open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Superman renounces US citizenship
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Rolare
Amarr
Posted - 2011.04.29 06:26:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Jara Maroo

3. Various global warming nonsense



The winter in arctic is getting increasingly whackier with each year... kinda sucks >,>

Originally by: Jada Maroo

We fought our war of independence and created a republic for ourselves.



With alot of help from France and Prussia, how come that's never mentioned? >,>

Yeah... just wanted to add those two things.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.29 06:33:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Jada Maroo
I can't even comprehend that opinion. Don't take it as a flame, it's not. I just honestly can comprehend the notion anyone could believe dictatorships could ever be better than a republic. That's a totally alien idea.
Unless you mean effective. Sure, dictatorships can be more effective. But effective at the expense of all personal liberties is no country I'd ever want to live in.
[...]
Humans are selfish. An economic system that works with human nature rather than against it is always going to be more successful.
[...]
Notice you didn't see people digging tunnels, climbing walls, smuggling themselves in trunks, and sailing over oceans to escape capitalist countries during the cold war. That only seems to happen under communism.

Let's put it this way : I _lived_ for 12 years under a dictatorship. Granted, you could argue that a kid has a rosier view of the world, however I was not your typical kid. I actually listened to "subversive broadcasts" (funny enough, funded by the USA, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) much, MUCH more than my parents, and I was never taken in by the whole "worship the leader" mentality a lot of other people around at least faked as having.
Yes, personal liberties were not that great (understatement of the century). You COULD be simply taken out from your own house and locked up where nobody will see you for a long time if you even dared utter some mild disapproval with the regime. You couldn't go outside the country without super-special permission. There were food shortages, because we were exporting a lot of it, amongst many other things we were exporting. You had to sit in a queue for hours just to buy the basic food supplies you needed, and all the family had to be physically present otherwise you would not be served. All businesses were at least partially state-owned (most were completely state owned). The only people you could consider somewhat rich were the Communist Party elite, and even them, just barely.
There were a LOT of bad things.
On the flip side, there were a lot of GOOD things too.
Almost everybody was as good as guaranteed to have a job. People performed at least adequately at the jobs they were given (since complete slackery or criminally poor performance was not an option, it could actually end with jail time OR WORSE). EVERYBODY could afford to buy their own home and car with the extremely low interest credits from the only existing (state-owned) bank, and they could always afford payments because they had extremely good job security AND salaries were only going up with age on the job. OTHER THAN the looming spectrum of "Securitate" (the "secret" police everybody knew about), people were generally much, MUCH happier and actually had A LOT of free time. Crime was practically as good as non-existant, especially violent crimes. EVERYBODY was much friendlier, and if somebody was in trouble, you would not get any bystanders just walking by or gawking like idiots. Very few people even bothered locking their doors, and you actually KNEW most of your neighbours even in a large apartment building. EVERYBODY was out on in the weekend with their entire families and neighbours to "enjoy the nature" or prepare whatever scarce barebecue-worthy food they managed to scrounge up and share it with those you liked more. Your work colleagues were your FRIENDS, not your competitors, you helped eachother when something went wrong, you didn't secretly hoped anybody else would screw up (in fact, you were scared anybody would screw up, so you helped them so they learn and NOT screw up at all in the future).

Yes, people had less, and civil liberties were very few. But people were generally happier (or, the very least, content) and friendlier (or, the very least, not hostile).
So... how can you possibly say that "democracy and capitalism" is SO MUCH BETTER in any possible way compared to "dictatorship and communism" ?
Overall, the balance is not so slanted.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.29 06:52:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 29/04/2011 06:56:04

...char limit reached...

I might personally prefer democracy and capitalism myself, but that doesn't mean I consider them VAST and CLEAR improvements from ALL possible viewpoints compared to the alternative.
It's just that, for me, personally, those are ever so slightly more advantageous.
However, I would have no problem with many of the alternatives, and from SOME specific viewpoints, I might even enjoy them a tad bit more.
From my particular perspective, a world-wide unified dictatorship that aggressively and violently squelched dissent (but only dissent, not discriminating based on race, age, gender nor former nationality), IF COMPETENT in their job (as in, overall average wealth not taking a huge dip compared to today) would not be noticeable worse than whatever the heck it is we have now.

What we now call "democracy" is a joke. What power does an individual have anyway ?
Yes, sure, you can scream and shout about some perceived injustice, and you might feel good about "fighting the good fight", but as long as nothing happens... what's the point ?
We don't even really have a true democracy, we have a representative democracy, or some might even say, we just have a democratically elected representative republic, all of which are not exactly the same things anyway.
Corporations rather than ideologies really run the world, money is the big thing, not nationality.
Any "freedom" we have under the current system is AT BEST an illusion, while most of people in the world are actual slaves... well, ok, WAGE slaves, but slaves nevertheless, from most practical standpoints.

Jada Maroo
Posted - 2011.04.29 07:06:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Jada Maroo on 29/04/2011 07:13:27
Edited by: Jada Maroo on 29/04/2011 07:13:13
Originally by: Akita T

Let's put it this way : I _lived_ for 12 years under a dictatorship. Granted, you could argue that a kid has a rosier view of the world ... You couldn't go outside the country without super-special permission.


Yep, I'll argue that you were looking through rose colored glasses. And to me the telling part is that second bit quoted above.

Happy people don't have to be imprisoned by their government.



Quote:
On the flip side, there were a lot of GOOD things too.
...
People performed at least adequately at the jobs they were given (since complete slackery or criminally poor performance was not an option, it could actually end with jail time OR WORSE). ...
...
OTHER THAN the looming spectrum of "Securitate" (the "secret" police everybody knew about), people were generally much, MUCH happier and actually had A LOT of free time.

... you didn't secretly hoped anybody else would screw up (in fact, you were scared anybody would screw up, so you helped them so they learn and NOT screw up at all in the future).

...Yes, people had less, and civil liberties were very few.



Confused

I don't have anything in particular to say about these things specifically except that I found it funny that they were mentioned along with the good things. Laughing

More importantly, I know what you're talking about now. I wish I had a better memory. I vaguely remember some sort of poll that listed the priorities of the average human. And sadly, freedom wasn't as high on the list as I would have hoped. The basic gist of the article was that people weren't as choosey about their form of government as we'd like to think so long as they were fat and happy. It was sad to read, but I shouldn't be surprised. Even though I think people deeply desire freedom, there's a genetic desire to be led and taken care of too. Which is probably biologically necessary for us to survive, advance, form societies, structure, rules. I'd just like to think people would set their goals a bit higher.

Quote:
What we now call "democracy" is a joke. What power does an individual have anyway ?
Yes, sure, you can scream and shout about some perceived injustice, and you might feel good about "fighting the good fight", but as long as nothing happens... what's the point ?
We don't even really have a true democracy, we have a representative democracy, or some might even say, we just have a democratically elected representative republic, all of which are not exactly the same things anyway.



You wouldn't want a true democracy. That's just mob rule. If 50% +1 decide that you're going to be flayed alive and fed to alligators, you're gator chow. That sort of thing has never worked, and it's why you're enver going to see a successful or serious nation try to implement it.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong here but you seem to be of the point of view that a government should get stuff done. You don't like the gridlock, you want effectiveness. Not trying to put words in your mouth - this is just what I'm taking from what you say.

That's where we're far apart. I'm perfectly fine with a government that is in a perpetual stalemate. So long as they aren't writing new laws, we aren't losing any more freedoms.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.04.29 07:20:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Awesome Possum


wah wah wah.... you forget where the industrial revolution started



Seems you do as wellLaughing

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.29 07:50:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Jada Maroo
Maybe I'm reading you wrong here but you seem to be of the point of view that a government should get stuff done. You don't like the gridlock, you want effectiveness. Not trying to put words in your mouth - this is just what I'm taking from what you say.

No, you pretty much got that right.
I don't care what the "people at the top" do politically, ideologically or in any other fashion.
I merely want stuff to "work right" with as little waste as possible.
If "liberty" is largely sacrificed in order to be able to get it, so be it.

Baron Agamemnon
Caldari
The Einherji
Supernova Federation
Posted - 2011.04.29 09:05:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Jada Maroo
indoctrinating readers with the notion that nationality and borders do not, or should not, matter.

And what exactly is wrong with that ?
Nationalism, patriotism, racism, terrorism and other -ISMs are not inherently "good", and in these times, they're actually increasingly "bad".
I stopped seeing myself as a "Romanian" first quite a long time ago... more than a decade for sure.
I am first and foremost a human being and a citizen of the planet Earth, who just happens to have been born in a region called Romania and is for the time being a citizen of the nation known as Romania.
Allegiance to my country comes LAST, not second, and certainly not first.

All the -ISMs need to go the way of the dodo.
FAST.



I agree.

An old poet in Norway once coined the term "verdensborger" (world citizen). I like to call myself the same, despite often reffering to myself as a Norwegian.

Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
Posted - 2011.04.29 09:42:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Mar Lee
Nerd alert!

According to post-Crisis continuity, Superman was sent to Earth from Krypton in an artificial womb, and not actually 'born' until his spaceship had landed in Kansas, which makes him an American citizen by birth.


so what you're saying is that superman is an intergalactic anchor baby

(there's also some sort of joke here about long form birth certificates)

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.29 10:11:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 29/04/2011 10:13:56
Edited by: Furb Killer on 29/04/2011 10:12:03
Quote:
It says that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. These are natural rights. That is, the government does not give you rights. The consitution doesn't give you rights. Your rights are pre-existing, and are God-given.

Now I am not American, so correct me if I am wrong, but does the US constitution even say anything about God-given rights? I am pretty sure the founding fathers were not all that happy with religious fundamentalists, like you.

Not to mention presenting it as God-given rights is the first step to oppressing non-christians.
Edit: Oh wait that is already what Bush sr wanted to do:
Quote:
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.




Nationalism is ridiculous and should die as soon as possible. It is just used as convenient way to consider yourself better than others, which has only uses in conflicts. I also see myself in the first place as human being. For the most part I like how we (the Dutch) do stuff (like government). But that is just a personal preference, and I am not under any impression that Dutch people are somehow magically better than other people.

You say socialism is bad, I say capitalism is bad (and socialism too). Pure socialism is good in theory, but just doesnt work with human nature. Pure capitalism might work with human nature, but surprisingly I got some ethical values left so I reject that too. The best is somewhere in between capitalism and socialism, and it is personal how far to each side you want it to be. Personally I am a liberalist, which somehow in the teaparty part of the US became something bad, I still dont understand how giving everyone equal chances would be a bad thing (note for the right wing nutjubs: equal chances isnt the same as everyone equal, for example it doesnt mean everyone should earn the same, it does mean everyone should have access to good education so they have the chance to earn the same).

Quote:
We fought our war of independence and created a republic for ourselves.

No you didnt do that. Others who are dead did that, dont claim credit for that.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.04.29 10:59:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Akita T
All the -ISMs need to go the way of the dodo.


No way am I giving up on hedonism and atheism Twisted Evil

Mar Lee
An Army of None
Posted - 2011.04.29 11:27:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Now I am not American, so correct me if I am wrong, but does the US constitution even say anything about God-given rights? I am pretty sure the founding fathers were not all that happy with religious fundamentalists, like you.


The Constitution says nothing about God-given rights. The Constitution itself says nothing about rights at all, as a matter of fact. It's a list of powers granted to the government by the people, not a list of rights possessed by the people.

(Later on, a "Bill of Rights" was added, enumerating certain guaranteed rights - speech, religion, bearing arms, etc. - that the government was not allowed to limit. Opponents of this idea worried that, if the Constitution gave a list of things that were rights, the government would claim that only those rights explicitly listed were protected. This has, in fact, happened - witness the Republican claim that there's no such thing as a "right to privacy" because those words don't appear the Constitution. But it wasn't the original intent of the Founders to make a complete list of all "God-given" human rights.)

The source of the "God-given rights" claim comes from the American Declaration of Independence, which says, in part:

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...


Thomas Jefferson, the writer of these words, was a Deist who thought of Christ as merely a philosopher; his Creator was an impersonal, abstract figure. While it is true that the ideas of "natural rights" and "natural law" he drew from were influenced by Christianity, the idea of this passage is that people have rights by virtue of being human, in and of itself, and that those rights are not granted either by government or by any specific deity.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.04.29 11:44:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Vogue on 29/04/2011 11:53:25
A good joke is that American conservatives like radicals that have been dead for over a hundred years.

.

Wiki copy pasta

Born into a prominent planter family, Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves throughout his life; he held views on the racial inferiority of Africans common for this period in time.[13] While historians long discounted accounts that Jefferson had an intimate relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, it is now widely held that he did and had six children by her.[14]

.

He liked slavery and he wanted all Americans to be farmers.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.29 11:52:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Louis deGuerre
Originally by: Akita T
All the -ISMs need to go the way of the dodo.

No way am I giving up on hedonism and atheism Twisted Evil

Hmm, you might have a point there. Well, ok, not all of them.

Shirley Serious
Amarr
The Khanid Sisters of Athra
Posted - 2011.04.29 11:53:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Jada Maroo
I vaguely remember some sort of poll that listed the priorities of the average human. And sadly, freedom wasn't as high on the list as I would have hoped. The basic gist of the article was that people weren't as choosey about their form of government as we'd like to think so long as they were fat and happy. It was sad to read, but I shouldn't be surprised. Even though I think people deeply desire freedom, there's a genetic desire to be led and taken care of too. Which is probably biologically necessary for us to survive, advance, form societies, structure, rules. I'd just like to think people would set their goals a bit higher.



Have you ever encountered Mazlow's Heirarchy of Needs theory? It might be the sort of thing that is relevant here.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.04.29 11:56:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Vogue on 29/04/2011 12:12:35
Edited by: Vogue on 29/04/2011 11:57:56
^ I was thinking of that.

Problem with getting historical is that it is like a dim lantern obscuring the past and clouding an ability to seize the present.

“Blow the dust off the clock. Your watches are behind the times. Throw open the heavy curtains which are so dear to you -- you do not even suspect that the day has already dawned outside.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Humans have a big problem abstracting possible new paradigm shifts. It is Incommensurability - to see the world in multiple ways but with a inherent problem of creating new whole concepts that cut across diagonally from established concepts. The Pythagorean theorem illustrates this point:-

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

To achieve the diagonal result the two whole numbers are squared and added. But it produces a result that is not a whole number. People thinking of new concepts and ideas are like programmers with old monolithic programming code. We try to create new referents from dogmatic old ones. And when we do have new concept code and it is applied to a current logical political environment it starts entropic decay as unlike programming that has algorithms that can totally handle all envisaged input logic real life concept code has trouble handling emergent new logic deltas. It is like playing pool. You shoot the white ball at a colored ball. With skill you know with certainty how the white ball will affect the 1st target ball and how the 1st ball will affect a 2nd or third ball. But you have no idea of the ball layout on the table towards the end of the game.


Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
Posted - 2011.04.29 13:16:00 - [46]
 

I still don't understand why Americans are so hung up on our founding fathers. They had wooden teeth, slaves, and had to poop in a hole outside their house. They had great ideas, but Americans act like they were gods or something, and that ANYTHING that was intended for the nation 250 years ago must be preserved EXACTLY as they intended it then with ZERO updates to the constitution or bill of rights.

The irony in all of this is that the founding fathers DID NOT WANT the very thing that people are doing today, and that is this "ancestor hero worship" of them, where people view them as infallible and set in stone. Jefferson actually believed that our type of government should change with the times IN ORDER TO BE A MORE PERFECT UNION, not hold on to some outdated dogma. It was precisely what they were doing when they decided to form the union in the first place. They viewed tradition for the sake of tradition with no clear benefit as a BAD thing, which it is...just ask the UK. However, the US has become just that, holding on with every ounce of their being some old traditions that clearly DON'T BENEFIT ANYONE IN MODERN SOCIETY.

Edge Bricklin
Posted - 2011.04.29 15:20:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Jada Maroo
There is already a mechanism for agreements between countries anyway. It is called a treaty.


Ah yes, the treaty. Might I remind you of a little skirmish that happened almost a hundred years ago that was escalated because of treaties? (Hint: the world we live in now was shaped in large part due to that)

What do you think would happen if Nation "X" attacked Nation "Y", a NATO country? WW3, that's what. Because such an attack would, BY TREATY, pull many other nations into that conflict that may not have any problem with Nation "X". But alas, that treaty calls for the contries affiliated with NATO to come to the rescue of Nation "Y" and attack Nation "X".

But Nation "X" is in a treaty with other nations, so that brings those nations into the conflict to defend Nation "X". Do you see the trend happening? Does this sound at all familiar to that little skirmish of a hundred years ago that I mentioned?

Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it...

For all it's drawbacks and inadequacies, the UN is the best peace-keeping... er... ok... war-delaying tool that we have ever had in the history of the world.

The UN may not be all that effective, (what governing body is?) but where would we be without it? At least now we have "suggestions" for the declaration and waging of wars. (See Falkland Islands Conflict).

And what about the UN Charter of Human Rights? It may be nothing more than a guidleline, but it helps identify when governments are doing something that they know they shouldn't - provided they ratified that charter.

No form of governing body is perfect... it can at best be what works adequately for the population.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.04.29 15:46:00 - [48]
 

The UN is like an English lawn party in gangster land.

Jada Maroo
Posted - 2011.04.29 16:28:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer

Now I am not American, so correct me if I am wrong, but does the US constitution even say anything about God-given rights? I am pretty sure the founding fathers were not all that happy with religious fundamentalists, like you.



Yes and no. Our courts and Congress take our founding documents as a whole when using them as the basis of law. There are also writings outside of those documents that courts use to interpret our rights. It would be impossible, really, for anyone to argue that the United States wasn't founded on the idea of natural rights as it's fairly explicit.

And though there's been an attempt by the left to try to retcon some of the founders as non religious, most were deeply religious. And even the so-called non religious ones were Christian, but would be more akin to your average Catholic of today. Laughing

But you don't need to be religious to understand the importance of God-given rights. God is just being used as a figurehead in the idea. More or less it's saying "these rights belong to something higher than the state -- no touching!".

Quote:

No you didnt do that. Others who are dead did that, dont claim credit for that.


On one side of my family, they were my ancestors. And by "we" I meant Americans. Nobody likes a nit-picker.

Jada Maroo
Posted - 2011.04.29 16:32:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Shirley Serious


Have you ever encountered Mazlow's Heirarchy of Needs theory? It might be the sort of thing that is relevant here.



Yeah it was actually mentioned in the article. I tried to use it to find it to link to it but there were like 250,000 results in Google. Laughing

Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
Posted - 2011.04.29 16:51:00 - [51]
 

Give the guy a break, it can't be easy being superman in a nation full of übermensch.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:51:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Fitting. The USA has already renounced everything it's citizens (most of them anway) stand for.


The libs have renounced what the USA stands for, is what you mean.

Quote:
Good thing he's bulletproof lest he get "Tillmaned" and turn dead up with a 3-shot burst in his forehead with powder burns and the whole incident labeled "friendly fire".


Proved my point.


I like the reasoning given in the comic, I also like the anti-US hershey squirts posted already, that have nothing to do with what was said in the comic.


Please break out of this "liberal - conservative" false paradigm. Liberals don't liberate and conservatives have yet to conserve. As soon we see both left and right wings of US politics as being attached to one big bird taking a **** on all of us, the people will stop squabbling with each other and realize who the real domestic enemies are.


Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.04.29 18:59:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Fitting. The USA has already renounced everything it's citizens (most of them anway) stand for.


The libs have renounced what the USA stands for, is what you mean.

Quote:
Good thing he's bulletproof lest he get "Tillmaned" and turn dead up with a 3-shot burst in his forehead with powder burns and the whole incident labeled "friendly fire".


Proved my point.


I like the reasoning given in the comic, I also like the anti-US hershey squirts posted already, that have nothing to do with what was said in the comic.


Please break out of this "liberal - conservative" false paradigm. Liberals don't liberate and conservatives have yet to conserve. As soon we see both left and right wings of US politics as being attached to one big bird taking a **** on all of us, the people will stop squabbling with each other and realize who the real domestic enemies are.




I resent that! Big Bird would never **** on anyone! Evil or Very Mad

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.04.29 19:08:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Vogue on 29/04/2011 19:09:47
There is no respite only war - am I doing it rite?

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

This train has no breaks - am I doing it rite?

Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.29 19:35:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 29/04/2011 19:35:55
Since it came up in the first few posts I just have to say Superman is not immune to bullets. Yes, regular bullets have a tendency to bounce off of him, but I am fairly certain a bullet made of kyptonite would penetrate his skin Twisted Evil

EDIT: Now I wait for a Superman buff to pop into the thread and pull out a storyline where someone tried to shoot Superman with a bullet of kryptonite and it did not affect him Laughing


Slade

Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Emminent Terraforming
O.G.-Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.29 21:29:00 - [56]
 

I thought Lex Luthor shot him with a Kryptonite Bullet in one of the original movies. Though it only weakened him until it was pulled out.

Jno Aubrey
Galactic Patrol
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:51:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Akita T
No, you pretty much got that right.
I don't care what the "people at the top" do politically, ideologically or in any other fashion.
I merely want stuff to "work right" with as little waste as possible.
If "liberty" is largely sacrificed in order to be able to get it, so be it.


^^^ This is how people like H****r (moronic word filterEvil or Very Mad), Stalin, and Obama (not in the same league, granted) come to power. People who want some "honest politician" to fix everything and do the heavy lifting for them instead of trusting to the ingenuity and self-interest of the individual. **Sigh**

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:02:00 - [58]
 

Yup, people, we've finally arrived at Godwin's Law. Thread's canceled.

Alpheias
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:10:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Alpheias on 30/04/2011 01:11:22
Originally by: Akita T
Yup, people, we've finally arrived at Godwin's Law. Thread's canceled.


Good timing! I just finished the popcornRazz

Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:13:00 - [60]
 

*Runs out to beat traffic*


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only