PDA

View Full Version : Reccomend media



Al Coholic
01-09-2009, 06:54 AM
I've given up on cable news. Its somewhere between a gossip magazine and a bad knockoff of what was once news. They spend as much time on trivial issues as anything else; like the Obama family's vacation, first day of school, flag pins, ect. They fabricate issues. I never thought reverend wright was important. I never thought Bill Ayers was a big deal. The whole Clinton-Obama saga that they kept speculating on made me want to rip off my ears and chuck them at the tv. I don't care for celebrity news. And natural disasters that effect 12 people aren't worthy of national attention in my opinion. Neither are court cases like OJ's. Meanwhile, there are wars in the middle east, the economy is in shambles, there's genocide and extreme poverty in Africa and other parts of the world. Somewhere, I'm sure, some countries are having elections, or signing crucial resolutions, or doing something that actually effects the world. Congress just passed or is debating something. But I wouldn't know it because I've been watching cable news. And the few times they touch on these issues, they talk to me as though im a seven year old. Like I can't understand this and I don't have a long attention span, so dumb it down and shorten it to less than 30 seconds.

So fuck them. I've decided to be like many in my generation and get my news from the internet. I used to visit a few sites but I've fallen way behind in the times. Assume I know hardly anything about whats available on the internet. Where do you go for really deep reporting on events that actually matter? For the stories that often don't even make it onto cable news?

ad8
01-09-2009, 09:09 AM
Actually, I'm not using the internet for such things. The internet is good for the short news in my opinion. If I want a high quality article, I'm being conservative and read the good ol' newspapers. But many newspapers have home pages where they post good articles, so sometimes I stumble upon one of these home pages and read an article or two. I'm pretty sure that there are other home pages that deal with interesting articles. I just don't know any american ones.

jacknife737
01-09-2009, 11:23 AM
There are lots of great news sources out there; I haven’t watched cable news in years, other then to just have it on in the background, ect.

Most newspapers have quite good online editions, if you’re looking to expand beyond the generic stuff passed around on cable news, check out sources from more then one country. I tend to read,

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
http://times.com/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ )

Aside from online newspapers, I also like the BBC and its Canadian equivalent, the CBC and the Economist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/
http://www.economist.com/

If you want more obscure international stuff, check out the International Herald Tribune: it’s the international edition of the NY Times.
http://www.iht.com/

So my news sources definitely have an Anglo-Western bias, but I have no real issue with that. There are also a lot of so-called “alternative news” sources out there on the web, ie The Daily Kos (http://dailykos.com/), but I don’t find they have much substance to them. I used to read Kos quite a bit, but it just bores me now. But, there are some good blogs out there, which are worth reading; you’ll just have to search through the mounds of shit, to find them.

metalmania
01-09-2009, 02:05 PM
media!media is a powerfull construction in our world and technology made this cosmopolitan construction but unfortunatelly governments re using this power for their goals.(like CNN and more....)everytime governments re deceiving to folks.so i cant believe sometimes channels or newspapers,some writers can be puppets of some powers and really i have to determine it: good newspapers or good real channels re not be in agenda,even in developed countries.some internets sites re making the information dirtiness in world(and they re doing it particularly) i trust books and some political weekly journals.

Al Coholic
01-09-2009, 04:24 PM
media!media is a powerfull construction in our world and technology made this cosmopolitan construction but unfortunatelly governments re using this power for their goals.(like CNN and more....)everytime governments re deceiving to folks.so i cant believe sometimes channels or newspapers,some writers can be puppets of some powers and really i have to determine it: good newspapers or good real channels re not be in agenda,even in developed countries.some internets sites re making the information dirtiness in world(and they re doing it particularly) i trust books and some political weekly journals.

Dude I get it already. YES, the world is imperfect. There's bias, there's corruption, and so on. I take it all with a grain of salt. If it took you this long in life to realize that the world is imperfect your stupid. And if you think the solution to all the worlds problems is to ditch all government and for all of humanity to suddenly stop acting like humans fine, there seems to be no talking any sense into you. Believe in incongruent, self contradicting theories, make a fool of yourself, whatever. but don't talk to me like I'm ignorant and you're here to open my eyes. I'm not in the fucking matrix, and your not fucking Morpheus. You're a teenager with a computer and a pubescent hormonal instinct to be rebellious. That hormonal rebelliousness promotes a healthy diversity in the human race. You know, the apple not falling too close to the tree type of thing.

Within a few years you'll realize that your beliefs are dumb. You can't, right now, produce a working model of any of your nonsense that doesn't defy everything we know about humanity on a micro level, a macro level, and all levels inbetween. Somewhere you'll look back and smile on how ridiculous you acted, running around the internet telling everyone everything is a lie. That's humanity buddy, nothing is perfectly honest. Even the definition of honestly has its shades of gray. Please, tone it down.

Jebus
01-09-2009, 05:57 PM
I tend to pick up the LA Times (I belive it's free online now) ones or twice a week seeing how I spend about 3 hours a day sitting in public transportation. Other than that and the occasional visit to http://news.google.com/ (I have an rss feed), I generally stay current with watching The Daily Show on hulu.com as shallow as that sounds. Most blog sites are usually just regurgitated AP articles with their shitty opinions so I tend to stay away from them.

Dude I get it already. YES, the world is imperfect. There's bias, there's corruption, and so on. I take it all with a grain of salt. If it took you this long in life to realize that the world is imperfect your stupid. And if you think the solution to all the worlds problems is to ditch all government and for all of humanity to suddenly stop acting like humans fine, there seems to be no talking any sense into you. Believe in incongruent, self contradicting theories, make a fool of yourself, whatever. but don't talk to me like I'm ignorant and you're here to open my eyes. I'm not in the fucking matrix, and your not fucking Morpheus. You're a teenager with a computer and a pubescent hormonal instinct to be rebellious. That hormonal rebelliousness promotes a healthy diversity in the human race. You know, the apple not falling too close to the tree type of thing.

Within a few years you'll realize that your beliefs are dumb. You can't, right now, produce a working model of any of your nonsense that doesn't defy everything we know about humanity on a micro level, a macro level, and all levels inbetween. Somewhere you'll look back and smile on how ridiculous you acted, running around the internet telling everyone everything is a lie. That's humanity buddy, nothing is perfectly honest. Even the definition of honestly has its shades of gray. Please, tone it down.
I like you.

metalmania
01-10-2009, 02:18 AM
hey dont worry;im not teenager and i dont try to open your eyes or anybody's eyes(your speech was so comic really),i dont care what do you say about me,its so comic,i can say my ideas and yeah we re not living in matrix.a kid can know me.this speech was so tragicomic really hehe.i know :nothing is perfectly but maybe it can be!so im trying about it;if you lost your hope than its your tragedy,i guess you smothered in your real,imperfect world anyway i dont care again!you can like to deal with your cold realities but i can try to pass over to these realities.its not easy,i guess ideas re not in monopoly of you or anybody and i know : authority thinks like you.its so normal but its your tragic fate.you re talking about teenage avarice,matrix,apple(newton),tree ...... dont look down on,please dont tell this bullshit! cause when you do it;you re shrinking.you cant put forward a philosphy and you re just attacking to ideas.and you re always in a de javu!so live with your imperfect media,im sure;they understand you.dont worry its not your mistake,its of them !so imperfect world and your imperfect media re waiting for you .run forrest run!

Not Ozymandias
01-10-2009, 07:29 AM
News from an independent/third-party perspective:

www.lemonparty.org

IamSam
01-10-2009, 11:17 AM
hey dont worry;im not teenager and i dont try to open your eyes or anybody's eyes(your speech was so comic really),i dont care what do you say about me,its so comic,i can say my ideas and yeah we re not living in matrix.a kid can know me.this speech was so tragicomic really hehe.i know :nothing is perfectly but maybe it can be!so im trying about it;if you lost your hope than its your tragedy,i guess you smothered in your real,imperfect world anyway i dont care again!you can like to deal with your cold realities but i can try to pass over to these realities.its not easy,i guess ideas re not in monopoly of you or anybody and i know : authority thinks like you.its so normal but its your tragic fate.you re talking about teenage avarice,matrix,apple(newton),tree ...... dont look down on,please dont tell this bullshit! cause when you do it;you re shrinking.you cant put forward a philosphy and you re just attacking to ideas.and you re always in a de javu!so live with your imperfect media,im sure;they understand you.dont worry its not your mistake,its of them !so imperfect world and your imperfect media re waiting for you .run forrest run!

No....I don't think you understand what he said, so I'll put it in terms you understand.

You're an idiot. A moron. A nincompoop. No one likes you. I'd even doubt that other anarchists like you. You give them a bad name.

metalmania
01-10-2009, 11:37 AM
No....I don't think you understand what he said, so I'll put it in terms you understand.

You're an idiot. A moron. A nincompoop. No one likes you. I'd even doubt that other anarchists like you. You give them a bad name.
ahahhaha!yeah sam you re a perfect spokesman of them but i repeat again ,i dont care ;) and i dont care who likes me ;) i care about me!anyway your signature tells everything:you re a liar hehe so thanx! so let doubt 4eva! ahahhaha!fight forrest fight

pyrimid
01-10-2009, 11:48 PM
I have come to the determination that every “news agency” has their own political views they are trying to push.

So I tend to read a lot of sources and determine for my self what is BS and what is true. By getting multiple points of view it seems to be easy to determine who is speaking from an unbiased point and who pushing their agenda. One of the best ways to see if you news source is bias is to read the editorial sections, then read the news that they post, if all the news have the same slant as the editorial sections then they are pushing the same agenda. If there seems to be dissention in the ranks you will at least know that they are not just spoon feeding you indoctrination.

Al Coholic
01-11-2009, 07:40 AM
Yeah, I know. That's why I'm lookin for more sources.

wheelchairman
01-11-2009, 07:43 AM
I have come to the determination that every “news agency” has their own political views they are trying to push.

So I tend to read a lot of sources and determine for my self what is BS and what is true. By getting multiple points of view it seems to be easy to determine who is speaking from an unbiased point and who pushing their agenda. One of the best ways to see if you news source is bias is to read the editorial sections, then read the news that they post, if all the news have the same slant as the editorial sections then they are pushing the same agenda. If there seems to be dissention in the ranks you will at least know that they are not just spoon feeding you indoctrination.

Well actually you are wrong. It doesn't matter whether or not two papers hold different opinions, they can both be biased (or objective). Bias comes not from opinions so much as from treatment of data, how the data was gathered, how it was analyzed, and how it was presented. That is where the real danger from bias exists, not in the conclusions or introductions to an article. And it annoys me when people don't realize this.

Al Coholic
01-11-2009, 08:20 AM
Hey man, Alan Colmes is a liberal. Its a fair show dude.

wheelchairman
01-11-2009, 08:39 AM
I don't know if you're talking to me, I don't know him or have ever seen his show, so I can't comment.

However I fear you misunderstood me. I'm saying it's okay to have a political opinion and be a journalist. You can have political opinions and even be objective. The danger lies in treatment of data. As I mentioned briefly

1. how the data was gathered
a. which methodology was used
b. what were the advantages of this methodology as opposed to another
c. would another form or set of data have been more appropriate?

2. how the data was analyzed
a. which part of the gathered data was analyzed
b. what were the conclusions drawn
c. how representative is the data

3. how the data was presented
a. who is presenting the data
b. who is the target audience
c. what agendas may be represented

To just sketch out what my concerns with regards towards bias would be. Most TV news shows do not mention a single detail on any of these questions, most importantly the question on how the data was gathered and processed. It's rare when newspapers do (but that's one of the reasons I like mine.)

Al Coholic
01-11-2009, 09:01 AM
It was a reference to the Fox news show, Hannity and Colmes. In which Alan Colmes is a token liberal (meek, unnatractive, squeaky voice) meant to conteract the extremely conservatively biased Sean Hannity(who probably has his mic turned up louder). I understood you the first time.

wheelchairman
01-11-2009, 10:31 AM
Yeah I saw Hannity on crossfire and hate those types of shows. But without knowing more of what you meant, I took a relatively safe road in replying. :p

Al Coholic
01-11-2009, 11:18 AM
But if you have any Euro-news sites(written in english) you want to share that could be cool.

wheelchairman
01-11-2009, 11:28 AM
Afraid not. When I read English language news, it's more often than not the New York Times, simply because it's free and rather enjoyable.

HornyPope
01-11-2009, 07:07 PM
Don't read the news media that supported the war on Iraq. Like the Economist. It was wrong before and, I can guarantee you, it will be wrong again. I can guarantee you.

Now, editorials are poor sources in general because you never know who writes them and how well they check their facts. Better sources are peer-reviewed magazines that universities typically offer. Depending on the subjects you are interested in, I may be able to recommend something though I can't say I really keep up with the news...

sKratch
01-11-2009, 09:22 PM
I have a big problem figuring out where to get my news from. Basically, I try to take everything I read with a grain of salt and try to figure out what's missing. It's hard to have any single source to trust.

wheelchairman
01-12-2009, 06:25 AM
We only think that 'peer-reviewed' means anything. I mean it's fine to have a peer-reviewed article as a source, as long as you are aware that 'peer-reviewed' in itself is not a quality guarantee. But yeah, the authors of those articles are usually well acquainted with their fields, whereas journalists are idiots with the responsibility to give us information.

The Economist certainly has some political opinions I don't agree with, but qualititively it's a better magazine than Time. The problem with the Economist is that they have a clear neo-liberal (economic) slant, and you can see this in their editorials, but also in some of the conclusions of their articles. Which is all fine and dandy, but the economic policies they wanted in August when the US financial crisis was starting... well they made it harder to take the paper seriously as a whole. But it's like 85% good reading.

But then again like any conclusion, it has to fit with the analysis and data available at hand, and it is perhaps the least reliable part of an article.

HornyPope
01-12-2009, 07:19 AM
We only think that 'peer-reviewed' means anything. I mean it's fine to have a peer-reviewed article as a source, as long as you are aware that 'peer-reviewed' in itself is not a quality guarantee. But yeah, the authors of those articles are usually well acquainted with their fields, whereas journalists are idiots with the responsibility to give us information.

I think you have sentences in this paragraph that contradict each other.


But then again like any conclusion, it has to fit with the analysis and data available at hand, and it is perhaps the least reliable part of an article.

Well one of the things the peers do is look over your methodology...

However, I don't agree the date is the least reliable part of the an article. I think the application of the data is a much more serious cause for concern.

wheelchairman
01-12-2009, 07:40 AM
Oh I'm just saying that just because it's peer reviewed doesn't mean it's perfect, you can just as easily get mis-used, abused or misleading data from a peer-reviewed journal. Likely it's better than a newspaper. However it will also be more subject-specific.

Well both how the data was gathered, and how it was applied/analyzed are important. But yeah the application and 'massaging' of data brings obvious concerns forward.

HornyPope
01-12-2009, 01:45 PM
Well, yeah any information is going to be biased because it rests on somebody else's presuppositions that are not value-free. Also, the information is going to be only as reliable as you understand it. Two people reading the same article might pull two different conclusion...

Duskygrin
01-12-2009, 03:15 PM
I've always liked the Economist.

Other than that, the BBC, yahoo, and some French papers.

wheelchairman
01-12-2009, 04:08 PM
Well, yeah any information is going to be biased because it rests on somebody else's presuppositions that are not value-free. Also, the information is going to be only as reliable as you understand it. Two people reading the same article might pull two different conclusion...

Well no, just because it's a doctorate who compiled and presented the data doesn't mean there is a flaw in the methodology. We see this all the time in environmental (both sides off the 'issue') articles. It naturally happens in other issues as well. I'm talking about info that may not be reliable, not about bias.

HornyPope
01-13-2009, 06:59 AM
Well no, just because it's a doctorate who compiled and presented the data doesn't mean there is a flaw in the methodology. We see this all the time in environmental (both sides off the 'issue') articles. It naturally happens in other issues as well. I'm talking about info that may not be reliable, not about bias.

What?!

.......

wheelchairman
01-13-2009, 09:45 AM
What?!

.......

Misleading data happens frequently enough in peer-reviewed journals, is the gist of what I was trying to say. And by doctorates I meant people with PH.Ds, I couldn't think of the proper word. :/

Jesus
01-13-2009, 12:13 PM
I wouldn't recommend reading peer review or scholarly journals for current affairs, because you'll be about 2 years behind the news given that it's such a slow process ;). I mostly end up using working papers nowadays for that reason.

Maybe Foreign Affairs or the 2 Chatham House publications (International Affairs and The World Today) are good journals for current affairs, but hardly peer reviewed. International Security, Middle East Policy or International Organization are good too. Or publications by the International Crisis Group.

I generally get my news from blogs (one blog links to another and before you know it you're reading too much). As far as (online) newspapers are concerned I mostly check the headlines and read the intro and the conclusion. I'm unlike most people I guess that I mostly read the opinion pieces, cause those are the most interesting and honest (in the sense that they are honest in their goal). The Op-ed and letters to the editor section from the Financial Times is pretty awesome even though I usually disagree with them. Other traditional media in English/French/German that I sometimes check and consider to be quite good, depending on what I'm looking for, are: Al-Ahram, Daily Star Lebanon, Haaretz, Khaleej Times, Moscow Times, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, Le Monde, Libération, El Pais, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

HornyPope
01-13-2009, 01:12 PM
Misleading data happens frequently enough in peer-reviewed journals, is the gist of what I was trying to say. And by doctorates I meant people with PH.Ds, I couldn't think of the proper word. :/

Okay, in this case, we're in total agreement.

Only I also added that ALL and ANY kind of information is ultimately biased because it rests on somebody presuppositions and blah blah...


I wouldn't recommend reading peer review or scholarly journals for current affairs, because you'll be about 2 years behind the news given that it's such a slow process ;). I mostly end up using working papers nowadays for that reason.

Well personally I don't care about being up to date on current affairs. If I'm interested in the issue, I want to know the crux of the argument, not the latest development.

Al Coholic
01-13-2009, 03:44 PM
Also if you guys have links to any extremely biased mainstread media of other countries, that could be kind of cool. I stress mainstream though, not just some crazy mofo with a web page. Itd be interesting to see what Palestinians, Isrealis, Congolese, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese, Cubans, ect. read.

NGNM85
02-04-2009, 04:54 PM
One should read all news with a filter, but some sources are obviously more biased than others. I generally find the American mainstream media, which is like, six companies, pretty biased, but there are alternatives. I recommend the Huffington Post Blog
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
The Nation Magazine
http://www.thenation.com/
Democracy Now! w/ Amy Goodman
http://www.democracynow.org/

Al Jazeera is also very good, and they have plenty of material in english, covering news all over the world.
http://english.aljazeera.net/

If you MUST read mainstream media, I'd stick to the NY Times, but I think you';d get much more honest reportage at these other sources.

wheelchairman
02-04-2009, 05:06 PM
Honest reporting?

People say that about Democracy Now but that's largely because they agree with the political agenda set.

Media isn't about honesty, that's impossible to judge. It's about the credibility of their sources.

jacknife737
02-04-2009, 05:10 PM
^^ Those sites, like others aren't unbiased, or neutral, they just conform better to your personal bias then say the Washington Post, or CNN. Which is perfectly fine, but as wheelchairman already stated, the only thing that matters is reliability. They aren't anymore "honest" then the so called "mainstream sources".

IamSam
02-04-2009, 08:01 PM
I laugh at Al Jazeera being mentioned on that list.

adombomb222
02-04-2009, 08:26 PM
Colbert Report, Daily Show and The Onion.

sKratch
02-08-2009, 08:33 PM
I laugh at Al Jazeera being mentioned on that list.

Have you ever read anything from Al Jazeera?

metalmania
02-10-2009, 01:56 PM
Have you ever read anything from Al Jazeera?
puahhaha it was a really perfect question;)

HornyPope
02-11-2009, 10:09 AM
Have you ever read anything from Al Jazeera?

Have you!?!


Signed Homeland Security

IamSam
02-11-2009, 10:25 AM
Have you ever read anything from Al Jazeera?

I apologize, I did not see you had replied to me until now.

I have. It's not so much the reading as it is the pictures they use to push points. Not everything has to do with the written word.

Jesus
02-11-2009, 12:29 PM
I have. It's not so much the reading as it is the pictures they use to push points. Not everything has to do with the written word.
What's wrong with the pictures they use to push points?

IamSam
02-11-2009, 12:59 PM
What's wrong with the pictures they use to push points?

I like my media watered down with nothing whatsoever for flavor. Like having a bowl of Grape Nuts and skim milk. ;)

Al Coholic
02-11-2009, 05:52 PM
I'd actually like to see the worst of the worst when it comes to pictures of war. My grain-of-salt-taking ability will allow me to realize that this is the worst of the worst, and that not everything is this bad. But as an American I get vague pictures of soldiers that could've been taken in Arizona for all I know, or some soft news story about an Iraqi kid who's arms were blown off but now he's playing baseball.

Hypno Toad
02-12-2009, 01:36 AM
I'd actually like to see the worst of the worst when it comes to pictures of war. My grain-of-salt-taking ability will allow me to realize that this is the worst of the worst, and that not everything is this bad. But as an American I get vague pictures of soldiers that could've been taken in Arizona for all I know, or some soft news story about an Iraqi kid who's arms were blown off but now he's playing baseball.

Surprisingly, you can find some pretty dark wartime stuff on youtube.

metalmania
02-12-2009, 02:28 PM
wow i was watching news on tv and "obama was puting a kiss to an old woman's cheek .and that lady's life changed after this kiss cause many people helped her......" wow really wow media is so tragicomic.other poor people may show the cheeks to obama?so i guess this news was a winding key.sweet president -sweet old lady-sweet media ;)

Al Coholic
02-12-2009, 03:13 PM
You're being too cynical, as usual. They were having a town hall meeting, which is a semi-open kind of discussion. Something I think an anarchist would love. The lady asked for help, and what was he supposed to do? Tell her no? The media would have a field day with it, saying he's completely incompassionate. Public opinion on him would turn slightly more negative, his approval would suffer, and so would his causes. Obama's best move was to give the old woman a kiss and put her in touch with his staff to help out.

Really dude, there's an underlying reason to why politicians do just about everything, and why they don't do certain things. And just because he didn't say "I will now put you in touch with my staff for help so as not to look like an asshole on national television" doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the way he acted or the media portrayed him. It doesn't mean we as a public don't realise why he did that. And he knows we know. You're not exposing anything to us.

I think if you we're born into a utopian anarchy, you'd still be just as cynical, only you'd be a hardcore capitalist and believer in representative government.

IamSam
02-12-2009, 03:30 PM
wow i was watching news on tv and "obama was puting a kiss to an old woman's cheek .and that lady's life changed after this kiss cause many people helped her......" wow really wow media is so tragicomic.other poor people may show the cheeks to obama?so i guess this news was a winding key.sweet president -sweet old lady-sweet media ;)

You haven't heard? Obama is the anti-christ. I thought this was old news.

metalmania
02-13-2009, 01:49 PM
hm i dont care about his relegion.christian or muslim or atheist.i dont care about relegions.and i dont care about his relegion.so it was just a game of new management(but it was same) and it used to obama with the kiss hehe.i dont care about your strange ideas.so its me ;)

metalmania
02-13-2009, 02:13 PM
You're being too cynical, as usual. They were having a town hall meeting, which is a semi-open kind of discussion. Something I think an anarchist would love. The lady asked for help, and what was he supposed to do? Tell her no? The media would have a field day with it, saying he's completely incompassionate. Public opinion on him would turn slightly more negative, his approval would suffer, and so would his causes. Obama's best move was to give the old woman a kiss and put her in touch with his staff to help out.

Really dude, there's an underlying reason to why politicians do just about everything, and why they don't do certain things. And just because he didn't say "I will now put you in touch with my staff for help so as not to look like an asshole on national television" doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the way he acted or the media portrayed him. It doesn't mean we as a public don't realise why he did that. And he knows we know. You're not exposing anything to us.

I think if you we're born into a utopian anarchy, you'd still be just as cynical, only you'd be a hardcore capitalist and believer in representative government.
puahahhahaha im sorry dude but i sicken your speechs cause you re just saying same things and you just accuse so its your little power hehe so you re so tragic and i understood that you know NOTHING!!!!you re hungry for foolish words!your brain is working just for your stupid ideas. yes i have say again;your brain is empty about ANARCHISM and have fun with your little-poor ideas.im just laughing to your ideas maybe you can laugh for may grammer but i really laugh to your foolish-fool ideas

metalmania
02-13-2009, 02:27 PM
if you dont read a shit;you live like a shit my little alcomic;)

Superdope
02-13-2009, 03:26 PM
Alright, that's it.

You must be a troll account metalmania. you must.

Never have I seen such mindless dribble being put forward without any regard for argument or reason.

metalmania
02-13-2009, 03:30 PM
puahahhahhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa