৯ অক্টোবর, ২০১৮
"Jared is such a hidden genius that no one understands,” said Haley. “What I have done working with him on the Middle East peace plan. It is so unbelievably well done."
Said Nikki Haley, as she resigned from her position as U.N. ambassador.
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
২৬৪টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 264 এর 201 – থেকে 264I don't care whether the Houthis are "Iranian proxies" (words so vague it's not obvious what difference a yes or no would make) or whether Iran "has the ability to control" them. Do the Iranians support them in word and deed? Do they supply them with weapons like the dozens of missiles the Houthis have fired into Saudi Arabia? (That's an act of war, and the Saudis have a clear right to intervene against those firing the missiles, as the U.S had a right to invade Mexico in pursuit of Pancho Villa.) Do Iran and the Houthis share aims? Are these aims anything like what it says on the Houthi flag? For those too lazy to look it up, the Houthi flag is white with green and red letters which spell out (in Arabic) "Allah is the greatest / Death to America / Death to Israel / A curse upon the Jews / Victory to Islam". I take those slogans seriously.
I also wonder how someone who has favored rapprochement with Iran since 9/12/2001 has dealt with a top Iranian's admission on May 30th that his country facilitated the 9/11 attacks. Is he ashamed of being taken for a fool for all these years?
Finally, I wonder why he can't admit that he was wrong about the Houthis attacking shipping. Is he just a weasel-troll like so many others here?
@Dr Weevil:
I don't care whether the Houthis are "Iranian proxies" (words so vague it's not obvious what difference a yes or no would make) or whether Iran "has the ability to control" them.
The people conducting the war certainly seem to care, since the charge if often cited as among the primary reason the war is being conducted.
That's an act of war, and the Saudis have a clear right to intervene against those firing the missiles, as the U.S had a right to invade Mexico in pursuit of Pancho Villa.)
Saudi Arabia did not begin its attack on Yemen in March 2015 in response to missile strikes. It did so in order to support the Saudi-backed leader of Yemen who has no legitimacy within the country.
I also wonder how someone who has favored rapprochement with Iran since 9/12/2001 has dealt with a top Iranian's admission on May 30th that his country facilitated the 9/11 attacks. Is he ashamed of being taken for a fool for all these years?
As the very article you linked to points out, the exact charge was leveled in the 9/11 Commission Report. It has been widely believed that Iran permitted the passing of Al Qaeda operatives through Iran. The exact charge can be leveled against Pakistan. So when do you want to close the embassy in Islamabad and begin an isolation campaign against Pakistan?
Finally, I wonder why he can't admit that he was wrong about the Houthis attacking shipping. Is he just a weasel-troll like so many others here?
Those were not my words but the words of Daniel Larison. I linked to his full piece. Read it.
So now attacks on the Houthis are "attacks on Yemen" and the only Yemenis who have any "authority" are the "death to America" fanatics who fire missiles at civilians across borders? There's obviously no point in arguing any further with someone whose values are so fucking twisted, so good bye.
UN 2334 had next to no impact and simply restated what has been US policy for the last 40 years. Every US administration since Nixon has considered East Jerusalem to be occupied territory and the settlements to be illegal.
Wrong again.
Even the lefty Vox site points out, about the UN Resolution: "This is far stronger language than the United States has ever officially used to describe Israeli settlement activity before. Although the standard US position has for three decades been that such settlements, which are built on land intended to be part of a future Palestinian state, are 'obstacles to peace,' the United States has always stopped short of describing them as 'illegal' under international law."
Of course Vox's little interpolation "which are built on land intended to be a part of a future Palestinian state" is total BS. "Intended" by whom?
As the saying goes, Mr. Farmer is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
Robert Cook said...
J. Farmer is the single most worthwhile participant here. To call his comments "tedious" is to admit one has no effective refutation of what he has to say.
You can't refute bad faith.
If you want to pretend Iran has good leadership and doesn't fund proxy wars and terrorism go for it.
You can't "argue" with someone who is wrong and refuses to admit they are wrong.
You have a similar habit of not noticing how your ideology has resulted in over 100 million deaths.
Neither of you accept reality so there is no point.
J. Farmer: "...the charge if often cited..."
Those words matter to J. Farmer.
But "death to America" are words that don't matter to J. Farmer.
I need that guide book.
The Farmer/Anti-Farmer banter here is worthless. Substance is never addressed. Snark is all. I almost never read through all of it in these comments sections. I did this time. Never again. I do know for a fact that Althouse's site gets plenty of far more worthwhile attention out there in the land where people do have day jobs. Too bad so little of it shows up here.
@James K:
As the saying goes, Mr. Farmer is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
This is why you should not trust Vox with analysis.
"United States' spokesmen, such as Ambassador George Bush on September 25, 1971, Ambassador William Scranton on May 25, 1976, and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance on March 21, 1980, have stated that the settlements are illegal. The United States contends that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, and that Israel should stop settlement expansion."
-The Middle East in Turmoil, Volume 1 by John Canfield
"Official U.S. policy holds that these settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and are “inconsistent with international law.” Excerpts from the State Department’s legal finding may be found at http://www.fmep.org/documents/opinion_OLA_DOS4-21-78.html. While political language has softened over time (e.g., settlements as “an obstacle to peace”), the United States has never repudiated its formal opinion that such settlements
are illegal and, indeed, has reconfirmed it on a number of occasions at the United Nations. President Bush’s April 2004 letter to Prime Minister Sharon indicated that a final negotiated peace would likely leave in place some Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but did not renounce the official legal opinion set out above."
-Building a Successful Palestinian State by the RAND Corporation
@Achilles:
If you want to pretend Iran has good leadership and doesn't fund proxy wars and terrorism go for it.
You are either completely disingenuous or beyond obtuse. I have never said anything about Iran having "good leadership." Here is precisely the line I quoted from International Affairs:
"This article will argue, however, that the Houthis are not Iranian proxies; Tehran's influence in Yemen is marginal. Iran's support for the Houthis has increased in recent years, but it remains low and is far from enough to significantly impact the balance of internal forces in Yemen."
You can read the entire argument here. The argument is laid out across 10,000 words. Read it and tell me what you think it gets wrong.
10,000 words requires us to take them seriously.
Three words (Death to Me) do not.
Is that the rule?
Longer arguments for my death would matter?
@Dr Weevil:
So now attacks on the Houthis are "attacks on Yemen" and the only Yemenis who have any "authority" are the "death to America" fanatics who fire missiles at civilians across borders? There's obviously no point in arguing any further with someone whose values are so fucking twisted, so good bye.
I think "twisted" is an adjective I would reserve for, say, parroting Saudi and Emirati talking points to justify their destruction of Yemen and attack on Yemeni civilians (including food production facilities, hospitals, wedding parties, etc.).
"Neither does the administration’s policy toward the Yemeni war accord with a realist perspective of where U.S. interests in the area do and do not lie. The United States does not have a stake in the outcome of civil warfare in Yemen. The Houthi rebellion is rooted in very local issues involving what the Houthis contend has been insufficient central government attention to the interests of tribal elements in the north of the country. Nor do the Houthis pose more than a trivial threat to anyone else in the region. Although the Trump administration and Saudi Arabia have made a big deal about missiles that the Houthis have fired at Saudi Arabia, those firings are pinpricks compared to the aerial assault in the other direction for which the missiles have been an attempt at retaliation. Missiles would not be launched if the Saudis and Emiratis had never launched their destructive expedition."
-War Crimes in Yemen
"One of the more irritating and dishonest defenses of U.S. support for the war is the claim that the Saudis and Emiratis are “defending” themselves and the U.S. is merely assisting with that “self-defense.” The record shows that the Saudis and Emiratis are the international aggressors here, and there would be no serious threat to Saudi Arabia and the UAE if they had not been bombing, invading, and starving Yemen since 2015. The coalition hides behind the fig leaf that they are trying to restore the discredited former president, but Hadi has no support inside Yemen and the UAE long since moved on to support other proxies as they try to carve out a sphere of influence for themselves. External intervention in Yemen’s conflict has not only prolonged and intensified the war, but it has also devastated the civilian population, created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and exacerbated the country’s existing political divisions. The Saudi coalition’s war is unnecessary, unjustified, and has created enormous evils that will plague Yemen and the region for a long time to come. The war is indefensible, and so is U.S. support for it."
-No, the Saudis Aren’t ‘Defending Themselves’
@Birkel:
10,000 words requires us to take them seriously.
Three words (Death to Me) do not.
Is that the rule?
Longer arguments for my death would matter?
The politics of ‘Death to America’
Iranian leader: 'Death to America' refers to policies, not the nation
‘Death to America’ chants not personal, Rouhani says
Yemen in crisis
Now I can feel the snark already rising up in you, probably without even reading half of this, but perhaps you will consider these links as well:
Entering Iran. An American's experience
Traveling to Iran as Americans: All You Need to Know
Rick,
"The problem with arguing against 'globalization' is that you might as well argue against the tides."
you're comparing the consequences, intended or not, of deliberate policy changes to some ineluctable force of nature?
I wonder if you noticed that it's actually a very poor analogy -- at tides are not a force constantly exerting pressure in One Direction. Surely it's possible that it might be time for our immigration policy to ebb for a while? Goodness knows we've had enough flood for quite a long time now.
More words to ignore or to pay heed.
I remember when the Buddha's were destroyed.
Those al Queda threats were just words.
Farmer has to go back to the Carter administration for his quotes. Here are more recent ones:
Aug. 1983: President Reagan backpedals away from usage of the term “illegal” to describe settlements, but nevertheless still asserts that they are an “obstacle to peace” in his Radio Address to the Nation on the Situation in the Middle East.
Jul. 1996: At a press conference with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, President Clinton urges Israel to await the outcome of the Oslo Peace Process before taking unilateral action on settlements, “The settlement issue under the Oslo Accords is a matter for determination between the parties as we move to the end of the negotiations. And we have encouraged everyone not to do anything which would weaken the chances of peace.”
Mar. 1997: U.S. vetoes UN Security Council Resolution 199 declaring Israeli settlements in violation of Fourth Geneva Convention.
The point is that one can cherry-pick different statements at different times. It's simply false to say that the US has consistently considered the settlements "illegal." It was clearly understood and widely reported at the time that the abstention on UNSCR 2334 was a shocking change in US policy.
@James K:
Farmer has to go back to the Carter administration for his quotes. Here are more recent ones:
No, I actually went back to the Nixon administration.
It's simply false to say that the US has consistently considered the settlements "illegal." It was clearly understood and widely reported at the time that the abstention on UNSCR 2334 was a shocking change in US policy.
To repeat the same quote from the RAND study: "While political language has softened over time (e.g., settlements as “an obstacle to peace”), the United States has never repudiated its formal opinion that such settlements are illegal and, indeed, has reconfirmed it on a number of occasions at the United Nations."
But if you want something more up to date, here is Haaretz discussing UN 2334:
"Is this the first time an American president declines to veto a UNSC resolution on Israel-Palestine?
No. Since 1967, all U.S. presidents have allowed the adoption of Security Council resolutions. To this day, 47 resolutions concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been adopted by the UNSC, all during the presidencies of presidents other than Obama. President George H. W. Bush allowed nine resolutions to pass during his presidency. During President Bill Clinton's presidency three resolutions were adopted by the UNSC. In fact, this is the first time Obama refrained from using the U.S. veto in the Security Council when it came to Israel since he entered the White House eight years ago. Last time a resolution on Israel was brought to a vote at the Security Council in February 2011, a resolution also concerning the Israeli settlements, Obama vetoed it.
Did Obama break a decades-long tradition according to which presidents don't make policy changes in the interim between administrations?
No. Quite a few presidents have used the interim period between the election of a new president and his inauguration in which they are freed from political constraints to carry out far reaching foreign policy changes, including with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. For example, President Ronald Reagan used this interim period in 1988 to begin a dialog with the PLO. President Clinton used this period to present the "Clinton Parameters" in which he guidelines for the solving of key issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Does the resolution change the legal status of the settlements, which are already illegal under international law?
No. The Fourth Geneva Convention bans nations from the moving of populations into and the establishing of settlements in the territory of another nation won in war. An overwhelming number of countries have sided for years with the position that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal and constitute a violation of international law.
"The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated."
-Ronald Reagan, Address to the Nation on United States Policy for Peace in the Middle East
September 1, 1982
All words are equal.
Some words are more equal than others.
J. Farmer, quoted in the novel Animal Farmer.
Like you said, you're simple.
Yeah, a pedant like you does not understand irony or sarcasm.
I knew that already.
They want to kill you, J. Farmer.
You should prefer my indifference.
Who is they?
I guess the 1,000 to 1,500 Americans who visit Iran on tourist visas every year were lucky to get out with their lives. I suppose the colleagues of mine who have traveled to Iran have all gotten it wrong. Obviously, who are they going to believe, an anonymous Internet troll or their own lying firsthand experiences.
Nixon went to China in 1972, in the middle of the Cultural Revolution in which hundreds of thousands of Chinese were killed. Was he wrong to do this?
A non sequitur says what?
Yeah, I can't imagine how the most significant rapprochement of the US towards an official adversary has any relevance to the topic at hand.
China had, as an official state policy, death to America?
Neat-O!
China had, as an official state policy, death to America?
No, and neither does Iran. From MIT linguist Mark Liberman's Language Log blog:
"The phrase became popular during the Persian Constitutional Revolution (1905-1911), when political activists would chant "zende ba ___" ("long live ___") in support of a policy or leader, or "marg bar ___" in opposition. These two phrases became entrenched within Iranian political discourse, and during the Iranian Revolution of 1979, swarms of protestors took to the streets chanting "marg bar Shah" to express their dissatisfaction with Iran's monarchy. "Marg bar ___" and "zende ba ___" have continued to live on as colloquial phrases incorporated into political chants, and they have been appropriated to express opposition to or support for any number of subjects."
From the Middle East Institute's coverage of the funeral for Rafsanjani:
"During the January 10 mass rallies of the funeral of former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, crowds in Tehran repeatedly chanted “Death to Russia” and “Russian Embassy is the den of spies.” Those chanting are supporters of the popular political opposition, which continue to be repressed by the security services.
Rafsanjani had in recent years become a symbolic figurehead for the reformists. However, the public outburst of disapproval of Russia and Moscow’s policies toward Iran is not a new phenomenon. Such chants have been frequently heard since 2009 when the Green reformist opposition movement was first suppressed by the security services. It is Moscow’s close ties to Iran’s hardliners which makes the reformist political camp in Tehran view it as enabling the worst repressive tendencies of the Iranian regime."
Does this mean Iran has an official state policy of wanting to kill Russians?
Ask the Chechens.
Q: Does this mean Iran has an official state policy of wanting to kill Russians?
A: Ask the Chechens
Hahaha. Speaking of non-sequitur. And you chose about the worst possible example to make your point. Iran's reaction to Russian actions in Chechnya is Exhibit A in the argument that Iran's policies are driven largely by self-interest and strategic calculation, rather than being highly ideologically driven.
"Russian armed forces entered Chechnya on September 30, a week after the federal air force started bombing the Chechen capital, Grozny. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, in a message to his Russian counterpart, Igor Ivanov, said that the situation was Russia’s internal affair. Kharrazi also “confirmed Tehran’s readiness to undertake effective collaboration in the struggle against terrorists to destabilize the situation in Russia.”
-Iran and Chechnya: Realpolitik at Work
Oh, and here I thought the game was asking questions of no relevance.
After all, you have no reasons besides appeals to authority to support your claim the "Death to Me" chants do not mean "Death to Me" despite the words they choose to use.
I will believe them.
BTW, when the Left says death to white men, I hope you take them seriously. They mean it. And if they ever have the chance, they will try.
Good luck.
Whether the Leftist Collectivists are ever going to be skillful in their quest to kill White Men doesn't change their seriousness.
@Birkel:
After all, you have no reasons besides appeals to authority to support your claim the "Death to Me" chants do not mean "Death to Me" despite the words they choose to use.
If a hardline anticommunist in the 1950s said "Death to the Soviet Union," does that mean they want the murder of all Russians?
But since you do not like appeals to authority (i.e. evidence), perhaps you can explain why any of the sources I cited are incorrect. Perhaps you can use your personal knowledge (no "appeals to authority) of Farsi and Persian history to explain مرگ بر آمريكا. Perhaps you can explain why the thousands of Americans who have visited Iran in the last decade have managed to avoid the official policy of wanting Americans dead. Perhaps you can explain why some Iranians would chant "Death to Russia" despite Iran's close relationship with Russia. Perhaps you can explain why a near supermajority of Iranians want normalized relationships with the US. Perhaps you can explain why Hassan Rouhani won in 2013 and 2017 on a campaign of improved relations with the US.
Just be sure and restrict yourself to your own personal firsthand knowledge. No "appeals to authority."
@Birkel:
BTW, when the Left says death to white men, I hope you take them seriously. They mean it. And if they ever have the chance, they will try.
No, actually, I do not take that seriously at all. And I am sympathetic to and involved with white nationalist causes. But I can see why someone with your paranoid disposition would remain an anonymous Internet troll. It's amazing you can even summon the courage to leave your house. Perhaps you don't.
Paranoia = Taking the words people write/say seriously
Nobody ever takes the Holocaust* seriously, until after he Holocaust.
But what is the prescription for fewer Holocausts?
*There have been lots of Holocausts.
Did J. Farmer take the words of the Taliban / al Queda seriously when it blew up the Buddhas?
#WordsDoNotMatter
@Birkel:
Paranoia = Taking the words people write/say seriously
See "idiom."
But what is the prescription for fewer Holocausts?
A good first step is having a realistic understanding of what is actually occurring in the world as opposed to believing in a caricature. For example, recognizing that Iran (despite the corruptness and brutality of its government) have legitimate grievances against the United States, such as assisting Iraq with its use of WMD against Iran, shooting down Iran Air Flight 655, or more recently supporting Mujahedin-e-Khalq, a Marxist-Islamist cult widely loathed in Iran. It would also help to recognize that America's attempt to use isolation to change another country's behavior has a terrible track record. The US has attempted for nearly 40 years to isolate and bring down the Islamic Republic with zero success, once again affirming Lord Salisbury's observation that "the commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcass of dead policies."
I, for one, pine for the days of engagement and billions of dollars for mullahs.
Fuck your legitimate grievances, LMMFAO.
You are so damned silly.
You are a laughable child.
Perhaps there are occasions when people should be taken seriously but not literally. Now where have I heard that phrase before?
@Birkel:
I, for one, pine for the days of engagement and billions of dollars for mullahs.
Fuck your legitimate grievances, LMMFAO.
You are so damned silly.
You are a laughable child.
Poor thing. You never did mature beyond junior high school did you. Sad.
As for me being "so damned silly," if you'd like to compare portfolios, I'll put my history of decision-making up against yours any day of the week.
Trust me, J. Farmer, if I were to tell you I wanted you dead, you would wake up dead in short order.
And if you typed the same about me, I would prepare for assault.
Do me a favor and pretend people who star they wish to kill me, in fact, actually want to kill me.
Maybe the Ukrainians should have taken Stalin seriously.
Maybe Jews should have taken Hitler seriously.
I am just guessing.
You want to compare portfolios from where you came and where you are to where I started and where I am?
Name the judges in that competition.
@Birkel:
Do me a favor and pretend people who star they wish to kill me, in fact, actually want to kill me.
I.e. indulge your paranoid delusions.
You still haven't been able to explain how thousands of Americans have been able to visit and travel through Iran despite the psychotic bloodlust for Americans that you believe exists in that country.
Trust me, J. Farmer, if I were to tell you I wanted you dead, you would wake up dead in short order.
No, I would do what I typically do when you're concerned...laugh.
And if you typed the same about me, I would prepare for assault.
I want you dead. Better start preparing.
You want to compare portfolios from where you came and where you are to where I started and where I am?
Name the judges in that competition.
Here's my email: jfarmer@me.com. Drop me a line and we can arrange the details.
Let's negotiate:
You are stating you have gained a greater percentage of wealth than I did, based on where you are?
I accept, on those terms, at any wager you suggest.
I suggest $10,000,000 as a minimum.
Agreed?
@Birkel:
Agreed?
Absolutely. As soon as you can provide proof of funds to cover the ten million. You have my email. Get in touch.
I need no proof.
I have moved from nothing to something.
You must beat the percentage gain I have posted.
Mine is infinite.
I will give you a head start.
Go!
@Birkel:
I need no proof.
I have moved from nothing to something.
You must beat the percentage gain I have posted.
Mine is infinite.
I will give you a head start.
Go!
You're not the one needing proof, dipshit. If you say you want to wager $10,000,000 (already laughable on its face), you will need to prove that you actually have those funds to wager.
If you want to make an actual bet, I am more than willing to take you up on it. We can draw up terms and put money in an escrow account. You have my email. Get in touch.
You cannot beat infinite wealth growth.
That is a statement of fact.
I started from nothing: government cheese and peanut butter and powdered milk.
I have more than zero.
That represents infinite wealth growth.
You cannot, quite literally, have done better than me.
It is a mathematical certainty.
So I accept a bet on relative wealth growth on any terms.
Mine is infinite.
@Birkel:
You may have started from very little but the notion that you "started from nothing" is probably about as likely as you being killed by the Iranian government during the course of your life.
But as I have said repeatedly, you have my email. So if you want to arrange a legitimate bet, get in touch. Otherwise, I'll just assume you are what I've always thought you were: a blustering blowhard.
Correct, I started with less than nothing.
Are you still willing to bet you have done better from where you started to where you are now to where I started to where I am now?
And I assure you I starter from subsidized school breakfasts and school lunches.
And I demand that if you divulge my identity you indemnify me for $5,000,000.
Let's play who has the better lawyers, eh?
@Birkel:
I gave you my email address almost an hour ago. My inbox is still empty. I'm waiting.
You wish to indemnify me?
I promise to rely on your indemnification.
And I promise my privacy is worth a minimum of $5,000,000,
Make your pledge to secure my privacy.
@Birkel:
I don't share private correspondence without the involved party's permission, and I have no reason to abandon that principle in your case. I'm still waiting.
Make a promise to which I can hold you legally responsible, or nothing.
Your vague proclamation is worth nothing unless made specific.
The wager is $10,000,000.
I promise I will not compromise your anonymity on penalty of complete reimbursement.
I await your admission of personal responsibility if you violate such an agreement.
@Birkel:
No, there is no wager. I said that if you wanted to make a legitimate bet, contact me personally and we can make arrangements (e.g. terms, wager, etc.).
I, John Anthony Farmer, promise I will not compromise your anonymity on penalty of complete reimbursement.
Good enough?
I'm still waiting...
You have advanced no terms.
There can be no wager without terms.
I have proposed terms, coward.
The terms I have advanced are relative prosperity, however measured.
Your declination is noted.
I scoff at you, pending a change of course.
You have advanced no terms.
There can be no wager without terms.
I know reading comprehension is not your strong suit, but try rereading what I just wrote: "I said that if you wanted to make a legitimate bet, contact me personally and we can make arrangements (e.g. terms, wager, etc.)."
You have my email address, Birkel. Anytime you want to arrange an offer, get in touch. I won't hold my breath. You're more full of shit than a Christmas goose.
Correct, an offer to discuss terms is not a discussion of terms.
But please do tell everybody about your sincerity.
We promise to half-believe you.
@Birkel:
You have my email address, big boy. Contact me and we can settle on terms and the wager. You're also free to share our correspondence with anyone you wish. I'm still waiting...
No terms and no wager but you pretend there is a wager.
I see how honest you are.
Great job.
No terms and no wager but you pretend there is a wager.
I see how honest you are.
Great job.
That's precisely what I propose we discuss via email. You have my full name, my photograph, and my contact information. You remain an anonymous Internet troll. Please put up or shut up.
Correct, you admit you have bound yourself to nothing.
I decline submission to gravity.
That was fun.
@Birkel:
Correct, you admit you have bound yourself to nothing.
I decline submission to gravity.
That was fun.
That isn't true. I bound myself to securing your anonymity, but I am never surprised by your tenuous grasp of the facts. You still have my name, my photograph, and my email, Birkel. If you ever get the guts, contact me and we can negotiate the terms of a bet. As I said before, I won't hold my breath.
Thanks for the back and forth. It was fun. You're nothing if not entertaining.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন