Soldiers in Afghanistan given bibles, Told to "Hunt people for Jesus"

[fossten]

A simple "no wiggl3s, i will not respond to you" would be a step in the right direction

Whatsamatter? Don't have a Bible?

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

i got a qu'ran and a bible. I just dont know the rules of the bible. What's it matter?

 

[fossten]

i got a qu'ran and a bible. I just dont know the rules of the bible. What's it matter?

OK, I'll respond. In Exodus, if you read the entire book, God prescribes burnt sacrifice as the method of obtaining forgiveness for sin. However, that method was rendered obsolete upon the death of Christ, which is explained in full detail in the New Testament book of Hebrews.

 

[foxpaws]

Creating animosity works against conveying a point. Hrmwrm erred on the side of creating animosity. If he wanted to convey a point, any point that could have been conveyed by that would have been conveyed better by an image that didn't have the sexual crudeness in his image.

No, shag, depending on what you are trying to convey, and who comprises your 'audience' animosity can work really well. Hrmwrm's avatar has created response, reaction and tension. He wouldn't have nearly gotten the response he did if he would have posted the 'same old' Darwin fish avatar. The sexual overtones create a great tie in between 'creation' and 'natural selection'. The purposeful lack of 'tack' is perfect for the subject.

You really have a problem admitting the truth, don't you. all you are doing is talking in circles. You are assuming he is even trying to convey a point. I am sure he will retroactively try and claim to be conveying some point he will make up on the spot. But the avatar was clearly posted to insult. All you have to do is look to his past in this forum to see that. But, as usual, you only look at facts convenient to your position and ignore any others.

You really don't think he is trying to convey a 'point'. Really Shag - my avatar doesn't try to convey a point - evolution 'shagging' jesus christ is conveying a 'point'.

The article basically is saying that Obama isn't a socialist because he isn't an extreme, traditional socialist like us. It mischaracterizes the argument that Obama is a socialist and misrepresents things to do so. The author is defining socialism very narrowly and only looking at the most extreme form of it.

So, are you saying that Obama is 'socialist lite'? And I would think that one of the leading members of the socialist party in America would be pretty good at defining socialism.

Obama has gone out of his way to prop up capitalist institutions. Are those the actions of a Socialist? He could have let the banks fail, and then taken them over. He could have nationalized them. That is what a socialist would have done Shag. He is continuing to prop them up - along with the automotive business. He would have been far better off letting them fail if he wanted to further socialism.

You, and others on this board seem to think if the administration isn't for full bore, no holds barred capitalism, then they must be socialists.

And actually someone has redirected this far away from the original 'bible' thread... things wander around quite a bit here, don't they? Far more fun that way.

No, I actually know what socialism is and how it has developed throughout history. No need to "reaffirm" anything. Unlike you I don't take a position and then try to rationalize it. I actually try and have as much info as possible before I draw a conclusion.

Shag, you use scare tactics and boogey men to rationalize your position and try to 'influence' people by using those means. What better scare words are out there than 'socialist' and 'communist'?

If it is so capable of keeping up, then why do you mischaracterize me so much? If you clearly understand what I am saying then the only conclusion is that you are intentionally mischarcterizing my arguments in order to deceptively marginalize and discredit them.

So, shag, how do I mischaracterize the fact that you believe Obama to be a socialist - it is in your avatar and you continually cut and paste article after article after article that supports that... You obviously believe that the man is a complete socialist... don't you? So, what am I mischaracterizing? Enlighten my lonely female brain cell - please.

If that study wasn't conducted by a woman, it was probably overseen by a woman. Or the men had to put up with a constantly nagging woman at home. Either way, I have no doubt that somewhere down the line, there was a woman on her knees or on her back that lead to the results coming out the way they did.*

Nope, two men - Manuel Estrada and Anurag Varshney... disappointing isn't it?

And I believe that a woman in either of those positions would create a loss of testosterone, and overall male virility, at least for the immediate time frame... Those positions also usually create a loss of all coherent thought in most males, where they become vulnerable to outside influences, and will usually agree to almost anything **

Some other points to consider; a large amount of anything is bad. Are we talking realistic levels of testosterone? Or abnormally high amounts? If it is abnormally high, then this study is worthless except as a piece of feminist propaganda. Also, has the study been repeated? One study does not prove anything. If your little female brain was able to grasp the concept of science (or critical thinking for that matter), you might understand that.*

Yep, shag - like large amounts of anti Obama posts - as seen on this site is bad. It isn't realistic. They are abnormally high, and therefore are worthless except as a piece of right nut wing propoganda. They get repeated and repeated until no one reads them. *The sky is falling* *Wolf, wolf* You want other fairy tale analogies shag? My tiny female brain does understand something that is beyond you shag, I happen to know there is a reason for those fairy tales - they are a way to gently remind one of inherent truths. The right continues to tell us the 'sky is falling', while Wall Street rallies. The right continues to cry 'wolf, wolf' while consumer confidence is rising.

Soon with all your huffing and puffing you will blow your own house down.

**Note the use of sexual innuendo to make a legitimate point."

 

[Calabrio]

Is that how you encourage good dialog Cal?

No, that's how I politely respond to bitter, simple minded, internet trolls who like to use the quote button in a misleading manner.

I feel sorry for your children...if you have any.

Do you expect or would you prefer to be treated like a child?

The double standards are obvious.
Go look at your Ron Paul threads.

I don't think my willingness to debate the quality of Ron Paul as a Presidential candidate in any way represents your tendency to make single sentenced comments that are entirely personal in nature.

While I certainly may have posted provocative things, it was never done without the specific intention of discussing and debating it. Again, this would be contrasted with your MO of post single sentence posts that do not contribute or even expand the conversation and merely demonstrate some kind of a personal grudge.

I Don't remember having any of my threads edited.
Your the first to delete anything I have ever posted at LVC.
Congrats.

Did it hurt your feelings? Why is it that you're the only one relentless complaining about this? None of the other people in that thread are?

You see Cal, I donate to this site because the moderators don't delete threads.
But do as you see fit.

I will. You should see the number of threads all of us moderators delete everyday. I deleted one thread just while typing this response. At the moment, you're contributing as much to this particular sub-forum as the Russian porn website ads and the Korean shoe sales.

Now, do you have any interest in actually discussing politics or current events? Because it's certainly been a while since I've seen you even attempt it. I'd much rather have an honest and candid discussion of politics with you than to continue to invest the time talking about you or any other specific member of this community.

STFU kook in the Korner

Let's use this as an example.
You called him a Kook.
Very well- why? Explain why you said it. Be willing to defend the statement.
Don't just drop an attack like that and run off. What has he said that's "kooky". What do you disagree with. Why do you disagree. Can you articulate what's "kooky" about it?

When I have engaged in rhetoric like that, I have explained and argued why.

It's also interesting to note, that while Fossten and I were able to have very heated arguments in the past, we still get along and there's no enduring hostility. The same goes for me and foxpaws. Dude. Barry. Even going back to early members like Raveneyes. It also another demonstrates with vivid clarity that we DO NOT have group think among the handful of conservatives on this website.

Again, I encourage you to post. The more thoughtful and honest disagreement, the better. And if, during the course of an argument, passions flare, and you take a dig- so be it. But trolling for the sake of griefing or just disrupting a thread is contemptible.

 

[Calabrio]

Hrmwrm's avatar has created response, reaction and tension. He wouldn't have nearly gotten the response he did if he would have posted the 'same old' Darwin fish avatar. The sexual overtones create a great tie in between 'creation' and 'natural selection'. The purposeful lack of 'tack' is perfect for the subject.

You're right.
But MY issue has been his unwillingness to address the response.

If you want to post a provocative image like that, then you should take offense or complain when someone responds to it. That IS the purpose of it.

The false claim that has been made, repeatedly, was that all of these things (the sig, the avatar) were merely him identifying his social and theological beliefs and that anyone who responded was simply oversensitive and unreasonable.

You have now confirmed the argument I have been making.
THE IMAGE WAS CREATED WITH THE INTENTION OF ELICITING A NEGATIVE RESPONSE. In short, it was designed to offend.

So, are you saying that Obama is 'socialist lite'? And I would think that one of the leading members of the socialist party in America would be pretty good at defining socialism.

Interesting, you posted an article written by Billy Wharton that was published in the Washington Post. I think we can agree, that's a very mainstream publication. If you publish something there it is going to be consumed by the general public.

But earlier this year, I posted a speech by Sam Webb, National Chair of the Communist Party U.S.A. Of course, he delivered his speech at a People's Weekly World event in Cleveland, Ohio, so it wasn't intended for nearly as large a population.

Read that speech here:
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=51329

Obama has gone out of his way to prop up capitalist institutions. Are those the actions of a Socialist?

He propped up "capitalist institutions" by giving the government and the unions ownership in them. So, yes, they would be consistent with the actions of a politically conscious socialist. An aggressive one, but of an administration that has carefully studying Alinsky and Lakoff.

He could have let the banks fail, and then taken them over. He could have nationalized them. That is what a socialist would have done Shag. He is continuing to prop them up - along with the automotive business. He would have been far better off letting them fail if he wanted to further socialism.

So you're now really just arguing the method he used to nationalize the industries. Fact is, if he'd let complete collapse take place, he'd have lost political support and the political capital and momentum necessary for his progressive blitzkrieg would have been lost.

You, and others on this board seem to think if the administration isn't for full bore, no holds barred capitalism, then they must be socialists.

Marxism-lite perhaps?
Maybe we can have individual liberty on even days and a fascist government on the odd ones?

And actually someone has redirected this far away from the original 'bible' thread... things wander around quite a bit here, don't they? Far more fun that way.

The evolution of a thread is often better than the starting point.

 

[shagdrum]

No, shag, depending on what you are trying to convey, and who comprises your 'audience' animosity can work really well. Hrmwrm's avatar has created response, reaction and tension. He wouldn't have nearly gotten the response he did if he would have posted the 'same old' Darwin fish avatar. The sexual overtones create a great tie in between 'creation' and 'natural selection'. The purposeful lack of 'tack' is perfect for the subject.

Ahh, we aren't debating any "point" he may have been trying to convey. We are debating the crudeness and insulting nature of the point. That is because the crudeness overshadows any point being made.

So, are you saying that Obama is 'socialist lite'? And I would think that one of the leading members of the socialist party in America would be pretty good at defining socialism.

The leading member of the socialist party would also be smart enough to know that if he were to say Obama were a socialist, it would hurt the greatest chance of his socialist agenda ever being enacted in America.

Apparently though, you, being a naive woman*, don't see fit to consider the self interest of an admitted socialist in a country where "socialist" is a four letter word.

Then there is also the point I raised of the author arguing from a point of ideological "purism" when the claim has never been that Obama is a classical socialist. The argument is that Obama is a socialist in the same way that the socialist democracies in Europe are socialist. Basically, the egalitarian aspects of classical socialism were taken and combined with classical liberalism to form a watered down socialism called democratic socialism (or, as it is known here in American, egalitarian liberalism/progressivism). This is not a new, or crazy concept (as you are disingenuously trying to paint it). You seem to want to look at socialists as the arbiter's of truth on this, here are a couple quotes by some socialist who have no interest in Obama being able enact his agenda that show the idea of American society being incrementally changed through watered down socialism is nothing new:

We can’t expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism
-Nikita Khrushchev

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened
-Norman Thomas; six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America​

Now, are you going to simply ignore those two quotes or dishonestly try to rationalize ignoring those two quotes?

Obama has gone out of his way to prop up capitalist institutions.

More dishonest spin (or simple female naivety*) . He has gone out of his way to prop up institutions by nationalizing them in some fashion; in effect, making them not capitalist institutions. As the left leaning wikipedia even points out:

Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies, with private ownership of property and of profit-making small business. Social Democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and the regulation of markets.​

Are those the actions of a Socialist?

Juan Perón

He could have let the banks fail, and then taken them over. He could have nationalized them. That is what a socialist would have done Shag.

No, that is what a foolish socialist would have done (and what Marxism calls for). A politically shrewd socialist would have used the opportunity presented by their failing to nationalize them under the pretense of "saving" those institutions. What was is that Obama's Chief of Staff said (and Hillary Clinton echoed)?

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before​

You, and others on this board seem to think if the administration isn't for full bore, no holds barred capitalism, then they must be socialists.

So, are you intentionally mischaracterizing to set up a straw man, or is your puny female brain simply unable to comprehend what we are saying?*

Shag, you use scare tactics and boogey men to rationalize your position and try to 'influence' people by using those means. What better scare words are out there than 'socialist' and 'communist'?

Style over substance fallacy:

Style over substance is a logical fallacy which occurs when one emphasises the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalising (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument. In some cases, the fallacy is employed as a form of ad hominem attack.​

In this case, you are ignoring the substance of my argument to mischaracterize it as nothing more then a fallacious appeal to fear. However, in order to be an appeal to fear, it has to rely on manipulation of emotion to make it's point instead of valid logic. Only by ignoring the substance of my argument can you claim that I am "using scare tactics and boogy men to rationalize [my] position."

So, shag, how do I mischaracterize the fact that you believe Obama to be a socialist - it is in your avatar and you continually cut and paste article after article after article that supports that... You obviously believe that the man is a complete socialist... don't you? So, what am I mischaracterizing? Enlighten my lonely female brain cell - please.

I already have in my previous post. Either you are intentionally ignoring that and being willfully obtuse, or your little female brain is incapable of comprehending it.* Either way, it is a waste of my time to rehash it all again. You are likely simply trying to make busywork for me here anyhow.

Yep, shag - like large amounts of anti Obama posts - as seen on this site is bad. It isn't realistic. They are abnormally high, and therefore are worthless except as a piece of right nut wing propoganda. They get repeated and repeated until no one reads them. *The sky is falling* *Wolf, wolf* You want other fairy tale analogies shag? My tiny female brain does understand something that is beyond you shag, I happen to know there is a reason for those fairy tales - they are a way to gently remind one of inherent truths. The right continues to tell us the 'sky is falling', while Wall Street rallies. The right continues to cry 'wolf, wolf' while consumer confidence is rising.

More style over substance arguing. So, is it your nature as a female that causes you to be dishonest and lack any intellectual integrity, or your nature as a liberal?*


*the author of this post realizes that all the comments denoted are generally considered "offensive"

 

[fossten]

Shag, you use scare tactics and boogey men to rationalize your position and try to 'influence' people by using those means. What better scare words are out there than 'socialist' and 'communist'?

Al Qaeda would be a better scare word these days. Are you proud of your girl Wanda Sykes calling Rush Limbaugh the 20th hijacker on 9/11?

 

[ford nut]

It also another demonstrates with vivid clarity that we DO NOT have group think among the handful of conservatives on this website.

I have to hand it to you foxpaws three birds with one stone

 

[Calabrio]

I have to hand it to you foxpaws three birds with one stone

There must have been an editing mistake... you didn't really respond to anything directed to you or relevant to the topic at hand. Instead you just posted this poorly constructed, grammatically incorrect, piece of boot licking. You seem to have submitted prematurely, that must be very embarrassing for you.

 

[fossten]

I have to hand it to you foxpaws three birds with one stone

????

Apparently you didn't understand what Cal said.

 

[Calabrio]

This is a message board. What else is there to do but discuss things.

What's interesting and so telling about you is that you seem to lack the character to simply acknowledge what you did. Instead of just saying that you wanted to get a rise out of some creationist, you are now squirming around trying to explain away your conscious decision to post a provocative image accompanied by equally provocative signatures.

You contradict yourself through out that entire post. You haven't been asked to remove or edit yourself because there isn't a double standard.

Your avatar isn't merely a picture, it's a statement.
You've made, and you've just explained, that you're making a bold statement stating "I believe in evolution." The evolving figure crawling from the murky water used sexual selection to advance the species. Got it. But you've yet to explain why the copulating fish with legs has to mount a RELIGIOUS SYMBOL.

See, that's the part that's designed to offend.
And you know, but you apparently lack the candor or honesty to admit it.
That's pathetic.

Again, you've posted something controversial on a message board- discussing it is the natural response. It's not inane. If you post things that are designed to offend, and then you pic such an image to represent yourself, you should expect to have to discuss it and possibly defend your decision.

It's not "just a picture," it's a statement.

 

[fossten]

Trolls like to make threads about them. That's what hrmwrm has done here, successfully.

 

[shagdrum]

all this from my avatar. hilarious. i see my avatar as being no more shocking than you view yours shag.

So..it is subjective; a matter of perception?

you just view it with the wrong intent.

Now it is not subjective; you get to be the arbiter of truth now?

as to whether it is shocking or not is up to the observer only

Now we are back to it being subjective...

you're just trying to create a double standard of acceptability.

Now you get to determine what I am intending to do?

both yours and cals view as to why i chose it are incorrect.

Back to you being the arbiter of truth.

but you can view it any way YOU like.

Back to it being subjective...

but i won't sit and let you put words and thoughts to my intentions.

But that is what you are doing to me in this very post, as well as the thread where you called me an @$$hole and a dip$h!t. Where is the hypocritical double standard coming from?

Your habitual actions in this forum (which I laid out in post #13 and post #19 of this thread) combined with your choice to use that image as your avatar make it abundantly clear what your motives where in posting it. You have demonstrated a contempt for, and a hostility toward people of faith. You have also demonstrated a habitual lack of intellectual integrity or honesty in this forum as well as a vindictiveness toward specific members. I can, and have pointed out that past in informing the conclusion regarding your intentions in using that image. Posting that image shows an utter lack of respect for them or their views. In fact, is shows a contempt for those views. The crudeness of it overshadows any possible point it could be making. You think it is perfectly acceptable to smear certain people on this forum, insult their faith and harass them, but when they call you on those techniques and point out what those actions say about you, they are being unnecessarily rude? And you say we have the double standard?

 

[fossten]

Wow...that is some serious PWNAGE...

 

[ford nut]

Again, I encourage you to post. The more thoughtful and honest disagreement, the better. And if, during the course of an argument, passions flare, and you take a dig- so be it. But trolling for the sake of griefing or just disrupting a thread is contemptible.

Al Qaeda would be a better scare word these days. Are you proud of your girl Wanda Sykes calling Rush Limbaugh the 20th hijacker on 9/11?

????

Apparently you didn't understand what Cal said.

Trolls like to make threads about them. That's what hrmwrm has done here, successfully.

Wow...that is some serious PWNAGE...

Does that include fossten?
Is he disrupting a thread just to greif?

Or is that ok because he is part of the conservative group think?
I need no encouragement to post.
Just this forum to be fair and open, free of double standards.

 

[shagdrum]

Does that include fossten?
Is he disrupting a thread just to greif?

Or is that ok because he is part of the conservative group think?
I need no encouragement to post.
Just this forum to be fair and open, free of double standards.

Where have we not been "fair and open minded"? Can you give examples?

Specifically, what "double standards" were you referring to?

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

I'm just going to take this time to do a little trollin' myself. Seeing as how i can hardly make a comprehensible statement, i'm just going to use to words of wise others.

Wow...that is some serious PWNAGE...

Either you are intentionally ignoring that and being willfully obtuse, or your little female brain is incapable of comprehending it.* Either way, it is a waste of my time to rehash it all again.

 

[Calabrio]

Does that include fossten?
Is he disrupting a thread just to greif?

It can include Fossten, perhaps you might have noticed, that time I insulted you so deeply by deleting the cross-talk and grief, I also deleted some stuff from Fossten (among others) as well.

But, since you seem to fixate on Fossten, he DOES contribute to the conversations. He doesn't exclusively make single sentence posts with the intention of trolling, in contrast to someone like... you for example.

Or is that ok because he is part of the conservative group think?

You're using the term "group think" wrong, but I think I understand the point you're trying to make anyway.

It's funny, you spend posts devoted to how I argued with Fossten and gave him a hard time, and now in this post are trying to say that I protect him and am in full lockstep with his him on everything.

But regarding your question, I don't like it when anyone does it, regardless whether I agree with them or not. I've spoken with many people in this forum at various times in private in an effort to change the tone, without regard to their political affiliation. We don't have "teams" here, we don't keep score, so to frame things like that when discussing personalities is foolish and incorrect.

You've never been isolated, treated unfairly or edited. The one example you reference included people on all sides of the argument, so any claim of persecution is simply wrong.

I need no encouragement to post.
Just this forum to be fair and open, free of double standards.

Then let's conclude this conversation and move on.
There is no "double standard" and more important "double standard" regarding what? Posts are very rarely edited or deleted around here and never for personal reasons, so the claim is just absurd. But if you think something is "unfair," just send me a Private Message and I'll address it.

 

[Calabrio]

if you pull yourself away from your religious offense, you can understand it.

You're presuming quite a bit there.
First, you're assuming that I'm personally offended and that I'm openly religious or spiritual. I don't think I've discussed any of these issues publicly, and certainly not in this thread.

I've never discussed MY reaction to you sig or avatar. Merely what were the reasonable responses you could have expected from posting it.

Personally:
I've seen the evolution fish countless times, it doesn't offend me but I also recognize that it's done TO offend. It's very in your face, belligerent and offensive. As mentioned, it's not merely a DARWIN FISH, it's evolution copulating with the symbol of Christianity. You're avatar doesn't have a fish that says "CREATIONISM," it says something like "Jesus Christ, Son of God." That is designed to insult and provoke someone of religion. At this point, having seen it so often, the picture just signals to me that the person who is displaying it is probably an insecure, Marxist jerk, among other things.

But, I never asked you to remove, nor do I ever bring it up as a subject of conversation. Other people have and I joined the conversation.

 

[shagdrum]

I'm just going to take this time to do a little trollin' myself. Seeing as how i can hardly make a comprehensible statement, i'm just going to use to words of wise others.

so....you can't add to the conversation, just quote others out of context in an attempt to harass.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

so....you can't add to the conversation, just quote others out of context in an attempt to harass.

Dude, TBH, i have no idea where this thread is right now. I really don't.

 

[ford nut]

It can include Fossten, perhaps you might have noticed, that time I insulted you so deeply by deleting the cross-talk and grief, I also deleted some stuff from Fossten (among others) as well

I never said you insulted me deeply, only pointed out what I didnt like.

But, since you seem to fixate on Fossten, he DOES contribute to the conversations. He doesn't exclusively make single sentence posts with the intention of trolling, in contrast to someone like... you for example.

It easy to find posts that he is trolling in, I can go on and say most of his posts are intened to disrupt a thread just to greif.
I found four on this one page.
The double standard is obvious to me.

You're using the term "group think" wrong, but I think I understand the point you're trying to make anyway.

It's funny, you spend posts devoted to how I argued with Fossten and gave him a hard time, and now in this post are trying to say that I protect him and am in full lockstep with his him on everything.

But regarding your question, I don't like it when anyone does it, regardless whether I agree with them or not. I've spoken with many people in this forum at various times in private in an effort to change the tone, without regard to their political affiliation. We don't have "teams" here, we don't keep score, so to frame things like that when discussing personalities is foolish and incorrect.

Fair enough, I can be man enough to stop.
But when I see it, I may point it out, one post talking about breast size comes to my mind right away.

You've never been isolated, treated unfairly or edited. The one example you reference included people on all sides of the argument, so any claim of persecution is simply wrong.


Then let's conclude this conversation and move on.
There is no "double standard" and more important "double standard" regarding what? Posts are very rarely edited or deleted around here and never for personal reasons, so the claim is just absurd. But if you think something is "unfair," just send me a Private Message and I'll address it.

I only pointed out I don't like threads delated.
If your going to call out posts that are intened to disrupt, then call them all.
Or don't call any.

 

[Calabrio]

Dude, TBH, i have no idea where this thread is right now. I really don't.

It's not about the thread- the whole bible toting soldier issue is long forgotten. But you quoted Shag in an effort to make him look bad, but completely missed his point- and the ASTERISK.

An asterisk is often used to call out a footnote at the bottom of the page (or post in this case), which was the case there... Apparently, unaware of this, the point he was attempting to make went over your head.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

It's not about the thread- the whole bible toting soldier issue is long forgotten. But you quoted Shag in an effort to make him look bad, but completely missed his point- and the ASTERISK.

An asterisk is often used to call out a footnote at the bottom of the page (or post in this case), which was the case there... Apparently, unaware of this, the point he was attempting to make went over your head.

Nah, i didn't want to make shag look bad, i wanted to make foss look bad.