Some sobering thoughts about the war...

[Tom]

The first casualty in war is the truth.”
A must-read from an Afghan-American
This is from Tamim Ansary, a writer and columnist in San Francisco who is a native of Afghanistan. It’s both interesting and chilling....
* * * *

I’ve been hearing a lot of talk about “bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.” Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but “we’re at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?”
Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we “have the belly to do what must be done.”
And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I’ve lived here for 35 years I’ve never lost track of what’s going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I’m standing.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters. But the Taliban and Bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They’re not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think “the people of Afghanistan” think “the Jews in the concentration camps.”
It’s not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rat’s nest of international thugs holed up in their country. Some say, why don’t the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they’re starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan—a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.Trouble is, that’s been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They’re already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today’s Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They’d slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don’t move too fast, they don’t even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn’t really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing.
So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of “having the belly to do what needs to be done” they’re thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let’s pull our heads out of the sand. What’s actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden’s hideout.
It’s much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we’d have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I’m going. We’re flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.
And guess what: that’s Bin Laden’s program. That’s exactly what he wants.
That’s why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It’s all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he’s got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that’s a billion people with nothing left to lose, that’s even better from Bin Laden’s point of view. He’s probably wrong, in the end the West would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that?
Bin Laden does. Anyone else?
Tamim Ansary


Tom

[4thandlong]

A sobering article indeed, but at least Pakistan is onside now. Looks like they'll seal off the country and sic the Rangers, Special Ops, Airborne etc. on them. It'll take a while but I don't see the Taliban getting supplies/reinforcements very easily.

There were even demonstrations in Iran FOR America. The times they are a-changin'.

[andicap]

My thoughts about this have been fairly straight-forward since we started but I certainly hope Bush listens to Colin Powell and not his war-mongering hawks.
Powell is not averse to war of course, but believes before we do anything we must have the world behind us. If we act unilaterally we cannot win. You see, that' been Bush's problem so far in foreign policy -- he acts unilaterally. No wonder so many people in the world hate us: We didn't sign the Kyoto global warming treaty when everyone else does. We rebuffed North Korea's attempts at reconciliation, further isolating us from an enemy with the bomb.

Bush made a great speech last night -- lets hope he follows up what he says and moves strategically, not just with revenge on his mind.

[Dave Schwartz]

4thandlong,

Thanks for the great, new wallpaper!

That was perfect.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[4thandlong]

My pleasure, Dave. There are many good ones, and not so good ones, from around the world as well as the US at slate.com

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/attackInternat/1.asp

It was pretty busy and I couldn't get into it just now, but if you can make it through it is well worth it.

andicap: I agree, I don't have much confidence in Bush, but I think he has people around him that can handle the situation. Calling the war a "crusade" was just stupid, stupid, stupid!

[NoDayJob]

Originally posted by 4thandlong
My pleasure, Dave. There are many good ones, and not so good ones, from around the world as well as the US at slate.com

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/attackInternat/1.asp

It was pretty busy and I couldn't get into it just now, but if you can make it through it is well worth it.

andicap: I agree, I don't have much confidence in Bush, but I think he has people around him that can handle the situation. Calling the war a "crusade" was just stupid, stupid, stupid!

===========

Fourth & Long,

Until Congress officially declares war this isn't a war. It's just more of the same old crap [Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Lebanon, Desert Storm, Somalia, ad nauseum]. Congress doesn't have the stomach to declare war. They are running for re-election. War means rationing, price controls, internment camps, restriction of movement and lots of other sacrifices by the public. It's guns and butter as usual. A real war would mean we'd have to use every weapon at our disposal including hydrogen, neutron, biological and chemicals in order to win because our enemies have them too. They aren't afraid to use them. A real war would mean millions perhaps even billions of civilians would die. It's not just army vs. army anymore. There would be no winner because occupation would be next to impossible due to contamination.

I don't have an answer to terrorists except to kill them before they are able to kill us. It took two atom bombs to stop the Japanese "devine wind" fanaticism in WWII. We may have to do it again to countries that harbor those fanatics willing to die to further their cause. But that would require a "declaration of war". If so, WE must be willing to sacrifice and die to preserve our freedoms. The question is, "How many of us are willing at this time?"

I remember Neville Chamberlain's White Paper and "Peace in our time" after his meeting with Herr Hitler -NDJ

[4thandlong]

Hi NDJ, guess I should have put "war" in quotes, I know only Congress can declare war. My objection was to the use of the word "crusade" which has a religious connotation to it, especially in the Muslim/Arab world. This isn't about Christian vs. Muslim and the Arab press nearly shit themselves when Bush said it (hell, I nearly shit myself lol). The word as used today in English speaking countries doesn't carry the religious overtones as it once did but it still does to Muslims. I don't think Bush was aware of that.

[Tom]

If our boys are fighting and dying, then I guess it's a war no matter what congress says, and If Mr, Bush offended any Muslims/Arabs with his choice of words, then tough S**T-we can apologize later, in say about 200 years! The statement was made in the USA, and the meaning of the words is the American version.

As far as I'm concerned, if I say something and someone is offended by it, then one of two things happened-I meant to offend them, so I don't care if they are. Or I didn't mean to offend them, so it's their problem, not mine if they are.

People in the Middle East have a lot more important things to be thinking about right now...like are they our friends or our targets? Ultimatums have been given. The time for words is long past-only actions count now.
Tom

[smf]

Andicap,

You stated "My thoughts about this have been fairly straight-forward since we started but I certainly hope Bush listens to Colin Powell and not his war-mongering hawks. "

_Exactly_ which war mongers are you referring to? He has hired Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld to weigh in and do their jobs in situations like what we're in.

I won't even comment on your other criticisms of a President that was in office for less than 6 months when those topics arose. You'd think giving him more than 6 months to act on these items w/b in order.

Once again tho, exactly WHO are these war mongers you refer to?

Thanks.

[4thandlong]

Geez, Tom, I'm glad your finger isn't on the button :)

I think you are mischaracterizing my position.

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. The statement might have been made in the US, but it was for Muslim/Arab ears too. I'm not saying Bush must dance around people's sensibilities. And being offended has nothing to do with it. The (sympathetic!!) Muslims weren't offended, they thought George was calling for a Holy War.

The terrorists are already spread out in the world. It is to the US's advantage to have a certain amount of cooperation with Middle/near/far east countries for intelligence purposes. Bush was very firm with Pakistan and rightfully so. I fully expect him to be as firm with others, too. I AGREE WITH THAT.

[Tom]

Originally posted by 4thandlong
Geez, Tom, I'm glad your finger isn't on the button :)



Yes...that is a good thing! ~G~
If it were me, I'd be channel surfing right about now
(kidding).

I did't mean to sound like I was attacking you-sorry if it sounded that way. I am just fed up with how we have to be careful what we say and how we say it nowadays.
I think W's "Dead or Alive" comment was the best thing I 've heard a president say in a long time. We need more Harry S Truman types. I aslo like the ultimatum-if your not on our side, you are on the side of the terrorists. We need a lot less manners on a global level.
Tony Blair is a good example-a friend that we can trust
Pakistan is a bad example-"sure we'll help you, but we need to have $30 million for our trouble."
Isreal is good example-they take care of their own business, and don't get offended, and stand up for us-thick skins, the Israelis.
We need to take care of our friends and let the rest go-if they can't survive on their own, then so be it. If a country is just so pathetic it can't take care of its own, we don't owe them anything. Even Afganisttan has 30-60,000+ northern rebels that are itching to fight with us to free thier country from the Taliban-they were the first to answer the call on the 11th with bombs in Kabal.
Too bad the UN is such a farce. The idea was good, but like NTRA, they are failures.
Tom

[4thandlong]

Originally posted by Tom

I did't mean to sound like I was attacking you-sorry if it sounded that way.

No problem! :)

Pakistan is a bad example-"sure we'll help you, but we need to have $30 million for our trouble."

I hope you're sitting down. They wanted $30 Billion. (yeah right, that's going to happen!)

I think you'll get a kick out of these cartoons: http://3bruces.com/wtc/

Warning: profanity alert!

[Tom]

Great cartoons. Thanks.
BTW, love the handle 4thandlong-that's the mission statement of the Buffalo Bills, my "home" team.
Tom

[4thandlong]

I feel your pain, Tom. I was a Bills fan, looks like a long season for them though. Following Flutie and the Chargers this year. Signed up for the free $35 at betmega.com and threw it all on SD.

Originally posted by 4thandlong

A sobering article indeed, but at least Pakistan is onside now. Looks like they'll seal off the country and sic the Rangers, Special Ops, Airborne etc. on them. It'll take a while but I don't see the Taliban getting supplies/reinforcements very easily.

There were even demonstrations in Iran FOR America. The times they are a-changin'.

Yeah...RIGHT! Are you really serious or are just ignorant of world events, as well as history?
For example, since you wrote this, the Saudis (a "moderate" Arab state) has withdrawn its offer to allow us to
use their airfields. Yes, their position might swing back the other way again, but it does demonstrate how fickle even the moderate Arabs are.

Another "moderate" Arab state Jordan (who "fully supports" us) was "promised" by Bush recently that no attacks would be launched upon Iraq -- even though the whole world KNOWS that Iraq fully intends to do us harm at some time in the future. I suppose, though, you think that promise was a small price to pay for the King's support, right?

From what I'm hearing on the Fox News Channel, it appears to be fairly well documented that the Pakistani intelligence community has historically _supported_ the Taliban. Probably very true given the Pakistani president's continual warnings to the U.S. or any other world power about the grave consequences that would ensue if anyone tried to overthrow the Taliban regime. More doublespeak from another "moderate" Arab state. How can anyone in his right mind support or defend a terrorist regime like the Taliban -- unless he's in bed with them?

I won't even get into the radical Arab states -- except to say about Iran (since you brought it up) that Fox has been reporting that Iran has warned the U.S. that any warplances that violate its airspace will be shot down. This coming from a government who "denounced" the terrorist attacks on us.

I sure wish I could get my hands on a pair of rose colored glasses, such as what you're apparently wearing. I'd sure sleep more soundly at night.

Boxcar

Andicap wrote:

My thoughts about this have been fairly straight-forward since we started but I certainly hope Bush listens to Colin Powell and not his war-mongering hawks.
Powell is not averse to war of course, but believes before we do anything we must have the world behind us. If we act unilaterally we cannot win. You see, that' been Bush's problem so far in foreign policy -- he acts unilaterally. No wonder so many people in the world hate us: We didn't sign the Kyoto global warming treaty when everyone else does. We rebuffed North Korea's attempts at reconciliation, further isolating us from an enemy with the bomb.

Bush made a great speech last night -- lets hope he follows up what he says and moves strategically, not just with revenge on his mind.

Oh, yes...the WORLD, the WORLD, le't get in lockstep with the WORLD. I see that you're eager to welcome in the One World Government when it makes its advent on the world scene.

Let me tell you something about the World. If we were to leave it up to the World, do you know what would be done about these attacks? Would you believe NOTHING!? Oh, yes, much rhetoric would ensue (as it is now), and perhaps some wrist slapping -- and even many police departments around the world would scurry along trying to bring these thugs to justice (what a laugh!).

As far as I'm concerned, these attacks took place on U.S. soil, not the world's! Numerous AMERICAN lives were lost -- not the world's citizens. Extensive damage to U.S. property took place, not the world's. So, while I believe that we should seek as much political support as possible (I'm really not an Isolationist), nonetheless the primary consideration and the final analysis should be that this was an attack against the U.S., and that the U.S. goverment not only has the right to defend its citizens, but more importantly has the _responsibility_ to do so -- with or without World support. After all, we're still a _sovereign_ nation, aren't we? Or did we lost that status when we joined the U.N.?

