Say Anything Blog

[...] Never mind. [...]

District 47 in the ND Legislature is represented by Rep. George Keiser, Rep Larry Klemin and Sen. Ralph Kilzer.  The Bismarck Democrats referring to them as “the KKK” is so pathetic, it is an insult to blogging.  The fact that that post was the administrator is mind boggling.

What a terrible way to start off your blog, with hate filled invective.  I don’t know if he was trying to be funny or what.  Sheesh!!!!  Disgusting.

Rob, is that the same Ryan G. that leaves leftist comments on some of your blog items?

Rob, is that the same Ryan G. that leaves leftist comments on some of your blog items?

Yes.

Well, look at the good side.  Maybe Ryan will be too busy generating hate and liberalist propaganda on his site to leave his innuendo comments at this site.

Doc, Likwid already answered you, but yeah.  It is.  I’ve made an effor to reach out a hand to him.  I read his blog.  Link to his posts.  Mentioned his blog when Mr. Gilbyguy had me on his show.  I did all that because he is a fellow ND blogger, and liberal or not there just aren’t many of us.  But he doesn’t even put a link to me on his blog.  Not that it really matters, he’s just really immature.

And the KKK thing ticks me off.  Like I said in the post, ND politics are typically above that sort of thing.  I’m not going to endorse anyone trying to drag our state’s politics down to the level national politics have sunk to.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob:

he’s just really immature.

docdave:

Maybe Ryan will be too busy generating hate and liberalist propaganda on his site to leave his innuendo comments at this site.

That would be unfortunate.  He is such an easy, soft target.  As Rob points out, he is one of the RNCs best spokespersons.

Personally, it smells of a Karl Rove plot to me.

That guy is pretty disgusting. I especially liked his post about the Dem’s vision for America. Heh. But he does seem to be a little out of character for someone from ND, based onteh good people on both sides of the political fence I’ve met from up there. But what do I know? I’m from Texas. You know, the state that keeps sending Eddie Bernice Johnson back to Congress every 2 years…

I’m sometimes amazed that so many on the left haven’t dropped dead from all the hatred, venom and bile that seems to be swirling around in their system.

I haven’t read that post on the website, but once I do, I’ll get back to you.

Don’t bother, he closed the forum to public access and deleted the post.  I had a screenshot last night, then like a dope went and deleted it.

Lesson learned for Mr. Nodland, I hope.  That sort of thing doesn’t belong in ND politics.  At least it’s clear that he’s ashamed of it.  Or, at least, doesn’t want people to know his true feelings.

And the link thing doesn’t really bother me, I just bring it up to show my willingness to reach across partisan divide for debate.  You, unfortunately, would rather be a lockstep idealogue totally closed off to ideas different from your own.  You think politics is a football match where the goal is to just “beat the other side.” Really, the goal is to make the country a better place.

It doesn’t really matter, I was just making a point: There’s a difference between you and I, and that’s it.

As for calling you a stupid kid, that’s a term I reserve for people who accuse our troops of war crimes based on thin evidence and then refuse to recant when that evidence has been thoroughly debunked.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Ah, I see you’re right.  The domain is registered to Mr. Chad Nodland of Bismarck.  I’ll update the post.

Still, it’s not something I’d put past you yourself, and the fact that you have no problems with the KKK statement speaks volumes.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

And Jesus, Rob, I’m immature?

But he doesn’t even put a link to me on his blog. Not that it really matters, he’s just really immature.

You just commented on my blog, calling me a “kid” and that I was “stupid” - go look for yourself in case you can’t remember.  Yet I’m immature because I don’t link to you?  Gimme a break.  You could be calling me names for such better reasons!

Not that it really matters, because I don’t much care who reads my site or “endorses” me.

I don’t know why the link thing is bugging you so much.  Really… you need to quit with the ego thing.  It’s distracting.

Still, it’s not something I’d put past you yourself, and the fact that you have no problems with the KKK statement speaks volumes.

Can you point out anything, anywhere, where I’ve said anything, good or bad, about the KKK thing?  I haven’t read that post on the website, but once I do, I’ll get back to you.

Until you do, don’t put words in my mouth - that’s really rude.

Rob, I hate to break it to you, but if you want to make claims about me, you should ask first.  I post at BismarckDems, but I am not an administrator.  I haven’t built the site or added anything to it except, so far, three posts.

Thanks for the free publicity, though.

PS: The link in your post is broken.

Thin evidence?  Rob, the Department of Defense said they used it.

Pentagon and military officials told CNN that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a smoke screen to hide advancing U.S. troops as well as to target insurgents in trenches and “spider holes.”

But ignore that and keep calling me names (real sign of maturity and respect).  Tell me you’ve refuted all this without explaining how you refuted it.

RE: t3h linkage.

I explained on my blog why I didn’t link to you.  You could at least do me the courtesy of explaining my reasoning to your readers when discussing what a blockhead I am instead of just throwing out these passive-aggressive insults of yours.

What’s the logical disconnect here?  Whenever I comment here, I am routinely insulted for holding a different view of the issues and defending that view.  When I post on my own blog, you come over and insult me for the views I express.

Everyone is welcome to express their views?  That you welcome differing opinions?  You’re willing to reach across the partisan divide… but you call me a stupid kid for posting about what the Pentagon has said?

You’re killing me here, seriously…

Well, nobody is going to convince you of something you don’t want to believe with logic or reason I guess.  Not as long as you can use Google to cherry-pick some obscure passage and hold it up to prove your point.  I mean, forget that the very first line of what you quote proves that phosphorous is not illegal for the U.S. to use.

But whatever.  Smarter people than I have already knocked you around on this one, and you know it.

And don’t tell me I don’t show you respect.  Since you’ve started commenting here you’ve been nothing but caustic and sarcastic.  Despite that I’ve gone out of my way to link you and mention your blog...yet one time I tell you that you’re being stupid on a specific issue and I’m not showing you respect?

This is a waste of my time.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I said that you were being stupid. Once.

If you want to keep this blogging thing up you’re going to have to grow some thicker skin.

It’s about respect, Rob.  I don’t outright call you stupid.  Some of the arguments I’ve seen you use are certainly not very well thought out, but I don’t think you’re dumb personally.

You don’t show me respect.  I show you respect.  Then you complain about me not showing you respect.  What gives?

Well, you are tacitly supporting it by refusing to condemn the statement. But that’s not really fair as I hadn’t asked you to condemn it before. So here’s a deal: You condemn comparing Republicans to the KKK and I’ll apologize for putting words in your mouth.

Rob, because of your silence on puppy-killing, you are tacitly supporting it.  Why do you hate puppies?

Sheesh.

I don’t think anybody should be out comparing Republicans to the KKK - but again, I haven’t read the offending statement in question, so it’s hard for me to say anything more than a generality.

It’s about respect, Rob - you haven’t shown me any.

RE: White Phosphorous

The link you gave me linked to someone else who linked to someone else who had something other than links, finally.

Bruce Rolston - not Juan Cole - said this:

On the anti- side, of course, you have accusations that WP is a “chemical” weapon or an “illegal” one. It’s not.* WP was heavily used in the Second World War by the Allies, including Canada, against both Germany and Japan**, for exactly the same reasons and missions it’s being used now. But yes, a WP artillery shell is a bad thing to have land near you… not nearly as bad as a regular high-explosive artillery shell of the same size, but certainly the next worst thing.

Since that’s the best I could find from your link, I’m assuming that’s why you don’t believe it’s an issue - WP is not a chemical weapon in your eyes, and not illegal.

I disagree with Bruce, and therefore you, because WP may well be illegal:

Wikipedia: Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty to which the US is a signatory.

However, there is a debate on whether white phosphorus is a chemical weapon and thus outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The spokesman for that organization, Peter Kaiser, stated that white phosphorus was not against the convention if it was used as an obscurant, but ”If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.”

That’s the crux of the argument and what I’ve been saying all along.  You’ve ignored my comments about WP being legal as a smokescreen/battlefield illumination device, but likely being illegal when used as a weapon directly against humans (as the Pentagon has said).

PS: This still really bothers me, Rob.

Still, it’s not something I’d put past you yourself, and the fact that you have no problems with the KKK statement speaks volumes.

Very insulting, very rude, as I pointed out above.  I know this is SayAnything, but is it too much to ask for you to not put words in my mouth and insult me offhand?

keep calling me names

I said, on your blog, that you were being stupid.  That hardly seems like “calling names” to me.

Tell me you’ve refuted all this without explaining how you refuted it.

I didn’t refute it, those more learned on this issue have.  Carrick provided you with links to John Cole’s writing on this, but here’s another link for you.

Not that you’ll actually read it.

I explained on my blog why I didn’t link to you. You could at least do me the courtesy of explaining my reasoning to your readers when discussing what a blockhead I am instead of just throwing out these passive-aggressive insults of yours.

Why don’t you tell them?  I certainly don’t censor what you say here.  Have at it.

What’s the logical disconnect here? Whenever I comment here, I am routinely insulted for holding a different view of the issues and defending that view. When I post on my own blog, you come over and insult me for the views I express.

As for you being insulted here, I’ve certainly not had a hand in that.  But this is a wide-open forum, and some people are less than courteous.  As for me insulting you on your blog, I said that you were being stupid.  Once.

If you want to keep this blogging thing up you’re going to have to grow some thicker skin.

Everyone is welcome to express their views? That you welcome differing opinions? You’re willing to reach across the partisan divide… but you call me a stupid kid for posting about what the Pentagon has said?

I said you were being stupid.  And you are being stupid on that issue.  My site is welcome to comments from all viewpoints and I have gone out of my way to promote your site, along with my own, as another ND political site.  I would call that reaching across the partisan divide.  And I’ll continue to do so.

Very insulting, very rude, as I pointed out above. I know this is SayAnything, but is it too much to ask for you to not put words in my mouth and insult me offhand?

Well, you are tacitly supporting it by refusing to condemn the statement.  But that’s not really fair as I hadn’t asked you to condemn it before.  So here’s a deal: You condemn comparing Republicans to the KKK and I’ll apologize for putting words in your mouth.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

you keep saying people have knocked me around, but who? With what?

Carrick has done a prett excellent job of it in previous posts, but you knew that.

The quote came from the director of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It wasn’t cherrypicked.

The Chemical Weapons Convention cannot have a “director.” It is a treaty signed by the United States.  The guy you quoted is the director of Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, an advocacy group.  In his opinion use of WP could be considered a weapon if it is intended to be used that way.

So, what you’re telling us Ryan, is that our troops used WP to burn the enemy?  That seems like an awfully large leap of faith, especially when the only link you’ve provided us for the military’s use of WP is that they used it as an illuminant and an obscurant, both perfectly legitimate and acceptable uses under the CWC.

Like I said before, you’re basing accusations of war crimes on thin evidence.  Your desire to slime our military is really sort of disgusting.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The passage came from Wikipedia.  I provided the link.

The quote came from the director of the Chemical Weapons Convention.  It wasn’t cherrypicked.

I agree with you in part - WP is legal if used as a battlefield illuminant.  But it is probably illegal if used as a weapon against humans because of it’s chemical properties.

It’s only a waste of time if you continue to refuse to answer and refuse to reach across the partisan divide, as you said you try to earlier.

I still can’t find an argument that refutes this point and you haven’t been very helpful in providing yours - you keep saying people have knocked me around, but who?  With what?

And finally, yeah, you linked to me - am I supposed to sing your praises now?  Your ego is getting the better of you, Rob.  I’m not about to thank someone who just put words in my mouth and told me I’m tacitly supporting an apparently non-existent comment made by someone else about Republican initials.  (You said you’d apologize for that, by the way - I don’t believe jokes about the KKK and politicians are very funny.)

Do you still hate puppies, Rob?  You haven’t come out against puppy-killing… You must tacitly support the practice through your silence on the issue… (Sound familiar?)

The pentagon has stated that WP was used as an incendiary weapon, not an illuminant.

Rob: So, what you’re telling us Ryan, is that our troops used WP to burn the enemy? That seems like an awfully large leap of faith, especially when the only link you’ve provided us for the military’s use of WP is that they used it as an illuminant and an obscurant, both perfectly legitimate and acceptable uses under the CWC.

I posted this earlier:

CNN: Pentagon and military officials told CNN that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a smoke screen to hide advancing U.S. troops as well as to target insurgents in trenches and “spider holes>.”

I should have said director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons - my bad.

That organization meets yearly with official reps from all member states.  It has a budget of 75 million euros a year (too lazy to look it up in dollars).  It’s an advocacy group, yes, but it is also the enforcement group and they are in charge of keeping the CWC going.  They carry a lot of weight.

Therefore, his opinion that it is illegal is good - as the CNN quote shows, the military intended to use it as a weapon.

Which thread were Carrick’s posts on?  I must have missed them.

Oh, yes, Ryan, pls take your anti-war, anti-troop, anti almost everything American to a place like moveon or kos where you will be appreciated.

You guys talk about the left not being open to other view points?

Like most leftists, Ryan can dish it out but can’t take it.

It looks like a two sided debate to me

Bad, bad, Rob, picking on poor helpless Ryan, boo hoo.  Like most leftists, Ryan can dish it out but can’t take it.
Oh, yes, Ryan, pls take your anti-war, anti-troop, anti almost everything American to a place like moveon or kos where you will be appreciated.

By the way, Ryan, the real KKK was an invention of the Democrats not the Republicans.

Graeme, what is your point?  I have simply stated an opinion.  How does that squelch Ryan from expressing his opinions?

Pentagon and military officials told CNN that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a smoke screen to hide advancing U.S. troops as well as to target insurgents in trenches and “spider holes>.”

I’m sorry—how is this inconsistent with the use of WP to locate targets?  Some of you seem to be reading this passages to mean that the WP rounds are being fired to kill the insurgents.  I read it to mean that they are being used to locate and illuminate targets.

Here is a more detailed description of the uses of WP. An excerpt:

White Phosphorus (WP), known as Willy Pete, is used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes. White Phosphorus can be used to destroy the enemy’s equipment or to limit his vision. It is used against vehicles, petroleum, oils and lubricants (POL) and ammunition storage areas, and enemy observers. WP can be used as an aid in target location and navigation.

GraemeA said, You guys talk about the left not being open to other view points?

Does being “open to other view points” require that one accept the argument as valid? That is what it seems you are saying.

How common is it to fire WP into a building?

Angus,

Thanks for not accusing me of being anti-troop and actually making a point - it’s much appreciated.  To answer your question, I believe that when we have reports of troops firing “shake and bake” into insurgent-held buildings, it’s being used as a weapon, not as a means of illuminating them (the troops are outside the buildings anyways).

A passage from this article from an embedded reporter suggests that is the case:

Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.

[...]

Gun up!” Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.

“Fire!” Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.

The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call “shake ‘n’ bake” into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.

They say they have never seen what they’ve hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling.

I believe that when we have reports of troops firing “shake and bake” into insurgent-held buildings, it’s being used as a weapon, not as a means of illuminating them (the troops are outside the buildings anyways).

I’ve gone back and done some reading now and found the source of my confusion on this bit.  The State Department initially issued a statement confusing magnesium rounds with phosphorous, thus my confusion on the illumination bit.

Our soldiers have used phosphorous rounds to “smoke out” terrorists from fortified positions.  This is an acceptable use of the substance and is not a violation of any treaty signed by the U.S.

Yes, it burns the terrorists, but had they been standing out in the open we would have shot them.

It’s war guys.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It’s pretty clear to me that if we had been worrying about the weapons we were going to use during WWII, we would have lost the war, the war would have lasted several more years or it might still be raging.  The leftists are mincing words about a few phosphorus shells in an Iraqi town, Fallujah, that was almost totally under the control of the terrorists.  In previous wars, that town would at a minimum been been carpet bombed to destroy it entirely because no intelligent commander would want to risk the lives of his men by rooting out the enemy house to house if they could avoid that.  Incendiary bombs and explosives have been widely used in wars; Tokyo was virtually destroyed with incendiaries bombs; napalm was used effectively in Vietnam.  During the Civil War, the North used a slash and burn strategy in their march thru Georgia.  Then there was the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima which I’m sure will freak out some lefty if mentioned.  As an aside, I saw several internet comments that suggested small tactical nukes be use in Fallujah to quickly end the terrorist occupation.

In summary, if you want to win a war you do what is necessary using all available weapons at your disposal.  Unfortunately, there are those in this country who would restrict the weapons our troops can use thus declaring at least indirectly that they do not want us to win.

Modern Instances:

How common is it to fire WP into a building?

Used as a incendiary weapon, as opposed to illumination or as a screen, this is WPs primary use.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, this usage violates no international law, US law or international protocol to which the US is a signatory.

For WP to be used as a “proscribed chemical weapon” against a military target, you would somehow have to use the toxicity of WP or its byproducts as a means of harming the enemy combatant.

There is no debate that using WP (or any other weapon) to target a civilian population is in violation of the Geneva Conventions, and no evidence that the US deliberately targeted civilians.

Ryan has got the facts and issues scrambled, as is his wont.

For WP to be used as a “proscribed chemical weapon” against a military target, you would somehow have to use the toxicity of WP or its byproducts as a means of harming the enemy combatant.

There is no debate that using WP (or any other weapon) to target a civilian population is in violation of the Geneva Conventions, and no evidence that the US deliberately targeted civilians.

Ryan has got the facts and issues scrambled, as is his wont.

It’s not my wont to scramble facts, Carrick.  The opposite, in fact.  Your facts, however, need some checking:

-using WP as a chemical weapon is banned by the CWC (see above), not the Geneva Convention.

-exploding WP shells are deadly:

. . . there is no way you can use white phosphorus like that without forming a deadly chemical cloud that kills everything within a tenth of a mile in all directions from where it hits. Obviously, the effect of such deadly clouds weren’t just psychological in nature.

(This is why I said the civilian population may not be directly targeted, but are still dying.  There is evidence to corroborate this view.  It’s hard to limit a gas cloud to just the bad guys.)

Rob:

Our soldiers have used phosphorous rounds to “smoke out” terrorists from fortified positions. This is an acceptable use of the substance and is not a violation of any treaty signed by the U.S.

Yes, it burns the terrorists, but had they been standing out in the open we would have shot them.

The reason we want them out of the building is so we can kill them easier (assuming they don’t surrender first).

Ever see a film of a flame-thrower being used on a spider hole?  Tell me how that’s bette, though it’s completely legal.  As are antipersonnel land mines, which are entirely indiscriminate in who they kill.

Thinking is apparently optional, when you are antiwar.

As are antipersonnel land mines, which are entirely indiscriminate in who they kill.

There’s a large movement to ban land mines because of all the innocent people they kill.

With WP, the issue isn’t even about “collateral damage” or civilians.  The issue is that using chemical weapons is a no-no, which is what WP has been used for, in addition to it’s non-combat uses.

For WP to be used as a “proscribed chemical weapon” against a military target, you would somehow have to use the toxicity of WP or its byproducts as a means of harming the enemy combatant.

There is no debate that using WP (or any other weapon) to target a civilian population is in violation of the Geneva Conventions, and no evidence that the US deliberately targeted civilians.

Ryan has got the facts and issues scrambled, as is his wont.

It’s not my wont to scramble facts, Carrick.  The opposite, in fact.  Your facts, however, need some checking:

-using WP as a chemical weapon is banned by the CWC (see above), not the Geneva Convention.

-exploding WP shells are deadly:

. . . there is no way you can use white phosphorus like that without forming a deadly chemical cloud that kills everything within a tenth of a mile in all directions from where it hits. Obviously, the effect of such deadly clouds weren’t just psychological in nature.

(This is why I said the civilian population may not be directly targeted, but are still dying.  There is evidence to corroborate this view.  It’s hard to limit a gas cloud to just the bad guys.)

Modern Instances:

How common is it to fire WP into a
building?

Used as a incendiary weapon, as opposed to illumination or as a screen, this is
WPs primary use. Ok, but that doesn’t tell me how common a practice it is.

Yes, it burns the terrorists, but had they been standing out in the open we would have shot them.

It’s war guys.

Hey, if it’s what we’re doing, it’s what we’re doing.  But let’s say so the first time. 

The purpose of using a weapon like this is to inspire the enemy to surrender.  The link from above states that it was used as a psychological weapon.  It does not appear to be a pleasant way to die.  We have to have the conversation about whether we think this is method of combat we approve of.

MI:

WPs primary use. Ok, but that doesn’t tell me how common a practice it is.

Ryan G

It’s not my wont to scramble facts, Carrick. The opposite, in fact. Your facts, however, need some checking:

We’ll let other people judge on this one.

-using WP as a chemical weapon is banned by the CWC (see above), not the Geneva Convention.

Do you know how to read?

As already point out by Rob, your link is to an opinion of an individual not a finding of the organization.  Secondly, it referred to the use of WP as a chemical weapon, which would imply the use of the toxic property of the WP reactants to inflict harm on an enemy combatants. 

On the scale of legal weapons used in combat, WP is nasty, but it isn’t at the top of the list.  WP burns by exposure to oxygen, i.e., the chemical reaction is an ordinary combustion process.  The only thing that makes this exceptional is the high heat associated with the combustion and the toxic byproducts of the reaction.  However, it is no more terrible than napalm as an incendiary weapon.  If you are in a spider hole and they pump some napalm into it… you die a very bad death.  With WP (assuming some luck), you have some chance of surviving if you exit the hole before asphyxiating. 

If you go to the WIKI references, the primary concern with WP is the after-effects on people who have been burned by the stuff.  I doubt that this concern is any worse than having a piece of lead embedded in your body from a bullet wound.

Now we get to the gem:

. . . there is no way you can use white phosphorus like that without forming a deadly chemical cloud that kills everything within a tenth of a mile in all directions from where it hits. Obviously, the effect of such deadly clouds weren’t just psychological in nature.

Actually I followed the link as far as it would go and I end up with a BDS sufferer named Mark Kraft (http://insomnia.livejournal.com/).  The guy makes this assertion with out any attribution.  My guess he pulled this one out of his ass, because it certainly is at odds with what I know about the deployment of WP in standard military practice.

WP is used in the presence of US troops in combat and in training, in the form of incendiary bombs, grenades and shells.... and guess what? The soldiers within 500 feet of the explosion don’t drop dead from the toxic cloud generated by the WP.

Ryan G:

With WP, the issue isn’t even about “collateral damage” or civilians. The issue is that using chemical weapons is a no-no, which is what WP has been used for, in addition to it’s non-combat uses.

Once again.  This is false.  WP is not classified by the CWC or any other organization as a “chemical weapon”, nor as it is normally deployed is the primary damage a result of the toxicity of the WP or its byproducts.

So the issue is about collateral damage, or there would be no issue at all.

[IMG ] I have no idea what’s going on over at BismarckDems.com with all their server problems and stuff, but their totally new, redesigned, and specifically un-endorsed-by-Rob website is cuter than ever .

[...] http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/...site-withdrawn/ This link, sorry - scroll down, it’s from docdave. spammly | Homepage | 01.11.06 - 10:29 am | # [...]