First, a warning. Fo2, Snay, please stay away from this one. Yeah, I humbly ask you to.
Jeff, go wash your Jeep, twice.
Rob, stay at TrekRPG.net and see what they can do for your campaign during the next 24 hours.
But, please, do NOT touch this thread even with a 10-foot pole. The punishment is most horrible man-training. Well, that punishment depends on the individual, and for some it wouldn't be a punishment, but I think it will fit you both.
Now, getting serious:
I agree with most of you: Bush's behaving like an ass. Or he is an ass. That won't make much of a difference. The whole 'axis of evil' conception of modern world he made has already been criticized by Mikhail Gorbachov (no less than after the 9-11 ceremony this afternoon), who, being the Soviet leader that made huge steps towards our present situation with the countries behind the iron curtain (along with Reagan, I have to admit that ) I guess is entitled to a respectable opinion.
Meanwhile, small, maneuverable, confined-power "tactic nukes" WOULD make good weapons. Now, I find this so aberrant for the following motives: First: there's always that feeling to waste everything where an attack is directed. Kill the people, raze the quarters, salt the grounds. The nuke would do that in one second, huh? Second: Aren't there similar, equally efficient ways to do the same amount of damage a small nuclear bomb would do, without the side effects (who would end affecting for years, even if that place/country ends up being an ally of the attacker... see Japan 1945-2002)? Third: Showing bully power. Now this is what makes me the most uncomfortable. That's exactly the same position leaders like Saddam Hussein try to show, and Bush is copying him! Yeah, he HAS the power, he ain't bluffing, you'd say, and that'll make those towel-heads stay put. At the same time, you're bringing fear of attack from another country to a more latent state, again. Like circa 1968. Go back to build your underground bunkers, only for 99,999.95.
Please go on, stay civil, discussion is good. Repeat with me three times...
(BTW, thanks to everyone who helped)
[ March 11, 2002, 19:30: Message edited by: Dr. Jonas Bashir ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Second: Aren't there similar, equally efficient ways to do the same amount of damage a small nuclear bomb would do, without the side effects?
Yes, fuel-air bombs; but they're not effective against deep-buried bunkers - one of the new missions for the tactical nukes they're envisaging - as far as I know, that is.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Hmm... The French neo-Gaullists considered a similar policy in the 90's, but even they had the common sense to back out.
The problem isn't just the fact that you're using nukes. Even if you can minimize the environmental effects to acceptable levels, you can't minimize the political fallout. Anything nuclear, weapons or not, is automatically viewed with general resentment. Sure, countries like Pakistan, India, Israel and China would probably love nothing more than being able to use their nukes against their neighbors, but even they're probably not gonna do it unless threatened first. World leader or not, if the US decides to deploy nukes tactically, we'll probably see a bipolar split worst than the Cold War ever was, between "the sane, rest of the world" and those "crazy American %#*)&@!!"
However, defense structure technology hasn't exactly been sitting on its butt all these years. A few years ago, I've heard of a chemical weapons factory in Africa or something that is invulnerable to anything short of a direct nuclear attack. No matter how much FAE or Paveways you use, there are just certain things too well protected to be taken out with conventional means.
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
I learned of this issue from my mother earlier tonight. She was very upset and distrustful of our current regime.
My concern is not political. It is social. If we attack Iraq with nuclears, than every irate and irrational Mideasterner will see the victims of this attack as martyrs. These crusaders of the fallen 'heroes' will intensify their attacks against our country. We may yet see a North American city nuclearized by a suicide bomber.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:I learned of this issue from my mother earlier tonight.
Is she better then CNN ... ?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, if she mocked up one of those "WAR ON TERROR" graphics in letters of fire in her kitchen first. . . 8)
Posted by Chris StarShade (Member # 786) on :
Ahh, the War on Terror...
The trouble I have is, how does one define terrorist?
Some self-proclaimed "freedom fighters" might be designated terrorists depending on their defenition (I am referring to people who are at guerilla war with Russia at the moment and that you barely hear anything about).
My defenition of a Tango is that it is one who engages in assaults on civilian personnel to make a political statement. Attacking military personnel (and possibly also government personnel depending on the branch) just makes you a rebel, but not necessarily a tango.
Ahh well, in the end we'll all be exiled to another planet light-years away because the government decides it's easier for robots to do all the jobs, and hence, everyone else is growing fat and overpopulated...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Amazingly vocal for a newbie, aren't you? I give you a week. 8)
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I don't think I ventured into the flameboard for at least a month.
Posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir (Member # 481) on :
Jeff, which part of 'please stay away' didn't you understand?
I know you tried not to talk about the topic in question, but it would be better the other way. Please, stay away of this topic. Thank you.
So... there are advantages which shadow the disadvantages. That's the bad thing of warfare, you're intending to HARM the opponent, not protecting him.
Now, two quotes from the local news: An English intelligence report says that Irak will drop a nuclear bomb in less than 5 years. At the same time, Donald Rumsfeld declared the US won't launch any nuclear attacks to any country, especially Russia.
As targetemployee said, that's my mian concern, too. Creating more resentment among their populacy will lead to the reaffirmation of their dictatorships and conduct their efforts towards an open war.
Posted by Chris StarShade (Member # 786) on :
Hmm... yes, perhaps I can get myself one of those snazzy personnel ID's (such as "Avoided by Deer since 1999")
On another forum, in a distant universe I am known as "Interstellar Bandit from Dimension X" feel free to apply this to me here. Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
well padding up your post count with gems like that is a good start..
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'm guessing that "tangos" is a new term for terrorists? Who on earth came up with the idea? Do you know how pissed off the makers of Tango fizzy orange are going to be?
Posted by Supreme Chancellor Ultra von Magnus (Member # 239) on :
TEH COOL MILITERY MEN HAEV TEH TERMIOLOGY FOR TEH TERRORMISTS!!!11!!! IT IS TEH TANGO!! TANGO!!1
Yeah, like in Rainbow Six. Which is where I first heard it. Osama's codename is 'The Waltz'. Or something a little more Flamboyant.
OH, AND TEH MILITARY MENIN TEHIR UNOFROMS SAY THAT TEH BOMBS!!111 LIEK TEH NUCALUR MISSIHLE!!! IS TEH BINGO!
Yeah. They do.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
It is insane to behave the same way you want to stop others behaving. This country's leaders haven't learned a thing from history.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
We wouldn't be, Ziyal. There's a significant difference between a first strike and a retaliatory strike. Sure, you don't want to do what you find reprehensible about your enemies, but what we find reprehensible is NOT the idea of a retaliatory defensive strike once a war has begun. It's the idea of a FIRST strike with the intent to start a war, which is not what anyone is proposing.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
In other words, it's a question not of what you do, but of why you do it.
Or perhaps a question of whether the ends justify the means.
A slippery slope...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
In other words, it's a question not of what you do, but of why you do it.
In this case, yes.
Or perhaps a question of whether the ends justify the means.
Of COURSE the ends justify the means. The only reason that phrase gets a bad rap is that people who have whacked-out judgement capabilities are usually the ones that measure the desirability of the end. Say (totally hypothetically, of course) that the situation was such that the ONLY way to prevent the entire population of the planet from being killed was to nuke Idaho. Yes, the means are undesirable, and under any other circumstances REALLY mean, but the end, i.e. saving six billion other people, justifys it.
The ends can always justify the means, so long as you have a clear perception of the values of both.
As to how this relates to the subject at hand...
End: death of many enemy soldiers, preventing death of many of ours.
Means: Use of one tactical nuclear weapon.
Since there's nothing inherantly bad about the means, there's nothing that needs to be justified in the first place.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"The ends can always justify the means, so long as you have a clear perception of the values of both."
And of course your values are the same as everyone elses.
[ March 22, 2002, 20:01: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Of COURSE the ends justify the means. The only reason that phrase gets a bad rap is that people who have whacked-out judgement capabilities are usually the ones that measure the desirability of the end.
So you don't have a problem with the Nazi's gassing 6 million Jews per se, just that it was done for a relatively minor end, in that the average German didn't want them living next door?
quote:End: death of many enemy soldiers, preventing death of many of ours.
Means: Use of one tactical nuclear weapon
That's absurd. By this logic, you're saying that the lives of your people are worth so much more than those of the enemy, that it's best to exterminate them long before they can threaten any of your people. Never mind that, say, many Iraqi soldiers maybe aren't rabid Husseinophiles and have no choice but to be where they are. By this logic, it makes it OK to nuke anyone (who can't nuke you back) rather than commit conventional forces.
quote:Since there's nothing inherantly bad about the means, there's nothing that needs to be justified in the first place.
Using the same logic you've just espoused above, the Axis of Evil can use their non-nuclear Bio/Chem weapons on your conventional forces first (in order to kill many of your troops, to prevent the death of theirs). To them, gassing an American division wouldn't be inherently bad.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
So you don't have a problem with the Nazi's gassing 6 million Jews per se, just that it was done for a relatively minor end, in that the average German didn't want them living next door?
Of course I have a problem with that. I might (MIGHT) not if there was some end to justify it, i.e. saving the planet or something, but there was none, and the only ones I can come up with are totally fanciful.
By this logic, you're saying that the lives of your people are worth so much more than those of the enemy, that it's best to exterminate them long before they can threaten any of your people.
How do you get the "long before" part? If we're in a major war, I'm all for wiping out the enemy army with zero casualties on our part, if such a thing is feasable. Yeah, war sucks all around, but better their soldiers than ours.
Never mind that, say, many Iraqi soldiers maybe aren't rabid Husseinophiles and have no choice but to be where they are.
They're still soldiers. They may not DESERVE to die, but if they've got a gun and intend to use it on our people, then it's necessary.
By this logic, it makes it OK to nuke anyone (who can't nuke you back) rather than commit conventional forces.
Now I didn't say THAT. I'd prefer conventional forces if it's feasable, simply due to environmental concerns. But if you're up against an utterly massive force, and the ONLY way to eliminate them without taking massive casualties is to use a nuke, I'm all for it. That's the exact same line of reasoning that was used when the decision to hit Japan was made.
Using the same logic you've just espoused above, the Axis of Evil can use their non-nuclear Bio/Chem weapons on your conventional forces first (in order to kill many of your troops, to prevent the death of theirs). To them, gassing an American division wouldn't be inherently bad.
Your point being?
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Of course I have a problem with that. I might (MIGHT) not if there was some end to justify it, i.e. saving the planet or something, but there was none, and the only ones I can come up with are totally fanciful.
Y'know, I wouldn't mind hearing some Omega-Rationaliztions of the Holocaust. I'm they be rip-roaring adventure.
Oh, the Holocaust did save the world. Remember the gigantic Zionist movement to take over the world. With the Templars and the Illuminati? So, in effect, HITLER SAVED THE WORLD
If we're in a major war, I'm all for wiping out the enemy army with zero casualties on our part,
It's a good thing no other government has thought of this. Only Americans can come up with this idea, so you're in the free and clear. Always.
That's the exact same line of reasoning that was used when the decision to hit Japan was made.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I remember those. Chemical/Nuclear/Biological weapon research mainstays of the Japanese military, where they were developing the X-56 Stealth Laser Tank. They were "holding a massive force of gun-wielding soldiers, who intended to do harm to us (Americans)", so issa good thang we'd done gone bombed them. Because they were important. Strategically. And not the Americans ejaculating over their new toy. No.
Your point being?
That Americans will die. You use weapons of mass destruction, and in retaliation, someone will use one on you. You think that big ol' bombs will help your people, when, all that they'll do is ensure the deaths of many more than conventional fighting will allow.
HITLER SAVED THE WORLD
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So, Godwin's Rule, right? We can go play hopscotch now?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, at least he's admitting the Holocaust happened. . .
I hope CC's next version of Flare includes a feature which enables me to say "Your point being?" in a silly voice. My point, Omeychops, is: you're saying that while the idea of the Evil Axis using their WMDs to get us because they'll lose by conventional means just goes to prove they're inherently evil, while if we do the same thing to them for the same reasons we're completely justified.
You say:
quote:But if you're up against an utterly massive force, and the ONLY way to eliminate them without taking massive casualties is to use a nuke, I'm all for it. That's the exact same line of reasoning that was used when the decision to hit Japan was made.
Now imagine some Iraqi/Libyan/North Korean general saying: "we're up against an utterly massive force, and the ONLY way to eliminate them without taking massive casualties is to use our biological or chemical weapons. That's the exact same line of reasoning they used when the decision to hit Japan was made."
How is that different? Or would you have us believe that the life of a human being born in one of those countries is somehow less valuable than the life of a human being born in the United States?
Posted by U//Magnus (Member # 239) on :
quote: Or would you have us believe that the life of a human being born in one of those countries is somehow less valuable than the life of a human being born in the United States
Your point being?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Now imagine some Iraqi/Libyan/North Korean general saying: "we're up against an utterly massive force, and the ONLY way to eliminate them without taking massive casualties is to use our biological or chemical weapons. That's the exact same line of reasoning they used when the decision to hit Japan was made." How is that different?
It's different in that we did not START the war. It's also different in that the Axis of Evil as currently defined is a problem because they attack CIVILIAN targets, not military.
Y'know, I wouldn't mind hearing some Omega-Rationaliztions of the Holocaust.
You want some of my fanciful situations where the end would justify killing six million innocents? Um... OK, say Q decided to play a little game, just to see how we'd react.
I said they were fanciful.
You use weapons of mass destruction, and in retaliation, someone will use one on you.
That's why we avoid proliferation as best we can.
You think that big ol' bombs will help your people, when, all that they'll do is ensure the deaths of many more than conventional fighting will allow.
No more than lots of little bombs would. There is NOTHING magical about a nuke. It's just really (REALLY) powerful for the size. People need to realize that it's not a question of the weapon used, it's a question of what you're hitting. We are NOT talking about nuking entire cities, here. We're talking about hitting troops.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I was readin this topic and i tend to think that nuclear armaments are the worst thing that a country can make. not only will it scare other governments into not attacking you. but it makes you a prime target for black market nuke thefts. ie: Russia's nuclear stockpiles are rumoured to be very lax in security. And i heard the US was worried about the security for the indian and pakistani stockpiles. Can we really truly know whether or not Osama bin laden or what have you have access to thier own bomb? and lets not forget the ever-so-popular Saddam Hussien, if he stockpiled enough, he wouldn't hesitate to turn any country that opposed him into a smoking radioactive dustbowl. (worst case scenario) what is it with people and the attraction of power? is it just in our nature to relish the idea that we are in complete control of another human beings very existence?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"It's also different in that the Axis of Evil as currently defined is a problem because they attack CIVILIAN targets, not military."
Thank god then that the good guys haven't bombed any civilian targets in this "war on terror and stuff".
Oh, hang on...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"There is NOTHING magical about a nuke. It's just really (REALLY) powerful for the size."
That, and the whole radioactive fallout thing. It's the gift that keeps on giving!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I can feel my mind going, but...I'm going to have to agree with Omega so far as he says that a nuclear weapon is no more or less "evil" than any other kind of weapon. Fallout is not a given, after all.
There. Now I must go take a shower. In lava.
[ March 22, 2002, 22:44: Message edited by: Sol System ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
No, there is a valid point there, Sol.
It's just that a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere between "weapon of mass destruction" and "big honking bomb." It's somewhat arbitrary and not flawlessly logical, but the global political consensus has chosen to consider bombs that explode thanks to nuclear fission to be in a different class to your garden-variety anti-Taliban "daisy cutter." Think of it as a bit like the legal drinking age: arguments can be made to set it anywhere you want and inevitably it'll be a silly rule that people will argue should go somewhere else.
Reagan's development of tactical nukes and neutron bombs was viewed by the Soviets and the rest of the world as a major escalation in the arms race, even though I'm sure Reagan was willing to make the argument that tactical nukes are only itty-bitty bombs, barely 10 times what they dropped on Hiroshima and all.
We're used to a global political structure where weapons deriving their destructive power from the fissioning or fusing of atoms are deterrants from future war. The jury's still out on whether we'd have been better off with a Cold War with nukes or without. Today, we have some degree of stability because of MAD. Saddam damn well didn't crack out his biological and chemical warheads because he knew that provisions in the global arms infrastructure, namely nuclear-tipped missiles off his coast, existed that would mulch his sorry ass, for instance. (Then again, this works both ways: a commonly cited reason for the allies not going after Saddam after victory in Kuwait was the fear that when cornered he would have fewer qualms about getting himself nuked if he could take down as many Allies and Israelis as possible with biological and chemical weapons in the process.)
Anyway, while we've got a measure of global familiarity with the schoolyard's "rules" regarding nuclear weapons at present, when Bush starts putting up missile shields and building tactical nukes the balance starts to break down and we have ourselves a tilted situation that pisses off people and raises uncertainty. We simply do not have a global political architecture that likes having nuclear-energy-based weapons, even if they're not quite 25 megatonners, used as an offensive weapon.
And to be quite honest, from what I can tell from the war on terrah, I'm skeptical that these sort of weapons are any more needed today than fifty years ago.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
"First Strike" is merely a military technicality. Wars do not begin in a vaccum. Bin Laden didn't say, "Well, there's nothing to do out here in the desert, so I guess we'll attack America." The U.S. attack other countries every day in many ways, mostly economically. People do not spend millions (or is it billions?) to start a war unless there is a VERY compelling reason, and it will never end unless you find that reason and heal it.
Regarding whose lives are "better": Superiority is one of the problems, isn't it? My country is better than yours. My religion is better than yours. My race is better than yours. My political party is better than yours. Every one of these has caused people to kill and get killed, and for what? What is patriotism but isolation of other countries from yours? What is a nation but a bunch of people who happened to be born in the same place? If Christianity is so great, how come people can discriminate or even kill in its name? If Islam is so great, why did you spend a fortune on revenge instead of feeding your people (the same thing could be said of the U.S.)? Every terrorist soldier has/had a mother and father, perhaps even children they're fighting to save. I'm not saying their cause is entirely good, only that it's not so different from ours. Except that while most of us are trying to make a living, most of them are just trying to live.
Nobody is inherently better than anybody else, for any reason. Just imagine for a minute that this is true. What would you do then?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
If Christianity is so great, how come people can discriminate or even kill in its name?
I can discriminate and kill in YOUR name. That doesn't necessarily mean you approve of it. It may mean that I don't understand your wishes, or that I'm just lying to people so I have an excuse.
Every terrorist soldier has/had a mother and father, perhaps even children they're fighting to save.
FROM WHOM? No one was ATTACKING them, at least not until they attacked us. If they cared about their families, they'd be home, trying to make their lives better, instead of out killing OUR kids.
Except that while most of us are trying to make a living, most of them are just trying to live.
No, they're trying to kill us. Ziyal, this discussion is NOT about your average Muslim family, it's about TERRORISTS. There IS a difference.
Nobody is inherently better than anybody else, for any reason. Just imagine for a minute that this is true. What would you do then?
Imagine? We already BELIEVE it's true. Our problem isn't with peoples' inherent worth, it's with their ACTIONS.
I'm having difficulty seeing exactly what point you're advocating here, Ziyal.
Thank god then that the good guys haven't bombed any civilian targets in this "war on terror and stuff".
We haven't TARGETED any civilians. Intent is everything. Or at least a good chunk.
Posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir (Member # 481) on :
Intent is everything? Omega, you've just bit your own tail.
If intent is everything, then the 'Axis of Evil' is totally motivated to attack the US and the UK for the only reason of Bush's and Blair's intention to use tactical nukes against them.
Congratulations, Ommie, you've given me the reason I was showing on the first post of this long thread.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
...
Can anyone translate that into a logical english sentence? I missed it entirely.
Posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir (Member # 481) on :
Translation: If the Bush administration made a document about their intention to use tactical nukes against seven possible oppossers, and Britain's Minister of Defense said they would use nukes against Irak, Iran and Korea, in that act they are stating their intentions.
Like you said 'intent is everything'. So, that intent to use nukes is the exact excuse those countries need to attack you.
I call that 'bully provocation'. What do you call it? I thought that was for S. Hussein only, not for the oh great US of A.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Omega: Not only was the original sentence logical English, everything was spelled, capitalized, and punctuated properly. Apparently, Argentinians speak better English than Tennesseans.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
What the yotz is this guy talking about? 'Cause it's certainly not what I am.
Intent is everything (or most) when judging peoples' actions. Yes, we kill civilians on occasion, but for the most part we don't INTEND to kill civilians, and in fact go to great lengths to avoid it. THAT is what makes us different from them.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
There's a fine line between intending to kill civilians, and bombing places where civilians are but sort-of, let's-keep-our-fingers-crossed hoping that maybe none of them will get hurt. Even less so when the bombs used are tactical nuclear weapons. Either way the underlying problem remains - on both sides - a fundamental disregard for the lives of people on the opposing side.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Define "people on the opposing side". We DO have a fundamental regard for the lives of CIVILAINS in the same area as our enemies. That's why we do everything we can to avoid killing them. The enemy soldiers, OTOH, we don't need to have any regard for at all: they're trying to kill us. The idea that we always give them the opportunity to surrender if at all possible is quite a ways above the "necessary" line. We not only have regard for civilian lives, we even have regard for ENEMY SOLDIERS' lives.
So where's your problem?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
My problem lies somewhere between the benchmarks that a) you're talking bollocks, and b) you're avoiding the issue.
I out it to you again that the Allies' intent to kill as many of the 'true' enemy - the terrorists, enemy soldiers etc., as opposed to civilian countrymen of theirs - is not that much different to the motives of said enemy, who don't even have to worry about US civilians getting killed (because you're invading their country and there aren't any US civilians there).
Don't try to muddy the issue by going off on how our heroic allied servicemen will always give their enemy the chance to surrender, because it isn't true. None of them are going to risk their lives on the offchance some raghead has a grenade down his shirt, or is willing to sacrifice his life for hsi country, or Allah, or whatever.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Omega: How can we trust your opinion of "doing everything not to kill civilians"? You're the same person who argues that every little baby that got blown up in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was actually a soldier.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I'm sorry, JB. I couldn't stay away any longer. I had to say this...
If ONE MORE #$%& says that the strategic planning document demonstrates "intent" to use nuclear weapons again, I will put them on my list of people who may be beaten with the carcass of a salmon.
A contingency plan, a list of possible outcomes of a string of events does not in any way, shape, or form equal a statement of intent.
Let me put it to you this way.
Let's say that "Gary" and I really really REALLY didn't like each other, but we were in a situation where we came together frequently. Say I thought that one day "Gary" might decide to take a swing at me. I might have various scenarios in mind with which to deal with that possibility, such as:
1. Let him connect, and sue. 2. Let him connect, and take a swing in response. 3. Dodge 4. Dodge, and take a swing. 5. Anticipate swing, avoid contact. 6. Anticipate swing, swing first. 7. Anticipate swing, carry SIG. Dodge, draw, and shoot the #$&*.
Or many others.
That I might have an option on my list of options does not mean that I intend to or will take that option, even when the scenario presents itself.
From the list above, out of preparedness, I might actually be carrying the SIG, but still choose use one of the other 6 options, because of the consequences of using option 7. My considering carrying the SIG (or even having it) does not mean that I intend to shoot "Gary" with it.
Nor does putting someone on a list of people who MAY be beaten with the carcass of a salmon mean that I intend to DO it.
Posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir (Member # 481) on :
And I'm sorry, First, but now I'm completely obligated to do this.
MODERATOR! Please bring the padlock! And I'm being serious.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Nor does putting someone on a list of people who MAY be beaten with the carcass of a salmon mean that I intend to DO it.
I'll pay you?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I don't think I'm ready to close a thread for no real reason. Honestly, just because you started the thread, that doesn't mean you "own" it, or anything. If people still want to discuss something here, I don't see any reason not to let them. And, if they don't, the thread will die on its own, and it won't matter.
Posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir (Member # 481) on :
Well, this was more under the 'promise' I made to keep the thread civil, remember? Do as you wish.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I don't think the thread has gotten un-civil. As of yet anyway.
Although there is always hope.
[ March 26, 2002, 14:36: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) I guess is entitled to a respectable opinion.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)