Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 88

Thread: Exemplification of the PHONIESS of the left.

  1. #41
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,876
    Amen (Given)
    772
    Amen (Received)
    2074
    Quote Originally Posted by seanD View Post
    Left media doesn't report these things because they care about black people, anymore than they care whether folks wear masks or not. If they did, they wouldn't be utter hypocrites and they'd make sure they get the facts straight in all these stories lest they create any misleading scenarios that might lead to a dangerous outcome. They just want the division for some reason. Maybe it gives them better ratings.
    This us nothing more than you venting your disdain for the media, a critical element to maintaining our freedom I would add. If/ When you feel like a more rational discussion of my post, feel free to create another reply to it and I'll try to respond in kind.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  2. #42
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    60,992
    Amen (Given)
    1235
    Amen (Received)
    22040
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    This us nothing more than you venting your disdain for the media, a critical element to maintaining our freedom I would add. If/ When you feel like a more rational discussion of my post, feel free to create another reply to it and I'll try to respond in kind.
    An independent impartial press is a crucial element to maintaining our freedom but we don't have that. What we have is the propaganda wing of a political party.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  3. Amen seanD, Esther, MaxVel, Cerebrum123, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  4. #43
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,909
    Amen (Given)
    376
    Amen (Received)
    1421
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    An independent impartial press is a crucial element to maintaining our freedom but we don't have that. What we have is the propaganda wing of a political party.
    A propaganda wing that will actually stage phony scenarios or oftentimes report misleading facts about sensitive situations in order to create emotional and potential violent outcomes.
    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

  5. #44
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,876
    Amen (Given)
    772
    Amen (Received)
    2074
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    An independent impartial press is a crucial element to maintaining our freedom but we don't have that. What we have is the propaganda wing of a political party.


    Unless you refer to Fox and breitbart, that is just absurd. What we have is a president and an administration that pushes up so brashly against fundamental moral boundaries and expectations for government that what must be reported about him is almost universally negative. If the input is nearly always negative, then an unbiased reporting engine will also generate a nearly always negative output. Bias is not determined by the output, but the relationship between the input and the output.

    The problem rogue is that you refuse to acknowledge how often what Trump does crosses red-line boundaries of morality and integrity in governance. These things MUST be reported or the free press is no longer the free press.

    One would think that the objective nature of a virus like covid-19 which can be evaluated according to the science and scientific principles would bring into focus, and least for those somewhat trained in the sciences, just how ridiculously biased Trump and his supportive sources are. They along with Trump have spread lies and misinformation about this virus, how it behaves, its mortality, its infection rate, what we need to do in response to it. OTOH, In what you call "A propaganda wing" are the FACTS and the actual analysis of the data and medical doctors and scientists on the front lines of this situation.

    And yet, you are unmoved. And yet, you still can write the above.
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-28-2020 at 02:55 PM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  6. #45
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,876
    Amen (Given)
    772
    Amen (Received)
    2074
    Quote Originally Posted by seanD View Post
    A propaganda wing that will actually stage phony scenarios or oftentimes report misleading facts about sensitive situations in order to create emotional and potential violent outcomes.
    To justify 'oftentimes' one or two examples will not suffice. You need to show a real pattern of deception. So far you are tying bringing into focus events like the Georgia law enforcement burying a murder of a black man (Arbery) on behalf of a former white police officer and the suffocation of George Floyd in Minnesota into your final sentence.

    That is just completely wrong. These events MUST be reported. Otherwise the press is not doing its job. If they are buried, they will not stop. And they MUST stop. You want to stop events like these, reports like these, consequential riots like these because what is reported is just the tip of the iceberg:

    1) ZERO tolerance for racist police officers. The police itself must promote an internal culture that does NOT look the other way as happened with George Floyd. Having each other's back can't mean tolerating what happened in Minnesota - standing there and watching a man die under the knee of a fellow officer without taking action to stop it.

    2) Aggressive action by all to root out racism from ourselves and our children. This is done by supporting efforts that will make a difference and governing officials that are not in the pockets of crime or big business. This is done by aggressively trying to understand why we are were we are. Uncovering what elements of racism are part of who we are. And by rejecting elements of our own culture that tolerate racially based ideas about people.

    3) Recognition that until all children, regardless of skin color, have equal opportunities from day one, whose limitations are not related to their skin color, racism still lives in our nation.

    Racism is in many ways part of who we are. If we don't actively combat it, we are most likely part of it.
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-28-2020 at 03:15 PM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  7. #46
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,871
    Amen (Given)
    1470
    Amen (Received)
    2037
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Unless you refer to Fox and breitbart, that is just absurd. What we have is a president and an administration that pushes up so brashly against fundamental moral boundaries and expectations for government
    That is precisely what is at issue here. Others disagree with you, to a greater of lesser degree. To argue that 'the media reports negatively on Trump, because he is so bad' is here begging the question. How do we know Trump is so bad? In large part, because of what and how the media reports. That's where we get most of our information about Trump's words and actions. But if the media is distorting things, then our perception of Trump is also distorted. I think it clear that the media is often distorting or even misrepresenting things. You can see that in Breitbart and Fox, but you overlook it in the channels that are 'against' Trump. But they are biased too.

    What is needed is an objective evaluation of what Trump says and does, and a similar evaluation of how the media reports on that.



    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    that what must be reported about him is almost universally negative. If the input is nearly always negative, then an unbiased reporting engine will also generate a nearly always negative output. Bias is not determined by the output, but the relationship between the input and the output.


    The problem rogue is that you refuse to acknowledge how often what Trump does crosses red-line boundaries of morality and integrity in governance. These things MUST be reported or the free press is no longer the free press.
    They must be reported truthfully, without spin or bias, or an agenda. Which, too often, we do not get. It goes both ways - there are outlets that favour Trump, and there are outlets that spin against him. I want to know what he actually says and does, in context and without attempts to influence my judgment.

    I don't see that kind of actual journalism or reporting anywhere. I have tried in the past to go over some news items with you and evaluate the bias and spin, and try to dig down to what was actually said, but you don't seem interested. I can only conclude that you are currently extremely prejudiced against Trump, and unwilling to even attempt to interpret anything he says or does charitably.

    Can you not see that (a) the truth, whether it paints Trump in a good or bad light, is what matters most of all; (b) it can be both - Trump might be a bad person and a bad President, AND the media be biased and distort their reporting (see here for the start of a discussion of some of the ways this happens)?



    Quote Originally Posted by Trump
    One would think that the objective nature of a virus like covid-19 which can be evaluated according to the science and scientific principles would bring into focus, and least for those somewhat trained in the sciences, just how ridiculously biased Trump and his supportive sources are. They along with Trump have spread lies and misinformation about this virus, how it behaves, its mortality, its infection rate, what we need to do in response to it. OTOH, In what you call "A propaganda wing" are the FACTS and the actual analysis of the data and medical doctors and scientists on the front lines of this situation.

    And yet, you are unmoved. And yet, you still can write the above.

    And yet you handwave away instances of media distortion and bias against Trump - please don't say 'there are none' - which damages your credibility. Severely.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  8. Amen Cow Poke, Cerebrum123, Chrawnus, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  9. #47
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,876
    Amen (Given)
    772
    Amen (Received)
    2074
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    That is precisely what is at issue here. Others disagree with you, to a greater of lesser degree. To argue that 'the media reports negatively on Trump, because he is so bad' is here begging the question. How do we know Trump is so bad? In large part, because of what and how the media reports. That's where we get most of our information about Trump's words and actions. But if the media is distorting things, then our perception of Trump is also distorted. I think it clear that the media is often distorting or even misrepresenting things. You can see that in Breitbart and Fox, but you overlook it in the channels that are 'against' Trump. But they are biased too.

    What is needed is an objective evaluation of what Trump says and does, and a similar evaluation of how the media reports on that.





    They must be reported truthfully, without spin or bias, or an agenda. Which, too often, we do not get. It goes both ways - there are outlets that favour Trump, and there are outlets that spin against him. I want to know what he actually says and does, in context and without attempts to influence my judgment.

    I don't see that kind of actual journalism or reporting anywhere. I have tried in the past to go over some news items with you and evaluate the bias and spin, and try to dig down to what was actually said, but you don't seem interested. I can only conclude that you are currently extremely prejudiced against Trump, and unwilling to even attempt to interpret anything he says or does charitably.

    Can you not see that (a) the truth, whether it paints Trump in a good or bad light, is what matters most of all; (b) it can be both - Trump might be a bad person and a bad President, AND the media be biased and distort their reporting (see here for the start of a discussion of some of the ways this happens)?






    And yet you handwave away instances of media distortion and bias against Trump - please don't say 'there are none' - which damages your credibility. Severely.
    I dont handwave away anything, but sonevof your more recent posts show you are not even the slightest bit interested in whether or not my opinions are based on truth. So if you actually have a motive beyond an opportunity for the sort of spiteful slam you posted a day or so ago, you'll need to show me you are actually listening to what I say and offer clearly thought out responses that pick up on what I'm actually saying.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  10. #48
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,871
    Amen (Given)
    1470
    Amen (Received)
    2037
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I dont handwave away anything, but sonevof your more recent posts show you are not even the slightest bit interested in whether or not my opinions are based on truth. So if you actually have a motive beyond an opportunity for the sort of spiteful slam you posted a day or so ago, you'll need to show me you are actually listening to what I say and offer clearly thought out responses that pick up on what I'm actually saying.

    Spiteful slams aren't the exclusive territory of everyone else apart from you on this board. If I crossed a line and made you upset, I apologise for that.

    Ox, you are very ready to 'call out' people supporting something you see as immoral and wrong - why can't I do the same? If I think you have done something immoral or wrong, why can't I use strong language - like you do - to call you out on that? It's not like you think that you alone are right about everything, is it?

    So why do you take it so personally when someone calls you out for your support of half-truths and falsehoods, for your pushing of divisive and damaging agendas and so on? Obviously you disagree, you feel that your views are correct, and moral. But so does the person who disagrees with you - they think their views are correct and moral, too.

    When you attack their morality - the whole 'how can anyone be a Christian and support X' thing - you are showing a fundamental disrespect for them as a person. If they are wrong, then reason with them, give them data, show them why your view is true. The issue is NOT who is better following Jesus - since both parties think they are doing that - the issue is 'what are the actual truths of the matter'?

    You are very quick to make a judgment of a matter. Other people want to take more time, to gather more data, and to think things over before they decide what their conclusion is. But when they do that, you rush in and imply that they are supporting evil simply because they have not yet come to the same conclusion you have.

    Look at your posts in the Arbery thread. This from your very first post, on the first page of the thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    Although that rhetoric has been used as a defense, nothing so far can even come close to justifying his murder or the actions taken that lead up to it.
    Littlejoe's post was a summary of some of the then known facts of the case - you implied it's just rhetoric. Instead of disputing the facts you imply that Littlejoe isn't interested in them.

    You then imply that posters are attempting to 'justify his murder' - implying a lack of honesty on the part of people who might not (yet) agree with you, BEFORE you have even heard or responded to them.

    That closes off discussion by creating two sides right from the get-go: (1) those who 'rightly and rigtheously' think it was an unjustifiable murder - oxmixmudd and all the good people, and

    (2) anyone who dares to hold a different opinion, or wants more data, or just suspends judgment. The bad people, evidently.

    You didn't even attempt to address any of the facts that Littlejoe offered, - except perhaps the last one - to put them in a different light, to explain why they are not relevant, to challenge them with other evidence.


    If you choose not to listen to me because you feel I have attacked you personally, or implied you are in some way morally defective, or think that I don't listen, then by that same standard no-one here has any need to listen to you.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  11. Amen Cerebrum123, Cow Poke, Chrawnus, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  12. #49
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,876
    Amen (Given)
    772
    Amen (Received)
    2074
    I will try to address this in good faith:

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Spiteful slams aren't the exclusive territory of everyone else apart from you on this board. If I crossed a line and made you upset, I apologise for that.
    Thanks for your apology..

    Ox, you are very ready to 'call out' people supporting something you see as immoral and wrong - why can't I do the same? If I think you have done something immoral or wrong, why can't I use strong language - like you do - to call you out on that? It's not like you think that you alone are right about everything, is it?
    I have no problem with "I think THIS is wrong.". I do get tired of (paraphrase of several posts from several people) "YOU are a hypocrite and scum, a false Christian". The more towards the former a post is, the more likely I am to take it seriously. The more towards the latter a post is, the more likely I am to dismiss it as a manifestation of hate. So to the extent your 'strong language' tends towards the former, I fully support your right to do so, and intend to take such comments seriously. But I will not take seriously posts that tend to the latter. Nor will I acknowledge anyone's (including my own) right to post that way.

    So why do you take it so personally when someone calls you out for your support of half-truths and falsehoods, for your pushing of divisive and damaging agendas and so on?
    I don't take personally a person thinking I'm supporting half-truths or falsehoods - when the topic is the ideas they believe are half-truths and falsehoods. What I take personally are attacks on my person. Personal attacks are meant to be taken personally, and its a bit disingenuous to fault the target for taking them so. If a person doesn't want me to take a post 'personally', then don't make it about my person.

    Obviously you disagree, you feel that your views are correct, and moral. But so does the person who disagrees with you - they think their views are correct and moral, too.
    I have my doubts it is symmetric. When a person must resort to comments like "You are a hypocrite", I tend to believe they don't actually believe their views are correct and moral. Not only that, they don't like having that brought into focus, and so they resort to the age old retort that I am not sufficiently good to be allowed to point out the conflict.

    Try me out max. If you think I am saying or supporting something morally wrong, instead of attacking me personally, discuss the deed (or words) directly and in a context of what we as Christians should be about. See what sort of response you get. If I lash out at you like others lash out at me, then you have a point. But If I take you seriously and discuss your point of view and my own rationally, then - as I said - you can know the situation is not, in fact, symmetric.

    When you attack their morality - the whole 'how can anyone be a Christian and support X' thing
    It's been a while since I used those words directly. So I think you are speaking from posts long past, some of which I've apologized for. At this point, I mostly don't try to characterize the rightness or wrongness of something in terms of what Jesus taught, especially (and ironically) if the person on the other end is a Christian.

    - you are showing a fundamental disrespect for them as a person. If they are wrong, then reason with them, give them data, show them why your view is true. The issue is NOT who is better following Jesus - since both parties think they are doing that - the issue is 'what are the actual truths of the matter'?

    Not discounting my comment above (IOW, at this point I avoid this), I still tend to believe calling to attention a clear divide between the teachings of Christ and a person's words is a valid response. From me or to me. The writer's in scripture do it, and they in fact command us to do it one to another. So, if there is a better way for me to word such a response, I'm all ears. But I disagree it is an inappropriate thing to do. As an aside, my understanding of scripture on this point is correcting a brother is a necessary thing - for them, for all of us. It is supposed to help keep us all on the right path, only this place has very few humble enough to accept correction of any kind. As an aside, I have not quite figured out the private vs public part. At first I did literally what scripture says, but using PM I was almost universally privately skewered for it without the attenuation a public post would require. So the next step - given there are no 'elders' as it were, is to respond publicly. Most of the time now I just don't even try the PM phase.

    But, as I said, mostly now I don't even try the 'this is not a Christian way of thinking'. There are none here who will respond positively to that. The sad reality is, on TWEB, in CIVICS, to call attention to the fact Christ or scripture teaches contrary to what is being said on any given subject is to evoke -from the Christians here- the most hostile response that they are capable of without violating forum protocol.


    You are very quick to make a judgment of a matter. Other people want to take more time, to gather more data, and to think things over before they decide what their conclusion is. But when they do that, you rush in and imply that they are supporting evil simply because they have not yet come to the same conclusion you have.

    Look at your posts in the Arbery thread. This from your very first post, on the first page of the thread:
    (included for context)

    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    lthough that rhetoric has been used as a defense, nothing so far can even come close to justifying his murder or the actions taken that lead up to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxvel
    Littlejoe's post was a summary of some of the then known facts of the case - you implied it's just rhetoric. Instead of disputing the facts you imply that Littlejoe isn't interested in them.

    You then imply that posters are attempting to 'justify his murder' - implying a lack of honesty on the part of people who might not (yet) agree with you, BEFORE you have even heard or responded to them.
    Yes and no. To back up just a bit and set a context: It is fairly well known that a common defense strategy in a rape case is to make it at least partially the women's fault. "She was acting slutty. She was flirting with him. She has had sex with a lot of men". The point is to try to say the rapist had less culpability in the rape because she was sending mixed messages, or because she generally is loose with men anyway, or that maybe she's lying about the fact he raped her after all.

    The general trend in the arbery thread you are quoting is paint Arbery as having had run-ins with the law, as having a temper etc all playing into that very same mindset. Somehow it is partially Arbery's fault. Somehow these men might have been justified to go after him and Arbery's death was somehow just an unforeseen consequence of a justifiable action. This is what focusing on Arbery's potential questionable behavior does - whether the people doing it intend that as a consequence or not.

    This has been my point all along. People here don't really understand what they are doing. They don't understand how they are playing into racial stereotypes. How they are being manipulated by them through the conservative media sources that appear to drive their arguments (in that their arguments match those of those sources). My point in the comment above is to make the point that - given there were 3 men pursuing a black man, two armed, when there was no active crime involved that could justify such a pursuit, these other things just don't matter. And all that pointing them out does is take the attention off the illegal actions of the pursuers and place blame on the man killed. AFAIK, the only thing that could possibly matter in this case would be concrete evidence these men observed him committing a felony, or where told directly by an immediate eyewitness of that same felony..

    For example, in this latest police murder of George Floyd in Minnesota - does it matter even a little bit if Floyd was in fact the person that tried to pass a counterfeit bill per the call they were answering? Here it is much more clear. And here, again, we see that in the police report an attempt was made to shift blame to Floyd by claiming he resisted arrest, only the video of the event shows no such attempt to resist arrest that could justify the force used against him, especially for a sufficient duration of time to kill him. Similarly, in the Arbery case attempts were and are made to shift blame to him by claiming he was in the house. In the end, no crime worthy of pursuit was ever committed, and so it just doesn't matter - except for the purpose of shifting blame.


    That closes off discussion by creating two sides right from the get-go: (1) those who 'rightly and rigtheously' think it was an unjustifiable murder - oxmixmudd and all the good people, and

    (2) anyone who dares to hold a different opinion, or wants more data, or just suspends judgment. The bad people, evidently.

    You didn't even attempt to address any of the facts that Littlejoe offered, - except perhaps the last one - to put them in a different light, to explain why they are not relevant, to challenge them with other evidence.
    I did address those facts Max, but not as you were expecting. I addressed them by saying the circumstances make them irrelevant.

    That one line is not my entire post. I said they don't matter wrt the case. I said it does not matter if they are true. IOW, The only fact that matters is that there was nothing done that could justify armed pursuit. Those other facts are only being talked about as a means to shift blame from the killers to Arbery.

    But Arbery X,
    But Arbery Y.

    See - there is no denying that consciously or unconsciously these other facts serve only one purpose, to shift blame from the men who killed him to Arbery.

    Here is littlejoe's post:

    Quote Originally Posted by littlejoe
    There's a lot more to the story than a black man killed while jogging. That narrative is pretty old now. He was seen/caught trespassing in a home under construction, in a neighborhood that had experienced a rash of burglaries and he ran away when he was discovered. 911 was called and 2 men attempted to stop him and detain him until the police arrived. One of the men was a retired Police officer and had a license to carry a gun. Ahmaud stupidly (IMO) attacked and attempted to wrestle the gun away and was shot multiple times.

    Lot's of things went horribly wrong here with a lot of mistakes on both sides.
    here is the entirety of my response, not just the one sentence:

    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd
    Although that rhetoric has been used as a defense[of the pursuit sic], nothing so far can even come close to justifying his murder or the actions taken that lead up to it. If you think someone is behaving suspiciously, pull out your cell and call the police. And you don't draw your gun on someone as a civilian UNLESS they threaten you first or they are in your house. If I was being detained by two citizens toting guns I would be afraid for my life, and that will provoke 'fight or flight'. Ahmed chose to try to fight.

    First - those are not all facts Max. There had not been a rash of burglaries in that neighborhood. There was a handgun stolen. And there had been MULTIPLE people seen on the associated property, not just Arbery. And there was not a 911 call about Arbery in the house on that day at that time. The only call was from 2 weeks prior. THAT RHETORIC, that littlejoe posted as 'the rest of the story' was RHETORIC, not facts, and it had indeed been used to justify the pursuit.

    And no, I did not take each claim one by one and address it. Spending time trying to sort out whether they were true or false actually acknowledges that their truth or falsity somehow matters in terms of the story, it allows blame to be shifted to Arbery. And my point was that given the actions of the men in pursuit, the truth or falsity of what he listed as 'the rest of the story' was irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxvel
    If you choose not to listen to me because you feel I have attacked you personally, or implied you are in some way morally defective, or think that I don't listen, then by that same standard no-one here has any need to listen to you.
    I have chosen to listen to you, and to point out what I think the balance is between what I've actually said and what you have perceived me to say. If you can see logical flaws in my analysis, and can respond without personal attacks, I'll be willing to go another round on this.
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-29-2020 at 11:02 AM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  13. #50
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,722
    Amen (Given)
    5606
    Amen (Received)
    23907
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Look again, the tail is flat, it stopped going down about a week after states started opening up.
    no. it is a downward slope.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •