Vogt affidavit

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5182
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Vogt affidavit

#226

Post by listeme » Sat Jan 04, 2014 11:00 am



We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5182
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Vogt affidavit

#227

Post by listeme » Sat Jan 04, 2014 11:02 am

listeme,DrKN, just some days ago I said 96% that it's not forged. Not much happened since thenso I say it again. (my subjective probability estimate)--------------------------GG,DrKN - you even quote my "yes" , yet you somehow deny it ??I added an explanation in parentheses, feel free to ignore that clarification.Okay, to me that means you don't see it as a fact.Do you agree with that? That facts are much "higher probability" than 96 percent?


We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43513
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Vogt affidavit

#228

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jan 04, 2014 11:12 am




User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5182
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Vogt affidavit

#229

Post by listeme » Sat Jan 04, 2014 11:18 am

SUGARS? :shock:


We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43513
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Vogt affidavit

#230

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jan 04, 2014 11:19 am

Well, that's wot happenz.



User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Vogt affidavit

#231

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Sat Jan 04, 2014 11:57 am

listeme,DrKN, just some days ago I said 96% that it's not forged. Not much happened since thenso I say it again. (my subjective probability estimate)--------------------------GG,DrKN - you even quote my "yes" , yet you somehow deny it ??I added an explanation in parentheses, feel free to ignore that clarification.A yes with a caveat that you're not really sure isn't a yes or no answer to foggys question trollboy



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Vogt affidavit

#232

Post by Sam the Centipede » Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:11 pm

listeme,DrKN, just some days ago I said 96% that it's not forged. Not much happened since thenso I say it again. (my subjective probability estimate)--------------------------GG,DrKN - you even quote my "yes" , yet you somehow deny it ??I added an explanation in parentheses, feel free to ignore that clarification.You clearly have little or no understanding of the application of probability theory.Facts are facts; they are not probably true or possibly true, they are facts. You are a perfect example of "incompetent but unaware" syndrome (nowadays often known as Dunning-Kruger): you such poor understanding so you do not even understand how little you understand.Your inability to format posts demonstrates that your computing skills are as poor as your understanding of probability. Is there anything that you have competence in? (Other than annoying fogbots, which you're an expert at!)Will your poor social, technical, theoretical and computing skills, you are perfectly qualified to be a top class birther! I suggest you offer your services to Mike Zullo.



User avatar
Dr. Blue
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:01 am
Occupation: Call the doctor!

Vogt affidavit

#233

Post by Dr. Blue » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:01 pm

I'd like to bet with him and then we show it to a real expert,some [highlight]math professor[/highlight] or such to judge who wins ! :mememe: OK, I'm not in a Department of Mathematics, but... I have an undergraduate degree in Math, and plenty of graduate hours in pure math - my PhD is in CS (a mathematical science) and I'm a full professor at a major university. You really don't want to know what I think, because you simply dismiss everyone who thinks you're full of it.



User avatar
Gnarly Goat
Posts: 2020
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:19 pm

Vogt affidavit

#234

Post by Gnarly Goat » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:30 pm

GG,DrKN - you even quote my "yes" , yet you somehow deny it ??I added an explanation in parentheses, feel free to ignore that clarification.We absolutely recognized your "clarification" as a weasly troll tactic. Rather than provide the basic binary response requested by Foggy you tried to be clever by saying "yes but maybe no." You are a dishonest, moronic slime bag.


"Don't waste time mourning. Organize." - Joe Hill

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

Vogt affidavit

#235

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:04 pm

To paraphrase George Carlin, these are your rules, you make them up. :mrgreen:Hey, if I can get him to answer just one of my questions, maybe he'll consider thinking about maybe possibly someday answering a few questions by you and other people here.Because so far, all I see is stupidity and dishonesty and an outright refusal to answer any questions that would mean admitting the truth.You've got a better chance of correctly guessing the numbers on 6 ping pong balls prior to tonight's drawing.



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6982
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Vogt affidavit

#236

Post by Slartibartfast » Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:38 pm

Sam, nothing is ever zero in real life, outside some strictly


axiomatic system.





Once again, you are wrong. For a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable (i.e. there must be an experiment which can show the hypothesis to be incorrect). Once a hypothesis has been falsified, the probability that it is correct is exactly zero. For example, it only takes a single verified chimera (an animal that inherits traits from two or more distinct ancestors) to bring down the theory of evolution---the fact that no one has been able to find one in over 150 years (coupled with some truly amazing predictions made using the theory) is what makes evolution such a strong theory.





I'm a strong proponent of the use of Bayesian inference in science. In other words, you establish a prior probability that your hypothesis is true and then Bayes' theorem gives formula to determine how the probably changes given new evidence (i.e. an experiment). If a hypothesis is experimentally falsified, then Bayesian inference tells us that the probability that is is correct is zero.





Scientifically speaking, saying that the probability that the probability of the LFBC being a forgery is zero (rather than a very small value) means that any scientific hypothesis which is consistent with the known facts can be (or has been) falsified. This is exactly the case with the LFBC. There is no theory which explains why the LFBC was forged as well as how it was forged (and what it means for the LFBC to be "forged") that isn't readily contradicted by established facts. All you have to do (to falsify our theory that the probability is zero) is come up with a falsifiable "theory of the crime" that fits all of the facts which we cannot falsify. Good luck.








Papers and books had been written about


those subjective probablity estimates and why we need them.


I remember the survey from Fishbach last year.





I don't doubt that you've read academic papers, just that you understood them.








------------------------------------


Suranis, I do like Obama. He's educated, qualified and smart.


I'm not sure I like his financial policy with the debt, though.





You mean how the deficit has been reduced in every budget written durning his administration? After his predecessor essentially did exactly the opposite? By the end of the Obama administration, the US deficit (i.e. what the president actually has some control over, as opposed to the debt) will have decreased almost $1.3 trillion under the Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations while increasing over $1.7 trillion under Reagan, Bush, and Bush. It's not enough simply not to be prejudiced against President Obama if you are going to get your facts from right-wing propaganda. I suggest that you avoid even trying to comment about US politics until you become much more well informed.





Either the universe is open or it isn't, we can't know so we


collect evidence and make estimates. As with any theory


in natural science. Evidence usually grows and finally it's


high enough to be included in the books and generally accepted.


But it's never 100%.





While it is true that no scientific theories are proven, as I said above, there are plenty of theories that have been proven false such as the phlogiston theory or the geocentric model of the solar system. [highlight]What you are doing is the equivalent of saying that there is a 4% (or whatever) chance that the luminiferous aether theory of light is correct without addressing the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.[/highlight]





--------------------------------


Slarti, you proof relies on the "axiom" that you are right in the first place.





I didn't prove anything---I've given my opinions regarding your character based on the comments you've made. All I'm assuming is that you stand behind your own words.





You're overreacting to the situation and yourself somehow, the longer


it goes, going into some increasing levels of hostility.





Actually, I'm not trying to be hostile---I'm trying to put pressure on you so that you demonstrate whether you are acting in good faith or bad faith. So far your responses haven't made you look good. Too also, I know from experience that if I was being hostile, unfair to you, or crossing the line (or even getting near it), I would be getting PMs from Foggy or the mods. Instead Foggy is posting comments on the thread that are in complete agreement with the things I've said. I don't consider anything I've written here an overreaction---you just fail to realize that you've violated a fundamental principle of honest debate. Until you understand why your actions have been disingenuous, any kind of reasoned discussion is impossible because you've shown yourself to be unwilling to obey the rules.





I'm trying not


to escalate this. I'm probably not the first.





I think I've changed the focus of your interactions here nicely. You are no longer going to find anyone willing to discuss your abstruse technicalities in an analytical context devoid of even a trace of sound methodology. Instead, you have been put into a situation where you can only redeem yourself by acting in good faith (and everyone paying attention here will know that if they see it). I'm pretty pleased with that result.





At one point recently I even tried to engage you in cooperation


but you didn't pick the ball and I really don't quite understand what you're after.





I'm not looking for a single answer to a question or a random act of cooperation, I'm looking for a sustained pattern of either acknowledging substantive criticisms regarding your theories and behavior are correct or rebutting those criticisms on the merits.





I asked others to explain it - no response.





That's because none of them think your request was in good faith---in other words, they wont explain because they expect you to ignore the answer.





Please check my expertise which I posted early here in the


introductions thread. (I can't easily find it, my searching here


is disabled).





Frankly, I think you are way out of your league and don't realize it. You need to consider the possibility that all of us are essentially right and you are essentially wrong. Does your interaction here make more or less sense when viewed in the context of that assumption? Does it make your predictions regarding our reactions more or less accurate? The combined expertise represented by the boogle is staggering---the chances that you are right and all of us are wrong are not very good.





I'm clearly more into algorithmics,combinatorics,programming


and thus "pixel-analysis" than you are.





Okay, here are some examples of what my expertise has allowed me to do. I developed a numerical method to solve partial differential equations with time-delayed feedback and proved that it converges at second order (it's probably better than that, but I never got around to testing it empirically) as a part of my thesis research, written software (currently over 30,000 lines of code) to help manage the complexity inherent in building, maintaining and using protein-protein interaction models, and have a idea for developing a universal trainable filter which could, in theory, be used to allow computers to "learn" pattern recognition and automate image analysis. Do you still think that you are more into "algorithmics,combinatorics,programming and thus 'pixel-analysis'" than I am?




"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6982
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Vogt affidavit

#237

Post by Slartibartfast » Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:40 pm

To paraphrase George Carlin, these are your rules, you make them up. :mrgreen:Hey, if I can get him to answer just one of my questions, maybe he'll consider thinking about maybe possibly someday answering a few questions by you and other people here.Because so far, all I see is stupidity and dishonesty and an outright refusal to answer any questions that would mean admitting the truth.You've got a better chance of correctly guessing the numbers on 6 ping pong balls prior to tonight's drawing.Well, if I can get gsgs to start answering in good faith I'll be sure to buy a lotto ticket... :-


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43513
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Vogt affidavit

#238

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:54 pm

gsgs can't even format correctly. It can see what it looks like and has to know how to correct the line lengths. But it has decided to fuck with us. I'd be satisfied if gsgs would simply post properly. Asking gsgs to respond to questions is too much. The near-Turing program just isn't up to that.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25808
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Vogt affidavit

#239

Post by Foggy » Sat Jan 04, 2014 6:22 pm

Hey, gsgs is talented.





The answer he gave would be sure to piss off any birther on the planet.





Also, it pissed off every single person here who read it.





He managed to come up with an answer that sounds stupid and dishonest no matter which side you're on.





That couldn't have been easy, could it? There's gotta be some kinda troll prize for pissing off everybody. :-bd


Kindly recall that I'm a 44th degree Jedi Master.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6982
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Vogt affidavit

#240

Post by Slartibartfast » Sat Jan 04, 2014 6:49 pm

gsgs can't even format correctly. It can see what it looks like and has to know how to correct the line lengths. But it has decided to fuck with us. I'd be satisfied if gsgs would simply post properly. Asking gsgs to respond to questions is too much. The near-Turing program just isn't up to that.The :sterngard: has a point. I would take it as a substantial good faith effort if he starts posting properly formatted comments (pro tip: use the online editor and the quote button to make it clear what you are responding to. Make sure that your text and the text you quote are visually distinct---for example, I make my comments red. Use the "Preview" feature to make sure your comment looks good before submitting it). Bonus points for using smileys, deductions for whining about about it. gsgs,There is no honest reason to refuse this request and ignoring it completely would be continuing behavior which is seen as disrespectful to the forum.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6982
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Vogt affidavit

#241

Post by Slartibartfast » Sat Jan 04, 2014 6:57 pm

Hey, gsgs is talented.





The answer he gave would be sure to piss off any birther on the planet.





Also, it pissed off every single person here who read it.





He managed to come up with an answer that sounds stupid and dishonest no matter which side you're on.





That couldn't have been easy, could it? There's gotta be some kinda troll prize for pissing off everybody. :-bd:yeah:





I bet it is almost as hard as :sterngard: - sigging everything. No one could possibly do that without Orly's natural talent no matter how hard they tried. Similarly, I don't think gsgs intended to piss everyone off with his comment, it's just a product of his ineffable incompetence.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Gnarly Goat
Posts: 2020
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:19 pm

Vogt affidavit

#242

Post by Gnarly Goat » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:05 pm

He managed to come up with an answer that sounds stupid and dishonest no matter which side you're on.





That couldn't have been easy, could it? There's gotta be some kinda troll prize for pissing off everybody. :-bdHe didn't piss me off. How can someone upset me when they perfectly meet expectations?


"Don't waste time mourning. Organize." - Joe Hill

gsgs
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:02 am

Vogt affidavit

#243

Post by gsgs » Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:21 pm

think again.Maybe you are too easily "pissed" here, then.Maybe you're too intolerant.And I'm not even engaging in that generally consideredbad behaviour, that others show here.And this is already "fema camp".Yet you can't stand me. Something must be wrong with you.Slarti, I checked you, I'm surprised someone like you engagesin this abusive behaviour. I may have to refinemy methods to detect who you can trust in internet.Was it some bad experience in your recent lifeor were you always this way ? what do your collegues say ?Is it common nowadays in Unis,labs ? Just curious.Maybe I should read some of your lengthy posts that Iskipped, though.And yes, I still think I'm more suited, I'm more expert onbirth-certificate-analysis-theory and most other experts whocheck our credentials would think the same way.



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Vogt affidavit

#244

Post by nbc » Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:39 pm

Yet you can't stand me. Something must be wrong with you.Sorry gsgs, despite some of your earlier work, you have become a nuisance and distraction. Your posting style is insulting and while I have tried to blame your non-native command of the English language, I have to agree with others that your contributions have become tedious, and somewhat insulting. Until you do some real work, I will no longer respond to your contributions and will block your postings from showing up in my view.Perhaps you should complain less and deliver more...And yes, I still think I'm more suited, I'm more expert onbirth-certificate-analysis-theory and most other experts whocheck our credentials would think the same way.You had a lucky moment but so far, your 'expertise' is quite limited, certainly when it comes to some of the recent issues you tried to 'raise'. I do understand that you believe yourself to be quite an expert yourself, but the proof should be in the pudding, not some bragging.



User avatar
kate520
Posts: 14324
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Vogt affidavit

#245

Post by kate520 » Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:46 pm

You insult us, ignore our direct questions, are IOHO obtuse about the motives of birthers, continue with behaviors we have asked, nay begged you to leave behind, mock and insult us some more, yet you can't understand why we "don't like can't stand" you.





You, sir, are a birther! :lol:





Don't go away mad...


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

Somerset
Posts: 3581
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Vogt affidavit

#246

Post by Somerset » Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:11 pm

think again.Yet you can't stand me. Something must be wrong with you.Slarti, I checked you, I'm surprised someone like you engagesin this abusive behaviour. I may have to refinemy methods to detect who you can trust in internet."Refine" your methods?That's pretty funny. That's like saying you need to refine the tuning of your piano when you're still trying to learn "chopsticks."



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6982
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Vogt affidavit

#247

Post by Slartibartfast » Sat Jan 04, 2014 11:01 pm

gsgs,





Okay, let's look at my behavior.





What have I said that is abusive?





What have I said that isn't true?





What have I said that isn't honest?





What have I said that wasn't warranted by your actions?





think again.


Maybe you are too easily "pissed" here, then.





Possible but unlikely. The people here have very clearly articulated standards of behavior that you have decided to willfully ignore. Your behavior is boorish and rude, sometimes crossing into offensive as well as arrogant and dishonest.





Maybe you're too intolerant.





I don't suffer fools gladly and I'm prejudiced against the willfully ignorant, the incompetent, and the disingenuous, if that's what you mean. Unfortunately your behavior suggests that you fall into all four of those categories.





And I'm not even engaging in that generally considered


bad behaviour, that others show here.





Yes. You are used to places where they are concerned about the trappings of honest discussion such as civility and politeness. Here we place a premium on the spirit of rational debate. While my "abusive" behavior is a mild faux pas (or it would have been before you got yourself thrown in the FEMA Camp) your dishonestly and disrespect for the group is a major offense. Look at this rationally: you are unable to predict what sort of behavior will be considered acceptable here (either in yourself or others). This implies that either you are irrational or you are operating from false assumptions. Which is it? You really should read the Feynman speech I linked about [link]Cargo Cult Science,http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm[/link]. You comments suggest that your head is riddled with this sort of thinking. But I'm sure that the planes will finally come when you finish your bamboo antennae mast... 8>





And this is already "fema camp".





You have absolutely no understanding of what that means, do you? Would it help if you knew it was originally "Under The Bridge"? i.e. the place where trolls go.





Yet you can't stand me.





That's not true---you're more along the lines of a chew toy.





Something must be wrong with you.





If one person dislikes you, it makes sense to suspect that, but if a whole group dislikes you, it suggests that the fault lies with you.





Slarti, I checked you, I'm surprised someone like you engages


in this abusive behaviour.





Whenever you are surprised by something it is a good time to check your reasoning for flaws. After all, if you truly understood you would not be surprised. I'm actually not being very abusive (I could get away with a lot more against a FEMA Camp resident), I'm just calling you out for your bad behavior---don't you think you should be held accountable for the things you've said? [-( (Like accusing everyone here of being prejudiced? [-X )





I may have to refine


my methods to detect who you can trust in internet.





Well, that's probably true but I don't have high hopes that your "refinement" will be any better... :-k





Was it some bad experience in your recent life


or were you always this way ?





I've been interested in conspiracy theorists for a long time. Before the birthers the was the 9/11 truthers, the moon landing deniers, creationists, and a group that believed a mysterious Planet X was about to sweep through the inner solar system and cause a pole shift which would result in natural disasters all over the Earth because of what some lady claims she was told by aliens while channeling a centuries-old Native American (Seriously). The behaviors I object to (many of which you've displayed) are the ones that are common to all of these conspiracy theorists. A whack job can be polite, but they can't be honest.





what do your collegues say ?








Many of my friends and colleagues understand the need address [link]someone being wrong on the internet,http://xkcd.com/386/[/link] from time to time.





Is it common nowadays in Unis,labs ? Just curious.





In my experience scientists don't suffer fools gladly (most avoid putting themselves in contact with fools) and view purveyors of pseudoscience and cargo cult science with contempt or disgust.





Maybe I should read some of your lengthy posts that I


skipped, though.





You really should. If you understood them (as well as the posts of others) you would know why your behavior here has been considered unacceptable and you have been relegated to the area of the forum set aside for those incapable of honest discussion.





And yes, I still think I'm more suited, I'm more expert on


birth-certificate-analysis-theory and most other experts who


check our credentials would think the same way.





Well, you're entitled to think whatever crazy things you would like, but I think that I have rather more expertise regarding the proper methodology for forensic analysis. Which is the sort of thing that one appeals to relevant authority for. You, on the other hand, think that your fiddling with abstruse technical details makes you expert in something-or-other. You completely missed the point of John Woodman's research, didn't you? It didn't depend on people respecting his expertise, it depended on people being incapable of refuting his assumptions and methodologies. Ultimately, no matter how clever your "research", it would be worthless because you couldn't even articulate your methodology, let alone defend it.




"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43513
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Vogt affidavit

#248

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:23 am

I've got an idea: Stop responding to gsgs until it formats its posts correctly. Let's see if a stick works as well as a carrot.



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6982
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Vogt affidavit

#249

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:30 am

I've got an idea: Stop responding to gsgs until it formats its posts correctly. Let's see if a stick works as well as a carrot.That sounds like an interesting experiment, I'm in. :-bd gsgs, I will be happy to continue making substantive responses to any properly formatted posts that you might make, but I'll only critique the formatting on anything written in your faux-usenet style.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Vogt affidavit

#250

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:35 am

I've got an idea: Stop responding to gsgs until it formats its posts correctly. Let's see if a stick works as well as a carrot.That sounds like an interesting experiment, I'm in. :-bd gsgs, I will be happy to continue making substantive responses to any properly formatted posts that you might make, but I'll only critique the formatting on anything written in your faux-usenet style.I'm just waiting for the telegraph style messages



Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”