Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Besides, Russia isn't stupid. What they did in the Ukraine worked. That's exactly how it's going to happen in every other ex-Soviet bloc nation. There's going to be a rebellion by surprisingly well armed Putanists, followed by annexation by Russia.

    Frankly, I hate to agree with Turmp and Gingrich but he's right.
    America could see the Baltic states fall to Russia, if it were just them at stake. But with them being in NATO, it's the alliance that's at stake. America would think twice. Especially if they believed Poland and the rest of the ex-Soviet block were next. That's a scenario we are familiar with, from Germany's annexations in the 1930s. I think the West learnt the lesson of appeasement, even if Trump didn't.

    Bear in mind that the answer to little green men in the first instance is not nukes, it's troops on the ground. Ukraine sent it troops onto the ground in the Donbass but ultimately lost to the little green men because when push came to shove, Russia brought out the heavy artillery and regular mechanised forces - neither of which would be so effective against NATO airpower.

    I doubt Putin would want to risk conflict with the US over the Baltics states either, but Trump and Gingrich are wrong because their words may encourage him too.

  2. #42
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Damajin View Post
    Blaming Russia for everything was old news 50 years ago, but so much of the Establishment is made up on one trick ponies that they can't help but reuse the same tricks over and over again, whether it be the Blame Russia circle jerk or the Destabilize then Democratize resource targets, on and on. Gingrich putting on his double thick Neocon jammies and throwing a fuss shouldn't surprise anyone.
    Russia is not helping itself by invading Ukraine.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post

    Russia has just gotten back in the game. There won't be an invasion, it's as much a waste of their energy to do it as it is ours to counter it. They don't want a protracted war against their military betters any more than we do. So they'll fund revolutions and flip governments. It's a great little pasttime that all world powers do.
    So if the US is not going to help NATO countries, why are you guys still in it?

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrak View Post
    Russia is not helping itself by invading Ukraine.

    - - - Updated - - -


    So if the US is not going to help NATO countries, why are you guys still in it?
    Except it didn't, but sure keep running that same tired line out there.
    The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire

    Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.

    Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.

  4. #44
    Banned JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    28,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Damajin View Post
    Except it didn't, but sure keep running that same tired line out there.
    Oh right, they are on vacation in Crimea, my bad.
    Russia should be trusted 100%.
    Last edited by JohnBrown1917; 2016-07-21 at 09:41 PM.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Damajin View Post
    Except it didn't, but sure keep running that same tired line out there.
    You really have to be a moron to keep denying that. Which you should in the NATO/Russia thread so the rest of us can laugh at you.

  6. #46
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    And what? Others are "Looking out for AMERICA!"?
    Looking out for themselves, but are ultimately invested in keeping the boat afloat. Clinton was,able to secure the party favorite position with absolutely no opposition because of how strong she is in the party... Her power base rests in pleasing the Democratic party and encouraging just enough social progress, likely just by securing a liberal justice, to keep the fact that she's not a populist from becoming a problem. Without a strong US and strong Democratic party.... She really doesn't have all that much support

  7. #47
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Between Skroe's words and the article, the accusation seems to be that a President Trump is good for Russia and bad for most everyone else, whether it's because of mere incompetence or a more deliberate effort to secure his own future business potential and not because of some nefarious plot to revive the Russian superpower or anything else out out of loyalty to and love of Russia. They provide a clear case for why they believe this to be so. While you may or may not agree with any iteration of such accusations, it really doesn't smack of McCarthyism, which is more akin to the tendency of some Republicans to baselessly and incorrectly accuse anyone who supports a leftward shift of any kind of communism, socialism, Marxism, etc, and is little more than slandering people through accusing them of supporting scary words or, worse, being in league with scary words, as your own entries support.
    McCarthyism is the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.
    Which is basically the modus operandi of a number of posters in here. Do you argue that is not the case? Or perhaps do you also think that posters in here are "paid by Putin"?

  8. #48
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrak View Post
    Oh right, they are on vacation in Crimea, my bad.
    Russia should be trusted 100%.
    What's wrong with wide scale troop movements and coordinated activity on vacation? Keeps people from getting lost while sightseeing. And all those human trafficking problems that Ukraine has... Gotta come armed for self defense while looking at all the strategically important sites. You are such a naysayer and buzzkill

  9. #49
    Deleted
    Just read something about USA-Baltic States relationships. It didn't start when Estona joined NATO. This kind of trash talking is stupid as hell. Every country on this planet is miliatary weaker than USA. So what? USA don't need allies? Baltic States as NATO members is so huge tactical, strategical adavantage of NATO over Russia, you can't imagine on how many levels.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    You've managed to fit a whole hell of a lot of train wreck into just a few words.

    First of all, I read the definitions you posted before I replied to you and even if I hadn't, I am quite familiar with the term. On the specific accusation of Skroe engaging in McCarthyism that you made earlier, not all accusations associating someone with some undesirable aspect or another are McCarthyism or even anything like it. As I already explained to you, both he and the sources he uses made a very clear case with specific examples for why they feel Trump is a benefit to Putin. Whether they are right or wrong or you agree or disagree is irrelevant to the specific concern of McCarthyism, which is a charge of deliberately trying to harm political opponents through guilt by association where there is in fact no association for them to be guilty of in the first place and no good reason to think there is. The allegations made by the articles in question actually serve to increase, not restrict, dissent and political criticism, as they do nothing but attack Donald Trump. They are sitting there accusing everyone who likes Trump of being a bunch of Russia lovers or traitors. They're criticizing the policies of a particular individual running for public office. If anything, the real irony of this situation is that your leverage of "McCarthyism" is much closer in nature to a genuine case McCarthyism than that which you are attacking.

    Secondly, as far as "a number of posts in here" goes, this is an utterly worthless charge both in that it's irrelevant to what I posted and that it's deliberately nonspecific to avoid having to be defended in any real way. We're not talking about "a number of posters." I specifically replied to you on the topic of Skroe's post and the articles he cited. To that end, while I do think he gets a bit carried away in how he refers to other posters at certain points, I see no accusation that anyone is a paid shill for Putin, except in your own posts. All he accused you of was playing into Putin's hands.
    Yep. Nailed it 100%.

    "Putin's Lackey" is a nice way of reviving an old Cold War phrase for people like Djalil. It's two words, first word begins with a U. Second word begins with an I. And it's pretty rude.

    But yeah. You got it exactly. As I've said on many occasions, I don't believe anyone, even the most diehard Putinistas on MMO-OT are paid Russian trolls. Some others on the Team West contingent think otherwise, but I think we're too small and obscure a target. If you go to the Guardian CiF threads, you see them there. And they are legion.

    Djalil is rather simple really. It's 2016... and for three years now he's been holding onto dear life to the concept of Peace-by-Pan-Eurasian political and economic integrate. He, like me, is a big believer in the European Union. However unlike me, he closes his eyes to the Russian threat on the Eastern border, that is not stupid and knows full well a strong Russia cannot survive being bordered by a strong EU to the West and a strong China in the East, and a strong America everywhere, especially in space, cyberspace and it's global network of alliances. Djalil rather ignore, obfuscate and excuse Russian bad behavior because he rather be right than evolve his position. Or to put it another way, he wants to validate his world view, no matter what is actually happening in the world.

    Djalil is not wrong in that economics can be the cement that keeps continental peace. But he's dead wrong in that countries are unwilling to sacrifice economic benefit for strategic/political benefit. Russia's campaign against the US is the side show really. The real target is the European Union and NATO. Both of them. it was the European Union, not America and not NATO, whose discussions with Ukraine began that whole affair. Djalil has a vision, but he refuses to take a stand against Russia and Vladmir Putin who are all to happy to weaponize people like his rather Anti-American viewpoints, but doing so while really working directly against the interest of people like Djalil.

    If Djalil truly cared about the idea of Europe like he says he does, he would be at the very front of the anti-Putin army because there is no greater threat to Europe than the man who is systematically trying to destroy it by funding the far right AND far left across the entire continent who have one thing in common - they reject European integration.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    He's not wrong in a geopolitical sense. Sorry Estonia, but you're really not worth coming to blows with Russia over. There are a lot of NATO members where this is pure fact, they just aren't worth it and they really shouldn't be in NATO at all. Even military commanders in NATO and some European nations have commented that Russia would be able to overrun those countries and dig in before we even get there. Then we're fighting an up-hill battle against entrenched forces with strong supply lines over what? Estonia? Latvia?

    Besides, Russia isn't stupid. What they did in the Ukraine worked. That's exactly how it's going to happen in every other ex-Soviet bloc nation. There's going to be a rebellion by surprisingly well armed Putanists, followed by annexation by Russia.

    Frankly, I hate to agree with Turmp and Gingrich but he's right.
    The US would absolutely defend Estonia and any other NATO country. ABSOLUTELY. Why? Because if we didn't, it would undermine our promise of protection on a global scale. We are STILL recovering from Barack Obama letting Bashar Al-Assad waltz over his red line, and it will take another couple of years and an new President to fully recover. But make no mistake, that fuck-up on Obama's part, was the strategic blunder of the decade. That was Obama's Iraq, in a less obvious kind of way. Yes, it was that bad. His team doesn't believe it, but the US National Security establishment has spent the past almost-three years repairing the damage he did in a week. And that's coming from someone who did not want to bomb Syria whatsoever.

    As for NATO, you're overlooking the most likely scenario. Would Russia ever try anything in the Baltics, the US would try to limit it. It would assist the baltics military and fight Russia. it would have help maybe from Poland and Romania and the United Kingdom. But it would, on purpose, try and keep NATO out of it. Missile strikes (conventional here) on German industry, air raids on Norway, and the sinking of Italian warships is not something we'd rapidly jump to especially when the US Military, properly positioned, would be a bloody meat grinder for Russia's poorly trained, under-equipped and under-experienced military.

    Look at it from this perspective. The US would not want World War III. By keeping NATO out of it, not only do we prevent wider damage to Europe, but we stop escalation then and there. Without NATO, with the US flying troops on airliners to Europe to man vehicles and equipment already pre-positioned, the US and Russia would have a 1:1 parity pretty much. With all of NATO mobilized, Russia is out numbered around 4:1.

    Consider that the US approach will be to offer Russia as many off ramps as possible to return to the status quo ante, and do it early. Because the alternative is (and the longer the fight goes on) we begin strike inside Russia, beginning with a SEAD campaign against Kalingrad, the outskirts of St. Petersberg, and then Russia, to destroy Russia's capacity to make war. We do that, this fight goes nuclear very quickly because Russia will not win any military campaign against the more modern and battle harded US Military that could strike it from it's soft underbelly in Central Asia if need be. Keep in mind: the US can strike inside Russia at any time, Russia, without resorting to Nuclear Weapons, cannot do the same.

    So we'd try to keep it small, so that only a few hundred troops die, and Germany, France and China drag us to the negotiating table kicking and screaming, and nothing is accomplished, aside preventing the end of the world. That is much more likely than an all-hands-on-deck moment for NATO. You'd see that moment when Russia pre-emptively nukes a German-American base to prevent those US troops from joining the fight.

  11. #51
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    You've managed to fit a whole hell of a lot of train wreck into just a few words.

    First of all, I read the definitions you posted before I replied to you and even if I hadn't, I am quite familiar with the term. On the specific accusation of Skroe engaging in McCarthyism that you made earlier, not all accusations associating someone with some undesirable aspect or another are McCarthyism or even anything like it. As I already explained to you, both he and the sources he uses made a very clear case with specific examples for why they feel Trump is a benefit to Putin. Whether they are right or wrong or you agree or disagree is irrelevant to the specific concern of McCarthyism, which is a charge of deliberately trying to harm political opponents through guilt by association where there is in fact no association for them to be guilty of in the first place and no good reason to think there is. The allegations made by the articles in question actually serve to increase, not restrict, dissent and political criticism, as they do nothing but attack Donald Trump. They are not sitting there accusing everyone who likes Trump of being a bunch of Russia lovers or traitors. They're criticizing the policies of a particular individual running for public office. If anything, the real irony of this situation is that your leverage of "McCarthyism" is much closer in nature to a genuine case McCarthyism than that which you are attacking.

    Secondly, as far as "a number of posters in here" goes, this is an utterly worthless charge both in that it's irrelevant to what I posted and that it's deliberately nonspecific to avoid having to be defended in any real way. We're not talking about "a number of posters." I specifically replied to you on the topic of Skroe's post and the articles he cited. To that end, while I do think he gets a bit carried away in how he refers to other posters at certain points, I see no accusation that anyone is a paid shill for Putin, except in your own posts. All he accused you of was playing into Putin's hands.
    Ok. Since you decided to pick this up let's clear a few things before you continue.
    By accusing Skroe of McCarthyism I was NOT talking about the content of his post but (considering the meaning of the word) rather talking about the terminology he uses and the way he puts things forward.
    You know the meaning of the word? Then why do you keep talking about the content of his post?
    I could disagree with you now. No problem.
    I could disagree with you now and accuse you of all sort of stuff without evidence just to achieve a silly political point and THAT is McCarthyism.
    Is that point clear?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Yep. Nailed it 100%.

    "Putin's Lackey" is a nice way of reviving an old Cold War phrase for people like Djalil. It's two words, first word begins with a U. Second word begins with an I. And it's pretty rude.

    But yeah. You got it exactly. As I've said on many occasions, I don't believe anyone, even the most diehard Putinistas on MMO-OT are paid Russian trolls. Some others on the Team West contingent think otherwise, but I think we're too small and obscure a target. If you go to the Guardian CiF threads, you see them there. And they are legion.

    Djalil is rather simple really. It's 2016... and for three years now he's been holding onto dear life to the concept of Peace-by-Pan-Eurasian political and economic integrate. He, like me, is a big believer in the European Union. However unlike me, he closes his eyes to the Russian threat on the Eastern border, that is not stupid and knows full well a strong Russia cannot survive being bordered by a strong EU to the West and a strong China in the East, and a strong America everywhere, especially in space, cyberspace and it's global network of alliances. Djalil rather ignore, obfuscate and excuse Russian bad behavior because he rather be right than evolve his position. Or to put it another way, he wants to validate his world view, no matter what is actually happening in the world.

    Djalil is not wrong in that economics can be the cement that keeps continental peace. But he's dead wrong in that countries are unwilling to sacrifice economic benefit for strategic/political benefit. Russia's campaign against the US is the side show really. The real target is the European Union and NATO. Both of them. it was the European Union, not America and not NATO, whose discussions with Ukraine began that whole affair. Djalil has a vision, but he refuses to take a stand against Russia and Vladmir Putin who are all to happy to weaponize people like his rather Anti-American viewpoints, but doing so while really working directly against the interest of people like Djalil.

    If Djalil truly cared about the idea of Europe like he says he does, he would be at the very front of the anti-Putin army because there is no greater threat to Europe than the man who is systematically trying to destroy it by funding the far right AND far left across the entire continent who have one thing in common - they reject European integration.

    - - - Updated - - -



    The US would absolutely defend Estonia and any other NATO country. ABSOLUTELY. Why? Because if we didn't, it would undermine our promise of protection on a global scale. We are STILL recovering from Barack Obama letting Bashar Al-Assad waltz over his red line, and it will take another couple of years and an new President to fully recover. But make no mistake, that fuck-up on Obama's part, was the strategic blunder of the decade. That was Obama's Iraq, in a less obvious kind of way. Yes, it was that bad. His team doesn't believe it, but the US National Security establishment has spent the past almost-three years repairing the damage he did in a week. And that's coming from someone who did not want to bomb Syria whatsoever.

    As for NATO, you're overlooking the most likely scenario. Would Russia ever try anything in the Baltics, the US would try to limit it. It would assist the baltics military and fight Russia. it would have help maybe from Poland and Romania and the United Kingdom. But it would, on purpose, try and keep NATO out of it. Missile strikes (conventional here) on German industry, air raids on Norway, and the sinking of Italian warships is not something we'd rapidly jump to especially when the US Military, properly positioned, would be a bloody meat grinder for Russia's poorly trained, under-equipped and under-experienced military.

    Look at it from this perspective. The US would not want World War III. By keeping NATO out of it, not only do we prevent wider damage to Europe, but we stop escalation then and there. Without NATO, with the US flying troops on airliners to Europe to man vehicles and equipment already pre-positioned, the US and Russia would have a 1:1 parity pretty much. With all of NATO mobilized, Russia is out numbered around 4:1.

    Consider that the US approach will be to offer Russia as many off ramps as possible to return to the status quo ante, and do it early. Because the alternative is (and the longer the fight goes on) we begin strike inside Russia, beginning with a SEAD campaign against Kalingrad, the outskirts of St. Petersberg, and then Russia, to destroy Russia's capacity to make war. We do that, this fight goes nuclear very quickly because Russia will not win any military campaign against the more modern and battle harded US Military that could strike it from it's soft underbelly in Central Asia if need be. Keep in mind: the US can strike inside Russia at any time, Russia, without resorting to Nuclear Weapons, cannot do the same.

    So we'd try to keep it small, so that only a few hundred troops die, and Germany, France and China drag us to the negotiating table kicking and screaming, and nothing is accomplished, aside preventing the end of the world. That is much more likely than an all-hands-on-deck moment for NATO. You'd see that moment when Russia pre-emptively nukes a German-American base to prevent those US troops from joining the fight.
    I never once excused Russia's bad behaviour. You're once again engaging in modern McCarthyism. Accusations void of proof or content, in order to achieve a political point.
    Skroe, you're 32. Do you really need to be always so obnoxious and offensive on an internet forum?

  12. #52
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    At this point I'm just going to say you clearly don't understand the term as well as you think and I'm not terribly interested in further attempts to twist things to justify its use. As I said, there is irony in that your own words are more in line with the practice of McCarthyism than the ones you're criticizing Skroe for.
    "twist things to justify its use"?
    I linked the definition twice.

    How exactly do you accuse me of McCarthyism? Nixx, I appreciate the time spent debating, but you clearly missed the point by a mile here.

  13. #53
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    I didn't accuse you of McCarthyism. I said your posts were closer to McCarthyism than Skroe's were on the basis of frivolously accusing someone of McCarthyism (or any similar behavior of such ill repute) is itself a weak tactic meant to dismiss the post out of hand so that you can disregard both the post and the poster without need to address it directly.
    This is nonsensical. I accuse his terminology and the way he carries his debates. That's why I accused him of MCCarthyism, otherwise I'd have said "Skroe you're wrong".

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    I didn't accuse you of McCarthyism. I said your posts were closer to McCarthyism than Skroe's were on the basis of frivolously accusing someone of McCarthyism (or any similar behavior of such ill repute) is itself a weak tactic meant to dismiss the post out of hand so that you can disregard both the post and the poster without need to address it directly.
    Djalil never addresses any posts. By me. By anyone. That would require carefully taking a cold look at how his world view matches up to events of the last few years.

    He just doesn't do that level of introspection.

    He's here to push a viewpoint, come hell or highwater. He desperately WANTS to be validated. He's not here to discuss its strengths and weaknesses. I mean go look at that response to me. What kind of response is that? I just give a dead look at the screen to a response like that. It's discussion killing. From MH17 to Crimea to Ukraine, Djlail knows full well the dozens of occasions, big and small, he has turned the other cheek to Putin's aggression, just to hope that five months down the line economics-focused politicians and business leaders will paper over Russia-Western differences and get back to confirming the world as Djalil will like it.

    He's basically just asked me to give him a run down of about half his posts in any given Russian thread. In particular excuses Russian aggression against non-EU countries, both America and the Eastern flank, because he is, like he is with this Trump business, in capable or unwilling to accept how those factor into Putin's wider agenda.

  15. #55
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    It remains the case that you are demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of the term in your decision to apply to the posts in question.
    Ok let's analyse yet another of his posts so we can finally put an end to this ridiculous exchange, shall we?

    Djalil never addresses any posts. By me. By anyone. That would require carefully taking a cold look at how his world view matches up to events of the last few years.
    Unfair allegation number 1.
    He's here to push a viewpoint, come hell or highwater. He desperately WANTS to be validated.
    Unfair allegation number 2.
    From MH17 to Crimea to Ukraine, Djlail knows full well the dozens of occasions, big and small, he has turned the other cheek to Putin's aggression
    Unfair allegation number 3.
    He's basically just asked me to give him a run down of about half his posts in any given Russian thread.
    Unfair allegation number 4.
    In particular excuses Russian aggression against non-EU countries, both America and the Eastern flank, because he is, like he is with this Trump business, in capable or unwilling to accept how those factor into Putin's wider agenda.
    Unfair allegation number 5.

    Now let's link the definition of McCarthyism shall we Nixx?
    McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

    Thankfully as I said earlier on, Skroe's posts are just a living proof of how he carries his debate.
    Last edited by mmocea043e1e13; 2016-07-21 at 11:51 PM.

  16. #56
    I am getting more and more worried that liberal democracy will fall and that Putin and his national conservative authoritarian allies (5th columns if you will, the real 5th column as opposed to the Muslim false flag that is turning people against freedom) will win and we will all lose our freedom. Wake the fuck up people, stop believing fake news and misinformation on the internet. Don't democratically vote to dismantle democracy, please. Germany tried that once, didn't turn out so good. Thankfully they seem more immune to that sort of poison today than most nations in the Western world, probobly due to that very fact. But instead of recognizing that idiots ignore the last 70 years and mock Germany as Nazis, when they are the ones currently championing democracy that doesn't limit itself to the boundaries of the nation state and liberty for all no matter color or creed.

  17. #57
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Okie dokie, buddy. You do you. I'm gonna just call it a day right here before I get another ridiculous infraction for correcting grammar or something.
    So you have five examples of unfair allegations in a single post and a quote that directly says:
    McCarthyism also means "the practice of making unfair allegations in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

    And yet you still argue?

  18. #58
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    One final point of clarification: What I am actually doing is walking away, which is actually outright refusing to argue.
    Whatever that means I guess.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Djalil never addresses any posts. By me. By anyone. That would require carefully taking a cold look at how his world view matches up to events of the last few years.

    He just doesn't do that level of introspection.

    He's here to push a viewpoint, come hell or highwater. He desperately WANTS to be validated.
    He's got 15 other forums to visit, only so much time in a day.
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by HeatLegend View Post
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/newt-gin...ation-to-nato/

    Putin is getting a raging boner at the thought of Trump presidency.

    Apart from what one thinks of his overall sentiment, it's pretty clear that Gingrich is out of his depth on this one. People really shouldn't talk about things they don't fully grasp, there's always the risk of looking like a tool if you do. Case in point, really.

Posting Permissions

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