Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Amirya » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:30 pm

Just based on the quotes alone, I'm actually not seeing a problem (can't access the story at work). If the student wants to write God as the answer to all the chemistry questions, so what? It would still be wrong, based on what was being studied in chemistry class, and so the student wouldn't penalized for the religious content, but for an incorrect answer.

If a student wants to say their religion says that homosexuals are going to hell as sinners, again, so what? It's their (religious) opinion, it's not necessarily right, and they're entitled to their opinions. Opinions are legally protected, aren't they?

The problem would be when it crosses the line from making a statement about their opinion, and into harrassment.

And people who yell, "HARRASSMENT!" because someone states an opinion really, really, need to grow thicker skin, and grow up. (Emphasis on opinions)

I mean, just because I think blue eyed blondes are pretty doesn't make me a racist.
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2958
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Kal » Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:20 pm

"...gay people are sinners and going to hell" It's an opinion, sure, and kind of a weak example of bullying. The thing is, the right to that opinion already exists. This isn't a case of "Your rights end where my feelings begin." This is a case of playing the victim card, first off, with the claim that religious beliefs are under attack. Secondly, it prevents school administrators from doing their jobs.

Here's how I see it, from a libertarian perspective: The government cannot give anyone rights; they can only take them away. In this case, it is the school administrator's and teacher's right to resolve conflicts between students in the way they see fit that is being infringed. Students already have the right to state their religious beliefs, and to protect it is redundant.

Still, it's the threat to science education I'm more concerned about. Being closeted all through school (and then the Army, wtf was I thinking?) wasn't as detrimental to my life so far as having been taught Young-Earth Creationism, along with a lot of lies about evolution.

P.S. For anyone interested in reading the text of these bills, check out factn.org. The website is actually in favor of the bill, but it's just the place I found the text in a google search.
"There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Kal
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:38 pm

Amirya wrote:Just based on the quotes alone, I'm actually not seeing a problem (can't access the story at work). If the student wants to write God as the answer to all the chemistry questions, so what? It would still be wrong, based on what was being studied in chemistry class, and so the student wouldn't penalized for the religious content, but for an incorrect answer.

If a student wants to say their religion says that homosexuals are going to hell as sinners, again, so what? It's their (religious) opinion, it's not necessarily right, and they're entitled to their opinions. Opinions are legally protected, aren't they?

The problem would be when it crosses the line from making a statement about their opinion, and into harrassment.

And people who yell, "HARRASSMENT!" because someone states an opinion really, really, need to grow thicker skin, and grow up. (Emphasis on opinions)

I mean, just because I think blue eyed blondes are pretty doesn't make me a racist.


I think the problem is the people will expect not to be penalized in a test for writing GOD...
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Amirya » Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:21 am

Ah, crikey.

This whole week at work has been full of amazingly stupid people (amazingly stupid), and now I realize I was being an optimist. "Surely someone wouldn't feel their rights were infringed on because they wrote the wrong answer on a science test." Then Klaud points out that, yes, they probably will, and I feel my brain hurt a little more. Which leads me to wonder, if someone wrote PURPLE on a mathematics test, and got it wrong, would they be expect to still get it right?

I'm getting mighty sick and tired of the stupid (which, unfortunately, is leading to bigger sarcasm than I probably should at work - but I mean, when I am confronted with, "well, when is that person going to call you?!" I think I am somewhat justified in responding with, "and you expect me to magically know this HOW?").

Ok, enough off topic ranting.
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2958
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:25 am

Just makes me think of Adam Sandler's character in Waterboy - where he goes to college and in the biology lesson answers questions with what his momma taught him, and gets into a big argument with the teacher about it.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4817
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Skye1013 » Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:34 am

Amirya wrote:Which leads me to wonder, if someone wrote PURPLE on a mathematics test, and got it wrong, would they be expect to still get it right?

By the same token... if someone of another faith believes that water comes from magical faeries... are they any more wrong than the person that believes it came from God? If one is protected, shouldn't the other be as well? Clearly, that's the logical stance to take, but the people backing these laws are rarely, if ever, logical.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3540
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Amirya » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:42 am

This is true. If someone wrote Allah or Satan instead of God, I'm sure we can all just see the frothing ragers.

