Page 8 of 29 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121318 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 428

Thread: Has anyone else read Mein Kampf?

  1. #106
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by kiki1982 View Post

    My logic is not pitiful. Look at what Emil said earlier.

    Yes, letting the British escape was a blunder from your point of view, but if he was trying to make one big empire (which he was of course going to dominate), then surely it wasn't.
    I don't understand. If you were trying to make one big empire then eliminating a good chunk of one of your chief enemy's armed forces when they are totally helpless on a beach is a no-brainer.

    It is your logic which is warped, not mine. I am trying to look at it in a different position than from where I am now. What we know happened after is irrelevant to the motivation for what happened then, because people did not know what was going to happen.
    Do you think I am blaming the German people? Another poster called them mentally ill. I didn't. I admitted that if I was a German at the time it was possible I might have been a Hitler supporter. A Hitler could have arisen and in some instances has in spirit arisen in countries around the world.

    Hitler and the Third Reich were far more than 6 million dead + a lot of dead soldiers on both sides.
    And, come to think of it, not all those 6 million came from Germany, you know. Was it Hungary that exterminated 80% of its Jewish population or Slowakia? I am part of a country which hid them all, or at least worked very slowly so the process did not go so well, so Belgium came off with a mere 40%, I think, but Eastern Europe was quite zealous and they're becoming zealous again.
    The overwhelming majority of the 6 million slain Jews did not come from Germany. The plans and orders for their execution did however. This leads me to condemn the Nazi regime, the men who bear responsibility for the great atrocities. I don't blame the German people. You have to be able to condemn a man like Hitler. That doesn't mean you go ahead and condemn the millions of Germans who bought his lies and followed him without knowing where we was truly leading them.

  2. #107
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    I don't understand. If you were trying to make one big empire then eliminating a good chunk of one of your chief enemy's armed forces when they are totally helpless on a beach is a no-brainer.



    Do you think I am blaming the German people? Another poster called them mentally ill. I didn't. I admitted that if I was a German at the time it was possible I might have been a Hitler supporter. A Hitler could have arisen and in some instances has in spirit arisen in countries around the world.



    The overwhelming majority of the 6 million slain Jews did not come from Germany. The plans and orders for their execution did however. This leads me to condemn the Nazi regime, the men who bear responsibility for the great atrocities. I don't blame the German people. You have to be able to condemn a man like Hitler. That doesn't mean you go ahead and condemn the millions of Germans who bought his lies and followed him without knowing where we was truly leading them.
    The German people knew very well where Hitler and Co. were leading them and most were Nazi's voluntarily long before they were formally organized. Hitler was merely the political author of the insanity the people wanted to hear. If there is any doubt about the responsibility of the people of insane Weimar, you may try to imagine doing the same thing with the people of the United States of America. You wouldn't last a week. Don't play with it. Don't gamble with it. This is indeed the land of the free and the home of the brave, and that is cast in bronce (so to speak), coming from the fathers of America and what has always been demonstrated as our flag was still there and will remain there. Case closed.

  3. #108
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by cafolini View Post
    The German people knew very well where Hitler and Co. were leading them and most were Nazi's voluntarily long before they were formally organized. Hitler was merely the political author of the insanity the people wanted to hear. If there is any doubt about the responsibility of the people of insane Weimar, you may try to imagine doing the same thing with the people of the United States of America. You wouldn't last a week. Don't play with it. Don't gamble with it. This is indeed the land of the free and the home of the brave, and that is cast in bronce (so to speak), coming from the fathers of America and what has always been demonstrated as our flag was still there and will remain there. Case closed.
    In the thirties they had Madison Square Gardens or some other massive New York stadium filled to the rafters with enthusiastic people for a Nazi rally. Swastika's everywhere.

    It could happen in the states. If the economy took an extreme pernicious plummet anything could happen. Half your country is outright delusional politically anyway. Its not that great a leap to envision it happening there. Your kind of complacent attitude is the real fear to consider.

  4. #109
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    In the thirties they had Madison Square Gardens or some other massive New York stadium filled to the rafters with enthusiastic people for a Nazi rally. Swastika's everywhere.