Having said all this, I'm keenly aware that we're flirting with WW III. Armageddon could indeed be much closer than anyone wants to imagine. But what is the alternative? As Americans, do we trade in our freedom for our lives? Is that the deal? You may like those terms, but as for me, "Give me Liberty or give me Death" -- and the coming World Political System and Political Correctness be damned to hell!

Boxcar

[hdcper]

Thought this picture was worth sharing.

Hdcper

[4thandlong]

Originally posted by Boxcar
Originally posted by 4thandlong

A sobering article indeed, but at least Pakistan is onside now. Looks like they'll seal off the country and sic the Rangers, Special Ops, Airborne etc. on them. It'll take a while but I don't see the Taliban getting supplies/reinforcements very easily.

There were even demonstrations in Iran FOR America. The times they are a-changin'.

Yeah...RIGHT! Are you really serious or are just ignorant of world events, as well as history?

How you can take a simple statement of fact and turn it into a rant full of ad hominem is beyond me. Let me just say take that chip off your shoulder and shove it up your ass.

I saw the demonstrators on CNN. Did someone like you, so obviously up on current affairs, miss it?

For example, since you wrote this, the Saudis (a "moderate" Arab state) has withdrawn its offer to allow us to
use their airfields. Yes, their position might swing back the other way again, but it does demonstrate how fickle even the moderate Arabs are.

Show me where I offered an opinion on the Saudis. You can't? That's a shock.

Another "moderate" Arab state Jordan (who "fully supports" us) was "promised" by Bush recently that no attacks would be launched upon Iraq -- even though the whole world KNOWS that Iraq fully intends to do us harm at some time in the future. I suppose, though, you think that promise was a small price to pay for the King's support, right?

Again, you would be so kind to show me where I expressed an opinion on this? Never mind, you can't.

From what I'm hearing on the Fox News Channel,

LOL Fox?? Bwahahaha!

it appears to be fairly well documented that the Pakistani intelligence community has historically _supported_ the Taliban.

Well, duh.

I won't even get into the radical Arab states -- except to say about Iran (since you brought it up) that Fox has been reporting that Iran has warned the U.S. that any warplances that violate its airspace will be shot down. This coming from a government who "denounced" the terrorist attacks on us.

All I said about Iran was that there was a demonstration for America, much like there was in many countries. Did I say this represented the official Iranian government's position? I hope you read the Form with better comprehension than that.

I sure wish I could get my hands on a pair of rose colored glasses, such as what you're apparently wearing. I'd sure sleep more soundly at night.

WTF? Let's review (you can use the help). I said:

1)"It looks like Pakistan is onside now."

Reality: Pakistan has closed its border with Afghanistan; they have delivered the American's demands to the Taliban; Pakistan has withdrawn their forces (military advisors) that were fighting in Afghanistan with the Taliban.

2)"Looks like they'll seal off the country and sic the Rangers, Special Ops, Airborne etc. on them."

Reality: All countries bordering on Afghanistan have closed their borders; the US forces I mentioned and the British SAS are by some accounts (i.e., Northern Alliance) already in Afghanistan.

3)"It'll take a while but I don't see the Taliban getting supplies/reinforcements very easily."

Do you disagree with this?


And *plonk* he goes into my twit filter.

[Tom]

Frankly, I would be very hesitant to trust anyone from the middle east these days....maybe we get bad info and suffer loses or maybe they are just telling us what we want to hear so we don't copme after them.
This is new world and a new war-conventional thinking
won't win anymore. This coordnated attack on 911 was tactifcally brilliant. And the pattern of these animals is to increase the damage and carnage every time. What is next?
Ask yourself, on 9-10-01, if you saw on CNN that there was a plot to bring down the WTC using hijacked airplanes as bombs, whould you have taken it seriously?
I don't think now is the best time to be arguing amoungst ourselves-maybe we should all open our minds up a little wider and consider other ideas and possibilites. My first reaction was to bomb every square mile of Afganistan and kill every single person there. Then I watched TV, surfed the net, did some reading, and now I think we definatley need to take out the taliban and free the Afganis-those that aren't totally lost to humanity. And other regiemes in the Middle East must be taken out now, before it is too late... Iraq must be next.
We are dealing with an enemy that worships a false god-neither God nor allah could tolerate what they believe, but they believe it, so we must act accordingly.
This is an enemy that could literally be living next door, shopping in the 7-11 at the corner, sitting on a bench watching our children play at school. Their resolve is strong-perhaps much stronger than is ours.
Not a happy thought.

Tom

4th and very long on BS wrote:

>>
How you can take a simple statement of fact and turn it into a rant full of ad hominem is beyond me. Let me just say take that chip off your shoulder and shove it up your ass.
>>

Actually, I would gladly suggest that that you take your gross misrepresentation and exaggerations of my post and insert same in just about any orifice of your body wherein same would fit, but I perceive that all your orifices are currently overlowing with the propaganda that is being spoon-fed to you by the mainstream media. A sure sign to not get downwind of you.

>>
I saw the demonstrators on CNN. Did someone like you, so obviously up on current affairs, miss it?
>>

Well, goody for you. At least your're not physically blind. So a relative handful of people demonstrate "for" America within a very anti-U.S. state, and that's supposed to prove that times are "changing"?

If that's the case, have you seen on the Communist News Network all the anti-U.S. deomonstrations by the Pakistanis? You may wonder what they prove? Let's say that at BEST, it indicates that Pakistan is a fair weather friend, and that if the winds of politics shift within that country, Pakistan will cease to be that. It also indicates that the Pakistani gov't. is bucking the tide of poplular sentiment within its country because it wants to be on the side of the winner on this one -- IF it's politically feasible and safe to position themselves in this fashion.

>>
Show me where I offered an opinion on the Saudis. You can't? That's a shock.
Again, you would be so kind to show me where I expressed an opinion on this? Never mind, you can't.
>>

Of course. I offered those opinions because the examples I presented represent other "moderate" Muslim or Arab states. The point to my argument, evidently, eluded you. Why am I not surprised?

>>
LOL Fox?? Bwahahaha!
>>

Okay...how 'bout you try a more "moderate" slant to the news. Try watching the ANC or NWI channel. Either of these still have it all over CNN.

>>
All I said about Iran was that there was a demonstration for America, much like there was in many countries. Did I say this represented the official Iranian government's position? I hope you read the Form with better comprehension than that.
>>

So what was the point to this bit of trivia? A relatively few deomonstrators (probably in the very small minority) deomonstrate for the U.S. in an anti-capitalistic and pro-terrorist state, and that's a big deal? I'd be much more impressed if the state itself took an anti-terrorist pro-active role, wouldn't you?

And I read very well, thank you. Besides, sir, your're very confused here. This has little to do with reading comp per se, but much more to do with _interpratations_ of facts and events. Now, one must wonder if this kind of muddle-headed thinking flows over to your own handicapping? (Feel free to consider this last remark an "ad hominen attack".)

>>
WTF? Let's review (you can use the help). I said:

1)"It looks like Pakistan is onside now."

Reality: Pakistan has closed its border with Afghanistan; they have delivered the American's demands to the Taliban; Pakistan has withdrawn their forces (military advisors) that were fighting in Afghanistan with the Taliban.
>>

You're almost a comedian? I need help? Well, if I do, then that tells me you're beyond such a thing, but let's see what I can do.

Okay...number 1. Pakistan has "long" been "onside" with the U.S. So, big deal.

Closed borders -- due more than anything else to keeping the poor oppressed Afghan population out of Pakistan. It's been well reported that the Pakistani govt. _doesn't_ want these refugees pouring into their country. Moreover, they want to also keep the Taliban out because the Pakistani govt. fears a political coup -- perhaps even a very bloody one, since the Taliban is so popular with a large segment of the Pakistani populace. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that an insurgence of Taliban inside the Pakistani border would in all probability lead to this kind of civil insurrection. WHY, oh, WHY do you think that the official Pakistani government position (in opposition to much of the civilized world, btw) is PRO-Taliban in that the Pakistani government is NOT in favor of having the Taliban government removed from power? (Have you figured it out yet?)

Pakistan govt. delivered the U.S. demands to the Taliban? Another big deal! Are you for real? The Taliban could have gotten the same info on that CNN station you like so much -- although I would certainly recommend other viewing options, personally.

Military advisors withdrawing from Afghanistan? Man, are you clueless or what!? Have you ever heard of the idea of SELF-PRESERVATION? It comes natural to must us humans! How do you think the Pakistani gov't. would react, knowing all too well that a U.S. attack on the Taliban is probably imminent? Do you think for a moment that the Pakistani gov't. would keep their advisors there -- to get caught in the crossfire!? To be mistaken for the enemy by the U.S./allied forces? D-U-H!


2)"Looks like they'll seal off the country and sic the Rangers, Special Ops, Airborne etc. on them."

Who is going to sic the U.S. forces on them? The Pakistani gov't? And if the Bush administration has any sense at all, it won't order an invasion of Afghanistan through Pakistan, given the close ties that the Pakistani gov't. has with the Taliban.

>>
Reality: All countries bordering on Afghanistan have closed their borders; the US forces I mentioned and the British SAS are by some accounts (i.e., Northern Alliance) already in Afghanistan.
>>

Smart thing to do when the war drums are beating. Which country in its right mind would want a spillover? Even China closed its border. Do you interpret this move to mean that China is now in bed with the U.S.?

>>
3)"It'll take a while but I don't see the Taliban getting supplies/reinforcements very easily."
>>

Probably not. First thing you've said that makes any sense. Congratulations!

>>
And *plonk* he goes into my twit filter.
>>

The rubbish you post isn't even worth reading, let alone filtering.

Ciao, BabyCakes. Enjoy your viewing world events through your rose-colored glasses while you can.

Boxcar

[canuck]

4th and long

As a fellow Canadian I suggest you continue this "discussion" at-
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/horseplayersunited

The individual to whom you are corresponding with goes by the handle of Frankatus

He can easily be flushed out of his hole there(hee hee)

BTW-no offense Frankie>snort<

[Buffalo Bob]

I'm curious why one of the posters' names is blank. Is this some kind of glitch? PA do you know?

[4thandlong]

Originally posted by canuck
4th and long

As a fellow Canadian I suggest you continue this "discussion" at-
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/horseplayersunited

The individual to whom you are corresponding with goes by the handle of Frankatus

He can easily be flushed out of his hole there(hee hee)

BTW-no offense Frankie>snort<

Thanks for the heads up bro, I thought Boxcar smelled of clone. I just read some posts at HPU and frankkatus denies it's him and that he sides with me in the "discussion" so who knows. Not terribly important, whoever it is has neither the wit nor wisdom to interest me in a debate/discussion anyway.

Heh heh

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Buffalo Bob
I'm curious why one of the posters' names is blank. Is this some kind of glitch? PA do you know?


BB,

I sent an e-mail out to everyone a week or two ago concerning a glitch in our message board. Boxcar's original registration was affected by this glitch, and he was forced to re-register. However, the database doesn't recognize his old messages under his former account, and therefore has no name to link to those old messages, which is why his name disappeared from those old posts. This is also why when you see new posts by Boxcar, his stats show he's only posted a handful of notes, and it also shows that he registered this month.....

Hope this helps,

==PA

[Tom]

So, Boxcar has been "born again?"
~G~

Tom

[PaceAdvantage]

Superfecta was also affected the same way about a month ago....but nobody seemed to notice that one...LOL


==PA