Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:52 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bucfan wrote:
Willton wrote:
They do not invite him because they want to offend people of faith.

Stewart offends all faiths.

It is his schtick.

Are you saying that Stewart does not make fun of religion, and those who hold religion as an important part of their lives? That describes a signficant part of his show.

I was talking about Father Guido Sarducci. I can assure you that people who hire Don Novello to play Sarducci are not doing so because they want to offend Catholics.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10726
Willton wrote:
No, but I think that if you are going to criticize him, the criticism should be fair.

Yes, like this pointed criticism of Boxer that you posted:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-n ... e-shutdown

Oh, gee, maybe not so tough on old Barbara. Care to discuss the "accuracy" of your claim?

Or how about the clip where Boxer makes an incredibly stupid comment about Secretary of State nominee Condeleeza Rice, but the entire focus is on Stewart offering to father a child with Rice.

Wow, tough on Boxer.

So maybe you should not post false evidence in support of your claims. Or at least try it with someone who does not check your sources.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10726
Willton wrote:
I was talking about Father Guido Sarducci. I can assure you that people who hire Don Novello to play Sarducci are not doing so because they want to offend Catholics.

Right, they do so because making fun of Catholics is still permitted.

Offer this type of lampooning of another religion? Uhh, no thanks.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
It's sad that in 2010 we still think that racial stereotypes are good comedy.

Oh please, don't be so humorless. Poking fun at stereotypes is perfectly fair game, and if we can't laugh about them, what are we supposed to do with them? It's not like we can wish them away like they never existed. That's being ignorant.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bucfan wrote:
Willton wrote:
I was talking about Father Guido Sarducci. I can assure you that people who hire Don Novello to play Sarducci are not doing so because they want to offend Catholics.

Right, they do so because making fun of Catholics is still permitted.

Offer this type of lampooning of another religion? Uhh, no thanks.

I take it you've never watched a Mel Brooks movie or seen Sacha Baron Cohen do his act. Believe me, all classifications of Americans get their fair share of lampooning. If you haven't seen it, it's because you haven't been paying attention.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bucfan wrote:
Willton wrote:
No, but I think that if you are going to criticize him, the criticism should be fair.

Yes, like this pointed criticism of Boxer that you posted:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-n ... e-shutdown

Oh, gee, maybe not so tough on old Barbara. Care to discuss the "accuracy" of your claim?

Or how about the clip where Boxer makes an incredibly stupid comment about Secretary of State nominee Condeleeza Rice, but the entire focus is on Stewart offering to father a child with Rice.

Wow, tough on Boxer.

So maybe you should not post false evidence in support of your claims. Or at least try it with someone who does not check your sources.


You said that he's never made fun of Boxer. I posted 4 clips where there was at least some bit of mockery directed towards her. I never commented on the degree of such mockery.

But why does that matter to you? Why are you so fixated on Stewart's failure to mock Boxer to the degree of your liking?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Willton wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
I think what we're both wondering is why you're going to such lengths to defend Stewart's blatant bias. So you're a fan of his. Other people aren't. Are you so self-centered and narcissistic that you think everyone has to see things your way?

No, but I think that if you are going to criticize him, the criticism should be fair.


But you get to define fair, is that it?

You want fair Wilton, here it is. Jon Stewart is a far left leaning political commentator who hides behind the facade of being a comedian. His rally was nothing more than a see and be seen event for the hipsters and their cause of the moment. I'm all for civility in politics, but civility comes from more than a rally where people don't even know that calling the President a Keynesian refers to his economic philosophy and not his place of birth. And civility damn sure does not come from a man who's made his reputation by getting cheap laughs on a second rate cable show.

So there you go. Fair criticism.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bucfan wrote:
Willton wrote:
I did. See the plethora of posts I've made in this thread.

Oh, I see. My posts require "proof." Your posts are proof.

I've shown your error by quoting the exact language that Stewart uses, and then I've shown how your characterization is incorrect. If you cannot see how you are misrepresenting Stewart, then I can't help you any further.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
Willton wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
I think what we're both wondering is why you're going to such lengths to defend Stewart's blatant bias. So you're a fan of his. Other people aren't. Are you so self-centered and narcissistic that you think everyone has to see things your way?

No, but I think that if you are going to criticize him, the criticism should be fair.


But you get to define fair, is that it?