    It could happen in the states. If the economy took an extreme pernicious plummet anything could happen. Half your country is outright delusional politically anyway. Its not that great a leap to envision it happening there. Your kind of complacent attitude is the real fear to consider.
    America will never fight against free speech and ignorance. It is obvious that inside the United States we have lots of people that can't read it properly with historical information and sense. There occurs no consequent fear in that regard. All consequent fears in America and what we will protect it from with our lives, if necessary, come from the insanity of crazy cultures that could attack anytime. We will keep improving military technology and training to deal with it. And no military will ever rule the civilian authorities in America. It's in the open. Free speech? Yes. Disinformation about what can happen from the momentary and crazy arguments from people who are getting a generous chance to see who we are? Never. Don't gamble on it. Not a chance is feasible.
    "I'll not take any option away from the table."
    "Those who see the waning of American influence, don't know what they are talking about." Obama, during the latest State of the Union speech.
    Make no mistake: "justice will be done."
    Last edited by cafolini; 02-27-2012 at 02:29 PM.

  5. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    University or my little estate
    Posts
    2,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    In the thirties they had Madison Square Gardens or some other massive New York stadium filled to the rafters with enthusiastic people for a Nazi rally. Swastika's everywhere.

    It could happen in the states. If the economy took an extreme pernicious plummet anything could happen. Half your country is outright delusional politically anyway. Its not that great a leap to envision it happening there. Your kind of complacent attitude is the real fear to consider.
    The fact that you actualy repplied to Califoni is a very very sad thing for this thread. In future it is best to smile and nod your head when Califoni posts.

  6. #111
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander III View Post
    The fact that you actualy repplied to Califoni is a very very sad thing for this thread. In future it is best to smile and nod your head when Califoni posts.
    I agree. What else could you actually do and make some sense. Applause!!

  7. #112
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by cafolini View Post
    America will never fight against free speech and ignorance. It is obvious that inside the United States we have lots of people that can't read it properly with historical information and sense. There occurs no consequent fear in that regard. All consequent fears in America and what we will protect it from with our lives, if necessary, come from the insanity of crazy cultures that could attack anytime. We will keep improving military technology and training to deal with it. And no military will ever rule the civilian authorities in America. It's in the open. Free speech? Yes. Disinformation about what can happen from the momentary and crazy arguments from people who are getting a generous chance to see who we are? Never. Don't gamble on it. Not a chance is feasible.
    "I'll not take any option away from the table."
    "Those who see the waning of American influence, don't know what they are talking about." Obama, during the latest State of the Union speech.
    Make no mistake: "justice will be done."
    Well, you need to check out the Pentagon memorandum laying out a plan for complete military policing and governance in the event of widespread social disorder or otherwise greatly disrupted deviation from the status quo. America is no different than other countries. If revolution ever became imperative you guys would either have to woo the military or perish by their tanks and guns. After Katrina you had Blackwater mercenaries patrolling the streets of New Orleans with automatic rifles. There was a plot in the thirties supported by Henry Ford and others to impose a fascist dictatorship. Most of the information in the United States is under the dominion of but a small handful of corporations. You can only get elected in America by kow-towing before the corporate establishment. Canada is not so different. Don't be naive Caf man, it can happen anywhere.

  8. #113
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander III View Post
    The fact that you actualy repplied to Califoni is a very very sad thing for this thread. In future it is best to smile and nod your head when Califoni posts.
    I like Cafolini. Even if many of his posts are undecipherable and possibly nonsense he makes me smile.

  9. #114
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    I like Cafolini. Even if many of his posts are undecipherable and possibly nonsense he makes me smile.
    Glad to be of service.

  10. #115
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by cafolini View Post
    Glad to be of service.
    And regarding this? -

    Well, you need to check out the Pentagon memorandum laying out a plan for complete military policing and governance in the event of widespread social disorder or otherwise greatly disrupted deviation from the status quo. America is no different than other countries. If revolution ever became imperative you guys would either have to woo the military or perish by their tanks and guns. After Katrina you had Blackwater mercenaries patrolling the streets of New Orleans with automatic rifles. There was a plot in the thirties supported by Henry Ford and others to impose a fascist dictatorship. Most of the information in the United States is under the dominion of but a small handful of corporations. You can only get elected in America by kow-towing before the corporate establishment. Canada is not so different. Don't be naive Caf man, it can happen anywhere.
    Or this? -

    THE AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE

    Although it was savaged in the press as a silly "cocktail putsch" at the time, the actions of the American Liberty League came as close as the United States has come to overthrowing the elected President in a coup d'etat. After the extent of his New Deal plans to end the Great Depression became known, many of the wealthy industrialists in the country considered President Franklin Roosevelt at the minimum a "traitor to his class" and a pawn of "Jewish Communism". They formed the American Liberty League, no gathering of crackpots, but a roll-call of the most powerful American capitalists, a list which reminds me of the credits before a PBS show...including J.P. Morgan, the DuPonts, Andrew Mellon, the Rockefellers, E.F. Hutton, and Joseph Pew of Sunoco. The value of the Liberty League, according to one estimate, was 37 billion dollars...in 1938 dollars! (Archer 1973, 31) At the time, DuPont and Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors were in control of the powerful anti-labor National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) With the help of Joseph Pews, NAM subsidized the Sentinels of the Republic, the first industrial group to declare "the New Deal is Communist" and to openly decry the "Jewish threat". (Seldes 1943, 80, 97)

    During July of 1933, two men claiming to be representing the American Legion (of which we'll hear more later) came to Major General Smedley D. Butler, looking for a man to help rally the members of the "bonus army", a group of disgruntled World War I veterans estimated at 500,000 men. These men stated that they were planning to combine the American Legion, the Bonus Army and the Veterans of Foreign Wars into a new group based on the Croix de Feu, a powerful Fascist veterans organization in France. Just a few years before, the Bonus Army had been dispersed from Washington by Douglas MacArthur. The plan of the Liberty League was to descend upon Washington with this "army" and install Butler in a position as the Director of National Security, essentially making him an "assistant President" to "help" President Roosevelt. In reality, Roosevelt would have been a mere puppet. (Archer 1973, 24-25; Seldes 1947, 210) Although it was censored from published versions of later Congressional testimony, they indicated that the DuPonts were willing to finance weaponry for the entire army. (Archer 1973, 161)

    When he realized what the men wanted, Butler was aghast. He called on James Van Zandt, the head of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, in concern. Van Zandt was also approached by representatives of the Liberty League and quickly rebuffed them. Butler wanted to go to Congress and the press, but needed evidence, so he continued to meet with the men from the Liberty League, while an editor friend assigned reporter Paul French of the Philadelphia Record and the New York Post to investigate. Butler drew more names and information from the men, and thinking that he was nearly ready to "come around", they offered him $18000 in cash on 24 September 1933. The meetings continued for another year, until French broke the story on 20 November 1934. (Archer 1973, 139, 178)

    When questioned by Congress, Van Zandt corroborated the plot, along with Douglas MacArthur, Colonel Theodore Roosevelt Jr., and the former Commander of the American Legion, Hanford MacNider, who were also approached by agents of the Liberty League. (Archer 1973, 176)

    Nearly unknown today, Smedley D. Butler is a real hero in many respects. He turned down money and power in the service of his country, and also continued to speak candidly about his career in the Marines. He went on the radio to continue the attack against the Liberty League and groups like it, and staged a speaking tour in 1935. He wrote a book, War Is a Racket, in which he made the following statement: "I spent 33 years [in the Marines] and during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism...I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." (Archer 1973, 209, 219; Seldes 1947, 212)

    Butler refused an attempt to draft him for a run against Roosevelt in 1936, but Butler did succeed in getting Congress to pass a bonus bill for the World War I veterans over Roosevelt's veto. (Archer 1973, 227) Thus rather than lead them into treason, he gave the "Bonus Army" the just due it had been demanding since 1919.

    With their candidate soundly defeated, the American Liberty League collapsed after the election of 1936. (Archer 1973, 229) This was the end of the true Fascist uprising in the United States. Many groups continued, as we shall see, but they were never able to muster great monetary or logistical support from industrialists again, as they had in Germany, Japan and Italy. As a political force, anti-Semitism didn't work, as the Jews were already integrated into American society, unlike in Europe; racial hatred in America was more successfully directed against blacks, a lesson the German American Bund and other American Fascists learned (fortunately) too late. After the collapse of the Liberty and the assassination of Huey Long, the contest for control of the American government moved from brute unconstitutional force to political oratory. (Ward 1935, 56)
    Last edited by Darcy88; 02-27-2012 at 03:15 PM.

  11. #116
    Artist and Bibliophile stlukesguild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The USA... or thereabouts
    Posts
    6,083
    Blog Entries
    78
    The German people knew very well where Hitler and Co. were leading them and most were Nazi's voluntarily long before they were formally organized. Hitler was merely the political author of the insanity the people wanted to hear. If there is any doubt about the responsibility of the people of insane Weimar, you may try to imagine doing the same thing with the people of the United States of America. You wouldn't last a week. Don't play with it. Don't gamble with it. This is indeed the land of the free and the home of the brave, and that is cast in bronce (so to speak), coming from the fathers of America and what has always been demonstrated as our flag was still there and will remain there. Case closed.

    America will never fight against free speech and ignorance. It is obvious that inside the United States we have lots of people that can't read it properly with historical information and sense. There occurs no consequent fear in that regard. All consequent fears in America and what we will protect it from with our lives, if necessary, come from the insanity of crazy cultures that could attack anytime. We will keep improving military technology and training to deal with it. And no military will ever rule the civilian authorities in America. It's in the open. Free speech? Yes. Disinformation about what can happen from the momentary and crazy arguments from people who are getting a generous chance to see who we are? Never. Don't gamble on it. Not a chance is feasible.
    "I'll not take any option away from the table."
    "Those who see the waning of American influence, don't know what they are talking about." Obama, during the latest State of the Union speech.
    Make no mistake: "justice will be done."


    I'm not certain if cafolini actually believes the nonsense he spouts... or if it is actually intended as satire. Either way it makes for some comic reading.
    Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
    The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
    My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
    http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/

  12. #117
    Registered User Emil Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,499
    Here's something for Cafolini to think about.

    "L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.

    "Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.

  13. #118
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Emil Miller View Post
    Here's something for Cafolini to think about.

    Here is an image of a pro-Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden in 1939.


  14. #119
    Registered User kiki1982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Saarburg, Germany
    Posts
    3,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    I don't understand. If you were trying to make one big empire then eliminating a good chunk of one of your chief enemy's armed forces when they are totally helpless on a beach is a no-brainer.
    No it is not a no-brainer. It seems a no-brainer, but it is not. If you, as the enemy do not really want to be the enemy, but you are pushed into that camp then killing off your advesary's troops is the last thing you have to do if you want a genuine peace treaty. If you adhere to the thesis that Hitler did not want to fight Britain, but Britain came to the rescue of Belgium as a guarantor for their neutrality, then Germany was pushed in the opposite camp from Britain. I suppose, if you do adhere to that thesis, that Hitler was planning the same as with Stalin: divide the continent amongst them (as Germany and Russia did with Poland). He violated that afterwards of course, and thus he would probably have done with Britain too, but do you think killing them all off in Dunkirk would have moved the British to a treaty? I tell you, the proud people from across the Channel would not have done so. Far from. They would not have succumbed to the Nazis if they were on their knees. They knew they were in a good position, only money was lacking, and they were going to fight Germany until the end. At the time they were also dealing with Stalin on the other side to get to a war on two fronts and had been doing this way before the war started.

    Hitler was the one who did not see what was going and that was his weakness, not his tactical blunder as you call it. He was trying to appease his enemy (if enemies they were from his point of view), not kill him off.

    Beside of which, if he did not kill them off he was saddled with 100s of thousands of POWs. How was that going to benefit him?

    If there was any tactical blunder it must have been the British who did not consider the idea of having to retreat and getting stuck at the Channel. They would better have stayed on their island and fought the Germans that way. Instead of running off to the continent pretty much unprepared, certainly not for a retreat. What if Hitler had killed them all off? Did we have to wait for the Americans, which the British had to beg for assistance, even after Pearl Harbor? They were going to fight Japan, not Germany (they were not concerned). As long as Britiain had soldiers, they were fine.

    I tell you when Germany made a tactical blunder: the Battle of Britain. That was a tactical blunder. They vastly underestimated the power of Britain in the air and although Germany's planes were technologically better, they were so damn slow in building them that the British had soon the upper hand. That is a tactical blunder of the greatest magnitude. The British on the other hand had over-estimated the Luftwaffe and found to their surprise that their enemy was a bit stuck for planes...

    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    The overwhelming majority of the 6 million slain Jews did not come from Germany. The plans and orders for their execution did however. This leads me to condemn the Nazi regime, the men who bear responsibility for the great atrocities. I don't blame the German people. You have to be able to condemn a man like Hitler. That doesn't mean you go ahead and condemn the millions of Germans who bought his lies and followed him without knowing where we was truly leading them.
    But the Third Reich is not only the Endlösung! That is only a short episode in the whole period. And that Endlösung did not even come from Hitler alone, but from the system. You think he thought it all up himself?

    I would say that most Germans at the time did not consider life too bad, and as Emil Miller says, the vast majority was probably better off, certainly through the scheme Kraft durch Freude. Does that make Hitler evil then? The killing people side of him is definitely, but making life better for most Germans is not, or is that also evil nowadays?

    As I said, Hitler is not a person who only murdered a few people as a killer is, he also did something to German society (whether all for the better is the question; I have the impression that Germans still carry scars from that period) and it was not all bad, albeit maybe somewhat 'empty'.
    One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.

    "Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)

  15. #120
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by kiki1982 View Post
    No it is not a no-brainer. It seems a no-brainer, but it is not. If you, as the enemy do not really want to be the enemy, but you are pushed into that camp then killing off your advesary's troops is the last thing you have to do if you want a genuine peace treaty. If you adhere to the thesis that Hitler did not want to fight Britain, but Britain came to the rescue of Belgium as a guarantor for their neutrality, then Germany was pushed in the opposite camp from Britain. I suppose, if you do adhere to that thesis, that Hitler was planning the same as with Stalin: divide the continent amongst them (as Germany and Russia did with Poland). He violated that afterwards of course, and thus he would probably have done with Britain too, but do you think killing them all off in Dunkirk would have moved the British to a treaty? I tell you, the proud people from across the Channel would not have done so. Far from. They would not have succumbed to the Nazis if they were on their knees. They knew they were in a good position, only money was lacking, and they were going to fight Germany until the end. At the time they were also dealing with Stalin on the other side to get to a war on two fronts and had been doing this way before the war started.
    It didn't work did it? And since Britain soldiered on anyway, if Hitler had killed or imprisoned all those troops he would have had a better chance bringing Britain to terms afterwards. And POWs mattered nothing to Hitler. Another sign of his military ineptitude was his insistence on keeping large numbers of troops busy watching over Jews while they were desperately needed on the fronts.





    But the Third Reich is not only the Endlösung! That is only a short episode in the whole period. And that Endlösung did not even come from Hitler alone, but from the system. You think he thought it all up himself?
    That just makes me sick, to hear that coming from a German who is probably not Jewish. The final solution was not the result of a system, it was the direct result of the actions of a few men, largely those of Hitler and Himmler. If you had no Hitler or Himmler then other men may, MAY, have arisen to take their place and commit the same atrocities anyway, but those men would be just as evil and worthy of condemnation as Hitler and Himmler.


    I would say that most Germans at the time did not consider life too bad, and as Emil Miller says, the vast majority was probably better off, certainly through the scheme Kraft durch Freude. Does that make Hitler evil then? The killing people side of him is definitely, but making life better for most Germans is not, or is that also evil nowadays?
    So you don't think Hitler was evil? Are you a Nazi sympathizer or just an old fashioned contrarian? You missed my hitchhiker metaphor I take it. He turned their economy around but also murdered in cold blood six million innocent people and lead his country to disastrous defeat. Was he evil you ask? What if a serial killer were a good employee and did volunteer service in his community in the time he's not cutting off people's heads. Is that man only part evil as well or can I be so bold as to proclaim him as a person - EVIL?

    As I said, Hitler is not a person who only murdered a few people as a killer is, he also did something to German society (whether all for the better is the question; I have the impression that Germans still carry scars from that period) and it was not all bad, albeit maybe somewhat 'empty'.
    You're right, it wasn't only a few people. It was 6 million, and then millions and millions more who perished in the wars he himself was instrumental if not directly responsible for bringing about.

    Emil and Kiki, you two need to give your heads a shake. Even if one removes from Hitler's record of deeds the holocaust and world war 2, the two most significant items on his resume, even without them the man must still be regarded as despicable and worthy of contempt. In approving of the rest of his tenure you are endorsing fascism. Hitler killed democracy in Germany, killed civil liberties, killed that institution essential to freedom in the modern world - the free press. From his rocketing rise to power to his ignominious downfall the man was a disaster for life and for freedom. Evil? I think so.
    Last edited by Darcy88; 02-28-2012 at 11:41 AM.

Page 8 of 29 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121318 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Will you read all the books you want to before you die?
    By ladderandbucket in forum General Literature
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 05:54 PM
  2. How long do you read? Please answer so I can improve my skills.
    By ihavebrownhaira in forum General Chat
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 06-12-2011, 12:24 AM
  3. 1001 Books You Must Read
    By Mannoual in forum General Literature
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 09-21-2010, 06:30 AM
  4. Do you set a time limit when you read?
    By ilikecomputer in forum General Chat
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 12:26 AM
  5. Translated Lit: Which languages do u read?
    By Brasil in forum General Literature
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-20-2009, 10:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •