September 30, 2006

Bjorn Staerk Responds
— AndrewR my post below. Here's his response (and I apologize for the multiple boxes of text--I haven't figured out how to get multiple paragraphs into one box):

First, I should point out that whatever you have in mind when you picture a European intellectual to yourself, I'm not it. At least I think they would be offended by the comparison. I belong to no camp, and I'm unimpressed by all those people who have implied that since I'm obviously not on "their" side, I must be on the other.

Second, you say you can't control your fear. Maybe not, or at least there's a limit to it. But you can control how you react to that fear. You can train yourself not to listen to it. The reason I mentioned fear of flying one place is that I'm moderately afraid to fly myself. I used to think that if perhaps I could do it often enough, then the fear would go away. It hasn't happened yet. What has happened instead is that I've learned ways to deal with my fear. I've learned to do something that I really don't enjoy. I suspect it's like that with all fears. The fear itself may largely be beyond our control, but nobody can take away your choice - only yourself, by telling yourself you have none.

"Note the contradiction here: Your fear of the suspicious Arabs in the row in front of you is irrational, and yet it's brave to ignore it. But in order to do something brave, don't you have to be putting yourself at risk? Because if that's the case, than your fear can't be irrational. So which is it?"

Illusion and reality. The threat is mostly illusory, there is virtually no chance that you will find yourself on a plane with terrorists. But the illusion is real to you, and creates a very real fear. Ignoring that fear requires a modest amount of bravery - even though the fear is irrational.

Andrea Harris: "I'm surprised. Bjorn Staerk used to be all for fighting terrorists. However, he's been known to do parodies of deep-dyed moonbats on occasion. Are you so sure this isn't one of those parodies? True, these days it's hard to tell."

Hey, Andrea, it's been a while. This is no parody. A lot of people find it difficult to read it on its own terms, though. They seem to think one must either be on one side or the other. This post here isn't the worst I've seen, (despite that bizarre "typical European intellectual"-thing) - I've been flamed at Dhimmi Watch all day for being coward and a disgrace to the proud viking nation or whatever. The comments I've written there clarify some of the things that might be unclear.

Anyway, I'm all for fighting terrorists. I said so in the piece. But do you have a method of eliminating terrorism alltogether? If not, we need a personal approach to living with it, in addition to any political and military approaches. I didn't feel it necessary to write much about those other approaches here, I figure my readers should be able to read a post on how to live with terrorism, without being assured in every paragraph that I also intend us to fight it, like they were children with an attention deficit problem.
Posted by Bjørn Stærk at September 30, 2006 01:38 PM

He also responds to Dhimmi Watch's criticism here.

My response after the jump. Staerk offers up what is, essentially, the same complaint I anticipated in my post and addressed. As I said, I'm all for realizing there's a threat and learning to deal with it, but to describe the threat as "illusion" is simply false. It's there and it's real, even if your chances of being affected by it are low, and making a fetish out of having an open society is only going to increase those chances.

His argument that if everybody reported suspicious-looking Muslims to the authorities then it would lead to Muslims not being able to fly isn't convincing: It assumes that a) a complaint alone is enough to have someone kicked off a plane, and b) every Middle Eastern-looking person is going to be considered suspicious. Neither is true.

Also, he suggests I have an "attention deficit disorder", which is ironic because I'm still fucking fixated on this:

it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip

Do you really believe that, Bjorn? If someone held a gun to your head, and said that you could live by simply agreeing to profile a few Arabs at the airport, would you really take the bullet instead? What if it was pointed at someone you love?

I don't buy it. The argument stands.

Posted by: AndrewR at 10:20 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 807 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Poor bastard has been assimilated into the Caliphate and its not even there yet.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 30, 2006 10:36 AM (VLNpS)

2 Essentially, we're dealing with a very childish and myopic view. That everything needs to be perfect to be worth living, and that even if perfection leads to much worse down the road (even if we acknolwedge that), it is better than a little imperfections now. Open and tolerant society and racial profiling or tortuing the head of Al Qaeda is not mutually exclusive anymore than it was with defeating Germany and Japan.

This is a suicide cult over perfection, when the ironic reality is that many of the people who profess it can't find a good thing to say about what we've got anyway when they're not busying with this sophism. Bjorn isn't one of these, but 5 years of listening to it in the European media and he's giving in, because it is fundamentally a much nicer thing to believe. We don't actually have to do anything, it'll all blow over without fundamentally changing us.

Yeah, right. We've got a window now to deal with Islamic terrorism before they get access to WMD. Then torturing Khalid Sheik Muhammed and making limited use of limited racial profiling is going to be seen as the easy answers we wish we still had.

Posted by: MlR at September 30, 2006 10:37 AM (TrMUD)

3 The problem here is the assumption that we're not doing anything except military action and intelligence. That's a faulty assumption that anyone with a working knowledge of recent events has no excuse to make.

The open and tolerant society he craves has to have limits, restrictions, or that openness is lost and that tolerance is demolished by the first group who won't play by the rules. In other words: liberty is always limited by the betterment of society. We are not free to do anything whatsosever in a liberal democratic society. We are free to do that which does not greatly damage others or society as a whole.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at September 30, 2006 10:42 AM (FuM7z)

4 Yup, open and tolerant.

Open for me to be armed in an airport and on a plane.

Tolerant of my religious belief in freedom and peace through firepower.

Posted by: BlacquesJacquesShellacques at September 30, 2006 11:17 AM (h2Jr+)

Illusion and reality. The threat is mostly illusory, there is virtually no chance that you will find yourself on a plane with terrorists. But the illusion is real to you, and creates a very real fear. Ignoring that fear requires a modest amount of bravery - even though the fear is irrational.

Perhaps the fact that "there is virtually no chance you will find yourself on a plane with terrorist" is directly attributable to screening, profiling, eavesdropping, et all. No? The threat is very real and it only stays at a low level when constantly combatted by diligent protectors.

I really dislike this mentality. Reminds me of the passivists here at home. They are the beneficiaries of our collective might...yet, they rail against it at every opportunity. In fact, they are the quintessential opportunists.

They get the self-indulgent satisfaction of stating that they don't believe in violence or war - yet they conveniently reap the benefits of their countrymen and women who make the ultimate sacrifice.

I wish we could ship all the Quakers to the Middle East. I wonder how long they would maintain their quaint notion of non-violence. Are they willing to be subjugated and oppresed? Killed for the smallest infraction?

It's very easy to entertain these quaint notions when you abide in Pennsylvania or Ohio. There's no real threat or challenge to your defeatist/passivist mentality. I'm not impressed. You can keep backing up, running away, letting someone else encounter the enemy. All the while...professing yourself above. All the while enjoying the sacrifices of someone else.

Embracing peace is one thing. Choosing peace at all costs, including enslavement or subjugation is another.

Posted by: TheShadow at September 30, 2006 11:18 AM (EI+zd)

6 I believe another issue with Bjorn's argument is that he thinks like a European, which lets the State care for it's members and they sit back and have no worries. Where as we think like Americans, independent thinking, natural entrepreneurial mentality, a very strong "Don't Tread on Me" spirit and "we ain't rolling over for no one" attitude. Americans are having a hard sitting back and watch the terrorist continuing their reign of terror, without seeing any action to stop it, at least I know I am. I for one, will not be a sheeple, sit on my ass and pray that these religious barbarians get tired of killing people. I won't happen.

As davis ,br stated on the other thread, this is not about "terrorism", that is just a means to the end, this is about a clash of civilizations, one motivated by a 9th century violent religion, who's goal to submit the whole world to it's control and barbaric legal system and the other that has matured to the point that free trade,  business, and diplomacy is the way nations and societies interact.

Bottom line is that the Islamofascists don't care if we sit back European style or fight them, they will not stop until they lose their will to continue the fight (through massive attrition), Islam reforms itself or they win.

Posted by: Mr Minority at September 30, 2006 11:27 AM (gwfvN)

7 I'm sorry, but Bjorn needs to be personally involved in a terrorist incident. I don't think even one that only affected his friends or loved ones will penetrate that level of denial and self-absorption.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at September 30, 2006 11:27 AM (w+ipT)

8 So tell me, how would Bjorn feel about a group of terrorists blowing up Mosques and going on shooting rampages in Islamic communities?

Awful business, that, and barbaric, but it'll blow over eventually right?

By all means, the Islamic communities shouldn't worry much about it or keep Kuffars from entering their mosques. And even if they do let them in, they must not search them, right?

Posted by: krakatoa at September 30, 2006 11:33 AM (t9k4v)

9 it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip
That is a mind bending quote. Despite the obvious weirdness of prefering to die rather than make another man feel bad or inconvenienced, there are other interesting facets of Bjorn's thinking here.

* Solipsism and moral vanity: The "you" is essentially a "me." It is more important to me. No thought about the danger posed to the rest of the people on the flight.

* Existential conundrum: It is more important to me, but there will no longer be any me in the event that I don't survive this trip.

* Begging the question: What purpose does an "open and tolerant society" serve, and are there practical limits on these ideals? Bjorn essentially implies that the purpose of an open and tolerant society is to be an open and tolerant society. If openness and tolerance toward a particular subset of the population results in increasing general misery, what does one do about that? That is the question at issue, and it is an interesting one with many possible answers, but Bjorn sidesteps the central issue under discussion by adopting a particular conclusion (tolerance trumps all) as one of his assumptions.

* Fuzzy definitions: What is "society"? When you tolerantly allow an influx of intolerant people, the local sum of intolerance can go way up. You may argue that the human sum of intolerance may decrease slightly because of cultural exchange, but that would mean that Bjorn means planet Earth when he says "society," but most people don't use the term that way.

Posted by: caspera at September 30, 2006 11:48 AM (jylGY)

10 Bjorn's stance is nothing but the typical self-serving, self-righteous european (make that scandinavian) crap.
Basically this group of nations got all the benefits of the Western Allies (USA, UK and Canada) effort in WW II (german occupation eliminated, soviet threat deterred, post WW II W Europe reconstruction) for zero costs. And eventually came to the conclusion that somehow they FULLY DESERVED that, and that good things come to peaceful types like themselves.
As such, given their experience, their self-serving, self-excusing logical extension is that pacifism (read collaboration, or "tollerance" as it is called nowadays in post-9/11 newspeak) is worth it and nothing to be ashamed of, because in the end the bad guys are chased away someway, somehow.
I beg to differ and disagree with what is basically an elementary fallacy - "post hoc, ergo proper hoc".
And I also point out that the peaceful nation of Norway's contribution to WW II is the adding of the word "QUISLING" to universal vocabulary. Kind of ironic in this context, isn't it.

Posted by: valachus at September 30, 2006 12:14 PM (JVKtf)

11 Once again a liberal voice mistakes anger for fear. I suppose that tilting at that particular windmill will keep him out of trouble, though.

And his musing about terrorists eventually tiring of killing innocents? It hasn't happened in 40 years - in fact it seems less likely than ever. We essentially followed Staerk's strategy for 35 years and then woke up to a worldwide radical Islamic network that has killed thousands of people since 9/11.

Now the all-too-quiet moderate and liberal Muslims must pay the price for their radical brethren. But after five years of allowing radical Imams to practice in their midst, of allowing their contributions to be funneled to terrorist organizations, and of allowing what is supposedly a perversion of Islam to flourish, they have missed many, many opportunities to forge a different path. Is it any wonder that all Muslims fall under suspicion when so few have stepped forward to combat the extremism they have spawned?

Posted by: geoff at September 30, 2006 12:18 PM (Id2DF)


Hey Bjorn! Do you fasten your seatbelt while riding in a car? Eh? Do you check the expirey date on that jug of milk before you chug-a-lug it? Eh? But why Bjorn? What are the chances something could 'go wrong'? (In the milk's case, in my fridge, pretty high actually)


Posted by: 5Cats at September 30, 2006 12:37 PM (cVijR)

13 it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip - Bjorn

But of course, that's precisely not what's happening. As repeatedly shown by everything from the cartoon wars to the Mozart opera, the West is not preserving an 'open and tolerant' society. Instead, inch by inch, it (or at any rate, its ever-preening pc elites) is giving in to Muslim demands for an intolerant closed society. And yet at the same time, the threat of more and more terrorism, as well as of the destruction of Israel, remains alive and well.

It is truly hard to believe how stupid our media and academic elites are behaving. It is as though the only thing that matters is their self-regard, which is determined solely by how closely they adhere to politically correct 'thought', because every word they speak shows a total and complete disregard for what is actually happening, i.e. for reality.

And I wish I didn't have to get personal, but the language I've quoted above epitomizes that preening idiocy.

For just a few examples of the steps we're taking towards becoming an intolerant, closed society see:

Posted by: max at September 30, 2006 12:38 PM (DtIRb)

14 Bjorn Staerk Responds

Garbo speaks!

Oh wait, Garbo is that other Islamic apologist, Dean Esmay.

Posted by: MikeZ at September 30, 2006 12:38 PM (c5sWc)

15 You could achieve a Staerkian cultural equipoise if you had people who make seriously dumbass allegations go through eight hours of 'look dipshit, not all brown people are bad' sensitivity training if there was no actual basis for the charges being levelled.

The decision regarding whether the allegation was "Seriously Dumbass" would be determined by a 'reasonable person' - I'd nominate Spurwing Plover to be arbiter.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at September 30, 2006 12:39 PM (PcDvW)

16 As others have pointed out, Staerk is mistaken when he compares the threat from terrorism with the threat from airplane crashes. Terrorism is an escalating threat that if unchecked will overwhelm those who are not a very specific kind of Muslim.

I suppose Staerk will argue that counter-terrorism activities are the same as routine mechanical checks. And that counter-terrorism can reduce the threat from terrorism to the almost non-existent threat we face when we fly.

Nonsense, the terrorists (radical Islmaists) are an honest to goodness opposing force and will not stop once we have set up a routine. They will not stop any more than the Mongols would have stopped.

Finally, Quakers are not non-violent. Most are, but there is no requirement to be so.

Posted by: Pepys at September 30, 2006 12:43 PM (tHZwf)

17 living with terrorism

Wonder if terrorized european teacher Robert Redeker considers Staerk's advice an illusion or reality.

Posted by: syn at September 30, 2006 12:44 PM (21Ssw)

18 The first two letters in Bjorn are B-J.

That's all I have to add to this discussion.

Sorry. Ignore me.

Posted by: Bart at September 30, 2006 12:53 PM (Cj7qh)

19 Would someone in the greater Boston area please get Bart a date? Doesn't matter if she's short or tall or blond, brunette or a redhead, as long as she's breathing and patient.


Posted by: max at September 30, 2006 01:06 PM (DtIRb)

20 it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip - Bjorn

But of course, that's precisely not what's happening. As repeatedly shown by everything from the cartoon wars to the Mozart opera, the West is not preserving an 'open and tolerant' society. Instead, inch by inch, it (or at any rate, its ever-preening pc elites) is giving in to Muslim demands for an intolerant closed society. Now that is a brilliant critique! Because, as Max notes, the end result of all this mindless accomodation and "multicultural sensitivity" is a theocratic autocracy in which all freedom is crushed under the rule of unbelievably ignorant and vicious religious bigots.

Think communism under Stalin was bad? Try Iranian-style Islamo-fascism, where the suppression of freedom has that added caché that it's done in the name of Allah, and Mohammed (peace be upon him).

No thank you, Bjorn. I rather die fighting this than spinelessly submitting to it.

Posted by: Redhand at September 30, 2006 01:43 PM (7G9b2)

21 Finally, Quakers are not non-violent. Most are, but there is no requirement to be so.

We are, however, required to be sexy.
Wilford Brimley sexy.

Posted by: Quaker Oats Guy at September 30, 2006 01:54 PM (PcDvW)

22 Wow...this is the first time I've heard of Bjorn since she left the Sugarcubes.

I always did wonder what happen to her.

Posted by: Jack M. at September 30, 2006 02:00 PM (Jb1EJ)

23 Makes perfect sense. Start from false premises, conlude in error.
From the EU POV, they didn't do much of anything to defeat the USSR other than endure People's Front this or that terrorist groups until the USSR fell - then they magically disappeared [once the Soviet funding dried up]. They're just looking for a repeat of 'what worked', not realising that it never worked that way in the first place.

Posted by: urthshu at September 30, 2006 02:33 PM (Baggs)

24 Redhand,

Thanks. There are several good comments in this thread, and it would be great if Bjorn resurfaced to discuss them. I am not holding my breath though.

Posted by: max at September 30, 2006 06:11 PM (ZliJM)

25 Lets be clear, Bjorn Staerk is all for fighting terror, he really is. He's got a great blog, at least the parts I can read

He's just trying to find the line between security and liberty, and erring on the side of liberty.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at September 30, 2006 06:30 PM (FuM7z)

26 AndrewR: As I said, I'm all for realizing there's a threat and learning to deal with it, but to describe the threat as "illusion" is simply false. It's there and it's real

The illusion is not that Islamist terrorists are out there and want to kill you. The illusion is that you have the ability to spot these people before the plane takes off. If you look at someone and thinks, "hey, I think that guy's a terrorist", then you're probably wrong. If I grant you 1% chance of being correct, with 99% false positives, I'm extremely generous.

Which brings us back to the airplane example that has made everyone so angry. The context is the group of passengers who recently forced two other passengers to get thrown off the plane, merely because they looked suspicious. You ask me if I truly believe that "it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip". I do. If it sounds like I'm a wannabe martyr for political correctness, then you haven't understood the dilemma. Which is this: Should passengers have the power to get other passengers thrown off their plane, merely because they look suspicious?

My answer is that they shouldn't, and that it is cowardly to behave this way. I say this not because I live in a politically correct fantasy, but because I recognize the very real effect this would have on the lives of a large number of Muslims. I have very little faith in anyone's ability to recognize a "suspicious" Muslim - least of all amateurs with their nerves on edge.

You may say, if you like, that nothing is more important than the life of yourself and your family. Very well, you've made your choice. Now imagine that everyone acts like you do, staging little "mutinies" whenever a Muslim they don't like the face of boards the plane. Do you want to live in that world? I don't. I think the right of people to be treated as individuals, and not as representatives for some collective, is one of our most important ideals. It is worth a miniscule risk to my life to preserve.

Btw, "children with an attention deficit problem" was meant as an explanation of why I don't include "yes I also want to fight terrorism" in every single paragraph of every single blog entry I write. Judging from the comments here and at Dhimmi Watch, that, apparently, is what is required for me not to be a politically correct depraved European dhimmified coward. I won't go into my "credentials" as a right-wing pro-war on terror blogger here - I shouldn't have to - but if you really want to know what my other views are, I have five years worth of archives you can browse through.

Posted by: Bjørn Stærk at September 30, 2006 10:37 PM (QT8bv)

27 Bjorn-

I guess we're going going to have to agree to disagree, but I do appreciate your responses. It's a tough crowd here sometimes, so it's cool that you took the time to explain yourself again.

And I will go look in your archives. Based on some of the comments here, it looks like I may have picked the wrong piece to use to represent your thinking.

Posted by: Andrew at October 01, 2006 02:42 AM (e9xdO)

28 Bjorn,

I don't question your credentials, I don't question you wanting to fight
terrorism, but I do question your conclusion that we need to wait them out. The
gray area of security vs liberty is a tough one to define. Do we sacrifice
personal freedoms for safety and security, or do we take our chances and
maintain our liberties? That I can understand you questioning, but to think
that the terrorists will "grow tired of terrorism" is only looking at
terrorism as an act of revenge and not a battle in the political and religious
war that these extremists are waging against all "infidels". As I
commented earlier, terrorists (in truth they are soldiers in a loosely defined
army of Islamic fascists) will only stop acts of terrorism because of massive
attrition (we wipe them out and they can't replenish their ranks fast enough),
Islam reforms itself (purges Islam of these extremists and renounces violence
as a means to their goals) or they win.

Your view errs on the side of personal liberties, but also is willing to
sacrifice innocent lives to ensure these liberties. As were my view errs on the
side of security and I am willing to sacrifice some personal liberties for
personal safety. And to tell you the truth, I find it hard to give up my
liberties, because I know that once lost, they are hard to regain, but I am
willing to do that for the safety of my family and other people's families.

Your view is in that gray area of liberty vs security, and everyone with a
brain has a different opinion on it, and a lot of people will vehemently argue
the differences, which is to be expected. It is truly unfortunate that only
time will tell which is the correct position to take on this issue, because one
position may allow the destruction of our civilization, and the other may allow
the lose of the majority of our freedoms.

As Andrew said, we can civilly agree to disagree.

Posted by: Mr Minority at October 01, 2006 04:18 AM (gwfvN)

29 Andrew: "And I will go look in your archives. Based on some of the comments here, it looks like I may have picked the wrong piece to use to represent your thinking."

I've thought and said many things. Some things I wrote in my early "warblogger" days I no longer believe. If you compare those posts to this and other recent posts, you might get the impression that I've switched "sides". What happened instead was that I detached myself from the herd thinking of the blogosphere. I'm on the right, but I feel no loyalty to and little admiration for right-wing pundits and bloggers, and I feel I have an obligation to put a particular focus on their excesses and faults. After all, few other bloggers on the right do this - they want to be loyal and walk in file with their comrades. I don't.

Anyway, I don't see why it matters whether this was a piece that "represents my thinking". I believe we should be able to discuss ideas like these independently, without turning every debate into the Great Big Islam Debate. I'm all for fighting terrorism, with military force when appropriate. But my beliefs on this are logically independent from most of the arguments I presented here. I intended this essay for anyone who doesn't have an infallible method for eradicating terrorism - whether on the left or right, among the most p.c. and the most islamophobic. What happened instead was that it was classified as subversive enemy propaganda because of its lack of the appropriate anti-terror code words. I'm not surprised, this is why I lost respect for the political blogs in the first place. I hope, though, that at least a few people were able to read and think about it on its own terms. It would be sad if the only thing anyone cares about in a debate about terrorism is whether or not you're safely and obediently on "their" side.

Posted by: Bjørn Stærk at October 01, 2006 10:57 AM (QT8bv)

30 Mr Minority: As Andrew said, we can civilly agree to disagree.

Thank you. I've been called a lot of things in the last couple of days, and I can count the civil replies on one hand ..

I don't want us to wait out terrorism. The reason I brought up the inevitability of terrorism is that, even if we play a very active role in fighting terrorism, we can't eradicate it. We can make it very hard - and we should. But we can't create a world where terrorism is nonexistent. This means that whatever amount of terrorism is left after we've done everything we can as a free society to fight it, is something we will have to live with. We shouldn't wait out terrorism, we should fight it. But even if we do that, you may still find yourself on a plane with a couple of suspicious-looking Muslims, and worry that they may be terrorists. And then what? How do we live with whatever is left of the terror threat after we've done what we can to fight it?

My main point wasn't to say how precisely we should balance liberty against security, but that we should train ourselves to rely more on reason than on emotion. Fear is a powerful weapon for the terrorists to have. I see no reason why it is wrong to want to sabotage it.

Posted by: Bjørn Stærk at October 01, 2006 11:20 AM (QT8bv)

31 Fear is a powerful weapon for the terrorists to have.
Likewise, it is also important in our toolbox.
I want the terrorists and those that would find it alluring to join jihad to be very afraid. They should be afraid that they are going to waste their lives in a losing cause, as indeed it is.
When they realize that this is how it's going to be, then we can talk about 'tolerance'.
That is reason, not emotion.
You apparently don't take the jihadis seriously.
Where is their 'tolerance'?
They are into 'submit or die', while we fight for basic freedom.
Are you willing to 'tolerate' loss of liberty?

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at October 01, 2006 11:32 AM (vh+iP)

32 I'm sorry, but Bjorn needs to be personally involved in a terrorist incident. I don't think even one that only affected his friends or loved ones will penetrate that level of denial and self-absorption.

Richard McEnroe, do you know what the name is for a person who believes that people who disagree with him should be personally involved in a terrorist incident?

It starts with a 'T'.

Posted by: neil at March 01, 2007 09:29 AM (O0G+S)

33 PDF Creator can creat PDF document files from Microsoft Office 2003/2007/2010 (Word, Excel, PowerPoint), image (JPEG, GIF, TIFF, PNG, BMP), Text, RTF, CHM, DjVu and more printable files.
PDF Creator

Posted by: machen at September 10, 2010 02:48 AM (TkrtU)


Thanks for the kind words! I hope you'll share some of your appreciation ideas here, too!

louis vuitton fake purses

Posted by: sunflower at September 29, 2010 09:43 PM (fRuXz)

35 I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. In fact your creative writing abilities has inspired me.

Posted by: free dvd ripper at May 17, 2011 07:06 AM (pbreG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
106kb generated in CPU 0.1, elapsed 1.1797 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1207 seconds, 271 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.