You want fair Wilton, here it is. Jon Stewart is a far left leaning political commentator who hides behind the facade of being a comedian. His rally was nothing more than a see and be seen event for the hipsters and their cause of the moment. I'm all for civility in politics, but civility comes from more than a rally where people don't even know that calling the President a Keynesian refers to his economic philosophy and not his place of birth. And civility damn sure does not come from a man who's made his reputation by getting cheap laughs on a second rate cable show.

So there you go. Fair criticism.

Hipsters? I'm not sure you know what a hipster is. And if you think there is a "hipster movement", then I apologize for calling you humorless, because that's really funny.

By the way, Stewart's show is not second rate. See below:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/no ... rt-ratings

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
You want to actually address my point or do you want to keep on arguing semantics?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
You want to actually address my point or do you want to keep on arguing semantics?

I wasn't going to, because that's your opinion, and there's not much I want to say about it. You have a tendency to think that anyone to the left of where you stand is "far left leaning", but while I disagree (Stewart is left of center, but hardly the extreme liberal that you paint him to be), I'm tired of trying to convince you otherwise. And yes, his rally was a bit of a "see and be seen" event, but that's what rallies are: an event where like-minded individuals may be seen to show their support for a cause or ideal.

I will say this: what isn't fair is your characterization of the people who attended the event. The people in that crowd cannot be broadly classified as hipsters, and your characterization of their level of intelligence (i.e., "people don't even know that calling the President a Keynesian refers to his economic philosophy and not his place of birth") shows your hypocrisy for criticizing Stewart. The fact of the matter is that the people who went to that rally did so for two reasons: (1) they thought it would be entertaining; and (2) they saw it as a way to express, en masse, their frustration with the level of discourse we see in Washington and on cable news. I have friends that attended that rally, and they are nothing like the sweeping generalization that you made regarding the attendees.

Up thread, you expressed your distaste for those who poke fun at stereotypes. I find that odd, considering how ready you are to earnestly apply them.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:18 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10726
Willton wrote:
You said that he's never made fun of Boxer. I posted 4 clips where there was at least some bit of mockery directed towards her. I never commented on the degree of such mockery.

Bullshit, Willton. Two of those clips contained not a single whit of criticsim of Boxer, and one was a fucking tribute. A third was a clip of Boxer from the Senate floor, bozoing with visual blow-ups, with not a negative word from Stewart.

You are simply not being accurate in saying that you posted four clips of Stewart deriding Boxer. Geez, I had to waste time watching those clips to check out your accuracy.

Undoubtedly, you are used to readers just accepting what you claim the "support" stands for. Try again, Willton.

Willton wrote:
But why does that matter to you? Why are you so fixated on Stewart's failure to mock Boxer to the degree of your liking?

(1) She actually holds significant power, which she is trying to wield to impose horseshit, job-killing "carbon taxes."
(2) She actually damages the country with her idiocy.
(3) She is about 1000 times more relevant than Sarah Palin, for example.
(4) So would I have to fumble around and post 4 videos that I claim to be negative towards Palin, only to have you point out that three are clearly NOT negative from Stewart's perspective, and in fact one is outright POSITIVE?
(5) So enough trying to tell me that Stewart is a modern-day Mark Twain, dispensing a fair appraisal of American politics, and with an eye towards protecting the "little guy." His heroes would impose debilitating and job-killing energy policies based upon the lie known as "global warming," uhhhm, "global temperature change."

Get it now?


Last edited by Bucfan on Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:23 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10726
Willton wrote:
I've shown your error by quoting the exact language that Stewart uses, and then I've shown how your characterization is incorrect. If you cannot see how you are misrepresenting Stewart, then I can't help you any further.

Really, Willton?

The Loveathon that was his rally featured Cat Stevens.

You know, this guy?

The musician known as Cat Stevens said in a British television program to be broadcast next week that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, ''I would have hoped that it'd be the real thing.''

http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/04/18/s ... e-cat.html

So, Willton, why don't you justify your hero - a guy we have no basis in criticizing - featuring a nutjob who extolled the virtues of murdering Salman Rushdie.

Go ahead, I'll wait.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:32 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10726
And back to why I take exception to your ballwashing of Stewart. You began the discussion stating the following:

For those of you who would like a more uplifting and honest take on politics going forward:

I don't find Stewart to be honest, and explained in great detail why. I don't find his commentary uplifting either. As a rule, tragedy celebrates the virtue and beauty of humanity, while comedy focuses on its failures and foibles.

Stewart makes a living focusing on human failing. That is what comedians do. That is what he does. He is clearly NOT impartial in his commentary, and never claimed to be.

So therefore, his show is a combination of (1) focusing on human failings and making hay with how faulty voters are, while (2) presenting that approach in a very (admittedly) partial manner.

So excuse me if I don't find anything about Stewart to be "uplifting and honest." He is neither.

And I have explained in great detail the reasons for my view. Whatever disagreements I have with Obama - and they are legion - I can accept that he is uplifting.

As was Reagan.

But please, Willton, I really do not have the energy or the interest in correcting suchy monumentally basic errors on your part.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:09 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6283
I hope I don't burst your bubble Bucfan, but we have income tax and despite being smaller, our financial burdens are substantial to the point that our "legislators" wanted to divert money from education (where we are already 49th out of 50 in funding per pupil) and sell state land and wildlife preserves to fund the general fund. They have already sold the state capitol itself to meet payroll last year and now the state leases it's own capitol buildings and offices. :roll: :roll: :roll:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:18 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6283
Oh, and I would be honored to have you for a neighbor. In fact, the house next door is still empty, bit of a fixer upper though. 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bucfan wrote:
Willton wrote:
You said that he's never made fun of Boxer. I posted 4 clips where there was at least some bit of mockery directed towards her. I never commented on the degree of such mockery.

Bullshit, Willton. Two of those clips contained not a single whit of criticsim of Boxer, and one was a fucking tribute. A third was a clip of Boxer from the Senate floor, bozoing with visual blow-ups, with not a negative word from Stewart.

You are simply not being accurate in saying that you posted four clips of Stewart deriding Boxer. Geez, I had to waste time watching those clips to check out your accuracy.

Undoubtedly, you are used to readers just accepting what you claim the "support" stands for. Try again, Willton.

Are you blind? The whole bit on seducing Rice to have children was a jab at Boxer's suggestion that Rice would see things more clearly regarding the war if she had children. That is ridiculous, so Stewart did a whole bit on it. It was over the top, and it should have been. How did you not see that? Or has your hatred for Stewart rendered you incapable of understanding satire?

The exchange with Colbert was, admittedly, pure silliness, but it referred to a heated exchange between Rice and Boxer during Rice's confirmation. So perhaps it was not poking fun at Boxer so much as poking fun at her exchange with Rice. Either way, I put it up.

And by the way, when the Daily Show posts something like Boxer needing more charts to make her point as the "Moment of Zen" segment, they do so because it is ridiculous. Sometimes, there's no need for extra commentary on its ridiculousness; sometimes the clip is all that's necessary to elicit laughter.

In any event, I never said that there was any criticism. I said that there was mockery. Mockery does not require negative words; all it requires is poking fun. If you can't see that, then I'm afraid that you are almost as humorless as Jeremy appears to be.

Bucfan wrote:
Willton wrote:
But why does that matter to you? Why are you so fixated on Stewart's failure to mock Boxer to the degree of your liking?

(1) She actually holds significant power, which she is trying to wield to impose horseshit, job-killing "carbon taxes."
(2) She actually damages the country with her idiocy.
(3) She is about 1000 times more relevant than Sarah Palin, for example.
(4) So would I have to fumble around and post 4 videos that I claim to be negative towards Palin, only to have you point out that three are clearly NOT negative from Stewart's perspective, and in fact one is outright POSITIVE?
(5) So enough trying to tell me that Stewart is a modern-day Mark Twain, dispensing a fair appraisal of American politics, and with an eye towards protecting the "little guy." His heroes would impose debilitating and job-killing energy policies based upon the lie known as "global warming," uhhhm, "global temperature change."

Get it now?

Alright, I see where this is going. The only reason you want Boxer criticized is because you don't like her policies. It has nothing to do with whether she's said or done anything worthy of entertaining satire. To this, I say: get your head out of your ass. The Daily Show is not about pushing policy; it's about entertaining a crowd. If you want policy wonks badgering Senators for their policies, go watch MSNBC or Faux News.

If you think entertaining bits could be done about Boxer enough to merit watching, then maybe you should film your own show. I know Fox News tried it's own version (i.e., "The 1/2 Hour News Hour"), but apparently they understand humor about as well as you do, because the show was canceled after 7 months.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Last edited by Willton on Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bucfan wrote:
Willton wrote:
I've shown your error by quoting the exact language that Stewart uses, and then I've shown how your characterization is incorrect. If you cannot see how you are misrepresenting Stewart, then I can't help you any further.

Really, Willton?

The Loveathon that was his rally featured Cat Stevens.

You know, this guy?

