Who are THEY and how do we deal with them? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 07-18-2005, 12:35 PM

i fail to see how rehearsing outlines of the cartoon "terrorist" in any way helps to legitimate the category.
everyone is aware of what the "terrorist" is supposed to mean in the vacant little world that is particular to american conservatism.

if you read through the "defining" features listed by ncb and stevo--with a characteristic aside from ustwo---you will see a demonstration of the point i was trying to make earlier.

that you repeat this terminology and rehearse what everyone already knows about it really does not help if your point is that---somehow----the notion of "terrorist" or "them" is functional.

addendum:
then i saw this from stevo:

Quote:

I will agree with you on one point. Terrorisim is the new communisim, you see, before islamic terrorists, it was red army terrorists and communist separitist groups in central and south america that were using terrorism as a means of advancing their agendas. so you're right. but it doesn't make the arguement against islamic terrorists wrong.

which is just funny. another way of saying the same thing: just as for the john birch set (what once was a whackjob marginal far right position now informs mainstream conservative ideology--go figure) "communism" was an empty signifier that gave the birchers something to hate with no knowledge and great intensity, so now "terrorist"....funny how committed the right is to the world as western film. black hats, white hats. simple world for simple minds.

btw: so that an even more idiotic trajectory does not get set up by this: no-one is denying that the states might face political threats from people. the claim is that the category "terrorist" of "them" is worthless for thinking about them, much less doing anything.

Pacifier · 07-18-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Sure there is, and we know who they are: They tend to be young, Muslims men who want to see Western Civ go down in flames. It's not hard to figure out. True, it's not very PC to point this out. but then again, should we be listening to the same people who scream that the TSA needs to search 80yo Norwegian grandmas at the same rate as 22 yo Muslim men? I think not

thank you for clarifing raochboys point even more.

And what can we do with this precious analysis of yours?
Hunt every musilm who is younger than 22y?

Don't you think it could be more useful to have some better information?
I know you Administration loves fishy intel but...

We need to know more about the different terrorist groups, about their motivations and so on. I said it numerous time already but you right winger are happy to fight a vague "symptom" rather than exaim and fight the illness

stevo · 07-18-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

which is just funny. another way of saying the same thing: just as for the john birch set (what once was a whackjob marginal far right position now informs mainstream conservative ideology--go figure) "communism" was an empty signifier that gave the birchers something to hate with no knowledge and great intensity, so now "terrorist"....funny how committed the right is to the world as western film. black hats, white hats. simple world for simple minds.

I think the american people have knowledge of the dangers of terrorists when it is them that attack us and our allies. How terrorisim is abstract is beyond me. To say that there is no "them," are you saying there is not such thing as an islamic terrorist?

Are you trying to say that islamic suicide bombers are just every day normal people trying to express themselves politically and its useless to try and seperate them from the rest of the populatation?

Pacifier · 07-18-2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Are you trying to say that islamic suicide bombers are just every day normal people trying to express themselves politically and its useless to try and seperate them from the rest of the populatation?

It surely surprises you but one of the London terrorists was a normal guy before.
The MI5 checked him and they thought he was unsuspicious

stevo · 07-18-2005, 01:11 PM

So are you saying it is useless to try and separate suicidal mass murderers from the rest of the popupation?

NCB · 07-18-2005, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

We need to know more about the different terrorist groups, about their motivations and so on. I said it numerous time already but you right winger are happy to fight a vague "symptom" rather than exaim and fight the illness

We know their motivations and so on. They pronouce it every chance they get. Sorry, but this is something we cant fight with hugs and understanding. God knows I wish it were

dlish · 07-18-2005, 01:27 PM

before

Quote:

It surely surprises you but one of the London terrorists was a normal guy before

whats a 'normal guy' to you?

and stevo ... for the record..islamic jihad is a palestinian group. it had nothing to do with the killing of american marines at that base. what you are thinking of is Hizbollah. if i were you i'd be checking my sources. i stopped reading the article after that.

Pacifier · 07-18-2005, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

whats a 'normal guy' to you?

normal enough not to be suspicious to the MI5.
So apparently he had no strong ties to extremist terror groups when they checked him, or they failed to find those links.

NCB · 07-18-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

before

whats a 'normal guy' to you?

and stevo ... for the record..islamic jihad is a palestinian group. it had nothing to do with the killing of american marines at that base. what you are thinking of is Hizbollah. if i were you i'd be checking my sources. i stopped reading the article after that.

They;re committed to the same outcome....no Jews in Israel

tecoyah · 07-18-2005, 03:00 PM

................Mark...................

Elphaba · 07-18-2005, 03:41 PM

"Mark", Tecoyah? I'm not clear on your meaning.

Elphaba · 07-18-2005, 03:44 PM

The new topic explains it.

stevo · 07-19-2005, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

and stevo ... for the record..islamic jihad is a palestinian group. it had nothing to do with the killing of american marines at that base. what you are thinking of is Hizbollah. if i were you i'd be checking my sources. i stopped reading the article after that.

And there were references to Iranian-back Islamic Jihad, which was meant to say Hizbollah as well. Just because two terror organizations' names were mixed up doesn't mean the attacks listed never happened.

RangerDick · 07-19-2005, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

before

whats a 'normal guy' to you?

and stevo ... for the record..islamic jihad is a palestinian group. it had nothing to do with the killing of american marines at that base. what you are thinking of is Hizbollah. if i were you i'd be checking my sources. i stopped reading the article after that.

This reminds me of a scene in 'The Life Of Brian'......

Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg: Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea .....
FRANCIS: Wankers.
BRIAN: Can I... join your group?
REG: No. Piss off.
BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Stumm.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.

--------------------

boatin · 07-19-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

We know their motivations and so on. They pronouce it every chance they get. Sorry, but this is something we cant fight with hugs and understanding. God knows I wish it were

I don't believe ANYONE has suggested hugs. To continue saying that degrades the conversation; and putting words in the mouths of others is pretty insulting. How about we all stop doing that?

And to put 'hugs' and 'understanding' in the same sentence degrades the value of 'understanding'. Is that your intent? Do you see NO value in understanding your opponent?

Understanding how they* recruit.
Understanding their* tactical methods.
Understanding their* strategic (specific) aims.
Understanding their* relationships with other organizations.
Understanding the specific flows of money within their* organizations.

*the use of 'they' and 'their' refers those that actually have connection to acts of violence.

I'm sure there are more...

I don't think anyone on this board would argue that getting "understanding" of those things is a bad idea. Or related to "hugs". Anyone on the NCB side of things want to say that understanding those things is bad or usless? If not, then please stop with the rhetoric that "understanding" is a problem.

What I get out of Pacifier/Roachboy's posts is that talking about generalities, and hyping up the fear level is useless. I have no idea why anyone could, or would, disagree with that.

NCB · 07-19-2005, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

I don't believe ANYONE has suggested hugs. To continue saying that degrades the conversation; and putting words in the mouths of others is pretty insulting. How about we all stop doing that?

And to put 'hugs' and 'understanding' in the same sentence degrades the value of 'understanding'. Is that your intent? Do you see NO value in understanding your opponent?

Understanding how they* recruit.
Understanding their* tactical methods.
Understanding their* strategic (specific) aims.
Understanding their* relationships with other organizations.
Understanding the specific flows of money within their* organizations.

*the use of 'they' and 'their' refers those that actually have connection to acts of violence.

I'm sure there are more...

I don't think anyone on this board would argue that getting "understanding" of those things is a bad idea. Or related to "hugs". Anyone on the NCB side of things want to say that understanding those things is bad or usless? If not, then please stop with the rhetoric that "understanding" is a problem.

What I get out of Pacifier/Roachboy's posts is that talking about generalities, and hyping up the fear level is useless. I have no idea why anyone could, or would, disagree with that.

Good post, but that's not what he's infering:

Quote:

about their motivations and so on

What he wants to say is that it's ultimately America's fault in the eyes of terrorists. We cant fight terrorism looking thorugh the enemy's eyes.

Also, you're not correct about the hugs thingy. There are people on the left side of the spectrum who have suggested as such, so it's not a stretch for me to suggest so. Here's one example:

Melt their weapons, melt their hearts, melt their anger with love." -- Shirley MacLaine on her anti-terrorism policy

roachboy · 07-19-2005, 10:28 AM

ncb:

your primary point of departure appears to be that odious little pep talk rove gave to loyalists a few weeks ago. you repeat the same logic, use the same words, yet you pretend this is your argument. this appears to be how folk from your side of the political spectrum operate, however: through the internalization of talking points. which is the best proof i know of exactly what the right really means when they talk about individualism.

your decision to cite shirley maclaine is really funny.
is shirley an autonomous state?
does she have an anti-terrorism policy?
can i get a passport that would make me a citizen of shirley maclaine?
and of course the question that would most concern me as a right-thinking american: can i launder money in shirley maclaine?

she would be a smaller state than sealand. that is pretty impressive.

boatin · 07-19-2005, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

What he wants to say is that it's ultimately America's fault in the eyes of terrorists. We cant fight terrorism looking thorugh the enemy's eyes.

Also, you're not correct about the hugs thingy. There are people on the left side of the spectrum who have suggested as such, so it's not a stretch for me to suggest so. Here's one example:

Melt their weapons, melt their hearts, melt their anger with love." -- Shirley MacLaine on her anti-terrorism policy

Unless Shirley MacLaine is posting on this board (where is Sixate, anyway?), WTF is your point? We have conversations with a pretty small group of people. If you aren't attempting to understand (OMG, that word again) the posts of those that disagree with you, on TFP, what are you doing?

If you are argueing with the whole world, good luck and god bless. I'll not be reading you anymore. If you want to discuss current events with the members here, bring it on.

If someone would care to respond to Pacifier's posts, or RB's, what a great conversation we could have. I'd sure learn something. But I don't hold much hope. I continue to see those on the 'left' respond to points of those on the 'right', and those on the 'right' respond to nutjobs somewhere out there.

But I'm sure I'm just biased and crazy...

stevo · 07-19-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ncb:

your primary point of departure appears to be that odious little pep talk rove gave to loyalists a few weeks ago. you repeat the same logic, use the same words, yet you pretend this is your argument. this appears to be how folk from your side of the political spectrum operate, however: through the internalization of talking points. which is the best proof i know of exactly what the right really means when they talk about individualism.

I've heard you express this idea before. That conservative folk internalize talking points they hear and then take that arguement as their own. I'm sure this is how you perceive it.

But I can tell you from my own experience that there have been many times that I read a newsstory, see a bit on tv, or get in a conversation with another person about a topic or current event before I hear anyone else's opinion on the matter (and days before a 'talking points' memo is delivered to my doorstep).

I then develop my own opinions and ideas about whatever issue is at hand. Sometimes I keep those opinions to myself (say if I'm by myself and I'm reading a newsstory) or I may begin a dialogue with someone if I am in company.

More often than not, if its a big enough story, the next day there's a buzz. Rush says this, the whitehouse says that, some fox news contributor says whatever. And you know what, I say to myself, "hey, thats just what I thought" - not all the time, but more often than not.

I think possibly because you don't think like a conservative you don't understand that I (we) are not being told what to think or how to think it. We formulate our own opinions and ideas, and it just so happens, they are often similar. Its not a suprise to me that like-minded folk come to the same conclusions independent of one another. I find it mildly insulting that you dismiss someone's opinion because it is similar to an official memo or right-wing 'talking points'. Try to understand the possibility that people can come to their own conclusions without the help of big brother.

roachboy · 07-19-2005, 01:17 PM

ok stevo.

but i find this repetition happening over and over on this board and elsewhere.

i dont know, maybe it's just a really really long string of coincidences.

maybe it's a function of operating within a tightly controlled media environment within which there is no operational distinction between information and political spin on information.

of the two, the second seems most plausible, dont you think?

btw: to clarify--i dont have anything against people who are conservative as people. i really dont......i disagree with conservative politics, and argue against that politics....but i do find the tight co-ordination of conservative opinions unsettling at times, in a stepford wives kind of way.

stevo · 07-19-2005, 01:20 PM

Its also possible that once people arrive at their own conclusions, as similar as they are to 'official talking points,' a person then takes the talking points as their own. and individual opinions can get blurred and it appears as tho the right has only one stance or one idea on a particular issue. I will agree that there is little distinction between information and political spin on information, but then again, you just have to know where to look.

---add---

But I read the same NYTimes articles and Washington Post articles as you do, yet we arrive at different conclusions. There has to be some distinction between information and political spin on it. I would have to say the info comes first, but it depends on where you hear it first.

dlish · 07-20-2005, 04:35 AM

stevo,

with regards to my last post, i only brought it up to make a point that if these sources cannot get it right, then you should be wary of them. that was all. but after googling it, here is what i found...

Quote:

Islamic Jihad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Jihad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
This article is about particular organizations known as Islamic Jihad. For the general Islamic idea of jihad as a "holy war," see Jihad.
Islamic Jihad (Arabic: Harakat al-Jihad al-Islami) is a militant Islamist group based in the Syrian capital, Damascus.

It was one of the earliest Islamist militant groups in the Middle East. It first came to prominence with the April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut.

Several groups in other Arab countries also go by the name Islamic Jihad, notably the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In the western world, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is the organization usually meant by the term Islamic Jihad, due to the widespread media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The name is also occasionally used by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

Islamic Jihad has used teenagers as suicide bombers. On 29 March 2004, 16-year-old Tamer Havira in Rifidia, an Arab suburb of Nablus, was apprehended by Israeli security forces as he prepared to carry out a suicide attack.

Like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and its top leaders have been frequent targets of assassination.

so yeah..hezbollah does use it too. my apologies. u learn something every day.

IC3 · 07-20-2005, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Aha! You've stumbled on the central problem to Bush's insane "war on terror!" Now, don't get me wrong - I don't for a minute think Bush & Co. doesn't realize this is a problem. They're just hoping YOU don't realize it's a problem.

See, Bush has figured out what the Nazis knew. Give the people a nebulous, unseen enemy who can't ever be completely defeated and they'll follow you down any dark path you care to lead them. It worked fabulously with the Nazis - - hey the Jews are evil, they're our enemy, you won't be safe unless Hitler the Great is here to protect you from them.

And Bush has an even better "in" than Hitler did - his enemy really DID hurt us. Only trouble with this war on terror is that even though the terrorists are real, we can't ever find them all. It's like trying to kill all the mosquitos. It's just not gonna happen.

Now, even though I think Bush is pretty stupid, I don't think he's too stupid to actually believe he can find and eliminate every terrorist on the planet. He's just hoping YOU'RE too stupid to realize it. It was mainly through scaring the living hell out of the public that these bad terrorists are coming to get us that Bush was able to win re-election. The truth is, MOST terrorists in the world didn't give a crap about hurting us until we started invading their homelands or the lands of their neighbors. Moving into Iraq did nothing but piss off the entire middle east (not to mention the rest of the world). How that's making us safer from the terrorists is a great question - and the answer is simply that it's not.

So, since we cant' possibly find them all, and since pissing them off usually results in them attacking citizens, perhaps it's not a real good idea to keep up this Rambo posturing.

Seems to me that if we stopped doing the things that piss the terrorsts off (things like interfering in another country's affairs even though it's none of our business), then they'd leave us alone.

That's not excusing their attacks - it's just being realistic. If I play soccer with a hornet's nest and get stung, I'm not gonna go trying to exterminate every hornet. It can't be done, even though I'm bigger and stronger. What I AM gonna do is learn from my past mistakes and stop dicking around with hornets nests. The hornets will still be out there but since I don't piss them off, they'll save their energies for attacking things that do.

I agree with shakran.

"Only trouble with this war on terror is that even though the terrorists are real, we can't ever find them all. It's like trying to kill all the mosquitos. It's just not gonna happen." - shakran

This is my exact thought about this "War". I'm really not sure what the US and it's allies are trying to accomplish. They are fighting people who are willing to blow themselves to pieces, They are teaching their children to become what they are. I really don't think there is a way to stop terrorism.

It could be slowed down within our own country with heavy security in hot spots that may be prime targets for terrorists to strike..But that's the thing, They can strike anywhere, If it's a populated area..Then it's a prime target.

I would like to think that if america and it's allies pulled out and left them to live their lives, They would do so..But, Bush's ego is too big for that and I don't think it would stop them from attacking the wests soil even if every country involved in this "war" pulled out.

So..I think that their is no right way to deal with Terrorists or Insurgents..whatever you want to call them.
They are a different type of Cancer that most likely will never be cured.

Pacifier · 07-20-2005, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Good post, but that's not what he's infering

Thank you for trying to clarify what I was goning to sad but you were wrong. So I would be very pleased if you stop reading things in my posts that I didn't said.
At no point I said "it is americas fault", at no point i said "hug the enemy"

boatin listed perfectly what I meant, an additional important point would be:

Understanding what moviates someone to become one of them*

roachboy · 07-21-2005, 08:57 AM

a remarkably sane intervention from a politico......
somehow this line of interpretation of the phantom "terrorism" has been excluded from the hysteria-based discourse on the topic particular to the states.

Quote:

London Bombings-Livingstone
London Mayor Ken Livingstone Wednesday blamed Western foreign policy in the Middle East for creating the conditions for terrorist attacks such as the 7/7 bombings in the British capital.

Livingstone suggested that Western interventions to maintain control of oil supplies in Arab countries, dating back nearly a century, had produced terrorist organizations, including Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

"If at the end of the First World War we had done what we promised the Arabs, which was to let them be free and have their own governments, and kept out of Arab affairs, and just bought their oil, rather than feeling we had to control the flow of oil, I suspect this wouldn't have arisen," he told the BBC.

The criticism comes after the mayor blamed western policies for contributing to the spread of extremism that inspired the London bombings, which killed 56 people.

"We created these people. We built them up. We funded them," he told his weekly press conference. "Osama bin Laden was just another businessman until he was recruited by the CIA," he said.

Asked in his interview with the BBC what he blamed for the rise of terrorism, Livingstone said "we have just had 80 years of Western intervention in predominantly Arab lands because of the Western need for oil."
"We have propped up unsavory governments, we have overthrown ones that we didn't consider sympathetic," Livingstone also said, while adding many young people in the UK were outraged by the double standards in Western foreign policy.

This, he said, was reflected in America's support for Israel and in detention without trial in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba.

"I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s the Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs and sent him off to kill the Russians in Afghanistan," the mayor said.

"They didn't give any thought to the fact that once he had done that, he might turn on his creators," he added.

The mayor said he condemned all suicide bombings, but indicated that he understood why Palestinians may resort to the tactic in Israel.

He denounced "governments which use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy, as we have occasionally seen with the Israeli government bombing areas from which a terrorist group will have come, irrespective of the casualties it inflicts, women, children and men."
Livingstone suggested that if British people had been forced to live in the conditions suffered by the Palestinians in the occupied territories, they too might have resorted to suicide attacks.

"Under foreign occupation and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work for three generations, I suspect that if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers," he said.

The mayor also criticized parts of the media for giving too much publicity to certain extreme Muslim figures. "We have 750,000 Muslims in this city, but the same 3 or 4 totally unrepresentative individuals are always stuck on the front page," he said.

07-18-2005, 01:11 PM	#45 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	So are you saying it is useless to try and separate suicidal mass murderers from the rest of the popupation? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

07-18-2005, 03:00 PM	#50 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	................Mark................... __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

07-19-2005, 10:28 AM	#57 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ncb: your primary point of departure appears to be that odious little pep talk rove gave to loyalists a few weeks ago. you repeat the same logic, use the same words, yet you pretend this is your argument. this appears to be how folk from your side of the political spectrum operate, however: through the internalization of talking points. which is the best proof i know of exactly what the right really means when they talk about individualism. your decision to cite shirley maclaine is really funny. is shirley an autonomous state? does she have an anti-terrorism policy? can i get a passport that would make me a citizen of shirley maclaine? and of course the question that would most concern me as a right-thinking american: can i launder money in shirley maclaine? she would be a smaller state than sealand. that is pretty impressive. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-19-2005, 01:17 PM	#60 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ok stevo. but i find this repetition happening over and over on this board and elsewhere. i dont know, maybe it's just a really really long string of coincidences. maybe it's a function of operating within a tightly controlled media environment within which there is no operational distinction between information and political spin on information. of the two, the second seems most plausible, dont you think? btw: to clarify--i dont have anything against people who are conservative as people. i really dont......i disagree with conservative politics, and argue against that politics....but i do find the tight co-ordination of conservative opinions unsettling at times, in a stepford wives kind of way. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-19-2005 at 01:21 PM..

07-19-2005, 01:20 PM	#61 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Its also possible that once people arrive at their own conclusions, as similar as they are to 'official talking points,' a person then takes the talking points as their own. and individual opinions can get blurred and it appears as tho the right has only one stance or one idea on a particular issue. I will agree that there is little distinction between information and political spin on information, but then again, you just have to know where to look. ---add--- But I read the same NYTimes articles and Washington Post articles as you do, yet we arrive at different conclusions. There has to be some distinction between information and political spin on it. I would have to say the info comes first, but it depends on where you hear it first. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser Last edited by stevo; 07-19-2005 at 01:23 PM..

07-18-2005, 03:41 PM	#51 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	"Mark", Tecoyah? I'm not clear on your meaning.

07-18-2005, 03:44 PM	#52 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	The new topic explains it.