Jihad needs scientists

Homer J Simpson · Oct 2, 2006

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:6ln0i296ogmudnj5hhpl3nl9gadkfo6o9c@4ax.com...

Of course. What you don't hear about is the clandestine work that's
being done. You're not supposed to.

And yet the Israelis get what they need done in a far more competent manner
with only a few errors.

Homer J Simpson · Oct 2, 2006

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45215D8E.7943AE64@hotmail.com...

You haven't a clue what Jihad really means. If you understood...........

" Jihad, sometimes spelled Jahad, Jehad, Jihaad, Djehad or Cihad, (Arabic:
????? ?ih?d) is an Islamic term, from the Arabic root ?hd ("to exert
utmost effort, to strive, struggle"), which connotes a wide range of
meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect
faith to a political or military struggle "

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

See also "Mein Kampf".

Homer J Simpson · Oct 2, 2006

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45215FBD.CA21777D@hotmail.com...

Jim Thompson wrote:

N'est pas?

Your 'French' is dreadful.

But he has an 8" tongue!

T Wake · Oct 2, 2006

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45216633.8C3697BB@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message

This thread has begun to create the illusion of America being a cross
between 1930 Germany and George Orwell's 1984.

Illusion ??????

Well, USENET can never be described as an accurate vision of reality. By
definition we are all weirdos for posting here. I am reading this in
sci.physics which has so many posts from headcases you would give up all
hope if it were an accurate reflection....

Is Archimedes Plutonium currently resident there ? He's a nutter if ever
there
was one.

Sadly, he is one of the less interesting ones so thanks to the miracle of
filters I don't read his posts. Google George Hammond if you _really_ want
to laugh at some one who is obviously insane. (Or Y.Porat, or Jeff Relf, or
Androcoles, or ......)

Eeyore · Oct 2, 2006

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

You haven't a clue what Jihad really means. If you understood...........

" Jihad, sometimes spelled Jahad, Jehad, Jihaad, Djehad or Cihad, (Arabic:
????? ?ih?d) is an Islamic term, from the Arabic root ?hd ("to exert
utmost effort, to strive, struggle"), which connotes a wide range of
meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect
faith to a political or military struggle "

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

See also "Mein Kampf".

The irony of it !

Graham

Eeyore · Oct 2, 2006

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

This thread has begun to create the illusion of America being a cross
between 1930 Germany and George Orwell's 1984.

Illusion ??????

Well, USENET can never be described as an accurate vision of reality. By
definition we are all weirdos for posting here. I am reading this in
sci.physics which has so many posts from headcases you would give up all
hope if it were an accurate reflection....

Is Archimedes Plutonium currently resident there ? He's a nutter if ever
there was one.

Sadly, he is one of the less interesting ones so thanks to the miracle of
filters I don't read his posts. Google George Hammond if you _really_ want
to laugh at some one who is obviously insane.

Yes he's clearly quite barking.

(Or Y.Porat, or Jeff Relf, or Androcoles, or ......)

I'll sift through them. Some posters to sci.physics also make it to
sci.energy.hyrogen for example so we get to hear Habshi's babbling nonsense too
for example.

Graham

Homer J Simpson · Oct 2, 2006

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:YM6dnaSDq6ef-bzYRVnyug@pipex.net...

Very true. The invasion of Afghanistan made sense. The invasion of Iraq
was madness that has blunted the west's ability to get on with the rest of
the "mission." (Stabilisation of Afghanistan, change opium production to
other crops, stop Pakistan supporting the Taleban, remove safe routes for
AQ etc.)

The invasion of Afghanistan was a terrible risk which amazingly worked out
well. The US was now in a enviable position with a population generally in
favor of those who had removed their oppressors, worldwide acceptance, the
opportunity to turn Afghanistan into a shining example of peace and
democracy, the chance to shut down most of the world's opium production and
to provide these poor people with some minimal services like clean water and
earthquake proof schools.

Instead G W Bush flip-flopped and changed course and decided to attack Iraq
which was about as smart as attacking a hornet's nest with a baseball bat.

Oops.

Jim Thompson · Oct 2, 2006

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:47:12 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:cdg2i2d2f8fo15gn34hn1ajoplsrj5eu46@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:21:57 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:hrd2i2poggeqcjmqe03i24fclgma2p9gur@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:06:00 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

How much do you personally donate to things like this?

I don't have to account for it thank you and I certainly don't have the
kind of income
that would allow me to donate anything like you do. We do however have a
government
that does it on our behalf, not to mention the likes of Oxfam etc... in
the 'voluntary
sector' who are normally very fast off the mark when need is high.

In other words, nothing. In Texas, people like you are called "all hat
and no horse."

You might want to remember that private monetary matters are just
that--private. Just because you chose to parade yours around in public
just
to show how big your genitalia are, doesn't mean that anybody else is
obligated to. I guess Texans don't have any manners as regards the
privacy
of private matters.

Eric Lucas

Hey Eric, I guess you are a true dumb-ass... you don't even have a
hat, and too stupid to realize Larkin is in CA, not TX.

What is your street address? I have some buddies at Ohio State that
are just drooling for the chance to "meet" you ;-)

You are funny guy. Do you really have buddies or are they just made up to
try and make you look good?

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Oct 2, 2006

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:40:40 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:7jj2i21m9ec0kg388bvffj3npa5tferpoo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:30:59 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:16:54 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

[snip]

Yep. However I wouldn't hang my hat on anything CAIR has to offer.
Around here they spout all kinds of hate, refuse to say anything
negative about extremism, nor be interviewed by the media.

My feeling is that if American Muslims can't/won't be outspoken
against their extremist brothers, in an out-and-out world blow-up
they'll be rounded up into camps just like the Japanese-Americans in
WWII... deservedly... "silence implies consent" (Sir Thomas More).

The only people who should be "rounded up" are people who commit
crimes.

John

There are some provisions in my statement. Since most (if not all)
Muslims won't criticize Jihad, in a war we will have to presume that
all Muslims are closet Islamic terrorists.

I repeat, "silence implies consent".

Now show me some Imams that vocally criticize this crap and I'll
change my feelings.

Welcome to the land of the free. Its good to see that you can protect
western society by destroying it.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Oct 2, 2006

"David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote in message
news:45215b39$0$16502$8404b019@news.wineasy.se...

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:48:31 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:6ln0i296ogmudnj5hhpl3nl9gadkfo6o9c@4ax.com...

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:17:17 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

I seem to recall references to "Shock and Awe".

Of course. What you don't hear about is the clandestine work that's
being done. You're not supposed to.

Doesn't sound like the cops
to me - unless it's the nutjob US cops who shoot everything in sight.

Yup, we've got some bad ones, same like everywhere.

"Some bad ones" is more than a little disingenuous. The nutjob that
made the quoted words famous is supposed to be the leader of the free
world--he's not supposed to be one of the "bad ones". It really robs
him and his mission of credibility to act like some sort of
irresponsible cowboy.

In the first place, we were talking about 'cops' which, in my view,
refers to civilian officers of the law.

You're obviously referring to the President of the United States of
America, who is a civilian but, nonetheless, the Commander-in-Chief
of the armed forces of the United States of America, which places
him in a role quite different from that played by a common 'cop',
and to try to liken him to a cop strikes me as being a little
disingenuous.

You're right--he's supposed to answer to a far, far higher standard than the
police.

You may disagree with his policies and those of his staff, but the
fact remains that, for better or for worse, those policies will be
carried out and there's very little you or I can do to stop that
from happening.

Except to be as politically aware as possible, and to become part of the
rising tide of voices expressing displeasure with what the Bush regime is
trying to do and how they're doing it. Again, that's the one thing I value
most about my country--the right to express a dissenting opinion. I'm not
so arrogant as to believe that my voice alone should have the least effect
on the administration's policies, but when well more than half of the
population agree with me, I'm starting to think that maybe something might
actually get better.

It might surprise you to know that I am a longtime Republican. The
disingenuity and outright dishonesty of the Bush administration has
disgusted me with the modern Republican party. It used to be the party of
keeping government out of peoples' personal lives, staunch support for all
aspects of the First Amendment (and other Constitutional rights), and of
small, fiscally frugal government--and those are the values I support. Its
turning away from those values to pander for votes is part of what has
turned me off to the modern Republican party. Thankfully, some of the
Republicans in Congress are beginning to reconsider their blind allegiance
to the Bush administration's values.

It's fair enough that us "foreigners" can't do much about Bush and his
policies, but it's quite telling that you think that *you*, as an American
citizen, can't do anything either.

I actually agree in some ways. On the other hand, if you're in Britain and
disagree with Tony Blair, you have to admit it took a long time to do
anything about it. Bush will be out of office by January 2009. I, along
with most other people that disagree with the way that he's running the
country, am willing to wait it out and hope he doesn't do too much damage in
the meantime. Who knows what will come next--but the best we can do is make
sure the country chooses more wisely next time.

I have a great deal of respect for my country, but sometimes I think maybe
our Constitution could have been designed a little better. I think the
framers wanted to ride a balance between being able to get rid of a
president easily, a la the Prime Minister in the British parliamentary
system, and allowing a person to take over the country for a long time, as
happened in Iraq. In the first case, the President would be too subject to
the whims of the population, and in the latter, he would never have to
answer to the people. Perhaps the compromise we've come up with just makes
Presidents too hard to remove from office, but ironically, still too
beholden to the whim of popular opinion. I'm not sure there's a better
compromise to be had. At least George Washington was wise enough to refuse
a third nomination, and thus actively set a precedent for 8-year term limits
(he was also wise enough to rail against a political party system,
especially a 2-party system--it's a real shame we chose to ignore that
one!). It's also good that when FDR chose to ignore the precedent in the
1940s, at least Congress was wise enough to codify it into the Constitution.

I suggest that a letter to the White House or an email to:

http://answers.firstgov.gov/cgi-bin/gsa_ict.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php

might be appropriate if you can spare the time to make your thoughts
known to those who matter.

I do, occasionally. It's one of the big things that I really respect about
my country--my freedom to express my opinion about how the country is run,
despite the apparent wishes of some to silence me by threatening violence.
He has a right to free speech too, of course, but to paraphrase somebody,
his rights stop where my nose starts. Fortunately, I have the evidence, in
case he actually intends to make good on his threat--and the conspiracy to
commit assault would be a federal felony, since it would have taken place
across state lines using the phone lines that carry the Internet.

Eric Lucas

Jim Thompson · Oct 2, 2006

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:49:58 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:e1j2i294uuj1b899akl1kveug6up0csger@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:20:31 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip

Yep, I knew he was at Battelle, thus my previous not-so-quiet comment
that his mouth was running on government money.

Wonder if his boss knows the crap he posts? I'll make sure that he
does ;-)

Loathe though I am to join in with the generalisation of American behaviour
traits, am I reading this correct in that some one has disagreed with you so
your response is a series of threats of violence and / or complaining to his
employer.

Amazing. You make me so proud.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Oct 2, 2006

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:hJqdncTbXv4vw7zYRVnyrQ@pipex.net...

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:cdg2i2d2f8fo15gn34hn1ajoplsrj5eu46@4ax.com...

What is your street address? I have some buddies at Ohio State that
are just drooling for the chance to "meet" you ;-)

You are funny guy. Do you really have buddies or are they just made up to
try and make you look good?

I have to say most people I've known associated with OSU over the past 25
years are very hard-working, pretty much mind their own business, and don't
go around threatening to beat somebody up just because they disagree on
politics...in a word, mature. (Well, OK, there was that couch incident, but
it was MICHIGAN, after all. Oh, and what I say doesn't apply to Maurice
Clarett, either--he's an idiot.)

Eric Lucas

T Wake · Oct 2, 2006

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:sfq2i21d2ue1rvcm7krl860qlmh2v7nb3k@4ax.com...

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:40:40 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:7jj2i21m9ec0kg388bvffj3npa5tferpoo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:30:59 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:16:54 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

[snip]

Yep. However I wouldn't hang my hat on anything CAIR has to offer.
Around here they spout all kinds of hate, refuse to say anything
negative about extremism, nor be interviewed by the media.

My feeling is that if American Muslims can't/won't be outspoken
against their extremist brothers, in an out-and-out world blow-up
they'll be rounded up into camps just like the Japanese-Americans in
WWII... deservedly... "silence implies consent" (Sir Thomas More).

The only people who should be "rounded up" are people who commit
crimes.

John

There are some provisions in my statement. Since most (if not all)
Muslims won't criticize Jihad, in a war we will have to presume that
all Muslims are closet Islamic terrorists.

I repeat, "silence implies consent".

Now show me some Imams that vocally criticize this crap and I'll
change my feelings.

Welcome to the land of the free. Its good to see that you can protect
western society by destroying it.

Good to see you Nederlanders are doing so well ;-)

I assume I have just missed the joke here. Is this going to be used in your
act?

T Wake · Oct 2, 2006

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:5iq2i2l26au8gu5mc3fdhj457u7g1j4vpi@4ax.com...

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:49:58 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:e1j2i294uuj1b899akl1kveug6up0csger@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:20:31 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip

Yep, I knew he was at Battelle, thus my previous not-so-quiet comment
that his mouth was running on government money.

Wonder if his boss knows the crap he posts? I'll make sure that he
does ;-)

Loathe though I am to join in with the generalisation of American
behaviour
traits, am I reading this correct in that some one has disagreed with you
so
your response is a series of threats of violence and / or complaining to
his
employer.

Amazing. You make me so proud.

"his mouth <is> running on government money"

So?

Jim Thompson · Oct 2, 2006

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:45:32 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:hJqdncTbXv4vw7zYRVnyrQ@pipex.net...

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:cdg2i2d2f8fo15gn34hn1ajoplsrj5eu46@4ax.com...

What is your street address? I have some buddies at Ohio State that
are just drooling for the chance to "meet" you ;-)

You are funny guy. Do you really have buddies or are they just made up to
try and make you look good?

I have to say most people I've known associated with OSU over the past 25
years are very hard-working, pretty much mind their own business, and don't
go around threatening to beat somebody up just because they disagree on
politics...in a word, mature. (Well, OK, there was that couch incident, but
it was MICHIGAN, after all. Oh, and what I say doesn't apply to Maurice
Clarett, either--he's an idiot.)

Eric Lucas

You missed my "meat" pun ?

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Larkin · Oct 2, 2006

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:41:22 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:30:59 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:16:54 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

[snip]

Yep. However I wouldn't hang my hat on anything CAIR has to offer.
Around here they spout all kinds of hate, refuse to say anything
negative about extremism, nor be interviewed by the media.

My feeling is that if American Muslims can't/won't be outspoken
against their extremist brothers, in an out-and-out world blow-up
they'll be rounded up into camps just like the Japanese-Americans in
WWII... deservedly... "silence implies consent" (Sir Thomas More).

The only people who should be "rounded up" are people who commit
crimes.

John

There are some provisions in my statement. Since most (if not all)
Muslims won't criticize Jihad, in a war we will have to presume that
all Muslims are closet Islamic terrorists.

If you catch them planting bombs, yes.

I repeat, "silence implies consent".

Of course it doesn't, but "consent" remains legal anyhow.

There are millions of Muslims in this country, citizens and legal
residents, and their rate of participation in terrorism is within the
engineering definition of zero.

John

Jim Thompson · Oct 2, 2006

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:05:08 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:41:22 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:30:59 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:16:54 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

[snip]

Yep. However I wouldn't hang my hat on anything CAIR has to offer.
Around here they spout all kinds of hate, refuse to say anything
negative about extremism, nor be interviewed by the media.

My feeling is that if American Muslims can't/won't be outspoken
against their extremist brothers, in an out-and-out world blow-up
they'll be rounded up into camps just like the Japanese-Americans in
WWII... deservedly... "silence implies consent" (Sir Thomas More).

The only people who should be "rounded up" are people who commit
crimes.

John

There are some provisions in my statement. Since most (if not all)
Muslims won't criticize Jihad, in a war we will have to presume that
all Muslims are closet Islamic terrorists.

If you catch them planting bombs, yes.

I repeat, "silence implies consent".

Of course it doesn't, but "consent" remains legal anyhow.

There are millions of Muslims in this country, citizens and legal
residents, and their rate of participation in terrorism is within the
engineering definition of zero.

John

I find it very troubling that CAIR and other Muslim organizations go
out of their way to sidestep questioning whether they favor the
behavior of Islamic terrorists or not.

"silence implies consent" is INDEED a provision of LAW, but I think it
applies here as well... particularly given the sidestepping :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Larkin · Oct 2, 2006

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:08:55 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

How much do you personally donate to international assistance? Funny
how "none of your business" starts with "none."

I donate GBŁ22,000 per annum - in addition to having donated several years
of my life.

What does this have to do with anything?

It appears to be a lame attempt to justify the USA's paltry aid budget of 0.17%
of GDP.

Graham

I'm just curious about what people actually do about things they
profess to believe in. Like the fatness thing.

John

Oct 2, 2006

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:YEdUg.7318$N4.2499@clgrps12...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_8dUg.7772$GR.6480@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

Oh, come on, you know perfectly well that one anecdote (8 years old, no
less) does not a "trait" make. However, this anecdote is useless. A
white woman was recently (in the past month) dragged to death behind a
pickup truck, too. By your logic, US society hates all whites and all
women as well.

Hispanic - by her husband.

Yes, and what details were left of out the other anecdote that hide the
"whole story"? Once you start to see the actual details, you can
understand rather than simply label and refuse to understand. I'm not
saying the other incident wasn't a case of racism, it may well have
been...I'm just saying that the anecdote, as written, did not "prove" that
racism is rampant in the US, as the poster appeared to intend.

Eric Lucas

Oct 2, 2006

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:5iq2i2l26au8gu5mc3fdhj457u7g1j4vpi@4ax.com...

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:49:58 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:e1j2i294uuj1b899akl1kveug6up0csger@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:20:31 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip

Yep, I knew he was at Battelle, thus my previous not-so-quiet comment
that his mouth was running on government money.

Wonder if his boss knows the crap he posts? I'll make sure that he
does ;-)

Loathe though I am to join in with the generalisation of American
behaviour
traits, am I reading this correct in that some one has disagreed with you
so
your response is a series of threats of violence and / or complaining to
his
employer.

Amazing. You make me so proud.

"his mouth <is> running on government money"

Uhh...no it's not. Learn your facts before opening your mouth.

Eric Lucas

Jihad needs scientists

Homer J Simpson

Guest

Homer J Simpson

Guest

Homer J Simpson

Guest

T Wake

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

Eeyore

Guest

Homer J Simpson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Guest

T Wake

Guest

T Wake

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Guest

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor