It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I've been doing some thinking...

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rikimaru
Do you know why they dont eat with their left hand?:lol

[edit on 29-9-2005 by Rikimaru]


yes i think most of us know why. but then tell me wht is better. washing your car, or wiping it clean. whts cleaner??




posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg

u were luckier than them. simple


Oh yes! We were luckier than them!. We've created computer, T.Vs, airplanes, cars, movies, and other things that would seem like "magic" to these people because we were luckier than them. I see.


Originally posted by Herman
i wont even comment on this statement. it reaks of ignorance


Please, comment. I'd like to see what you have to say.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
'Oh yes! We were luckier than them!. We've created computer, T.Vs, airplanes, cars, movies, and other things that would seem like "magic" to these people because we were luckier than them. I see.'
Herman

I wish I was as lucky as Herman. He was one of the creators of computers, T.V.s, planes, cars, movies, etc. An unbelievable curriculum vitae, that would be the envy of Thomas Edison were it even remotely realistic. Who are the rest of the 'we' he is referring to? I'd like to applaud their contributions to progress too. I was born in Canada, to a low to middle class family that sometimes faced lean times, but I never went to bed hungry, and none of my siblings starved to death. So, even though I am no elite academe such as he, I too feel myself to be very lucky. Even luckier than I can believe, or feel I could ever deserve. If I had been born in rural Eritrea during a multi-year famine, and watched all my loved ones waste away and perish before my eyes, I don't know how I would carry on. But luckily I was born in Canada, no. 1 in the world in production of garbage per capita, but even more fortunate, I live in BC, which led the nation in garbage per capita. And my one complaint would be having to go to bed each night, knowing full well that 'we' let 50 000 more kids die that day. Lucky no one is punishing us.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
ok here it is.

yes u were luckier. the "whites" or the europeans (for that matter the egyptians, the sumerians, the indians, the chinese, the persians) all lived in relatively docile environments. where it was possible to obtain ones basic necessaties, namely food etc without much struggle thereby leaving time and space for other endeavours.

this is wht lead to the development of the great ancient civilizations, and this is wht ultimately lead to the rise of europe as one of the dominanat forces in this world.

simple. once your basic needs are satisfied then you will think of something else, if not then u continue to struggle for survival.

had the africans been in a similar situation i am sure they would have ruled over the "whites"

like i said the development of a society is a very complex issue. but there always are certain basic pre-conditions to be fulfilled. one is ease of living true but this can only take you so far. second is conatct with external cultures.

all the major civilizations had this (or are we forgetting the crusades)

so stating a fact again. You were lucky

and as for the statement you made about the tribals being more violent and stuff. look back to your own history and you will see that the africans are going through similar develoment stages in their society as your own ancestors were many centuries earlier, i.e. frequent conflicts, war mogering, jostling for power (the dark ages come to mind).is it their fault that they have been readily supplied with much more deadly weapons to do this with (or is it the fault of the people who develop and supply these weapons)

as it is i dont think the "whites" have any right to judge other people on they violence they propogate, seeing as tht they have been at the centre of most violence since ancient times. the tribal conflicts are atleast local in nature. unlike certain conflicts involving "whites" which thretened the very existance of this world.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
'tell me wht is better. washing your car, or wiping it clean. whts cleaner??'
puneet

Well washing is better all things being equal. Of course once you consider that if you wipe it with a paper product, the paint will get scratched, and a tree will need to be logged. And of course all the associated toxic waste issues a pulp mill creates need to be solved if paper is necessary. But if not then the fish and forest critters will be happier.
I can see that washing vs. wiping is a multilayered question, and for me, on every layer, washing wins.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Do you know why they dont eat with their left hand?

rikimaru

It is that sense of humour that is often interpreted as being based on ignorance and bigotry. Also, I wonder why you feel it is Americans who are singled out as being racist? Most any culture is ethnocentrically biased, and the US is, in principle anyway, one of the least so.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I've been watching this thread/conversation with great interest. And I'm trying my best to see all the views of point. But I don't get the point you're trying to make, BlackGuard. At some stage I thought I understood you, but then I lost you again. What is your point? Some good hearted humanitarian? Or some sort of "Hippie"? (Not meant as an insult!)


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I wish I was as lucky as Herman. He was one of the creators of computers, TV’s, planes, cars, movies, etc. An unbelievable curriculum vitae, that would be the envy of Thomas Edison were it even remotely realistic. Who are the rest of the 'we' he is referring to? I'd like to applaud their contributions to progress too. I was born in Canada, to a low to middle class family that sometimes faced lean times, but I never went to bed hungry, and none of my siblings starved to death. So, even though I am no elite academe such as he, I too feel myself to be very lucky. Even luckier than I can believe, or feel I could ever deserve. If I had been born in rural Eritrea during a multi-year famine, and watched all my loved ones waste away and perish before my eyes, I don't know how I would carry on. But luckily I was born in Canada, no. 1 in the world in production of garbage per capita, but even more fortunate, I live in BC, which led the nation in garbage per capita. And my one complaint would be having to go to bed each night, knowing full well that 'we' let 50 000 more kids die that day. Lucky no one is punishing us.


So you don't like technology and what it's doing to the earth? (I'm still not sure what influence TV has on the poverty in rural Africa...) Yet, you just love your TV, don't you? You love your electricity and gas? You love your car, and you can't imagine your life without it? Not to mention your computer?
What exactly are YOU doing about all of this? Are you just laying on your back in your bed feeling sad for 50 000 dead kids (don't know where you got this figure from!?) ? Are you just complaining about how bad technology is making your planet on a Forum on the Internet? Well, if things are so bad, why don't you leave everything and go live a basic life in middle Africa or Australia with the Aborigines?

I'm not attacking you; I'm just trying to figure out why you're so negative?



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
its ok gemwolf. blackguard means well. not everyone looks at things the same way. some ppl are more passionate abt thngs. there isnt anything wrong with tht now is there



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
--
I wish I was as lucky as Herman. He was one of the creators of computers, T.V.s, planes, cars, movies, etc. An unbelievable curriculum vitae, that would be the envy of Thomas Edison were it even remotely realistic. Who are the rest of the 'we' he is referring to? I'd like to applaud their contributions to progress too. I was born in Canada, to a low to middle class family that sometimes faced lean times, but I never went to bed hungry, and none of my siblings starved to death. So, even though I am no elite academe such as he, I too feel myself to be very lucky. Even luckier than I can believe, or feel I could ever deserve. If I had been born in rural Eritrea during a multi-year famine, and watched all my loved ones waste away and perish before my eyes, I don't know how I would carry on. But luckily I was born in Canada, no. 1 in the world in production of garbage per capita, but even more fortunate, I live in BC, which led the nation in garbage per capita. And my one complaint would be having to go to bed each night, knowing full well that 'we' let 50 000 more kids die that day. Lucky no one is punishing us.


Allllright. I was trying to just let this die, as I'm really short on time and don't have a lot of time for a long thought-out reply, but you just keep dragging me right back in.

We were having a debate between the modern world and the primitive world, and he remarked that we (Being the modern world) were lucky to get where we are.

Now my remark was that we (The modern, civilized people) did not simply get lucky, but through progress and accomplishment created these things.

Now back to your original remark that the tribal people are more "civilized" than us, let's examine a few definitions, shall we?

The definition of civilized.


To raise from barbarism to an enlightened stage of development; bring out of a primitive or savage state.


Interesting. The definition of civilized seems to mention being raised out of a state of barbarism. Seeing as how human beings all started at the same level, the ones who developed technology, cities, worldwide communication, a world-wide economic system, world wide politics, understanding of scientific concepts, electricity, the internet, cars, planes, and millions of other things would have to be the ones being raised out of the previous stage, correct? Now let us look up the definition of .
primitive


Not derived from something else; primary or basic.

1. Of or relating to an earliest or original stage or state; primeval.
2. Being little evolved from an early ancestral type.


Interesting. The earliest or original stage or state. Now, maybe I'm not as intelligent or enlightened as you, but I'm pretty damned sure that we (The advanced ones) are not in our original state of development. In fact, I'm pretty sure that we WERE derived from primitive people ourselves. Are you going to try to argue that the primitive people are more advanced than us? Are you going to try to tell me that we, the people who use technology are more closely related to our earliest stage of development than the people who are less technologically advanced than the romans, and all of those other civilizations from before even Christ's time?

Now for fun, in case you still don't get it, let's look up the definition for .primary or basic, you take your pick!

As for primitive, I think the 3rd and 4th definitions are the most fitting.


# Occurring first in time or sequence; earliest.
# Being or existing as the first or earliest of a kind; primitive.


Now, I'm pretty damned sure that technology didn't come BEFORE sticks and stones, but I could be wrong on that one. We're going to assume I'm correct, and say that the Aborigines, the african tribal people, etc. etc. (From here on out, I'm just going to call them the primitive people) are more primary than us (The technologically advanced people...I'm getting sick of this).

And as for basic, basic seems to be pretty much the same thing as primary.

Now if we examine the definition of Primitive again:


Not derived from something else; primary or basic.

1. Of or relating to an earliest or original stage or state; primeval.
2. Being little evolved from an early ancestral type.


The whole being primary and basic thing (Your Aborigines, African tribal people, etc.) seems to tie in.

And now (Finally!) this all seems to tie back into the definition of civilized, which seems to be the main point of this little debate.

Let's examine that definition a second time.


To raise from barbarism to an enlightened stage of development; bring out of a primitive or savage state.


Furthermore, you try to make it sound as if these people have "found a better way to live." Almost like they HAD the technology, but rejected it in order to live in a more ecologically sound way. Like they developed, but then said "eh...we don't really like this whole technology thing. Let's try living more primitive. I bet you it'll be better". I think that we both know that this is completely ridiculous. These people are primitive because they never evolved. They never evolved because....well we don't really know that, do we?

There, I've turned this thing inside and out for you. Now maybe I can get some rest and relaxation.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   
hey herman

ok let me try and explain my point of view (and possible blackguard's pov) here

firstly, you can throw those definations out the window because there is no such thing as primitive and advanced and all tht cause its all a matter of perception. the "modern world" might be technologically advanced but we still are lacking in several aspects as far as our societal development goes. we are continually turning back on ancient wisdom, rediscovering and trying to re-find old wisdoms and knowledge, because we have forgotten them, and they make our life helpful

so if u look at your explanation, we are learning from primitive ppl, whihc since we are advanced should not be doing.

the point is. there is no primitive, there is no advanced, there is just culture. and it develops in the way tht helps the ppl live in best possible way within the environment

now i am not saying tht so called mordern culture is bad, its jus tht when it is forced upon all environments in our world the results tend to be bad for the environment. it tends to throw nature of balance. tht is why we have to be much more careful in our attempts to take civilization everywhere

now getting back to your point abt 'ur ppl' having worked hard for their development. its true. cant argue against it. they did work very hard.

but wht i am trying to say is tht they were lucky (as were mine) to have the opportunity to work hard on something other than basic survival. simple



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
The local Pacific Northwest First Nations people had thousands of years of time when they did not need to spend any where near as much time on survival as the average person does now. Some estimates put the amount of free time at 5 to 6 days a week. What did they do with this extra time? Build bombs, guns, weapons? No, they did artwork, made beautiful blankets, capes, masks, totem poles, and carvings. These works of art were recognized for their quality and collected by art collectors around the world since over a century ago.
My position is this: If existing in a eternally sustainable harmonious state with nature is considered savage, barbaric, uncivilized, and primitive, then so be it. I'd choose that life whatever label you wish to put on it.
As for technological progress, I have enjoyed the benefits of indoor plumbing, the internet, the airplane, etc., and admit that they are an amazing achievement that I would hate to have to lose. But if keeping all our modern marvels is at the ultimate price of destroying our planet, (which sure looks likely), then I would choose to let them go.
Of course our definition of civilized is going to point at our way as the definition. The victors always write the history books. 'History is the lie agreed upon.' Henry Ford.
'The earth is not their brother but their enemy. They conquer it and move on. They will devour everything and the earth will become a desert.' Chief Seattle, 1844.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg

firstly, you can throw those definations out the window because there is no such thing as primitive and advanced and all tht cause its all a matter of perception.


Actually, there are literal definitions for the words. If you use them incorrectly, you're wrong. You can call it something else if you wish, but primitive and advanced are literal definitions.


the "modern world" might be technologically advanced but we still are lacking in several aspects as far as our societal development goes. we are continually turning back on ancient wisdom, rediscovering and trying to re-find old wisdoms and knowledge, because we have forgotten them, and they make our life helpful


So what kind of ancient "wisdom" have we forgotten? Sure, there are some bad apples here and there, but we haven't lost any wisdom since then. If anything, we've gained more wisdom through our advancement, even if we did forget some small things here and there. The smartest people have come from "modern" societys. Einstein, Newton, I don't see too many primitive geniuses creating new life-changing inventions.


now i am not saying tht so called mordern culture is bad, its jus tht when it is forced upon all environments in our world the results tend to be bad for the environment. it tends to throw nature of balance. tht is why we have to be much more careful in our attempts to take civilization everywhere


We're bad for the environment, but we've also found other ways to preserve it. There are so many people in the modern culture, that we have people on all sides.


now getting back to your point abt 'ur ppl' having worked hard for their development. its true. cant argue against it. they did work very hard.


"They"? I'll tell you, if you're using the internet, you're one of us my friend. If you think that the primitive way of life is better, then why aren't you living in that fashion? I'm sure you could get a plane ticket to parts of Africa, Brazil, Australia, or any of those other places and live there among their people. Why don't you?



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The local Pacific Northwest First Nations people had thousands of years of time when they did not need to spend any where near as much time on survival as the average person does now. Some estimates put the amount of free time at 5 to 6 days a week. What did they do with this extra time?


Well, that sort of ties into my other question. What DID they do for all this time? Why haven't they advanced? There are cultures that have never even seen things like lighters, let alone electricity and modern technology. Why haven't they done anything?


Build bombs, guns, weapons? No, they did artwork, made beautiful blankets, capes, masks, totem poles, and carvings. These works of art were recognized for their quality and collected by art collectors around the world since over a century ago.


Modern people have made great artwork as well. And we haven't only built bombs. We've done many wonderous things, things that get over-looked by people who wish to undermine everything we've done. Da Vinci? Van Gogh? They lived in the modern world of their time, when we were still making advancements, yet there are still people who live as if it's a thousand years before even their (Da vinci, Van Gogh, etc.) time! It's not by choice, I can tell you that. You don't spend thousands and thousands of years making blankets and staying exactly the same by choice... It's human nature to want to make everything easier and more conveniant; to advance and discover new knowlege. Yeah, we're not perfect, but we've made VAST improvements in the way people live.


My position is this: If existing in a eternally sustainable harmonious state with nature is considered savage, barbaric, uncivilized, and primitive, then so be it.


Alright then. They're not more civilized than us, by definition. Like I said, if you want to use another word, go right ahead. I do know what you're talking about, though. In some aspects they are better suited than us. You're right that they're more friendly to the environment than us. They're probably more hard-working, for the most part. Their family ties are probably stronger in most cases. But over-all, we've made an infinite amount of progress over them.


I'd choose that life whatever label you wish to put on it.
As for technological progress, I have enjoyed the benefits of indoor plumbing, the internet, the airplane, etc., and admit that they are an amazing achievement that I would hate to have to lose. But if keeping all our modern marvels is at the ultimate price of destroying our planet, (which sure looks likely), then I would choose to let them go.


Then why don't you? Like I said, you could go off and live with them if you really chose to, and if you really think that their way of life is better. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to criticize our way of life, yet live among us enjoying all of our own conveniences? It's kind of like people who claim to hate the U.S., but still live here anyway because of the good lifestyle they have.


Of course our definition of civilized is going to point at our way as the definition. The victors always write the history books. 'History is the lie agreed upon.' Henry Ford.


Actually, that definition was probably set in stone long before we because the "victors". It's simply our language!



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by HermanThe smartest people have come from "modern" societys. Einstein, Newton, I don't see too many primitive geniuses creating new life-changing inventions.

[

I disagree, but that is likely due to differing definitions of 'smart'. The smartest people in my view are the elders from the traditional societies, whose words of wisdom are profound, simple, and timeless. The inventions you speak of are quite clever, no doubt, but if they do not serve us in the long run, they are just flashy gimmicks. In 100 years we are bound to see the true cost of our neat toys. Our great grandchildren will know a world that we cannot even imagine, or predict. In the traditional cultures, that was not the case. For millenia, the balance was kept, and life was able to continue that way forever. That is smart, in my view, preserving the world as it is for all generations to come to enjoy. It is shortsighted and foolish to forget to do that.
"We do not inherit the earth from our forebears, we borrow it from our children." Chief Seattle



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman

Actually, there are literal definitions for the words. If you use them incorrectly, you're wrong. You can call it something else if you wish, but primitive and advanced are literal definitions.


the world is not white and black. its mostly consists of grey areas. so there are no completely primitive ppl , and no completely advanced ones. where one culture might be primitive in terms of technologies, it might be highly developed in terms of its structure, laws and governance. so like i said. u cannot blanket define a culture as primitive. they are always not primitive in one way or the other.


So what kind of ancient "wisdom" have we forgotten? Sure, there are some bad apples here and there, but we haven't lost any wisdom since then. If anything, we've gained more wisdom through our advancement, even if we did forget some small things here and there. The smartest people have come from "modern" societys. Einstein, Newton, I don't see too many primitive geniuses creating new life-changing inventions.


ahhhh ut those small things are wht count in the long run arent they. we have forgotten how to be at peace with ourselves. so we turn to yoga and tai chi.

we find tht the indiscriminate use of modern medicine leads to several complications, so we turn to ancient holistic forms of treatment like accupuncture, accupressure, ayurveda.

we find tht our lives are a tangle of emotions and totally disorganised, so more and more ppl turn to religion (the side-effect of which is fanatism. i must mention at this point a certain line i read in a book. i think its the nest definition of fanatism i have ever come accross. "A fanatic is someone who cant change his mind and wont let you change the subject"
)

as for primitive ppl creating life changing inventions. wht might be life changing for them, in their primitive ways
will not matter at all to you will it. again had these primitive ppl been as lucky as someother ppl in the world i am sure they would have had several life changing inventions to their credit




We're bad for the environment, but we've also found other ways to preserve it. There are so many people in the modern culture, that we have people on all sides.


u misinterpreted my statement. i am not saying mordern ppl are bad for the environment. wht i am saying the enforcement of mordern culture, or blind acceptance of it for tht matter, without proper thought given to prevailing local conditions (environmental as well as social) is bad.




"They"? I'll tell you, if you're using the internet, you're one of us my friend. If you think that the primitive way of life is better, then why aren't you living in that fashion? I'm sure you could get a plane ticket to parts of Africa, Brazil, Australia, or any of those other places and live there among their people. Why don't you?


no. "my ppl" (so called) did not develop most of the mordern creature comforts we are used to today. although i am not ahamed to say tht we make the maximum use of them, sometimes even better use than the ppl who invented the stuff
, and therein lies the problem. in my particular case. my society is in a state of adaptation. we are learning how good mordern culture is, and also how detrimental it can be in many ways. we are trying to find a balance between the mordern and the ancient, tht will be the most beneficial for us. now i know we will eventually find tht balance because "my ppl" have done it extremely succesfully several times since the dawn of time. but this is not the case with many cultures. they have all but existed in isolation. and this sudden invasion of an alien culture, which seems so much better at first glance, has and will lead to the downfall of many societies.

as for living with the primitive ppl. i dont need to. i am already livin in one of the oldest cultures in the world. the so called primitive, ancient culture is all around me. and i love it



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonGray
This is a written communication medium, so it makes sense to format your posts for easy reading for everyone. Here are some general guidelines:
[snip]
3) Try and spell-check and get your gramma/syntax correct. Very often, your credibility will be judged by how well you present your thoughts as a well-written post.


Puneetsg, I would really like it if you were able to run your posts through a spell checker because they are hard to read. Sorry man...



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
I've never seen on T.V. a tribe of primitive white people living in the jungle.

The people that the romans encountered in britain were tribes of primitive savages. There are lots of stone age remians of people's from europe.


As far as europeans being 'lucky', this idea is something of a corruption of Diamonds research. Bascially, diamond compared global cultures. He wanted to find out, in basic terms, why europe had dominated the world. its not merely luck, but the old world, having a very long horizontal axis, has very large regions that extend through the same lattitude, this means that lots of things are easily transfered from different parts of its domain to other parts, so what pops up in japan can 'quickly' cross over into europe, and vice versa. Diamond also noted that practically every animal that was domestivated was from teh old world, expcept, say, llamas. And that the types of crops that are native to the old world, wheat, barely, rice, are easy to grow, and have a high caloric value, relative to say, tubers or yams, etc. There are other cultures across the world that were at pretty much the same very primitve stage as europe and the old world was, long ago, but because of a lack of natural resources, like domesticable animals and worthwhile food crops, the process of civilization gets short circuited, there's no benefit to living in proto-cities, or spending time making clay pots, of worrying about that shiny slag that is left over after burning certain ore-rocks, etc.

If the world resources had been distributed differently, then history would've been different. This doesn't mean that european civilization, or any civilization, is meaningless of course.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

As far as europeans being 'lucky', this idea is something of a corruption of Diamonds research. Bascially, diamond compared global cultures. He wanted to find out, in basic terms, why europe had dominated the world. its not merely luck, but the old world, having a very long horizontal axis, has very large regions that extend through the same lattitude, this means that lots of things are easily transfered from different parts of its domain to other parts, so what pops up in japan can 'quickly' cross over into europe, and vice versa. Diamond also noted that practically every animal that was domestivated was from teh old world, expcept, say, llamas. And that the types of crops that are native to the old world, wheat, barely, rice, are easy to grow, and have a high caloric value, relative to say, tubers or yams, etc. There are other cultures across the world that were at pretty much the same very primitve stage as europe and the old world was, long ago, but because of a lack of natural resources, like domesticable animals and worthwhile food crops, the process of civilization gets short circuited, there's no benefit to living in proto-cities, or spending time making clay pots, of worrying about that shiny slag that is left over after burning certain ore-rocks, etc.

If the world resources had been distributed differently, then history would've been different. This doesn't mean that european civilization, or any civilization, is meaningless of course.


nygdan. u truly are quite a treasure trove of knowldge man!!

i have never heard of Diamonds research. this is basically an idea i came up with myself. but thank you for giving some sort of legitimacy to my idea. not wholely but a little

but one point, i am not saying tht the europeans are the only ones who are "lucky" i say this of all the great civilizations of the past, be it the egyptians the indians, the chinese or whtever. their success to a degree (a little according to some and a lot according to others) has to be attributed to chance. of simply being in the right place at the right point in time.

true they worked very and long to reach their zeniths but to start of they required tht little bit of "luck" without which as u said history wud have been very different.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Puneetsg, I would really like it if you were able to run your posts through a spell checker because they are hard to read. Sorry man...


Sorry. Please forgive my last post, and all the ones before it. I shall be extra-careful from hereon. Afterall one of the reasons for joining ATS was to express myself, and if because of my writing style i cannot be understood then all that expressing comes to naught doesn't it



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Thank you very much, puneetsg.

I thought it best to point that out to you as many people can have problems reading it and others might not bother to read it due to your structure. I hope you enjoy your time here on ATS.


-Let's the thread get back on track-




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join