Double standards!

First topic message reminder :

Lone wolf’: Our stunning double standard when it comes to race and religion.

In what police call the deadliest attack in modern American history, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock opened fire on concertgoers at a country music festival in Las Vegas on Sunday.

Despite the scale of the attack and Paddock’s being armed with more than 10 rifles, Las Vegas Sheriff Joe Lombardo immediately dismissed any ties to terrorism, classifying Paddock, a white male from a rural town 80 miles from Las Vegas, as a “local individual” and a “lone wolf.

The Las Vegas shooting raises several questions linked to race and religion and how they figure into our imagining and policing of terrorism. President Trump has ushered in the third phase of the war on terror, and his brazen “clash of civilization” rhetoric around U.S. anti-terrorism policy and programming has fixated on Muslims.

Trump continues to carry forward counter-radicalization policing — the signature anti-terrorism program installed by former president Barack Obama — which seeks to identify and arrest “homegrown” Muslim radicals. Like Paddock, Dylann Roof, who killed nine churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., in 2015, was described as a “lone wolf.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/10/02/lone-wolf-our-stunning-double-standard-when-it-comes-to-race-and-religion/?utm_term=.a37f6b331bcc

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I read he used her name to book into the hotel.

I wonder if he was a Robbie Williams fan, a song of his is eerily similar to what happened.

The lyrics write about him and his monkey travel to Vegas, book into the Mandalay Bay hotel. Get a room on the 33rd floor (one flour out) he writes about the gun and having 10 itchy fingers.
the chorus goes....
Me and my monkey
With a dream and a gun
I'm hoping my monkey don't point that gun at anyone
Me and my monkey
Like Butch and the Sundance Kid
Trying to understand why he did what he did
Why he did what he did

Isn't it to do with drugs - monkey on my back?

It is, I think he wrote it when he was drugged up himself, its around 15 years old.
People interpret songs differently...take note of the bits that appeal to them.

It also could have absolutely nothing to do with that song and the references to the Mandalay hotel, the 33rd floor, the gun and shooting people....who knows?

SEXY MAMA wrote:Lone wolf’: Our stunning double standard when it comes to race and religion.

In what police call the deadliest attack in modern American history, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock opened fire on concertgoers at a country music festival in Las Vegas on Sunday.

Despite the scale of the attack and Paddock’s being armed with more than 10 rifles, Las Vegas Sheriff Joe Lombardo immediately dismissed any ties to terrorism, classifying Paddock, a white male from a rural town 80 miles from Las Vegas, as a “local individual” and a “lone wolf.

The Las Vegas shooting raises several questions linked to race and religion and how they figure into our imagining and policing of terrorism. President Trump has ushered in the third phase of the war on terror, and his brazen “clash of civilization” rhetoric around U.S. anti-terrorism policy and programming has fixated on Muslims.

Trump continues to carry forward counter-radicalization policing — the signature anti-terrorism program installed by former president Barack Obama — which seeks to identify and arrest “homegrown” Muslim radicals. Like Paddock, Dylann Roof, who killed nine churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., in 2015, was described as a “lone wolf.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/10/02/lone-wolf-our-stunning-double-standard-when-it-comes-to-race-and-religion/?utm_term=.a37f6b331bcc

Mass murder and Terrorism have two different definitions, and it has nothing to do with race or religion. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, because he had an agenda that was political or religious.

Charles Whitman and this dipshit in Vegas were not terrorists, but murderers. Assuming we don't come up with a relationship with ISIS, the IRA or the KKK.


PS, I missed some of y'all.

Well hello Maddog. Long time, no see.

Maddog wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:Lone wolf’: Our stunning double standard when it comes to race and religion.

In what police call the deadliest attack in modern American history, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock opened fire on concertgoers at a country music festival in Las Vegas on Sunday.

Despite the scale of the attack and Paddock’s being armed with more than 10 rifles, Las Vegas Sheriff Joe Lombardo immediately dismissed any ties to terrorism, classifying Paddock, a white male from a rural town 80 miles from Las Vegas, as a “local individual” and a “lone wolf.

The Las Vegas shooting raises several questions linked to race and religion and how they figure into our imagining and policing of terrorism. President Trump has ushered in the third phase of the war on terror, and his brazen “clash of civilization” rhetoric around U.S. anti-terrorism policy and programming has fixated on Muslims.

Trump continues to carry forward counter-radicalization policing — the signature anti-terrorism program installed by former president Barack Obama — which seeks to identify and arrest “homegrown” Muslim radicals. Like Paddock, Dylann Roof, who killed nine churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., in 2015, was described as a “lone wolf.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/10/02/lone-wolf-our-stunning-double-standard-when-it-comes-to-race-and-religion/?utm_term=.a37f6b331bcc

Mass murder and Terrorism have two different definitions, and it has nothing to do with race or religion. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, because he had an agenda that was political or religious.

Charles Whitman and this dipshit in Vegas were not terrorists, but murderers. Assuming we don't come up with a relationship with ISIS, the IRA or the KKK.


PS, I missed some of y'all.      

I get what you are saying, but why does the agenda have to be political or religious? Terror = a state of fright in the recipient. A terrorist is one who inflicts it. I can see that there's generally a motive or agenda--a terrorist is trying to elicit something, after all--but it can be for any reason.

Raggamuffin wrote:Well hello Maddog. Long time, no see.

Been a minute sweet britches.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Mass murder and Terrorism have two different definitions, and it has nothing to do with race or religion. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, because he had an agenda that was political or religious.

Charles Whitman and this dipshit in Vegas were not terrorists, but murderers. Assuming we don't come up with a relationship with ISIS, the IRA or the KKK.


PS, I missed some of y'all.      

I get what you are saying, but why does the agenda have to be political or religious?  Terror = a state of fright in the recipient.  A terrorist is one who inflicts it.  I can see that there's generally a motive or agenda--a terrorist is trying to elicit something, after all--but it can be for any reason.

Terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.


This is the legal definition over here.

That's the US State Department working definition.  Political departments tend to tie definitions down to current and pending issues, in a broad (perhaps a decade) sense. Right now politics and religion are the big ones.

Granted, people don't generally gravitate toward extreme measures unless for creed issues, but I see no reason to exclude the possibility for definitional purposes.  The point about terrorism is the obliqueness of purpose...it's not violence for violence sake, but violence to communicate a message.

Maddog wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:Lone wolf’: Our stunning double standard when it comes to race and religion.

In what police call the deadliest attack in modern American history, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock opened fire on concertgoers at a country music festival in Las Vegas on Sunday.

Despite the scale of the attack and Paddock’s being armed with more than 10 rifles, Las Vegas Sheriff Joe Lombardo immediately dismissed any ties to terrorism, classifying Paddock, a white male from a rural town 80 miles from Las Vegas, as a “local individual” and a “lone wolf.

The Las Vegas shooting raises several questions linked to race and religion and how they figure into our imagining and policing of terrorism. President Trump has ushered in the third phase of the war on terror, and his brazen “clash of civilization” rhetoric around U.S. anti-terrorism policy and programming has fixated on Muslims.

Trump continues to carry forward counter-radicalization policing — the signature anti-terrorism program installed by former president Barack Obama — which seeks to identify and arrest “homegrown” Muslim radicals. Like Paddock, Dylann Roof, who killed nine churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., in 2015, was described as a “lone wolf.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/10/02/lone-wolf-our-stunning-double-standard-when-it-comes-to-race-and-religion/?utm_term=.a37f6b331bcc

Mass murder and Terrorism have two different definitions, and it has nothing to do with race or religion. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, because he had an agenda that was political or religious.

Charles Whitman and this dipshit in Vegas were not terrorists, but murderers. Assuming we don't come up with a relationship with ISIS, the IRA or the KKK.


PS, I missed some of y'all.      

The basic term for Terrorism

Is to spread terror.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Mass murder and Terrorism have two different definitions, and it has nothing to do with race or religion. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, because he had an agenda that was political or religious.

Charles Whitman and this dipshit in Vegas were not terrorists, but murderers. Assuming we don't come up with a relationship with ISIS, the IRA or the KKK.


PS, I missed some of y'all.      

The basic term for Terrorism

Is to spread terror.

That's a very basic term. A rapist would terrorize his victim, but we generally use the more specific term "rapist" to describe their illegal behavior. Same with a serial killer. No doubt Jack the Ripper and Guy Fawkes both attempted to spread terror. Only one would be classified as a terrorist through.

Maddog wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

The basic term for Terrorism

Is to spread terror.

That's a very basic term. A rapist would terrorize his victim, but we generally use the more specific term "rapist" to describe their illegal behavior. Same with a serial killer. No doubt Jack the Ripper and Guy Fawkes both attempted to spread terror. Only one would be classified as a terrorist through.

Guy Fawkes would be considered a terrorist, Jack would not, by my reckoning.  Guy was using violence to make a statement.  Jack was doin' what he was doing for the hell of it. Or he was nuts. Or, whatever...we don't really know who Jack is, or what he was thinking. Maybe he was protesting the plight of abandoned women in East London.

But what the hell.  It's a semantic argument.  Definitions can be whatever you, or I, want.

Maddog wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

The basic term for Terrorism

Is to spread terror.

That's a very basic term. A rapist would terrorize his victim, but we generally use the more specific term "rapist" to describe their illegal behavior. Same with a serial killer. No doubt Jack the Ripper and Guy Fawkes both attempted to spread terror. Only one would be classified as a terrorist through.

I should have added to the masses.

When one invokes fear in the masses it's known as terrorism.

Double standards have been set by the media and you know it.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's a very basic term. A rapist would terrorize his victim, but we generally use the more specific term "rapist" to describe their illegal behavior. Same with a serial killer. No doubt Jack the Ripper and Guy Fawkes both attempted to spread terror. Only one would be classified as a terrorist through.

I should have added to the masses.

When one invokes fear in the masses it's known as terrorism.

Double standards have been set by the media and you know it.

youre right mama

there are very obvious standards between how the MSM deals with Islamic terrorism VS other kinds of terrorism

it really is disgusting

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's a very basic term. A rapist would terrorize his victim, but we generally use the more specific term "rapist" to describe their illegal behavior. Same with a serial killer. No doubt Jack the Ripper and Guy Fawkes both attempted to spread terror. Only one would be classified as a terrorist through.

I should have added to the masses.

When one invokes fear in the masses it's known as terrorism.

Double standards have been set by the media and you know it.

This is my way of thinking to.
That's the problem with putting labels on things....people interpret them differently.
To me terrorism = terror.....mass panicking caused by machete waving or gun toting maniacs, does it matter what actually motivates them?

The media generally reiterates the terminology used by law enforcement. That's why if this guy had been captured he would have been referred to as a suspect, even though everyone knows he did it.

Mass shooters and serial killers tend to be white males, at least in the US. Minorities don't tend to just go postal and lay waste to people because they are mad at the world. Minorities tend to have an identifiable agenda which is how one earns the terrorist moniker.

Maddog wrote:The media generally reiterates the terminology used by law enforcement. That's why if this guy had been captured he would have been referred to as a suspect, even though everyone knows he did it.  

Mass shooters and serial killers tend to be white males, at least in the US.  Minorities don't tend to just go postal and lay waste to people because they are mad at the world.  Minorities tend to have an identifiable agenda which is how one earns the terrorist moniker.  

Have a read

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/5-myths-about-serial-killers-and-why-they-persist-excerpt/

Syl wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

I should have added to the masses.

When one invokes fear in the masses it's known as terrorism.

Double standards have been set by the media and you know it.

This is my way of thinking to.
That's the problem with putting labels on things....people interpret them differently.
To me terrorism = terror.....mass panicking caused by machete waving or gun toting maniacs, does it matter what actually motivates them?

Yeah let's not worry about what motivates them, who cares

Accept the symptoms ignore the disease, head in the sand where it's nice and safe

Maddog wrote:The media generally reiterates the terminology used by law enforcement. That's why if this guy had been captured he would have been referred to as a suspect, even though everyone knows he did it.  

Mass shooters and serial killers tend to be white males, at least in the US.  Minorities don't tend to just go postal and lay waste to people because they are mad at the world.  Minorities tend to have an identifiable agenda which is how one earns the terrorist moniker.  

Tell that to a church full of white folks killed by a black

"Tell that to a church full of white folks killed by a black," and you will quite understand the community of black folks who join in Black Lives Matter.  Millions of whites, too.

The genre of modern mass racial killing was, if not invented, at least perpetuated in Charleston, South Carolina, by a white man, Dylann Roof.  Thousands of police departments around America are fans of Dylann Roof.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:The media generally reiterates the terminology used by law enforcement. That's why if this guy had been captured he would have been referred to as a suspect, even though everyone knows he did it.  

Mass shooters and serial killers tend to be white males, at least in the US.  Minorities don't tend to just go postal and lay waste to people because they are mad at the world.  Minorities tend to have an identifiable agenda which is how one earns the terrorist moniker.  

Have a read

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/5-myths-about-serial-killers-and-why-they-persist-excerpt/

"In fact, approximately 17 percent of all serial homicides in the U.S. are committed by women."

Just one comment from your article. I specifically used the phrase "tend to"for a reason. It means more often than not. It does not mean the same as "all".

smelly-bandit wrote:

Maddog wrote:The media generally reiterates the terminology used by law enforcement. That's why if this guy had been captured he would have been referred to as a suspect, even though everyone knows he did it.  

Mass shooters and serial killers tend to be white males, at least in the US.  Minorities don't tend to just go postal and lay waste to people because they are mad at the world.  Minorities tend to have an identifiable agenda which is how one earns the terrorist moniker.  

Tell that to a church full of white folks killed by a black

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anomaly

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Have a read

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/5-myths-about-serial-killers-and-why-they-persist-excerpt/

"In fact, approximately 17 percent of all serial homicides in the U.S. are committed by women."

Just one comment from your article. I specifically used the phrase "tend to"for a reason. It means more often than not. It does not mean the same as "all".  

That is poor misdirection.

What I am showing to you is that skin colour has no bearing in regards to there being serial killers.

History should have shown you that already, over mass murderers.

Hence why racial labels, which are social constructs. Are something we should do away with, as they enable racism and have never combated racism itself. Of course sometimes people murder due to racial ideologies and racial hate, but the reality is to argue off racial labels on seriel killers has no meaning what so ever. What does have bearing is on why people kill and what leads to people murdering people.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:


"In fact, approximately 17 percent of all serial homicides in the U.S. are committed by women."

Just one comment from your article. I specifically used the phrase "tend to"for a reason. It means more often than not. It does not mean the same as "all".  

That is poor misdirection.

What I am showing to you is that skin colour has no bearing in regards to there being serial killers.

History should have shown you that already, over mass murderers.

Hence why racial labels, which are social constructs. Are something we should do away with, as they enable racism and have never combated racism itself. Of course sometimes people murder due to racial ideologies and racial hate, but the reality is to argue off racial labels on seriel killers has no meaning what so ever. What does have bearing is on why people kill and what leads to people murdering people.

Again, from a statistical perspective, they typical mass murderer is a white male.

The typical NBA player is a black male.

The typical NASCAR driver is a white male.

We can debate why, but not the actual numbers.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


That is poor misdirection.

What I am showing to you is that skin colour has no bearing in regards to there being serial killers.

History should have shown you that already, over mass murderers.

Hence why racial labels, which are social constructs. Are something we should do away with, as they enable racism and have never combated racism itself. Of course sometimes people murder due to racial ideologies and racial hate, but the reality is to argue off racial labels on seriel killers has no meaning what so ever. What does have bearing is on why people kill and what leads to people murdering people.

Again, from a statistical perspective, they typical mass murderer is a white male.

The typical NBA player is a black male.

The typical NASCAR driver is a white male.

We can debate why, but not the actual numbers.

Again that is based on how there is more white people in the US and thus clearly being as there is more white people in the US. You will on average have more white serial killers

Its a really poor way to look at things, because its fails to understand what motivates serial killers.

Its like when people say Black people are fastest sprinters than white people and do so only off some of the fatest people in the world. Never grasping many white people are faster than many black people.

Its like when people claim blacks are not good swimmers, ignoring the fact there is Black Olympic champions.

Just because more people are drawn to certain sports, is meaningless to argue over race, as its a social construct, not something biological.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:



Again, from a statistical perspective, they typical mass murderer is a white male.

The typical NBA player is a black male.

The typical NASCAR driver is a white male.

We can debate why, but not the actual numbers.

Again that is based on how there is more white people in the US and thus clearly being as there is more white people in the US. You will on average have more white serial killers

Its a really poor way to look at things, because its fails to understand what motivates seriel killers.

Its like when people say Black people are fastest sprinters than white people and do so only off some of the fatest people in the world. Never grasping many white people are faster than many black people.

Its like when people claim blacks are not good swimmers, ignoring the fact there is Black Olympic champions.

Just because more people are drawn to certain sports, is meaningless.

Well, that is true. Whites, should make up the majority of all groups, as they are the largest group in the country. The over and under representation in certain areas based on race (say the NBA), is no where near as extreme as it is in regards to gender. Women make up slightly more than 50% of the population, yet are only 10% of all federal prisoners and 0% of the NBA.

And as your article stated, only 17% of serial killers.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again that is based on how there is more white people in the US and thus clearly being as there is more white people in the US. You will on average have more white serial killers

Its a really poor way to look at things, because its fails to understand what motivates seriel killers.

Its like when people say Black people are fastest sprinters than white people and do so only off some of the fatest people in the world. Never grasping many white people are faster than many black people.

Its like when people claim blacks are not good swimmers, ignoring the fact there is Black Olympic champions.

Just because more people are drawn to certain sports, is meaningless.

Well, that is true. Whites, should make up the majority of all groups, as they are the largest group in the country. The over and under representation in certain areas based on race (say the NBA), is no where near as extreme as it is in regards to gender. Women make up slightly more than 50% of the population, yet are only 10% of all federal prisoners and 0% of the NBA.

And as your article stated, only 17% of serial killers.  

Which would show then there is differences between genders would it not?
Or would this not balance out in time, when again sadly many women are still subjucated and sadly treated like cattle? Not being horrible, but women have only enjoyed some relative freedom in the last 50 years or so in the West. It was only a few decades ago, that they had protection with the law against marital rape.

What you are again negleting is what motivates serial killers, which is very varied in many cases, though many have a sexual desire in many cases, which they want to enact out on. Is this something based on how early humans had men as the hunters and killers and this throw back and how women were forced to stay at home. That its now only starting to develope where women have control. That the numbers are rising for women serial killers?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

This is my way of thinking to.
That's the problem with putting labels on things....people interpret them differently.
To me terrorism = terror.....mass panicking caused by machete waving or gun toting maniacs, does it matter what actually motivates them?

Yeah let's not worry about what motivates them, who cares

Accept the symptoms ignore the disease, head in the sand where it's nice and safe

That isn't what I meant and you know it.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Well, that is true. Whites, should make up the majority of all groups, as they are the largest group in the country. The over and under representation in certain areas based on race (say the NBA), is no where near as extreme as it is in regards to gender. Women make up slightly more than 50% of the population, yet are only 10% of all federal prisoners and 0% of the NBA.

And as your article stated, only 17% of serial killers.  

Which would show then there is differences between genders would it not?
Or would this not balance out in time, when again sadly many women are still subjucated and sadly treated like cattle? Not being horrible, but women have only enjoyed some relative freedom in the last 50 years or so in the West. It was only a few decades ago, that they had protection with the law against marital rape.

What you are again negleting is what motivates serial killers, which is very varied in many cases, though many have a sexual desire in many cases, which they want to enact out on. Is this something based on how early humans had men as the hunters and killers and this throw back and how women were forced to stay at home. That its now only starting to develope where women have control. That the numbers are rising for women serial killers?

I believe that part of the reasons are explained by the treatment of women in society. I also think women are created out of slightly different chemicals that makes them far less aggressive in general.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which would show then there is differences between genders would it not?
Or would this not balance out in time, when again sadly many women are still subjucated and sadly treated like cattle? Not being horrible, but women have only enjoyed some relative freedom in the last 50 years or so in the West. It was only a few decades ago, that they had protection with the law against marital rape.

What you are again negleting is what motivates serial killers, which is very varied in many cases, though many have a sexual desire in many cases, which they want to enact out on. Is this something based on how early humans had men as the hunters and killers and this throw back and how women were forced to stay at home. That its now only starting to develope where women have control. That the numbers are rising for women serial killers?

I believe that part of the reasons are explained by the treatment of women in society. I also think women are created out of slightly different chemicals that makes them far less aggressive in general.    

That is possible but time is not a constant and what you may perceive today, may well be different again in 50 years. I get your point though and to me there is differences.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which would show then there is differences between genders would it not?
Or would this not balance out in time, when again sadly many women are still subjucated and sadly treated like cattle? Not being horrible, but women have only enjoyed some relative freedom in the last 50 years or so in the West. It was only a few decades ago, that they had protection with the law against marital rape.

What you are again negleting is what motivates serial killers, which is very varied in many cases, though many have a sexual desire in many cases, which they want to enact out on. Is this something based on how early humans had men as the hunters and killers and this throw back and how women were forced to stay at home. That its now only starting to develope where women have control. That the numbers are rising for women serial killers?

I believe that part of the reasons are explained by the treatment of women in society. I also think women are created out of slightly different chemicals that makes them far less aggressive in general.    

Sugar and spice as opposed to slugs and snails?

Welcome Maddog. x

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I believe that part of the reasons are explained by the treatment of women in society. I also think women are created out of slightly different chemicals that makes them far less aggressive in general.    

Sugar and spice as opposed to slugs and snails?

Welcome Maddog. x

There's part of it. Lets face it. Women are better humans overall.

Gracias chica!

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Sugar and spice as opposed to slugs and snails?

Welcome Maddog. x

There's part of it. Lets face it. Women are better humans overall.

Gracias chica!

Have your first for being so sensible about it.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Yeah let's not worry about what motivates them, who cares

Accept the symptoms ignore the disease, head in the sand where it's nice and safe

That isn't what I meant and you know it.

thats what you said

"does it matter what actually motivates them?"

if that's not what you mean then why did you write it??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

That isn't what I meant and you know it.

thats what you said

"does it matter what actually motivates them?"

if that's not what you mean then why did you write it??

You have taken my post out of context by only quoting half of it....tut tut.

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

thats what you said

"does it matter what actually motivates them?"

if that's not what you mean then why did you write it??

You have taken my post out of context by only quoting half of it....tut tut.

maybe if your points were a little clearer and more coherent i wouldn't misunderstand what you're "trying" to say

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

You have taken my post out of context by only quoting half of it....tut tut.

maybe if your points were a little clearer and more coherent i wouldn't misunderstand what you're "trying" to say

Well I don't post here for your benefit, so it's not a problem

Syl wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

maybe if your points were a little clearer and more coherent i wouldn't misunderstand what you're "trying" to say

Well I don't post here for your benefit, so it's not a problem

yeah you seem really at ease

smelly-bandit wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well I don't post here for your benefit, so it's not a problem

yeah you seem really at ease

Yes I am, forums are fun......thanks for noticing.