All right --- I'm a small fish in a big pond here, but I'm getting tired-as-Hell-of-hearing
the *accusation* of "personal attacks". I'm wondering how other's *categorize* them??
I've been accused of personal attacks by some of the docvic "worshippers", for simply stating things I've heard, and calling the poster on it in question for what they *claimed* to be truth. Fer what it's worth -- I haven't got a beef with ANYONE here, but some folks sure like to make it seem that way.
It's ironic (to me) that those of us who have knowledge of wrong-doing by twi to the *believer populace*, and say so to (certain) posters here get accused of being *personal attackers*. All in all -- I see the *attacking* coming from the docvic worshippers. Hanging on to a *legacy* (if you will), that is comparable to the broken cistern that holds no water.
As I said -- I have no beef with anyone here, but some folks seem to have the blinders on their eyes.
It's a sorry state of affairs, when folks give FIRST-HAND witness to events, and they are ignored by others.
I started this thread so as not to detract from the other one in *About the Way*.
Discuss, or ignore. I needed to *vent*.
Paw/ Mods -- if this is in the wrong forum -- please move it.
I think it is a matter of how we disagree. A few may have seen my favorite example related to baseball umpiring, as described by the late major league ump Ron Luciano. He would allow players and managers to state their disaproval in sometimes strong fashion, as long as they were disagreeing with his call; e.g. "that was a horse**** call". But if they implied that the ump himself was horse**** , they were outta there fast.
Not too long ago, Rascal responded to my post on a thread with "I disagree with your disagreement", then stated her reasons , and of course I had no problem with that. But stating or implying that someone is looney, crazy, having their head up their ***, or in other was degrading the possibility that they could even have a legitimate (not just wrong) opinion is getting a mite (or much more) on the personal side. I've seen that more than once, okay, much more than once, on both sides of a squabble. And who fired the first shot does not matter in the least. Kind of like my view of accidents caused by drivers doing dumb things. IMO as many accidents are caused by drivers responding to drivers doing dumb things.
Really? Please show me how the ones who went thru the abuse _personally_ are not FIRST HAND witnesses. ... That would be a neat trick. <_<
They are first hand witnesses if they give their first hand testimony.
Sorry if you think it a detrimental term -- I don't mean it that way. Never did, never will.
Either way -- it's what I meant.
I'm sure you dont. No, not strong enough or true enough. I know absolutely you don't.
I just wish all the hurts that people do to other people could be confined to those that were intended to hurt. That would solve a lot of problems. Certainly a bunch of them that I have caused.
You need to reread what I said I never said that they were not. I said first hand witnesses accounts vary often at the same event., and there are reasons why that is.
It is very true that even first hand eyewitness accounts on an event can vary. I remember going through an experiment along tose lines in, I think it was junior high school.
There is a difference, though, between first hand accounts of an event that several people are witnessing, and first hand accounts of something that happens or is done to one person. In that case, that is the one we rely on to know what was done. Anyone who has ever gone through "official" sexual harassment training, lectures, or seminars knows full weel that the standard is not what us intended by the harrasser... it is what is said or done to the one harrased. "I'm sorry if you were offended by my remarks, but that's your problem", implying the accused harrasser did nothing wrong, just won't cut it.
When it comes to abuse, variation in eyewitness accounts is immaterial IMO. The eyewitness account of anyone who sees the abuse is, of course, not going to be the same as the account of the abused. Even if there is someone besides the abuser and the abused...usually not the case...and even if that person is sympathetic to the "alleged" victim, that person cannot really testify to the hurt involved. That's why I am so big on getting first hand testimony...not hearsay, not other people talking about it. Anyway, the idea that variation in eyewitness testimony discredits the testimony of the abused is wrong IMO.
It is very true that even first hand eyewitness accounts on an event can vary. I remember going through an experiment along tose lines in, I think it was junior high school.
There is a difference, though, between first hand accounts of an event that several people are witnessing, and first hand accounts of something that happens or is done to one person. In that case, that is the one we rely on to know what was done. Anyone who has ever gone through "official" sexual harassment training, lectures, or seminars knows full weel that the standard is not what us intended by the harrasser... it is what is said or done to the one harrased. "I'm sorry if you were offended by my remarks, but that's your problem", implying the accused harrasser did nothing wrong, just won't cut it.
When it comes to abuse, variation in eyewitness accounts is immaterial IMO. The eyewitness account of anyone who sees the abuse is, of course, not going to be the same as the account of the abused. Even if there is someone besides the abuser and the abused...usually not the case...and even if that person is sympathetic to the "alleged" victim, that person cannot really testify to the hurt involved. That's why I am so big on getting first hand testimony...not hearsay, not other people talking about it. Anyway, the idea that variation in eyewitness testimony discredits the testimony of the abused is wrong IMO.
I never said the abuser did nothing wrong or right for that matter. What I did say is that a person accusing another of a crime has a burden to prove that accusation, not expect it to be taken on faith just because they say so or because the are likable, and until the burden is met one can not assume or refer to the party as guilty or innocent outside of their personal opinion which does not establish either. What I choose to believe about an abuser has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Just because a group of people one two or seven say one thing does not make it truth. And it is not enough to determine guilt or innocence. You think variation in eyewitness accounts is immaterial I hope to God you never serve on a jury , and if someone was serving on a jury and it was your variations I bet you would feel different. So your method is to get one side of the story in an event and believe only that side without a fair hearing? I don't think that is the way our justice system works. Show me a court verdict and you have established guilt, beyond that you have alleged allegations. They may be true they may be false but they still are alleged allegations not proven guilt.
If someone wants to think I'm degrading others by using that term -- that's their problem, not mine.
It wouldn't be a problem at all, until one makes that comment against a poster on a public forum that discourages such activity. "please don't make it personal" means what it says and says what it means. It is very simple.
Besides, even if it were absolutely true that someone were actually worshipping Wierwille, still, it'd be against the forum rules to make it personal on the forum. I believe it is irrelevant to the discussion of the issues what the disposition and character of a poster might be.
Want to get personal? I think the appropriate way would be to use PM, email, snail mail, the telephone, or use automobiles, trains, planes, etc., to visit in person.
It wouldn't be a problem at all, until one makes that comment against a poster on a public forum that discourages such activity. "please don't make it personal" means what it says and says what it means. It is very simple.
Besides, even if it were absolutely true that someone were actually worshipping Wierwille, still, it'd be against the forum rules to make it personal on the forum. I believe it is irrelevant to the discussion of the issues what the disposition and character of a poster might be.
Want to get personal? I think the appropriate way would be to use PM, email, snail mail, the telephone, or use automobiles, trains, planes, etc., to visit in person.
Suppose you were actually a literal bag of douche. Would it still be a personal attack to say, "Oldiesman is a douche bag" or just a statement of fact? Hypothetically speaking.
Maybe we could get a "douche bag" smilie icon in the library? That would get some use, I'm sure.
Point of fact - if WD or OM or someone figures that the claims, statements, accusations about certain events and topics are unproven and/or exaggerated, that's an opinion. Informed by, what - bunch of things probably.
To some extent anyone not directly involved in the events, claims, statements, etc. is going to take that approach too, or should IMO. If it's new news to you or me, we should read and consider carefully, and not make too many assumpltions.
I always assume a supportive position to the first hand account, that's where I have the access.
Someone says "he hit me", I know what to do.
Someone says "he hit them", it's less clear.
"If I understood them correctly, they were told that person got hit and he did it". May not be clear what to do with that.
This board deals with topics very broadly IMO - it provides information, some first hand, some on reliable authority, some heresay. Doesn't mean that any of what's written in any 3 are 100 percent true - the heresay could be truer than what the first hand account offers. I think overall, in general, again - it's wise to carefully consider what I read.
And still (*ayaaahhhhaaawwwwn*) I always assume support for the injured. I'd rather be liberal in that rather than too restrictive. Stories may not jive, but there's no way to know that on this board a lot of the time. Sometimes, don't know about you but what I read I have no way of validating. It may confirm something I already know to be true or add to the stack of "evidence" but I think it's wise to be careful when building a conclusion.
Personal attack,aka ad hominem attack is a common tool of debate. Sometimes in a debate if one party can't successfully "attack" the idea, then out of desperation or frustration they might attack the person. In a debate, the idea is to win. However in a discussion I think the idea is to share ideas respectfully for the greater good.
The problem here is that discussions often evlove in to debates, especially between the "Wierwille worshippers" and the "Werweille haters". I oney use these terms now to add to the point that Socks so elloquently made.
While probably no one literally worships VPW in the sense that most of us understand the term worship, it is just as unlikely that anyone literally hates VPW in the sense that most of us understand the term hate. Figuratively speaking, both terms make a point of sorts, yet in a literal sense, both probably falsely describe any person being accused of either. We should probably dispense with this kind of rhetoric.
Many times the personal attacks are much more subtle than the Wierwille worshipper/hater example or outright name calling. Sometimes threads are started as a personal attack on GSer's in general under the guise "let's all get along" or some other seemingingly well meaning theme. There have been threads here where the whole point of the thread was to attack a certain poster. Sometimes statements are cleverly crafted so as to imply a failing of another or others, without actually saying so. It's still a personal attack.
Then are the issues of being overly sensitive or even feigning offense, so as to silence someone and their ideas. It is politically correct now days not to "offend" anyone. So sometimes that trump is played out here. "You can't say that because it offends me ..." when you know full well that the person is not actually offended and only wants you to stop disagreeing with them and shut up.
Many times people get "offended" when thier ideas are challenged or attacked, ('attack' is not a bad word) and think or pretend that they are being personally attacked when they are not. Some of us need to grow up a bit here. Attacking an idea or a belief even if that belief is personal to someone is not a personal attack. Saying that "that is a bad idea" is not the same as saying "you are bad person".
There will be discussions here and there will also be debates. It would be too huge of a task for anyone to patrol this place so as to eliminate all offenses, personal attacks etc. And even it it could be done, what would we have left?
GS cafe is different things to different people, in spite of what it claims itself to be. By nature, some discussions will be "lively". Some will digress in to heated debates where feeings are going to get hurt (whether intended or not.)
I think about the best we can do is try to be as civilized as possible, and not intentionally offend or attack anyone personally, while politely yet freely expressing our thoughts and ideas. Something to shoot for anyway.
I dunno, I guess I just don't get the personal attack via the Internet thing. It reminds me of kids arguing.
One of the first things I think of when personally attacked here is, is the person making the attack in any way, shape or form, paying my bills? If not, their opinion is about as valuable as the paper it's written on.
Another thing I consider is, what is the likelihood this person is going to show up on my doorstep? Even if they do, there are ways to handle this sort of intrusion.
If someone said my mother hung out by the Lincoln Tunnel (a known haunt for 'ladies of the evening'), I would probably respond with something to the effect of, "You're right, but she made sure we all had food on the table ".
Maybe it's a "Joisey" attitude but my usual response is "Eff em if they can't take a joke". I don't think I've engaged in a personal attack, but if I did, I apologize. It was meant facetiously. And there is a difference between facetiousness and sarcasm.
If you're being facetious, you like the person you're speaking to.
E v e n t u a l l y ... I am sure, at the end of the day, this thread will find its' way, down the lavatory drain...yet Christendom will have survived, although 'smitten', not yet slain!
Still, you have all forgotten, among injustices shared, bad breath and human oder are equally offensive to those you may distain!
I really enjoy the fact that people have different opinions here...and express them! That's a whole lot better than the lockstep groupthinking that takes place in cults...
...IMHO, anyone who stands up around here and starts defending grifter Vic, is like the guy at the carnival who sticks his head through the hole...and everybody throws tomatoes at him. ...and they DESERVE it! Now then...is THAT a personal attack?...Is it MY fault that you didn't have enough bread crumbs to find your way home again? Many of us have come to the stark realization that Wierwille was a worthless conman and abuser and that "wayworld" is the place where the flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz come from...
...It's not a question of personal attacks...it's more a case of "if the shoe fits, wear it"...and that's the gospel according to Groucho...
Many of us have come to the stark realization that Wierwille was a worthless conman and abuser and that "wayworld" is the place where the flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz come from...
...It's not a question of personal attacks...it's more a case of "if the shoe fits, wear it"...and that's the gospel according to Groucho...
THAT may explain the old phrase about monkeys flying out of one's
Maybe it is time to just lay it down and get to it. The rest of this may be one big sack of wasted time. It's time to get serious. It's long overdue. Enough Alternative Lite rock already. It's time to spin some deep death cult metal madness. This all needs to go somewhere, sometime. Let's push it to the limit and see where it goes. That would be better than dikking around and being nice if it's not really meant. Let's just burn this mutherfuggin thing down one time and get it over with.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
16
18
14
Popular Days
Dec 20
45
Dec 5
26
Dec 6
24
Dec 7
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Lifted Up 10 posts
potato 16 posts
Bumpy 18 posts
JeffSjo 14 posts
Popular Days
Dec 20 2007
45 posts
Dec 5 2007
26 posts
Dec 6 2007
24 posts
Dec 7 2007
21 posts
Lifted Up
I think it is a matter of how we disagree. A few may have seen my favorite example related to baseball umpiring, as described by the late major league ump Ron Luciano. He would allow players and managers to state their disaproval in sometimes strong fashion, as long as they were disagreeing with his call; e.g. "that was a horse**** call". But if they implied that the ump himself was horse**** , they were outta there fast.
Not too long ago, Rascal responded to my post on a thread with "I disagree with your disagreement", then stated her reasons , and of course I had no problem with that. But stating or implying that someone is looney, crazy, having their head up their ***, or in other was degrading the possibility that they could even have a legitimate (not just wrong) opinion is getting a mite (or much more) on the personal side. I've seen that more than once, okay, much more than once, on both sides of a squabble. And who fired the first shot does not matter in the least. Kind of like my view of accidents caused by drivers doing dumb things. IMO as many accidents are caused by drivers responding to drivers doing dumb things.
They are first hand witnesses if they give their first hand testimony.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I'm sure you dont. No, not strong enough or true enough. I know absolutely you don't.
I just wish all the hurts that people do to other people could be confined to those that were intended to hurt. That would solve a lot of problems. Certainly a bunch of them that I have caused.
Edited by Lifted UpLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Rather then using the term "docvic worshippers".
I prefer way-brain, which I use on myself also.
To me it means that only a part is affected and not the whole mind.
Whereas the other term denotes total devotion to a thing.
Which I'm sure there are those,
but I'd rather find that part that doesn't do that in another.
And there always is some part of us that they didn't get.
Though they tried like crazy to do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
And not that I haven't engaged in getting personal, and attacking.
I have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
It is very true that even first hand eyewitness accounts on an event can vary. I remember going through an experiment along tose lines in, I think it was junior high school.
There is a difference, though, between first hand accounts of an event that several people are witnessing, and first hand accounts of something that happens or is done to one person. In that case, that is the one we rely on to know what was done. Anyone who has ever gone through "official" sexual harassment training, lectures, or seminars knows full weel that the standard is not what us intended by the harrasser... it is what is said or done to the one harrased. "I'm sorry if you were offended by my remarks, but that's your problem", implying the accused harrasser did nothing wrong, just won't cut it.
When it comes to abuse, variation in eyewitness accounts is immaterial IMO. The eyewitness account of anyone who sees the abuse is, of course, not going to be the same as the account of the abused. Even if there is someone besides the abuser and the abused...usually not the case...and even if that person is sympathetic to the "alleged" victim, that person cannot really testify to the hurt involved. That's why I am so big on getting first hand testimony...not hearsay, not other people talking about it. Anyway, the idea that variation in eyewitness testimony discredits the testimony of the abused is wrong IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
...and with that thought in mind, I thought this might good for a little afternoon tea chuckle...relax
http://www.videosift.com/video/Religion-Bashing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I never said the abuser did nothing wrong or right for that matter. What I did say is that a person accusing another of a crime has a burden to prove that accusation, not expect it to be taken on faith just because they say so or because the are likable, and until the burden is met one can not assume or refer to the party as guilty or innocent outside of their personal opinion which does not establish either. What I choose to believe about an abuser has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Just because a group of people one two or seven say one thing does not make it truth. And it is not enough to determine guilt or innocence. You think variation in eyewitness accounts is immaterial I hope to God you never serve on a jury , and if someone was serving on a jury and it was your variations I bet you would feel different. So your method is to get one side of the story in an event and believe only that side without a fair hearing? I don't think that is the way our justice system works. Show me a court verdict and you have established guilt, beyond that you have alleged allegations. They may be true they may be false but they still are alleged allegations not proven guilt.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Good points Oakspear and Socks, thanks.
It wouldn't be a problem at all, until one makes that comment against a poster on a public forum that discourages such activity. "please don't make it personal" means what it says and says what it means. It is very simple.
Besides, even if it were absolutely true that someone were actually worshipping Wierwille, still, it'd be against the forum rules to make it personal on the forum. I believe it is irrelevant to the discussion of the issues what the disposition and character of a poster might be.
Want to get personal? I think the appropriate way would be to use PM, email, snail mail, the telephone, or use automobiles, trains, planes, etc., to visit in person.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Every thing I say is personal.
To me for sure, others I don't know if it is or not.
This is about personal attacks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shortfuse
Suppose you were actually a literal bag of douche. Would it still be a personal attack to say, "Oldiesman is a douche bag" or just a statement of fact? Hypothetically speaking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think it'd be both.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washn'wear
this reminds me of the idea of political correctness and cultural sensitivity.
If I don't prefer a cultural paradigm or certain activities am I insensitive?
If we cannot agree and find something distasteful - how is it okay to express that and not be accused of being prejudiced or insensitive?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Maybe we could get a "douche bag" smilie icon in the library? That would get some use, I'm sure.
Point of fact - if WD or OM or someone figures that the claims, statements, accusations about certain events and topics are unproven and/or exaggerated, that's an opinion. Informed by, what - bunch of things probably.
To some extent anyone not directly involved in the events, claims, statements, etc. is going to take that approach too, or should IMO. If it's new news to you or me, we should read and consider carefully, and not make too many assumpltions.
I always assume a supportive position to the first hand account, that's where I have the access.
Someone says "he hit me", I know what to do.
Someone says "he hit them", it's less clear.
"If I understood them correctly, they were told that person got hit and he did it". May not be clear what to do with that.
This board deals with topics very broadly IMO - it provides information, some first hand, some on reliable authority, some heresay. Doesn't mean that any of what's written in any 3 are 100 percent true - the heresay could be truer than what the first hand account offers. I think overall, in general, again - it's wise to carefully consider what I read.
And still (*ayaaahhhhaaawwwwn*) I always assume support for the injured. I'd rather be liberal in that rather than too restrictive. Stories may not jive, but there's no way to know that on this board a lot of the time. Sometimes, don't know about you but what I read I have no way of validating. It may confirm something I already know to be true or add to the stack of "evidence" but I think it's wise to be careful when building a conclusion.
My 'pinion. Sue me.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I smite thee.
I smite thee.
I smite thee.
...is that a personal attack?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nero
I was smitten.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Only if the 'abuse' occurs in the past tense! Any Philistine woman will do!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Personal attack,aka ad hominem attack is a common tool of debate. Sometimes in a debate if one party can't successfully "attack" the idea, then out of desperation or frustration they might attack the person. In a debate, the idea is to win. However in a discussion I think the idea is to share ideas respectfully for the greater good.
The problem here is that discussions often evlove in to debates, especially between the "Wierwille worshippers" and the "Werweille haters". I oney use these terms now to add to the point that Socks so elloquently made.
While probably no one literally worships VPW in the sense that most of us understand the term worship, it is just as unlikely that anyone literally hates VPW in the sense that most of us understand the term hate. Figuratively speaking, both terms make a point of sorts, yet in a literal sense, both probably falsely describe any person being accused of either. We should probably dispense with this kind of rhetoric.
Many times the personal attacks are much more subtle than the Wierwille worshipper/hater example or outright name calling. Sometimes threads are started as a personal attack on GSer's in general under the guise "let's all get along" or some other seemingingly well meaning theme. There have been threads here where the whole point of the thread was to attack a certain poster. Sometimes statements are cleverly crafted so as to imply a failing of another or others, without actually saying so. It's still a personal attack.
Then are the issues of being overly sensitive or even feigning offense, so as to silence someone and their ideas. It is politically correct now days not to "offend" anyone. So sometimes that trump is played out here. "You can't say that because it offends me ..." when you know full well that the person is not actually offended and only wants you to stop disagreeing with them and shut up.
Many times people get "offended" when thier ideas are challenged or attacked, ('attack' is not a bad word) and think or pretend that they are being personally attacked when they are not. Some of us need to grow up a bit here. Attacking an idea or a belief even if that belief is personal to someone is not a personal attack. Saying that "that is a bad idea" is not the same as saying "you are bad person".
There will be discussions here and there will also be debates. It would be too huge of a task for anyone to patrol this place so as to eliminate all offenses, personal attacks etc. And even it it could be done, what would we have left?
GS cafe is different things to different people, in spite of what it claims itself to be. By nature, some discussions will be "lively". Some will digress in to heated debates where feeings are going to get hurt (whether intended or not.)
I think about the best we can do is try to be as civilized as possible, and not intentionally offend or attack anyone personally, while politely yet freely expressing our thoughts and ideas. Something to shoot for anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Well said Goey.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
I dunno, I guess I just don't get the personal attack via the Internet thing. It reminds me of kids arguing.
One of the first things I think of when personally attacked here is, is the person making the attack in any way, shape or form, paying my bills? If not, their opinion is about as valuable as the paper it's written on.
Another thing I consider is, what is the likelihood this person is going to show up on my doorstep? Even if they do, there are ways to handle this sort of intrusion.
If someone said my mother hung out by the Lincoln Tunnel (a known haunt for 'ladies of the evening'), I would probably respond with something to the effect of, "You're right, but she made sure we all had food on the table ".
Maybe it's a "Joisey" attitude but my usual response is "Eff em if they can't take a joke". I don't think I've engaged in a personal attack, but if I did, I apologize. It was meant facetiously. And there is a difference between facetiousness and sarcasm.
If you're being facetious, you like the person you're speaking to.
If you're being sarcastic, chances are you don't.
My 2 cents on the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
E v e n t u a l l y ... I am sure, at the end of the day, this thread will find its' way, down the lavatory drain...yet Christendom will have survived, although 'smitten', not yet slain!
Still, you have all forgotten, among injustices shared, bad breath and human oder are equally offensive to those you may distain!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I really enjoy the fact that people have different opinions here...and express them! That's a whole lot better than the lockstep groupthinking that takes place in cults...
...IMHO, anyone who stands up around here and starts defending grifter Vic, is like the guy at the carnival who sticks his head through the hole...and everybody throws tomatoes at him.
...and they DESERVE it! Now then...is THAT a personal attack?...Is it MY fault that you didn't have enough bread crumbs to find your way home again? Many of us have come to the stark realization that Wierwille was a worthless conman and abuser and that "wayworld" is the place where the flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz come from...
...It's not a question of personal attacks...it's more a case of "if the shoe fits, wear it"...and that's the gospel according to Groucho...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
THAT may explain the old phrase about monkeys flying out of one's
:biglaugh: 
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Aw, Tom wouldn't smote a flo.
Maybe it is time to just lay it down and get to it. The rest of this may be one big sack of wasted time. It's time to get serious. It's long overdue. Enough Alternative Lite rock already. It's time to spin some deep death cult metal madness. This all needs to go somewhere, sometime. Let's push it to the limit and see where it goes. That would be better than dikking around and being nice if it's not really meant. Let's just burn this mutherfuggin thing down one time and get it over with.
Who's up for it?
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
You mean an all out food fight? Take no prisoners? The gloves come off?
Let loose the hellhounds?
sounds like fun
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.