Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7

 

2008-04-17 15:28:12
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7230|Argentina

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

WOW...the level of ridiculous has reached a peak in this thread.

Let's get a few things straight.

1) Yes, a cameraman is dead and he himself said he would continue to report until he couldn't (dead or crippled), so he is largely to blame for himself being killed. He is a big boy and knew what might happen. It is much different when civilians die on either side of this conflict....he made a choice, those civilians didn't.

2) Israel did not deliberately attack civilians in this vid. From that distance, this guy was holding a camera (according to the video) pointing it at tanks. If I was a tank commander, I would be suspicious of it too. Remember, Hamas has used civilians, Red Crescent vehicles and yes even press vehicles to what they are best at ...terrorism.

3) I watched a longer version of this vid and it still smells and looks bad. I am not saying that a cameraman didn't get killed but at this point, I do not believe he was killed in that video. If you look at the longer version, the truck is on a road between two burms, the hills on each side of the road are taller than the truck....it just doesn't make sense.

4) Even in the video, how does anyone know when that shot was taken, who shot it and from the video I saw, the video was taken by somebody else, not the dead cameraman. The video conveniently cuts out and then we see another shot from someone else. The video was put together, it is not one continuous shot from the same camera. In fact, they show the camera of the dead cameraman...and in no way could that camera still work. Somebody put that vid together and who knows where all the clips came from.

5) Yes, there is a cameraman dead, but I believe that parts of the video being shown on the net is staged. I don't believe he was killed in that truck, I don't believe that a tank shell would do so little damage to a small pick up truck and I don't believe the story as it was told. Did a cameraman die, yes. Did he die by being killed by the Israeli army, yes....but the video is staged to dramatize what may have happened else where.

That is my opinion, if Israel and Palestinians continue this fight, innocence on both sides will die. This guy chose his way to die and knew it might and did happen. He has to take a large part of responsibility.  In WW2, quite a few journalists died in combat action, some famously, but again, they knew and accepted what could happen.
1-As far as we know the tank shot him and there were no extremists nearby.  A cameraman IS a fucking civilian, he just happens to be working.  He didn't make the choice when the tank shot him without a reason.

2-Tanks have electronic devices to detect RPG and missile launchers.

3-You are saying Reuters has such a huge bias against Israel they staged this?

4-The video conveniently cuts maybe coz the cameraman was shot dead, and the camera was fucked up.  Maybe the tape or whatever the camera was using still worked after the shot, who knows.

5-So, you agree the cameraman is dead, that he was killed by the Israeli army, and you really think they need to stage the video just to dramatize the already very dramatic event?
2008-04-17 15:56:18
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6652
You haven't see the long version have you. The camera he was using is shown and the lense is GONE, shattered. The video was obviously edited and if Reuters edited it, then there is a very good possibility that it was staged. I am not disputing that this guy died and that the Israeli army was involved but this video is worthless.

This video was from two different cameramen and obviously edited. As far as you getting all torn up and claiming he is a civilian....yes, he was a civilian but he himself, in the video YOU posted, states that he will put himself in the position until he is either crippled or dead. So tell me Serge, if we have a bunch of guys running around with cameras defying the possibility that they may get shot, then what do you expect is going to happen. EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE!!!!

I have no doubt that he died from a tank round, but not in this video.
2008-04-17 16:50:24
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7028
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976084.html

"Avoiding civilian casualties is their highest priority". What a load of shit.
2008-04-17 17:04:40
imortal
Member
+240|7138|Austin, TX

sergeriver wrote:

1-As far as we know the tank shot him and there were no extremists nearby.  A cameraman IS a fucking civilian, he just happens to be working.  He didn't make the choice when the tank shot him without a reason.

2-Tanks have electronic devices to detect RPG and missile launchers.

3-You are saying Reuters has such a huge bias against Israel they staged this?

4-The video conveniently cuts maybe coz the cameraman was shot dead, and the camera was fucked up.  Maybe the tape or whatever the camera was using still worked after the shot, who knows.

5-So, you agree the cameraman is dead, that he was killed by the Israeli army, and you really think they need to stage the video just to dramatize the already very dramatic event?
1- The point being made is that the tank crew had no assurances that the TV crew was not, in fact, terrorists pointing an anti-tank missile at them.

2- No, they don't.  Stop getting your information from movies or games.  (I was not only an artilleryman, but a tanker as well.)

3- no comment or opinion at this point.

4- we have no way of knowing what was not aired.  I am more interested in the footage prior to what was shown on the air.

5- no comment for the overly dramatic statement designed to draw argument away from the other points.
2008-04-17 17:07:25
oldgoat
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Never drink & derive
+5|6990

TSI wrote:

Oh, so shooting a CLEARLY marked TV car is okay? Collateral damage? BS. The hallmark of war is that the powerful fighter has to protect the civilians, esp if it calls the wekaer one a terrorist. I say that the Israelis should apologize publicly, and compensate. And then, stop effing shooting at everything and anything.
I'm disgusted.
ok so pretend the US is at war with the terrorists in some battle in the desert.  one terrrorist spy guy, gets in a car with a big billboard labled "TV NEWS CHANNEL 1337" then goes out nexto to all the us army guys and reports via walkie talkie to all the terrorist artillery and they start bombing everything there.  Your saying its better to protect a possible innocent civilian than to protect 200 infantrys and tanks.  What in the world are you thinking if you think its ok to drive a black car wiht a 2x2 sign on the hood of your car saying tv infront of a warzone and active tanks on duty? clearly marked is a billboard 10ftX10ft colored in neon green with big lights and flares every 5 seconds.  but what if the tv car was a guy from the other side just reporting more news to the government.
2008-04-17 17:10:57
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6652

CameronPoe wrote:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976084.html

"Avoiding civilian casualties is their highest priority". What a load of shit.
But what about the human flechette rounds that blow themselves up killing innocent civilians, with their highest priority being civilian deaths or is that a load of shit too.
2008-04-17 17:13:39
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6992|Πάϊ

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

WOW...the level of ridiculous has reached a peak in this thread.

Let's get a few things straight.

1) Yes, a cameraman is dead and he himself said he would continue to report until he couldn't (dead or crippled), so he is largely to blame for himself being killed. He is a big boy and knew what might happen. It is much different when civilians die on either side of this conflict....he made a choice, those civilians didn't.
Yeah you can say that again. What ridiculous comments. I wasn't going to post in this thread, because I think that debating over such incidents leads to kind of mislead conclusions. Same reason I largely avoid the numerous "Suicide bomber kills 15" threads. But ffs, you've outdone yourselves in this one.

So because the guy said that he would continue to do his job, he is to blame for getting shot by a fucking Israeli tank? Wtf are you on about? Should all reporters quit their jobs and leave? That's exactly what Israel wants. Plus, he was a fucking civilian. With a fucking camera.

And let me guess. This video was made up by the baddies to frame the IDF. Reuters suddenly sided with the Palestinians.

Some people will claim anything to avoid the truth. And a bloody obvious one in this case.
ƒ³
2008-04-17 17:20:23
imortal
Member
+240|7138|Austin, TX

sergeriver wrote:

imortal wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


You can't shoot a target just in case.  Period.
That is great in the civilian world when you are target shooting or hunting.  It does not apply to a war zone, where the maxim "Aything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing."  If you are enganged in combat, and you see a possible threat, you shoot it.  Yes, accidents happen all of the time.  You hear of numerous cases of fratricide; of friendly fire happening in these circumstances as well.

Your point of view is valid from a civilain standpoint, but it does not bear up during active combat. It is just the wrong mindset to have if you have a desire to survive.
What about the desire of survival of the journalist doing his job?  Besides, if they thought the car was a threat coz they saw one guy holding a camera and maybe they confused that with a RPG or any other device, they also saw the tv sign on the front of the car.  Maybe they didn't saw the sign.  Who knows?  But, if it would have been a rocket launcher, the tank has electronic devices to detect them, hasn't it?
You still make the assumtion that they saw the TV sign on the hood.  On the mostly horizontal hood.  Seen from another spot on the ground, that would more likely resemble a smudge on the hood.  At distance, who knows what it would look like.  It would definately NOT look like the words TV as seem looking at the hood from 5 feet away as shown on the news.

And, as I posted before, there is NO way to detect anti-tank missiles prior to launch.  They are either fast, dumb rockets, or smarter, but slower guided missiles.  Unless a crew is spotted before hand, the best method of detection is the plume of dust shot into the air AS IT IS FIRED.  Of course, by that time, there is a deadly weapon in-bound on your vehicle.  Waiting for that plume is not the best method of self preservation.

As to the cameraman, I am sure he would have preferred to have survived.  Who knows?  He may have been an adrenaline junkie or had a death-wish, but that does not enter into it.  The very job he did and the actions he took had him voluntaraly let go of all of those "didn't he have a right to live" arguments.  The isrealis did not shoot a news studio.  He was not sitting quietly behind a desk at work.  This man, by his own choice, sought out that footage.  He hunted down footage like that of the tank.   I am sure if you interviewed him the night before, he would happily tell you that he knows the risks, but is sure his job is worth the danger (I am speculating, yes.)  His own free will placed him there.

Here is an analogy.  No, it does not match exactly, but it passes along the idea.  We have storm chasers here in the US.  During tornado season, they run around actually trying to catch footage of a tornado.  It is dangerous, and I think it is pretty silly.  Now, if a tornado takes a strange turn and takes one of them out, who do you blame?  Do you blame the tornado for killing them?  Or is the responsibility with the storm chasers themselves, for placing themselves in jepordy.  If they had not been there, whould the tornado have killed them?
2008-04-17 17:21:08
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6652

oug wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

WOW...the level of ridiculous has reached a peak in this thread.

Let's get a few things straight.

1) Yes, a cameraman is dead and he himself said he would continue to report until he couldn't (dead or crippled), so he is largely to blame for himself being killed. He is a big boy and knew what might happen. It is much different when civilians die on either side of this conflict....he made a choice, those civilians didn't.
Yeah you can say that again. What ridiculous comments. I wasn't going to post in this thread, because I think that debating over such incidents leads to kind of mislead conclusions. Same reason I largely avoid the numerous "Suicide bomber kills 15" threads. But ffs, you've outdone yourselves in this one.

So because the guy said that he would continue to do his job, he is to blame for getting shot by a fucking Israeli tank? Wtf are you on about? Should all reporters quit their jobs and leave? That's exactly what Israel wants. Plus, he was a fucking civilian. With a fucking camera.

And let me guess. This video was made up by the baddies to frame the IDF. Reuters suddenly sided with the Palestinians.

Some people will claim anything to avoid the truth. And a bloody obvious one in this case.
Exactly.....and if I walk out onto a highway and stand in the street and get killed....guess what, its my fault. If I am a truck driver and drink and drive putting myself and others in danger...then yes, its my fault. If I walk into a war zone, with tanks and point something at them and get shot, yes, a CERTAIN amount of responsibility lies with myself for putting myself into that situation. I love how so many people want to blame everyone else and take no responsibility. HE KNEW THIS COULD HAPPEN and yet a lot of you excuse it....that is idiotic.
2008-04-17 18:30:12
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6884|'Murka

oug wrote:

And let me guess. This video was made up by the baddies to frame the IDF. Reuters suddenly sided with the Palestinians.

Some people will claim anything to avoid the truth. And a bloody obvious one in this case.
Just as it was obvious that Israel bombed a civilian neighborhood in Beirut multiple times...oh wait that was Reuters fabricating "evidence" to show how bad Israel is.

No oug...it could never happen.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-04-17 19:53:58
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7239|UK
Those are possibly the worst "press" identification ive ever seen, the "TV" logo for one is pretty damn tiny, about the size of my laptop, and u expect someone to see that from a mile away? Not to mention its on a surface that face vertical and not horizontal.

Being part of the media in war brings risks, those people involve know that.
2008-04-17 20:03:17
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7148|Canberra, AUS
I thought there was meant to be PRESS in huge letters on press vehicles.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-04-17 20:17:20
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6797|New Haven, CT
This is like an Israel vs. Palestine/Muslim vs. anti-Muslim debate, in terms of futility.

For the record, I find it hard to believe that they intentionally killed them, for the reasons stated above.

Finally, the media should not be able to report from war zones in the level of detail they do currently. Support on the home front is crucial to eventually winning a war; the media's gruesome pictures ensure that this support will always be decreased. Would America have failed so miserably in Vietnam without the media reporting as it did? I don't think so.
2008-04-17 20:25:08
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7239|UK
Wait it seems to me some of you dont realise it was a reuters cameraman who died but the footage is from Al jazera...

O and Serge.... u cant detect an RPG, its what it says on the tin, a rocket propelled grenade, normally without any kind of sighting system other than iron sights.

Last edited by Vilham (2008-04-17 20:26:34)

2008-04-17 22:07:12
thtthht
maximum bullshit
+50|6804|teh alien spaceshit

sergeriver wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

WOW...the level of ridiculous has reached a peak in this thread.

Let's get a few things straight.

1) Yes, a cameraman is dead and he himself said he would continue to report until he couldn't (dead or crippled), so he is largely to blame for himself being killed. He is a big boy and knew what might happen. It is much different when civilians die on either side of this conflict....he made a choice, those civilians didn't.

2) Israel did not deliberately attack civilians in this vid. From that distance, this guy was holding a camera (according to the video) pointing it at tanks. If I was a tank commander, I would be suspicious of it too. Remember, Hamas has used civilians, Red Crescent vehicles and yes even press vehicles to what they are best at ...terrorism.

3) I watched a longer version of this vid and it still smells and looks bad. I am not saying that a cameraman didn't get killed but at this point, I do not believe he was killed in that video. If you look at the longer version, the truck is on a road between two burms, the hills on each side of the road are taller than the truck....it just doesn't make sense.

4) Even in the video, how does anyone know when that shot was taken, who shot it and from the video I saw, the video was taken by somebody else, not the dead cameraman. The video conveniently cuts out and then we see another shot from someone else. The video was put together, it is not one continuous shot from the same camera. In fact, they show the camera of the dead cameraman...and in no way could that camera still work. Somebody put that vid together and who knows where all the clips came from.

5) Yes, there is a cameraman dead, but I believe that parts of the video being shown on the net is staged. I don't believe he was killed in that truck, I don't believe that a tank shell would do so little damage to a small pick up truck and I don't believe the story as it was told. Did a cameraman die, yes. Did he die by being killed by the Israeli army, yes....but the video is staged to dramatize what may have happened else where.

That is my opinion, if Israel and Palestinians continue this fight, innocence on both sides will die. This guy chose his way to die and knew it might and did happen. He has to take a large part of responsibility.  In WW2, quite a few journalists died in combat action, some famously, but again, they knew and accepted what could happen.
1-As far as we know the tank shot him and there were no extremists nearby.  A cameraman IS a fucking civilian, he just happens to be working.  He didn't make the choice when the tank shot him without a reason.

2-Tanks have electronic devices to detect RPG and missile launchers.

3-You are saying Reuters has such a huge bias against Israel they staged this?

4-The video conveniently cuts maybe coz the cameraman was shot dead, and the camera was fucked up.  Maybe the tape or whatever the camera was using still worked after the shot, who knows.

5-So, you agree the cameraman is dead, that he was killed by the Israeli army, and you really think they need to stage the video just to dramatize the already very dramatic event?
Although there was no shooting, think about it.
There are plenty of cases where an AT terrorist had fired on a tank before any shots were fired.
Also, a tank cannot detect a RPG because it is basically a metal tube with an explosive thing on the end.
Do you seriously think someone will think, "Wait, is that the press?" before shooting in a battle?
NO!!!
The reporter expected this.
These things happen.Also, nobody is going to notice a teeny tiny TV sign at 700 meters.
2008-04-17 22:09:14
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6797|New Haven, CT

Vilham wrote:

Wait it seems to me some of you dont realise it was a reuters cameraman who died but the footage is from Al jazera...

O and Serge.... u cant detect an RPG, its what it says on the tin, a rocket propelled grenade, normally without any kind of sighting system other than iron sights.
As Special Forces showed us.
2008-04-18 00:30:41
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7314|Cologne, Germany

I have looked at that video again, and from the position the vehicle was in after the hit, it would have been impossible for the tank crew to see the tiny TV logo on the hood, at least as far as I can tell. The road lies between bushes and trees and has small hills on both sides. From the angle the camera shot of the tank was made I would say the reporter did have to stand on top of the roof of his vehicle to even get a good view of the tank.
Also, the tank seemed to be a good mile away or so. With the way the area around the car looked like, it is well possible that the tank crew didn't even see the car at all, and just saw a guy in civilian clothing pointing something at them that could have easily been an AT weapon.
Hence the use of the Flechette round, as it is more effective against infantry.

Just look at the position of the vehicle at the side of the road, and tell me that you would have been able to see the ridiculously tiny TV sign on the hood from a 90° degree side angle, through all that woodwork, from a mile away. I don't know how good the image enhancement equipment on Merkava tanks is, but I doubt they can see through trees.

Also, as a journalist, you know the risks you are taking when entering an area where tanks are actively operating. Tanks, for god's sake !!
Who in his right mind would do that ? That's insane...

From my point of view, this was an unfortunate accident, caused by carelessness on both sides.
2008-04-18 00:50:24
Jibbles
Rifle Expert
+56|7102|Mexifornia, USA

Braddock wrote:

Nice humane weaponry they're using these days. I suppose these darts have the ability to distinguish between civilians and terrorists?

Use of such weapons shows the Israeli's don't seem to care one iota about how much collateral damage they cause.
Humane weapons? Please, feel free to explain which weapons are considered friendly to the recipient; I'd really like to know.

By the way, I'm sure the Israeli tank crew didn't say "Hey, there's a cameraman - LET'S KILL HIM!" Obviously they "intentionally" shot the truck, because, and correct me if I'm wrong, they are trained to hit what they shoot at, as well as to shoot at the enemy. That's how you win a war. You kill the enemy before he kills you.

U.S. Navy Seal Marcus Lutrell wrote:

Any government that thinks war is somehow fair and subject to rules like a baseball game probably should not get into one. Because nothing's fair in war, and occasionally the wrong people do get killed.
Sometimes critical decisions are made to accomplish this and often they do not please the world that tries to put rules into war*. It was an accidental shot. By that I mean, had the tank crew known exactly what they were shooting at, they would not have. The tank crew did what they were trained to do, and, for all they knew, just saved their lives/tank from a shoulder-fired missile. It was clearly a quick shot, judging by the short length of the video that didn't seem to be edited (as far as I know, could be wrong). This situation may have been different had the truck been on a flat, open surface, not half covered by a small berm and a line of trees (it's in the video). By the looks of it, they could have (and may have) been mistaken as hiding, trying to get a quick shot off and then book it. Common sense would have cured that.

Regardless of whether or not this was technically a "warzone" is irrelevant. There's obviously some major shit going down if they're rolling in with tanks. To most, this would not normally be considered an ideal time to go point a big black shoulder mounted item at a foreign tank. Maybe they should have asked the upper Israeli command "Combat operations are over, right? We were hoping not to get blown to hell while filming". At least they could have informed the tank crews in the area.


*  - I suggest a read through this book.
2008-04-18 00:56:57
PureFodder
Member
+225|6758
Apparently the Israeli forces use things like those little UAV scout planes the US uses. Painting the TV markings on the top of the vehicle should have made it clear to the Israeli forces that they were in the area and were press.

As I keep saying, the place was not a war zone until the Israeli tanks invaded. As such they are bound by the 4th Geneva convention to protect civilian lives, as far as I can tell protection of civillians is a higher legal priority than self protection for an invading army. The rules for invading other countries suck, being a civillian in a country that is being invaded sucks more.
2008-04-18 00:58:50
PureFodder
Member
+225|6758

nukchebi0 wrote:

This is like an Israel vs. Palestine/Muslim vs. anti-Muslim debate, in terms of futility.

For the record, I find it hard to believe that they intentionally killed them, for the reasons stated above.

Finally, the media should not be able to report from war zones in the level of detail they do currently. Support on the home front is crucial to eventually winning a war; the media's gruesome pictures ensure that this support will always be decreased. Would America have failed so miserably in Vietnam without the media reporting as it did? I don't think so.
Ask yourself the more important question. What would have happened if German cameramen had been able to take a film of Auschwitz.
2008-04-18 01:17:12
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7028

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976084.html

"Avoiding civilian casualties is their highest priority". What a load of shit.
But what about the human flechette rounds that blow themselves up killing innocent civilians, with their highest priority being civilian deaths or is that a load of shit too.
Equally as deplorable. There are no myths surrounding Palestinian methods - there are many myths regarding the morality of the Israelis however that need to be exploded. The 'holier than thou' myth that permeates the US media blocks understanding of the very legitimate Palestinian cause and the very real plight of the Palestinians.

You don't care about Israeli transgressions I take it.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-18 01:31:22)

2008-04-18 01:19:46
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,827|6579|eXtreme to the maX

MOAB wrote:

A technical doesn't have to have a mounted weapon either.
According to my understanding of what a 'technical' is it usually does.
'A technical is a type of improvised fighting vehicle, typically a civilian or military non-combat vehicle, modified to provide an offensive capability. It is usually an open-backed civilian pickup truck or 4x4 on which is mounted a recoilless rifle, a machine gun, a light anti-aircraft gun, or another relatively small weapons system.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(fighting_vehicle)

Do you have some new definition of technical? Is any vehicle a possible technical?
And as before, I don't remember hearing of a technical being used in Palestine
Fuck Israel
2008-04-18 02:08:18
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6884|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

Apparently the Israeli forces use things like those little UAV scout planes the US uses. Painting the TV markings on the top of the vehicle should have made it clear to the Israeli forces that they were in the area and were press.

As I keep saying, the place was not a war zone until the Israeli tanks invaded. As such they are bound by the 4th Geneva convention to protect civilian lives, as far as I can tell protection of civillians is a higher legal priority than self protection for an invading army. The rules for invading other countries suck, being a civillian in a country that is being invaded sucks more.
Nothing overrides the basic right to self-defense...which is also in the Geneva Convention, BTW. But then again, the GC also requires legitimate fighting forces to have uniforms that clearly distinguish them from the populace...

And there is no evidence that UAVs were in use in this case, or if they were, that they had FMV of the area in question.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-04-18 02:09:40)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-04-18 02:29:38
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,827|6579|eXtreme to the maX
Nothing overrides the basic right to self-defense...which is also in the Geneva Convention, BTW. But then again, the GC also requires legitimate fighting forces to have uniforms that clearly distinguish them from the populace
I see, so if someone breaks into your house and starts shooting up your wife and kids you put on a uniform before you get your gun?
Fuck Israel
2008-04-18 02:30:38
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6884|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Nothing overrides the basic right to self-defense...which is also in the Geneva Convention, BTW. But then again, the GC also requires legitimate fighting forces to have uniforms that clearly distinguish them from the populace
I see, so if someone breaks into your house and starts shooting up your wife and kids you put on a uniform before you get your gun?
GC covers military conflict, Dilbert.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard