70-75% of all Crime is Committed by "Addicts"?

[Wraith]

--"I am saying it is wrong to hurt anyone, including yourself. It's not a question of who decides, its a question of right and wrong"

But why is it wrong? In your opinion, fine, but why? I don't accept answers like "because that's how I feel". I may have been joking about the bondage thing earlier, but I think the simple fact that there something like a BSDM scene shows that different people enjoy different things, and that various levels of pain or humilitation can be enjoyed by some people.

"Causing hurt' is also quite vauge. Does spanking count? Even when it'd teach the kid not to do something that's more harmful, even if it doesn't involve hurting? How about when the spankee is enjoying it?

I just have problems seeing how any truly consentual activity can be considered morally wrong. Stupid, yes. Immature, sure. Pointless, yup. But not morally wrong.

Wraith
Possessor of a mind not merely twisted but actually sprained

[Dr Strangelove]

On the Uniform Crime Reporting data sheets they don't even report drug possesion and distribution in their tallies, so I don't think that drug related offenses constitute a large portion of the alledged "75% of all crimes committed" reffered to by O'Reilly. There are some interesting statistics here:
"http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/drugs.htm" .

[Berzerker]

Drago -

The sort of fool who takes drugs, is the same sort that commits petty crimes.

Note that that I said "drug abuse", not "drug use".

I checked, and I said what I said I said, not what you said I said.
So please read more carefully next time, to avoid embarassing yourself.

Actually chegitz is right, you did equate drug use with being a fool and a petty criminal, not drug abuse.

Yes, they are being immoral. First let me say that I am defining immoral as "causing harm to yourself or others" which is the simplest definition I can think of at the moment.

That "definition" is invalid because we all "harm" ourselves, it's impossible to exist without harming yourself. And I asked you to prove your accusation without making generalizations, and you did anyway. Want proof? Here it is:

It can take the extremely harmful form of a drunk driver causing a fatal accident, or the relatively benign form of damaging your own health. I would even argue that since you are not at your best while under the influence, you are harming yourself in that instead of lying on the couch in a drug induced stupor, you could be doing something productive. Its just a question of degree.

Your assumptions range from killing someone in an "accident", "damaging your health", to being in a drug induced stupor - all generalizations. Are people with AIDS "harming" themselves when they use pot to promote an appetite to combat the wasting syndrome? How about people with multiple sclerosis? Glaucoma? Yes, smoking pot does have a negative effect on the lungs varying in degree with the amount smoked, but pot can be used without smoking and is by some people who cannot smoke it. Pot's medicinal benefits for a wide variety of conditions means it may have a greater beneficial effect even when smoked than any harm it causes which refutes your claim.

Besides, you've just offered a definition of immorality that applies to everyone and other posters have shown why... Furthermore, "nature" harms us by killing us through a wide variety of mechanisms, are nature and the creator immoral? One last point, while morality is subjective when left to those who don't understand it , immorality is not. And immorality is defined by universal desires - desires we all share. Ignoring outside factors - extenuating circumstances - everyone agrees that certain acts like murder are immoral, even would-be murderers desire not to be murdered. This universality is the key to understanding what is or is not immoral. And offering the argument that self-harm is immoral ignores this universality since we all willfully harm ourselves for a variety of reasons.

Yes, in fact it is. If you define crime as breaking the law, and government writes the law, then clearly you are absolutely wrong.

Then you believe crime did not exist until government invented crime by writing laws? I'll repeat for a third time my refutation of your argument. If only those activites that are illegal constitute "crime", then legalized slavery and genocide are not crimes. That defies reason - government was ostensibly created to combat crime which means crime existed first and that crime exists regardless of what "government" - a group of people - says.

If you are defining "crime" in some other way, you need to be more specific as to your definition in order for your argument to be understood.

Well, my refutation of your definition does not require my own, but here it is. A "crime" requires at a minimum a victim - intended (or not in the case of intentional negligence as in drunk drivers). Defining the word "victim" requires an understanding of what freedom means. It means, "the absence of coercion or constraint in choice or action". This means "crime" requires at least a constraint or element of coercion on another person (intended or possibly not). If I dodge a pedestrian and knock down your fence, I am not a criminal, but I am still liable for the damage. If I do this while drunk or intentionally out of spite, I am a criminal due to my intentional negligence or intent.

Yes, I agree. I forget the exact phrase, but in either the Declaration or the Consititution it says somehting similar to " A just government draws its power from the consent of the governed".

Yes, an oft over looked phrase (Declaration). But before trying to explain it's importance, how can a "government" - a group of people - define "crime" when they don't have the consent of their victims as in the case of Stalin and Hitler? If a just government requires the consent of the governed, that means a just government can do for me only what I have the moral authority to do for myself.
If I lack the moral authority to take your money without your permission to pay for what I want, I lack the moral authority to hire a politician to take your money to pay for what I want. Therefore, taxes that do this are unjust, which means even Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration did not believe their own rhetoric since they eventually used "government" to take money from others. But that's another issue...

I agree that there is no specific prohibition of drug abuse, nor is there any specific protection of it.

This isn't how the Constitution works, since there is no specific - enumerated -power for Congress to get involved with domestic, intrastate drugs, that is a specific protection of these drugs subject only to the states and their respective Constitutions. Eating apple pie is not in the Constitution either, but the fact Congress was never given any power to prohibit eating apple pie, eating apple pie is protected. The 9th Amendment was Madison's attempt to explain that we have many unenumerated rights and that the enumeration of some should not be used to deny them. If you read the Bill of Rights, you will find only a handful of rights mentioned - those deemed the most important in the mind's of the Framers along with certain "civil" rights further defining Congress' relationship with the people and the states. And drug use is protected - the 1st Amendment says Congress (and extension by virtue of the 14th Amendment, the states) shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise -freedom - of religion. And some people do use illegal drugs as part of their religions.

No, not at all. Governments often break or suspend their own laws. And I don't believe that either slavery or genocide are currently legal in the US.

Doesn't matter if they are no longer legal, they were once and are under some existing governments. Was/are slavery and genocide "crimes"?

Yes, actually, since taking illegal drugs is by definition a petty crime, you are exactly that sort of fool. Further you are also foolish to harm yourself, your business or your professional career with drug abuse. Just think of what you could do with the money and time you waste alone!! I can only hope you modify your foolish behaviour before you do any permanent damage.

That's according to an invalid definition of "crime". And that is not what you meant when you claimed the same "fools" who use drugs ARE ALSO the same "fools" who commit petty crimes. You were clearly making a distinction between drug use and petty crime while claiming fools do both.

I can see no logical reason to believe that hurting myself is much different than harming another.

If you cannot see a moral difference between smoking a cigarette and forcing another human being to smoke a cigarette, then you won't see other less obvious differences and are in no position to lecture others about morality

Why is it okay to hurt yourself, if it is not okay to hurt another

You own yourself, not the rest of us. If I decide my pain is too much to live with, committing suicide is not immoral. Forcing me to stay alive in the name of "morality" perverts morality beyond reason.

An even better attitude would be to not risk any damage to your brain with drugs in the first place. Particularly with illegal drugs of unknown strength or purity.

You're assuming all drug use damages the brain when the reality is that some drug use can while some may be beneficial. I had a friend who was a heavy pot user who went to the doctor and the nurse who took his blood pressure asked him if he used pot. He said yes, and she told him she thought so because his blood pressure was so low. Which is worse, low or high blood pressure? And the primary reason why illegal drugs can vary in strength/purity is because they are illegal. If it is "foolish" to use illegal drugs for this reason, then it is foolish to ban these drugs for the same reason.

I am drinking a nice glass of Guiness Extra Stout as I type this. (Yum.) So count me as immoral too, in that respect. Although I think Guiness advertises some health benefits, so maybe not.

I am not pretending to know, I do know, and furthermore so do you. It's called denial.

Hmm...immoral and in denial

But by recognising the possible health benefits of using a drug, are you refuting your claim that drug use is immoral because health benefits may be realized? I think so...

No turnpike jokes please.
Never ever done any drugs, no matter how long the night.

Were you aware that many professional drivers (I was one) who are on long hauls use speed to stay awake? Are they immoral? They are taking steps to prevent falling asleep at the wheel to avoid killing themselves or others. Just another example of using an illegal drug to gain a benefit. Many soldiers in WWI and WWII - especially fliers - used speed to stay awake on long missions.

That is a different question. I am saying it is wrong to hurt anyone, including yourself. It's not a question of who decides, its a question of right and wrong -- and it's wrong in my opinion.

And it's an invalid opinion. Everyone hurts themselves; therefore, hurting yourself cannot be immoral. Life is a series of trade-offs in which we accept the reality of hurting ourselves to gain something we value more than the comfort of avoiding the pain.

But I am in no way forcing my opinion on anyone, I am merely stating it.

You are free to do what you think best. Or not. Youare also free to violate the law, and take the risk of being punished for it.

If you support the law, you are forcing your opinion on the rest of us.

Or even to change the law if enough folks agree with you. This really is a great country

What's so great about a system of majority rule? Was it great for African slaves or German Jews in the 30's and 40's? "Yeah, you Jews should just convince the majority to leave you alone".
We have a Constitution that severly limits the majority, but alas, the Constitution is not self-enforcing...

And I would bet that your business would be even more successful without the grass. Or maybe not. Depends how much you smoke, and how often. I am not pretending to know, I do know, and furthermore so do you.

But you don't know, you aren't omniscient.
Pot does have benefits such as it's relaxing quality, certainly a plus for harried business people who often live in a high-strung world. It also can cause health problems when over-used. But it's a bit ironic you would exalt being a successful business person when that life is frought with stomach ulcers and other health problems.

Would you want to be treated by a Doctor whose brain has been dulled by narcotics? I certainly would not.
Would you want the man who builds your house to be sober? I think you would.

I see you can't help but resort to generalizations - which you admitted was foolish. I'd want both to be competent, what they did on their own time is their own business. Do you understand that using the actions of one person to condemn or punish another is immoral?

Adam -

If you live in a box then any actions that you do to yourself won't affect others, but most of us don't live in a box.

There's one generalization. Should drugs be legal for those who do live in a box so to speak?

Those drugs that you take affect more than you, and if you can't see it your being irresponsible.

There's two. "Affecting" someone is not grounds for morality or law or anything else. And making generalizations about others to "justify" punishing them is irresponsible and immoral. Just ask the victims of racism.

In a family drug use has obvious affects, I know someone who believes that his alchol use is harmless. Which at first may be the case but over time that is obviously not so.

And a third. Can you offer anything a bit more specific than "affects"? But if at first it was the case, doesn't that mean alcohol use does not necessarily "affect" others thereby refuting your generalization?

That is just an obvious situation, but say it's less obvious. Like you only toke up every once in awhile, who are you harming? Well, yourself for one, which in turn puts a drag on everyone else if you live in a society with socialized health care.

Followed by another. Then I suggest you complain to the people who've socialized your health care system and not blame and punish the innocent. The argument that using pot puts a drag on a socialized health care system needs proof, got any?
This same nonsense is used by people wanting to tax or ban tobacco, but they conveniently ignore the fact that tobacco users tend to die before or shortly after qualifying for old age benefits like Medicare and Social Security. And what do you say to the millions of people who buy private insurance? Oops...

If not then your employeer as your not all that functional if you come to work hung over... etc.

Why not one more? Then it's the employer's prerogative to end the pot user's employment contract. That's what happens in a system based on freedom. And pot causes "hangovers"? Hmm...I think you are confusing pot with alcohol, a drug you've already decided was ok. Strange you would use this argument to "justify" punishing pot users and not alcohol users...

Our societies have decided that tobacoo use, and alchol use are ok, thus we have to be willing to deal with the issues that come up with them. By saying that other drug use is not ok, we have a right to complain about the issues that pop up with them.

"Society" did not decide anything. A minority decided through elections even though the majority might agree. Slavery and genocide have been legal too so your argument is plagued by contradictions.

[Berzerker]

Adam -

In a family drug use has obvious affects, I know someone who believes that his alchol use is harmless. Which at first may be the case but over time that is obviously not so.

Can you offer anything a bit more specific than "affects"? This is quite important because once you try to apply specifics to the word "affects", you will further expose the invalidity of your argument. For example, if you say the alcohol or drug user who beats his wife and kids "affects" them, I will point out that you should then seek to punish the alcohol or drug user who beats his wife and kids, not the innocent - the alcohol and drug users who did not beat their wives and kids.

Darn, keep getting a message preventing me from editing my posts - too long I guess.

[Berzerker]

Thx Doc, that's the kind of statistical breakdown I was hoping for

Here's a good link from the site

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/dcfacts.txt

[Berzerker]

Drug law violators make up a growing share of the prison and jail population:
* drug offenders accounted for 61% of sentenced inmates in Federal prisons in 1993, up from 38% in 1986 and 25% in 1980
* the proportion of drug offenders in State prisons increased from 9% in 1986 to 21% in 1991
* the proportion of drug offenders in local jails increased from 9% in 1983 to 23% in 1989.

These numbers have undoubtedly increased in the past decade.

1993 High school seniors reporting they could obtain drugs fairly easily or very easily

Marijuana 83.0%
Amphetamines 61.5
LSD 49.2
Cocaine powder 45.4
Barbiturates 44.5
Crack 43.6
Tranquilizers 41.1
Heroin 33.7
PCP 31.7
Crystal metham-
phetamine (ice) 26.6
Amyl and butyl
nitrates 25.9

Ouch! This is another result of the black market. If adults could get illegal drugs legally, combined with sincere enforcement of laws prohibiting alcohol, tobacco and drug sales to juveniles, these numbers would come down quite a bit.

About 6% of State prison inmates belonged to a gang prior to incarceration, according to data from the 1991 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities.

Among inmates who were gang members
81% reported past drug use
69% said they manufactured, imported, or sold drugs as a group
92% reported their gang fought other groups.

Shows the link between gangs and illegal drugs - a major source of revenue and incentive to sell drugs.

DRUG-RELATED CRIME

Overall, 10% of Federal prison inmates in 1991, 17% of State prison inmates in 1991, and 13% of convicted jail inmates in 1989 said they committed their offense to obtain money for drugs. Twenty percent of Hispanic State prison inmates said they committed their offense to get money for drugs, compared to 15% of white inmates and 17% of black inmates. Twenty-four percent of female inmates said they committed their offense to get money to buy drugs, compared to 16% of male inmates.

Inmates incarcerated for robbery, burglary, larceny, and drug trafficking most often committed their crime to obtain money for drugs. Inmates who committed homicide, sexual assault, assault, and public-order offenses were least likely to commit their offense to obtain money for drugs.

Percent of inmates who committed their offense for money to buy drugs

Most Federal State
serious prison prison Jail
current inmates inmates inmates
offense 1991 1991 1989
____________________________

All offenses 10% 17% 13%


Violent offenses 18% 12% 12%
Homicide(a) 3 5 3
Sexual assault(b) 0 2 2
Robbery 27 27 32
Assault 2 6 3
Property offenses 9 26 24
Burglary 32 30 31
Larceny/theft 13 31 28

Motor vehicle theft -- -- 7
Drug offenses 9 22 14
Possession 7 16 10
Trafficking 10 25 19
Public-order
offenses 6 5 3

(a) Includes murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, and negligent manslaughter.(b) Includes rape.-- Not reported

The Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that in 1993, 5.5% of the 23,271 homicides in which circumstances were known were narcotics-related. This includes only those murders that occurred specifically during a narcotics felony, such as drug trafficking or manufacturing. Those homicides that involved a narcotics felony and a more serious felony, such as armed robbery, were not tabulated as drug-related.

Drug-related homicides

Number Percent
Year of homicides drug-related

1986 19,257 3.9%
1987 17,963 4.9
1988 17,971 5.6
1989 18,954 7.4
1990 20,273 6.7
1991 21,676 6.2
1992 22,716 5.7
1993 23,271 5.5

Note: Includes only those homicides where circumstances were known. Table constructed by ONDCP Drugs & Crime Clearinghouse staff from Crime in the United States, 1991 through 1993 (FBI), p. 21.

A study of murder cases disposed in the Nation's 75 most populous counties in 1988 found that circumstances involving illegal drugs, such as a drug scam or dispute over drugs, accounted for 18% of the defendants and 16% of the victims.

In 7% of cases, victims and their killers were both at the murder scene because of drugs. Of victims, 12% were involved with the killer in a drug relationship.

I don't know if this helps, the part I put in bold seems to be in contradiction with some of the numbers. Maybe I'm reading the numbers incorrectly...

[Drago Sinio]

Actually chegitz is right, you did equate drug use with being a fool and a petty criminal, not drug abuse.

No, that is not accurate. You are taking words out of context.
Note the topic refers to "Addicts" , and take another look at the context of the phrase you quoted.

That "definition" is invalid because we all "harm" ourselves, it's impossible to exist without harming yourself.

I think it is valid. The fact that we are not immortal nor impervious to harm does not invalidate it.

Every minute of every day is another choice made . Things are not black and white, they are shades of grey. It is not as if a single puff of smoke makes you a "bad person" or deciding not to take one makes you a "good person". All you can do is try to make the best choices, minute by minute and move on. In my opinion abusing a drug is a bad choice. It harms you, and it harms those around you. This is a fact.

Your assumptions range from killing someone in an "accident", "damaging your health", to being in a drug induced stupor - all generalizations.

No, those are examples, not generalizations.

Then you believe crime did not exist until government invented crime by writing laws?

Yes, exactly. But we are just arguing over the meaning of the word. I looked it up in several web dictionaries, and the number one definition in each case was as shown below.

"crime (krm)
n.
1 An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. "

Followed by secondary definitions like these:

"2 Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3 A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4 An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources. "



So I think my defintion is a better use of the word "crime" than yours. I think "sin" would be a more precise choice for what you are trying to describe , slavery or genocide.




[QUOTE]Were you aware that many professional drivers (I was one) who are on long hauls use speed to stay awake? Are they immoral? They are taking steps to prevent falling asleep at the wheel to avoid killing themselves or others. /QUOTE]

Avoiding sleep with drugs is a poorer choice than getting some sleep. A less moral choice, showing less regard for human life, your own and others.

And drug use is protected - the 1st Amendment says Congress (and extension by virtue of the 14th Amendment, the states) shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise -freedom - of religion. And some people do use illegal drugs as part of their religions.

Well, I dont know about the legal issues, I am no lawyer. But to say that drug use is protected if it is religous seems doubtful to me. That is one possible interpretation- but the constitution does not specify that.

Doesn't matter if they are no longer legal, they were once and are under some existing governments. Was/are slavery and genocide "crimes"?

Always a sin, sometimes a crime.

You own yourself, not the rest of us. If I decide my pain is too much to live with, committing suicide is not immoral. Forcing me to stay alive in the name of "morality" perverts morality beyond reason.

You are talking about who makes the choice, not whether or not the choice is moral. If it is immoral to harm a human being, than who makes the choice is not relevant. It is still immoral. If you decide, or I decide, or George W Bush decides, it makes no difference in my opinion. Right is still right and wrong is still wrong.

You're assuming all drug use damages the brain when the reality is that some drug use can while some may be beneficial.

No, I said you risk damage, and it is better to avoid the risk. I agree that if you need to take a drug to improve your health, then that makes sense. Not the same thing as drug addiction or drug abuse, or taking drugs for entertainment.

Hmm...immoral and in denial

Yes, I am afraid so.

Everyone hurts themselves; therefore, hurting yourself cannot be immoral

That is not a logical statement. Further, I avoid hurting myself, as much as I can. As do most people.

If you support the law, you are forcing your opinion on the rest of us.

No, I disagree. Your vote counts as much as mine. If you dont like the law, you can change it if the majority support you. I have not been elected Supreme World Ruler.

What's so great about a system of majority rule? Was it great for African slaves or German Jews in the 30's and 40's? "Yeah, you Jews should just convince the majority to leave you alone".

This is not Africa nor Germany. And the United States is not perfect, but it is the most perfect. "Liberty and Justice for All" is a goal we aspire to , but can never perfectly attain. Whats the old saying, we have the worst government in the world, except for all the other ones. ?

But you don't know, you aren't omniscient.

I do not need to know all things to know drug abuse is foolish and immoral.

[Giancarlo]

I am sure that everybody knows my opinion at on this, the drug war must continue.

But I am stunned, just stunned to see how people speak here on their opposition to the drug war. They speak like it is the majority of the opinion, well it is not in the United States for that matter. The Drug war will continue on since both the Republican and Democratic party lines support the drug war, and the stupid Green party would never get power. It is just stunning to see that people here think their opinion should be more highly valued then the other opinion, without consideration. Certainly enough I consider the other opinion, ending the drug war, but that is not my choice. I am for the Drug war, because I believe it is efficient and not only that the national guard must be deployed in every city to end drug sales. Certainly, libertarians may rip my throat out for trying to abolish personal freedoms, but is it really a personal freedom to fill yourself up with artificial stimulants and ruin your life? Is it a personal freedom to hold this opinion towards support for the drug war?

If you want to show opposition to the drug war, then by all means express yourself. But do it with respect towards the opposing opinion, which by the matter is the majority in the United States and you will thusly get respect back. Maybe it is not the majority in Northern Europe but in the US it is!

[November Adam]

How do drugs affect a family? Even if the person using them doesn't actually cause direct harm, there is always indirect harm.

Ever watch a loved one slowly kill themselves with drugs? They aren't doing anything directly to you, but wait! You care about them and don't want to see them hurt.

How bout having to explain to your child why daddy smells like a skunk, and gets very loud, and doesn't act normal. Kinda scarry for that child I would think.

These are a few examples of how a child would be affected... want more?

How can you do studies on how pot would affect a socialized health care system? It's illegal now, while I guess you can look at legalized drugs. Now I don't have any statisics, but who cares about them as anyone can pull numbers out of a hat. Now this may seem like a cold way to look at it, but here ya go. Tobacoo, what happens to the person? Lung cancer, emphesima, etc. Sure the person dies sooner, but they don't just go poof, and fall over, they linger, putting a drain on a medical system. As well as removing themselves from the work force sooner.

Alchol... liver failure, jerkitis (this is where your a jerk to someone, and they clock you), etc. (I'm not a doctor obviously). Another one that puts a drag on the med system. So from these 2 I conclude that legalizing other drugs sure as well won't help. Even though they are being used, if it was legalized there is a good chance use would increase.

I have no problem with medicinal drugs, as this is regulated.

[Bosh]

"Would you want the man who builds your house to be sober? I think you would."
Of course, but I wouldn't want him to be thrown in a cage if he had a cold one after work.

"I can see no logical reason to believe that hurting myself is much different than harming another. I believe I am as valuable as the next guy. Why is it okay to hurt yourself, if it is not okay to hurt another?"
Quite simple, if you're doing something stupid that hurts yourself its completely voluntary and its nobody's business but yourself. If you're hurting someone else against their will, that's something completely different. Like the example I used, dropping a cinderblock on your own foot is just stupid, but throwing cinderblock at other people's feet is deservedly criminal.

"It might not hurt us very badly, but it certainly won't help."
Bald assertion. For a start it would destroy drug financed crime/terrorism, greatly reduce the number of people stealing to pay for drugs, stop violent turf wars among dealers, and greatly reduce the number of ODs.

"I think we both know whats best. Its best not to take the drugs.
But I am in no way forcing my opinion on anyone, I am merely stating it."
I pretty much agree with out, considering how little alcohol I drink there's a good chance that I use less drugs than you do . However, saying that X is a bad thing and saying that you want people forced to stop doing X is completely different. A lot of people don't seem to understand this difference very well, for example a lot of libertarians seem to have a hard time understanding that I don't like capitalism but I don't want it forcibly dismantled.


"I'll repeat for a third time my refutation of your argument. If only those activites that are illegal constitute "crime", then legalized slavery and genocide are not crimes."
Not crimes, just horrifically immoral.

"Your vote counts as much as mine. If you dont like the law, you can change it if the majority support you. I have not been elected Supreme World Ruler."
So then Jim Crow laws etc. are ok with you since they were supposed by the majority of the population of the states where they were enacted? Also you casting a vote in the other direction is "forcing your opinion on us.

"I believe it is efficient"
Oooooh, look BAM is back with yet more BA's

[Lefty Scaevola]

It all my years of contact with the legal profession and courts, I had never encountered a felon who was not an addict.

[Giancarlo]

Zhu, another person who speaks like his opinion is the only one there.

I said I believe it is efficicent. Never did I say anything else to you, or did I direct anything towards you. I believe it is. That is my thought. I guess it is ****ing illegal to have thoughts around here different than your´s.

[November Adam]

Gian don't blow a fuse, he wasn't talking to you.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by November Adam
Gian don't blow a fuse, he wasn't talking to you.

Last Quote. Unfornately he just unfolded the fact that he was BAM because he didn´t respond to the rest of my argument. Just one measling quote I made.

[November Adam]

Ahhh, my bad... blow away.