To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 16158
    Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —John Neal
   (...) That is a result of your pre-conceived notions. You sympathize with PLO terrorists and so you feel it comes off negative. I abhor PLO terrorists and not coincidently, I found it amusing. In the same way, I find mockery in the Brick Testament. (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —Larry Pieniazek
     (...) I certainly won't argue that point... at least not at this time. (...) but I would assert that there are at least two competing definitions of art: "art is in the eye of the beholder" "art is what the artist says is art" Under the first (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —John Neal
      (...) This is a hot button issue for me, because I really dislike a definition of art to be "anything"-- it's useless IMO. (...) An artist can call the sky pink, but that doesn't make it so. More hot buttons:-) (...) I'd bet BPS wouldn't agree with (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —Dave Schuler
      (...) I disagree only because I don't see these as competing views! In my view, the artist is no more or less an observer than anyone else, when it comes to viewing/judging/interpreting the work. To that end, "art is what the artist says is art," (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —Leonard Erlandson
      (...) My favorite definition of art, as coined by Scott McCloud is: Art is that which is created not out of the basic need for survival. I like this definition because it is completely objective. I don't appreciate some art, but that doesn't mean (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —Dave Schuler
     (...) Easy there, fireball, lest we accuse you of being a Typical Conservative--santimoniousness, arrogance, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, and an irrepressible zeal for curtailing others' rights to expression. Naturally I'd never want to paint a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         What is Art..(again?) (was:Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?) —John Neal
     (...) Guilt as charged-- I guess that one slipped out:-) (...) A hot button issue for me, as I stated elsewhere, and no time to delve into it now, but here is the short of it. I realize that a definition of art is elusive at best, but I am more (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: What is Art..(again?) (was:Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?) —Dave Schuler
     (...) "Perverse" is an emotionalism in this context so should probably be avoided in a serious debate on the subject. However, when I was younger (goodness gracious--when I was *half* my current age!!!!) I had several friends taking something like (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —David Koudys
     (...) Oh what was that quote from West Wing--Republicans being 'small-minded, xenophobic, anti-choice, gun worshipping...' oh I can't remember--going to have to watch a tape tonite! :) Yes, in *your* opinion, the holocaust set were not art. In *my* (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —John Neal
      (...) Well, I don't watch TV much, so I wouldn't know... (...) So you are comfortable calling a image depicting child molestation art, merely because the slime who created it says it is? So what use is art, if it's anything and everything anyone (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —David Koudys
       (...) Am *I* comfortable with it? Not at all. As stated, I didn't appreciate a red stripe on a black canvas. That was just a stripe! There is a bigger picture, and I think the history of my posts have said again and again--I have the freedom to do (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —David Koudys
        (...) I can't believe that after all these years, i still do the \'s wrong at times :) (URL) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —Larry Pieniazek
       (...) Warning! Dave Koudys is espousing Libertarian rhetoric in the above :-) (...) Just as a note, the US Supreme Court ruled on this very topic this week and for once, by 5 to 4, got it right. (they ruled that depictions of acts by adults in a way (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —John Neal
        (...) Yeah, I thought he was from England;-) (...) Yes, leave it to the scum to circumvent law to appease their perversions. The slippery slope slants both ways. Our society will be hurt by this. -John (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
       
            Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —Leonard Erlandson
         (...) Have you read the proposed law? It was far to broad to enacted or objectively enforced. Any movie that portrayed high schoolers in adult situations, nothing graphic mind you, would be considered child pornography under this law. That is only a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
       
            Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —Dave Schuler
         (...) There's that word again. And here's another anecdote from my storied history: While in college I met a 20-year-old woman with Turner's syndrome; she had only a single chromosome, she never developed secondary sexual characteristics, and she (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
        
             Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —John Neal
         In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: While in college I met a 20-year-old woman with Turner's syndrome; (...) Wow. Even amoebas have more than that, IIRC..... (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
        
             Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —Dave Schuler
          (...) Well, I did mention that she was short. Should have read "only a single X chromosome." In any case, you didn't address the salient point that under the too-broad law you seem to support, the woman's rights to expression would be curtailed (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
        
             Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —John Neal
         (...) Sorry-- couldn't resist:-) (...) It is an interesting scenario. I am not for the government restricting the rights of adults so much as I am concerned about protecting minors from disgusting things adults like to do. Although she *is* free to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
        
             Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —David Koudys
         (...) Nicely said! The second someone's actions negatively impact on someone else, is where the line is drawn. If a person gets his kicks by reading dirty magazines, he has the freedom to do so. If he leaves the magazine laying around for kids to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
       
            Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —David Koudys
        (...) There's the Christian ideal, 'Hate the sin, not the sinner'. Name calling (a la 'scum') does not help in resolution of the problem. Quoting Pastor Doug Mckenzie " My topic today is bugs... Everyone hates bugs But why kill them, If everyone (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —Dave Schuler
       (...) Will you give the poor guy a break for his typo already? He obviously meant to type "crow paddies," which equally obviously refer to rice farms that have an abundance of crows feeding on them. Duh! Dave! (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
     
          Art? (Was: Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?) —David Eaton
      (...) I think I'll try at a definition I can live with: Art is that which is created/performed/presented with the intent of invoking an emotional reaction from those to whom it is presented. Child porn - Art? Only if it's the intent of the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Yet another one for Maggie!!! Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —Dave Schuler
     (...) Aaaagh! Here we were having a light-hearted debate and that evil linguistic device cropped up again. I tells ya, I don't get no respeck. Dave! (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
    
         Re: Yet another one for Maggie!!! Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —Larry Pieniazek
      (...) Which? Cow paddies? I don't even know that those are. I know what rice paddies are, though. (and they are not art, they're just farms.) (...) Stop the presses! (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
     
          Re: Yet another one for Maggie!!! Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —Ron Sedlmeyer
      (...) Let's see.....I think the politically correct description is "Cow Dung" I take it you've never heard of cow pattie tossing contests. You pick them up and throw them AFTER they dry up! Kinda of like Frisbees (sp?). :) Ron (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
     
          Re: Yet another one for Maggie!!! Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —Larry Pieniazek
      (...) Um, those are patties. I went to da Tech, I've played cow pattie bingo. But in this case, I'm asking about paddies. There's a difference. Just ask Dave! He gave a perfectly good explanation. (well, ok, it wasn't perfect. In fact it wasn't even (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
    
         Re: Yet another one for Maggie!!! Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —David Koudys
     (...) See, I read allotta LUGNET :) roast beef cow! Dave -who appreciated the roast beef cow 'cause my last name is Koudys (pronounced cow-dice :) ) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
   
        Re: Canceled Lego Theme...? —David Eaton
     (...) Well, I gotta go with Scott on this one-- I definitely think the Holocaust sets were, and were intended to be, art. Controversial art certainly, but art nonetheless. I get the feeling from Dan that his work was intended to be silly, and not (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
   (...) I would love to see the cognitive process your mind went through to reach (jump to) that conclusion. Although I do support the right of self defence, I am fundamentally a pacifist in nature. I believe strongly that we should uphold human (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: These beliefs (...) Sorry, there isn't one. The PLO represent the Palestinians. Whatever the PLO does, the Palestinians support them. Anyone who supports the actions of terrorists is just as culpable (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
   (...) *sigh* (...) In 1953, a unit under command of Ariel Sharon, attacked the village of Qibya in Jordan 60+ were murdered. The day after the attack a UN observer said that the IDF had forced civilians to stay in their homes whilst they were (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: jumping to conclusions —Ross Crawford
     (...) And is a jest any less legitimate than any other form of art? ROSCO (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
     (...) I shall let Dan answer that. ;) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 21-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
   (...) I did not expect an answer from you on this. The reality is that anyone who did celebrate the loss of life on September-11 probably would view those killed as being supporters of the “Zionist oppressor/aggressor/whatever”. That is, in the same (...) (23 years ago, 21-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
   (...) Having this discussion with you is futile-- I *never* said that I thought all Palestinians are terrorists. From your "sighs" in previous posts, it seems to me that you think that you have such a superior command of facts. Have you ever been to (...) (23 years ago, 22-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
   (...) I said: "My views on human rights and international law, together with my understanding of recent middle-east history, leads me to sympathize with the Palestinian people, not with "PLO terrorists". I hope you understand the distinction between (...) (23 years ago, 22-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
   (...) I think I clarified that. I said that if they *support* terrorists, they are as *culpable* as terrorists. Since the PLO represents them, they are in the unfortunate position of supporting terrorism. They are being woefully misled. Or (...) (...) (23 years ago, 22-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: jumping to conclusions —David Koudys
     In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) I just thought that those two lines should be viewed together. No reason... Just because the atrocity is sanctioned by the government, it doesn't make the atrocity (...) (23 years ago, 22-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
      (...) No reason? I think you definitely had a reason. But if it is to imply that I hate Scott, you're wrong. I disagree with him, and I called him an idiot because what he proposed was idiocy-- that's all. (...) Which "heinous war crimes" is Israel (...) (23 years ago, 22-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
       (...) *sigh* (...) 2 Examples of Israel's terrorism: 1. How would you describe what Ariel Sharon done to the village of Qibya in 1953? 2. How about their planned attacks on cinemas inside Egypt? Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: jumping to conclusions —David Koudys
       (...) I was kinda going for a tongue-in-cheek thing there. It was a 'Hatred exists because of intolerance, you idiot!' thing--saying 'you idiot' expressing hatred and intolerance. You go on to say that what you should have sid in the first place, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
       (...) lol sorry, guess I didn't parse that too well through space:-) (...) lol again, if it were that easy to shut down Scott, it would be employed *more* often>;-) There's no 'wiggle room', room for (...) I would certainly say that to a reasonable (...) (23 years ago, 23-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
       (...) John, Your whole thesis appears to be: 1) Arabs/Palestinians are uncivilised troublemakers. 2) Israel is a peace loving nation. 3) There is an international anti-Israeli media conspiracy which distorts reality. However, to date, you have (...) (23 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
       (...) I was referring to PLO *terrorists*. (...) Never said that. What would Israel know of peace?? She has never been allowed to exist in peace! Yes, Israel *would like* to exist in peace, but for now, Israel would just like to exist, period. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
       (...) So, if it is only the PLO terrorists who are uncivilised troublemakers, why are you anti-Palestinian? (...) Let’s just question this. Why did Meir (and her cabinet) turn down a cease-fire offer from Nasser (made via the USA?) on 7th Feb 1970? (...) (23 years ago, 26-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
       (...) <typing slowly so you will finally get it> The Palestinians *support* the PLO and all of their terrorist activity. The PLO murders *on behalf* of the Palestinians, *with their blessing*. *That* is why I am against them. Let them renounce the (...) (23 years ago, 26-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: jumping to conclusions —Ross Crawford
        (...) I think the point Scott is trying to make is that not *all Palestinians* support the PLO, just as not all Americans support Dubya. Therefore, saying that you are against Palestinians (implying *all*) because they support the PLO is not a (...) (23 years ago, 27-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
       
            Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
        (...) Comparing the Palestinian "system" with ours is a stretch, and you'd be surprised how many Americans *support* Bush on certain policies (such as terrorism), but putting that aside for the moment... I thought his point was that not all (...) (23 years ago, 27-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
       
            the song of peace (was Re: jumping to conclusions) —Scott Arthur
        (...) I think he was comparing people not "systems". (...) Very few occupied peoples do have open and free political systems. The world is full of oppressive regimes... Arafat heads one of them. What you fail to recognise is that Israeli occupation (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
        Can I assume that you wholly agree with the text you have deleted? (...) You said “never”. I proved you wrong. There appears to be a lot of these “isolated incidents”? How many does it take to prove Israeli belligerence to you? (...) Which books? (...) (23 years ago, 27-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
       
            Re: jumping to conclusions —Fredrik Glöckner
        (...) I think this is a very important point, which I would like to see more focus on. It is a sad fact that occupied people tend to use violent and immoral action against the occupiying force. It should also be noted that such actions, which can be (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
       
            Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
        (...) I use the term "terrorism" as the specific, random targeting of civilians for the purpose of terrorizing them. Notice I don't even mention intent other than to terrorize. There is no rationality behind terrorism beyond terrorizing. It is (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
       
            Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
         (...) Let's just stick to the normal usage/definition of words... not your distorted definition. I think this is pretty good: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
       
            Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
        (...) What part of my definition would you consider a distortion? But even with the definition you supplied, I wouldn't call the example Fredrik provided "terrorism". -John I think this is pretty good: (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
       
            Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
        (...) I shall let you think about that... it is full of holes. (...) Either would I, but I don't know all that much about it. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
       (...) When have I said that "PLO terrorism" is justified? John, it is time for you to put-up or shut-up! Scott A (23 years ago, 27-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: jumping to conclusions —Christopher L. Weeks
      (...) Good point! We should look with more sympathy on the actions of the Palestinians given their plight. Chris (23 years ago, 23-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
      (...) Ha, nice try. But you are too clever by half. There *is* no country "Palestine". Why not? But thank you for the invitation, but I care not to sympathize with homicidal terrorists, no matter what their plight. Terrorism is *wrong* and *evil*, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
      (...) But yet, you refuse to condemn Israeli terrorism! Or even acknowledge the role of your own country in supporting terrorism. You claim all Palestinian’s are "PLO terrorists". You are unable to acknowledge the most simple of truths about Israel. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
      (...) What Sharon did *ALMOST 50 YEARS AGO* was wrong-- Israel itself is not proud of some of those early day policies. But that was a long, long, time ago. Times have changed, and so has Israel's policies. Citing events that occured almost a half (...) (23 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Wasted breath alert —Larry Pieniazek
       IMHO, subject says it all. Most of the participants know this already, so a "wasted breath alert" is in itself wasted breath, I guess. I don't see a lot of movement happening. Remember who you're dealing with, everyone. All parties already know how (...) (23 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: Wasted breath alert —Scott Arthur
       *sigh* Scott A =+= Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet? (URL) reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: jumping to conclusions —Christopher L. Weeks
       (...) This makes it seem that you don't understand how we "fight terrorism" on stage and toss terrorists scraps under the table. Do you really believe all that one-sided Amerika is the land of goodness tripe? We are a political entity and we do evil (...) (23 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: jumping to conclusions —David Koudys
       (...) Doing the only thing they can? Strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up women, kids, houses and villages? Only thing they can?? I don't care what the world could throw at me, there will *never* come a time when I would feel justified to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: jumping to conclusions —Christopher L. Weeks
       (...) They have a rock to move and no lever. There are lands that they believe are by rights theirs that the state of Israel has occupied for a long time. They want an Israeli withdrawl. They've tried many things including appeal to the world (...) (23 years ago, 5-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
      (...) Great! When will he go on trial? When will his victims be compensated? Given Israel’s strong record in tracking down war criminals from WW2, it would be hypocracy if he was not put on trial would it not? (...) Indeed it was. But Sabra and (...) (23 years ago, 25-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
     (...) D A N G E R ! Big mistake Dave. You are being objective. This is nothing but evidence of: a) Your bias. b) Your support for "PLO terrorists". c) The power of the international anti-Israeli media conspiracy. In the future, try to view this as a (...) (23 years ago, 23-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: jumping to conclusions —Dave Schuler
     (...) Here's another question to help reduce my ignorance: what's the source of the claims that I've heard again and again and again and again in the various media that the PLO in particular and vocal extremist groups in the Arab world in general (...) (23 years ago, 23-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
     (...) Who knows? I don't doubt that these views exist. I don't doubt that the there are those who have the same views on just about any race or religion. I don't doubt that the rather colourful metaphors used as part of some cultures make things (...) (23 years ago, 23-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
   (...) You said: 1. “Sorry, there isn't one. “ 2. “The PLO represent the Palestinians.” 3. “Whatever the PLO does, the Palestinians support them.” 4. “Anyone who supports the actions of terrorists is just as culpable as the terrorists themselves.” (...) (23 years ago, 22-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: jumping to conclusions —John Neal
   (...) So what's a Palestinian to do? Speak out against the PLO? Peacemakers aren't very welcome in the Arab world--just ask Sadat's widow. (...) None really, except to note that the US media is getting *so* biased that it is surprising even itself. (...) (23 years ago, 22-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        avoiding the conclusion (was Re: jumping to conclusions) —Scott Arthur
     John, I started by saying you were jumping to conclusions, now I feel you are avoiding the conclusion. I had hoped that your formal study of the “Israeli-Arab Dilemma” would mean that I would be provided with some meaningful insight into the current (...) (23 years ago, 23-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: jumping to conclusions —Scott Arthur
   (...) There are two belligerents in this conflict – you fail to acknowledge that. (...) Shocking is it not? Perhaps we should all just get our news from the Israeli government and its apologists? (...) independent ; “not influenced or controlled in (...) (23 years ago, 27-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR