Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear Page: <<   < prev  24 25 26 [27] 28   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 4:49:10 AM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado
My posts 424, 443, and 478 were on the specific topic of the assertions that Jews and Arabs/Muslim lived in peace until the Jews stole the Palestinian homeland.  That claim was false, it was proven false by the cited references, and that should have been the end of it.

Are you now admitting that the person who made that post was wrong to do so?





A better person to ask would be the one who made that claim.

I did not do so, and I am not sure what an "admission" from me would mean.

Please clarify?

Sinergy




Thanks for proving the point. You've been called on your assertions by more than one person, and refuted factually.
Feel free to continue this tactic of playing every high school debate team trick you can think of to avoid taking responsibility for your own words, maybe you will find sombeody to fall for it. 

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 521
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 5:23:47 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Meat will with out batting an eye justify the USSR occupying Eastern Europe to defend itself.  


The US occupied western Europe to defend itself. Pointing out that the USSR did the same by occupying eastern Europe to defend itself is not justifying their position.

I was of the opinion both the USSR and USA should fuck off back to from where they came after the war or at least occupy no more than their slice of their enemey's territory and not the whole fucking continent.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 3/3/2008 5:24:42 AM >


_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 522
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 5:31:17 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
It's a plagarizm of a satirical pamphlet by Maurice Joly

So that pushes the date back to 1865. It does not imply that this Declaration of intent is a forgery nor plagiarism. Some schemes do evolve and necessitate to be restated at subsequent times when appropriate.

Wrong.

Maurice Joly's pamphlet, (translated from the original French) Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, has nothing to do with Jews but is actually a screed against Napoleon III.

I am (nearly) always right, that is my nature. What did you not understand about the words that I this time for your convenience made bold?

Once more for the slow, the protocols are a plagarization of a completely unrelated work by the Frenchman Maurice Joly. The original is a satiric pamphlet consisting of a dialoge between Machiavelli and Montesquieu occuring in Hell. It is thinly disguised anti Napoleon III propoganda which got the author thrown in jail. The protocols purport to be a guide to a worldwide conspiracy of jews for a new 'elder.' Passages from the Joly pamphlet appear unaltered in the protocols, that is plagarism.



Once more you are wrong as I have shown on the previous page but you choose to ignore it and spout your propaganda regardless

The "TIMES" concludes this article with the following significant words:

"If the "Protocols" were written by the Learned Elders of Zion then everything that was attempted and done against the Jews, is justified, necessary and urgent"


Once more you post 1/2 the information and it was in the hebrew  language prior to being written in french.





_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 523
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 5:32:33 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19

By the way guys, The term "jew" is deragatory. You should say "the jewish people".



About time somebody made this point.


I was listening to two Jewish people (both highly educated and occupying high professional positions) debating Israel's policy in Gaza on TV yesterday (for and against) and they used the term Jew a couple of times. It seems this sensitivity is purely part of the American school of political correctness.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 524
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 5:34:02 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19

By the way guys, The term "jew" is deragatory. You should say "the jewish people".



About time somebody made this point.


Why is that derogatory, that strikes me as getting offended because one would refer to you as as the red head, instead of the red headed girl.

edited to add: I know this can't be a commonly held notion, because in documentaries about "the jewish people"(would have been shorter just to writes "jews" thus the common usage IMO), they refer to "the jewish people" as jews, and these aren't
"jewish people" hating propaganda pieces but regular documentaries. I think someone would have made a stink about it before now, if this really was really an issue within the "jewish community of people"..




< Message edited by NeedToUseYou -- 3/3/2008 5:38:44 AM >

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 525
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 5:35:23 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19

By the way guys, The term "jew" is deragatory. You should say "the jewish people".



About time somebody made this point.


Someone care to explain the lunacy behind this?


So now its the;

"white people"  (not whites)

"Black people"  (not blacks)

"protestant people" (not protestants)


By all means explain this lunacy.






_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 526
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 5:46:47 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
Jewish people invariably refer to themselves as Jewish, not as "Jews". I'm Jewish; I'm not "a Jew". One's an adjective; the other a noun. There's an edge attached to the term "Jew" which one doesn't find in other religious adjectives. It must come from thousands of years of persecussions. Take our word for it, and call us what we ask you to call us. I attach extracts from a relevant article to help you understand the not so subtle difference.

quote:



One gap between the terms is obvious: “Jew” is a noun, “Jewish” an adjective. Grammatically, then, the two diverge, although that structural difference need not be ideological. So, for example, to “What is your religion?”, the usual response would be “Jewish,” not “Jew,” calling on the adjective rather than the double noun of “Religion: Jew.”

“Jewish,” in this case, would be analogous to “Episcopalian,” “Muslim” or “Catholic.” To be sure, noun and adjective in those examples are identical, but this would not explain why, without the ambiguity, Jewish should be favored over Jew.

(...)

But we also know that identity-references made by others may give offense neither given nor taken within the group. Kinky Friedman could name his band the Texas Jewboys, even though “Jewboy” from the outside would be a slur. And the magazine Heeb would have had a harder and shorter life if it had been directed from outside rather than inside the community.

Even these comments, however, do not resolve the question of why references to “a Jew” — however accurate — acquired its edge. Perhaps some of that derives from openly derogatory uses of “Jew” which — perhaps because of its conciseness or the ease of uttering one syllable? — have been more plentiful than those employing “Jewish.” “Dirty Jew,” for example, has a long history in English.

(...)

Certain oddities in this grammatical network are worth mentioning. The noun “Jew,” for example, has been pushed into other parts of speech. To “Jew someone down,” as in bargaining, has made its derogatory way as a verb, and a “Jew store” turns the proper noun into an offensive adjective.
Does forcing a noun into other grammatical forms introduce negative connotation? That clearly depends on the particular noun and its context. Then, again, some negative connotations related to Jew seem to emerge only when the indefinite article preceding it becomes definite — that is, when “a” or “an” become “the.”

So, for example, in T.S. Eliot’s “Gerontion,” “And the jew squats on the windowsill.’ The lower case “j” and the squatting make the derogatory intention here unmistakable — although “the jew” even in upper case would have sufficed, as the corporate reference is meant to capture all Jews as one. Certainly, the phrase “the Jews” at the beginning of a sentence often augurs a less hopeful future for the sentence than the term “Jews” by itself. As, for example, in “The Jews killed Jesus” or “The Jews control Hollywood.”



http://www.forward.com/articles/you-can-take-the-jew-out-of-jewish-but-you-probabl/



_____________________________



(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 527
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 5:51:04 AM   
RealityLicks


Posts: 1615
Joined: 10/23/2007
Status: offline
In the light of where this thread is going currently, I'm going to take a short break from it, out of respect for the scores of civilians murdered in Gaza this weekend.

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 528
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 5:52:53 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
Do what your conscience tells you.

_____________________________



(in reply to RealityLicks)
Profile   Post #: 529
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 6:00:31 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

Lets get insanely fucking PC now shall well

Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary
Jew Definition

Jew- (noun)

1. General: One who claims descent from the Hebrew tribes who inhabited ancient Judea, and those who married into the Jewish people and faith or converted to the Jewish religion.

2. A formally accepted member of the Jewish religion: A person is a member of the Jewish religion who has been born to a Jewish mother (in orthodox Judaism) or who has a Jewish parent of either sex, has been raised as a Jew and chooses the Jewish religion (in some branches of Reform Judaism). Jews who have been converted or who are considered Jewish by reform rabbis may not be considered to be Jewish under orthodox Jewish law, but may be registered as Jews by the Israeli government, if they have been converted abroad or if they meet other criteria under Israeli law.

3. By Israeli law: a person who is eligible to return to Israel and become a citizen automatically under the law of return. That is, one who is an accepted member of the Jewish religion, or who has at least one grandparent who was an accepted member of the Jewish religion, and who has not actively renounced his or her Jewish identity.

4. By personal definition: One who claims affiliation with the Jewish people, nation, or ethnic group.

5. By definition of laws and customs of others: A person who is no longer a member of the Jewish religion and does not consider himself or herself as such, but who is of Jewish descent and may be considered Jewish by others. For example, Karl Marx, who was born a Christian but was of Jewish descent, as well as those who were considered Jewish under Nazi law.

6. Obsolete and derogatory - A usurer. One who lends money at interest. A merchant, a swindler.

Jew (verb) Colloquial and derogatory - to swindle someone or bargain someone down. EG - "He Jewed me down."

Jew (adjective) - Colloquial and derogatory - as in "Jew-neighborhood" "Jew-bastard" etc.

http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Jew.htm


You are going to piss and moan about that when anything can be written that way for anyone?  jews is plural for many or more than one jewish people DUH


Why not talk about your bible instead of picking gnat shit out of pepper?

Non-Jews are Not Human
Baba Mezia 114a-114b. Only Jews are human ("Only ye are designated men"). Also see Kerithoth 6b under the sub-head, "Oil of Anointing" and Berakoth 58a in which Gentile women are designated animals ("she-asses").

O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

Jews May Steal from Non-Jews
Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).

Sanhedrin 76a . God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.


Anyone seen a religion preach more hate mongering than this?  I havent.





_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 530
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 6:09:36 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Jewish people invariably refer to themselves as Jewish, not as "Jews". I'm Jewish; I'm not "a Jew". One's an adjective; the other a noun. There's an edge attached to the term "Jew" which one doesn't find in other religious adjectives. It must come from thousands of years of persecussions. Take our word for it, and call us what we ask you to call us. I attach extracts from a relevant article to help you understand the not so subtle difference.


I understand the difference between stating "jewish people" and jews. It is technically incorrect(if the intent is benign, I should say), I'm not commenting on that but rather standard everyday usage and intent.  But this usage is not some anomaly only in regards to the "the jewish people". If someone was talking about "the christian people" almost invariably they would say. The christians are doing x,y,and z. The common usage in all these cases  is to cut out the "people" reference(as it is inferred by the subject) and refer to the group solely by the  characteristic at hand. Thus people say "the christians" not "the christian people" , or "the french" not the french people", or "the arabs" not "the arab people" or "the mexicans" not "the mexican people", or "the hindus" not "the hindu people",. I could go on and on and on, pointing out cases to where the exact same thing is done, and no one gets offended.

The christians want to ban abortion. What's different between. The jews want peace in the middle east.

I wouldn't see either as offensive, and it appears to me, that if "the jewish people" are really offended by that it is the case of being offended by the same usage other people seem to endure without any offense.





< Message edited by NeedToUseYou -- 3/3/2008 6:11:32 AM >

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 531
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 6:14:41 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
It's not about us being offended; it's about you not wishing to offend us :-) . I think if you peruse through the link I attached, things might be a little clearer.

_____________________________



(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 532
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 6:21:36 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Since you see no value in it, I am not sure what point there would be.


You are probably right.
 
Consider it from a total stranger on a message board's point of view. Having only known you from interactions on this message board, I can only draw from two possible conclusions:
 
a) you don't want to answer the questions ... as such an intelligent response is pointless.
b) you truly don't understand the question ... as such, you wouldn't understand an intelligent response.
 
That's not really meant to be a slight, only an understanding of our limited understanding of other posters on message boards. I see you as a person that enjoys calling people monkeys, and will not back off statements like, "Vietnam proved that strategic bombing doesn't work.", which I find to be one of the most ill thought out points ever made on this board.
 
Now, this impression could be completely wrong. If we knew each other offline, I might have a completely different opinion ... but, as we only know each other from here, only two things appear clear to me:
 
a) Intelligent debate with you is pointless, for whatever reason.
b) I'm not very wise, for continuing to try.

_____________________________

I wish I could buy back ...
the woman you stole.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 533
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 6:37:26 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

It's not about us being offended; it's about you not wishing to offend us :-) . I think if you peruse through the link I attached, things might be a little clearer.


Okay I went and read the whole article instead of the snippets that you inserted, and despite that my viewpoint is still the same.

One example in the article was....

As, for example, in “The Jews killed Jesus” or “The Jews control Hollywood.”

Used as examples of derogatory uses of Jew or Jews instead of Jewish people or Jewish person  But the problem here is that even if everyone accepted the notion that we should all say "Jewish people", then those same sentences become.

As, for example, in “The Jewish people killed Jesus” or “The Jewish people control Hollywood.”

I don't see how changing those from one to the other changes anything, in regards to the outcome of perception or any derogatory intent.  It doesn't change the meaning at all for me when I read the two sentences with the changes. It would just morph with common usage into what? getting offended by the term "Jewish".


Unfortunately, I can't say I will not say jew, as it seems pointless to use any reference differently than another, and I don't worry about upsetting people that attach to such things emotionally. (Not saying you do, but anyone that would get offended by "jew","Jew", versus "jewish person", "Jewish person" by default, is being hyper-sensitive in my view).

We disagree, I have to go do some work now.




(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 534
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 6:43:54 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
The very reason that the term "the Jews" has become derogatory is because it tends to be followed by erroneous examples of Jewish nefarious activity, such as Jesus and Hollywood and what have you. You attach a word to a prejudice, and the word becomes the prejudice. Have a good day at work.

_____________________________



(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 535
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 8:53:47 AM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I see you as a person that enjoys calling people monkeys, and will not back off statements like, "Vietnam proved that strategic bombing doesn't work.", which I find to be one of the most ill thought out points ever made on this board.




You know, if you read my points, I pointed out that we bombed the living crap out of Vietnam.  Then we gave up and pulled our troops out.

If you can provide me with empirical information proving the United States won the Vietnam War, and that strategic bombing was the linchpin that secured our victory in Southeast Asia, I would love to hear it.

Until then, I stand by that statement that strategic bombing does not secure military victories despite your feeling that it is one of the most obtuse comments I have ever made.

Monkeyergy


_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 536
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 9:04:05 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
My response was that Vietnam only proved that strategic bombing didn't work in Vietnam.
 
Others pointed out that strategic bombing is a tool as part of a greater strategy. I have never read anything, from anyone that know what they are talking about, that suggests that strategic bombing alone, can win anything.
 
If you want to link victory or defeat with strategic bombing, it would be up to you to provide data proving that military leaders of the day expected this and this alone, to win the war. You might also be asked to prove that the half-million combat troops we had in Vietnam, were only there to assess bomb damage.

< Message edited by caitlyn -- 3/3/2008 9:05:12 AM >


_____________________________

I wish I could buy back ...
the woman you stole.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 537
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 9:09:08 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
Seemed to me that strategic bombing worked pretty well in Kosovo. 

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 538
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 9:09:52 AM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Others pointed out that strategic bombing is a tool as part of a greater strategy. I have never read anything, from anyone that know what they are talking about, that suggests that strategic bombing alone, can win anything.



I did not actually disagree with them.

I can recall a few presidents who used strategic and tactical bombing to accomplish things, with nothing resulting from it until troops were put on the ground.

Sticks in my mind that the government of Israel uses bombing quite frequently to accomplish their goals.  Goals, mind you, that dont seem to ever get realized.

quote:



If you want to link victory or defeat with strategic bombing



Why would I want to do that?

Sinergy


_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 539
RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear - 3/3/2008 9:16:01 AM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Jewish people invariably refer to themselves as Jewish, not as "Jews". I'm Jewish; I'm not "a Jew". One's an adjective; the other a noun. There's an edge attached to the term "Jew" which one doesn't find in other religious adjectives. It must come from thousands of years of persecussions. Take our word for it, and call us what we ask you to call us. I attach extracts from a relevant article to help you understand the not so subtle difference.

quote:



One gap between the terms is obvious: “Jew” is a noun, “Jewish” an adjective. Grammatically, then, the two diverge, although that structural difference need not be ideological. So, for example, to “What is your religion?”, the usual response would be “Jewish,” not “Jew,” calling on the adjective rather than the double noun of “Religion: Jew.”

“Jewish,” in this case, would be analogous to “Episcopalian,” “Muslim” or “Catholic.” To be sure, noun and adjective in those examples are identical, but this would not explain why, without the ambiguity, Jewish should be favored over Jew.

(...)

But we also know that identity-references made by others may give offense neither given nor taken within the group. Kinky Friedman could name his band the Texas Jewboys, even though “Jewboy” from the outside would be a slur. And the magazine Heeb would have had a harder and shorter life if it had been directed from outside rather than inside the community.

Even these comments, however, do not resolve the question of why references to “a Jew” — however accurate — acquired its edge. Perhaps some of that derives from openly derogatory uses of “Jew” which — perhaps because of its conciseness or the ease of uttering one syllable? — have been more plentiful than those employing “Jewish.” “Dirty Jew,” for example, has a long history in English.

(...)

Certain oddities in this grammatical network are worth mentioning. The noun “Jew,” for example, has been pushed into other parts of speech. To “Jew someone down,” as in bargaining, has made its derogatory way as a verb, and a “Jew store” turns the proper noun into an offensive adjective.
Does forcing a noun into other grammatical forms introduce negative connotation? That clearly depends on the particular noun and its context. Then, again, some negative connotations related to Jew seem to emerge only when the indefinite article preceding it becomes definite — that is, when “a” or “an” become “the.”

So, for example, in T.S. Eliot’s “Gerontion,” “And the jew squats on the windowsill.’ The lower case “j” and the squatting make the derogatory intention here unmistakable — although “the jew” even in upper case would have sufficed, as the corporate reference is meant to capture all Jews as one. Certainly, the phrase “the Jews” at the beginning of a sentence often augurs a less hopeful future for the sentence than the term “Jews” by itself. As, for example, in “The Jews killed Jesus” or “The Jews control Hollywood.”



http://www.forward.com/articles/you-can-take-the-jew-out-of-jewish-but-you-probabl/


I'll keep what you say in mind, kitten. I know that I have used the word "Jew" repeatedly, without any intention to offend.  Indeed, I was unaware that such usage was offensive. If I did offend, es tut mir Leid.


(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 540
Page:   <<   < prev  24 25 26 [27] 28   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Iran: Israel will soon disappear Page: <<   < prev  24 25 26 [27] 28   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

7.537