No joke, the education in the US is still terrible, and I deeply resent my taxes going to pay for public "education" when I will never use it, regardless of whether I adopt or not.
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2958
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Kal » Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:55 pm

Amirya wrote:This is true. If someone wrote Allah or Satan instead of God, I'm sure we can all just see the frothing ragers.

No joke, the education in the US is still terrible, and I deeply resent my taxes going to pay for public "education" when I will never use it, regardless of whether I adopt or not.


As a point of fact, "Allah" is just the Arabic word for "God", so Arabic speaking Christians and Jews refer to God as Allah. You may already know this, but I just wanted to say that if this point were made in such a situation, said frothing rager's heads would explodify.

I disagree with your point about your tax dollars going toward public education. You benefit from living in a literate society, and though I'll agree all day that our education standards are abysmal, it's something that you do use.
"There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Kal
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Amirya » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:04 pm

I look forward to the explodify. I welcome the chance to witness it!

Also, I would disagree with you about this being a literate society. Reality TV, softcore mommy porn, and other such idiotic endeavours by the masses don't really strike me as literate.

But I probably just have higher (and frequently disappointed) expectations. Which is also probably why I don't see any benefit from it. But more, I was talking in regards to sending my non-existent demon hellspawn - I would never do that. I'd either homeschool, or if I was rich enough, send them to a boarding school in a country that has much higher education standards.
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2958
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Aubade » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:08 pm

Amirya wrote:softcore mommy porn, and other such idiotic endeavours by the masses don't really strike me as literate.



I feel like I'm missing a reference or something, regarding this statement.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4030
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Amirya » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:25 pm

50 Shades of Stupid.

I've got so many female coworkers around here who LOVE that book, but only 1 thought to suggest I should try reading it. The rest are, "uh, no way."
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2958
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Aubade » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:33 pm

Amirya wrote:50 Shades of Stupid.

I've got so many female coworkers around here who LOVE that book, but only 1 thought to suggest I should try reading it. The rest are, "uh, no way."



ah gotcha, I had already forgotten about that craze. I thought you were referring to porn with moms, and I was gonna be like "woah, not my thing but I get why people are into it." Hahah
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4030
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:44 pm

I wonder if a student could detail the explicit sex and blood rituals of his satanic beliefs in class without fear of recrimination or even a bad grade. Or deliver a pro-terrorism-in-the-name-of-jihad speech. I wonder if the people promoting that law understand the kind of Pandora's Box they are opening.

I know the intent is to allow little bible-thumping Tommy to openly hate gays in class, but kids in high school hit that rebellious age and the smarter ones can get quite creative about it.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:34 pm

Koatanga wrote:I wonder if a student could detail the explicit sex and blood rituals of his satanic beliefs in class without fear of recrimination or even a bad grade. Or deliver a pro-terrorism-in-the-name-of-jihad speech. I wonder if the people promoting that law understand the kind of Pandora's Box they are opening.

I know the intent is to allow little bible-thumping Tommy to openly hate gays in class, but kids in high school hit that rebellious age and the smarter ones can get quite creative about it.


if I was in high school, i'd totally abuse the shit out of that law.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Amirya » Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:02 pm

So would I. And I would expect to be protected by law for demonstrating my satanic rituals too. Mostly the part about the ritual sacrifice of Easter the bunny.
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2958
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Passionario » Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:48 pm

Klaudandus wrote:a student could merely write ‘God’ on a chemistry test as the answer to a question asking where water comes from

"Where does water come from?" is a pretty stupid question for a chemistry test, and for each student answering it with 'God', there would be more writing things like "bottles", "tap", "clouds", "river" or "my penis".
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Sagara » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:53 pm

Passionario wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:a student could merely write ‘God’ on a chemistry test as the answer to a question asking where water comes from

"Where does water come from?" is a pretty stupid question for a chemistry test, and for each student answering it with 'God', there would be more writing things like "bottles", "tap", "clouds", "river" or "my penis".


The latter is only 95 - 99% correct, but, let's not count points ;-)
Without going as far as Jihadists or Satanists exploiting the rules, what I'm completely looking forward to are the "joke" religions starting to pop up, just for its worth in troll - pastafarian, jedis...

- Where does water come from?
- Midichlorians!
- PREQUEL HEATHEN!
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3272
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:18 am

Semi-related, I've seen people saying how if this Hobby Lobby thing goes through, we might suddenly see some CEOs converting to Christian Science.

The people trying to push through these rules to protect their (protestant, christian) faith rarely seem to think about the wider implications.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4817
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:56 pm

KysenMurrin wrote:Semi-related, I've seen people saying how if this Hobby Lobby thing goes through, we might suddenly see some CEOs converting to Christian Science.

The people trying to push through these rules to protect their (protestant, christian) faith rarely seem to think about the wider implications.

I don't get it. People can believe in religions, but companies can't. Doesn't matter what religion the CEO has - the company itself is not able to have beliefs.

I reckon the only law that needs passing is one that declares all business in the US to be agnostic with respect to religious freedom issues.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:44 pm

I think this is an unintended consequence of Citizens United ruling where they affirm corporate personhood.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9362
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Kal » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:36 pm

Corporate personhood is a useful legal fiction, and it is protecting 1st amendment rights, but this is getting ridiculous. The law I'd like to see passed is a 28th amendment getting money out of politics, defining corporate personhood clearly and in a limited way, and defining money as property, not speech.
"There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Kal
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:52 pm

With our economic and government system, a law that removes money from politics is simply not possible. It can't be accomplished by a law when you have a group of less than 600 people that can control everything in an entire country of our size, population, and GDP. That's an amazing amount of power in the hands of an amazingly small number of people, and there is simply no way that that much power among so few people will not attract massive resources from people who want to influence it, whether it's legal or not. Ultimately, the money isn't the problem, but merely a symptom.

Also, I'm not sure defining money as property as opposed to speech would change anything, or that it even "defined" that way today. Paper isn't speech either, it's just a raw material (property), but when I right on it it's used to convey speech. That's essentially how money works. You can't really suggest that groups are allowed to speak about a candidate because that's "speech", but they aren't allowed to pay any money to create their speech (eg. a political ad) because money isn't "speech". That doesn't make any sense.

That would mean that only media outlets can "speak" on any reasonable scale (although even they still have use money to do it, so maybe not). Ironically, since they were already exempt from McCain-Feingold I guess by the "logic" in this thread, they were "Corporate Persons" even before Citizen's United. Of course, there wasn't a whole lot of gnashing of teeth about that...I wonder why.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Kal » Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:38 am

If 34 of the state legislatures propose an amendment to the Constitution and 38 states ratify it, the federal governemnt cannot overrule it in any way. Check out Wolf-PAC.

Money is essentially an IOU being passed around, so that's the "logic" being used to define it as speech as I understand it, but I think that's very wrong. Money represents labor, a physical act. Money replaced the trading of goods, so we use money as we used to use physical goods, i.e. property. Under our current system, people with more money-as-speech have ridiculously more political power, and are able to use that power secretly, from anyone, to anyone, and in any amount. That is not democracy in the sense of 1 person, 1 vote. If we treat money as property, however, it becomes immediately offensive to the senses to give it 1st amendment rights.
"There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Kal
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:13 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:00 am

Kal wrote:If 34 of the state legislatures propose an amendment to the Constitution and 38 states ratify it, the federal governemnt cannot overrule it in any way. Check out Wolf-PAC.
I understand how to pass an amendment, but what would it say? How on earth could it work? It's simply not possible to create a law that removes money from politics, especially under our current systems.

Inasmuch as Wolf-PAC makes absolutely no attempt to remove money from politics, I'm not sure of its relevance. All it is trying to do is define which people under which context can spend their money on politics. Picking and choosing winners and losers, under a rather flawed algorithm.

Corporations may not be a person, but a corporation is merely a group of people. Would Wolf-PAC then outlaw political spending for all groups? Would Labor Unions have a voice, while corporations would not? What about religious groups and other non profit groups? What about their close ties to media, would media be exempted again? How does all that mash up against the freedom to associate?

Further, I would assume folks like the Greene family (Hobby Lobby), the Koch brother, George Soros, Warren Buffet, etc would still be allowed to use their massive wealth to spend on politics since they are individual people. So then the whole "corporate" limitation is merely a nuisance for all privately held companies, which can easily funnel the money through individuals. Further, it's hypocritical because Wolf-PAC still wants to exempt media organizations like The Young Turks with whom this is tightly associated, from spending all their money on politics like they do now. I guess they didn't like it when their exemption was rendered moot and the playing field was leveled. Go figure...

I it is interesting to me that the Wolf-PAC acknowledges that the Federal Gov't can't be trusted. I always have found it weird that some people who complain about corruption in gov't want it solved by having more gov't. Lets end the corruption by creating more laws to stop the corruption...It always seemed oxymoronic to me, but I digress.

Kal wrote:Money is essentially an IOU being passed around, so that's the "logic" being used to define it as speech as I understand it, but I think that's very wrong. Money represents labor, a physical act. Money replaced the trading of goods, so we use money as we used to use physical goods, i.e. property. Under our current system, people with more money-as-speech have ridiculously more political power, and are able to use that power secretly, from anyone, to anyone, and in any amount. That is not democracy in the sense of 1 person, 1 vote. If we treat money as property, however, it becomes immediately offensive to the senses to give it 1st amendment rights.
I think you are getting lost in the weeds over something that doesn't matter. Money is merely a resource. It's a difficult line to tell people that they can produce speech or expression, but can't use any resources to do it. It doesn't matter what label you want to put on it, it won't change anything culturally and certainly not legally.

As an aside, campaigns and PACs actually must disclose their contributors, it's not done in secret. That doesn't stop all of it, but quite a lot of it is fully disclosed. Of course campaigns are merely just a small part of "politics".
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Kal » Sat Mar 29, 2014 5:31 pm

Fridmarr wrote:
Kal wrote:If 34 of the state legislatures propose an amendment to the Constitution and 38 states ratify it, the federal governemnt cannot overrule it in any way. Check out Wolf-PAC.
I understand how to pass an amendment, but what would it say? How on earth could it work? It's simply not possible to create a law that removes money from politics, especially under our current systems.

Inasmuch as Wolf-PAC makes absolutely no attempt to remove money from politics, I'm not sure of its relevance. All it is trying to do is define which people under which context can spend their money on politics. Picking and choosing winners and losers, under a rather flawed algorithm.

Corporations may not be a person, but a corporation is merely a group of people. Would Wolf-PAC then outlaw political spending for all groups? Would Labor Unions have a voice, while corporations would not? What about religious groups and other non profit groups? What about their close ties to media, would media be exempted again? How does all that mash up against the freedom to associate?

Further, I would assume folks like the Greene family (Hobby Lobby), the Koch brother, George Soros, Warren Buffet, etc would still be allowed to use their massive wealth to spend on politics since they are individual people. So then the whole "corporate" limitation is merely a nuisance for all privately held companies, which can easily funnel the money through individuals. Further, it's hypocritical because Wolf-PAC still wants to exempt media organizations like The Young Turks with whom this is tightly associated, from spending all their money on politics like they do now. I guess they didn't like it when their exemption was rendered moot and the playing field was leveled. Go figure...

I it is interesting to me that the Wolf-PAC acknowledges that the Federal Gov't can't be trusted. I always have found it weird that some people who complain about corruption in gov't want it solved by having more gov't. Lets end the corruption by creating more laws to stop the corruption...It always seemed oxymoronic to me, but I digress.

Kal wrote:Money is essentially an IOU being passed around, so that's the "logic" being used to define it as speech as I understand it, but I think that's very wrong. Money represents labor, a physical act. Money replaced the trading of goods, so we use money as we used to use physical goods, i.e. property. Under our current system, people with more money-as-speech have ridiculously more political power, and are able to use that power secretly, from anyone, to anyone, and in any amount. That is not democracy in the sense of 1 person, 1 vote. If we treat money as property, however, it becomes immediately offensive to the senses to give it 1st amendment rights.
I think you are getting lost in the weeds over something that doesn't matter. Money is merely a resource. It's a difficult line to tell people that they can produce speech or expression, but can't use any resources to do it. It doesn't matter what label you want to put on it, it won't change anything culturally and certainly not legally.

As an aside, campaigns and PACs actually must disclose their contributors, it's not done in secret. That doesn't stop all of it, but quite a lot of it is fully disclosed. Of course campaigns are merely just a small part of "politics".


And this is the post that let's me know I'm in the wrong place. I don't argue with stupid.

Fun fact: "You cannot add administrators and moderators to your foes list."
"There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Kal
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest