Should This Professor Be Fired? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-06-2005, 08:16 AM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
We once had a governor who was so klutzy that we joked that he'd gone to college and majored in football. The guy had indeed been a football star at Auburn, and as governor he drove us all crazy meddling in education. I am embarrassed to have to admit that I'm distantly related to this joker. While I do not approve of the professor's comments, I resent politicians, of all people, sticking their noses in education matters. Let the people at the university decide if they want to dump someone who's making such dumbass remarks.
Just wait a few years until Charles Barkley becomes governor.
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2005, 10:11 AM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Ignoring the politics, professors like Churchill annoy the hell out of me. They all try to be so "postmodernist" by being "shocking." Jean Baudrillard was great at that, but the difference between Baudrillard and Churchill is that Baudrillard could be "shocking" without being "offensive." Churchill is probably trying to outdo the postmodernist "greats," but he just plain sucks at it.

Part of me hopes that Churchill is fired, not because of the stupid politicians, but because the university reviewed his work and discovered it to be the crap that it is.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2005, 11:31 PM   #48
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer

Or even better: Churchill is an employee of the University of Colorado, a large research university that does military research and receives funds from the DoD for a wide variety of other projects. Hence Churchill deserves death.
From what I've read of his work, Churchill would in fact be quick to accept this 'absurdium.' He doesn't exclude himself from culpability for the global consequences of US economic and political imperialism. And just because he believes that a kind of karmic 'justice' is served by 'blowback' like 9/11 doesn't mean he passively accepts such events as inevitable, or as cause for rejoicing. (It's hard to imagine him 'rejoicing' over much of anything, anyway--in everything I've read, his tone is almost unremittingly cynical, fatalistic, and misanthropic.)

If you really want to know the context of his references to Nuremberg, Nazism, and the analogies he argues they present to US policy abroad, the best essay to read is probably an older one called 'Bringing the Law Home' from his 1994 book 'Indians Are Us?'. Although not the first essay in which he makes such an argument, this one is the clearest articulation of it I've seen. (Though I certainly can't claim to be an expert on his work or themes.)

The argument is NOT easy to summarize, but in a nutshell: In the post-WWII Nuremberg Trials, the US took a leading role in formulating sweeping new definitions of 'crimes against humanity,' which were then applied--ex post facto, again with US support--to such 'nonviolent' Nazi criminals as Eichmann and propagandist Julius Streicher, both of whom got the death penalty. Yet the US refused for 40 years to sign the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, which derived from these Nuremberg precedents--and when it did sign, it was only with the notorious qualification of the 'Lugar-Helms-Hatch Sovereignty Package' ("We'll abide by it, except where we think it conflicts with our interests" ), rendering the signing meaningless as anything other than a symbolic gesture. While there were multiple reasons for this foot-dragging, the Congressional debate records clearly show that fear of the Convention's potential usefulness to Native or African Americans for mounting 'reparations' cases (or treaty enforcement demands!) against the US government was a major factor. As well as the humiliating possibility of cases being filed against the US by other countries within its 'sphere of influence'...

So, for Churchill, the unfulfilled promise of Nuremberg makes an apt metaphor for US hypocrisy in vigorously defending its own right to hold other countries responsible for their sins, while refusing to acknowledge responsibility for the destructive consequences of its own political, economic, and military actions. Moreover, because the US is a democracy--and because its citizens profit from the consequences of said actions--the weight of that responsibility extends to anyone who can vote. (Though it's fair to say that Churchill sees those who profit the most as being most responsible.) Thus, in his view, acts of 'revenge' like 9/11, committed by groups acting on behalf of the US's 'victims,' do indeed serve a kind of justice (the hardnosed, eye-for-an-eye type, not the romantic Platonic sort).

As for whether or not Churchill is a 'real' Native American, well...the politics of 'who is a Native American' are even more fractious and murky than those of 'who is a Jew.' Churchill has certainly held prominent positions in several national Native American organizations, including the American Indian Movement, the American Indian Anti-Defamation Council, and the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee. None of which proves him to be an 'authentic' anything, but at the very least, he's not a Carlos Castaneda-style fakir.
__________________
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 07:53 AM   #49
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer




What I am arguing is that if you're say that certain people deserve to be murdered, you better have a pretty darn good argument for it.

Re your absurdum argument; It's not simply weak. It's considered a reasoning fallacy by the standards of formal logic. It is immanently flawed because it seeks to eliminate conclusions solely by claiming that they are too absurd to be believable, not because they are false. What is 'absurd' is subjective, and arguments are often labeled as absurd out of self interest rather than in the spirit of truth. This appeal to ridicule constitutes its own fallacy in that arguments are not false simply because you ridicule them. Absurdity can still be truth.

Again, simply put, my actions are irrelevant to the truth of these arguments as well. Nothing can change that. Ad hominem tu quoque arguments are flawed. You, in fact, actually help demonstrate my point with your Wal-Mart example. Your shopping at Wal Mart cannot be construed to say that you support Wal-Mart's treatment of their employees because, as you said, morally you don't....even though your actions suggest otherwise. I think that demonstrates more that social relationships can be irrational and actually absurd, not that we are violating moral imperatives.


I have yet to hear a good reason for the US interventions that have murdered millions of innocents in the last 50 years. That said, it is possible to contend that the Western public is complicit in these murders without arguing that they deserve to die. That is, in fact, what I'm doing. I'm not a proponent of the death penalty.

I can see we agree on about 90% of the issue, which is that he should stay and let individuals judge for themselves...except many here have already judged on behalf of society.

Can anybody tell me why there's such a public backlash against sensationalism? Why are people more concerned about the degree to which a position deviates from the mean than they are about whther the position has merit? Sensational claims can be true. Where's the interest in truth?

Jon
__________________
Klink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 08:03 AM   #50
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:04 AM
I don't agree with everything he says, but we do have to be responsible for the actions of our government. His response.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb05/...203.htmLessons Not Learned and the War on Free Speech
by Ward Churchill
www.dissidentvoice.org
February 3, 2005In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.

The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.

I am not a "defender" of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government."

In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.

Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-11 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-11-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.

Ward Churchill is professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He is a writer and activist who has authored numerous books on Native-American issues, human rights, US foreign policy and genocide, including On the Justice of Roosting Chickens and Pacifism As Pathology: Reflections On The Role Of Armed Struggle In North America.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 08:29 AM   #51
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 11:04 AM
scarletwine,
Thanks for that.

Even the Eichmann comment now seems more logical and less offensive when put in its proper context.

Not too surprisingly, reading between the lines seems to have paid off.

Jon
__________________
Klink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 08:30 AM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klink


Re your absurdum argument; It's not simply weak. It's considered a reasoning fallacy by the standards of formal logic. It is immanently flawed because it seeks to eliminate conclusions solely by claiming that they are too absurd to be believable, not because they are false. What is 'absurd' is subjective, and arguments are often labeled as absurd out of self interest rather than in the spirit of truth. This appeal to ridicule constitutes its own fallacy in that arguments are not false simply because you ridicule them. Absurdity can still be truth.
My point is not so much that a given conclusion is absolutely, undeniably absurd as that the statements "the people in the WTC deserved to die" and "people who use credit cards deserve to die" both follow from Churchill's arguments. The "absurdity" really just points to the flaws in Churchill's arguments: (1) his assessment of industrial complicity in atrocities is too weak to draw any moral imperatives from it, and (2) even if one agreed that we are complicit, it doesn't follow that we deserve to die.

Quote:

Again, simply put, my actions are irrelevant to the truth of these arguments as well. Nothing can change that. Ad hominem tu quoque arguments are flawed. You, in fact, actually help demonstrate my point with your Wal-Mart example. Your shopping at Wal Mart cannot be construed to say that you support Wal-Mart's treatment of their employees because, as you said, morally you don't....even though your actions suggest otherwise. I think that demonstrates more that social relationships can be irrational and actually absurd, not that we are violating moral imperatives.
Fine, I'll take your word for it that you don't think that we have a moral imperative to wash our hands of any relationship with American financial institutions. But Churchill seems to think otherwise, if what he wrote in "The Justice Of Roosting Chickens" is any indication.

(I actually don't shop at Wal-Mart, not that that matters.)

Quote:

I have yet to hear a good reason for the US interventions that have murdered millions of innocents in the last 50 years.
Well, it probably pointless for me to explain here why I believe the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were both justified, so I'll spare us all.

Quote:

That said, it is possible to contend that the Western public is complicit in these murders without arguing that they deserve to die. That is, in fact, what I'm doing. I'm not a proponent of the death penalty.
Fair enuf.

Quote:

I can see we agree on about 90% of the issue, which is that he should stay and let individuals judge for themselves...except many here have already judged on behalf of society.

Can anybody tell me why there's such a public backlash against sensationalism? Why are people more concerned about the degree to which a position deviates from the mean than they are about whther the position has merit? Sensational claims can be true. Where's the interest in truth?

Jon
Well, I think Melon explained it better than I did: you can be "shocking" without being "unnecessarily offensive". "The Justice Of Roosting Chickens", as far as I can tell, is distinctive not in its critical analysis but in its sensationalism. Hardly a work befitting a tenured academic.
__________________
speedracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 08:40 AM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine

I am not a "defender" of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

[/B]
Quote:
They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
[/b]
Sorry, but I can't read Churchill's piece, especially the last sentence, as saying anything other than that he thinks the traders and brokers in the WTC deserved to die.
__________________
speedracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 08:51 AM   #54
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


My point is not so much that a given conclusion is absolutely, undeniably absurd as that the statements "the people in the WTC deserved to die" and "people who use credit cards deserve to die" both follow from Churchill's arguments. The "absurdity" really just points to the flaws in Churchill's arguments: (1) his assessment of industrial complicity in atrocities is too weak to draw any moral imperatives from it, and (2) even if one agreed that we are complicit, it doesn't follow that we deserve to die.

I think we have to be careful about slippery slopes. That is a slippery slope fallacy. It's like saying that polygamy logically follows from allowing gay marriage. That's not necessarily the case as it is possible that there are intervening variables which can change the logical conclusion.

Your criticism is based on absurd imperatives that you created from a logical argument. In other words, you have critiqued his logical argument using the absurd imperatives that you created as the target.

None of this is to say he can't be criticized, I just don't think he can in that way.


Jon
__________________
Klink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 08:56 AM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klink


I think we have to be careful about slippery slopes. That is a slippery slope fallacy. It's like saying that polygamy logically follows from allowing gay marriage. That's not necessarily the case as it is possible that there are intervening variables which can change the logical conclusion.
Well, I'd like to hear what these intervening variables are, because as far as I can tell Churchill argues that anybody who willingly chooses to undertake actions that keeps the American financial markets running deserves to die. If there's some threshold of participation which one must cross before deserving to die, Churchill hasn't explained it.

In Churchill's whitewashing, I mean clarification, of his earlier book, he says that secretaries in the WTC are akin to "collateral" damage because they're not directly involved. Well, even if one accepts his analysis of the "military-industrial complex", there's a pretty long chain of causality going from a secretary's work or a trader's actions to people being killed in Palestine/Iraq/Vietnam/wherever. (ObL's original motive was far less compelling -- it was to force the US to remove troops from Saudi Arabia.) Where does he draw the line between innocence and guilt? Why does a guy who trades orange juice or porkbelly futures deserve to die? Orange juice speculators and credit card users are on a roughly equal level, I'd say.

(Again, a common theme of your rebuttals is to categorically refute certain techniques of argument. I think you'd be better served to explain why my particular arguments are wrong, not why whole classes of arguments are wrong.)
__________________
speedracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 02:03 PM   #56
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-11 attack.
I'm glad he clarified his point. It was only the white collar workers that were little Eichmanns and had it coming to them.
__________________
drhark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 02:15 PM   #57
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 112
Local Time: 04:04 PM
calling for first amendment rights has got to be the most abused thing in America these days. it's not a ticket to say or do whatever you want. if everyone could say or do whatever they want, in the name of first amendment rights, there would be anarchy. but hey, we'd be "free" and not hindering anyone's "expressions."
__________________
seankirkland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 02:23 PM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:04 AM
he sounds no different than Arundhati Roy and her poetic, slightly insane columns written in the guardian post-9/11.

this is a topic i am very, very torn about. i know someone who died in the WTC, and i know several people who know many people who died. there's obviously no known, understood complicity in the bad things the US government has done since WW2 -- and, gosh, if the US has killed 8m people with it's policies, just how many have the USSR and China killed?

i also feel as if other nations, particularly non-Western nations, see life in more karmic terms, and see some kind of moral equivalency in the deaths of innocents in the WTC -- they are no more, or less, worthy than those who died in Nicaragua, or Grenada, or Iraq, or wherever you'd like to point to a US incursion. while i don't think that complicity should equal a death sentence, i think we're fooling ourselves if we don't think that this equivocation has a rational basis. we may not agree, nor are we as a nation as fatalistic in our view of the course of human events, but to dismiss this view as insane is, well, insane.

however, i am profoundly troubled by this:

"To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants."

this has the same logic as racism, or anti-semitism. they should have known better, and you toss out a million-and-one self-serving lampoons of real people. could we also not say that they were too busy trying to feed their children, pay their mortgages, take care of their elderly parents, and juggle a 60 hour a week work schedule to concern themselves with the geopolitical/historical consequences of their chosen profession?

i think you vastly underestimate the power the average US citizen has to actually affect the course of action his/her government takes.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 02:26 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by seankirkland
calling for first amendment rights has got to be the most abused thing in America these days. it's not a ticket to say or do whatever you want. if everyone could say or do whatever they want, in the name of first amendment rights, there would be anarchy. but hey, we'd be "free" and not hindering anyone's "expressions."
First off, Churchill is well within his First Amendment rights. It is now a matter as to whether he should be fired for them.

The only consistent limitation placed on free speech is whether that speech is meant to incite a riot/rebellion/war/murder. Supreme Court case precedents are a bit murky on this issue, though. Generally, prosecutions on this issue only happen after the fact; as in, if one's speech actually resulted in a riot.

But I digress. Churchill's writings, no matter how offensive, have certainly not crossed any legal thresholds.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2005, 02:31 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:04 AM
As for Churchill's "clarification"? I find myself agreeing with a lot of it. In short: if we consistently dehumanize the enemy and excuse away civilian casualties as "collateral damage" (and let's face it: we did just that during the airstrikes), we shouldn't be surprised if other nations and other cultures have an equally callous attitude towards the United States.

But Churchill could have said that to begin with without having to evoke all that sloppy "Little Eichmanns" crap. Like I said, postmodernist writing can be quite powerful, but, if used incorrectly, can flop terribly. He should have known better.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com