• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

ChrisL said:
Another thing I just read is that pornographic material is not "banned" by the military. Men and women can still by it on their own time. The military will just not provide it to them on their bases.
Click to expand...

LOL. You don't even know what a PX is and you type stuff out in this thread? LOL.
 
ChrisL said:
I think you need to reread my link again because there is no passage whatsoever which says that women are not allowed.
Click to expand...

I was referring to your post #264, which was further explained by Fallen Angel in post #268 regarding the IDf's rules, which indicated that women were not allowed to serve in combat, although they were in various combat units.
 
ChrisL said:
This is so ridiculous. Maybe you should do some research on Israel's IDF. THEY don't seem to have these issues with women being members of the military.
Click to expand...

The one Israeli combat unit has only been in one fire fight since it was organized, so there's no baseline to go off. However, there is a baseline, when you look at the previous IDF policy that kept women out of combat arms units. Integrating femakes into the IDF is more out of necessity than anything else.
 
If you don't like that way Ford builds it's pickup trucks these days, don't buy one.

If you don't like the direction the US Military is heading. Don't sign up.

Both are 100% voluntary.

Don't like it, don't volunteer for it.

Simple as that.
 
polgara said:
I was referring to your post #264, which was further explained by Fallen Angel in post #268 regarding the IDf's rules, which indicated that women were not allowed to serve in combat, although they were in various combat units.
Click to expand...

Well you are mistaken. He did not pull any of that from any of my links. That is his own made up information which he cannot back up with a link. Nowhere does it state that these women have no chance of combat, and it is specified in the article by the IDF that they are indeed members of active combat units. So what is it you are arguing about?
 
ItAin'tFree said:
LOL. Ignoring what happens in the real world of a combat unit has "no substance"? LOL.
Click to expand...

What happens in the real world? Basically what you are saying is that it would be expected of the men and women in the unit to be having sexual relations just because of the fact that they are men and women? That is utterly ridiculous.

This is not something that is happening all the time or even OFTEN relatively speaking, so you are full of it. MOST men and women are perfectly capable of self control in such situations. Those who cannot control themselves, should be disciplined and perhaps dishonorably discharged.
 
ChrisL said:
No it is not irrelevant. Women are people and human beings with wants and desires every bit as much as men are.
Click to expand...

Naturally they are - no one is denying it. And if a man wanted to be in the infantry, and he was a detraction, he wouldn't have the right to demand that "that's what he wants" either. The military does not give you what you want - the military tells you to do what it needs you to do. It's not like any other job. It's not like your job. :) It's a dictatorship. What you want is irrelevant. If you have a decent chain of command they may try to accommodate (they don't have to, but they might) it, but the instant that your want detracts at all from unit readiness, combat efficiency, or the needs of the military, it ceases to matter.

If a woman wants to help by contributing her time and risking her life to protect her country, then who the hell are YOU to say she cannot?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with women contributing their time or risking their life to protect their country - women are probably actually physically situated to make better pilots (lower center of gravity), and I've served with women (see above) who were fantastic Marines, and supremely competent at their jobs.

But I am someone who has the experience to know that putting women in the infantry will reduce their combat effectiveness. Again, this isn't about the wants, desires, dreams, or even (within some limits) the rights of the individual. Combat is a team sport. We have, in our history, fought cultures who forgot that. Usually the kill ratios are very lopsided.

Just because you get horny?
Click to expand...

No. Because the introduction of sexual tension and the drama that comes with it into the infantry is a distraction they cannot afford. Horny is pretty much a constant state of being for an 18-22 year old male on deployment. There is no "getting" sex-deprived, you just are. You are on deployment. :shrug:

Until they send out the Lioness teams. And that's when every single male Marine in a company of 190(ish) figures he has a 1/40 chance of finally getting laid, and those who think they can win (which, again, the infantry is self-selecting for aggressive, alpha-typologies, and are then trained to think that they are pretty much awesome) those odds, go for it.... distracting from the mission, ruining their focus, creating competition, creating cliques, destroying team cohesion, and degrading combat efficiency.


It is not fair to ask men to put at risk their lives in because women want to play GI Jane. If you disagree with that relative valuation - again, we have a civilian governed military and we will do what we are told. But you at least owe us a recognition of the trade-off that you are telling us to make.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I will offer this duty assignment, by gender, observation as proof. Your odds of dying are increased by deployment to combat zones and that deployment is now decrased/increased by your gender, thus the proof is merely that your odds of being deployed in such a dangerous combat position are increased as a male and decreased as a female. Openings for (odds of?) assignnment to REMF (support or non-combat) positions are increased for females and thereby decreased for males.

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=psc_working_papers
Click to expand...

Oh my! LOL! Now there's a round-about way of blaming women. Absolutely stunning the hoops some of you will jump through to try and prevent women from being able to serve their country.
 
ChrisL said:
What happens in the real world?
Click to expand...

You want to know what happens in the real world? Read back through this thread and check out the vets who have actually Been There, Done That, and seen what happens when you try this stuff in the Real World.

Basically what you are saying is that it would be expected of the men and women in the unit to be having sexual relations just because of the fact that they are men and women? That is utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's what happens in the real world. We know this, because we have seen it.

This is not something that is happening all the time or even OFTEN relatively speaking, so you are full of it.
Click to expand...

Like I said - 4 out of 8; and that's about typical. And (again) of the remaining 4 we still had problems with one because her husband was fooling around with other female Marines.


MOST men and women are perfectly capable of self control in such situations.
Click to expand...

Yeah? What's your experience with those situations that you can make that kind of judgement?

In case you haven't noticed, young people are not known for their ability to make the wisest of decisions when it comes to controlling and directing their sexual urges, and our society doesn't exactly encourage them to develop that ability, either.

Those who cannot control themselves, should be disciplined and perhaps dishonorably discharged.
Click to expand...

:lol: do you realize that this means you are going to be kicking out huge numbers of females?
 
cpwill said:
Naturally they are - no one is denying it. And if a man wanted to be in the infantry, and he was a detraction, he wouldn't have the right to demand that "that's what he wants" either. The military does not give you what you want - the military tells you to do what it needs you to do. It's not like any other job. It's not like your job. :) It's a dictatorship. What you want is irrelevant. If you have a decent chain of command they may try to accommodate (they don't have to, but they might) it, but the instant that your want detracts at all from unit readiness, combat efficiency, or the needs of the military, it ceases to matter.
Click to expand...

A dictatorship huh? Well I guess the military has spoken. They ARE going to be accepting women, so I suppose you'd better find a way to deal with your bitter misogyny.

I have no problem with women contributing their time or risking their life to protect their country - women are probably actually physically situated to make better pilots (lower center of gravity), and I've served with women (see above) who were fantastic Marines, and supremely competent at their jobs.

But I am someone who has the experience to know that putting women in the infantry will reduce their combat effectiveness. Again, this isn't about the wants, desires, dreams, or even (within some limits) the rights of the individual. Combat is a team sport. We have, in our history, fought cultures who forgot that. Usually the kill ratios are very lopsided.
Click to expand...

If the woman can pass the physical fitness test, that is absolutely untrue. Now I suppose you'll bring up sex and pregnancy again. :roll:



No. Because the introduction of sexual tension and the drama that comes with it into the infantry is a distraction they cannot afford. Horny is pretty much a constant state of being for an 18-22 year old male on deployment. There is no "getting" sex-deprived, you just are. You are on deployment. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Oh surprise! There it is, earlier than I expected. Bogus. Most of them DO control themselves. Those who do not are insubordinate and not good at following orders. Apparently, they need to be purged from the dictatorship. :mrgreen:

Until they send out the Lioness teams. And that's when every single male Marine in a company of 190(ish) figures he has a 1/40 chance of finally getting laid, and those who think they can win (which, again, the infantry is self-selecting for aggressive, alpha-typologies, and are then trained to think that they are pretty much awesome) those odds, go for it.... distracting from the mission, ruining their focus, creating competition, creating cliques, destroying team cohesion, and degrading combat efficiency.
Click to expand...

Oh well. I guess those men need to grow up a little bit . . . or a LOT actually. If they cannot, then they should be discharged or otherwise disciplined.

It is not fair to ask men to put at risk their lives in because women want to play GI Jane. If you disagree with that relative valuation - again, we have a civilian governed military and we will do what we are told. But you at least owe us a recognition of the trade-off that you are telling us to make.
Click to expand...

How incredibly insulting! Plenty of women take their jobs VERY seriously. Come down off your high horse.
 
cpwill said:
You want to know what happens in the real world? Read back through this thread and check out the vets who have actually Been There, Done That, and seen what happens when you try this stuff in the Real World.



Actually, it's what happens in the real world. We know this, because we have seen it.



Like I said - 4 out of 8; and that's about typical. And (again) of the remaining 4 we still had problems with one because her husband was fooling around with other female Marines.




Yeah? What's your experience with those situations that you can make that kind of judgement?

In case you haven't noticed, young people are not known for their ability to make the wisest of decisions when it comes to controlling and directing their sexual urges, and our society doesn't exactly encourage them to develop that ability, either.



:lol: do you realize that this means you are going to be kicking out huge numbers of females?
Click to expand...

4/8? Please post links. Of course, you must know that I don't believe you.
 
ChrisL said:
Well you are mistaken. He did not pull any of that from any of my links. That is his own made up information which he cannot back up with a link. Nowhere does it state that these women have no chance of combat, and it is specified in the article by the IDF that they are indeed members of active combat units. So what is it you are arguing about?
Click to expand...

ChrisL

Please stop spreading bs. about an army (IDF) that you know nothing about.



EDIT: Btw just another FYI - your source isn't a representative of the IDF, it is a fan site made by ex-soldiers that try to encourage
Jews from around the world to do service in the IDF.

"Formed by a group of former lone soldiers (volunteers from abroad) and native Israelis, IDFinfo provides information in English (other languages to come!) through its information-service website. "

Fallen.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
A dictatorship huh? Well I guess the military has spoken. They ARE going to be accepting women, so I suppose you'd better find a way to deal with your bitter misogyny.
Click to expand...

The military didn't decide on the policy.
 
ChrisL said:
Nonsense.
Click to expand...

The next time you ever claim to support our military, or our troops, or care about the wounded, or the fallen, at all, I am going to remind you that you do not even care enough about us to take us seriously when we suggest that a proposed change will put our lives in danger, and that your only reaction to stuff like this:

Benzin388 said:
In 2007, I was in an infantry company in Iraq, living on a remote outpost (not a FOB). For the first 5 months of combat, we had no females at our outpost. I would regard the company as one of the more disciplined I've served in. After five months, we required additional support to move our troops out to missions. 3 five-ton trucks with female drivers were attached to us. Even though we afforded them their own living space (which wasnt mandatory), problems began almost immediately. All three females started to linger around the platoon bays nightly. They began relationships with NCOs, subverting the chain of command, and were engaged in sexual activity with other lower enlisted Soldiers/Airmen, as well. This caused more than one fist fight. Sex was happening in the outhouses, in the platoon bays and in the vehicles. Adultery was committed on a number of occasions. The staunch discipline we enjoyed prior to their arrival was starting to erode. My commander chose to have them sent back to their support units and "swapped" for male truck drivers. All detrimental effects reversed immediately. We found out later that one of the females became pregnant, and was sent home.

-Later, living on another remote outpost in Iraq during 08-09, the unit i was under had a combat support company attached to it. There were about ten females in this company. We weren't there for a month and the drama began. One female became pregnant. Another committed adultery. Fights between male soldiers erupted over girlfriends. Females were hopping on convoys to other FOBs to have "conjugal visits" with their boyfriends in other units. Then another female became pregnant. Then a female NCO began a relationship with a soldier that worked for her. Eventually, there were sexual assault accusations, he said, she said. And on, and on, and on. It was a mess.

Now this may sound like I am blaming females, I am not. I am blaming the fact that they were living with a predominantly male unit many times on FOB's. There would have been no issues if they weren't there. Of course, there are many answers to this. Some could blame male soldiers for lack of discipline. I know I do. Others would say that both males and females are to blame. Others would blame the chain of command for turning a blind eye and not wanting to do anything about the issues. But one must understand how difficult it is for a male commander to do the finger pointing.

The best environment for female soldiers is to be around other female soldiers. For one, they will have female leadership that can address the issues specifically. If combat MOSs and AFSC's were opened up to females, their numbers in the infantry battalions and combat units would be low, causing situations similar to the ones that I have outlined.

I have served in units that were all male, and others that were mixed. Just based off what I've seen, a female presence in an all-male infantry unit will cause a disruption in discipline, and thus, cause a disruption to combat operations. This is not a matter of females being qualified or unfit to serve; this is a matter of human nature.

As for females in SOF, I would vehemently disagree. The physical requirements are so difficult than in all likelihood, most women would not be able to make it through SOF selection. If and when they did, it would be likely that there would only be a few females in the SOF force and the same problems I've outlined above would occur. Not to mention, the primary mission of SOF is to work with foreign armies and militias. In most cultures that we fight wars in, a female wouldn't be considered a legitimate counterpart by HNF or militia leadership. This is why the army doesn't allow females to be advisors for MiTT teams in Iraq or Afghanistan. A good call, in my opinion.

I re-iterate, this isn't about the ability of females or the fact that they just cant cut it in combat-i know they can. This is about the potential disruption that they will cause in infantry and other all-male units. They (females) may not intend for these disruptions, but it will happen. I've seen it to many times to be naive.
Click to expand...

Is to deny it and claim it is nonsense, and that we cannot be trusted to give you our direct experience if you do not like the implications of it.
 
joko104 said:
Lying gets you nowhere. I have never posted no woman could meet physical standards nor ever posted that there are no "physical" jobs in the military anymore.

What I have posted is claiming that the sole measure of 100% combat needs is based on physical measurements is false.
Click to expand...
And for this assertion you are drawing from your combat experience ?

You claimed combat isn't physical so women shouldn't be required to meet the same standards. I prefer to treat women equally while you prefer to patronize them. Please take your sexist views elsewhere.
 
ChrisL said:
Oh my! LOL! Now there's a round-about way of blaming women. Absolutely stunning the hoops some of you will jump through to try and prevent women from being able to serve their country.
Click to expand...

You asked, I delivered. Are you asserting (if so provide proof) that military service, as it is practiced now, is equally dangerous for males and females? If so I stand corrected, otherwise accept this fact as proof that having gender based combat assignments makes military service more dangerous for males than females. Adding females to the military, as applied, indeed made it more dangerous for males in the military.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And for this assertion you are drawing from your combat experience ?

You claimed combat isn't physical so women shouldn't be required to meet the same standards. I prefer to treat women equally while you prefer to patronize them. Please take your sexist views elsewhere.
Click to expand...

What war were you in that we won? Why do you think you are smarter than our military and civil command?
 
ChrisL said:
A dictatorship huh? Well I guess the military has spoken. They ARE going to be accepting women, so I suppose you'd better find a way to deal with your bitter misogyny.
Click to expand...

Do you miss the parts where I point out that I have served with fantastic female Marines, gone to bat and put my own reputation on the line to get them meritoriously promoted above their peers, and have no problem with women serving in the military, or do you just choose to ignore them because you lack the emotional capacity to handle the idea of someone disagreeing with you for good reasons?

As for this decision - it's pretty obviously being driven by the administration. As I stated, we have a civilian-governed military, and if we are told to make this change, then we will roger up. But I would think that our lives have at least enough value that you would be willing to recognize the trade-off you are asking us to make.

If the woman can pass the physical fitness test, that is absolutely untrue.
Click to expand...

It is true because combat is a team sport - not an individual sport. It's not like the stupid video games, where you can run around and be your own rock-star. As I told you in the very first time when you asked this question (and I - naively - assumed you were honestly asking the question rather than seeking to accuse others of misogyny for daring to disagree with you on the likely effects of integrating women into the infantry), you can be friggin Rambo, and if you detract from the ability of the team to operate as a team, then you are a liability, not an asset.

Now I suppose you'll bring up sex and pregnancy again.
Click to expand...

Non-combat losses degrade combat efficiency, just as sexual drama destroys team cohesion.

Oh surprise! There it is, earlier than I expected. Bogus. Most of them DO control themselves. Those who do not are insubordinate and not good at following orders. Apparently, they need to be purged from the dictatorship.
Click to expand...

:confused: how in the world did you draw any of that from this:

cpwill said:
No. Because the introduction of sexual tension and the drama that comes with it into the infantry is a distraction they cannot afford. Horny is pretty much a constant state of being for an 18-22 year old male on deployment. There is no "getting" sex-deprived, you just are. You are on deployment.
Click to expand...

As for "most" :shrug: it doesn't take "most" to wreck a unit's team cohesion. It takes very few. I watched a division-level shop of about 20-30 people get ripped apart into warring, distrustful factions by three females.

Oh well. I guess those men need to grow up a little bit . . . or a LOT actually.
Click to expand...

Sure. Oh. Problem. 18-22 year olds make the best fighters. That's why we recruit them. So you can either degrade combat efficiency by going co-ed with a bunch of 18-22 year olds, or you can degrade combat efficiency by trying to recruit a bunch of 35 year olds - but either way, you are degrading your combat efficiency.

If they cannot, then they should be discharged or otherwise disciplined.
Click to expand...

:lol: I just find this constant refrain hilarious given the collective head-splitting that occured when General Cucolo proposed to do just that from the same factions that push women in the infantry, who then put enough pressure on the administration to force him to back off on doing so.

How incredibly insulting! Plenty of women take their jobs VERY seriously. Come down off your high horse.
Click to expand...

So that's your response? Yeah. Again. The next time you even pretend to honestly give a **** about the members of the U.S. military, I'm going to remember and remind you that this is how highly you actually value us.
 
ChrisL said:
4/8? Please post links. Of course, you must know that I don't believe you.
Click to expand...

Links?


Are you even reading what people are trying to tell you here?
 
joko104 said:
What war were you in that we won? Why do you think you are smarter than our military and civil command?
Click to expand...

Afghanistan, which we will never win. We haven't won a war in over 20 years.

It wasn't the military's decision, it was a political one. Why are you so opposed to equality?
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
The next time you ever claim to support our military, or our troops, or care about the wounded, or the fallen, at all, I am going to remind you that you do not even care enough about us to take us seriously when we suggest that a proposed change will put our lives in danger, and that your only reaction to stuff like this:



Is to deny it and claim it is nonsense, and that we cannot be trusted to give you our direct experience if you do not like the implications of it.
Click to expand...

Quit your lying. I'm talking about your assertion that these young men and women cannot control themselves. YOU are being dishonest.
 
cpwill said:
Do you miss the parts where I point out that I have served with fantastic female Marines, gone to bat and put my own reputation on the line to get them meritoriously promoted above their peers, and have no problem with women serving in the military, or do you just choose to ignore them because you lack the emotional capacity to handle the idea of someone disagreeing with you for good reasons?
Click to expand...

Throughout this thread, you have nothing but say what a problem female military members are to the males.

As for this decision - it's pretty obviously being driven by the administration. As I stated, we have a civilian-governed military, and if we are told to make this change, then we will roger up. But I would think that our lives have at least enough value that you would be willing to recognize the trade-off you are asking us to make.
Click to expand...

I don't see any trade-offs. I see the military wanting to accept more people.



It is true because combat is a team sport - not an individual sport. It's not like the stupid video games, where you can run around and be your own rock-star. As I told you in the very first time when you asked this question (and I - naively - assumed you were honestly asking the question rather than seeking to accuse others of misogyny for daring to disagree with you on the likely effects of integrating women into the infantry), you can be friggin Rambo, and if you detract from the ability of the team to operate as a team, then you are a liability, not an asset.
Click to expand...

It isn't true. If those women can pass the same tests as the men, they are just as qualified and in some cases probably more so than a lot of the men.



Non-combat losses degrade combat efficiency, just as sexual drama destroys team cohesion.



:confused: how in the world did you draw any of that from this:



As for "most" :shrug: it doesn't take "most" to wreck a unit's team cohesion. It takes very few. I watched a division-level shop of about 20-30 people get ripped apart into warring, distrustful factions by three females.
Click to expand...


As for all of this, you still haven't provided any links to support this. You can "claim" anything you want, and it doesn't make it a fact.

Sure. Oh. Problem. 18-22 year olds make the best fighters. That's why we recruit them. So you can either degrade combat efficiency by going co-ed with a bunch of 18-22 year olds, or you can degrade combat efficiency by trying to recruit a bunch of 35 year olds - but either way, you are degrading your combat efficiency.
Click to expand...

And plenty of them OBVIOUSLY can control themselves and do just fine. You are applying the few problem people as if they represent the whole. These instances are RELATIVELY rare, and you cannot deny that.



:lol: I just find this constant refrain hilarious given the collective head-splitting that occured when General Cucolo proposed to do just that from the same factions that push women in the infantry, who then put enough pressure on the administration to force him to back off on doing so.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about that.


So that's your response? Yeah. Again. The next time you even pretend to honestly give a **** about the members of the U.S. military, I'm going to remember and remind you that this is how highly you actually value us.
Click to expand...

What a ***** response. Oh, now you're using the "woe is me" tactic. Give me a break. Either argue the issue or back out of the thread.

For all I know you aren't even in the military.
 
ChrisL said:
Throughout this thread, you have nothing but say what a problem female military members are to the males.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. I have pointed out where the integration of the genders leads to problems, and pointed out that the combat arms cannot afford the distraction of these problems.

I don't see any trade-offs
Click to expand...

You don't want to see any trade-offs and so you are accusing those of us who have the experience to recognize that there are trade-offs of perfidy. Look, if you want the policy - fine. But pretending that life offers us a free lunch and that there aren't trade-offs, especially when you have access to multiple experienced individuals who assure that there are, is using Hope in place of a Strategy. But Hope is not a Strategy and when we forget that in the military, other people pay the price for our mistake in very brutal ways.

I see the military wanting to accept more people.
Click to expand...

The military would be accepting less people under current projections, actually. The military has no intention of recruiting additional people in order to put women in combat arms, I don't think they even have any plans of increasing their recruitment of females - on the contrary, recruitment across the branches that have the highest portion of combat-arms (the Army and Marine Corps) is scheduled to drop sharply. The Marine Corps is going to go from about 202,000 to probably about 167,000(ish).

It isn't true. If those women can pass the same tests as the men, they are just as qualified and in some cases probably more so than a lot of the men.
Click to expand...

:shrug: individually they will meet their individual qualifications. If combat were an individual sport, let them on in. But it's not.

As for all of this, you still haven't provided any links to support this. You can "claim" anything you want, and it doesn't make it a fact.
Click to expand...

:lol: you want us to "link" our personal experience?

And plenty of them OBVIOUSLY can control themselves and do just fine.
Click to expand...

:shrug: It's a margin question. Even the ones who themselves will not directly contribute to a breakdown of good order and discipline are going to have to deal with degraded teams, lost unit cohesion, the drama, cliques, etc.

You are applying the few problem people as if they represent the whole. These instances are RELATIVELY rare, and you cannot deny that.
Click to expand...

I do deny that they are relatively rare. They occur in almost every single mixed-gender deployed unit that I have ever seen. I have seen precisely one mixed gender (non-deployed) shop that did not have drama from it, and the female in that one was a lesbian.

I don't know anything about that.
Click to expand...

That's right, you don't. Because when it comes to how the military and the infantry actually operate, you do not know what you are talking about. Now, that's not a bad thing - no one could expect you to. But it does mean that maybe you should reconsider whether you really want to insist that your uninformed opinion is so obviously true that those who do know what they are talking about are all lying when they disagree with you on something.

What a ***** response. Oh, now you're using the "woe is me" tactic. Give me a break. Either argue the issue or back out of the thread.

For all I know you aren't even in the military.
Click to expand...

:lol: yeah, that dog's not going to hunt for you. There are people on this forum who have known me for a decade now. They were there when I enlisted, when I went to Boot Camp, when I was posting live from Iraq, when I moved to Okinawa, you name it. Fakers don't sound like me - fakers sound like Joko when he's telling us about his buddy 'Rambo Norris'.

67125909d1334456859-tavern-members-pics-thread-3-p4140351b.jpg


That's me and American - he came and picked me up from Dam Neck Annex when I was there for some training, we went to a wine festival.

So yeah. Going with the "well everyone who disagrees with me must be lying" routine... that's not going to work so well for you in this one.


You are smarter than this, Chris. What gives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom