Printable View
ive just watched a news report where rats were paralysed and then given special drugs to make them better. I have a pet rat myself and am also a great believer in animal rights. SO is it about time we stopped testing on animals or could it still benifit us? :choc:
OMFG! Not the rats! Not the rats! Why the rats... How could they hurt rats... -sob- :cry:
I think some, limited testing could be justified, as long as it doesn't involve hurting the animals. For example, rather than deliberately giving mice or rats cancer, just use animals that have already got cancer. If they're going to die, it might be worth trying to save them. As long as it's not painful.
But not for cosmetics. Under no circumstances, ever. That's just plain sick!
Just use animals that already have cancer? That is hard to find.
I could care less if they kill a billion rats a year for their testing. Rats and mice suck. I kill them at home by practically ripping their head off or starving them to death...or poision. Why is this so much worse?
EDIT: Where is the PC Facist for this thread :cry:
I value my life more than an animal. Human attachments to animals are fine, but if it were my life over an animal, it would be mine
I still think we'd be better off testing on child molesters. Give THEM cancer and see how it works.
As for animal testing, I'm opposed to it. NOT because of the animals. Seriously... they're rats... not only that, they're genetically defective inbred lab-rats that'd never survive in the wild.
However, animal testing is *notoriously* unreliable. They delayed the production of medical penicillin for over a year, because it did strange things in rabbits. They accidentally allowed a drug that causes birth-defects to be used on humans. It was related to another drug we KNEW caused that problem, but this one didn't affect animals (unlike the first). So we thought it was safe. Oops.
Animal testing, for chemical medicine, is more dangerous than it's worth. As for surgical techniques... it's still hit-or-miss, but it does seem to yield enough results.
You're sick. Wishing cancer on anyone, even child molesters, the lowest of the low, is just sick. CAncer sucks. It's not something you can just say 'Let's give it to this guy!' Cancer really sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Rats and mice don't suck. Poeople who kill them then laugh about it suck. Animal cruelty is not funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
Animal Testing is cruel. The animals didn't ASK to be tested on. As far as I go, test products and minor things on human guinea pigs (you know, the ones who actually volunteer for it, for money) and ONLY test cures for AIDS and cancer on animals, because that's understandable important, but even then, it is cruel. But like udsuna said, our bodies are unlike rats and other animals. Rats can produce Vitamin C but we can't, for example. It's unreliable.
I'm a starch believer in punishing those who commit crimes of animal cruelty very harshly, and I think the punishments for unnecessary Animal Testing (hopefully, almost ALL animal testing) should be punished harshly too. Any person who smears lipstick on living rat's eyes or crap like that should have the same thing done to them, in my opinion. Poor animals. :(
Child molesters are people too, whats more they can be rehabilitated and turned back into responsible members of society, so i dont think giving them cancer would be a good thing as it's just plain mean :choc:
I think animal testing is okay when it is done for medical purposes...
However, testing on animals to make a profit off of some product should be illegal and punishable by some ridiculously strict penalty, which would include a fine of over a million dollars and jail time. If you have to test on animals to make a profit, you can just smurfing lose money.
The first half of the statement is a matter of opinion about the definition of "human". They sure as hell don't fit mine, except on a biological level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squinn
The second half, is a guarenteed falsehood. You can't reverse their "illness", such as it is, and you can't stop them from doing it again, without making it physically impossible. (Keeping them in a cell for life, or mutilating them until they can't engage in sex, or even desire it).
And I never said to do it out of cruelty. Do it for the same reason you do it to animals: medical knowlege.
The fact that you even consider such a thing hints that you want this done for more than just medical knowledge.
Nice assumption. Technically correct, but not for the reasons you imply. I do admit some desire for reasons other than the medicine, but it's all purely empirical and the benefit of society. The advantages of human testing should be appearant, for anyone who studies medicine's developement in history, and it guarentees that the children are protected forever from those we catch.... unfortunately we do have to catch them.
If anything, one could also hope it might scare them into giving themselves over to castration before they carry out the desire to molest a child. I'm too much a cynic to expect that to happen very often, but one can hope. And if they don't molest a child, they wouldn't need to be punished.
Also, I have this belief that punishment should fit the crime. And since this crime is worse than death.... it's not really like even the death penalty is enough. I don't think that this medical science run would be enough to balance the books, but it DOES create valuable social services.
And as an added, final, benefit. We don't have to test on animals.
Interesting how many people who, while they don't believe in animal testing, DO eat meat. I'll admit, it is pretty messed up when they do it for cosmetics, that's stuff they can do on humans. But for cancer and lethal diseases that could save human lives, I'm inclined to believe it's justified. Threads like this makes me want to be a vegan...
Udsuna... I hope someday you'll dignify that the principle of "an eye for an eye" died with Babylonia. It's isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. Do you seriously want our government to start promoting a form of torture? Do you know how huge of a step in the wrong direction that'd be?
Actually, it's not torture unless it's done for the purposes of causing pain. That's like comparing surgery to mutilation. All pain will be purely incidental... not avoided, but not deliberately sought out.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeZipster
And I think we've went WAY too far enough into what you seem to think is the "right" direction. When the most heinous crimes in the world are treated by just a few years in prison, and then another few in a very-loosely-and-easily-circumvented treatment program (with a less than 3% success rate).... sorry, that's just too far gone. It might be a step in the "wrong" direction... but it might be enough, barely, to counter the top-heaviness of the other.
I really hate stupid semantic games. Okay, udsuna, next time you hear about a doctor not giving their patients any anesthetic (which I'm presuming they wouldn't give the convicts you've mentioned) while performing surgery, be sure to bring up the fact that the pain may've been purely incidental... not avoided but not sought out. I'm sure that'd make it perfectly justified.
What happens in case of a mistrial? Don't you think it's a bit more alarming that our goverment tortured, possibly killed, and possibly dissected some one who was innocent as opposed to just killing someone? That's not right at all, and hearing that this happened wouldn't exactly instill good morals or faith in our goverment or in our youth.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
You're an extremist. Instead of fixing our current problem, which would be the aforementioned very-loosely-and-easily-circumvented treatment program you think we should use convicts as lab rats?
I never said we couldn't use anesthetics on them. Assuming that the anesthetic would corrupt the study by introducing a variable into what should be a "control" situation. Nothing semantic about it... and what's with people calling people names by proxy, lately?
And I'm not talking about ordinary criminals... I'm talking about *child molesters*... most criminals still have souls.
As far as mistakes in the judgement of the crimes... that's a fault that lays in a different system entirely.
And I'm not extreme. Your views and mine are bent in opposite directions, mine to the protection and aid of the society and the victems of these monsters. Yours to the very monsters I want to see removed, one way or another, from the society I seek to protect.
Maligning me is proving your point. It's obvious everyone who doesn't support you is supporting child molestation, right? :rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Yeah, if I said what was on my mind right now I wouldn't just be banned from EoEO. So I'm just going to put you on ignore.
Testing on animals for medical purposes is fine with me.
Nope and nope. I wasn't maligning you in the first place, and never implied (at least, didn't mean to imply) such a thing. And those who disagree aren't necessarily (there's always NAMBLA) supporting child molestation. But they're not doing enough to end it, either, as far as I'm concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeZipster
I eat them, why not inject them with cancers?
It sounds cruel, but I eat animals. I thank GOD for the food on my plate. Th people whom harvested it, and the animals and plants whom provided it. Either way, life breeds destruction. :ife is simply a balance of these things. Now I don;t see why everyone hates death so much, but I guess if it buys some of us a few years of life, it would be ok. It is important to be greatful and respect the cycles of life, but in the end, we have domain over animals.
Bipper
What he said, only in my case, a Goddess.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
I don't see how medical testing is much worse than eating meat, or using animals for fur/leather, or even for various domestic uses. Once you cross the threshhold from "this animal is a living being" to "this animal is now a tool for me to use as I see fit" you've already crossed that line no matter the way you use the animal as a tool.
i dont believe in animal testing and i dont eat meat, happy? :choc:Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeZipster
strangley no. You prolly eat plants, which are just as much alive, and do react to pain. The difference never was enough to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squinn
What my prespective (and prehaps you can agree to this) on animal eating/testing/using is simply that while we should benifit what we can from those creatures we have domain over, we should always respect life. When you eat a meal, give thanks (praying to GOD or your god or to the gaia form or w/e). I beleive that killing for trophies or trivial reasons is a major disrespect to life. Medical testing for benifit of humans and other animals would constitute as a use of life in my opinion.
Bipper
Works for me. But then, I'm known to be a vindictive b*tch.Quote:
I still think we'd be better off testing on child molesters. Give THEM cancer and see how it works.
You just stole my whole argument. :DQuote:
As for animal testing, I'm opposed to it. NOT because of the animals. Seriously... they're rats... not only that, they're genetically defective inbred lab-rats that'd never survive in the wild.
However, animal testing is *notoriously* unreliable. They delayed the production of medical penicillin for over a year, because it did strange things in rabbits. They accidentally allowed a drug that causes birth-defects to be used on humans. It was related to another drug we KNEW caused that problem, but this one didn't affect animals (unlike the first). So we thought it was safe. Oops.
Animal testing, for chemical medicine, is more dangerous than it's worth. As for surgical techniques... it's still hit-or-miss, but it does seem to yield enough results.
Actually, plants aren't 'just as much alive'- they have no central nervous system, no brain, and are no self-conscious, let alone sentient. They don't react to pain like animals do- it is simply another stimulus, if that.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
I agree that some testing is acceptable, but you have to be careful- what is the testing, and what is it for? If it's for bad stuff, like chemical weapons, then NO WAY. And even legal testing should be monitered extremely quickly. And clever animals like dolphins and apes and stuff shouldb't be used.
I do animal testing, a lot of it in my course. I'm studying to become a Vet Tech. It's necessary. Period. No one would like to go in for a surgery and have the doctor go "Right, well, this is my first time doing anything but reading books... Let's hope for the best!"
The good of medical animal testing outways the bad. I don't approve of all of it, mind you. Some of the research done seems like its just to see what happens.
I think animals should only be tested upon for medical reasons. After all, they are just animals - we eat them, kill them, make fashion items out of them, and sometimes just hunt them for good fun. I'm not one to stand for needless cruelty though (i.e, smearing lip-stick on a mouse's eyes).
I agree with you that it is hard to imagine a plant feeling pain. Let me jsut say this, a plant does not want to die. A plant does have negative stimulace to physical damage, and will react in a defensive way. They also know pleasure, as the know what is good for them. They will grow towards sunlight. Assiating these very human feelings with plants is a streach, as they are very different from humans. I just think its asanine to say that animals have feelings, but plants can't. It seems like a scapegoat for a vegetarian to justify there cause. Pretty much the only innocent food you can eat, is fruit, when you think about it. (at least that is all I came up with, but :D )Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Bipper
no vaccine ever created has not been tested on animals. polio, tb, smallpox, mmr, etc all used animal testing to gurantee success. seroxat though was tested on animals and so was that arithitis one that turned out to kill people.
so a bit of both is needed.
and if i can chomp on it and wear it why can't it i prod it with needles?
thanks to animal testing all animal testing protesters will be able to protest ~20 years longer :)
I personally don’t think that humans are any more important than animals in the great scheme of things, but I consider myself more important than everybody else. So I’ll have to say that animal testing is fine with me, as long is it isn’t just some frivolous thing.
And if it is frivolous…well, they should probably try to keep that quite…
To be fair, while some animal testing doesn't benefit humans directly (only a handful of animals have enough biological similarities to us to warrant any findings from them to be applicable to humans), it's still the best way of making sure you don't have any major human fatalities. Of course you can't accurately predict what will happen to humans once a drug gets out there, due to general genetic variance. However you can notably reduce the risk of fatality/illness via prior animal testing.
xDDDQuote:
Originally Posted by Not At All Reno
I agree with animal testing for medical purposes. And while in some cases the results can be misleading, it helps a lot.
Plants do not have the capacity to want. It will react according to certain direct stimuli. Saying a plant's "just as much alive" as an animal because they grow towards sunlight or have certain defensive mechanisms is like saying a desk is alive because it will resist breaking. The plant doesn't think, doesn't feel, doesn't cognizantly react - that's just what it does. Thinking and feeling is a very definite line. It's why we consider beating and/or starving dogs to be animal cruelty, but swatting a fly is normal.Quote:
Let me jsut say this, a plant does not want to die.
Plants are life. They react. Simple as that. My collective point is that while we obviously use plant and animal life, we should do so with respect. As for saying that a plant cannot want anything, this is correct (as far as we know) in the same exact sence that the post by Traitorfish was. What ever verb I use, I use it to stress relation.
Using your arguments, you cannot say that your pet dog wants, or feels as we do. Just because they have reactions, does not mean they "think" the stimulous is negative eh? Who knows if animals do really think and feel in that case... Apples and oranges man...
Bipper
Do plants feel? Yes, probably.
Is anyone in there right mind going to consider them in the same class as animals? No, they would have to be insane.
Thus, does it matter? Nope, not really.
Although it does mean that the first thing I’m going to do tomorrow morning is go outside and stomp on as many plants as I possibly can…
It does matter to the effect that people whom wish to protect animals, but refuse to protect the plants are hypocritical. I just wonder why (IF) people care so much, why do they create these false standards of life. Life is life. These people arn't against death, just against pain. Pain as in pain that people feel. Pain caused only by a nervous system? Seems a little staggering to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThroneofDravaris
Bipper
Do plants even have a nervous system?
I dunno, but I does not really matter much to my previous post if thats what your getting at. They definatley don't have a brain and spinal column :) Thats all the more useful I am :(Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara
I think the correct answer would be no.
Bipper
Well, see, ya kinda need a nervous system to feel pain. Therefor, my question stands... and we have officially gone from animal testing to "do plants feel pain". :rolleyes2
I'm too lazy to read all of this...so I'll just say what I think.
I've been vegetarian for over a year now, so of course, I'm all into animal rights and stuff. But, I'm not totally against animal testing. If it's for things like finding cures or what not, I'm for it. I'm very against testing cosmetics on animals. That's just stupid. Testing products on animals, if it's not for medical research, is just lame in my opinion. Animals feels just as much as humans do.
ugh, look at it metephorically, I really don't know how much clearer to say it. :rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara
In essese, pain is there to warn our bodies of danger that has/or can happen. Plants have reactions that simulate pain. If you want to look at it as they have no nervous system, so they don't feel pain or fear injury or death, that is very imbalanced. You want to personify the same characteristics on an animal, just because they have reactions closer to our own. Plants dont want to die :)
I know I will get yelled at again for saying want so I better spell it out again. By want, look at a dog who sees a stake waved in his face. He will want it (as far as we can tell, saying want is a pure personficiation though). If a plant wants water, it's roots will grow and reach deeper into the soil, or spread out to catch more saturating rains.
Bipper
plants do not feel pain. and they do not have reactions. to react in that manner requires never cells which they lack. venus fly traps if i rememer correctly are not controlled by a never cell process either but sensitive mechanics. normal plant cells are not capable of transmitting data in anyway like nerve cells.
Stop testing on animals full stop ;)
Plants and animals (and some fungi and bacteria) possess warning-trigger stimuli reactions. Also known as pain. Some plants are BETTER at it than others, but they all have it. If you poke the stems of milkweed, the plant pumps a more toxic form of sap into the wound. If you expose a plant to sunlight, the leaves and stem will bend towards the light (assuming it can).
If you define "pain" by a mechanical definition, then plants do indeed feel it. They can even *remember* it, in that they develop a quicker responce to a stimulus after having been exposed to it repeatedly. So, any definition that matters and extends to animal life, extends to most plants. The only definition of "pain" that doesn't, is the one that says only humans are capable of emotions such as that... an innacurate statement, I believe, but the only one that automatically denies plantlife.
Granted, plants experience and react to pain in different ways than us animals, but they DO experience and react (and attempt to avoid/prevent/retaliate for) "painful" stimuli.
Now, plants and their nature of pain aside, the question of both plant and animal pain remains the same: "Why should we care?"
tHANK YOU udsuna. cLOUD next time, read my post. kthx.
"Stop testing on animals full stop"
animal testing is required for vaccines. not one vaccine ever has been created without animal testing. and to see it works you need to give the animal a nasty disease. and it's a trial and error system. if the vaccine doesn't work then you try again. many cures are made in the same way.
there is no other way around it.
Again, this is wrong. A dog can feel pain (has a nervous system), can think (somewhat...not sentient, but capable of making choices) and can cognizantly react. Put two dogs in the same situation, and they will react differently, depending on their own experiences, how they were raised, etc. Put two plants in the same situation, and the only difference in reaction comes from genes.Quote:
Using your arguments, you cannot say that your pet dog wants, or feels as we do. Just because they have reactions, does not mean they "think" the stimulous is negative eh? Who knows if animals do really think and feel in that case... Apples and oranges man...
Again, feeling and cognizantly reacting is a fine line. Killing a fly is nothing, because a fly is more or less about as alive as a piece of grass - it has no concept of being alive. Humans do, as well as certain types of animals.
K, seems odd to simply call em wrong, but lets work with this. first you say that a dog can feel pain because it has a nervous system. As we have said and implied in previous posts, it depends on your view of pain, and even then, pain is metephorically used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Plants will also act differently in the same situation depending on what they are used too. If you move a tree from a normally sunny area, to a suddenly very dark area, it will react differently and slower than a tree that is from wisconsin, and knows to shed its leaves when the daylight hours become shorter. What controls this? I am not sure, but I would hazard a guess that they have some sort of process similar to that of our dog. My biology class did an experiment on the stimulants of plants, but that was so long ago. I should do some more reasearch again, it was kinda interesting.
The fact is, we don't know what a dog things when it sees a car comming at it, or what a plant thinks when the lawn mower comes at it. I would agree that plants are simpler, but I would also say that they have life, and if you say that animals feel pain, you must say that plants do too or prove me wrong.
What my whole argument is for, is to find out the answer to a simple question: "Why do animal rights types say that it is wrong to do things to animals because they can feel pain, when plants have many of the same reactions to negetive stimulus as animals do?" To add, many people won't eat animals, but have no issues eating a plant. Life ends either way.
I just find it interesting - sadly lol
Bipper
Yeah, listen to me and Bipper here. I, at least, have taken biology and botany classes. (I hated them with a passion, but I did have them). I still haven't heard anyone point out why it matters that animals and plants feel pain. I get to sleep perfectly well and comfy, even knowing that I am responsible for the ending of a dozen or so lives in my quest to continue my own metabolism. Not including the millions of incidental or accidental ones involving microbes and small things I step on.
Ok, if you kick a dog, doesn't it yelp? If you step on a cat's tail, doesn't it hiss? Do the same thing to a plant. Does it make any noise. No. Well, of course it can't. It doesn't have a mouth. I have no idea if plants feel the same as more complex animals do, but I'm guessing they don't. Or if they can, we can't hear their pain. What turns me off of meat, is that you can hear the pain of the animal. And it just creeps me out.
Planets cannot feel pain because planets do not have nervous systems.
must you all contradict people's beliefs
i am vegetarian yet you acuse me of being a plant killer
i have no problem with anyone else eating meat so lets knock it off please :choc:
I am not getting into this discussion, but I remember learning in Bio class why plants grow towards light *gets out old notes for he knows the names of the hormones* Auxins ^_^. Anyways Auxin is a growth hormone found in planets, yet in sunlight it dies. So what happend is that as the plant is put into sunlight, the sidefacing the sunlight will grow slower than the side of the leaf not facing the sunlight, therefore we get the effect of what appears to be growing towards the light.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
You've obviously never heard of how Compass Plants and Sunflowers work. They reach a maximum heights (about 7-8 feet), and without growing any larger, will point at the sun at all times during the day. Even when it's cloudy. Explain THAT with auxins.
And besides, we can explain our nervous system with chemical reactions and elecrical impulses. Just because it's mechanically logical, doesn't make the reality of it any less profound.
Again, no one's answered yet why we should even care if plants or animals feel pain. We use them as tools, nothing more. Even our pets are tools... or maybe I should say toys.
That was the same logic they used to have about African slaves. And Jews. Some still do. Be very careful with that kind of thought- you don't know how far it can take you.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Anyway, some humans with mental diabilities are not hugely more self-aware than certain animals. Do we kill them? No, we bloody well don't. You can't just divide speices into 'killable' and 'un-killable'.
