[typoon]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ael/index.html

Yup he's at it again.

[von Wrangell]

I might agree with much of what he says but this comment from him is just unbelievable.

[Moderator]

He's the Persian version of Jerry Falwell. This is why religion and politics don't mix. Believe me if the religious right had its way our leaders would be no different.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Moderator

He's the Persian version of Jerry Falwell. This is why religion and politics don't mix. Believe me if the religious right had its way our leaders would be no different.

Religion and politics mix fine if applied correctly. The question is can we agree on what is the correct interpretation of the various religions?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I might agree with much of what he says but this comment from him is just unbelievable.

I'd like to see the original Farsi on this one.

The word 'myth' in Persian does not have to imply 'lie' - in fact this is exactly the same case in English even - but can equally mean something blown out of proportion for good or ill. As in 'his fame reached mythic proportions'.

In this sense the Holocaust actually is a myth - the current usage is not an exact description of the historical events. It is something more.

This is obvious in the very fact that it applies only to Jews - the gays, gypsies, other nationalities and mentally incapacitated who were murdered by the Nazis in the camps don't matter in this reading. Strange.

What puzzles me though is that although Ahmadinejad may indeed have racist beliefs (and that should not cause too much shock - there are plenty of racists on these very boards - although they don't target Jews so using the above logic I guess it doesn't count) it is nevertheless odd that when you have a belligerent neanderthal loose in the White House, Israel sabre-rattling in Iran's direction and large sections Islamophobic westerners baying for yet more Muslim blood and wanting to check out the Persian variety, that Ahmadinejad should be handing them all the excuses they need to feed their sheep-like masses all the propaganda they need to soften them-up for yet more blood-letting.

Ahmadinejad may well be a nutter but he sure as hell isn't stupid. There is more to this.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by segovius

I'd like to see the original Farsi on this one.

The word 'myth' in Persian does not have to imply 'lie' - in fact this is exactly the same case in English even - but can equally mean something blown out of proportion for good or ill. As in 'his fame reached mythic proportions'.

In this sense the Holocaust actually is a myth - the current usage is not an exact description of the historical events. It is something more.

This is obvious in the very fact that it applies only to Jews - the gays, gypsies, other nationalities and mentally incapacitated who were murdered by the Nazis in the camps don't matter in this reading. Strange.

What puzzles me though is that although Ahmadinejad may indeed have racist beliefs (and that should not cause too much shock - there are plenty of racists on these very boards - although they don't target Jews so using the above logic I guess it doesn't count) it is nevertheless odd that when you have a belligerent neanderthal loose in the White House, Israel sabre-rattling in Iran's direction and large sections Islamophobic westerners baying for yet more Muslim blood and wanting to check out the Persian variety, that Ahmadinejad should be handing them all the excuses they need to feed their sheep-like masses all the propaganda they need to soften them-up for yet more blood-letting.

Ahmadinejad may well be a nutter but he sure as hell isn't stupid. There is more to this.

So true......

But if you read Farsi perhaps you'll find the speech here. www.irna.ir

[segovius]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So true......

But if you read Farsi perhaps you'll find the speech here. www.irna.ir

I'll check it out. Looked at the English version and this was interesting (and not heard anywhere in the west - imagine my shock):

"The Iranian president has nothing against the followers of Judaism, since they are represented in the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis) and all Jews enjoy rights equal to other Iranian citizens.

"Ahmadinejad is against Zionism as well as its expansionist and occupying policy. That is why he managed to declare to the world with courage that there is no place for the Zionist regime in the world civilized community and that if Europe feels indebted to this regime, it can host it in one of the Austrian or German provinces."

So just from that we can see that the Western media has been naughty boys again - no mention that he drew a distinction between Jews and Zionists. Blatant misquoting in fact.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by typoon

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ael/index.html

Yup he's at it again.

Yup, post and run.

[saab95]

Originally Posted by typoon

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ael/index.html

Yup he's at it again.

Someone has to replace Gadhafi as the Middle East's loudmouth.

[corvus32]

He denies the Holocaust ever happened, while in the same breath proposes a final solution and nobody gets it.

Jesus ****ing Christ people. Open the door, let me out of this mother****er before you get us all killed.

[analogika]

? http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=273963

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by segovius

I'd like to see the original Farsi on this one.

The word 'myth' in Persian does not have to imply 'lie' - in fact this is exactly the same case in English even - but can equally mean something blown out of proportion for good or ill. As in 'his fame reached mythic proportions'.

In this sense the Holocaust actually is a myth - the current usage is not an exact description of the historical events. It is something more.

Oh please. You're apologizing for him, looking for anyway to interpret his words other than what he said plainly.

Listen, if it helps you, put this story in context with his quote from last month:

He said "Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces,” said Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “Although we don’t accept this claim...”

--- There it is. He denies it happened. Myth.

[Kerrigan]

This is ridiculous. Von Wrangel, why would you admit to agreeing with much of what this nut says? You've raised enough eyebrows by consistently making excuses for terrorism and fundementalism.

The Iranian state and its shifty ayatollahs are a menace to the world, and it will be a relief when Israel bombs Iran's nuclear facilities in March, as they are expected to.

[vmarks]

I am compelled to note that there's no element of surprise for Israel to bomb Iran at this point.

I expect it makes good press to put Iran on their toes and remind them that they can't just make nuclear weapons with impunity (they do believe America to be toothless or cowards for Congress' display of lack of support (see Murtha, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, so on) but they do not perceive Israel to be cowards or toothless.

So it makes for a good move to remind them- but it's less likely to happen now that there's a public perception of a calendar. Shoot, if we're making up March, we may as well broadcast a date and time -- Ludicrous.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I find the cries for bombing of Iran just as annoying as the President's unbelieveable statements. As far as I'm concerned, both are part and parcel of the same thing – a mentality to create war and more bloodshed.

A peaceful solution and/or compromise should be the first thing that people should be considering. So, it hasn't worked yet. Let's work on it some more. I'm sure there are many things we haven't tried yet. Warfare should be the last thing on our minds at this point.

greg

[Kerrigan]

I think that the Israeli strategy has a good mix of peace where it is practicable, and aggression where it will be most effective.

These Muslim leaders like Ahmadinejad are a joke. All they do is place blame on everyone and act like victims of Zionism, while desperately using all of the resources of their banana republics to build a nuclear weapon.

Israel could easily wipe Iran "off the map" if they wanted, but they don't. They are more advanced, and that is why their neighboring countries are so jealous.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I find the cries for bombing of Iran just as annoying as the President's unbelieveable statements. As far as I'm concerned, both are part and parcel of the same thing – a mentality to create war and more bloodshed.

A peaceful solution and/or compromise should be the first thing that people should be considering. So, it hasn't worked yet. Let's work on it some more. I'm sure there are many things we haven't tried yet. Warfare should be the last thing on our minds at this point.

greg

the liberal mindset. defined.

There are always more lips to be moved, and chairs to be warmed.

Solutions never come in the form of action - only good intent.

[AKcrab]

I missed this tidbit:
"Our proposal is this: give a piece of your land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska so they (the Jews) can create their own state."


psst: Mr. Iranian President... Alaska is part of the U.S., but don't worry, 72% of Americans don't get it right either.

[Spliffdaddy]

Didn't we buy Alaska from the Russians for like 73 dollars back in the 1950's?

There was supposed to be a $50 mail-in rebate, but it was rejected because we didn't include the UPC barcode thingy in the envelope.

Anyhow, we built a pipeline in order to supply the Alaskan eskimos with oil to heat their igloos.

Now FedEx has an airport in Anchorage. I reckon because eskimos spend a lot of time on eBay.

I know quite a lot about our 48th state.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I know quite a lot about our 48th state.

Should have maybe mentioned bridges/roads to nowhere, but yeah.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I know quite a lot about our 48th state.

It's our 49th state, Mr. Wikipedia. I guess that means I didn't see you at the National Citizens Bee.

[f1000]

Damn hamster!

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Anyhow, we built a pipeline in order to supply the Alaskan eskimos with oil to heat their igloos.

They are not "Eskimos" which is a derogatory name like "Nigger".

They are "Inuit" or possibly maybe even some "Innu" and maybe some "Haida" down in the panhandle and "Aleuts" in the Aleutians and others.

And I've been accused of racism for calling a Mexican a Mexican!??!

Go figure.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

And I've been accused of racism for calling a Mexican a Mexican!??!

Go figure.

You are confused. You weren't called a racist for calling a *Mexican a Mexican. You are called a racist for making other racist comments.

* BTW, I am not Mexican. I am an American who happens to be mostly of Hispanic and Irish ancestory. Why do you keep being so decietfully ignorant?

And Spliff, he's actually correct. "Eskimo" is a term with derogatory origins.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

They are not "Eskimos" which is a derogatory name like "Nigger".

That's just not true. There are Eskimos. They are in Alaska, Canada, and Greenland.

They are "Inuit" or possibly maybe even some "Innu" and maybe some "Haida" down in the panhandle and "Aleuts" in the Aleutians and others.

Aleuts and Haidas are not Eskimos, that is true.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

That's just not true. There are Eskimos. They are in Alaska, Canada, and Greenland.

Aleuts and Haidas are not Eskimos, that is true.

Do you know the origins of the word "Eskimo"?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I am compelled to note that there's no element of surprise for Israel to bomb Iran at this point.

I expect it makes good press to put Iran on their toes and remind them that they can't just make nuclear weapons with impunity (they do believe America to be toothless or cowards for Congress' display of lack of support (see Murtha, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, so on) but they do not perceive Israel to be cowards or toothless.

So it makes for a good move to remind them- but it's less likely to happen now that there's a public perception of a calendar. Shoot, if we're making up March, we may as well broadcast a date and time -- Ludicrous.

show me proof they are making Nuclear weapons please.

[analogika]

Not necessarily offensive:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.app

Eskimo |ˈeskəˌmō| noun ( pl. same or -mos)

1 often offensive a member of an indigenous people inhabiting northern Canada, Alaska, Greenland, and eastern Siberia, traditionally living by hunting (esp. of seals) and by fishing.

2 either of the two main languages of this people (Inuit and Yupik), forming a major division of the Eskimo-Aleut family. adjective of or relating to the Eskimos or their languages.

ORIGIN via French Esquimaux, possibly from Spanish esquimao, esquimal, from Montagnais ayas̆kimew ‘netter of snowshoes,’ probably applied first to the Micmac and later to the Eskimo (see husky 2 ).

USAGE
1 In recent years, Eskimo has come to be regarded as offensive because of one of its possible etymologies (Abnaki askimo ‘eater of raw meat’), but this descriptive name is accurate since Eskimos traditionally derived their vitamins from eating raw meat. This dictionary gives another possible etymology above, but the etymological problem is still unresolved.
2 The peoples inhabiting the regions from northwestern Canada to western Greenland call themselves Inuit (see usage at Inuit ). Since there are no Inuit living in the U.S., Eskimo is the only term that can be properly applied to all of the peoples as a whole, and it is still widely used in anthropological and archaeological contexts. The broader term Native American is sometimes used to refer to Eskimo and Aleut peoples.

[Athens]

Eskimo or Esquimau is a term used for a group of people who inhabit the circumpolar region (excluding circumpolar Scandinavia and all but the easternmost portions of Russia). There are two main groups of Eskimos: the Inuit of northern Alaska, Canada and Greenland and the Yupik of western Alaska and the Russian Far East (the latter group is known as Siberian Yupik or Yuit). The Eskimos are related to the Aleuts and the Alutiiq from the Aleutian Islands in Alaska as well as the Sug'piak from the Kodiak Islands and as far as the Prince William Sound in South Central Alaska. Inuit is sometimes wrongly used as a synonym for Eskimo.

Eastern Eskimo people - the Inuit - speak Inuktitut, and western Alaskan Eskimo communities - the Yup'ik - speak Yup'ik. There is something of a dialect continuum between the two, and the westernmost dialects of Inuktitut could be viewed as forms of Yup'ik. Kinship culture also differs between east and west, as eastern Inuit lived with cousins of both mother and father, but western Inuit lived in paternal kinship groups.

Eskimo or Inuit?
The word Eskimo in English is borrowed from the French word Esquimaux, but the French word is of uncertain origin. The name is widely but incorrectly believed to derive from a Cree word sometimes translated as "eaters of raw meat". A few have gone so far as to claim that the Cree, on first encountering the Eskimos, were disgusted by the Eskimo practice of eating meat raw and so called them, essentially, "sickening humans". Because this folk etymology is so tenacious, many Inuit consider the name "Eskimo" to be derogatory. (Minnie Aodla Freeman – "Life Among the Qallunaat" ISBN 0-88830-164-2).

However, this etymology is generally held to be false by philologists.

Another possibility of the origin of the name is the manner of lacing snowshoes.

Some Algonquian languages do call Eskimos by names that mean "eaters of raw meat" or something that sounds similar. The Plains Ojibwe, for example, use the word Ashkimo to refer to Eskimos. The word ashkin means "to be raw like raw meat", while amo means "to eat".

But, in the period of the earliest attested French use of the word, the Plains Ojibwe were not in contact with Europeans, nor did they have very much direct contact with the Inuit in pre-colonial times. It is entirely possible that the Ojibwe have adopted words resembling Eskimo by borrowing them from French, and the French word merely sounds like Ojibwe words that sound like "eaters of raw meat". Furthermore, since Cree people also traditionally consumed raw meat, a pejorative significance based on this etymology seems unlikely.

The Montagnais language, a dialect of Cree which was known to French traders at the time of the earliest attestation of esquimaux, does not have vocabulary fitting this etymological analysis. A variety of competing etymologies have been proposed over the years, including the possibility that the name derives from the Montagnais word for the way snowshoes are tied or as meaning "speaker of a foreign language". Since Montagnais speakers refer to the neighbouring Mi'kmaq people using words that sound very much like eskimo, many researchers have concluded that this is the more likely origin of the word. (Mailhot, J. L'étymologie de «Esquimau» revue et corrigée Etudes Inuit/Inuit Studies 2-2:59-70 1978.)

The term "Eskimo" is still used in Alaska to refer to the state's Arctic peoples in general, whether or not they are Eskimos culturally or linguistically. For example, while some Yupik people prefer to be called "Yup'ik", they do not generally object to being called "Eskimo", but they do not consider themselves "Inuit". [1]

Among many non-Eskimos, the word "Eskimo" is falling out of use to refer to the Eskimo peoples in favor of the term "Inuit", which leads to much confusion as to the relationship between the Inuit and the Yup'ik. Much of the impetus behind this change probably traces to the books of Farley Mowat, particularly People of the Deer and The Desperate People. However, in Canada at least, a belief in the pejorative etymology of the word and the rejection of the term by the Inuit peoples were a major factor.

[edit]
Other uses
The term "Eskimos" is now used by some to refer to rugged and brave individuals who are able to deal with cold and ice even if they are not natives of the far North. For example, the Cambridge Eskimos, established in the 1930s and still active, are an ice hockey team based at the University of Cambridge in Britain. In somewhat the same vein, the Canadian Football League's Edmonton team is called the Eskimos.

how the hell is the message to short lol

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Israel could easily wipe Iran "off the map" if they wanted, but they don't. They are more advanced, and that is why their neighboring countries are so jealous.

No no no no. That isn't why their neighbouring countries don't want them there. It's because they're there, simple as that. Once a territory is islamic it's supposed to remain islamic - this is the root cause of all of the conflict down there, and why it'll never end.

[Nicko]

LOL

Yea, chaos in Lebanon, evilness in Syria, blood baths in Iraq, and don't forget about that forsaken charming place Afghanistan. Bombing Iran would REALLY improve things.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No no no no. That isn't why their neighbouring countries don't want them there. It's because they're there, simple as that. Once a territory is islamic it's supposed to remain islamic - this is the root cause of all of the conflict down there, and why it'll never end.

Disagree!
Islam has little or nothing to do with the REAL problem. The real problems are what they always are in such countries:

1. poverty
2. mass corruption
3. lack of education

Whenever you have a lot of poor, uneducated, disenfranchised and oppressed people, a minority of them will always be lured into extremism.

[Hawkeye_a]

The Iranians can talk **** all they want for all i care.

If they go beyond words............

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

This is ridiculous. Von Wrangel, why would you admit to agreeing with much of what this nut says? You've raised enough eyebrows by consistently making excuses for terrorism and fundementalism.

Because much of what he says is correct. If this is the true translation of what he said then yes, he's an idiot. But that doesn't invalidate other comments he made. For instance about where Israel should have been created because the only reason Israel exists today is because the European nations (as well as the USA) felt guilty over what happened to the Jewish people in WWII. And because they hadn't learned anything yet at that time they decided to throw that problem on a third party.

And what excuses for terrorism and fundamentalism have I made? Could you perhaps show me some examples before making comments like that?

The Iranian state and its shifty ayatollahs are a menace to the world, and it will be a relief when Israel bombs Iran's nuclear facilities in March, as they are expected to.

Israel won't touch Iran. And the Iranian state isn't a threat to anyone. They won't attack another nation.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I think that the Israeli strategy has a good mix of peace where it is practicable, and aggression where it will be most effective.

These Muslim leaders like Ahmadinejad are a joke. All they do is place blame on everyone and act like victims of Zionism, while desperately using all of the resources of their banana republics to build a nuclear weapon.

Israel could easily wipe Iran "off the map" if they wanted, but they don't. They are more advanced, and that is why their neighboring countries are so jealous.

The ME has become a victim of Zionism. Zionism has led to ethnic cleansing and massacres. But as usual people forget that.

And no, Israel couldn't "wipe Iran off the map". It can't deploy the troops necessary and don't have the weapons/guts to do it.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

If they go beyond words............

They won't.

When the war starts it will once again be under the guise of pre-emption based on faulty intelligence. And you will all fall for it one more time and start spinning new reasons for attacking an innocent nation, killing their innocent civilians while you are at it. The problem is that it won't bother you(plural) because those killed wouldn't be white and wouldn't be Christians. And in your mind that makes it all OK.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Oh please. You're apologizing for him, looking for anyway to interpret his words other than what he said plainly.

Listen, if it helps you, put this story in context with his quote from last month:

He said "Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces,” said Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “Although we don’t accept this claim...”

--- There it is. He denies it happened. Myth.

But it didn't did it? I believe that gas chambers were the mechanism used as opposed to furnaces - so that is a myth right there.

And as to the figures, these are under dispute - not that this matters in terms of numbers, one would be bad enough - and the point is that they are under dispute not from ' Holocaust deniers' but from Jewish organizations themselves. For example, the plaque at Auschwitz has been replaced several times with adjusted figures (downwards) and it is now known that no deaths occurred at several camps where high numbers were previously claimed.

Why does this matter?

Because the Zionists themselves - a racist entity which were it not Jewish would unhesitatingly be labelled 'evil' - have perpetuated a myth (albeit a myth based on fact as indeed practically all myth is) in order to leverage their power.

Btw, if anyone with an open mind chooses to research this area (and if they have an open mind they should) the best source is not the extreme-right nutters, BNP freaks and assorted racist scum and anti-semites but rather the teachings of Orthodox Rabbis and anti-Zionist Jewish groups who have collected much data on Zionist lies and propaganda - especially (and primarily because of) in the area of Zionist/Nazi convergence in WW2.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

They won't.

When the war starts it will once again be under the guise of pre-emption based on faulty intelligence. And you will all fall for it one more time and start spinning new reasons for attacking an innocent nation, killing their innocent civilians while you are at it. The problem is that it won't bother you(plural) because those killed wouldn't be white and wouldn't be Christians. And in your mind that makes it all OK.

Ummm.... not really, i was quite outspoken against premption and the US led war in Iraq, but thats another matter.

You seem to have a problem with all that, yet when you have these idiots talking about getting rid of the Jewish(non muslim) state, which by the way is made up, in large part, by civilians, who just so happen to be non muslim, you seem to be able to find excuses for the hateful and VERY agressive words of a leader(democratic) of a muslim nation.

Many of us "Christians" here, denounced Bush's warmongering, and still do, even though he is a Christian. Yet you being a muslim, only seem to find fault with non-muslims, and when idiots like this iranian leader emerge out of a democratic process bearing racist taunts and beating wardrums of his own, you seem to wholeheartidly agree....just because he is Muslim like you.

Cheers

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

The question is can we agree on what is the correct interpretation of the various religions?

By now we ought to know the answer to that question and stop asking it.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Moderator

By now we ought to know the answer to that question and stop asking it.

Not really - it is fairly obvious to anyone not buying in to the opinions of those with an agenda to push.

Religion, by definition, deals in peace and harmony, spirituality and deeper perception.

Things which appear to be religions but which deal in hate and division cannot be religious impulses. No such qualities come from God.

Therefore on the level of harmony and peace there can be no conflict between any religions that subscribe to these ideals (and they all do), 'religions' that deal in hate are not real religions, therefore the question is moot and we can all agree - all those of us who are genuinely spiritual that is, the haters will never agree.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Religion and politics mix fine if applied correctly. The question is can we agree on what is the correct interpretation of the various religions?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say... No?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

You seem to have a problem with all that, yet when you have these idiots talking about getting rid of the Jewish(non muslim) state, which by the way is made up, in large part, by civilians, who just so happen to be non muslim, you seem to be able to find excuses for the hateful and VERY agressive words of a leader(democratic) of a muslim nation.

......

Yet you being a muslim, only seem to find fault with non-muslims, and when idiots like this iranian leader emerge out of a democratic process bearing racist taunts and beating wardrums of his own, you seem to wholeheartidly agree....just because he is Muslim like you.

Cheers

Originally Posted by vonWrangell

I might agree with much of what he says but this comment from him is just unbelievable.

...

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say... No?

I'd say 90-95% of believers would be able to agree on it. It's the 5-10% of extremists that cause the trouble. But unfortunately (for some reason) those 5-10% are the most influential in politics around the world and the non-believers (infidels) seem to judge the majority of believers based on the comments of the extremists.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

and the non-believers (infidels) seem to judge the majority of believers based on the comments of the extremists.

Only if they are extremists themselves......

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by segovius

Only if they are extremists themselves......

true.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by segovius

Only if they are extremists themselves......

false.

The non-extremists have an obligation to reign in their wayward brothers and sisters, but most sit on their hands (or even secretly applaud them behind closed doors). Talk is cheap, do something about those groups... or we'll be forced to do it for you. And unfortunately, it's much harder for us to distinguish.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

false.

The non-extremists have an obligation to reign in their wayward brothers and sisters, but most sit on their hands (or even secretly applaud them behind closed doors). Talk is cheap, do something about those groups... or we'll be forced to do it for you. And unfortunately, it's much harder for us to distinguish.

I knew we'd get a text-book illustration....

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by segovius

I knew we'd get a text-book illustration....

Of what?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Of what?

Just ignore it, we call it a "drive by".

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by segovius

I knew we'd get a text-book illustration....