NationStates Jolt Archive

I would say the Tiger, because it is very independant and has no quams about eating weaker animals.

I would say the Tiger, because it is very independant and has no quams about eating weaker animals.


The Be'elzebub or the Mephistopheles.

I would say the Tiger, because it is very independant and has no quams about eating weaker animals.

No. A bird, they have freedom of flight. :D

The Be'elzebub or the Mephistopheles.

Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for me!!!!

Definitely a cat. So long as they've got what they need, no one else really matters.

Ants probably. A queen to rule them all and a bunch of cogs in the machine.

Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for me!!!!

Laughing out Loud

Definitely a cat. So long as they've got what they need, no one else really matters.

"Cat" also makes one think of Jazz music, which to me is the Music of Freedom (from written score) and America's Music, so cat is a very good libertarian symbol.

Everybody wants to be a cat.
Because a cat's the only cat,
who knooows where its at.

Amoeba.

Ants probably. A queen to rule them all and a bunch of cogs in the machine.
Accept the queen doesn't rule. All the queen does is lie about and squeeze out eggs. Ants have no hierarchy, no boss, no underling. They are just goddamn ants. No will, no choice, no liberty, thus, no libertarians. Yet, they are highly Social, and almost . . . Communal, no?

Accept the queen doesn't rule. All the queen does is lie about and squeeze out eggs. Ants have no hierarchy, no boss, no underling. They are just goddamn ants. No will, no choice, no liberty, thus, no libertarians. Yet, they are highly Social, and almost . . . Communal, no?
No.

Indeed, the Queen not doing a damn thing fits pretty well in the analogy too as neither will the last person in Libertarianism with whom all wealth is accumulated. An entire system devoted to producing a repetition of the cycle, a new focus of libertarianism, a new wave of workers who do nothing but service this nexus, and no chance of changing role fits libertarianism completely. No will, no choice, no liberty, just ants in a libertarian world.

Spartiala, i had no problem with you being in that thread. it was the close-minded individuals I had a problem with.

As for libertarianism, I would say a bird, a dove maybe, or the cat. I don't like the idea of a tiger because it is too violent and most libertarians are against any use of force excpet when absolutely necessary and most are for a minimialist state with a purely defensive military.

It may surprise you, but I originally held the idea of free enterprise dear and in my early middle school years was an economic libertarian, if a very rudimentary one.

I'll leave you to your dealings. Wouldn't want me to annoy the Invisible Hand. :D

As for libertarianism, I would say a bird, a dove maybe, or the cat.

All too dependent on the company of their peers: come on, the asexual society-less amoeba is the only feasible option here.

Libertarians only attack from behind?

As for libertarianism, I would say a bird, a dove maybe, or the cat. I don't like the idea of a tiger because it is too violent and most libertarians are against any use of force excpet when absolutely necessary and most are for a minimialist state with a purely defensive military.

Bah.. I would say doberman pinscher.

http://www.gotpetsonline.com/pictures-gallery/dog-pictures-breeders-puppies-rescue/doberman-pinscher-pictures-breeders-puppies-rescue/pictures/doberman-pinscher-0001.jpg

http://www.moldovaflowers.com/teddy-bear-and-toys-to-Moldova-Ukraine/large-teddy-bear.jpg

All too dependent on the company of their peers: come on, the asexual society-less amoeba is the only feasible option here.


Undelia is going to kill us all when he wakes up :D

No.

Indeed, the Queen not doing a damn thing fits pretty well in the analogy too as neither will the last person in Libertarianism with whom all wealth is accumulated.

Well, actually the queen gives birth to all the workers, breeders and soldiers (and any other castes or sub-castes). Maybe you think giving birth is "not doing a damn thing," but even for ants, LIFE and EXISTENCE are not nothing.

An entire system devoted to producing a repetition of the cycle, a new focus of libertarianism,

All systems are devoted to producing repetition of cycles. That's pretty much what a system is about. Otherwise, if nothing ever repeats, where does the "system" come in?

a new wave of workers who do nothing but service this nexus,

Wait now you're talking about communism and socialism again. Don't confuse your terms.

and no chance of changing role fits libertarianism completely.

Right, if by "libertarianism" you mean "communism."

No will,

What? Libertarians are all ABOUT will. Try arguing with one about gun rights. Try arguing with one about gun rights while intruding on their property. You'll see there is indeed some will. ;)

no choice,

Free market is all about multitudes of choices. That's what the socialists are always complaining about - too many businesses, too many products, too much consumerism, too much redundancy. So I really don't know where you're getting "no choice" from, except maybe, I dunno, authoritarian anticapitalism.

no liberty,

Ha yes, those libertarians are just always preaching against liberty. We need Stalinism to free us!

just ants in a libertarian world.

No. Your ant analogy is flawed and shows a deep lack of understanding about both ants and libertarians. Try again, or more preferably, don't.

As a Libertarian I would have to say the Bald Eagle. Its an independent animal that has the freedom of flight and it doesn't depend on any governmental body to get its food and shelter.

As a Libertarian I would have to say the Bald Eagle. Its an independent animal that has the freedom of flight and it doesn't depend on any governmental body to get its food and shelter.

Bald Eagle is also, of course, America's symbol. But did you know that Benjamin Franklin didn't want it to be? He said that the eagle was far to lazy and carnivorous to represent America. He prefered the turkey as a national animal because it is hard working and industrius.

This is funny because a) turkeys are funny and b) a lot of people in this forum seem to think that America is best characterized as lazy and carnivorous.

Bald Eagle is also, of course, America's symbol. But did you know that Benjamin Franklin didn't want it to be? He said that the eagle was far to lazy and carnivorous to represent America. He prefered the turkey as a national animal because it is hard working and industrius.

This is funny because a) turkeys are funny and b) a lot of people in this forum seem to think that America is best characterized as lazy and carnivorous.

Yea I know that. I am a History buff. I'm also a History major. See this is why I chose the Bald Eagle. Not only is it liberated, and its independent. But its an American symbol. I gurantee you if the Libertarian party adapts the Bald Eagle as it mascot, then they will get more vote.

Well, actually the queen gives birth to all the workers, breeders and soldiers (and any other castes or sub-castes). Maybe you think giving birth is "not doing a damn thing," but even for ants, LIFE and EXISTENCE are not nothing. It has already been inferred the Queen reproduces servitude classes. The same is true of the libertarian Nexus, it provides employment and life sustaining goods while all wealth and resources go to it. Nice try though. Well, not really.



All systems are devoted to producing repetition of cycles. That's pretty much what a system is about. Otherwise, if nothing ever repeats, where does the "system" come in? Producing other things? If create a system for creating widgets, the system does more than reproduces itself. All Libertarianism does is reproduce all the wealth in one place over and over again forcing everyone else into servitude.



Wait now you're talking about communism and socialism again. Don't confuse your terms.
Nope, you merely have no grasp of libertarian, communistic, nor socialist ideologies. Socialism and Communism by their nature are completely decentralized and thus cannot have a nexus or focal point. Libertarianism focuses all wealth into a monopoly.


Right, if by "libertarianism" you mean "communism."
Once again, read before you speak.


What? Libertarians are all ABOUT will. Try arguing with one about gun rights. Try arguing with one about gun rights while intruding on their property. You'll see there is indeed some will. ;) Yes, that is what they claim it to be about. The fact is their system leads to fascism once instituted, the repression of will, the destruction of liberty.



Free market is all about multitudes of choices. That's what the socialists are always complaining about - too many businesses, too many products, too much consumerism, too much redundancy. So I really don't know where you're getting "no choice" from, except maybe, I dunno, authoritarian anticapitalism. Don't presume to judge my motives. You are 0 for 3 on judging political systems. What socialists complain about is capitalism repressing the worker by forcing them to serve or die. What socialists complain about is how capitalists steal part of the fruit of the working class' labor. What socialists complain about is people who don't know what the hell socialism is but like to talk alot.

The Free market as you ironically call it destroys choice through monopolization. Ultimately it will end up in a single megacorp which will become the "company store" of the industrial revolution. One company produces everything you buy and all your wages go back into buying those things. That is the end result of the libertarianism.


Ha yes, those libertarians are just always preaching against liberty. We need Stalinism to free us! Yes, because someone here was preaching stalinism. Oh wait, that was a bullshit strawman.



No. Your ant analogy is flawed and shows a deep lack of understanding about both ants and libertarians. Try again, or more preferably, don't.
The fact you think so only displays your own ignorance and your willingness to wear it as a badge of honor.

I see Libertarianism is akin to a chicken.
Not the whole chciken mind you...just the tits.

After all you know what they say......

Tiger. A loner, self sufficient and likes water(thats saying something for a cat.. now what is this water?).

Voted Scotsman, a day later and sober.

Headless Chicken.

A domesticated cat gone feral. Lives alone, is independant and doesn't mind fucking up the environment to get what it needs. Also smells kind of funky.

I say the tortise! Consider:

* Vaguely conservative, but are also green.
* Doesn't move terribly fast, but very determined.
* Impossible to change it's mind.
* Hardened shell -- attacks just get deflected.

http://www.gotpetsonline.com/pictures-gallery/reptile-pictures-breeders-babies/african-spur-tortoise-pictures-breeders-babies/pictures/african-spur-tortoise-0004.jpg

Humans

The skunk. They go where they want when they want, but they still avoid trouble when they can. Bigger critters that mess with them learn quickly to leave them alone. But they still occasionally get squashed by a car.

:)

Ooh, I know. The libertarian party can be represented by the dodo bird. This would be a good way of honoring this great and noble animal.

oh and if anyone is interested here is the wiki article on dodo birds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo

It has already been inferred the Queen reproduces servitude classes. The same is true of the libertarian Nexus, it provides employment and life sustaining goods while all wealth and resources go to it. Nice try though. Well, not really.

What exactly do you mean by libertarian "Nexus?"

And unfortunately for you, ants receive all the life sustaining goods and wealth and resources that they need, even the worker ants you pretend are somehow oppressed into "servitude." (As if the Queen gives them orders or something. Pfft.)

You make it seem like the Queen is somehow wealthier than the others. In what way?


All Libertarianism does is reproduce all the wealth in one place over and over again forcing everyone else into servitude.

Oh, is that what it does. Good to know. And you base this fine conclusion on....?


Nope, you merely have no grasp of libertarian, communistic, nor socialist ideologies.

This is what I missed most about General. People like you telling me what I do or do not understand in a shameful and flawed effort to make yourself out to be the educated and intelligent one, arguing against imbeciles. Good show!

Socialism and Communism by their nature are completely decentralized and thus cannot have a nexus or focal point.

Socialism is completely decentralized? Wow, look who doesn't seem to know what socialism is like. It isn't me. I think if you don't even understand basic economics we'll get nowhere with this argument.

Libertarianism focuses all wealth into a monopoly.

And you base this on...?

Once again, read before you speak.

Well, while I am reading, I'm *writing* and not *speaking.* Thanks for the tip though, I'll keep it in mind when I'm as confused about reality as you.

Yes, that is what they claim it to be about. The fact is their system leads to fascism once instituted, the repression of will, the destruction of liberty.

That's not a fact, that's your conclusion. And so far as I can tell it's based on nothing but your own ignorance.

Don't presume to judge my motives. You are 0 for 3 on judging political systems.

Right. Sure. Whatever you say.

What socialists complain about is capitalism repressing the worker by forcing them to serve or die. What socialists complain about is how capitalists steal part of the fruit of the working class' labor. What socialists complain about is people who don't know what the hell socialism is but like to talk alot.

Oh, they complain about what I already described as well.

Socialists are damn good at complaining about a lot of things.

The Free market as you ironically call it destroys choice through monopolization. Ultimately it will end up in a single megacorp which will become the "company store" of the industrial revolution. One company produces everything you buy and all your wages go back into buying those things. That is the end result of the libertarianism.

Point me out to a genuine monopoly that is not the result of government subsidization and unusual circumstances.

Yes, because someone here was preaching stalinism. Oh wait, that was a bullshit strawman.

Oh, so you can give out strawmen but not others? Hypocrite.

The fact you think so only displays your own ignorance and your willingness to wear it as a badge of honor.

Blah blah blah. I'm so wounded that you think I'm ignorant, no really, I mean it. Too bad this "fact," like your previous "fact," is just opinion trying really really hard. A+ for effort!

The skunk. They go where they want when they want, but they still avoid trouble when they can. Bigger critters that mess with them learn quickly to leave them alone. But they still occasionally get squashed by a car.

:)
You fool! High level Libertarians get Resist Car Based Attacks at around the same time they develop an Aura of Antagonize Communists. Further more, the Queen Libertarian has Immunity to Cars and Sheep, as well as Flaring *Ahem* (for reproductive purposes) and Time Stop. Additionally, she can only be defeated in single combat by a fellow Libertarian who must initiate combat with the ceremonial cry "Gettawey fromer ubich!"
(As a side note, the contester for the throne is given a metal power suit, but the Queen must use only her claws and wits).

I would say the Tiger, because it is very independant and has no quams about eating weaker animals.Who said anything about libertarians getting to pick they're own animal? Who do you think came up with the donkey for the Democrats and the elephant for the Republicans?

How about http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0503n.jpg

Now that I've been looking through all the suggestions, the tortoise seems best. Not only can it be insulting, it can also be taken as a compliment. Not only that, you could make a nifty design like the donkey and the elephant have for the two big parties. :D

How about http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0503n.jpg

Freedooomm!

Very nice, but I don't know how the Scots would react to being called an official animal. It might be taken as kind of racist.

Freedooomm!

Very nice, but I don't know how the Scots would react to being called an official animal. It might be taken as kind of racist.Start a poll then. I think you have enough choices to get a good one started...:D

Humans

Bingo! H. sapiens sapiens are (as far as can currently be determined) the only species to posses both sapience and sentinence, which are fundamental ti libertarian thought.

I agree to the (feral) Cat - any non-grouping breed anyway. Lions don't make the cut because of their male-dominated heirarchical system.

Bingo! H. sapiens sapiens are (as far as can currently be determined) the only species to posses both sapience and sentinence, which are fundamental ti libertarian thought.
But Jefferson is already our mascot. The question is rightly inferred to be of choosing an animal that is not Jeffersonian.

Start a poll then. I think you have enough choices to get a good one started...:D

Good call. There were about fourteen different suggestions and the forum only lets me use ten of them, so sorry to anyone who's animal didn't make the cut. I didn't make an "other" catagory, since voting "other" is kind of lame and I didn't want to have to cut the list down to nine animals.

the tiger is probably the top land predator on earth (barring humans)...

it hunts alone... is top dog wherever it is on earth.

tigers are known to kill bears

here are some advantages the tiger has over its top two competitors for the crown of "top land predator"

Bear
Tigers hunt deer, boar, other decently-sized animals, animals that have the ability to evade; bears hunt fish, nuts, berries, etc. The tiger is a far superior hunter. Bears are generally larger than tigers, but bears walk on the soles of their feet like humans do, while tigers (like wolves/dogs) walk on their toes... and because of that, are far quicker/faster/more athletic than bears are. Size would be the only advantage the bear would have over the tiger in a fight.

Lion
Lions hunt in groups to get their food... and the females do most of the hunting. Male lions might spend an entire day sleeping. Tigers, on the other hand, hunt generally alone... male and female alike must hunt to survive. Bengal tigers are larger and more powerful than african lions. Amur (Siberian) tigers are the largest cats in the world... weighing in at up to about 800 pounds. That's 250-300 pounds heavier than the average male african lion.
Because tigers are used to hunting by themselves, while lions hunt in groups, the tiger would have an edge in a 1-on-1 match-up with a lion (in addition to the aforementioned size and strength advantages).

Nooo! The turtles can't be losing to the felines!

For obvious reasons, our mascot should be the Party Animal!

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/art/aAnimalsDetail.gif

What exactly do you mean by libertarian "Nexus?" The owner of everything whom everyone else serves.

And unfortunately for you, ants receive all the life sustaining goods and wealth and resources that they need, even the worker ants you pretend are somehow oppressed into "servitude." (As if the Queen gives them orders or something. Pfft.) Just enough, yes. Would you like to continue parroting my points or would you like to attempt using the grey matter between your ears?

You make it seem like the Queen is somehow wealthier than the others. In what way?
Not wealthier per se but it is the ant all other ants serve. Without the queen and all that comes with it, an ant colony quickly dies out as would be true if you were to cut off the libertarian nexus and all they owned from the working class in a libertarian society. All ants must serve and protect it because if they lose it, they lose the colony. Protecting the interests of the queen become paramount.


Oh, is that what it does. Good to know. And you base this fine conclusion on....?
The tendency of wealth to centralize in unregulated markets. You know, the very concerns that caused anti-trust legislation to be created to begin with.



This is what I missed most about General. People like you telling me what I do or do not understand in a shameful and flawed effort to make yourself out to be the educated and intelligent one, arguing against imbeciles. Good show!
I missed it to, fortunately I found you to argue with and you probably have a mirror. Now we can both be happy arguing with imbeciles. :)


Socialism is completely decentralized? Wow, look who doesn't seem to know what socialism is like. It isn't me. I think if you don't even understand basic economics we'll get nowhere with this argument. Ignorant of basic economics fits you perfectly. Let us give a rundown of socialist economics, shall we?

Workers own the means of production, all of them. Power flows from the bottom up, managers are elected by workers to serve them and cna be removed at any time. By its nature, power is dispersed accross the base, not focused into managerial positions as is true of capitalism. Hence socialism is decentralized.


And you base this on...?
The tendency of wealth to centralize in unregulated markets.

Well, while I am reading, I'm *writing* and not *speaking.* Thanks for the tip though, I'll keep it in mind when I'm as confused about reality as you. Well, you have quite a fall if you want to be as highly confused about reality as I am. For the record, anyone not insistant upon being a pedantic pussy wouldn't stress the point of speech as opposed to writing online. If you want a remedy for your confusion, I suggest you actually try reading some socialist writings. Try Lucaks, Adorno, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Benjamin, Engles, hell, I'll even take Derrida. Maybe once you have shown you have studied socialism a bit I'll give a crap what you think of it.


That's not a fact, that's your conclusion. And so far as I can tell it's based on nothing but your own ignorance. Nope, based models constructed off of unregulated markets which produced such things as the robber barons.



Right. Sure. Whatever you say.
Aren't you the clueless twat who just insulted me for using "say" instead of "write"?


Oh, they complain about what I already described as well.

Socialists are damn good at complaining about a lot of things.
Funny, I know socialists and yet they don't seem to complain about those things.


Point me out to a genuine monopoly that is not the result of government subsidization and unusual circumstances.
Point me to a libertarian market system from which we could make a valid reference.


Oh, so you can give out strawmen but not others? Hypocrite.
I made no strawmen, your position of insane libertarianism simply leads to ends you don't recognize. My identifying those ends is not a strawman. In addition to classes on economics, I suggest you take some classes on logic too. You need them both sorely.


Blah blah blah. I'm so wounded that you think I'm ignorant, no really, I mean it. Too bad this "fact," like your previous "fact," is just opinion trying really really hard. A+ for effort!

It isn't a fact that you think so? Hell, let's tack english classes on there for a trifecta.

You fool! High level Libertarians get Resist Car Based Attacks at around the same time they develop an Aura of Antagonize Communists. Further more, the Queen Libertarian has Immunity to Cars and Sheep, as well as Flaring *Ahem* (for reproductive purposes) and Time Stop. Additionally, she can only be defeated in single combat by a fellow Libertarian who must initiate combat with the ceremonial cry "Gettawey fromer ubich!"
(As a side note, the contester for the throne is given a metal power suit, but the Queen must use only her claws and wits).

I like you. You're silly. :)

The owner of everything whom everyone else serves.

And this "owner of everything" would be...?

God? That's the only one I can find that fits that definition. Either way, doesn't sound like libertarianism you're describing.

Just enough, yes.

Thing is, the queen receives "just" enough as well.


Not wealthier per se but it is the ant all other ants serve. Without the queen and all that comes with it, an ant colony quickly dies out as would be true if you were to cut off the libertarian nexus and all they owned from the working class in a libertarian society.

You're really reaching here. No one "serves" the queen just because without the queen an ant colony quickly dies out. In fact, without the queen, the nursing ants can inject chemicals into eggs that help towards the production of another queen. The queen is just another part of the ant colony, no more "served" than any other ant.


Not wealthier per se but it is the ant all other ants serve. Without the queen and all that comes with it, an ant colony quickly dies out as would be true if you were to cut off the libertarian nexus and all they owned from the working class in a libertarian society. All ants must serve and protect it because if they lose it, they lose the colony. Protecting the interests of the queen become paramount.

All that you've said is the queen is more valuable, not wealthy. Food resources are distributed pretty equally throughout the whole colony through trophylaxis.

The tendency of wealth to centralize in unregulated markets. You know, the very concerns that caused anti-trust legislation to be created to begin with.

Wealth has a tendency of centralizing, period. If it's not the corporations, it's the government. Libertarianism at least has it in the hands of those who really are dependent on market factors (as opposed to guys with guns) for their wealth.

I missed it to, fortunately I found you to argue with and you probably have a mirror. Now we can both be happy arguing with imbeciles. :)


Hehe. That was funny. But I don't need a mirror, as you can see I am satisfied right now. ;)

Ignorant of basic economics fits you perfectly. Let us give a rundown of socialist economics, shall we?

Workers own the means of production, all of them. Power flows from the bottom up, managers are elected by workers to serve them and cna be removed at any time. By its nature, power is dispersed accross the base, not focused into managerial positions as is true of capitalism. Hence socialism is decentralized.

"Socialist economics" is not the same as "economics." Me knowing economics does of course limit me, in that I don't read up on Marxist philosophy and consider that economic knowledge, so if you want to call me ignorant of Marxism that would work.

In practice however, employees in socialism own about the same as they do in a capitalist society where employees own shares in the corporation. (Or even non-employees owning shares.) That is to say, not very much.

And frankly, all you're doing is describing a different system of business management, which in capitalist societies are just as likely to spring up. Not all corporations are run the same.

Most importantly, in socialism, the government - that is, the guys with guns remember - is even more powerful than corporate execs. So the overall power distribution is only less equal, with the added problem of "the boss" more likely to be a government bureacracy.

Well, you have quite a fall if you want to be as highly confused about reality as I am.

True enough.

For the record, anyone not insistant upon being a pedantic pussy wouldn't stress the point of speech as opposed to writing online. If you want a remedy for your confusion, I suggest you actually try reading some socialist writings. Try Lucaks, Adorno, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Benjamin, Engles, hell, I'll even take Derrida. Maybe once you have shown you have studied socialism a bit I'll give a crap what you think of it.

We're talking about libertarianism and ant colonies here, remember. ;) I never made pretentions of a deep understanding about Lucaks, Adorno, Marx or any other whining, petulant and self-absorbed assholes.

As for being a pedant... perhaps. A pussy? Am I supposed to get mad here because you know a naughty word?

Nope, based models constructed off of unregulated markets which produced such things as the robber barons.

I suppose if it's fair to describe that era as unregulated market, it is fair for me to describe the results of Mao's and Stalin's mass-murders - the worst crimes committed in history - to socialist economics too.

Aren't you the clueless twat who just insulted me for using "say" instead of "write"?

Insulted you? No, I pointed out a fact. Look who can't handle a minor correction viz a viz "reality."

Funny, I know socialists and yet they don't seem to complain about those things.

I know socialists. And they do. Don't trust me, just look carefully at every thread in this forum.

Point me to a libertarian market system from which we could make a valid reference.

True. There aren't any. This is why your description of it's supposed effects is made in ignorance.

I made no strawmen, your position of insane libertarianism simply leads to ends you don't recognize.

Interestingly enough, I'm not a libertarian. I just think it's absolute bollocks to describe an ant colony as being more like libertarianism than communism or socialism.

My identifying those ends is not a strawman. In addition to classes on economics, I suggest you take some classes on logic too. You need them both sorely.

I've taken several courses in economics. I assume you failed logic, since you don't even recognize (or you pretend not to) your own strawmen. I'm not going to bother pointing them out twice. Really, considering your frequent use of ad hominem, your position on logic is tenuous at best.



It isn't a fact that you think so? Hell, let's tack english classes on there for a trifecta.

You said, The fact you think so only displays your own ignorance and your willingness to wear it as a badge of honor.

And that's not a 'fact.' Please, try to keep up, I shouldn't have to throw your own weak accusations back at you simply because you forget you made them.

Ants probably. A queen to rule them all and a bunch of cogs in the machine.
Hmm, I thought ants would represent a far more collectivist ideology.

For the record, anyone not insistant upon being a pedantic pussy wouldn't stress the point of speech as opposed to writing online.

Aren't you the clueless twat who just insulted me for using "say" instead of "write"?

Let's keep it civil now, Xhadam. There's absolutely no reason to use such words in a debate.

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~