UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 02:33 PM)Free Wrote:  12 expert witness claim to have seen an aircraft of unknown design and origin. Please explain to me what is so irrational about that?
Kay.
1.) 12 is a cherry picked sampling of witnesses designed to exclude, on purpose, every single witness to the event which did NOT see an aircraft. This is enough by it's self to make accepting the claim irrational however lets keep going.
2.) The "expertise" of the witnesses has not been proven as such claiming they have expertise is unwarranted and unsupported.
3.) You can not positively identify one object as another object if the first object lacks all distinguishing characteristics of the object you are claiming it looks like. This is patently obvious.
4.) Possibly the most important one is that parts of the testimony of the eyewitnesses violates the Law's of Physics. It's far far FAR more likely that the testimony is false then it is that in this one place at this one time the Laws of Physics were suspended/violated and that it left utterly no trace.


There is absolutely and entirely no part of accepting that claim, as you present it, that is rational.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
19-09-2015, 02:57 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 02:33 PM)Free Wrote:  It is no less rational to accept their claim than it is to accept the claim of a another group of professionals who claimed to have seen a sea creature that had never before been seen in the deep ocean.

Are those professionals anonymous, with their credibility and expertise unverified, with their testimony coming 4th hand from a biased organization, months after the fact, from memory, and without any physical evidence to back it up? 'Cause that's what your case ACTUALLY is.

In which case you are kinda right in that accepting that claim would be no less rational then accepting your claim. Because they are both, equally, 100% irrational.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 03:00 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
I'm posting this again because I don't want it to get "lost" in the scrum and not answered.
(19-09-2015 11:23 AM)Free Wrote:  Yes.
OK but....that's the time stamps you told me were in error. That the report identifies an error in table 6 recording 4 that 22:55 UTC = 3:55 is wrong. You said that NARCAP identifies this problem, acknowledges it, chose to leave it on the paper in the report but do it's times as if 22:55 UTC =4:55. Which would make the time they start taxing at 3:57 ACTUALLY 4:57.
In fact paint me doubly confused cause in post #1038 you said that:
Quote:Witnesses B & C heard chatter about the UFO at around 3:57, just before they started to move the airplane.
But in post #883 you say that Witness B hears the first call at 4:30...

Then colour me entirely perplexed because in that same post, #883,when I say :
Quote:Radio communications with the inbound ground controller showed that they began their taxi at 3:57:30 pm (see Table6).
..you have this to say:
(16-09-2015 07:54 PM)Free Wrote:  The 3:57:30 time is supposed to read as 4:57:30, 1/2 hour after Witness B first heard the call at around 4:30.
So in one post 3:57 is an error that should read 4:57 and that's why I'm wrong and then in another post 3:57 is accurate and the starting point for your time line and that's why I'm wrong. You are telling me multiple different things Free, and they are all mutually exclusive.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 04:01 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 09:08 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 02:40 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 11:23 AM)Free Wrote:  Yes.
OK but....that's the time stamps you told me were in error. That the report identifies an error in table 6 recording 4 that 22:55 UTC = 3:55 is wrong. You said that NARCAP identifies this problem, acknowledges it, chose to leave it on the paper in the report but do it's times as if 22:55 UTC =4:55. Which would make the time they start taxing at 3:57 ACTUALLY 4:57.
In fact paint me doubly confused cause in post #1038 you said that:
Quote:Witnesses B & C heard chatter about the UFO at around 3:57, just before they started to move the airplane.
But in post #883 you say that Witness B hears the first call at 4:30...

Then colour me entirely perplexed because in that same post, #883,when I say :
Quote:Radio communications with the inbound ground controller showed that they began their taxi at 3:57:30 pm (see Table6).
..you have this to say:
(16-09-2015 07:54 PM)Free Wrote:  The 3:57:30 time is supposed to read as 4:57:30, 1/2 hour after Witness B first heard the call at around 4:30.
So in one post 3:57 is an error that should read 4:57 and that's why I'm wrong and then in another post 3:57 is accurate and the starting point for your time line and that's why I'm wrong. You are telling me multiple different things Free, and they are all mutually exclusive.

Like I said,

It's time to put your tortured mind at ease, which I certainly, very mischievously, orchestrated. Evil_monster

I wanted you to actually read that report completely, and suspected you of using Confirmation Bias because you appeared to only be looking for things that would prove it wrong, and not seeing what is actually there.

Because you were not seeing what was actually there, you were sent on a couple of "experimental research tasks" just so I could force you to look at the report more closely than I knew you were. And also, since you were insisting on me being an idiot, and calling me out as one, I decided to manipulate you into total idiocy in kind because I knew that my actions would speak much louder than your unreasonably harsh words.

The report and times are actually all correct.

Thanks for playing. Evil_monster

Wink

Quote:
Quote:I am referring to Table 6, recording 4.

But witness B & C do not make any reference to the UFO until about the 4:48 mark on Table 6.

Where they say they saw it LEAVE at 4:18 (a half hour ago) between 12-14 minutes BEFORE Witness A and Witness D report seeing it for the first time. Which is not physically possible.

All times are estimates. Time works out to approximately 4:22 PM according to NARCAP's estimates, but that time could easily have been closer to 4:30 pm when they seen that it was gone about a "half hour ago." We just don't know.

Quote:
Quote:No, to reject claims from multiple witnesses who all claimed to have seen something that each of them identified as an aircraft is irrational, in my view.
It's only irrational to reject a claim if the claim has been tested and verified accurate. To reject claims that have NOT been tested and verified as accurate is entirely rational, and it's even MORE irrational to accept a claim that has been defined by the claimant as unfalsafiable and unproveable.

It's rational to accept the claims of seasoned professionals. We do it all the time. We have no reason at all to reject their claims about seeing an aircraft that they could not identify. There is nothing irrational about that claim.

Quote:The time to believe a claim is true is after that truth value has been demonstrated to be factual.

We have no good reason to disbelieve the claim.

Quote:
Quote:Their corroborated stories most certainly are worthy of credulity.
Their stories are not corroborated. We do not allow anonymous hearsay to reinforce anonymous hearsay ever especially when it's entirely possible that the 9 Witnesses in the NARCAP report could be the entirely same people the reporter allegedly interviewed for the Tribune article..which would mean they are just agreeing with their won testimony which is about as far away as one can get from corroboration.

You are making assertions here of mere hearsay which is not supported by the evidence. The claim is all about what they all claim they saw, not about what they heard that somebody else saw.

Quote:We can't even verify that a single witness interviewed exists let alone that they were there when they say and that their memory is correct. There are too many layers of unproven to take the claims at face value.

I have no reason to doubt what the Chicago Tribune said about the witnesses. The reporter said they all would only speak on condition of anonymity, and gave reasons why, and those reasons are perfectly justified.

We see anonymous news reports all the time, so there is nothing unusual about this.

Quote:
Quote:In regards to them identifying the object as an aircraft..
*sigh* Free...
The only verifiable testimony we have on what people identified the UFO as is on the transcript and at NO POINT in the transcript does anyone call it an aircraft or relate that anyone else has called it an aircraft. We have, disc, metal disc, and balloon. Even if we allow the unproven hearsay of unknown people we still have the above plus "bird". The closest we get at the time of the sighting is a "disc shaped object" not an aircraft.

Don't forget ... you also have numerous mentions of a "UFO," an unidentified flying object.

The NARCAP report is only one part of the story. The real story is with the reporter at the Chicago Tribune. The reporter indicates that he spoke for a large number of United Airways employees including numerous pilots, aircraft mechanics, supervisors, and mangers. There are numerous articles by this reporter, and numerous videos.

You won't find everything you need to know in the NARCAP report, it isn't enough on its own.

Quote:There is no consensus in the actual evidence or in the testimony that it was an Aircraft. There is no consensus on what it was at all.

An aircraft is implicit when the term UFO is acknowledged. Also, here are just a few examples of the object being described as an aircraft.

"Witness D used such terms as "an object," "relatively small object," "dark metallic circle," and "the aircraft.""

T1 "Hey, you guys been celebrating the holidays or anything, or what? You're celebrating Christmas today? I haven't seen anything Sue, and if I did I wouldn't admit to it. No, I have not seen any flying disc at gate C17. (Sue continues to laugh)
Unless you've got a new aircraft you're bringing out that I don't know about."


T "Yeh, yeh, I know. Either that or you guys have unveiled a brand new aircraft and ain't been tellin anyone about it."

Quote:Also....I've said this a few times now but I'll say it again... even if I pretend for a moment that all 12 witnesses saw what they believe to be an aircraft that's still a cherry picked sampling of witnesses. You can not take just the ones that saw an aircraft cut out the ones that did NOT see an aircraft and say there is consensus among witnesses that the UFO was an aircraft. This is textbook confirmation bias.

The consensus of all the witnesses who had a good look at it was that it was an aircraft. Those who didn't see it very well may conclude any number of things, but also those who didn't see it well enough cannot even agree on one single thing other than an aircraft, for one may say balloon, another a bird, etc.

Quote:
Quote:The purported performance of the craft is another issue.
Yes it is and even there the testimony is at odds. One witness claiming it shot strait up and another claiming it flew between 200 and 400 feet laterally before entering the clouds. These are contradictions in the testimony.

Not contradictions, but points of view from the positions of witnesses. Again, it's all about that triangulation.

I mean seriously, wouldn't you drop this as a hoax immediately if everybody, from several different view points, all said the exact same thing? For example, if all of them were directly underneath it, and all said it had some kind of a "raised dome" on the top, what would you think?

Some viewed it from a distance horizontally from various directions, others a bit closer horizontally from various directions. Some seen it mostly from underneath.

Therefore, if they all said identical things when they are supposedly viewing it from various different distances and directions, then we would damn well know they were all lying.

Right?

Quote:
Quote:It's unproven for a certainty..
The time to accept a claim as true is AFTER it has been demonstrated to be true not before.

I accept the claim as true. It doesn't mean it can't be false, but I accept it as true because of all the reasons previously stated. I simply have no good reason to reject the claim.

Quote:
Quote:I accept it because it is much more unlikely that, along with many others, 12 credible witness
Enough of this already. Prove they are credible. I'm tired of this assertion, prove their credibility.

12 professionals in the firearms industry, intimately familiar with various firearms, are credible.

12 professionals in the ballistics department, intimately familiar with various firearms, are credible.

12 professionals in the surgery wing, intimately familiar with various surgery procedures, are credible.

Hence,

12 professionals in the airline industry, intimately familiar with various aircraft, are credible.

Quote:
Quote:I find it completely irrational to reject this claim, for there is nothing wrong with it.
There is EVERYTHING wrong with it starting from the ground up with the fact the witnesses have not been proven to be there, their credibility is unproven, and so much more.

That's just it. You can take this position if you do not believe in what the Chicago Tribune reported. I have no good reason to doubt the integrity of the report, or the reporter.

Do you?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 04:47 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 04:50 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 04:01 PM)Free Wrote:  An aircraft is implicit when the term UFO is acknowledged. Also, here are just a few examples of the object being described as an aircraft.

Actually... it's not Free.

So, for other's viewing pleasure. we have this;

[Image: Vought-XF5U-Title.jpg]

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/ai...apjack.htm

Which is an air-craft (Yes, we understand how it flies) which, while not capable of performing as the incident suggests, was still quite interesting in its day.

Then we have these;

[Image: X24A_2a.JPG]

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x24a.htm

Which are 'Airodynes'.

Machines who's entire structure provides lift and again, they aren't capable of performing as the object purportedly did. Again, we know the physics behind why they work.

Unless, you're simply using the term 'Air craft' as "Something like a machine that moves through the air."... which is not actually very precise nor helpful.

Generally, when people say "U.F.O.".. well the expansion is simply "UN-identified flying object."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 05:16 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 04:01 PM)Free Wrote:  An aircraft is implicit when the term UFO is acknowledged.

No. No, it isn't.

The rest of your idiocy has been posted before. You're just running about in circles.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 06:31 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 06:52 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 04:47 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 04:01 PM)Free Wrote:  An aircraft is implicit when the term UFO is acknowledged. Also, here are just a few examples of the object being described as an aircraft.

Actually... it's not Free.

A UFO has always been synonymous with an aircraft.

Oxford Dictionary defines it as:

"An unidentified flying object; a ‘flying saucer’."

Dictionary Dot Com defines it as:

"any unexplained moving object observed in the sky, especially one assumed by some observers to be of extraterrestrial origin."

From Websters:

an unidentified flying object; especially : flying saucer

Cambridge:

abbreviation for ​unidentified ​flying ​object (= an ​object ​seen in the ​sky that some ​people ​believe is a ​spacecraft from another ​planet)

In general usage, it refers to an aircraft, such as a flying saucer. It can refer to other things, but not in general usage as per all definitions supplied.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 09:19 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 04:01 PM)Free Wrote:  .....suspected you of using Confirmation Bias because you appeared to only be looking for things that would prove it wrong.
That's one of the ways you do peer-review dipshit, by trying to find things wrong with it. So you are basically saying that when you first started reviewing the report you at no point tried to find things wrong with it? That explains sooooo much.Laugh out load

(19-09-2015 04:01 PM)Free Wrote:  The report and times are actually all correct.
Except that 22:55 is not 3:55. Rolleyes

So..hahaha...So when you said this to Unbeliever:
Quote:I will concede in the interests of intellectual honesty that the information I could glean from the Table 6 document does seem indicate a time-line 1 hour later than the time stamps, although it isn't definitive.
You were deliberately lying to to him and every single person involved in the conversation in an attempt to trick someone 40 pages later. Your not even talking to me when you are telling other people the times seem it be wrong. Hahaha really?

You know what? I'm not even mad. I can't physically be mad at this. If this wasn't such a patently obvious case of cognitive dissonance at work I might be. You said mutually exclusive things, arguing to contrary timelines depending on the criticisms you were getting, and now when you look like a lying stuncunt who can't keep his story strait your making up excuses to why you are talking out both sides of your mouth.

So here is the thing Free. Considering that, according to you, you have been deliberately and maliciously lying to every single person in this thread for over 40 pages in an attempt to make other people look bad (which....wow that's a bad plan lol) why should I believe you THIS time when you say the times are correct when in the past you have flipped flopped back and forth from the times are right to the times are wrong to the times are right about a billion times?

In fact if you are willing to purposely, maliciously, and systematically (according to you) lie to the entire assembly of this thread for 40+ pages of conversation to make a single person "look bad" why should I or anyone else believe anything you have said in this thread or any other for that matter?


If your defense of your lying is that you are lying on purpose...that's ...that's a shitty defense.

Quote:All times are estimates. Time works out to approximately 4:22 PM according to NARCAP's estimates, but that time could easily have been closer to 4:30 pm when they seen that it was gone about a "half hour ago." We just don't know.
And they could have easily been at 4:22 which is the testimony ACTUALLY given. You have a conclusion and you are ignoring testimony that does not fit that conclusion.
"We just don't know" is not a license to make up numbers that, wow what a coincidence, just magically happen to be the EXACT numbers you need to reach your conclusion.

Quote:It's rational to accept the claims of seasoned professionals.
Still waiting for the proof that they are who you say they are. Until then they are "anonymous source" not "seasoned professional source". This expertise you keep assigning to your witnesses hasn't been demonstrated.

Let me put to you another question for you to ignore like dozens of others: lets say there are 12 witnesses. Lets say that they all claim to have seen an aircraft. If you had the exact same testimony you had now but only 11 were actually there and the 12th was a complete fake how would you tell the difference?

Quote:We have no good reason to disbelieve the claim.
other then it's hearsay with no supporting physical or mathematical evidence to support it. The time to believe a claim is AFTER it's proven not before. The fact that you are gullible as a 4 year old and will accept what your told by anonymous sources doesn't change this.

Quote:You are making assertions here of mere hearsay which is not supported by the evidence. The claim is all about what they all claim they saw, not about what they heard that somebody else saw.
Cool so they are freely available and I can go talk to them myself...oh wait no I fucking can't. I can listen to a reporter tell me what other people allegedly told him (hearsay!) or I can read a report which features not just an author telling me what other people allegedly told him(hearsay!) I can read a report telling me what an other organization told them about what a witness told them another witness told him.(Hearsay!x3)
It's not an assertion that that is hearsay, when it gets to us it IS hearsay the fucking definition of the word.

Quote:We can't even verify that a single witness interviewed exists let alone that they were there when they say and that their memory is correct. There are too many layers of unproven to take the claims at face value.

Quote:I have no reason to doubt what the Chicago Tribune said about the witnesses.
That's nice sally but your personal credulity ain't an argument against the FACT the very existence of your witnesses hasn't even been established. Also "No guyz you don't understand I trust the Jurno!" does nothing to address the other issue that we can't know if they are lying or misremembering.

Quote:We see anonymous news reports all the time, so there is nothing unusual about this.
Yes we do and they are frequently wrong like...a huge section of the time. Which is why the time to believe them is AFTER they have been shown to be accurate and not before.

Quote:Don't forget ... you also have numerous mentions of a "UFO," an unidentified flying object.
That's nice but UFO =/= aircraft. Flying disc =/= aircraft either. It means an Unidentified flying object, and not only that but UFO so rarely is even an object at all that most people who are into the UFO phenomena don't even call them that now. UFO doesn't mean "aircraft" to me at all, or possibly to anyone else in this thread except for you who have a known bias towards that conclusion. UFO is also implicit with drunk as fuck, ignorant, hillbilly, sister fucker so is that accurate now too?

Tell me Free how many UFO's turn out to be unknown aircraft again in your opinion? 1%. Ya reaaaaaal synonyms. I'd say given that UFO is synonyms with witnesses being fucking dopes.

Quote:The real story is with the reporter at the Chicago Tribune. The reporter indicates that he spoke for a large number of United Way employees including numerous pilots, aircraft mechanics, supervisors, and mangers. There are numerous articles by this reporter, and numerous videos.
And the second you can demonstrate that he actually did (you know...meet your burden of proof) I'll entertain his anonymous hearsay. Not before. And before you even say it: "I have no reason to believe it's wrong" is not a positive demonstration that he did. Don't waste your time responding with anything other than proof that he did cause I'll delete it and accept that you can't.

Quote:An aircraft is implicit when the term UFO is acknowledged.
No it's not it's a term that means Unidentified Flying Object. Not all objects are aircraft, not even all flying objects, and according to you only 1% could even BE an unknown aircraft. Considering the vast vast vast vast VAST majority of UFO reports which turn out to be not an unknown aircraft (read: all of them) it is not fucking implicit unless you need it to be implicit to justify to yourself your own bias conclusions.

Quote:The consensus of all the witnesses who had a good look at it was that it was an aircraft.
Oh how the goal posts run. A minute ago it was everyone, now it's everyone who got a good look at it.

Quote:Those who didn't see it very well may conclude any number of things
How did you determine the people that think it was an aircraft are the ones that saw it clearly..oh wait never mind I know. Confirmation bias.

Quote:but also those who didn't see it well enough cannot even agree on one single thing other than an aircraft, for one may say balloon, another a bird, etc.
This sentence doesn't even make sense in English.Laugh out load

Quote:Not contradictions, but points of view from the positions of witnesses.
Which direction could the UFO travel nearly 400 feet and the movement only be visible to one person and not the people directly under it?

Quote:Again, it's all about that triangulation.
Prove that the numbers they used for triangulation are correct. "I believe they are" is not an acceptable answer.

Quote:I mean seriously, wouldn't you drop this as a hoax immediately if everybody, from several different view points, all said the exact same thing?
No, I'd still investigate the claim. Also the fact they say different things does not preclude it from being a hoax.

Quote:Some seen it mostly from underneath.
So why don't they all say it moved 400 feet? This is EXACTLY where I would want to be if I was making calculations on if , where, and how far it moved.

Quote: I simply have no good reason to reject the claim.
Nooooooo you just refuse to acknowledge their burden of proof as a thing that exists and that they have to meet to justify belief. Having a high level of personal credulity doesn't mean that there are not reasons to withhold belief in the claim. Gullibility is not an argument.

Quote:12 professionals in the airline industry, intimately familiar with various aircraft, are credible.
No you hillbilly, repeating your claim does not prove your claim. Contrasting your claim fraudulently after you have removed the errors is just dishonest.
Prove that they ARE actually the professionals you claim they are. PROVE that they are credible as you say they are. Or admit that you are just assuming they are because someone told you so.

Quote:You can take this position if you do not believe in what the Chicago Tribune reported.
I'm sorry I don't work based on faith, I work based on demonstrable evidence, proven attestations, and accounts that have been verified accurate. I don't believe the tribune account is false, I don't believe it is true. I KNOW it is unproven, unverified, hearsay being presented to me and without evidence I can't know if it it's right or wrong so I withhold belief, which is the intellectually honest and the intellectually consistent thing to do, until such a time as they can meet their burden of proof.
Because I don't operate based on faith.


Quote:I have no good reason to doubt the integrity of the report, or the reporter.

Do you?
Yes, I do. The witnesses integrity is unproven, they credentials are unproven, their expertise is unproven, their testimony is unproven and worst of all for their testimony to be true requires the violation of the laws of physics. Any fucking assertion that violates the laws of physics is instantly suspicious and such assertions, no matter how many people have claimed it to be true, has had a 100% failure rate. because I don't work on faith, and because I don't already believe that alien ships as a real thing I don't hand wave away the violation in the laws of physics with "space wizards and their magic tech-spells".

That took so long to type with all my interruptions at home I responded to the last little bit forgetting you've been lying through your teeth to everyone here for the last 40 pages.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 01:15 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(19-09-2015 06:31 PM)Free Wrote:  A UFO has always been synonymous with an aircraft.

Oxford Dictionary defines it as:

"An unidentified flying object; a ‘flying saucer’."

Dictionary Dot Com defines it as:

"any unexplained moving object observed in the sky, especially one assumed by some observers to be of extraterrestrial origin."

From Websters:

an unidentified flying object; especially : flying saucer

Cambridge:

abbreviation for ​unidentified ​flying ​object (= an ​object ​seen in the ​sky that some ​people ​believe is a ​spacecraft from another ​planet)

In general usage, it refers to an aircraft, such as a flying saucer. It can refer to other things, but not in general usage as per all definitions supplied.

No where in any of even your quotes was the word 'Aircraft' mentioned. *sigh*

Come one mate, get a grip. Hug
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
20-09-2015, 01:31 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(20-09-2015 01:15 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No where in any of even your quotes was the word 'Aircraft' mentioned. *sigh*

Come one mate, get a grip. Hug

That's because it's a Space craft.

You know, it sits around and takes up space. Wink

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: