Page 2 of 12 First First 123456 ... Last

Thread: Neuromancer: 25 years later

Neuromancer: 25 years later

  1. #26
    What are you doing, writing dialogues for DX3?

  2. #27
    That would be neat, I always liked the discussion between JC and the bartender in Hong Kong
    Why does no one remember this? Why isn't this taught in the schools?

  3. #28

  4. #29
    I'll pass on the "quote by quote" game, diging for minor logical fallacies and ofcourse the always appreciated in a debate, hunt of grammar mistakes.

    Plasmasnake, I'll put in a tad bit larger perspective for you.

    While your total rejection of societal interconnections, has catalyzed that growth of the neoliberal horse!@#$ you've parked in your head, it's only plausible to believe that friction with such ideological infrastructure would naturally lead to the alienation of the person, and subsequently the denial of such societal inteconnections.

    Therefrom is the praisal of individuality, free will, and freedom derived, whilst positively charged ideas at glance, if not put in the proper societal context, they are glorified ideological delusions and at best mean exactly jack !@#$, at worst are used to funnel otherwise appallingly gross concepts (which are quite prevalent in a quick scan of your above work, I quite frankly can't bother going through them at this point).

    And voilla, quite contrary to the reformistic aura the concept of the liberal emits, your conservativism and that of the ideas you're advocating, is exposed at it's core, willing to forego rights that along the evolution of civilization, their value would be considered self-explanatory and it's infringment inconceivable.

    Frankly, the way you interpret what consists personal growth and gain (and thereof the concept of theft and injustice), as well as your attempts on drawing a distinction (from the despicable whole), strike me as pretty much childish, that is, completely rudimentary and undeveloped.
    wasaaabi

  5. #30
    Originally Posted by Jester_Grout
    I'll pass on the "quote by quote" game, diging for minor logical fallacies and ofcourse the always appreciated in a debate, hunt of grammar mistakes.

    Plasmasnake, I'll put in a tad bit larger perspective for you.

    While your total rejection of societal interconnections, has catalyzed that growth of the neoliberal horse!@#$ you've parked in your head, it's only plausible to believe that friction with such ideological infrastructure would naturally lead to the alienation of the person, and subsequently the denial of such societal inteconnections.

    Therefrom is the praisal of individuality, free will, and freedom derived, whilst positively charged ideas at glance, if not put in the proper societal context, they are glorified ideological delusions and at best mean exactly jack !@#$, at worst are used to funnel otherwise appallingly gross concepts (which are quite prevalent in a quick scan of your above work, I quite frankly can't bother going through them at this point).

    And voilla, quite contrary to the reformistic aura the concept of the liberal emits, your conservativism and that of the ideas you're advocating, is exposed at it's core, willing to forego rights that along the evolution of civilization, their value would be considered self-explanatory and it's infringment inconceivable.

    Frankly, the way you interpret what consists personal growth and gain (and thereof the concept of theft and injustice), as well as your attempts on drawing a distinction (from the despicable whole), strike me as pretty much childish, that is, completely rudimentary and undeveloped.
    What? I take it your getting at my claim that society doesn't exist. That was an exaggeration, what I mean by that is the rights of individuals are more important than what is "good for society." I would appreciate if you didn't call my ideas horse either, I take them seriously.

    Now, you may think the "good of society" should take priority over the rights of the individual, but if we look back policies designed to better the standards of living in nations usually fare poorly. Minimum wage laws, rent control, price control, gun control, all these things are put into place to better society, but they only make situations worse. Forgive me for being blunt, but from an economic and humanitarian position these things do much more harm than good.

    The war on terror may be for the good of society, but it only causes more problems. It spreads hatred and sorrow. Worse part of all of this, if you disagree with what the state does to better society you've no power to resist them. If I say the government ought not socialize health care, they will tax me regardless if their policy passes. Even if many people benefit, one man's rights are being violated.

    Maybe you would like to live in the state's day care center, but I would prefer to live and cooperate with individual acting on their own free will. Now you can sit there and tell me the "good of society" allows the state to conflict with these rights, I won't buy it. People ought be free from the state.
    Why does no one remember this? Why isn't this taught in the schools?

  6. #31
    The irony of your point of view is that if everybody had thought like that you would not be in the position to think like that.
    I stared a century thinking this will never change
    As I hesitated, time rushed onwards without me

  7. #32
    Elaborate please.

    How does my opinion concerning free will and the right to think and voice what you want limit the ideas around. I'm a capitalist, not a neocon trying to shut out opposition.

    I think people have the right to believe what they want, say what they want, write what they want, publish what they want, how in God's name will this limit the amount of ideas. I think your really off base here, this really has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

    Do you realize how absurd that sounds. "If everyone put an emphasis on personal liberty and the rights of individuals then no one would be able to hold the ideas, namely those concerned with liberty and civil rights." Are you mad?
    Why does no one remember this? Why isn't this taught in the schools?

  8. #33
    To try to put things more on-topic here; PlasmaSnake, how do you feel about Atlas Shrugged, then? Since it embodies much of your ideas, yet also belongs to the cyberpunk/sci-fi literature you so intensely dislike (or all literature? I forgot).

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,958
    Seems like they're going to make a movie based on Atlas Shrugged: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

  10. #35
    Originally Posted by minus0ne
    To try to put things more on-topic here; PlasmaSnake, how do you feel about Atlas Shrugged, then? Since it embodies much of your ideas, yet also belongs to the cyberpunk/sci-fi literature you so intensely dislike (or all literature? I forgot).
    Ayn Rand is a lousy writer. I don't read any fiction, is that such a difficult concept to grasp? I haven't read fiction willingly for about two years. And regardless of who I try to read, and I've tried reading Ayn Rand, I get bored and go back to reading books on economic, political, and philosophical thought, Really interesting stuff.

    Above all I don't read fantasy, which is what cyberpunk is.
    Why does no one remember this? Why isn't this taught in the schools?

  11. #36
    Originally Posted by -=fox=-
    Seems like they're going to make a movie based on Atlas Shrugged: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/
    I hope the producers go on strike and it'd never be made, poetic justice
    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    Ayn Rand is a lousy writer.
    At least we agree on something
    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    I don't read any fiction, is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
    Yes, fairly difficult. I see fiction (and non-fiction) alike as essential to understanding yourself, other people, the world and your place in it. It allows you to see the world through the minds of people other than yourself, which is both enriching and rewarding. But hey, if you've read nothing that you liked, you're free to assume that you don't like literature. I think you can't compare literature with theatre, film or videogames, each have their own merits.
    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    I haven't read fiction willingly for about two years. And regardless of who I try to read, and I've tried reading Ayn Rand, I get bored and go back to reading books on economic, political, and philosophical thought, Really interesting stuff.

    Above all I don't read fantasy, which is what cyberpunk is.
    Have it your way.

  12. #37
    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    Do you realize how absurd that sounds. "If everyone put an emphasis on personal liberty and the rights of individuals then no one would be able to hold the ideas, namely those concerned with liberty and civil rights." Are you mad?
    If everyone had always taken the individualist view we wouldn't have gotten much beyond being hunter gatherers.

    Anyone saying "there is no such thing as society" is probably the product of an affluent late C20th society formed on the basis of people generally cooperating.

    Sadly I don't think you're British so I can't make fun of you for benefiting from all our wonderful state institutions and then saying that but still :P

    I'm for liberty and civil rights btw, I just have a different opinion on how best to achieve that and significantly less faith in the market to provide that if left up to their own devices.
    I stared a century thinking this will never change
    As I hesitated, time rushed onwards without me

  13. #38
    Cooperation helps everyone. Even the guy just out for his own gain will benefit greatly from working with others. But a man has the right to not work with people if he doesn't want to. He shouldn't have to throw money in the pot if he doesn't want to play poker.

    An individualist seeks to gain profit, but the only way to legally do that is through free and voluntary actions. If I make a billion dollars, I haven't stolen it from anyone, I've sold over a billion dollars worth of goods and services. We faced a trade off, I parted with materials and people parted with money, and we both got something that we as individual see as more valuable then what we lost to get it. One should be trying to look out for himself, through capitalism he looks after everyone else as well.

    And your wonderful institutions didn't really create anything, nor do they . Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the auto mobile industry under orders of unions or bureaucrats. He did it because it made him money, and it made a lot of jobs and a lot of capital for other people. Since when has the state made anything but suffering and misery? And even the benevolent state that cares for its citizens must commit theft.

    And even if I lived in England I still have the right to complain about these things. Even if I benefit from them I can still make the claim that I would prefer to not pay taxes and take care of myself. I went to a public school, that doesn't mean I lose the right to criticize them. The majority of Americans receive schooling from the state, and look how good it did us, "is our children learning?" they is not.

    Worse part of all, is schools attendance is compulsory. And one must get approval from the state to home school. I don't know if getting approval is difficult, but I would imagine so.

    What this has to do with capitalism is that free trade generally leads to higher quality goods at less expensive prices. If it were easier to establish schools then we'd have lower prices of private schools due to increased competition.
    Why does no one remember this? Why isn't this taught in the schools?

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,554
    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    What this has to do with capitalism is that free trade generally leads to higher quality goods at less expensive prices. If it were easier to establish schools then we'd have lower prices of private schools due to increased competition.
    It worked like this in the 17th and 18th century. Guess why we changed the system...
    Apparently there are people who think the best way to make
    a prequel is to contradict the thing to which it is a prequel.

  15. #40
    Originally Posted by gamer0004
    It worked like this in the 17th and 18th century. Guess why we changed the system...
    It did not work like that in the 17th and 18th century; Capitalism, industry and free trade were lacking/nonexistent.

    In 1600-1700 we didn't have a capitalist society, nor a middle class. The introduction of industry and capitalism has created a lot of wealth. Your citing a disease for which we already have a cure. And I know your not going to sit there and tell me America's private schools do a good job.

    And by the state keeping the number of private schools in check, less people have access to quality education.
    Why does no one remember this? Why isn't this taught in the schools?

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,554
    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    It did not work like that in the 17th and 18th century; Capitalism, industry and free trade were lacking/nonexistent.

    In 1600-1700 we didn't have a capitalist society, nor a middle class. The introduction of industry and capitalism has created a lot of wealth. Your citing a disease for which we already have a cure. And I know your not going to sit there and tell me America's private schools do a good job.

    And by the state keeping the number of private schools in check, less people have access to quality education.
    We did (I'm Dutch). We had already invented stocks (even short selling) by that time. We had a wealthy middle class. And have you ever heard of the VOC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company)?
    We discovered Manhattan, in a never ending search for more (free) trade.
    Also, the Dutch school system is quite adequate, though not perfect, but it's better than private and public schools, because the rich do not deserve better education than the poor; in fact the poor might deserve better education so they may become rich.

    Also, you seem to think socialist countries became socialist over night. That's not the way it works After centuries of experience this was the best option. We've had a Night watchman state like yours. But it was no good (i.e. we had the same huge problems as Americans have atm).

    Dutch people are amongst the happiest on earth (somewhere in the top 5). Americans aren't. So which system is better?
    Apparently there are people who think the best way to make
    a prequel is to contradict the thing to which it is a prequel.

  17. #42
    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    And by the state keeping the number of private schools in check, less people have access to quality education.
    O rly?

    Originally Posted by The 2006 results from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)
    Some of the most notable findings of the 2006 PISA study:

    * Finland tops out the study with the highest international scores in both math and science.
    * American students ranked 21st out of 30 in science (30 is the total number of countries in OECD jurisdiction).
    * The U.S. did even worse in math, ranking 25th out of 30. The US also scored worse than countries in "non-OECD jurisdiction," (considered to be developing nations) like Russia, Azerbaijan, Slovenia, and Estonia.
    * Six countries consistently made it to the top ten: Finland, Canada, Japan, Netherlands, Australia, and New Zealand.
    Yes, Finland, the country where private tuition is such a marginal phenomenon you could dismiss it as a rounding error delivers the best results in the entire world. You can now go ahead and file this little factoid away under 'L' for 'Lies fabricated by socialists' where it won't be poking out like a sore thumb against your libertarian worldview.

    Protip: save yourself from embarassment in the future by checking your facts.

  18. #43
    Who makes the decision for the child? The parents or the State?

    Originally Posted by Murry Rothbard
    The key issue in the entire discussion is simply this: shall the parent or the State be the overseer of the child? An essential feature of human life is that, for many years, the child is relatively helpless, that his powers of providing for himself mature late. Until these powers are fully developed he cannot act completely for himself as a responsible individual. He must be under tutelage. This tutelage is a complex and difficult task. From an infancy of complete dependence and subjection to adults, the child must grow up gradually to the status of an independent adult. The question is under whose guidance, and virtual "ownership" the child should be: his parents' or the State's? There is no third, or middle, ground in this issue. Some party must control, and no one suggests that some individual third party have authority to seize the child and rear it.
    Do parent's have any say in what their children learn.
    Originally Posted by Isabel Paterson
    political control is … by its nature, bound to legislate against statements of both facts and opinion, in prescribing a school curriculum, in the long run. The most exact and demonstrable scientific knowledge will certainly be objectionable to political authority at some point, because it will expose the folly of such authority, and its vicious effects. Nobody would be permitted to show the nonsensical absurdity of "dialectical materialism" in Russia, by logical examination … and if the political authority is deemed competent to control education, that must be the outcome in any country.

    Educational texts are necessarily selective, in subject matter, language, and point of view. Where teaching is conducted by private schools, there will be a considerable variation in different schools; the parents must judge what they want their children taught, by the curriculum offered. Then each must strive for objective truth…. Nowhere will there be any inducement to teach the "supremacy of the state" as a compulsory philosophy. But every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later, whether as the divine right of kings, or the "will of the people" in "democracy." Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property, and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey.

    A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state
    This isn't only about the state being less efficient than the private sector. We've seen from dou.. I mean palmface that in a society where the citizens are subject to massive theft the thieves actually can establish an institution that performs better. But this comes at a price, that price is the liberty of the citizens. Parents and students lose the right to choose what they would like to study, if they would like to home school, and have no say in the content of the material. It's all controlled by the state. And his argument falls flat, public schools are not always superior, the performance of public schools in America prove this.

    I am claiming that a system based of private enterprise would out perform the state.

    You are claiming that a state funded school system is always better than one provided by the private sector. You cite the nation of Finland, one that cannot be compared to America for obvious reasons.

    Another thing, has it ever crossed your pathetic mind that Americans don't do well in school because our culture has conflicting messages? Why study when we worship singers, actors, and musicians like gods. And, Finland population is below 6 million. I hope you recognize the differences between enacting policy towards education in a nation with 6 million people and 307 million people.

    I would go on, but I need to write about what the US should do about Swine Flu.

    protip: Think about the statistics of a nation before comparing them, you dolt.
    Why does no one remember this? Why isn't this taught in the schools?

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,554
    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    Who makes the decision for the child? The parents or the State?



    Do parent's have any say in what their children learn.


    This isn't only about the state being less efficient than the private sector. We've seen from dou.. I mean palmface that in a society where the citizens are subject to massive theft the thieves actually can establish an institution that performs better. But this comes at a price, that price is the liberty of the citizens. Parents and students lose the right to choose what they would like to study, if they would like to home school, and have no say in the content of the material. It's all controlled by the state. And his argument falls flat, public schools are not always superior, the performance of public schools in America prove this.

    I am claiming that a system based of private enterprise would out perform the state.

    You are claiming that a state funded school system is always better than one provided by the private sector. You cite the nation of Finland, one that cannot be compared to America for obvious reasons.

    Another thing, has it ever crossed your pathetic mind that Americans don't do well in school because our culture has conflicting messages? Why study when we worship singers, actors, and musicians like gods. And, Finland population is below 6 million. I hope you recognize the differences between enacting policy towards education in a nation with 6 million people and 307 million people.

    I would go on, but I need to write about what the US should do about Swine Flu.

    protip: Think about the statistics of a nation before comparing them, you dolt.
    Numbers don't matter AT ALL. Whether you need to educate 2 million people, 20 million or 200 million people, the same system can still be used. "Generally management of a large force is the same as management of a few men. It is a matter of organisation." - Sun Tzu. It's just a cultural difference, but even the US will at some point adopt a system similar to the ones in Europe.
    Apparently there are people who think the best way to make
    a prequel is to contradict the thing to which it is a prequel.

  20. #45
    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    I am claiming that a system based of private enterprise would out perform the state.
    I agree, a completely private school system, freed from the burden of state regulation and taxpayers' money, would offer affordable high-quality education to all Americans, like the private healthcare system currently in Am oh snap!

    Your claim is bogus, read below.

    For the "education market" to even begin to give the desired results parents would unanimously have to consider academic achievement paramount, but factors like the ethnic and socioeconomic makeup of the student body, the issue of wether Bible classes, good athletics programs etc. are offered or even the aesthetics of the school building's facade may weigh just as much. If universities were allowed to arbitrarily define the content of their curriculums we'd quickly see people graduating with degrees worthless in the job market - how would you feel about hiring someone with a PhD in creation "science", for instance?

    Furthermore, while information asymmetry is a hindrance in any conventional market, it takes no leap of imagination to see that the poorer communities, with their non-english speaking immigrants and whatnot, are naturally disadvantaged versus the wealthier portions of the population, and that this disadvantage will be deepened with each passing generation.

    Even if these three major issues were taken out of the equation you'd still be left with a system that consolidates the best, most sought-after education in the hands of the wealthy, leaving the underclasses locked into a circle of poverty. The millions of illiterate people who couldn't afford education to begin with are just icing on the cake.

    With this in mind, a child's education cannot be trusted entirely to the hands of the free market, the risk of a parent inadvertedly sabotaging their offspring's future is not fair to the parent nor the child. Empirical evidence collected from dozens of first world nations confirm that those nations that deal a fair hand to each person entering the workforce enjoy the highest levels of social mobility in the world. Source. The article focuses on the UK, but if you read carefully you'll see the findings apply to the US as well. Oh, and there's that pesky little People's Republic of Finlandistan again, found to be the fourth most economically unrestricting nation in the world.

    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    And his argument falls flat, public schools are not always superior, the performance of public schools in America prove this.
    American public schools are doing a decent job considering the sorry state of their funding: dropout rates have steadily declined and SAT scores as well as actual college enrollment rates have risen across the board during the past 50 years. With a more sensible distribution of funds between school districts the results would be even better.

    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    Another thing, has it ever crossed your pathetic mind that Americans don't do well in school because our culture has conflicting messages? Why study when we worship singers, actors, and musicians like gods.
    Considering that you've exported your culture to every part of the civilized world the problem should be rather widespread, no? This is hardly relevant to the matter at hand in any case.

    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    And, Finland population is below 6 million. I hope you recognize the differences between enacting policy towards education in a nation with 6 million people and 307 million people.

    protip: Think about the statistics of a nation before comparing them, you dolt.
    I can't compare the two because you have more people than they do?

    Boom headshot.

  21. #46
    Originally Posted by facepalm
    private healthcare system
    Did you people hear that. America's health care industry is private. The government doesn't regulate it at all or offer aid. Thanks for letting me know that. Had you not, I would have had to base my opinion of the presence of thousands of pages of government regulation, medicare, medicaid, etc. But thanks palmface, now I know the government has nothing to do with health care and that I should be herded into a collective, for the good of myself and my brothers.

    Your claims that degrees would be worth less is worthless. If University A had a science department, but that science department gets a reputation for teaching "creationism" as scientific fact, then the degrees from that university will depreciate in value. This is also about the choices of parents, and good or bad, the parents ought to have more of a say in the child's education then the state. Maybe the state in it's omnipotence knows better, but to snatch the child from the cradle and take on the roles of parents is a huge hit to liberty.

    Originally Posted by facepalm
    Furthermore, while information asymmetry is a hindrance in any conventional market, it takes no leap of imagination to see that the poorer communities, with their non-english speaking immigrants and whatnot, are naturally disadvantaged versus the wealthier portions of the population, and that this disadvantage will be deepened with each passing generation.
    This also holds little merit, social mobility is extremely high in this nation, and while immigrants may be poor and disadvantaged when they first arrive, history has proven that these immigrants eventually move up in the social ladder. Poor Russian Jews emigrated to this nation, after a generation they had risen social standing. This trend repeats itself with the Italians, and other subsequent floods of immigration. These things don't happen over night, but they adapt to become successful.

    Another point I would like to make is education doesn't always lead to success. Henry Ford didn't have a college education, as well as many of the most wealthiest men at the turn of the century.

    Cornelious Vanderbilt is quoted saying "If I had learned education I would not have had time to learn anything else"

    A good education is not necessarily the key to success.

    If I didn't see taxation as theft, education is the first place I would give extra funds. Unfortunately, this taxation conflicts with human free will and liberty.

    Originally Posted by gamer0004
    "Generally management of a large force is the same as management of a few men. It is a matter of organization."
    It's a matter of resource management, and to obtain all those resources one must take them from the people. It's much more difficult to implement a high quality education system on a national level when that nation has 60 times as many people as the nation they aspire to emulate. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to reach the conclusion that allocating resources and ensuring those resources are used properly would be much easier in a nation of 5 million rather than 300 million.

    [Random juvenile expression]
    Why does no one remember this? Why isn't this taught in the schools?

  22. #47
    Just to come into this argument sideways: I think one thing some people don't see all the time is that although more socialist policies cost money, they often ended up saving money in the long run.

    For example, if you have socialized medicine, you are going to gain tons of money from having more healthy people available to work and pay taxes. If you spend more money on education, your country will be better off as it has more people learning skills and helping your economy, instead of resorting to crime.

    Private enterprise is more efficient than the state often, but you need a balance. If you let private enterprise go rampant, you end up have a very rich minority taking advantage of a far poorer majority. Governments are inefficient, but most often those wasted resources get dispersed to the country's citizens. Whereas if you have private enterprises running everything, your money is highly likely to be leaving your country, as transnational corporations on the vast majority of all business.

    This issue is too big though to be of any use discussing in a forum though. It takes years of study just to begin to even get a grasp on the big picture (which I do not claim...)

    But I do find it crazy that in the States you might have an appendix burst and that could set you into a lifetime a poverty. Or having a baby costs thousands of bucks. Give me my Canadian system any day of the week.

    And the U.S gov' is too much at the mercy of the healthcare interests to even look at the real problem: which is the obscene profiteering happening in the medical sector.

  23. #48
    Just because you see something that you do not approve of doesn't give you right to force people to stop what they're doing. Think about that for a little while, I need to spend some time away from politics.
    Why does no one remember this? Why isn't this taught in the schools?

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,554
    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    It's a matter of resource management, and to obtain all those resources one must take them from the people. It's much more difficult to implement a high quality education system on a national level when that nation has 60 times as many people as the nation they aspire to emulate. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to reach the conclusion that allocating resources and ensuring those resources are used properly would be much easier in a nation of 5 million rather than 300 million.

    [Random juvenile expression]
    That depends. (Most) U.S. states are smaller than the Netherlands, so technically one could simply instruct them to take care of education and that would be it. You have regional taxes, right?
    The size of a country doesn't matter. Of course, if only the top level of the government decides everything then this is easier in a smaller country, but by dividing the task it is even possible to allocate resources more efficiently.
    Apparently there are people who think the best way to make
    a prequel is to contradict the thing to which it is a prequel.

  25. #50
    Originally Posted by PlasmaSnake101
    Just because you see something that you do not approve of doesn't give you right to force people to stop what they're doing. Think about that for a little while, I need to spend some time away from politics.
    I hope you've greatly generalized your actual belief in that first sentence. Were I ever to get mugged/jumped I would sincerely hope you weren't the one to witness it.

Page 2 of 12 First First 123456 ... Last