective, inasmuch as she valued herself and her ability to best exemplify herself above all other things. I see no problem with this. Neither should anyone else
.
The definition of objective is to be free of personal preferences. Values are subjective. I have no problem with her preferences, but she shouldn't claim they are objective.
_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger
Member of the WP Strident Atheists
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
23 Feb 2011, 12:53 pm
PJW wrote:
John Howard said that the best gift a government can give a person is to get out of their way. He also said, as was the philosophical underpinning of his government, that the best chance at welfare anyone has is a job. Socialism and communism and form of communalism doesn't supply jobs. It might give you welfare, but not a job. A person is happiest when they can provide for themselves, not arbitrarily sacrifice for others.
Have you ever noticed how the farther Left you go, the angrier people become?
And, lastly but very much not leastly, to quote Gene Simmons:
"I want everyone here to give me all the money they don't want."
Stupid wealth-redistributing type idiotic statements that have no value in the REAL world. Socialism only works in theory. I wonder why that is...
A clue, it has nothing to do with the fact that, as Ayn Rand seminally said, selfishness is a virtue. It rather has to do with envy. Which, according to everyone from God down, is a sin.
Have you ever noticed how the farther Left you go, the angrier people become?
And, lastly but very much not leastly, to quote Gene Simmons:
"I want everyone here to give me all the money they don't want."
Stupid wealth-redistributing type idiotic statements that have no value in the REAL world. Socialism only works in theory. I wonder why that is...
A clue, it has nothing to do with the fact that, as Ayn Rand seminally said, selfishness is a virtue. It rather has to do with envy. Which, according to everyone from God down, is a sin.
Do capitalism 100% guarantee someone a job? What about those without diplomas ditched out of job at 50 because the company is making some cuts for sastifying auctionners. Welfare is there for compasate the shortcoming of capitalism.
_________________
Down with speculators!! !
23 Feb 2011, 1:10 pm
Tollorin wrote:
Do capitalism 100% guarantee someone a job? What about those without diplomas ditched out of job at 50 because the company is making some cuts for sastifying auctionners. Welfare is there for compasate the shortcoming of capitalism.
No guarantees. There never were any guarantees. The thing that socialism and welfare guarantee is mediocrity in every aspect.
ruveyn
23 Feb 2011, 1:28 pm
PJW wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Interesting that a social animal would think that the needs of others are not important. There must be some kind of illusion in our worlds.
Perhaps the external structures we have created illude some that they don't depend on others for survival. And, illude others further to believe they are above the animal kingdom, and even significantly different than their neighbor.
Altruism doesn't exist in the sense that whenever we provide help to another human we are helping an individual that shares essentially the same genetic material, regardless of family connection. We would not exist today without the evolutionary advantage of cooperation within the species beyond what we commonly understand as family.
We normally receive a healthy boost of oxytocin whenever we take care of others; even our domesticated animals. Evolution does not provide a reward like this unless it enhances chances for survival.
Reuvyn brought up an interesting point about the homogenous nature of Denmark. It has been reported that a person can leave their child in a stroller on the sidewalk without fear from others. Denmark rates as having the happiest population among countries in the world. People take care of each other; this is the way humans are designed.
Unfortunately an heterogenous culture can illude us into believing that there is no need to help our neighbors; the differences become the focus rather than the similiarities.
The reason that some isolated upper class people are not as happy as the homogenous poor is obvious; they don't hold the social bonds created by mutual need that are part of human nature. Research shows that social bonds are the number one factor in happiness.
The fact that many people believe they are self sufficient and think that everyone should be self sufficient may lead to the downfall of our country. Perhaps, it is a result of our heterogenous culture that cannot be overcome. It is evident though, if we are not willing to raise the revenue and provide the services people need, our country will not survive in its current form. Our national debt is a reflection that our sense of nation is weak.
The origin of this is human nature; we can't escape it. If we don't comply, we face consequences as a nation and a species.
Capitalism is also reflective of human nature. It works great in Denmark; they have the ability to tame it.
Perhaps the external structures we have created illude some that they don't depend on others for survival. And, illude others further to believe they are above the animal kingdom, and even significantly different than their neighbor.
Altruism doesn't exist in the sense that whenever we provide help to another human we are helping an individual that shares essentially the same genetic material, regardless of family connection. We would not exist today without the evolutionary advantage of cooperation within the species beyond what we commonly understand as family.
We normally receive a healthy boost of oxytocin whenever we take care of others; even our domesticated animals. Evolution does not provide a reward like this unless it enhances chances for survival.
Reuvyn brought up an interesting point about the homogenous nature of Denmark. It has been reported that a person can leave their child in a stroller on the sidewalk without fear from others. Denmark rates as having the happiest population among countries in the world. People take care of each other; this is the way humans are designed.
Unfortunately an heterogenous culture can illude us into believing that there is no need to help our neighbors; the differences become the focus rather than the similiarities.
The reason that some isolated upper class people are not as happy as the homogenous poor is obvious; they don't hold the social bonds created by mutual need that are part of human nature. Research shows that social bonds are the number one factor in happiness.
The fact that many people believe they are self sufficient and think that everyone should be self sufficient may lead to the downfall of our country. Perhaps, it is a result of our heterogenous culture that cannot be overcome. It is evident though, if we are not willing to raise the revenue and provide the services people need, our country will not survive in its current form. Our national debt is a reflection that our sense of nation is weak.
The origin of this is human nature; we can't escape it. If we don't comply, we face consequences as a nation and a species.
Capitalism is also reflective of human nature. It works great in Denmark; they have the ability to tame it.
John Howard said that the best gift a government can give a person is to get out of their way. He also said, as was the philosophical underpinning of his government, that the best chance at welfare anyone has is a job. Socialism and communism and form of communalism doesn't supply jobs. It might give you welfare, but not a job. A person is happiest when they can provide for themselves, not arbitrarily sacrifice for others.
Have you ever noticed how the farther Left you go, the angrier people become?
And, lastly but very much not leastly, to quote Gene Simmons:
"I want everyone here to give me all the money they don't want."
Stupid wealth-redistributing type idiotic statements that have no value in the REAL world. Socialism only works in theory. I wonder why that is...
A clue, it has nothing to do with the fact that, as Ayn Rand seminally said, selfishness is a virtue. It rather has to do with envy. Which, according to everyone from God down, is a sin.
@ ruveyn: Exactly, there are no guarantees in life, especially not with anything inherently subject to the flaws of human nature.
23 Feb 2011, 1:42 pm
PJW wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Interesting that a social animal would think that the needs of others are not important. There must be some kind of illusion in our worlds.
Perhaps the external structures we have created illude some that they don't depend on others for survival. And, illude others further to believe they are above the animal kingdom, and even significantly different than their neighbor.
Altruism doesn't exist in the sense that whenever we provide help to another human we are helping an individual that shares essentially the same genetic material, regardless of family connection. We would not exist today without the evolutionary advantage of cooperation within the species beyond what we commonly understand as family.
We normally receive a healthy boost of oxytocin whenever we take care of others; even our domesticated animals. Evolution does not provide a reward like this unless it enhances chances for survival.
Reuvyn brought up an interesting point about the homogenous nature of Denmark. It has been reported that a person can leave their child in a stroller on the sidewalk without fear from others. Denmark rates as having the happiest population among countries in the world. People take care of each other; this is the way humans are designed.
Unfortunately an heterogenous culture can illude us into believing that there is no need to help our neighbors; the differences become the focus rather than the similiarities.
The reason that some isolated upper class people are not as happy as the homogenous poor is obvious; they don't hold the social bonds created by mutual need that are part of human nature. Research shows that social bonds are the number one factor in happiness.
The fact that many people believe they are self sufficient and think that everyone should be self sufficient may lead to the downfall of our country. Perhaps, it is a result of our heterogenous culture that cannot be overcome. It is evident though, if we are not willing to raise the revenue and provide the services people need, our country will not survive in its current form. Our national debt is a reflection that our sense of nation is weak.
The origin of this is human nature; we can't escape it. If we don't comply, we face consequences as a nation and a species.
Capitalism is also reflective of human nature. It works great in Denmark; they have the ability to tame it.
Perhaps the external structures we have created illude some that they don't depend on others for survival. And, illude others further to believe they are above the animal kingdom, and even significantly different than their neighbor.
Altruism doesn't exist in the sense that whenever we provide help to another human we are helping an individual that shares essentially the same genetic material, regardless of family connection. We would not exist today without the evolutionary advantage of cooperation within the species beyond what we commonly understand as family.
We normally receive a healthy boost of oxytocin whenever we take care of others; even our domesticated animals. Evolution does not provide a reward like this unless it enhances chances for survival.
Reuvyn brought up an interesting point about the homogenous nature of Denmark. It has been reported that a person can leave their child in a stroller on the sidewalk without fear from others. Denmark rates as having the happiest population among countries in the world. People take care of each other; this is the way humans are designed.
Unfortunately an heterogenous culture can illude us into believing that there is no need to help our neighbors; the differences become the focus rather than the similiarities.
The reason that some isolated upper class people are not as happy as the homogenous poor is obvious; they don't hold the social bonds created by mutual need that are part of human nature. Research shows that social bonds are the number one factor in happiness.
The fact that many people believe they are self sufficient and think that everyone should be self sufficient may lead to the downfall of our country. Perhaps, it is a result of our heterogenous culture that cannot be overcome. It is evident though, if we are not willing to raise the revenue and provide the services people need, our country will not survive in its current form. Our national debt is a reflection that our sense of nation is weak.
The origin of this is human nature; we can't escape it. If we don't comply, we face consequences as a nation and a species.
Capitalism is also reflective of human nature. It works great in Denmark; they have the ability to tame it.
John Howard said that the best gift a government can give a person is to get out of their way. He also said, as was the philosophical underpinning of his government, that the best chance at welfare anyone has is a job. Socialism and communism and form of communalism doesn't supply jobs. It might give you welfare, but not a job. A person is happiest when they can provide for themselves, not arbitrarily sacrifice for others.
Have you ever noticed how the farther Left you go, the angrier people become?
And, lastly but very much not leastly, to quote Gene Simmons:
"I want everyone here to give me all the money they don't want."
Stupid wealth-redistributing type idiotic statements that have no value in the REAL world. Socialism only works in theory. I wonder why that is...
A clue, it has nothing to do with the fact that, as Ayn Rand seminally said, selfishness is a virtue. It rather has to do with envy. Which, according to everyone from God down, is a sin.
Raising revenue to provide services means all the services that are provided in the country; not for a select few.
You assume I support socialism; I am only looking for an answer that will continue our Capitalistic way of life. I'm not sure there is one; but I do know that if the Country continues to divide itself on the issue and finds no rational way to slow our economic decline, many people will no longer have the opportunity to participate in Capitalism; and ultimately may answer to an authority that is more unsavory than the Government we have.
As Glenn Beck stated, "the Republicans have sold the American Public out". The fourteen trillion dollar debt is a reflection of this. I will add that the democrats have also contributed to this. The country cannot function without the services the government provides; it would crumble. If anyone assumes otherwise they are deluding themselves. The problem is politicians have taken the responsibility from all citizens to pay their way.
If we don't raise revenue from all tax brackets and cut wasteful spending as a combined strategy we don't have a way to manage our debt and budget that will have a significant impact. The mathematical reality of the problem is unavoidable.
Without the cooperation of politicians and the American Public, and the understanding that it is an endeavor worth sacrifice; ultimately the economy is doomed and the future of young people in the country does not look like a prosperous one.
We can continue to defer the problem into the future, but without a solution, someone will suffer the consequences of the deferment.
23 Feb 2011, 1:47 pm
ruveyn wrote:
aghogday wrote:
The origin of this is human nature; we can't escape it. If we don't comply, we face consequences as a nation and a species.
Capitalism is also reflective of human nature. It works great in Denmark; they have the ability to tame it.
Three hundred years of peace, brotherhood and democracy and what as Denmark produced?
The world's best butter.
ruveyn
They produce what is necessary for the success of their country and children. Can you think of anything more important?
23 Feb 2011, 3:53 pm
aghogday wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
aghogday wrote:
The origin of this is human nature; we can't escape it. If we don't comply, we face consequences as a nation and a species.
Capitalism is also reflective of human nature. It works great in Denmark; they have the ability to tame it.
Three hundred years of peace, brotherhood and democracy and what as Denmark produced?
The world's best butter.
ruveyn
They produce what is necessary for the success of their country and children. Can you think of anything more important?
How about a broad-based economy that encourages innovation? An economy that best exemplifies the words of Francisco d'Anconia in his money speech, when he said "Money is made ... made by honest men, each according to his ability."
The honourable poor will never accept arbitrary handouts. So, where does this mentality come from? This need to impoverish the rich, if not through subversion and guilt, the Randian well-named Aristocracy of Pull, then how?
I'll say it again for all of you who missed it. Being poor doesn't entitle you to someone else's wealth. Wealth has to be made. You have every opportunity in this world to make it for yourself. Ironically, it's poorer people who end up making the most wealth, and the green-eyed middle classes, too comfortable to want to push the envelope, always advocate wealth-redistribution. Not for the poor, but to impoverish the rich.
Anyway, I wonder, would you give me, who is currently unemployed, all your money? Would that make you feel better, knowing that now I have to give it back to you because now I have money and you don't?
THINK!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!
_________________
Oh, God, cleanse me of sins I do not perceive, and forgive me those of others.
- Pascal Bruckner
23 Feb 2011, 3:58 pm
Quote:
Anyway, I wonder, would you give me, who is currently unemployed, all your money? Would that make you feel better, knowing that now I have to give it back to you because now I have money and you don't?
Quote:
Being poor doesn't entitle you to someone else's wealth.
Nobody in their right mind wants that. I don't object to putting a small amount of my money into a social safety net, so that unemployed people like you can at least afford a room and board and be able to move on in life and achieve success. It's hard to do this if you're trapped in an unemployed situation with no help for some people who might have extraneous circumstances. I don't know the circumstances of your unemployment, obviously. In any case, this isn't about taking rich people's money man, that's just insane. It's about ensuring that everyone will be able to contribute to
Quote:
How about a broad-based economy that encourages innovation? An economy that best exemplifies the words of Francisco d'Anconia in his money speech, when he said "Money is made ... made by honest men, each according to his ability."
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
23 Feb 2011, 5:36 pm
PJW wrote:
aghogday wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
aghogday wrote:
The origin of this is human nature; we can't escape it. If we don't comply, we face consequences as a nation and a species.
Capitalism is also reflective of human nature. It works great in Denmark; they have the ability to tame it.
Three hundred years of peace, brotherhood and democracy and what as Denmark produced?
The world's best butter.
ruveyn
They produce what is necessary for the success of their country and children. Can you think of anything more important?
How about a broad-based economy that encourages innovation? An economy that best exemplifies the words of Francisco d'Anconia in his money speech, when he said "Money is made ... made by honest men, each according to his ability."
The honourable poor will never accept arbitrary handouts. So, where does this mentality come from? This need to impoverish the rich, if not through subversion and guilt, the Randian well-named Aristocracy of Pull, then how?
I'll say it again for all of you who missed it. Being poor doesn't entitle you to someone else's wealth. Wealth has to be made. You have every opportunity in this world to make it for yourself. Ironically, it's poorer people who end up making the most wealth, and the green-eyed middle classes, too comfortable to want to push the envelope, always advocate wealth-redistribution. Not for the poor, but to impoverish the rich.
Anyway, I wonder, would you give me, who is currently unemployed, all your money? Would that make you feel better, knowing that now I have to give it back to you because now I have money and you don't?
THINK!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!
I'm wondering that since you think i'm dishonourable for accepting welfare checks, what your policy on the dishonourable rich is? Surely since the son does not create the wealth of the father, inheritance tax should be set at 100% and anything else should be seen as handout?
23 Feb 2011, 5:44 pm
jamieboy wrote:
I'm wondering that since you think i'm dishonourable for accepting welfare checks, what your policy on the dishonourable rich is? Surely since the son does not create the wealth of the father, inheritance tax should be set at 100% and anything else should be seen as handout?
The father OWNS his wealth. He alone has the right to say who gets it when he dies. It does not belong to Society, the Government, the People or to God. Taxing inheritances is outright theft simpliciter. It is robbing the wealth of the dead. It is based on the false premise that society has the prior claim on the wealth made by the productive folk for the sake of the "unfortunate" who "need" it. In general the "unfortunate" are the lazy and incompetent bums who did not work and save for their old age. Good! Let them starve!
ruveyn
23 Feb 2011, 5:52 pm
PJW wrote:
THINK!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!
You first. You know typing in caps and being an acerbic brick-head isn't a substitute for thinking.
Typical Randroid ^^^^^^^^
Last edited by marshall on 23 Feb 2011, 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