Yes I can. I divide it into the species that can request that I treat them equally, and those that cannot. The first member of any species that is smart enough to demand equal rights, EARNS that right for all members of it's species, without hesitation.
I also extend that protection to dolphins, who save human lives for no reason but to be nice like that. But rodents and livestock and weeds are fair game.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. My rebuttle will be pointless, since you'll just make up more erroneous crap, but I'll do it anyway, if only for amusement value:Quote:
Plants will also act differently in the same situation depending on what they are used too. If you move a tree from a normally sunny area, to a suddenly very dark area, it will react differently and slower than a tree that is from wisconsin, and knows to shed its leaves when the daylight hours become shorter. What controls this? I am not sure, but I would hazard a guess that they have some sort of process similar to that of our dog.
No, a plant does not react with a "process similar to a dog." That is absurd. A plant reacts solely by genes. Something happens (stimulus), and then this is how each and every plant with those same genes reacts. There's no choice involved. Put two plants of the same species in the same situation, and they will react exactly the same, no matter prior experiences.
Dogs, on the other hand, have a distinct brain. They can learn. They can make choices. Put two dogs of the same species (even with identical genes) in the same situation, and their reactions can differ depending upon past experiences.
Also, what the hell does "pain is only a metaphorical concept" even mean? Pain is a result of a distinct nervous system, meant to show a danger. It's a very objective biological concept. Dogs can feel pain. Grass can't.
Firstly, don't be so rude; I kinda have some respect left for ya I have attended many biology classes in both high school and college. I can assure you I am not spitting 'facts' out of my ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
What I feel that you are saying, is that plants can't learn, and cannot apply lessons from past experience to any new instance of a problem from its past. Well, that is untrue, at least to several theories. I know you wont belive me with out links. So here is some reading material.Quote:
No, a plant does not react with a "process similar to a dog." That is absurd. A plant reacts solely by genes. Something happens (stimulus), and then this is how each and every plant with those same genes reacts. There's no choice involved. Put two plants of the same species in the same situation, and they will react exactly the same, no matter prior experiences.
Dogs, on the other hand, have a distinct brain. They can learn. They can make choices. Put two dogs of the same species (even with identical genes) in the same situation, and their reactions can differ depending upon past experiences.
- A bio chemestry look at learning at a plant/cellular level
- Cleeve Backster goes off the deep end and says that plants have ESP, but a lot of his work is less controversial and great. Read about his bizare thoughts here
- http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/clearstreets/84/intell.htm
It means just as it implies. If you know what a metephor is (And I know you do) you should be able to figure that what I am saying, is look outside your raw definition of pain being a sensation produced by the nervous system. Of course to personify this trait to a plant, would be another way to state this, but I just don't feel that saying 'Pretend a plant can feel pain' would be a strong phrase to use in this debate.Quote:
Also, what the hell does "pain is only a metaphorical concept" even mean? Pain is a result of a distinct nervous system, meant to show a danger. It's a very objective biological concept. Dogs can feel pain. Grass can't.
Bipper
No need to get defensive, all I was saying is what I was told in a High School Biology class. Anyways, with a quick research the same method is responsible for Sunflowers facing the sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
This is an atricle on phototropism, or how plants react to light
Phototropism
Here is what my Encarta has to say
Anyways I was just dropping a point in, and do not want to get involve into this discussion. (Not involved deeply anyways).Quote:
Originally Posted by Microsoft ® Encarta ® Encyclopedia 2005 © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
I think as long as flammables or anything that would hurt the animal aren't involved, it's alright.
you kow, there are many chemicals that run our bodies as well right? Its not so much the how, but the why.
I assume this was to me, and yes I know that there is. We are hormones. Somethings we know why, other we do not know.*vaguely remembers feedback loops* The sole reason that I posted the blurp was because I had the impression you meant plants grew towards the sunlight because it is good for them. Maybe I had the wrong impression, who knows. I apologize if I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Anyways, this has nothing to do with the main topic of the thread, which is something that I am not, considering some of the tension arising, trying to get involve in.