|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/23/2007 : 04:51:12 [Permalink]
|
You rot in the sun,
With the stench of lies told long.
You know who you are.....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 06:21:49 [Permalink]
|
Veiled insults abound
Who will be the decider?
W of course |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 06:37:04 [Permalink]
|
Siberia wrote: quote:
B, to be honest, I think that post from Indeterminancy was quite condescending, if not downright aggressive, on its own - I certainly felt that way when I replied to it. It wasn't just a wrong remark - it was a confrontational wrong remark (to my view). Especially because he said before he lurked around and read the posts, so it's not like he's saying that out of ignorance.
I think I know what Sib's talking about here, but I also think it was highly subtle and do not think it was meant to be aggressive. Rather, I think Indeterminacy was being a little edgey out of feeling defensive right from the get go. He knew he was a lamb coming into a den of wolves, so to speak, which is why I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and being extra nice to him. I would feel the same way if I was coming into a conversation at a Christian forum, even if I was coming in openly and honestly, just because I'd know I was out-numbered and that some people were probably going to be hostile to me.
I think we should try to be extra nice to any newcomers so they get comfortable and more free to say what they think. Then they are likely to stay longer and we're more likely to learn more about their different points of view - even if we continue to disagree.
Edited to add: He was a little condescending with his departure, and that did annoy me. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/23/2007 06:39:20 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 03/23/2007 : 11:27:49 [Permalink]
|
I'd reply to the comments in this thread.... but my irony gland has exploded and I need to wait for it to heal up first.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 12:11:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal...
Look how people are responding here. GeeMack thinks it's about his post personally. Actually, GeeMack, I did address your comments in that thread. And so did Marf and HH. And while I thought your reply was rationalizing instead of considering three people thought you were unnecessarily annoyed, the only reason for putting the comments here was I wanted to post some examples.
Actually, beskeptigal, I only think the parts where you've quoted my posts were about my posts. If they weren't, it would be rather silly for you to have quoted them. And just for future reference, when someone is rationalizing they'll say something like, "uh... no... that's not what I really meant... what I really meant was..." You see, I said exactly what I meant, and meant exactly what I said. And when people suggested I meant something other than exactly what I said, I tried to inform them, apparently unsuccessfully in your case, that I said exactly what I meant.
But since you apparently won't do the right thing and go back over to that other thread to seek clarification, I'll try to clarify here. Then I'll be done responding to that other thread in this thread. And if you continue to have a problem understanding what I'm saying in another thread, please go over there and ask.
Indeterminancy made at least two statements which were simply, flat out not true. I called him on one of them. I suggested some possible reasons why he may have made that false statement, one of which was the possibility that he was simply lying. (Lying doesn't necessarily mean one has weighed their comment and assessed its truth status before making it.) I asked him to clarify his position. Without his clarification, neither you, beskeptigal, nor I, nor anyone else should actually presume to know his real reason for making that untrue statement. But it was untrue nonetheless, 100%, blatantly so.
Also, Indeterminancy made a ridiculous comparison between the evidence available to show the Revolutionary War was an actual occurrence and the evidence available to support the reality of the myths in the Bible. His comparison was ridiculous, and I said so. And I didn't leave the criticism at that. In order to help him understand why I thought it was ridiculous, I reworded his comment in a way that made it a more rational comparison. He re-posed his inquiry and others replied.
I do understand that you didn't like my tone. Indeterminancy was somewhat pointed and direct in some of his commentary. So was I. So were others. It happens here all the time. True, some of us could be less direct and maybe use terms which are more diplomatic, but often aren't quite as succinct. To facilitate straightforward communication, some of us will use the very most concise terms available. Sometimes some people will misinterpret them to have offensive intent. Hazards of the game, no?
All in all, I'm not finding a much better way for me to say "blatantly false" when I specifically mean "blatantly false", or a better way of saying "ridiculous" when I mean exactly that. But I did offer to send you my posts so you could edit them up all nice and kind. 
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 13:32:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
B, to be honest, I think that post from Indeterminancy was quite condescending, if not downright aggressive, on its own - I certainly felt that way when I replied to it. It wasn't just a wrong remark - it was a confrontational wrong remark (to my view). Especially because he said before he lurked around and read the posts, so it's not like he's saying that out of ignorance.
I re-read it Siberia and through the first couple pages there is nothing rude or hostile in Indeterminancy's posts. He did make one comment, "You can't prove I exist, so why are you countering my statements?" but it was in the context of describing his thoughts and beliefs and it didn't seem hostile at all. That was the most negative thing I could find before there were negative posts directed his way.
All this guy said was what his view of the world was.
Could you point to what you perceived as confrontational?
Well, I didn't say he was always confrontational. He wasn't. That one remark, about how everyone here is dedicated to proving God does not exist (after his other posts were replied to), came off, to me, as confrontational. It came off (again, to me) as if he were calling the lot of us hypocrites for contradicting, correcting or otherwise debating with him. That's wholly my impression of what he wrote - which may be an entirely wrong impression. He was quite welcome to say he didn't mean it that way. Note I promptly asked him why he thought that way. He didn't answer, but anyway.
I'm not exactly a tactful person. Never been, never will be - way too antisocial for that. So maybe I came out rude, though I tried not to be - at least, not to my standards  If he, or anyone, ever thought me to be unduly mean, well, I apologize right now. Not a problem.
Just my R$0.02. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 03/23/2007 13:34:07 |
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 17:19:17 [Permalink]
|
to beskeptical I don't think my comment was completely unnecessary at all as Indeterminable made a really flat out stupid comment and just blatantly ignored half the stuff I said.
I also don't think it was hostile because I didn't insult him in any way, his comment made no sense and I pointed that out.
quote:
Jesus was a good teacher? maybe, but that doesn't mean he was the son of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying you believe God does exist then?
To be honest its not worth my time arguing for 100 posts with people who reply with such blatant nonsense.
For a guy who was simply saying what he believed he was pretty quick to either ignore the points I made or just make a ridiculous and non-sensical argument like the above. Seriously I have not the time nor the effort to first explain why the above is annoying and not logical, but also try to get him to respond to the original point which he evaded with this crap and the other points I made which he just ignored, or evaded with his whole 'nothing is real' get out of jail card.
So I did not insult him, I simply told him, bluntly what I thought of his comments and left. I can not be bothered arguing for 100 posts with someone who basically took the piss in his first reply to me. I'm sorry but considering what I've seen slide on this board lately, what I said was tame as hell. |
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2007 : 01:12:12 [Permalink]
|
And here I was thinking the hostility was an anomaly, that people might consider most things people post can be interpreted differently than intended therefore the benefit of the doubt was reasonable short of blatant racism or hate filled posts, and that after 5 years and 3,500 posts people could disagree with my opinions, not even agree with anything I posted here, but could at least have a discussion without once again claiming I am lying about my intentions.
Dude, regardless of what you 'believe', your reaction is out of proportion to the offense you 'believe' happened. Why am I required to agree with you on anything, who cares how I came to my opinion?
You said, "You defend beskeptigal's faulty assertion of fact as if it were just an opinion."
Fact: I have observed a number of Green Party members over the last decade. I know some of them personally.
Opinion: Based on my observations I have an opinion of Green Party members.
Fact: The Green Party Platform contains a number of statements which describe support for woo beliefs.
Opinion: Based on my reading the platform, it reinforced my previous opinion which I drew from my observations.
In your opinion, apparently, you have decided, (with little knowledge of how extensive or not extensive my observations have been, I might add), that my observations were inadequate to form my opinion. You are welcome to your opinion.
Regardless of how I initially stated my opinion, you objected to and challenged it as not being based on sufficient evidence. When you voiced that challenge, I agreed with you. I agreed my opinion was not confirmed as a "fact". I have said so repeatedly. What you are apparently continuing to complain about, is that I will not be changing my opinion until I see evidence to the contrary. You continue to insist that because I will not be changing my opinion without contradictory evidence, that somehow implies I have stated my conclusion is based on firm evidence.
Do you want your reaction to eventually convince me or others to agree with you? It appears unlikely. Try personal satisfaction. Tell yourself you are right, others just can't see it, and voila', you can be happy again. My personal opinion is not an attack upon you. It is my opinion. You have no reason to experience stress over the fact you don't think I should have my opinion. Ignore me. It will save you a lot of stress.
Why should anyone be angry, upset, hostile, or any other negative thing because another person holds a different opinion or view? Yet so many people are upset because someone isn't convinced or doesn't agree. Doesn't that seem just a little insane to everyone? I can't convince you so I'm going to yell at you or be rude or even dislike or hate you?
So now what, Dave, this time you were being sarcastic and I thought you were serious? Or was I supposed to respond to your disappointment in me because you were sincere, instead of calling it manipulative? The problem is trying to tell you what my reaction to "your behavior" was, without the negative connotation the word manipulative has. Just like the word 'skeptic' is often confused with 'cynic', I don't know a word for well intentioned manipulative behavior. Not everyone who says "you disappoint me" does so in a self serving way. But regardless, the result is still the same. I did not disappoint you. Some post I wrote did. You posted numerous statements that I was the problem. You did not merely address things I said or opinions I had. Benevolent, well intentioned or self serving, I am not beholden to your approval. You may disapprove of anything about me you want to, the discussion is open. But if you disapprove of me personally, don't expect me to take steps to change that.
Vegeta, if you are tired of arguing with theists, I can relate to that, but why couldn't you have put this another way, "I'm not gonna bother responding to you since you basically perverted or evaded all the points I was trying to get across"? Sometimes people honestly do not know they are evading points. I've been accused of this kind of crap before and I can tell you, sometimes the other person did not make their point as well as they thought they did. You answer what you thought they were saying, then instead of clarifying the point missed, you are accused of evading or distorting the point which can only mean you did it "on purpose". Well that's bull. Writing a post is no guarantee the reader is going to understand you.
People who post so often blame the responder for "purposefully" getting their point wrong. That is an incredible assumption. It implies the other person has the talking points skills of Karl Rove or something akin to it to think they would purposefully distort an answer. Bad habits, poor critical thinking yes, purposeful, darn rare.
GeeMack, is it completely out of the question that given some people took the guy's posts as hostile, but others didn't, it isn't so clear? And if he was not intending to just piss everyone off, if he might have been mistaken but sincere about his perception the board is full of atheist proselytizers, wouldn't a normal response be to set the record straight first before just jumping on the guy?
And how would you suggest I deal with this issue? Use generalities? Quotes with no links? Make sure I found some example from everyone? Do you really think I am so concerned about your particular posts that I wrote all this just for you but felt like disguising it so you wouldn't know? Like I'm one who doesn't speak my mind? That's far fetched.
Siberia, judging from half the responses to what I've posted, I think I have you topped as "not exactly a tactful person." I don't recall any particular time I felt you lacked tact. But if you are like me, you've probably had similar experiences where you weren't aware people were going to react the way they did until after the fact and by then, what's said is said. As far as the thread we are discussing, however, my impression of your reply was, it was not out of line with the post you were replying to. Indeterminancy made an observation which we all knew to be erroneous. And you said so. You didn't say it with hostility or hostile sarcasm.
Ejdalise posted, quote:
It is my opinion that Indeterminancy posted something that is a contradiction. He stated he was a skeptic with faith (note: I'm equating faith to belief without proof - man, am I going to have to define everything I write?). Added some fancy sounding stuff about his faith not growing unless he questions it, and a few other vague and indefensible statements.
He should have been jumped on. He was. He failed to enter a proper debate other than to repeat his mantra. Having thus proven his "point", he departs with his erroneous belief intact . . . by that I mean the belief that he is a skeptic.
I think it was an inconsequential little event, but it served to reignite what appear to be ongoing contentions. Man, I can't wait to be dragged into these arguments.
While this sounds like what many in the thread seem to think their posts reflected, I say look at the example of all the pages following ejdalise's statement. It's a normal discussion!!!! (Except Dude is still going on but mostly to little reaction.)
Ejadlise may be pointing out the things that we should be addressing in Indeterminancy's post, but it's the content, not the person or the "honesty" of the person that needs to be addressed. And judging by the following posts of ejadlise's, I'd wager he/she could manage to call Indeterminancy on all the issues without using sarcasm and accusations against the person's integrity. You don't know if Indeterminancy is a jerk who feigns skepticism then starts proselytizing or if he is a skeptic with a blind spot who's actually looking for a discussion about his view of the world. And we don't know if he left because people were rude or if he left because he had no intention of engaging anyone in a discussion in the first place.
Cune, I did not find your posts rude. You might have not liked the claim SFN was full of anti-theists but you said so without name calling and accusations. As did others in that thread.
Either Indeterminancy was quick to adapt to the controversy with his last post being manipulative, or he sincerely was offended by some of the posts here.
Indeterminacy said in his last post, quote:
Well, thank you to the few who supported my points, especially Marfknox. I was waiting to see if anyone would give me the benefit of the doubt.
I once heard someone say that the more unsure someone is in their beliefs, the nastier they can be to the one who challenges their beliefs. Many here in this forum ripped my ideas to shreds, called me names, said I was stupid, ridiculous and ignorant. I harbor no resent to those who did so. I guess whoever made that statement was right - people don't like to be challenged with new ideas, not even here.
Good luck in all your pursuits, everyone.
As to everyone who is annoyed I has the gall to bring this up, because I'm such a hypocrite of course, all I can say is I've been called a liar here repeatedly, been told I was dishonest, I've "disappointed people", not lived up to their expectations, had bad behavior, I'm some radical far left extremist, and whatever other sh!++y thing I am for disagreeing with someone and heaven forbid, I dared post something like I did here. Frankly, I think I had every reason to empathize with someone else being called some of the same things. And tactful or not, I see no reason I shouldn't have said something. Go ahead, find any bad thing I've said to anyone. If it was anything other than a response to someone posting stuff like I am referring to here, you will have my sincere apology. But you know, I just don't think I am rude to people for no reason. People misunderstand what I post sometimes, and I have opinions that cause reactions, but I am not a liar. I'm not dishonest. If I have something wrong it isn't a conspiracy to 'get' someone. There is just no reason to attack people like this.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/24/2007 : 04:03:39 [Permalink]
|
Back in the day, I used to hang a little at Uncle Cecil's place. On the message boards, they have a forum called The Barbeque Pit. If one member was having a problem with another, or others, he could invite him/them into the Pit and settle matters without boring the rest of the membership out of their gourds with angry, trivial crap. It is also the place for long, profane rants. Also, any moderator could consign a thread to the Pit if he thought it had become unsuitable for his, particular fora.
I would not like to think that we have become so juvenile that we need such a place.
Y'see folks, if this site is to gain active members we need to be one hell of a lot more civil than we are today. Consider; we have a large number of lurkers, bless 'em, but too many in & outs-with-sore-asses. How long's it been since someone dropped by and said, "Hi!," and actually became a contributer? Hmm? I'll make it easy: too long, and very damned few! And why? Hmm? I'll make that one a piece o' cake as well: because no one in his right mind wants to get tangled up in a runaway sawmill!
And that's what we have had over the last, few weeks; an unnesessary meat grinder. We appear to take pleasure in the discomfort of others, caring nothing for anything beyond getting our own, verbal paybacks. So, I say to all who just can't stop this petty back-biting:
FUCKING COOL IT!Great jumpin' jinglin' Jesus, you are not helping even yourselves, and certainly doing nothing for the rest of us.
Now, if we must have something like The Straight Dope's Pit, I suggest calling it The Parking Lot, with all that that implies, and I'd be delighted to moderate it with an iron fist in no glove at all.
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit unto you that, one way or another, this shit must cease....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2007 : 04:12:37 [Permalink]
|
| Once again my post was not an attack. I said his post made no sense and I pointed out how he evaded me. Its no my responsibilty to point out to someone HOW he evaded a point, and I don't see why I should have to panda to someone just because they are new. TBH I had no time for that kind of crap so I let it be known and left. There's no good end to a discussion with someone like that. |
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2007 : 09:50:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I too must hang my butt head in shame.
I don't!! Why? I still have to post from a library because I still don't have internet at home, so I have no damned choice but to watch what the f__ I say!!
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2007 : 09:58:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Back in the day, I used to hang a little at Uncle Cecil's place. On the message boards, they have a forum called The Barbeque Pit. If one member was having a problem with another, or others, he could invite him/them into the Pit and settle matters without boring the rest of the membership out of their gourds with angry, trivial crap. It is also the place for long, profane rants. Also, any moderator could consign a thread to the Pit if he thought it had become unsuitable for his, particular fora.
I would not like to think that we have become so juvenile that we need such a place.
Y'see folks, if this site is to gain active members we need to be one hell of a lot more civil than we are today. Consider; we have a large number of lurkers, bless 'em, but too many in & outs-with-sore-asses. How long's it been since someone dropped by and said, "Hi!," and actually became a contributer? Hmm? I'll make it easy: too long, and very damned few! And why? Hmm? I'll make that one a piece o' cake as well: because no one in his right mind wants to get tangled up in a runaway sawmill!
And that's what we have had over the last, few weeks; an unnesessary meat grinder. We appear to take pleasure in the discomfort of others, caring nothing for anything beyond getting our own, verbal paybacks. So, I say to all who just can't stop this petty back-biting:
FUCKING COOL IT!Great jumpin' jinglin' Jesus, you are not helping even yourselves, and certainly doing nothing for the rest of us.
Now, if we must have something like The Straight Dope's Pit, I suggest calling it The Parking Lot, with all that that implies, and I'd be delighted to moderate it with an iron fist in no glove at all.
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit unto you that, one way or another, this shit must cease....
After a week away at a meeting, it's nice to see that some people have tried to make real, sincere progress on this topic. Thanks to those, like Filthy, and others who have done so. I concur with filth's message, especially to those who have not yet decided that they want to play nice. Just stop the petty shit and get over it.
Another forum, in which I moderate, has a "Rubber Room" that seems to serve the same purpose as the "B-B-Q Pit". If any forum could make use of something like that now, this one could.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2007 : 10:09:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vegeta
Once again my post was not an attack. I said his post made no sense and I pointed out how he evaded me. Its no my responsibilty to point out to someone HOW he evaded a point, and I don't see why I should have to panda to someone just because they are new. TBH I had no time for that kind of crap so I let it be known and left. There's no good end to a discussion with someone like that.
Vegeta, I don't know if I would call your post an attack, but you mention a couple of things here that I thought are worth reflecting on. And this is for all members, not just veg.
One is that it is, in fact, the responsibility of long time members to be more thoughtful in their replies to new posters and members. You are not "pandering" to someone by cutting them some slack when they don't know how to phrase something the way an experienced skeptic, or long-time member here would. Don't forget that people who are new to this forum don't necessarily know what logical fallacies are, who the hell Occam was, or how to properly frame a point of debate. You absolutely are responsible for this higher level of behavior and interaction.
The other point is that if you, or me, or any of us feel that we "no time for that kind of crap, then why in the world would you bother to have time to say so, knowing that it just ends up turning into a bigger deal. If you didn't have time for the initial post, then you certainly wouldn't have time for a potential argument, right?
I'm trying to make the points that this whole thread is about. Everyone who is guilty of the knee-jerk responses and not giving people in here the same consideration you would if you were sitting down at a table with them is doing the wrong thing. Period.
Hopefully, we will get this to a point of agreement. This forum wouldn't be worth two cents if we can't learn to agree on a little more civility. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2007 : 10:25:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am not looking to lobotomize the forum. I am asking only to bring it back to what it was. A little more civility, please…
What it was? When was that?
By the way, I keep looking for the thread or threads that caused Slater to leave, and I can't find it. Anyone know what that was? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A little more civility, please…
