the decade from hell - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-14-2010, 07:54 PM   #106
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Really, what name did I use to call you or another forum member?

Diemen addressed that.

All I have done is point out numerous statistics from the past decade that have been ignored here. If that helps to defend the person who was President during that time, so be it. This is a debate forum, and its ok if people are Republicans and defend President Bush. Understand?


I ignored no statistics that you mentioned. I just pointed out how none of your indicators really showed that GW Bush was that great in terms of economic performance. I showed how your conclusions from the statistics are wrong and that the numbers can not be used in any reasonable way to defend the President. If you want to try, I never said you couldn't. Nor did anyone else here. I simply pointed out that you are obsessed with trying to use numbers to defend one person at all costs. Many real conservatives and sane Republicans RAN AWAY from the Bush economic record. I can point out where your conclusions are completely wrong. I understand people want to defend Bush, or are Republicans, and that is fine, I am not an idiot. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts. You continue to stick to false assertions despite the facts.



Did I say you were a blind left wing nut?


No, just providing some context. Never said you did. Maybe providing some contrast too, as you blindly defend Bush's economic record despite all evidence to the contrary. When the Democrats screw up, I admit it. I opposed the public option and don't like what a majority of them are saying on the surge. I support Obama on that. I would never say that most of this country had it good under Jimmy Carter. I could debate whether/how his policies contributed or not contributed to this. You should take a hint here. The numbers show things were not good. Now tell us why you think that was in spite of, not mostly because of Bush's policies.


What is respectful in the following comments you made? What does it have to do with the thread topic?


I respect all views. Not all posts. Certainly not from people who consistently insist they are right about everything and come back with the same distortions even after they have been addressed. Multiple times. If you wanted to say "agree to disagree" on the level of influence the President had over X or Y policy, wonderful, have a nice life. I respect that. I don't have any patience for what you constantly pull. Your posts in this thread show the same pattern I predicted when I first explained why you had no concept of these things.

The fact that a poster has a history of not being able to see the difference between opinion and fact and will try and twist every fact to fit their own views is more than relevant to the thread topic.





As long as it is exclusively about the thread topic it does not matter whether in your OPINION you think its a distortion or not.


Its not my opinion that something is a distortion. A distortion is a distortion. No person without ax to grind would conclude what you conclude from the statistics we have discussed. This is not an opinion here. I was not trying to say you were off topic or out of bounds, just pointing out that your continued distortions make you not worth arguing with.

I wasn't the one who turned someone into the mods over some non existent rule violation.



Again, its ok to comment on the topic, not a good idea to comment about another person. I simply pointed that out. I don't recall making any personal comments about your alleged posting habbits? Why would I? What does that have to do with the topic of the thread?


How is it not a good idea? It lets people know you are not to be taken seriously in anything you post. Its not against the rules to point out someones history. The fact that a poster has a history of not being able to see the difference between opinion and fact and will try and twist every fact to fit their own views is more than relevant to the thread topic.




Who cares as long as the discussion remains on topic and does not turn into this fantasy crap about why someone post something, what their feeling, thinking, all of this is just in your head.


Not in my head, just looking at your habits over time. I never claimed to know why you posted something, or what you are feeling or thinking. Talk about fantasyland!! Do you think I or anyone else here ever has any idea what you are thinking when you say half the things you say??



Well, one could easily make the same comment about your interpretation and representation of the statistics.


No, not at all. I explained myself every single time re: what these statistics show and what can reasonably be concluded from them . You are still stuck on one or two line rehashes of what has already been addressed. You mostly get the statistics wrong, and when you get them right, you conclude unreasonable things without explaining them or taking them in context.

LOL, well that is your opinion. But if you want to discuss myself, why don't you start another thread so others who interested in the TOPIC rather than your ideas about another forum member can continue to focus on that.


No interest in discussing you as a person, just your very relevant posting habits.

Apparently, the idea that someone would defend Bush or the past decade in any way shape or form is a little too much for you to handle.


No, not too much for me to handle at all. I don't care if you defend him. I have numerous friends who are Republicans who truly think his POLICIES were good. I just showed how you can not defend his economic record using the indicators we discussed, as they clearly show weak performance. You don't understand the difference between defending Bush on legitimate policy grounds and attempting to do it by claiming objective statistics say things they clearly do not about the economy in the 00s. I have NEVER seen you defend a Bush policy(legislation, executive order, appointment, his character, his decisions, etc) in any way shape or form. You just misrepresent what actually happened and think you are defending Bush. Then you put words in my mouth by claiming that I think no one should be allowed to defend Bush. Be my guest- tell us how his policies were not responsible for the performance, or how you think he acted in good faith when saying there were WMD. Or how we had to invade even without WMD's Where I get off the boat here is where you try to tell us the weak job growth, drop in income, drop in the stock market, recessions, record deficits and debt and questionable war did not happen. Go ahead and defend him, but you cant take your own set of facts about actual conditions with you.


And I responded showing how much of what you just posted is incorrect!


With the same bullshit you always post, with the same MO of ignoring, misrepresenting and clearly not reading what was posted.

Responding factually to the topic with comments directed only toward the issue being discussed is how the thread should continue.


Not worth it with you. You don't respond factually or in good faith.

But going away from that and into your delusional comments about another forum member is pointless. At a minimum, you should at least start another thread since its obviously a different topic.


Again, your history is quite relevant. We comment on each other all the time here, read some other forums once in a while. The ones that talk about U2!!




I'm sure you are with comments like the following:



Again, an objective person only interested in debating the issue would never make such a comment.


Yes, but an objective person only interested in debating the issue and WHAT THE DATA ACTUALLY SAY BY ANY REASONABLE MEASURE would!

How is this not objective? You expect us to believe your SUBJECTIVE interpretation of OBJECTIVE statistics and you continue to substitute these interpretations for fact, even when they are completely unreasonable when you actually look at what the data say. I want people to debate in good faith, not make baseless conclusions to fit their own pre conceived biases.

I am pointing out to other debaters that you should stop having an expectation that the conversation is over just because you can misrepresent data.

Everyone, this is important here. Strongbow is telling us that no objective person interested in debating the issues WOULD EVER EVEN CONSIDER pointing out that he constantly makes completely unreasonable conclusions and remains in denial even when they are shown to be unreasonable.

Strongbow's definition of objective, get ready here, folks is this: Objectivity is the absence of questioning his SUBJECTIVE interpretations of data.





I've heard that before, so I doubt it.


No, I am truly done now.

Not only do you misrepresent everything, you still do not get the numbers right. I linked a chart on debt % GDP being stable in Clinton's first term, and you still tried to claim otherwise.

You are clearly:
A.)Not capable of looking at data without trying to fit it to your opinion.
B.) A pathological liar, as you still continue to use your own statistics on debt as a percentage of GDP even when I link the official charts.
C.)And most importantly, not worth another second of my time.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 08:00 PM   #107
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 09:38 AM


"I predict another long post by Strongbow"
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 08:15 PM   #108
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
In a debate where you've decided which stats are relevant and which ones aren't, of course you're going to appear correct. But you're simply wrong about which ones are. I've studied (and worked in the field of) statistics for a long time. What you have displayed here is statistical bias. You began searching specifically for statistics that would support the premise that George W. Bush did not negatively impact the economy. Which such a vast array of statistics in an eight year term, it's very easy to find some statistics that make Bush look competent. Aiding you even more is the fact that Bush came into office with the economy in very good shape.

However, it's simply bias and nothing more. There's no point in specifically addressing your cited stats because I'd just be repeating myself. They all contain the same flaw.
Exactly. Not worth it, many have come to this conclusion.

You, as someone who knows statistics, clearly should not waste time debating someone who claims to know and does not.

I hold 2 economics degrees and know he is misrepresenting, I feel no need to keep running around in circles with him about things he has proven he does not understand.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 08:21 PM   #109
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,890
Local Time: 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
I for one appreciate the effort Strongbow puts into his posts
The length of his posts are simply disguises for his lack of point. Every time.

Also, quite a bit of his posting appears to be copy-and-paste work.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2010, 12:34 PM   #110
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
In a debate where you've decided which stats are relevant and which ones aren't, of course you're going to appear correct. But you're simply wrong about which ones are.
Every analysis of any period of time in economic history often involves these economic indicators:

1. Unemployment
2. Inflation
3. GDP Growth
4. Poverty Rate
5. Debt as a percentage of GDP

These are the basic indicators that tell you how a country is doing. Other factors take a back seat to these and are often ranked in importance in terms of their impact on the ones above.

Quote:
What you have displayed here is statistical bias. You began searching specifically for statistics that would support the premise that George W. Bush did not negatively impact the economy. Which such a vast array of statistics in an eight year term, it's very easy to find some statistics that make Bush look competent.
Again, thats not at all what was done here. If your going to look at any period of time and try to determine the performance of the economy and the burden or lack there of for people during that time, those 5 economic indicators are often the most important.

Quote:
However, it's simply bias and nothing more. There's no point in specifically addressing your cited stats because I'd just be repeating myself. They all contain the same flaw.
If there is bias any where its from those who refuse to look at the basic economic statistics for the decade that show that it was NOT the decade from hell. To ignore the basic statistics that are always used to look at any period of time, and use other statistics that are not as central to determining the level of burden or lack there of for people is indeed far more biased than simply using the basic economic indicators that I used.

I've looked at all the data objectively and can acknowledge what was good and what was bad.

Unfortunately in this forum, its a cardinal sin to acknowledge that Bush did anything right, or that things were not as bad while he was in office as so many have claimed.

I've always acknowledged the good and the bad with any Presidential administration.

When was the last time the majority of people in this forum acknowledged something good about the Bush Administration?
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2010, 12:53 PM   #111
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
[/COLOR]

No, I am truly done now.

Not only do you misrepresent everything, you still do not get the numbers right. I linked a chart on debt % GDP being stable in Clinton's first term, and you still tried to claim otherwise.
DEBT AS PERCENTAGE OF GDP UNITED STATES
1992 64.13 BUSH 1 last year
1993 66.26 CLINTON first year
1994 66.35
1995 67.24

My point was that the debt as a percentage of GDP continued to increase during Clintons first term. Your link clearly shows that it did. No misrepresentation here at all, just the facts.


Quote:
You are clearly:
A.)Not capable of looking at data without trying to fit it to your opinion.
B.) A pathological liar, as you still continue to use your own statistics on debt as a percentage of GDP even when I link the official charts.
C.)And most importantly, not worth another second of my time.
Even if there was an ounce of truth to any of that(WHICH THERE IS NOT), what difference does it make? Why not stick to the topic being discussed? Express what you feel and say what you think is correct or not correct on the topic and move on.

Calling someone else a "pathological liar" or any of the other personal claims does not lend any credibility to the arguements your making on the topic.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2010, 01:10 PM   #112
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Exactly. Not worth it, many have come to this conclusion.

You, as someone who knows statistics, clearly should not waste time debating someone who claims to know and does not.

I hold 2 economics degrees and know he is misrepresenting, I feel no need to keep running around in circles with him about things he has proven he does not understand.
Again, is the topic of this thread to discuss what someone knows or does not know about a particular subject matter?

The topic of this thread was the "DECADE FROM HELL". The topic starter also claimed it was the worst decade since the 1930s. I simply pointed out that was not so, and why. I used the basic economic statistics for the decade to make that point. Hard factual statistics. Nothing there is a misrepresentation.

Looking at the following key economic indicators:

1. Unemployment
2. Inflation
3. Poverty Rate
4. GDP Growth
5. Debt as a percentage of GDP

When you compare the total statistics for the 00s with the 1990s, the 00s have been either better in some cases or nearly as good as the 1990s. There is no misrepresentation in that.

Yes, George Bush started off with a good economy in January 2001, but an unemployment rate of 4.8% in February 2008, 7 years later is still fantastic. This is a fact that everyone should acknowledge. But no one here would even bring it up unless I had. Cherry picking numbers from 2000 and 2009 does NOT give an accurate picture of what the entire decade was like. It is a distortion. You can't analyze an entire decade by only looking at numbers from the first month and the last month of the decade!

Finally, my main point was to show that the burden on people during the decade, regardless of your opinion of George Bush and his policies, did not at all rise to being "The Decade From Hell" or the worse decade since the 1930s. The basic economic statistics for the decade show that and using them to show that is clearly not a misrepresentation.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2010, 01:39 PM   #113
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,890
Local Time: 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Every analysis of any period of time in economic history often involves these economic indicators:

1. Unemployment
2. Inflation
3. GDP Growth
4. Poverty Rate
5. Debt as a percentage of GDP

These are the basic indicators that tell you how a country is doing. Other factors take a back seat to these and are often ranked in importance in terms of their impact on the ones above.
Says who? You act like this is common knowledge and that I'm an idiot for questioning it, but I've seen plenty of legitimate statistical analyses that have used other factors and/or don't address or skim over those you've listed. Again, you're trying to cherrypick certain statistics as being the end all-be all of an analysis, when that's just not true.

And, again, each of those statistics can each be looked at in a number of ways: based on average as one, and with start and finishing numbers, both of which tell something important. When the criticism of Bush is how he took a good economy and turned it bad, those start and finish numbers are not only relevant, but telling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Again, thats not at all what was done here. If your going to look at any period of time and try to determine the performance of the economy and the burden or lack there of for people during that time, those 5 economic indicators are often the most important.
But to say that you can ONLY look at average and have to ignore the start and finish is purely out of bias. There's no statistical justification for that, it's just simply so that you can ignore how bad the downward trend of the Bush era was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
If there is bias any where its from those who refuse to look at the basic economic statistics for the decade that show that it was NOT the decade from hell. To ignore the basic statistics that are always used to look at any period of time, and use other statistics that are not as central to determining the level of burden or lack there of for people is indeed far more biased than simply using the basic economic indicators that I used.

I've looked at all the data objectively and can acknowledge what was good and what was bad.
You're looking at those particular statistics with an extremely narrow viewpoint. That's what's biased.

What was good was the start, which isn't credited to him, and the peak of inflation, which was clearly unsustainable (as the end of Bush era clearly showed).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Unfortunately in this forum, its a cardinal sin to acknowledge that Bush did anything right, or that things were not as bad while he was in office as so many have claimed.

I've always acknowledged the good and the bad with any Presidential administration.

When was the last time the majority of people in this forum acknowledged something good about the Bush Administration?
Who cares? We're talking about the economy now, and Bush sucked at dealing with the economy. In a discussion about the economy, why would I acknowledge something Bush did well? He didn't do well with the economy.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2010, 09:16 PM   #114
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
Says who? You act like this is common knowledge and that I'm an idiot for questioning it, but I've seen plenty of legitimate statistical analyses that have used other factors and/or don't address or skim over those you've listed. Again, you're trying to cherrypick certain statistics as being the end all-be all of an analysis, when that's just not true.
1. Unemployment - Any analyses of periods of strong economic growth, recession, or depression usually involve looking at the unemployment rate. During the great depression it reached 25% at the annual rate. The monthly rate got up to 35%. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, you have the creation of the "Misery Index" which combines unemployment and inflation. When people lauded the economy during Clinton's second administration, they pointed to the monthly unemployment rate that got as low as 3.8%. Today when people discuss the current economic troubles, they talk about the unemployment rate being at 10%. Who has a job and who does not is definitely an important economic indicator.

2. Inflation - Out of control inflation can quickly take a bite out of people's standard of living as we saw in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Inflation is the other half of the misery index. Many site high inflation as being part of the reason Carter was defeated in 1980.

3. Poverty Rate - How much of the population is living in poverty is definitely an important economic indicator showing how much of the population is really struggling. It could be because of the loss of a job or that the job one has does not pay well enough to support a family or oneself.

4. GDP Growth - Economist define a recession as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. GDP is the value of all goods and services produced in a given year. When GDP grows sufficiently, it usually has a positive effect on the unemployment rate, Poverty rate, and debt as a percentage of GDP.

5. Debt As A Percentage of GDP - For the United States, the worst shape it was ever in in terms of debt was in 1946 just after World War II when the national debt was 121% of GDP. In 2009, the figure was 90%, but the average for the decade is about the same as that for the 1990s. Its important to compare any debt number to a measure of wealth like GDP, since that reflects the country's ability to deal with the debt.



These are the basic most commonly used economic indicators by economist, politicians, journalist to assess periods of strong economic growth, to define a recession, or a depression. They have been consistently looked at every decade and give an accurate picture of the level prosperity or economic burden being experienced by a country. The focus of each statistic is broad and covers and impacts the entire country.


Quote:
And, again, each of those statistics can each be looked at in a number of ways: based on average as one, and with start and finishing numbers, both of which tell something important. When the criticism of Bush is how he took a good economy and turned it bad, those start and finish numbers are not only relevant, but telling.
When you only look at the first month of an administration or decade and the last month, your missing 99% of the data that tells how that decade or administration went. You miss the fact that the economy was basically in good shape for all of the Bush's 8 years except the last 6 to 8 months he was in office. Again, unemployment was only 4.8% in February 2008, just 11 months before Bush left office. Many presidential administrations have never seen an unemployment rate that low, and its unlikely Obama will see an unemployment rate that low either.

Bush deserves criticism for contributing to the deregulation which helped bring about the financial crises of late 2008 and helped lead to four consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. But that does not change the fact that for most of Bush's 8 years in office, the economy was in excellent shape and the burden on society was relatively low compared with other Presidential administrations and past decades. You can't measure how good or bad this decade was by just looking at the last 18 months of the decade. There are 102 other months in that decade that together or closer to what is really like, than the last 18.

Quote:
But to say that you can ONLY look at average and have to ignore the start and finish is purely out of bias. There's no statistical justification for that, it's just simply so that you can ignore how bad the downward trend of the Bush era was.
The average takes in all the data. Looking at the first month and the last month does not. It also can be used to mis-represent what happened during the decade by claiming that there was some gradual downward trend each and every month that Bush was in office. THAT DEFINITELY WAS NOT THE CASE! When you look at the monthly numbers they spent most of their time going up and down a little throughout the decade. It was only in the last months that Bush was in office that there was suddenly strong upward trend in the numbers. But your not going to see that when you just look at the first month and the last month. Your going to mistakenly assume that there was this consistent gradual downward trend, month after month, year after year, and that was indeed not the case!

Quote:
You're looking at those particular statistics with an extremely narrow viewpoint. That's what's biased.

What was good was the start, which isn't credited to him, and the peak of inflation, which was clearly unsustainable (as the end of Bush era clearly showed).
I'm not the one who is narrow looking at things. When your only looking at the first month or year and the last month or year, that produces both an ignorant and extremely narrow viewpoint.

Things were good at the start of the Bush administration economically, but they were still good in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and even into the first months of 2008. A narrow viewpoint which just looks at how things were in 2000 and 2008 or 2009 does not consider all the years in between. You fail to realize that things were in good shape for most of the Bush years until the last few months.

Quote:
Who cares?
Anyone that values being honest and objective.

Quote:
We're talking about the economy now, and Bush sucked at dealing with the economy.
Thats not what the statistics show.


Quote:
In a discussion about the economy, why would I acknowledge something Bush did well? He didn't do well with the economy.
Well, then your showing your level of bias if you can't acknowledge what Bush did well. The fact is, the Bush years had some of the lowest unemployment, inflation, poverty, rates in this country's history. It had some of the best levels of GDP growth and a similar debt to GDP ratio as the 1990s, despite the number of crises and wars that had to be dealt with.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2010, 11:55 PM   #115
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,890
Local Time: 09:38 AM
I wrote like five replies to this, but I have come to the realization that you're actually just lying. You are lying to all of us in your posts. Simply lying. You're a liar, you're disingenuous, and you're trying to mislead people. It's dirty and it's wrong.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2010, 12:04 AM   #116
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I wrote like five replies to this

You should have gone with one of the other four

or not replied at all.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2010, 07:20 PM   #117
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I wrote like five replies to this, but I have come to the realization that you're actually just lying. You are lying to all of us in your posts. Simply lying. You're a liar, you're disingenuous, and you're trying to mislead people. It's dirty and it's wrong.
WOW, let me know when you return to earth.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2010, 07:52 PM   #118
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,890
Local Time: 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
WOW, let me know when you return to earth.
It's pointless to try and explain that there are as many flaws in average as there are in first and last month statistics, and that the important thing is to look at both of them and not exclude one or the other. Because you'll say one outweighs the other for no reason other than you said so and some other people do too. And there's no citing of this random bullshit you spew, and you know there's not, you just say things are "standard" or everyone uses them and it's just all lies to defend your fucked up view of the world.

If you want to continue discussing, read the first sentence. I doubt you do, though, since you'll run away crying like a baby because someone dared to say something bad about you on the Internet and "there are forum rules!" and other random shit. You're a carousel of bullshit.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2010, 01:35 AM   #119
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
You're a carousel of bullshit.
That's enough, pfan. Might I offer a suggestion:

http://www.u2interference.com/forums...?do=ignorelist
__________________

__________________
Diemen 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best Album of the Decade? Lancemc Lemonade Stand Archive 117 02-02-2007 02:38 AM
what the hell has gone wrong? blueyedpoet Dream Out Loud (and in Colour!) 4 02-25-2005 05:41 PM
I'm going to hell because I like Interference doctorwho Lemonade Stand Archive 53 03-01-2003 03:54 AM
Hell and Back karmariff PLEBA Archive 7 10-22-2002 06:28 PM
Why I Would Follow Bono Into Hell...... U2Soar The Goal Is Soul 10 10-10-2002 03:41 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:38 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