What do natives want?

[Rue]

I believe the point was people who ridicule other peoples' faiths and traditional beliefs believing they are superior should look at the blood on their hands in the name of their God(s) before they ridicule others.

Or as I prefer to say, people who are as a result of brothers sleeping with sisters, really should stop having any more children for awhile.

I ridicule all faiths. I find all are tailor made to control the weak minded, the scared and the ignorant masses.

How much blood has been shed in the name of your god Rueful one?

To answer your question in one word; Endless...although I love your comment "your God". I am a tad modest and don't think I own this God. If you are referring to the fact that my birth religion, Judaism and the Old Testament, when it gets right down to it, are a series of stories of killings and rampages and the God depicted in the Old Testament is angry and vengeful-yer point is well taken. Judaism like Christianity and Islam and many other organized religions has a lot of violence in it in the name of God.If yer point is I sound like a sanctimonious self-righteous twat, you would of course be right. But I am talking from my heart. I do not think I am better then anyone I am debating... I simply do not like discussions on property rights descending into attacks on aboriginals as people and against their faith. I would also suggets rather then trying to say its acceptable to be ignorant as long as we are ignorant to everyone equally, we try find a less confrontative way to acknowledge our differences and focus more time on emphasizing what we do agree on and have in common.

[yam]

I suppose so. As long as our differences can honestly be spoken about and not held against us which hinders advanced motion. Afterall, major differences have been colonially imposed. Previous to divide and conquer difference was accepted as simply difference. . . .under creation from all corners as it were!

[Who's Doing What?]

Does not the Native claim to the lands stem from originally being given them by the Great Creator?

Are not all the lands sacred for this reason?

How well would you get along with me, if my family was laying claim to Toronto because "Jesus gave it to us, and told us it was ours"?

How can any meaningful discussion occur when one party feels it is divinely entitled to what is under dispute?

[yam]

No.

[Rue]

Does not the Native claim to the lands stem from originally being given them by the Great Creator?

Are not all the lands sacred for this reason?

How well would you get along with me, if my family was laying claim to Toronto because "Jesus gave it to us, and told us it was ours"?

How can any meaningful discussion occur when one party feels it is divinely entitled to what is under dispute?

Well when you put it as honestly and to the point as that, then for me, I personally feel, that since native peoples have their genuine beliefs as do you and they may conflict, it is up to me who respects both your faiths and beliefs equally and I mean that genuinely from my heart-then it us up to me to try help both sides find a way to peacefully co-exist. It is precisely because you are both idealistic and faith driven and mean no harm in your beliefs, but they are colliding, that someone like myself who is genuinely thankful to both your cultures for letting me live here, to try find a way.

For me as a Jew, I am the first generation in my family to live without persecution. How can I not be grateful to the British parliamentary system and laws that have allowed me to live in freedom? At the same time how can I not be respectful and grateful to the native peoples who lived here before me and have never insulted me and simply asked I respect them?

So I know I sound like I am a self-righteous bleeding heart but I am serious. I can see a solution coming from using both aboriginal concepts of fairness and Christian concepts of love and tolerance.

For that matter, I could not for myself, possibly simply accept Judaism verbatum. I could not imagine mixing it with concepts from Christianity, aboriginal beliefs and many other belief systems.

Ironically these same 6 nations that gave birth to warriors also have given birth to some incredible

peace-makers if you read the stories of how shaymen and elders resolved conflicts-just like we know not all the British were warriors and there were people in Britain who used reason not just war to improve the quality of life.

There was a time when the King of England (John) genuinely respected the native peoples and attempted to show that respect in the Magna Carta act. The current Queen as much as she represents a screwed up family and perhaps some very antiquated beliefs, genuinely has shown she has read and respects aboriginal traditions. It is not an accident that so many people of so many different faiths dialogue and learn from shaymen. On a spiritual level, aboriginal faith healers have helped many other faiths deal with conflict.

Aboriginal legal concepts are now used by most mediators in family law only sometimes we don't know where we actually got the concept from until we learn where it really came from.

So like I said, so say you have 2 equal and competing rights to one piece of land. What would you do if two people want the same child? Do you saw the child in half? Of course not. We find away so that both parties can have custody of the child equally.

Its no more complex then that legally. We simply have to defuse the emotions and focus on a formula that compensates people fairly.

So if you want to live on a pacel of land that was 500 years ago someone else's and illegally confiscated long before your time, I would expect the government not you personally, to compensate the native peoples properly for the unresolved legal conflict and yes indirectly you may end up paying some extra taxes but in the long run that would still be cheaper for all of us then costly protracted litigation suits and people bashing each others heads in.

All kidding aside, yes there is ignorance and intolerance on both sides but there are also very good people on both sides.

Look I know some people genuinely believe what I am saying is just not realistic. I don't expect them to feel any other way given what they have experienced. But it doesn't mean I with the tools of knowledge of law and civility can afford to walk away. I respect both sides too much to do that.

[Who's Doing What?]

Without sounding rude, the King and Queen of England never had to think about getting kicked out of their home, over a land claim and can afford to be as understanding and compliant as they want.

I would not vote for a govt that said it was going to "buy off" the natives by raising my taxes. Would you?

I was only using Jesus as an example. I don't follow a faith and I make no bones about it. Look at what religion has done to the world. For every educated, saved pagan there is a hundred dead, in the name of that same god. As a jewish person you probably know better than most what religion can bring. As it was the sole criteria needed to be considered beneath worthless and systematically destroyed by the Nazi's. Not the first time that particular religion was persecuted. Plus there is the slaughter of potentially more Jews than were in the Holocaust, under Stalin in Russia. Why? Because of what they believed.

The king solomon reference is an accurate one but you are looking at it the wrong way. When there is so much empty land in this country why are native insistant on populated areas?

Want 5000 sq km? Sure, anywhere where the population density is less than a reasonable number, say 20 people per sq km. Hunt, fish, be merry. Have sunrise ceremonies, and pow wow's, and feasts and sweats and fasts, go nuts. You want to preserve your way of life. Close to nature. Living off the land. So why would you even want land in or near a city?

Why the densly populated land?

With so much other land available, why insist on what it already being used to such an extent?

Why?

Ancestral land? I've heard that. I've also seen plenty of Natives quite happy on non-ancestral land. Isn't the claim it is all ancestral land anyway, and that is why it is owed to them?

Then there is the method. Using tactics that are only a technicality and an expolosive device away from terrorism, doesn't make many friends. You want to make people support the cause and get the govt in gear?

Quit selling smokes and other crap to the non-natives. Call them "economic sanctions".

Natives seem to insist they are their own nation anyway. This is how nations deal with each other. Much better than inciting entire communities into riots.

My friend and I, are thinking of claiming some land out between his and my parents land. How long do you figure our roadblock will last?

[speaker]

As a white middle aged bald guy, I would like to ask you this question. Why do you think that the heavily populated areas are the heavily populated areas?

What I can't figure out is why so many people of all breeds want to live in these big reserves.

[g_bambino]

The current Queen as much as she represents a screwed up family and perhaps some very antiquated beliefs, genuinely has shown she has read and respects aboriginal traditions.

Well, Canada is a pretty screwed up family - but then, isn't it great we have such a steadfast woman to represent us?

I take exception though to the comment regarding "antiquated beliefs" - though this certainly isn't the first time I've heard this, it reveals somewhat of a double standard in this instance: why is it that centuries old Native traditions (many of which include hereditary leadership) are accepted, even revered, yet centuries old European and Canadian traditions are antiquated, and, by extension, irrelevant?

There is indeed a long relationship between the Crown and the First Nations - one which, perhaps, has been undermined by the politicians who sit between them. That doesn't, however, alter historical and legal reality, nor give anyone the excuse to behave as some Natives have.

Without sounding rude, the King and Queen of England never had to think about getting kicked out of their home, over a land claim and can afford to be as understanding and compliant as they want.

I think the Kings and Queens of England have often, throughout history, had to worry about getting kicked out of their home. England was under threat of invasion numerous time by Spain and France, James VII/II was booted out in favour of William of Orange. Even the Queen of Australia, ol' Lizzie, came close to losing her Australian territories in 1999.

My friend and I, are thinking of claiming some land out between his and my parents land. How long do you figure our roadblock will last?

That's a very interesting question that has been asked a number of times, but any answers have been tellingly absent.

[Who's Doing What?]

I think the Kings and Queens of England have often, throughout history, had to worry about getting kicked out of their home. England was under threat of invasion numerous time by Spain and France, James VII/II was booted out in favour of William of Orange. Even the Queen of Australia, ol' Lizzie, came close to losing her Australian territories in 1999.

We're talking about a different country. Not England. You do understand the difference between reading a post and comprehending what the post was about. Oops apparently not.

[g_bambino]

I think the Kings and Queens of England have often, throughout history, had to worry about getting kicked out of their home. England was under threat of invasion numerous time by Spain and France, James VII/II was booted out in favour of William of Orange. Even the Queen of Australia, ol' Lizzie, came close to losing her Australian territories in 1999.

We're talking about a different country. Not England. You do understand the difference between reading a post and comprehending what the post was about. Oops apparently not.

You're the one who brought up Kings and Queens of England being safe in their homes, my friend.

I'll admit, though, that I did make a mistake: I thought I was dealing with someone who had at least a modicum of decency.

Oops, apparently not.

[Rue]

The current Queen as much as she represents a screwed up family and perhaps some very antiquated beliefs, genuinely has shown she has read and respects aboriginal traditions.

Well, Canada is a pretty screwed up family - but then, isn't it great we have such a steadfast woman to represent us?

I take exception though to the comment regarding "antiquated beliefs" - though this certainly isn't the first time I've heard this, it reveals somewhat of a double standard in this instance: why is it that centuries old Native traditions (many of which include hereditary leadership) are accepted, even revered, yet centuries old European and Canadian traditions are antiquated, and, by extension, irrelevant?

There is indeed a long relationship between the Crown and the First Nations - one which, perhaps, has been undermined by the politicians who sit between them. That doesn't, however, alter historical and legal reality, nor give anyone the excuse to behave as some Natives have.

Without sounding rude, the King and Queen of England never had to think about getting kicked out of their home, over a land claim and can afford to be as understanding and compliant as they want.

I think the Kings and Queens of England have often, throughout history, had to worry about getting kicked out of their home. England was under threat of invasion numerous time by Spain and France, James VII/II was booted out in favour of William of Orange. Even the Queen of Australia, ol' Lizzie, came close to losing her Australian territories in 1999.

My friend and I, are thinking of claiming some land out between his and my parents land. How long do you figure our roadblock will last?

That's a very interesting question that has been asked a number of times, but any answers have been tellingly absent.

Your pt. as to my use of the word antiquated is well taken. I only meant by that, that some people consider the idea of monarchy as meaningless as aboriginal beliefs. I should have been more clear.

[Who's Doing What?]

I think the Kings and Queens of England have often, throughout history, had to worry about getting kicked out of their home. England was under threat of invasion numerous time by Spain and France, James VII/II was booted out in favour of William of Orange. Even the Queen of Australia, ol' Lizzie, came close to losing her Australian territories in 1999.

We're talking about a different country. Not England. You do understand the difference between reading a post and comprehending what the post was about. Oops apparently not.

You're the one who brought up Kings and Queens of England being safe in their homes, my friend.

I'll admit, though, that I did make a mistake: I thought I was dealing with someone who had at least a modicum of decency.

Oops, apparently not.

Just how dense are you?

The King and Queen of England live where?

I'll give you three guesses and a clue.

Here's the clue:

It sure as hell isn't anywhere near a native land claim being made in Canada.

You thought I had decency?

LMAO

Try not taking my posts out of context, and I might surprise you yet.

[Rue]

Without sounding rude, the King and Queen of England never had to think about getting kicked out of their home, over a land claim and can afford to be as understanding and compliant as they want.

I would not vote for a govt that said it was going to "buy off" the natives by raising my taxes. Would you?

I was only using Jesus as an example. I don't follow a faith and I make no bones about it. Look at what religion has done to the world. For every educated, saved pagan there is a hundred dead, in the name of that same god. As a jewish person you probably know better than most what religion can bring. As it was the sole criteria needed to be considered beneath worthless and systematically destroyed by the Nazi's. Not the first time that particular religion was persecuted. Plus there is the slaughter of potentially more Jews than were in the Holocaust, under Stalin in Russia. Why? Because of what they believed.

The king solomon reference is an accurate one but you are looking at it the wrong way. When there is so much empty land in this country why are native insistant on populated areas?

Want 5000 sq km? Sure, anywhere where the population density is less than a reasonable number, say 20 people per sq km. Hunt, fish, be merry. Have sunrise ceremonies, and pow wow's, and feasts and sweats and fasts, go nuts. You want to preserve your way of life. Close to nature. Living off the land. So why would you even want land in or near a city?

Why the densly populated land?

With so much other land available, why insist on what it already being used to such an extent?

Why?

Ancestral land? I've heard that. I've also seen plenty of Natives quite happy on non-ancestral land. Isn't the claim it is all ancestral land anyway, and that is why it is owed to them?

Then there is the method. Using tactics that are only a technicality and an expolosive device away from terrorism, doesn't make many friends. You want to make people support the cause and get the govt in gear?

Quit selling smokes and other crap to the non-natives. Call them "economic sanctions".

Natives seem to insist they are their own nation anyway. This is how nations deal with each other. Much better than inciting entire communities into riots.

My friend and I, are thinking of claiming some land out between his and my parents land. How long do you figure our roadblock will last?

I think a lot of your questions have in fact been asked and answered by others in non violent dialogue. I say that because I have been at some of these inter-faith and inter-cultural meetings and I have seen people similiar to you with similiar land disputes ask aboriginals such questions.

You know your question reminds me of Winston Churchill asking Jews after he offered them Uganda to settle in why they were insisting on Palestine and why wouldn't they want to live in Uganda which had much nicer land to grow things on!

Most of the world thinks Jews are insane because they insist on living in Israel a piece of dirt. Why? Because of a spiritual connection. Why do aboriginals insist on certain land when there is so much-its not the land, it is the spiritual connection and tradition associated with it.

It is not a fixation for a piece of land or intransigence, it simply a desire to follow a tradition.

Now as I said if that tradition is attached to an area that now in modern times you purchased and live on two worlds collide and it is possible to find a compromise.

Now you say you wouldn't vote for a government that would raise taxes to compensate aboriginals. I also am willing to wager, if I showed you it was cheaper to compensate aboriginals through a slight increase in taxes rather then engage in costly litigation which would cost even more and cause even higher tax increases, you might be willing to concede you would be willing to vote for a government that would save you taxes in the long run.

What I am telling you, is through no fault of yours or the aboriginal peoples, your legal interests have collided. What I am telling you is that probably in a court of law, and when I say probably I really mean to say with great certainty, aboriginals have legal rights that will supercede yours and you will find yourself

at the losing end of costly litigation. What I am saying is you should not have to defend yourself, go to court or fight for where you live. What I am saying is the legal system has to find a way to cushion you from any financial hardship if you had to move or if the aboriginals agreed on it, compensation for them in lieu of you moving.

It is also possible that on certain parcels of land there can be cohabitation and co-exploitation. A classic example is a provincial or federal park or an exploration site where aboriginals are compensated with a percentage of the profit from the resource taken from the land.

Now take fishing and hunting for example. I myself have no sympathy for recreational hunters who kill simply for the sport of killing. I put them in one category and say, their right to hunt as a sport, is secondary to any native hunting grounds.

I then say, native hunters, like rural non native hunters who hunt out of necessity unlike sport hunters have the same needs and concerns. They need the land to provide them sustenance but it can not, if a balance is not honoured as to how much can be killed and when and where.

I have travelled in the North and I do not see real hunters unable to find a way to co-exist and honour each other. Where the problem occurs, is when sports hunters come up and ignore the rules of nature and make a mess. Where the problem occurs is when commercial fishers ignore the rules of nature and scrape the bottom of the ocean and destroy the eco-system making it impossible for fish to repopulate and continue feeding both natives and non natives.

Commercial fishers are their own worst enemy for having failed to honour basic rules of conservation. Their greed has destroyed fishing grounds and blaming natives for trying to stop this and protect what little was left for themselves is unfair.

I again blame the federal government and politicians not your average single, commercial fisher on a small boat and family operation. I blame the federal government for cow-towing to large corporations and doing nothing to stop the Japanese, Portugese, Spanish and American commercial fishers until it was too late.

I feel equally as sorry say for Newfoundland fishers who now can never fish again as much as I do for say natives like the Mic Mac whose waters have been either poisoned or depleted by too much commercial fishing.

You know we can say the aboriginals were expecting unfair rights, but had we honoured their rights, we would have been able to at the same time conserve natural resources and instead of leaving natives unemployed and broke, enabled them to sell their excess fish at fair prices and become self-sufficient.

You know its one thing to criticize natives for selling cigarettes or setting up casinoes, but this is directly as a result of our idiotic federal government's Ministry of Native Affairs that has insisted on treating natives like children and refuse to allow them to participate in the economy.

You really think natives would be selling cigarettes if they were fairly treated and allowed to benefit from the land as we have allowed our large mega-corporations.

I mean here we are questioning why aboriginals sell smokes but does anyone question how the federal government allowed the Republic of China to purchase our largest mining operation and now control most of our natural resources?

We had no problem selling our resources to China and a pittance of what it is worth but we question natives for selling smokes?

Sorry but the same short-sighted idiots now selling our natural resources away to China are the same politicians following a tradition of ignoring not just native rights to the resources, but the best interests of all Canadians native or not in the future.

As for your comments, I respect them and have tried my best to offer some responses to your debate out of respect. I don't expect you to agree with what I said but at least you know I know it is not as easy as just telling you to pay some more taxes. On that point, you know I am listening.

[g_bambino]

Just how dense are you?

The King and Queen of England live where?

I'll give you three guesses and a clue.

Here's the clue:

It sure as hell isn't anywhere near a native land claim being made in Canada.

You thought I had decency?

LMAO

Try not taking my posts out of context, and I might surprise you yet.

Apparently not too dense. First off, I know well enough that the King and Queen of England live nowhere - they're all dead (there hasn't been one since the Act of Union in 1707).

Secondly, they may not have lived near the lands in North America that were under the Royal Proclamation or other treaties signed with the Crown, but that doesn't negate the point that you clearly stated "the King and Queen of England never had to think about getting kicked out of their home, over a land claim." I raised the contrary point that there have indeed been "land claims" (by Spain, France, and the Netherlands) which threatened the "home" of the English Monarch. It may be slightly tangential to the conversation, but, context or not, you made an incorrect statement, and, in neither a rude or provocative manner, I pointed it out as such. Even if it did stray slightly from the point, why does it put such a bee in your bonnet?

Yes, I thought you might have some decency. Your snide attitude, thrown at others for no good reason what-so-ever, demonstrates that you clearly have none. Best of luck in your future endeavours - with a "fuck you" personality like yours, I'm sure you'll need it.

[Who's Doing What?]

Just how dense are you?

The King and Queen of England live where?

I'll give you three guesses and a clue.

Here's the clue:

It sure as hell isn't anywhere near a native land claim being made in Canada.

You thought I had decency?

LMAO

Try not taking my posts out of context, and I might surprise you yet.

Apparently not too dense. First off, I know well enough that the King and Queen of England live nowhere - they're all dead (there hasn't been one since the Act of Union in 1707).

Secondly, they may not have lived near the lands in North America that were under the Royal Proclamation or other treaties signed with the Crown, but that doesn't negate the point that you clearly stated "the King and Queen of England never had to think about getting kicked out of their home, over a land claim." I raised the contrary point that there have indeed been "land claims" (by Spain, France, and the Netherlands) which threatened the "home" of the English Monarch. It may be slightly tangential to the conversation, but, context or not, you made an incorrect statement, and, in neither a rude or provocative manner, I pointed it out as such. Even if it did stray slightly from the point, why does it put such a bee in your bonnet?

Yes, I thought you might have some decency. Your snide attitude, thrown at others for no good reason what-so-ever, demonstrates that you clearly have none. Best of luck in your future endeavours - with a "fuck you" personality like yours, I'm sure you'll need it.

Notice the term land claim. As in Native land claim. If you want to backtrack and try to BS your way out of being wrong go ahead, it was good for a laugh. If you couldn't follow along that we were talking about native land claims and not European history, well, that says more about you than I could without being censored.

Seeing as how you need to go back and re-read this thread so you can follow along I'll ignore your little lesson on the Royals.

Do you really expect me to care whether or not I fit your idea of decency?

If I have none, which you state I do not, why would I care what you think?

Perhaps you should be thankful I have taken the time out of my day to respond to you?

with a "fuck you" personality like yours

Well I guess I don't have to say anything do I?

[Who's Doing What?]

The answer to the questions is one thing. MONEY.

Densely populated land is far more valuable than unpopulated land.

You heard the Natives on here talking about Trillions of dollars.

Screw tradition.

Look at the trouble caused by forcing Isreal to be created in the middle east. Non-stop violence. Not exactly a good example to be bringing up in regards to land claims. But again you are assuming your faith matters to me. I think we should all be equal. So for you to say you are entitled to certain land because of your faith, is meaningless to me. Why should race or religion make one person better or more deserving than the next.

Legal Interests:

Assume almost every Canadian knew they would have to pay the Natives trillion upon trillions of dollars, and possibly be evicted from their homes if everything the natives want was given to them.

How long do you think it would be before one of the political parties jumped on the bandwagon and promised to change the legislation so that 300 yr old treaties are worth only their historical value and not legally binding?

I think natives or anyone for that matter would be selling ciggarettes if they could make a decent dollar off it.

Same for fishing and hunting. If there is money to be made, the animal will be harvested. Doesn't matter if it is native, white, oriental, african american or any other type of human. Someone will do it for the money.

[yam]

Just how dense are you?

The King and Queen of England live where?

I'll give you three guesses and a clue.

Here's the clue:

It sure as hell isn't anywhere near a native land claim being made in Canada.

You thought I had decency?

LMAO

Try not taking my posts out of context, and I might surprise you yet.

Apparently not too dense. First off, I know well enough that the King and Queen of England live nowhere - they're all dead (there hasn't been one since the Act of Union in 1707).

Secondly, they may not have lived near the lands in North America that were under the Royal Proclamation or other treaties signed with the Crown, but that doesn't negate the point that you clearly stated "the King and Queen of England never had to think about getting kicked out of their home, over a land claim." I raised the contrary point that there have indeed been "land claims" (by Spain, France, and the Netherlands) which threatened the "home" of the English Monarch. It may be slightly tangential to the conversation, but, context or not, you made an incorrect statement, and, in neither a rude or provocative manner, I pointed it out as such. Even if it did stray slightly from the point, why does it put such a bee in your bonnet?

Yes, I thought you might have some decency. Your snide attitude, thrown at others for no good reason what-so-ever, demonstrates that you clearly have none. Best of luck in your future endeavours - with a "fuck you" personality like yours, I'm sure you'll need it.

Notice the term land claim. As in Native land claim. If you want to backtrack and try to BS your way out of being wrong go ahead, it was good for a laugh. If you couldn't follow along that we were talking about native land claims and not European history, well, that says more about you than I could without being censored.

Seeing as how you need to go back and re-read this thread so you can follow along I'll ignore your little lesson on the Royals.

Do you really expect me to care whether or not I fit your idea of decency?

If I have none, which you state I do not, why would I care what you think?

Perhaps you should be thankful I have taken the time out of my day to respond to you?

with a "fuck you" personality like yours

Well I guess I don't have to say anything do I?

Oh ok personal opinions again. Whatever does it take to debate around here? Still im not complaining since i too am partial to personal opinions:

You really are a sanctimonious piece of shite. Its laughable when hicks like you and that other idiot box Agus come crueling out of the gutter and endeavour to be "political". Your 'false class consciousness' is a thriving mass of yellow puss desperately trying to find a pore to escape from. But you wont let it since you enjoy suckling off of it too much and find it kinda tasty. Others dont however. What bothers you is that your only a couple of pay cheques away from having to return to the gutter that you came from and not only having to suckle from your wounds but also the government's welfare cheque. Alas!!! Perhaps then and only then will you ever learn to THINK. Dont forget to say hi to your buddies in the dive - you might need them, thats if they dont crush you first.

You bought up Royalty.

You cannot follow any argument or debate whatsoever since you get indignent when the maple leaf in you suffers exposure from others. Trouble is buddy you can never reddress can you. You and the idiot box stand naked, shrunken and shrivelled everytime you open your mouth.

It an ugly truth but the truth it is. And i'm all for truth

[Chuck U. Farlie]

How is it that Yam does not get banned for trolling after messages like this? Where are you moderator, are you blind?

[yam]

There are many, many posts that contain pig ignorant opinions that are not only offensive but highly aggressive. Rue was blatently attacked by who's doing what. Rue never ever attacks anybody. Rather, is the complete opposite. I wont have it. I wont have it from you, Who's doing what or the idiot box `Argus. Dont forget your apalling ignorance is sprayed up every single post and subject matter there is here. In fact you and your crew probably repel many a thinking and critical person. This forum could be more. But it is ruled by a handful of yobo's. Dont play the innocent and go screaming to mama moderator to tell tales like a baby. You insult anybody descent here - anybody that does not agree with you and your gang.

[Who's Doing What?]

You really are a sanctimonious piece of shite. Its laughable when hicks like you and that other idiot box Agus come crueling out of the gutter and endeavour to be "political". Your 'false class consciousness' is a thriving mass of yellow puss desperately trying to find a pore to escape from. But you wont let it since you enjoy suckling off of it too much and find it kinda tasty. Others dont however. What bothers you is that your only a couple of pay cheques away from having to return to the gutter that you came from and not only having to suckle from your wounds but also the government's welfare cheque. Alas!!! Perhaps then and only then will you ever learn to THINK. Dont forget to say hi to your buddies in the dive - you might need them, thats if they dont crush you first.

You bought up Royalty.

I didnot bring up royalty.

Go check post #180 and then read what Bambi thinks of my personality again.

You are just another one who can't seem to follow along.

No appology needed. Just go away.

[Who's Doing What?]

There are many, many posts that contain pig ignorant opinions that are not only offensive but highly aggressive. Rue was blatently attacked by who's doing what. Rue never ever attacks anybody. Rather, is the complete opposite. I wont have it. I wont have it from you, Who's doing what or the idiot box `Argus. Dont forget your apalling ignorance is sprayed up every single post and subject matter there is here. In fact you and your crew probably repel many a thinking and critical person. This forum could be more. But it is ruled by a handful of yobo's. Dont play the innocent and go screaming to mama moderator to tell tales like a baby. You insult anybody descent here - anybody that does not agree with you and your gang.

Oh and BTW that was Bambino not Rue, that in the post you quoted, when you freaked out. You mught want to get some glasses.

[yam]

There are many, many posts that contain pig ignorant opinions that are not only offensive but highly aggressive. Rue was blatently attacked by who's doing what. Rue never ever attacks anybody. Rather, is the complete opposite. I wont have it. I wont have it from you, Who's doing what or the idiot box `Argus. Dont forget your apalling ignorance is sprayed up every single post and subject matter there is here. In fact you and your crew probably repel many a thinking and critical person. This forum could be more. But it is ruled by a handful of yobo's. Dont play the innocent and go screaming to mama moderator to tell tales like a baby. You insult anybody descent here - anybody that does not agree with you and your gang.

Oh and BTW that was Bambino not Rue, that in the post you quoted, when you freaked out. You mught want to get some glasses.

oh yes I "MUGHT" do that!

[Who's Doing What?]

There are many, many posts that contain pig ignorant opinions that are not only offensive but highly aggressive. Rue was blatently attacked by who's doing what. Rue never ever attacks anybody. Rather, is the complete opposite. I wont have it. I wont have it from you, Who's doing what or the idiot box `Argus. Dont forget your apalling ignorance is sprayed up every single post and subject matter there is here. In fact you and your crew probably repel many a thinking and critical person. This forum could be more. But it is ruled by a handful of yobo's. Dont play the innocent and go screaming to mama moderator to tell tales like a baby. You insult anybody descent here - anybody that does not agree with you and your gang.

Oh and BTW that was Bambino not Rue, that in the post you quoted, when you freaked out. You mught want to get some glasses.

oh yes I "MUGHT" do that!

Ah, the old "Let's focus on a typo, because we just made an ass out of ourselves, with false accusations and a complete lack of any understanding of whats going on," diversion.

Sorry Yam you are the weakest link, good bye.

[yam]

Says who?

Anybody noteworthy?

Hardly and good riddons

[Who's Doing What?]

Says who?

Anybody noteworthy?

Hardly and good riddons

Your own errors speak louder than anything someone else could say about you.