The musician known as Cat Stevens said in a British television program to be broadcast next week that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, ''I would have hoped that it'd be the real thing.''

http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/04/18/s ... e-cat.html

So, Willton, why don't you justify your hero - a guy we have no basis in criticizing - featuring a nutjob who extolled the virtues of murdering Salman Rushdie.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

You apparently do not have the whole story. You are hanging on to one data point and extrapolating it to an extreme. That's irresponsible, and you should know better.

That "nutjob" had this to say thereafter:

Quote:
"I foolishly made light of certain provocative questions. When asked what I’d do if Salman Rushdie entered a restaurant in which I was eating, I said, “I would probably call up Ayatollah Khomeini”; and, rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author, I jokingly said I would have preferred that it'd be the “real thing”.
...
Providentially, they kept in one important response to a final question posed directly to me by Geoffrey Robertson QC. At the end of the debate he asked me to imagine if Salman Rushdie was taken to court in Britain and the Jury found him ‘not guilty’ of any crime – Blasphemy or otherwise – and dismissed the case, what I would do. I clearly stated that I would have to accept the decision and fully abide by the law! And that was no joke."


Stevens then said this in a 2000 Rolling Stone interview:
Quote:
I'm very sad that this seems to be the No. 1 question people want to discuss. I had nothing to do with the issue other than what the media created. I was innocently drawn into the whole controversy. So, after many years, I'm glad at least now that I have been given the opportunity to explain to the public and fans my side of the story in my own words. At a lecture, back in 1989, I was asked a question about blasphemy according to Islamic Law, I simply repeated the legal view according to my limited knowledge of the Scriptural texts, based directly on historical commentaries of the Qur'an. The next day the newspaper headlines read, "Cat Says, Kill Rushdie." I was abhorred, but what could I do? I was a new Muslim. If you ask a Bible student to quote the legal punishment of a person who commits blasphemy in the Bible, he would be dishonest if he didn't mention Leviticus 24:16.


Stevens also has on his website:
Quote:
I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini--and still don’t. The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.

When asked about my opinion regarding blasphemy, I could not tell a lie and confirmed that--like both the Torah and the Gospel--the Qur’an considers it, without repentance, as a capital offense. The Bible is full of similar harsh laws if you’re looking for them. However, the application of such Biblical and Qur’anic injunctions is not to be outside of due process of law, in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied by the society as a whole...


So, whether Stevens called for the death of Rushdie or not, it appears to me that the "nutjob" does not personally believe that Rushdie should be killed. Unlike you, I can forgive a person for making a foolish statement and regretting it, especially when said person dedicates himself to educational and philanthropic causes in the Muslim community and has received several awards for his work in promoting peace in the world.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bucfan wrote:
And back to why I take exception to your ballwashing of Stewart. You began the discussion stating the following:

For those of you who would like a more uplifting and honest take on politics going forward:

I don't find Stewart to be honest, and explained in great detail why. I don't find his commentary uplifting either. As a rule, tragedy celebrates the virtue and beauty of humanity, while comedy focuses on its failures and foibles.

Stewart makes a living focusing on human failing. That is what comedians do. That is what he does. He is clearly NOT impartial in his commentary, and never claimed to be.

So therefore, his show is a combination of (1) focusing on human failings and making hay with how faulty voters are, while (2) presenting that approach in a very (admittedly) partial manner.

So excuse me if I don't find anything about Stewart to be "uplifting and honest." He is neither.

And I have explained in great detail the reasons for my view. Whatever disagreements I have with Obama - and they are legion - I can accept that he is uplifting.

As was Reagan.

But please, Willton, I really do not have the energy or the interest in correcting suchy monumentally basic errors on your part.

I never said that the show was uplifting. I said that the speech was uplifting, and it was. Stop pointing out non-sequitors.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jon Stewart's Moment of Sincerity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10726
So to summarize:

(1) Being critical of Boxer based upon policy differences is not a legitimate basis for thinking that Stewart might - JUST MIGHT - want to direct a smidgeon of his vitriol towards her, rather than a boatload of others who are basically as relevant to the political process as I am.

(2) Featuring Cat Stevens is not a problem, since although he advocated murdering Salman Rushdie, he later said he didn't mean it. Really. (And don't bullshit about what he said, Willton. "Even if he did ..." He said it, not once but three times in the interview. I suspect that you did not bother reading the article to see his various comments.)

(3) Though Stewart may not be uplifting in general, and though I have specific reasons to dispute Stewart's honesty, hey, it's all good - and he and his guests were able to get through the show without wishing murder upon an author for expressing opposing views.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits